Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #452064 > unrolled thread
| Started by | William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-24 13:28 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-27 07:47 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 131 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written
OT: Tess of the d’Urbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:28 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d’Urbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-25 01:30 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the dUrbervilles Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-09-24 22:29 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the dUrbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-25 14:17 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 11:19 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2016-09-25 09:37 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-25 22:41 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-09-26 01:00 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-25 22:37 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 20:01 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-26 01:39 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:32 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 13:51 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-09-25 18:32 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles James Rau <jrau@beep.beep.com> - 2016-09-25 18:52 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-26 04:59 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-25 23:04 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-09-25 21:51 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-09-27 07:36 +0800
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-09-27 05:50 -0500
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-09-27 13:58 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-26 20:54 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-09-26 19:51 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 22:12 -0500
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-09-26 21:06 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-09-26 23:02 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 12:20 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-26 05:01 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 13:19 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-26 21:01 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 12:30 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 13:17 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-09-28 13:50 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:51 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2016-09-28 21:56 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-09-28 18:41 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:48 -0700
Opera (was Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-09-29 15:34 +0000
Re: Opera (was Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles) Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-09-30 13:24 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-09-28 17:41 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) - 2016-09-26 04:45 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-09-26 01:15 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 00:06 -0600
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-09-26 02:31 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-09-26 05:08 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-09-26 14:25 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-26 21:04 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2016-09-27 03:42 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-09-27 07:38 +0800
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-09-26 12:57 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 10:59 +0200
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-09-26 05:22 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:17 +0200
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-09-26 14:07 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-26 21:08 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 20:39 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-09-26 01:00 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?Urbervilles David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-09-27 05:55 -0500
Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 15:44 -0700
Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-25 23:16 -0400
Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 12:57 -0700
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-26 21:29 -0400
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 12:39 -0700
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Brett Dunbar <brett@dimetrodon.me.uk> - 2016-09-30 20:20 +0100
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-09-30 13:15 -0700
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 14:16 -0700
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-09-30 16:57 -0400
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 08:19 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-01 13:45 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 10:04 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-10-01 09:54 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-01 17:11 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 14:04 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-10-01 15:05 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-10-02 06:47 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 13:30 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 11:29 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 10:52 -0500
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 20:39 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 17:02 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 21:51 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 19:31 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 23:45 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 20:30 -0500
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-10-03 01:10 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Peter Trei <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 06:51 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-10-03 13:07 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 17:39 -0500
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 19:32 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 23:46 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-10-03 01:07 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-03 13:15 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-10-03 13:06 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-10-01 18:03 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-01 19:25 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 13:52 -0600
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-10-01 16:13 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles David Johnston <Davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 14:23 -0600
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-01 22:22 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 19:19 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-10-01 22:33 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-10-02 02:16 -0400
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-10-02 04:15 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 13:32 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> - 2016-10-01 21:48 +0000
