Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-17 11:47 -0700 |
| Last post | 2026-10-20 15:09 -0400 |
| Articles | 9 on this page of 69 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 11:47 -0700
Re: Fat books Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 12:54 -0600
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 09:40 +1300
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 22:33 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 22:38 -0700
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:07 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 21:02 +1300
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:42 -0700
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 16:42 -0400
Re: Fat books Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 14:48 -0600
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-18 20:48 -0400
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 19:53 -0700
Re: Fat books Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 23:39 -0400
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:51 -0700
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:28 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:33 +0800
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:45 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:35 +0800
Re: Fat books Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2026-10-20 14:19 +0000
Re: Fat books Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-10-18 09:04 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 17:25 -0700
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-18 21:39 +0200
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 17:06 -0700
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-19 14:00 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-19 21:04 +0800
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 05:55 +0800
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0100
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-20 05:39 +0200
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-20 07:01 +0100
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-20 08:57 +0100
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 10:42 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:51 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-19 21:40 +0200
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 05:58 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Fat books Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-20 14:00 +0000
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 22:06 +0800
Re: Fat books Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:01 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:38 +0800
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 07:18 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:02 +0800
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 15:15 +0100
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 08:05 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 08:28 -0700
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 12:14 -0400
Re: Fat books Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-20 19:15 +0000
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 12:43 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:29 -0700
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 18:32 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-22 12:02 +1300
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-21 20:35 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:44 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 01:49 +0800
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:59 -0700
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 12:13 -0400
Re: Fat books Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-10-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 09:53 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 19:50 -0700
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:59 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:46 +0800
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 16:57 -0400
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 16:57 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:04 +0800
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:09 -0400
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b869v$36psn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674751 |
On 10/20/26 09:13, Dimensional Traveler wrote: > On 10/20/2026 7:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: >> On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> It is a classical example of not correcting for bias. >>>>> (to obtain a wanted result) >>>>> The parishioners going to church every sunday >>>>> will be in better health (on average) >>>>> than those who stay at home. >>>> >>>> Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local >>>> church. >>>> >>>> I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>> claim it doesn't work for some people. >>> >>> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics >>> that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy >>> is bunk. >>> It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics, >>> >>> Jan >> I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >> following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >> domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >> there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >> Did one cause the other?? > > I suspect that the two were independently rising because of the post-war > economic boom. > I was raised in the christian tradition but have not been a regular church-goer since adolescence and I am 89 yoa but then the last time I attended a Unitarian church was in the 1970s before I developed Chronic Exhaustion Disease following a couple of year of increased stress physically and a viral illness of the sort that never seems to go away but just gets worse. I think that regular church-goers are healthy enough to get to the church. The strictures of the Christian churches if followed can lead to better health because you are not doing a lot of popular but deliterious activities like boozing and smoking, whoring and gambling. I on the other had suffer the results of my stressful youth and benefit from the reduction in several activities which would have resulted in very bad health if continued. I take my doctor's advice relatively seriously these days. BUT Life is a Terminal Condition. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD5856C.3448@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674582 |
BobbieSellers wrote: > > On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: > > I never read a fiction book > > and I certaintly never read > > a science fiction book > > Nor do ever appear to even cracked > any book especially not even one on classical > physicw. > > > > > That's like giving a > > 3 year old LSD. > > Believe me you seem ignorant > of drugs and giving anyone incapable of > consent any drug even legal ones except > by physician's prescription or parental > directions > > > > > > Who do you think reads > > science fiction books? People > > who want to go to Mars! > > No! Not Mars but certainly not 1950's > Earth. We wanted to go to the stars if you > have ever watch the TV show Star Trek and > its enlargements that was want we wanted. > > > > > Fiction and > > science fiction... > > that's a fucking double wammy!!! > > > > Give the kid a half a tab of LSD. > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >> Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff.. > >> Mars is not a planet! > >> > >> There is no reason to go to Mars because > >> Mars is not a planet! > >> > >> It's just a rock. > > So is the Earth but the Earth got infected > with Life and certain conditions and if not imported > perhaps from other infected rocks eventually Life > Evolved and here we are. Thank you rock, Thank you > Moon and Sun and the rest of the Universe because > without Time and Space where would we be? > > If you do not read Science Fiction books and > you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call > on all good users to cast you out... > At 89 I got no more time for you... With one foot in Usenet and the other foot in the grave then that's stranger than fiction! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b1960$ot1n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674555 |
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: > Peter Moylan wrote: >> >> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. >> >> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >> >> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >> >> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >> to about one third of its length. >> >> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >> writing. >> >> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >> read because their books are too thick. >> >> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >> complain about this? >> >> -- >> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >> Newcastle, NSW Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The best author were not necessarily prolix. In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory to the bookshelves of the stores. > > > > This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a > reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then > tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. Pretty much the case I believe. > > You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one > character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate > authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. > Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the > critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s > autobiography. > "Could have been cut to one-third" is pure assertion without a > single concrete cut. You offer zero page counts, zero scene breakdowns, > zero demonstration that removing two-thirds would leave a coherent plot, > character arc, or thematic payoff. That is not editing advice. That is > fantasy surgery performed with a chainsaw and no anatomy knowledge. > You leap from one book you dislike to a sweeping claim about > Asimov’s later career and reputation. "I’ve seen comments" is anecdotal > garbage. No sales data, no critical consensus metrics, no comparison of > contemporaneous reviews versus later ones. You are treating your own > annoyance as a proxy for market and critical judgment. > The "paid by the page" explanation is historically illiterate. > Modern trade publishing does not pay authors by the page or by the word > in the way pulp magazines once did. Advances and royalties are based on > projected sales and contract terms, not length. Blaming "payment by the > page" for 1980s–90s hardcovers is simply wrong. > You treat thickness as an automatic quality defect. Many of the most > commercially and critically successful novels of the last fifty years > are long. Length is not the variable; density and necessity are. You > never distinguish between the two. > > > You assume that every reader shares your patience threshold and that > anything exceeding it is objectively padded. You assume publishers have > abandoned editing because books are long, ignoring the existence of > developmental editors, copy editors, and the commercial reality that > certain audiences buy thick books precisely because they want immersion. I was formerly a very fast reader and chose longer stories by trusted authors for that sort of reason. I have never seen movies of popular books that I have read because they are usually disappointing. I read all of the Vampire stories of Charlene Harris before I saw the multi-episode "True Blood" and I found it far inferior to the book. People who prefer the visual version of such stories suffer I fear from stunted imaginations. That is the same reason I have never watched the Lord of the Rings motion pictures though I understand that these are deemed marvelous by viewers. > You assume declining sales (if real) are caused by length rather than > competing media, changing leisure habits, price, or content. You never > admit the possibility that Robots and Empire was written at that length > because Asimov chose to expand the political and historical scope of his > universe rather than because he was padding for money. > Readers who buy series finales and late-career works by established > authors often want more of the same world, not less. Publishers know > this; they are not stupid. Editors who routinely gut bestselling > authors’ manuscripts risk losing the author and the revenue. Your > preferred "one-third length" version would have to sell to the same > audience that already accepted the longer book. Competitors and > imitators in science fiction have thrived with both lean and expansive > styles. Your refusal to read thick books is a personal filter, not a > market signal that forces publishers to change. > Asimov’s later novels sold in large numbers despite (or because of) > their length. The physical and economic constraints of publishing do not > make long books inherently unprofitable; paper, printing, and > distribution costs scale, but so can price and perceived value. Your > claim that "books don’t sell as well as they used to" is too vague to > test and ignores category differences, format shifts (ebooks, > audiobooks), and the fact that some long books still move hundreds of > thousands of copies. A single reader’s irritation does not scale into > industry failure. > The entire causal chain—character dialogue equals authorial padding > equals payment incentives equals editorial collapse equals sales > decline—must be discarded. Replace it with actual textual analysis of > specific scenes that fail to advance plot, character, or theme, > supported by evidence rather than feelings. The industry diagnosis must > be rebuilt from contracts, sales data, and editorial practice rather > than nostalgia and anecdote. > Nothing of structural value survives. The observation that some late > Asimov is less tight than early Asimov is a commonplace, not an insight > you originated or substantiated. > > You are not diagnosing a publishing disease. You are complaining that a > book refused to finish at the exact moment your personal tolerance > expired, then dressing the complaint up as systemic critique. > > The Swarmmaker Fleet Pretentious title but Ok for this time. Books face declining sales for several reasons but the principal one is that we spend too much time on the Internet and choices by the paper-makers and politicians have forced cost up up and away beyond the means of many working and retired people. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:46 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <wk2BS.563$K1P4.277@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #674572 |