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 10:09 -0700
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2016-10-01 17:13 +0000
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2016-10-01 10:57 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-01 19:28 +0000
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:47 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2016-10-02 06:52 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 13:35 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2016-10-02 09:42 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2016-10-03 14:54 -0500
Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-10-03 13:17 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-03 21:00 +0000
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> - 2016-10-04 15:04 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-10-04 15:36 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-05 00:04 +0000
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-10-01 22:35 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-10-02 13:37 +0000
Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Tom Kratman <tomkratman@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 16:13 -0700
Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles Brett Dunbar <brett@dimetrodon.me.uk> - 2016-09-26 09:25 +0100
Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 13:07 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the dUrbervilles Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-09-25 18:29 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the dUrbervilles djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-26 01:40 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the dUrbervilles Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-09-26 12:50 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d'Urbervilles nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) - 2016-09-26 04:47 +0000
Re: OT: Tess of the d’Urbervilles Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-09-26 08:17 +0800
Re: OT: Tess of the dUrbervilles Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-09-26 12:52 -0700
Re: OT: Tess of the d’Urbervilles Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-09-27 07:47 +0800
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 22:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <43d0fb97-b959-4897-8da3-854d118e679b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452637 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote: > There's a pond on Boston Common called "Frog Pond". For some reason > unknown to me Poe associated Frog Pond with the Transcendentalists and > called them "Frogpondians". Apparently he had issues with them. Given that the British currently call Americans "Leftpondians", the term was confusing. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 02:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <1sjlo59vl2acy.vabr16ynzr37.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #452666 |
On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in<news:43d0fb97-b959-4897-8da3-854d118e679b@googlegroups.com> in rec.arts.sf.written: > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, J. > Clarke wrote: >> There's a pond on Boston Common called "Frog Pond". For >> some reason unknown to me Poe associated Frog Pond with >> the Transcendentalists and called them "Frogpondians". >> Apparently he had issues with them. > Given that the British currently call Americans > "Leftpondians", the term was confusing. I have seen the term (and its counterpart ‘Rightpondian’) used by Americans at least as often as by Brits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 04:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <0b277cbc-79f8-4c7a-ac58-34b58000eabf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452671 |
On Sunday, 2 October 2016 07:16:15 UTC+1, Brian M. Scott wrote: > On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc > <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote > in<news:43d0fb97-b959-4897-8da3-854d118e679b@googlegroups.com> > in rec.arts.sf.written: > > > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, J. > > Clarke wrote: > > >> There's a pond on Boston Common called "Frog Pond". For > >> some reason unknown to me Poe associated Frog Pond with > >> the Transcendentalists and called them "Frogpondians". > >> Apparently he had issues with them. > > > Given that the British currently call Americans > > "Leftpondians", the term was confusing. > > I have seen the term (and its counterpart ‘Rightpondian’) > used by Americans at least as often as by Brits. Do you mean outside this newsgroup? This rightpondian's personal sense of calling the Atlantic Ocean "the Pond" is attached to the thrilling fictional adventures of James "Biggles" Bigglesworth, veteran air pilot of World War 1, World War 2, and British boarding- school (minus the pilot bit IIRC). I'm not entirely sure about it, and it seems unlikely that everyone else got it from there. The English channel is "the Ditch", similarly. It sounds as though the landscaper didn't do a great job. Actually it seems some people would prefer a ha-ha instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 13:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <oEF9LK.qqI@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #452685 |
In article <0b277cbc-79f8-4c7a-ac58-34b58000eabf@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote: >On Sunday, 2 October 2016 07:16:15 UTC+1, Brian M. Scott wrote: >> On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 22:33:06 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc >> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote >> in<news:43d0fb97-b959-4897-8da3-854d118e679b@googlegroups.com> >> in rec.arts.sf.written: >> >> > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 5:19:31 PM UTC-6, J. >> > Clarke wrote: >> >> >> There's a pond on Boston Common called "Frog Pond". For >> >> some reason unknown to me Poe associated Frog Pond with >> >> the Transcendentalists and called them "Frogpondians". >> >> Apparently he had issues with them. >> >> > Given that the British currently call Americans >> > "Leftpondians", the term was confusing. >> >> I have seen the term (and its counterpart ‘Rightpondian’) >> used by Americans at least as often as by Brits. > >Do you mean outside this newsgroup? > >This rightpondian's personal sense of calling >the Atlantic Ocean "the Pond" is attached to >the thrilling fictional adventures of >James "Biggles" Bigglesworth, veteran air pilot >of World War 1, World War 2, and British boarding- >school (minus the pilot bit IIRC). > >I'm not entirely sure about it, and it seems >unlikely that everyone else got it from there. > >The English channel is "the Ditch", similarly. >It sounds as though the landscaper didn't do >a great job. Actually it seems some people >would prefer a ha-ha instead. All you need is a time machine, to go back to the most recent glaciation, when the sea level was lower and the Channel was a grassy plain, inhabited by mammoths and humans. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 21:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <20161001b@crcomp.net> |
| In reply to | #452595 |
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <20161001a@crcomp.net>, Don Kuenz <g@crcomp.net> wrote:
>>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> In article <MPG.325973c12038989898a5bc@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>In article <yEFIQLKasr7XFwIY@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk>,
>>>>brett@dimetrodon.me.uk says...