On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: > On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: >> Peter Moylan wrote: >>> >>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>> annoyed. >>> >>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>> >>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >>> >>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >>> to about one third of its length. >>> >>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>> writing. >>> >>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>> read because their books are too thick. >>> >>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>> complain about this? >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >>> Newcastle, NSW > > Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid > usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The > best author were not necessarily prolix. > In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the > Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due > to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory > to the bookshelves of the stores. Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. > >> >> >> >> This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a >> reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then >> tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. > > Pretty much the case I believe. > >> >> You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one >> character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate >> authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. >> Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the >> critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s >> autobiography. >> "Could have been cut to one-third" is pure assertion without a >> single concrete cut. You offer zero page counts, zero scene breakdowns, >> zero demonstration that removing two-thirds would leave a coherent plot, >> character arc, or thematic payoff. That is not editing advice. That is >> fantasy surgery performed with a chainsaw and no anatomy knowledge. >> You leap from one book you dislike to a sweeping claim about >> Asimov’s later career and reputation. "I’ve seen comments" is anecdotal >> garbage. No sales data, no critical consensus metrics, no comparison of >> contemporaneous reviews versus later ones. You are treating your own >> annoyance as a proxy for market and critical judgment. >> The "paid by the page" explanation is historically illiterate. >> Modern trade publishing does not pay authors by the page or by the word >> in the way pulp magazines once did. Advances and royalties are based on >> projected sales and contract terms, not length. Blaming "payment by the >> page" for 1980s–90s hardcovers is simply wrong. >> You treat thickness as an automatic quality defect. Many of the most >> commercially and critically successful novels of the last fifty years >> are long. Length is not the variable; density and necessity are. You >> never distinguish between the two. >> >> >> You assume that every reader shares your patience threshold and that >> anything exceeding it is objectively padded. You assume publishers have >> abandoned editing because books are long, ignoring the existence of >> developmental editors, copy editors, and the commercial reality that >> certain audiences buy thick books precisely because they want immersion. > > I was formerly a very fast reader and chose longer stories by > trusted authors for that sort of reason. I have never seen movies of > popular books that I have read because they are usually disappointing. > I read all of the Vampire stories of Charlene Harris before I saw > the multi-episode "True Blood" and I found it far inferior to the book. > People who prefer the visual version of such stories suffer I fear > from stunted imaginations. That is the same reason I have never > watched the Lord of the Rings motion pictures though I understand > that these are deemed marvelous by viewers. I'm still a /fast reader/, but it depends on the subject and day. My current reading speed is more a function of physical health, than any- thing else. > > >> You assume declining sales (if real) are caused by length rather than >> competing media, changing leisure habits, price, or content. You never >> admit the possibility that Robots and Empire was written at that length >> because Asimov chose to expand the political and historical scope of his >> universe rather than because he was padding for money. >> Readers who buy series finales and late-career works by established >> authors often want more of the same world, not less. Publishers know >> this; they are not stupid. Editors who routinely gut bestselling >> authors’ manuscripts risk losing the author and the revenue. Your >> preferred "one-third length" version would have to sell to the same >> audience that already accepted the longer book. Competitors and >> imitators in science fiction have thrived with both lean and expansive >> styles. Your refusal to read thick books is a personal filter, not a >> market signal that forces publishers to change. Asimov’s later novels >> sold in large numbers despite (or because of) >> their length. The physical and economic constraints of publishing do not >> make long books inherently unprofitable; paper, printing, and >> distribution costs scale, but so can price and perceived value. Your >> claim that "books don’t sell as well as they used to" is too vague to >> test and ignores category differences, format shifts (ebooks, >> audiobooks), and the fact that some long books still move hundreds of >> thousands of copies. A single reader’s irritation does not scale into >> industry failure. >> The entire causal chain—character dialogue equals authorial padding >> equals payment incentives equals editorial collapse equals sales >> decline—must be discarded. Replace it with actual textual analysis of >> specific scenes that fail to advance plot, character, or theme, >> supported by evidence rather than feelings. The industry diagnosis must >> be rebuilt from contracts, sales data, and editorial practice rather >> than nostalgia and anecdote. >> Nothing of structural value survives. The observation that some late >> Asimov is less tight than early Asimov is a commonplace, not an insight >> you originated or substantiated. >> >> You are not diagnosing a publishing disease. You are complaining that a >> book refused to finish at the exact moment your personal tolerance >> expired, then dressing the complaint up as systemic critique. >> >> The Swarmmaker Fleet > > Pretentious title but Ok for this time. > Books face declining sales for several reasons but the principal > one is that we spend too much time on the Internet and choices by the > paper-makers and politicians have forced cost up up and away beyond > the means of many working and retired people. > > bliss > And in turn, a lot of the working and retired people are now reading free fiction on Gutenberg, RoyalRoad, and similar sites; if not sub- scribing to Kindle Unlimited. Note a lot of ebooks are also available through library "subscriptions." So I guess it's also normal for books to raise prices [1] when the com- petition is literally free [2]. I have previously stated that I prefer well written and edited stories, so prefer to buy my own fiction when I have the budget. That also means I have reading material waiting when I don't have a budget, nor can eas- ily go to a library. Of course, /most people/ aren't reading the books on Gutenberg nor Roy- alRoad, but those people wouldn't buy a book in a book store either, so I don't see much point in counting the people who don't read. I'm veering too much into basic economics [3] so I'll stop now, and try to find myself something to read. [1] This is convoluted, but I'm not going to fix