>>>>>
>>>>> In message <nsci1p$28n$1@panix2.panix.com>, William December Starr
>>>>> <wdstarr@panix.com> writes
>>>>> >In article <62a5d409-2e96-4bff-ac2b-b0cdf92add79@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> >William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> said:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> William December Starr wrote:
>>>>> >>> William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> said:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> It was intended as a pure entertainment, but he wasn't describing
>>>>> >>>> a fantasy world.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> If a novel is intended as entertainment but fails to entertain
>>>>> >>> because of the Fifteen Deadly Words -- "I _do_ care what happens to
>>>>> >>> these people, and I don't like it a bit" -- well, perhaps the word
>>>>> >>> "failure" applies.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Speaking of fantasy worlds! When a novel is still in print one
>>>>> >> hundred and twenty five years after publication, I think it's safe
>>>>> >> to say that the word "failure" does not apply.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >I did say "fails to entertain," not "fails to stay in print."
>>>>>
>>>>> To stay in print it has to entertain, ultimately any other objective is
>>>>> dependent on the novel being read. So it needs to actually convince the
>>>>> reader that there is some value in finding out what happens next, that
>>>>> is there must be entertainment value all else is secondary.
>>>>
>>>>Convince enough elderly maiden ladies that it is "lit her a tour" and it
>>>>will continue to sell, inflicted unwillingly on legions of hapless
>>>>schoolchildren to poison for ever any hope of their becoming interested
>>>>in reading.
>>>
>>> My junior-uear English teacher was neither elderly, a maiden, nor
>>> a lady, but he still made us read Willa Cather and Ralph Waldo
>>> Emerson.
>>
>>_The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction_ regards Egdar Allan Poe as
>>the first writer to experiment with the science-fictional method. And
>>Poe regards his contemporary Emerson as yet another Frogpondian
>>Euphuist. A couple of Poe's essays eloquently elucidate the problem with
>>Emerson. :0)
>>
>> It has been well said of the French orator, Dupin, that "he
>> spoke, as nobody else, the language of every body;" and thus his
>> manner seems to be exactly conversed in that of the Frogpondian
>> Euphuists, who, on account of the familiar tone in which they
>> lisp their outre phrases, may be said to speak, as every body,
>> the language of nobody - that is to say, a language emphatically
>> their own. [1]
>>
>> even when we let these modern hexameters go, as Greek, and
>> merely hold them fast in their proper character of Longfellowian,
>> or Feltonian, or Frogpondian, we must still condemn them as
>> having been committed in a radical misconception of the
>> philosophy of verse. [2]
>>
>>Note.
>>
>>1. http://www.eapoe.org/works/pollin/brp20416.htm
>>2. http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/english/poebostonexhibit/poesquarrel/34.html
>
> I have learned a new word: Frogpondian. Still don't know what it
> means, but what the hey.
It's my pleasure to provide the Oxford definition:
Frogpondian
noun
depreciative
Poe's word for: an adherent of transcendentalism.
Origin
Mid 19th century ; earliest use found in Edgar Allan Poe
(1809\xe2\x80\x931849), fiction writer, poet, and critic. From Frog Pond,
the name of a pond on Boston Common (Boston being the centre
of New England transcendentalism) + -ian.
It's the least that I can do for someone who so eloquently expressed the
nuances in domestic servant nomenclature. Your remark about the use of
such nomenclature in murder mysteries makes me question whether people
actually speak that way to their servants in real life?
One of my late upper class associates had a domestic helper. The helper
didn't wear a uniform and everybody just used first names for each
other all of the time.
Thank you,
--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
They who dream by day are cognizant of many things which escape
those who dream only by night. - Poe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 10:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <XnsA6946747EC01Btaustingmail@69.16.179.42> |
| In reply to | #452464 |
Brett Dunbar <brett@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in
news:yEFIQLKasr7XFwIY@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk:
> In message <nsci1p$28n$1@panix2.panix.com>, William December
> Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> writes
>>In article
>><62a5d409-2e96-4bff-ac2b-b0cdf92add79@googlegroups.com>, William
>>Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>> William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> It was intended as a pure entertainment, but he wasn't
>>>>> describing a fantasy world.
>>>>
>>>> If a novel is intended as entertainment but fails to
>>>> entertain because of the Fifteen Deadly Words -- "I _do_ care
>>>> what happens to these people, and I don't like it a bit" --
>>>> well, perhaps the word "failure" applies.
>>>
>>> Speaking of fantasy worlds! When a novel is still in print
>>> one hundred and twenty five years after publication, I think
>>> it's safe to say that the word "failure" does not apply.
>>
>>I did say "fails to entertain," not "fails to stay in print."
>
> To stay in print it has to entertain, ultimately any other
> objective is dependent on the novel being read.
No. To stay in print, it has to _sell_. It doesn't matter if anyone
ever reads a single word of it. There is an entire industry of
"coffee table books" that sell quite well, and that nobody ever
reads (or even looks at the pictures).
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 17:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <e5a95mFrploU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452566 |
In article <XnsA6946747EC01Btaustingmail@69.16.179.42>, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote: >Brett Dunbar <brett@dimetrodon.me.uk> wrote in >news:yEFIQLKasr7XFwIY@dimetrodon.demon.co.uk: > >> In message <nsci1p$28n$1@panix2.panix.com>, William December >> Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> writes >>>In article >>><62a5d409-2e96-4bff-ac2b-b0cdf92add79@googlegroups.com>, William >>>Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> said: >>> >>>> William December Starr wrote: >>>>> William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> said: >>>>> >>>>>> It was intended as a pure entertainment, but he wasn't >>>>>> describing a fantasy world. >>>>> >>>>> If a novel is intended as entertainment but fails to >>>>> entertain because of the Fifteen Deadly Words -- "I _do_ care >>>>> what happens to these people, and I don't like it a bit" -- >>>>> well, perhaps the word "failure" applies. >>>> >>>> Speaking of fantasy worlds! When a novel is still in print >>>> one hundred and twenty five years after publication, I think >>>> it's safe to say that the word "failure" does not apply. >>> >>>I did say "fails to entertain," not "fails to stay in print." >> >> To stay in print it has to entertain, ultimately any other >> objective is dependent on the novel being read. > >No. To stay in print, it has to _sell_. It doesn't matter if anyone >ever reads a single word of it. There is an entire industry of >"coffee table books" that sell quite well, and that nobody ever >reads (or even looks at the pictures). > Well, "Tess", of course, is on Project G, so in 5 years or so (or whenever schools go 100% ebook), it won't even have to be "in print" to be inflicted on a new generation. -- ------ columbiaclosings.com What's not in Columbia anymore..
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 10:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <48b7eb0c-f221-4ef9-90cf-5c4cb5c4d4a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452566 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:09:12 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote: > No. To stay in print, it has to _sell_. It doesn't matter if anyone > ever reads a single word of it. There is an entire industry of > "coffee table books" that sell quite well, and that nobody ever > reads (or even looks at the pictures). Oh, that depends. I've looked at the pictures of some, especially ones given as gifts - it's a much easier route to offering convincing thanks than actually reading is. (Separately, many art books are, physically, coffee table books, but people *do* look at *their* pictures.) Recently, some scholars have noticed that the coffee table book publishers don't actually care what the text says, and have started publishing scholarly tomes as coffee table books. I've seen major histories of astrology and of Central Asia published as coffee table books. Possibly someone actually reads these for their content; I've read parts of each of those two. Joe Bernstein Oh, all right. Christoph Baumer, <The History of Central Asia>, at least two volumes so far, I've seen at least one in a scholarly library. Baumer focuses on what the Chinese sources say, which isn't enough to do the job really right but is an important part, so he's serving a useful scholarly purpose. The astrology one will have to wait until tomorrow - I know where to find it in the library but don't remember who wrote it. -- Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <joe@sfbooks.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 19:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <oEDvF1.23JE@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #452571 |
In article <48b7eb0c-f221-4ef9-90cf-5c4cb5c4d4a5@googlegroups.com>,
Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:09:12 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
>Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> No. To stay in print, it has to _sell_. It doesn't matter if anyone
>> ever reads a single word of it. There is an entire industry of
>> "coffee table books" that sell quite well, and that nobody ever
>> reads (or even looks at the pictures).
>
>Oh, that depends. I've looked at the pictures of some, especially
>ones given as gifts - it's a much easier route to offering convincing
>thanks than actually reading is.
>
>(Separately, many art books are, physically, coffee table books, but
>people *do* look at *their* pictures.)
>
>Recently, some scholars have noticed that the coffee table book
>publishers don't actually care what the text says, and have started
>publishing scholarly tomes as coffee table books. I've seen major
>histories of astrology and of Central Asia published as coffee table
>books. Possibly someone actually reads these for their content; I've
>read parts of each of those two.