it. Books don't raise their own prices, publishers and bookstores do. [2] Sometimes, when a person can get access to free wifi, and such. [3] Which I have never studied formally, but a lot of people who call themselves economists never think of the /free competition/, which is honestly weird. -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 16:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11b3bsi$1gcuk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674591 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: >> On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Peter Moylan wrote: >>>> >>>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>>> annoyed. >>>> >>>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly >>>> the >>>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but >>>> the >>>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>>> >>>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the >>>> point, >>>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >>>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >>>> >>>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by >>>> cutting it >>>> to about one third of its length. >>>> >>>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>> writing. >>>> >>>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>>> read because their books are too thick. >>>> >>>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>>> complain about this? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >>>> Newcastle, NSW >> >> Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid >> usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The >> best author were not necessarily prolix. >> In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the >> Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due >> to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory >> to the bookshelves of the stores. > > Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- > lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- > ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is something like: "The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste". which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to find any. William Hyde
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD55AB3.5DA8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674619 |
William Hyde wrote: > > Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > > On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: > >> On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Peter Moylan wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself > >>>> annoyed. > >>>> > >>>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly > >>>> the > >>>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but > >>>> the > >>>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. > >>>> > >>>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the > >>>> point, > >>>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the > >>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take > >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort > >>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the > >>>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. > >>>> > >>>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by > >>>> cutting it > >>>> to about one third of its length. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen > >>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier > >>>> writing. > >>>> > >>>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to > >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with > >>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up > >>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to > >>>> read because their books are too thick. > >>>> > >>>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books > >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to > >>>> complain about this? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Peter Moylan      peter@pmoylan.org   http://www.pmoylan.org > >>>> Newcastle, NSW > >> > >>      Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid > >> usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The > >> best author were not necessarily prolix. > >>      In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the > >> Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due > >> to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory > >> to the bookshelves of the stores. > > > > Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- > > lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- > > ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. > > According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is > something like: > > "The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste". > > which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to > find any. books were expensive in those days..so they divided it into 3 season episodes.. tripple feature, "three decker"... Season 4 canceled. > > William Hyde -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 16:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD55CD2.51@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #674619 |
William Hyde wrote: > > Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > > On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: > >> On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Peter Moylan wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself > >>>> annoyed. > >>>> > >>>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly > >>>> the > >>>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but > >>>> the > >>>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. > >>>> > >>>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the > >>>> point, > >>>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the > >>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take > >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort > >>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the > >>>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. > >>>> > >>>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by > >>>> cutting it > >>>> to about one third of its length. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen > >>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier > >>>> writing. > >>>> > >>>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to > >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with > >>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up > >>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to > >>>> read because their books are too thick. > >>>> > >>>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books > >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to > >>>> complain about this? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Peter Moylan      peter@pmoylan.org   http://www.pmoylan.org > >>>> Newcastle, NSW > >> > >>      Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid > >> usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The > >> best author were not necessarily prolix. > >>      In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the > >> Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due > >> to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory > >> to the bookshelves of the stores. > > > > Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- > > lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- > > ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. > > According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is > something like: > > "The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste". > > which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to > find any. > > William Hyde Emile Zola is paris still burning? is Macron wife a guy? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 21:04 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <BFJBS.536264$FEvb.484704@fx12.ams4> |