>
>Joe Bernstein
>
>Oh, all right.
>
>Christoph Baumer, <The History of Central Asia>, at least two volumes
>so far, I've seen at least one in a scholarly library. Baumer focuses
>on what the Chinese sources say, which isn't enough to do the job
>really right but is an important part, so he's serving a useful
>scholarly purpose.
>
>The astrology one will have to wait until tomorrow - I know where to
>find it in the library but don't remember who wrote it.
We await with breathful anticipation.
I hae a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; they
sit in a tall row atop a short bookcase about eight feet from
where I'm sitting. Some of them are on astronomy and/or space
travel, some are by Macauley ("City", "Underground," et ceterra),
some are art, one is the Condensed OED. All they have in common
is their size, which will not let them fit into a standard
bookcase. The only one I take out and look at regularly is the
one full of Pre-Raphaelite art.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d?rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <MPG.3259dcd240502dd298a5c8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #452596 |
In article <oEDvF1.23JE@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says...
>
> In article <48b7eb0c-f221-4ef9-90cf-5c4cb5c4d4a5@googlegroups.com>,
> Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 10:09:12 AM UTC-7, Gutless Umbrella
> >Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >
> >> No. To stay in print, it has to _sell_. It doesn't matter if anyone
> >> ever reads a single word of it. There is an entire industry of
> >> "coffee table books" that sell quite well, and that nobody ever
> >> reads (or even looks at the pictures).
> >
> >Oh, that depends. I've looked at the pictures of some, especially
> >ones given as gifts - it's a much easier route to offering convincing
> >thanks than actually reading is.
> >
> >(Separately, many art books are, physically, coffee table books, but
> >people *do* look at *their* pictures.)
> >
> >Recently, some scholars have noticed that the coffee table book
> >publishers don't actually care what the text says, and have started
> >publishing scholarly tomes as coffee table books. I've seen major
> >histories of astrology and of Central Asia published as coffee table
> >books. Possibly someone actually reads these for their content; I've
> >read parts of each of those two.
> >
> >Joe Bernstein
> >
> >Oh, all right.
> >
> >Christoph Baumer, <The History of Central Asia>, at least two volumes
> >so far, I've seen at least one in a scholarly library. Baumer focuses
> >on what the Chinese sources say, which isn't enough to do the job
> >really right but is an important part, so he's serving a useful
> >scholarly purpose.
> >
> >The astrology one will have to wait until tomorrow - I know where to
> >find it in the library but don't remember who wrote it.
>
> We await with breathful anticipation.
>
> I hae a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; they
> sit in a tall row atop a short bookcase about eight feet from
> where I'm sitting. Some of them are on astronomy and/or space
> travel, some are by Macauley ("City", "Underground," et ceterra),
> some are art, one is the Condensed OED. All they have in common
> is their size, which will not let them fit into a standard
> bookcase. The only one I take out and look at regularly is the
> one full of Pre-Raphaelite art.
Once I get all the work on the house done, a coffe table with
bookshelves might be an interesting project.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 06:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <nsqosg$8ga$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #452596 |
In article <oEDvF1.23JE@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > I hae a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; You could try putting four legs on the largest of them. -- wds
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 13:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <oEF9rs.r34@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #452684 |
In article <nsqosg$8ga$1@panix2.panix.com>, William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >In article <oEDvF1.23JE@kithrup.com>, >djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> I hae a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; > >You could try putting four legs on the largest of them. [eyeballs row of coffee table books] Wouldn't work too well; the largest of them, while too large for a standard bookshelf, would only hold six or seven others if they were held vertically by bookends. The whole row of them completely fills the tops of two (short) IKEA bookcases. And I didn't previously mention the other row, consisting of coffee-table-sized books on history and prehistory, which live on the floor in an awkward corner between two bookcases in another room. About two and a half feet of those. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 09:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles |
| Message-ID | <robertaw-5ADD39.09420702102016@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #452692 |
In article <oEF9rs.r34@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote: > In article <nsqosg$8ga$1@panix2.panix.com>, > William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >In article <oEDvF1.23JE@kithrup.com>, > >djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > > > >> I hae a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; > > > >You could try putting four legs on the largest of them. > > [eyeballs row of coffee table books] > > Wouldn't work too well; the largest of them, while too large for > a standard bookshelf, would only hold six or seven others if they > were held vertically by bookends. The whole row of them > completely fills the tops of two (short) IKEA bookcases. > > And I didn't previously mention the other row, consisting of > coffee-table-sized books on history and prehistory, which live on > the floor in an awkward corner between two bookcases in another > room. About two and a half feet of those. Is _Flight of Dragons_ by Peter Dickinson a coffee table book? Because my copy is stored vertically on the bottom shelf of a bookcase (10 inches deep) with adjustable shelves.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 14:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles |
| Message-ID | <U5Gdne43wN0ZKm_KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #452704 |
On 2016-10-02, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: > djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote: >> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >> >djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >> >> I ha[v]e a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; >> > >> >You could try putting four legs on the largest of them. >> >> [eyeballs row of coffee table books] >> >> Wouldn't work too well; the largest of them, while too large for >> a standard bookshelf, would only hold six or seven others if they >> were held vertically by bookends. The whole row of them >> completely fills the tops of two (short) IKEA bookcases. >> >> And I didn't previously mention the other row, consisting of >> coffee-table-sized books on history and prehistory, which live on >> the floor in an awkward corner between two bookcases in another >> room. About two and a half feet of those. > > Is _Flight of Dragons_ by Peter Dickinson a coffee table book? Because > my copy is stored vertically on the bottom shelf of a bookcase (10 > inches deep) with adjustable shelves. My coffee-table-and-larger sized books (as opposed to gaming books) live in a vertical stack; they can support each other nicely while they are themselves horizontal. Yeah, it makes accessing any particular one maybe take some effort, but it saves like heck on floor space (which I am chronically short on due to packing more books into my apartment than the laws of physics want to really allow). Dave -- \/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK> website on VIC is down, probably for good - oh well/ I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 13:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles |
| Message-ID | <bd5ce43e-dda1-436e-9a5d-d3586a0abcfe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452874 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 3:54:51 PM UTC-4, David DeLaney wrote: > On 2016-10-02, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: > > djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote: > >> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: > >> >djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: > >> >> I ha[v]e a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; > >> > > >> >You could try putting four legs on the largest of them. > >> > >> [eyeballs row of coffee table books] > >> > >> Wouldn't work too well; the largest of them, while too large for > >> a standard bookshelf, would only hold six or seven others if they > >> were held vertically by bookends. The whole row of them > >> completely fills the tops of two (short) IKEA bookcases. > >> > >> And I didn't previously mention the other row, consisting of > >> coffee-table-sized books on history and prehistory, which live on > >> the floor in an awkward corner between two bookcases in another > >> room. About two and a half feet of those. > > > > Is _Flight of Dragons_ by Peter Dickinson a coffee table book? Because > > my copy is stored vertically on the bottom shelf of a bookcase (10 > > inches deep) with adjustable shelves. > > My coffee-table-and-larger sized books (as opposed to gaming books) live in a > vertical stack; they can support each other nicely while they are themselves > horizontal. Yeah, it makes accessing any particular one maybe take some effort, > but it saves like heck on floor space (which I am chronically short on due to > packing more books into my apartment than the laws of physics want to really > allow). How many others here had Cosmo Kramer's idea for a coffee table book: one with pullout "feet" that made it a little table? Kramer's was going to be about coffee tables, too. I thought up the feet business years before, while working in bookstores, but it was never more than a whimsical, Oldenburg-ish conceptual art joke. (And the purest conceptual art is the stuff you think up, but keep to yourself.) Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 21:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Tess of the díUrbervilles |
| Message-ID | <oEHp0B.1p6p@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #452874 |