| In reply to | #674619 |
On 10/19/2026 4:57 AM, William Hyde wrote: > Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >> On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: >>> On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> Peter Moylan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>>>> annoyed. >>>>> >>>>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is >>>>> possibly the >>>>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, >>>>> but the >>>>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>>>> >>>>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the >>>>> point, >>>>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They >>>>> take >>>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >>>>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >>>>> >>>>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by >>>>> cutting it >>>>> to about one third of its length. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>>> writing. >>>>> >>>>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I >>>>> refuse to >>>>> read because their books are too thick. >>>>> >>>>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only >>>>> person to >>>>> complain about this? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >>>>> Newcastle, NSW >>> >>> Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid >>> usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The >>> best author were not necessarily prolix. >>> In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the >>> Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due >>> to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory >>> to the bookshelves of the stores. >> >> Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- >> lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- >> ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. > > According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is > something like: > > "The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste". > > > which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to > find any. > > William Hyde I'm not sure trilogies of the late 1800s, nor Wilde for that matter, are worth much. I believe most multi-volume stories published back then were collections of serials, and the number of volumes wasn't fixed. I give https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysteries_of_Paris as an example [1]. Unlike say the fantasy trilogies of the 80s and 90s, of which I only re- cently started to listen to /The Diamond Throne/ by David Eddings, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elenium which I've read multiple times since coming across it in a library in my teens. Plus, I believe Wilde only wrote one novel length story. I've only seen the (?) black & white movie, but it's enough to know the character. Best wishes, and happy reading! [1] As usual, I hate linking Wikipedia, but this does look like the translation I read in Iceland, as a child. There's only so much I can bother to /look up/ for a post in alt.usage.english. -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 15:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11b8e9u$3a3oo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674737 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 10/19/2026 4:57 AM, William Hyde wrote: >> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: >>> On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: >>>> On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> Peter Moylan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>>>>> annoyed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is >>>>>> possibly the >>>>>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, >>>>>> but the >>>>>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the >>>>>> point, >>>>>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>>>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They >>>>>> take >>>>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>>>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >>>>>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >>>>>> >>>>>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by >>>>>> cutting it >>>>>> to about one third of its length. >>>>>> >>>>>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>>>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>>>> writing. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're >>>>>> used to >>>>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I >>>>>> refuse to >>>>>> read because their books are too thick. >>>>>> >>>>>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that >>>>>> books >>>>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only >>>>>> person to >>>>>> complain about this? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >>>>>> Newcastle, NSW >>>> >>>> Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid >>>> usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The >>>> best author were not necessarily prolix. >>>> In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the >>>> Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due >>>> to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory >>>> to the bookshelves of the stores. >>> >>> Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- >>> lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- >>> ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. >> >> According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is >> something like: >> >> "The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste". >> >> >> which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem >> to find any. >> >> William Hyde > > I'm not sure trilogies of the late 1800s, nor Wilde for that matter,are > worth much. I believe most multi-volume stories published back then > were collections of serials, and the number of volumes wasn't fixed. I > give > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysteries_of_Paris > > as an example [1]. > > Unlike say the fantasy trilogies of the 80s and 90s, of which I only re- > cently started to listen to /The Diamond Throne/ by David Eddings, > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elenium > > which I've read multiple times since coming across it in a library in my > teens. > > Plus, I believe Wilde only wrote one novel length story. I've only seen > the (?) black & white movie, but it's enough to know the character. "The Picture of Dorian Gray" was early in his career, and was intended to be a bit shocking. The original story was toned down for the novel version. Wilde's output mainly consisted of plays, which initially were not successful. His first important one was "Salome", written in French. But owing to the subject matter it was a long time before it was performed. "The Importance of being Earnest" is commonly cited as his best, though I prefer "Lady Windermere's Fan". It's little known (not even mentioned in his wikipedia page) that at Oxford Wilde took essentially a double major, taking a slew of courses in science. He had a somewhat broader view of life than his image would imply. William Hyde
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web