In article <U5Gdne43wN0ZKm_KnZ2dnUU7-bOdnZ2d@earthlink.com>, David DeLaney <dbd@vic.com> wrote: >On 2016-10-02, Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote: >> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote: >>> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote: >>> >djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said: >>> >> I ha[v]e a whole row of coffee table books but no coffee table; >>> > >>> >You could try putting four legs on the largest of them. >>> >>> [eyeballs row of coffee table books] >>> >>> Wouldn't work too well; the largest of them, while too large for >>> a standard bookshelf, would only hold six or seven others if they >>> were held vertically by bookends. The whole row of them >>> completely fills the tops of two (short) IKEA bookcases. >>> >>> And I didn't previously mention the other row, consisting of >>> coffee-table-sized books on history and prehistory, which live on >>> the floor in an awkward corner between two bookcases in another >>> room. About two and a half feet of those. >> >> Is _Flight of Dragons_ by Peter Dickinson a coffee table book? Because >> my copy is stored vertically on the bottom shelf of a bookcase (10 >> inches deep) with adjustable shelves. > >My coffee-table-and-larger sized books (as opposed to gaming books) live in a >vertical stack; they can support each other nicely while they are themselves >horizontal. Yeah, it makes accessing any particular one maybe take some effort, >but it saves like heck on floor space (which I am chronically short on due to >packing more books into my apartment than the laws of physics want to really >allow). I feel your pain. But I don't have enough FLOOR to support a tower like that, not with all the bookcases I've already got. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 15:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <d25a9b28-74c8-4e62-85fb-d140ab2f7196@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452596 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article <48b7eb0c-f221-4ef9-90cf-5c4cb5c4d4a5@googlegroups.com>, > Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote: > >Recently, some scholars have noticed that the coffee table book > >publishers don't actually care what the text says, and have started > >publishing scholarly tomes as coffee table books. I've seen major > >histories of astrology and of Central Asia published as coffee table > >books. Possibly someone actually reads these for their content; I've > >read parts of each of those two. [Central Asia] > >The astrology one will have to wait until tomorrow - I know where to > >find it in the library but don't remember who wrote it. > We await with breathful anticipation. My apologies. I forgot yesterday under logistics-related stress, and when I remembered today (despite more of that), the book wasn't there. Presumably checked out. I don't remember when I last saw it there, but it was certainly sometime this summer, so it'd be a fairly recent checkout. If so, that's a problem; many, though not all, books checked out here are quasi-permanently checked out, since it's generally simpler for the patrons to renew than to return, and the only limits tend to be recalls or departure from the university. In principle, books checked out by tenured faculty could be checked out for decades. I haven't been here long enough to find out whether *that* actually happens, but one book, essentially on the retina's role in eyesight (Rodieck's <The First Steps in Seeing>), which I read through *nearly* ten years ago, has hardly ever been on the shelf since. Huh - its current due date is just six weeks away; I'll have to remember to verify that it's been renewed then. No, really, I am *not* making this up. Even undergrads can do this, to the extent that they can remain enrolled; and I could too, to the extent that I could continue paying for a card, if, well, that extent existed, which it presently doesn't. Anyway, only time will tell whether this astrology book is in that class, a checkout to someone who actually returns books, stolen, or even just a book used in-library and due for reshelving. Joe Bernstein -- Joe Bernstein, writer and tax preparer <joe@sfbooks.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 15:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <9d887401-56b1-49bd-9e46-d7b7ceccdfbb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452984 |
On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 6:05:06 PM UTC-4, Joe Bernstein wrote: > On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt > wrote: > > > In article <48b7eb0c-f221-4ef9-90cf-5c4cb5c4d4a5@googlegroups.com>, > > Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote: > > > >Recently, some scholars have noticed that the coffee table book > > >publishers don't actually care what the text says, and have started > > >publishing scholarly tomes as coffee table books. I've seen major > > >histories of astrology and of Central Asia published as coffee table > > >books. Possibly someone actually reads these for their content; I've > > >read parts of each of those two. > > [Central Asia] > > >The astrology one will have to wait until tomorrow - I know where to > > >find it in the library but don't remember who wrote it. > > > We await with breathful anticipation. > > My apologies. I forgot yesterday under logistics-related stress, and > when I remembered today (despite more of that), the book wasn't there. > Presumably checked out. I don't remember when I last saw it there, > but it was certainly sometime this summer, so it'd be a fairly recent > checkout. > > If so, that's a problem; many, though not all, books checked out here > are quasi-permanently checked out, since it's generally simpler for > the patrons to renew than to return, and the only limits tend to be > recalls or departure from the university. In principle, books > checked out by tenured faculty could be checked out for decades. I > haven't been here long enough to find out whether *that* actually > happens, but one book, essentially on the retina's role in eyesight > (Rodieck's <The First Steps in Seeing>), which I read through *nearly* > ten years ago, has hardly ever been on the shelf since. Huh - its > current due date is just six weeks away; I'll have to remember to > verify that it's been renewed then. > > No, really, I am *not* making this up. Even undergrads can do this, > to the extent that they can remain enrolled; and I could too, to the > extent that I could continue paying for a card, if, well, that > extent existed, which it presently doesn't. > When I was an undergrad, there was a book I was reading for a theology course (Modern Atheism & Theism, if you must know.) I needed to cite it in a paper for the class, and was even reading the whole damned thing. Some other student wanted it, so we got into a "recall war." I'd ask the circulation desk to recall it, and the day after they informed me it was back, and I checked it out, the other fellow recalled it. We ping-ponged for a few rounds. The book was out-of-print, and no nearby collections had it, so I went to the bank for a pot of nickels and photocopied the whole thing: 2 pages to the photocopy page, @ $0.05 per page. I got the paper done, and got an A in the course. Years later, when I was selling books, I noticed it came back into print. I bought a bound copy, and recycled the xerographic one. Authors deserve royalties, right? > Anyway, only time will tell whether this astrology book is in that > class, a checkout to someone who actually returns books, stolen, or > even just a book used in-library and due for reshelving. > > Kevin R
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 00:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <oEJs7A.3wE@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #452984 |
In article <d25a9b28-74c8-4e62-85fb-d140ab2f7196@googlegroups.com>, Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote: >On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 12:30:04 PM UTC-7, Dorothy J Heydt >wrote: > >> In article <48b7eb0c-f221-4ef9-90cf-5c4cb5c4d4a5@googlegroups.com>, >> Joe Bernstein <joe@sfbooks.com> wrote: > >> >Recently, some scholars have noticed that the coffee table book >> >publishers don't actually care what the text says, and have started >> >publishing scholarly tomes as coffee table books. I've seen major >> >histories of astrology and of Central Asia published as coffee table >> >books. Possibly someone actually reads these for their content; I've >> >read parts of each of those two. > >[Central Asia] >> >The astrology one will have to wait until tomorrow - I know where to >> >find it in the library but don't remember who wrote it. > >> We await with breathful anticipation. > >My apologies. I forgot yesterday under logistics-related stress, and >when I remembered today (despite more of that), the book wasn't there. >Presumably checked out. I don't remember when I last saw it there, >but it was certainly sometime this summer, so it'd be a fairly recent >checkout. > >If so, that's a problem; many, though not all, books checked out here >are quasi-permanently checked out, since it's generally simpler for >the patrons to renew than to return, and the only limits tend to be >recalls or departure from the university. In principle, books >checked out by tenured faculty could be checked out for decades. I >haven't been here long enough to find out whether *that* actually >happens, but one book, essentially on the retina's role in eyesight >(Rodieck's <The First Steps in Seeing>), which I read through *nearly* >ten years ago, has hardly ever been on the shelf since. Huh - its >current due date is just six weeks away; I'll have to remember to >verify that it's been renewed then. > >No, really, I am *not* making this up. Even undergrads can do this, >to the extent that they can remain enrolled; and I could too, to the >extent that I could continue paying for a card, if, well, that >extent existed, which it presently doesn't. > >Anyway, only time will tell whether this astrology book is in that >class, a checkout to someone who actually returns books, stolen, or >even just a book used in-library and due for reshelving. Well, when I were a lass, at UC Berkeley back in the 1960s, practically anybody could renew a book without returning it, BUT you could put in a recall request and even a faculty member would have to return it. Might take him a couple of weeks.... -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 22:35 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Re: Re: OT: Tess of the d旦rbervilles |
| Message-ID | <7108c3cd-6cb3-41bc-8a60-6d794a89addf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #452571 |
On Saturday, October 1, 2016 at 11:58:16 AM UTC-6, Joe Bernstein wrote: > Recently, some scholars have noticed that the coffee table book > publishers don't actually care what the text says, and have started > publishing scholarly tomes as coffee table books. I've seen major > histories of astrology and of Central Asia published as coffee table > books. Possibly someone actually reads these for their content; I've > read parts of each of those two. And, clearly, being able to claim honestly that the text of the book is comprehensive and authoritative is a potential selling point. I mean, even if people don't read the things, they want to feel they've gotten value for their money? John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written
csiph-web