One More Chapter for Your Perusal
|
|
Thread rating:  |
elanders - 09 Jan 2009 16:05 GMT September 1761 – Return to Mecklenburg
In September of 1761 a coterie of handpicked aristocrats were dispatched to the German duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Their duty was to perform a proxy marriage then transport Princess Charlotte—the princess, Queen Mother, the late king, and the Prince had settled on—to London for her formal marriage and coronation as Queen Consort to George III.
Not long after six coaches pulled in front of the Palace of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons: 12 slim-waisted men bristling with sword, pistol, and campaign gear. Poor, Franz, the Duke's butler, looked out the window as if the French Army was outside. The Duke came to the top of the stair and called to him, "Franz, outside, quick!" Franz snapped to his too-tall height, adjusted his alpine cap and flew out the door. Somewhere in the room a woman gasped. The Duke whipped his head around in search of the usurper. Seeing no one, he lost his patience: "Everyone in front of me, now!" he commanded. Instantly the maids and attendants came out of their hiding places. "We'll have none of this!" he thundered. I won't stand for it! And where is Frau Schwellenberg?”
"She's coming, Your grace."
The Duke looked at the woman. "You and Gertrude are supposed to be outside assisting Franz!"
"Yes, my lord," said the two. And they flew out the door.
"Are the guest rooms ready?" the Duke wanted to know.
"Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
"The dining room, then?"
"Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir."
What else? The Duke asked himself. He knew there was something he was forgetting, but try as he might, he couldn't think of it–then he thought of it. "Maxim! Where's Maxim?"
"At the stables!" said a girl at the bottom of the stair.
"What is he doing there? Tell him to show the cavalry where to water their horses. And he should set up a table with beer too – if that royal painter Shackleton is any measure, these Englishman will want ale and plenty of it!"
"Yes, my lord," said the girl, and she flew out of the room.
The Duke was standing at the bend in the stairway where the upper stair gives way to a wide landing. It was built wide to allow women in great hoop petticoats sufficient space to turn before proceeding down the lower stair. The Duke had stopped to inspect himself in the full-length mirror. Also, it was here he’d make his welcoming speech as Franz led the King's coterie in. At this instant, though, his main concern was the cavalry outfit he was wearing. Along with the Prussian parade jacket, high collar (which was beginning to choke him), blood red cuffs, gold braiding hanging across his chest, and red campaign sash around his stomach, it was of the utmost importance the saber at his waist be tilted at a precise 90 degree angle if he was to affect the stance Frederick the Great used after routing the French at Rossback.
The Duke adjusted all these things in the mirror and was pleased. He reached down and adjusted the top cuff of his cavalry boots. One had to be careful walking in these, the cuffs were large and meant for riding not walking, and certainly not running up and down stairs.
"Would you like some wax, for your whiskers, sir?" came a voice from downstairs.
“Wax?” The Duke looked at his whiskers. Yes, a bit of wax would be nice.
"Yes, girl, go fetch my wax! Run! Hurry!"
"I have it right here, sir" said the girl, offering the small tin in her hand.
"Bring it up then–quickly! We don't have all day, you know!"
The girl hurried up the stairs.
From the landing above him another voiced spoke: " Frederick, I’m ready."
It was Princess Charlotte dressed in the wedding gown the King sent for the proxy wedding.
"Good! Good!" said Duke Frederick. "And remember, stay right at the top landing there, until you hear me say to Franz, 'Enter.'"
"Yes, Frederick."
Outside the gentlemen and ladies were alighting the coaches.
"Does anyone speak French?" called out Franz.
"We all speak French," said a lady with a giggle in her voice. "Would you have anyone in the King of England's Court who did not?"
Franz went red in the face. "My apologies, My Lady. I only meant to say–"
"–One moment, sir. This is the castle of the King of Prussia, is it not?" Lady Teasley asked.
"King of Prussia?” exclaimed Franz, suddenly alarmed. "But there must be some mistake, Madam–this is the castle of the Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz."
Lady Teasley giggled.
"Pay her no mind, my good man," said Lord Anson taking Lady Teasley by the arm. "She's driven several servants to the madhouse already with her jests. But look here, man–are they ready for the proxy marriage inside?"
"Yes, My Lord, we are," said Franz, still not entirely recovered from Lady Teasley's jest.
Lady Teasley was so sugary pretty little boys stared at her. Lady Teasley played on her delicious looks by always dressing in taffeta, lace, and jewelry that leaned toward precious stones of great color. Lady Teasley's first appearance in London high society is well-documented. At the time Hyde Park was the Sunday gathering point of the fashionable elite. Arriving in their carriages or atop horses, they took the circular road inside the park to show-off themselves. Gentlemen and ladies of the younger sort displayed their horsemanship and if it was particularly good, mention of it would make the rounds of tea parties for weeks. On the day in question, Lady Teasley came riding into the park on a hired pony the same time the gentlemen had repaired to the center of the park to talk and smoke. Whether planned or not what happened next announced her entrance into society brilliantly. Just as she was trotting past the section where the members of parliament stood, she fell off her horse (some say slid) onto the ground exposing her lily white legs to every man in eyesight. The collective gasp could be heard all the way to Fleet Street.
Lady Teasley was accepted into the beau monde immediately–without anyone bothering to confirm her bogus claim of Northumbrian nobility going back 70 quarters. Bona fide or not, she was useful and that was the paramount thing. In time she acquired her own supper box at the Vauxhall paid for by a dozen admirers. More telling still, wherever there was a gathering of any social significance no doorman could long refuse her. She'd slip him a guinea, whisper a promise she had absolutely no intention of keeping, then waltz by him as his ears smoked.
Admiral Anson turned back to the other members of the coterie, some still stepping from the coaches. Anson was about sixty, and one of England's greatest naval heroes. He wore a sword but had elected to wear civilian attire rather than his admiral's uniform.
"Did we all make it?" he called to them.
"I think we lost Baroness Hamilton along the way," joked the Earl of Harcourt as he helped the Baroness Hamilton out of the coach.
"Then we must go back and find her," said Baroness Hamilton. "For without her we cannot continue."
Everyone chuckled at this.
"Look, here, lads, let's have some order about ourselves before we go in, please!" called Admiral Anson.
“Aye! Aye! Admiral!”
The Captain of the dragoons, a 23-year old whose horsemanship Lady Teasley had admired all the way from the wharf, rode up and saluted Admiral Anson with his saber.
"Lord Admiral, sir, would you have us stand guard outside the door when you go in, sir?"
Anson looked around. "Don't quite know, Captain. Getting your horses watered is more important than that, I should think. Hold on." Anson looked to Franz who was trying to explain something to Lady Teasley without success. "Sir!" Lord Anson called. "A word with you." Franz bowed to Lady Teasley and rushed over. He exchanged a few words with Lord Anson who then turned to the Captain and gave him his instructions.
“A minute, Capeeton!” Lady Teasley called to the young captain. “I left my parasol in the coach. Be a dear and fetch it for me, would you?”
The young captain's face turned tomato red.
Lady Teasley giggled.
“Never mind that, Captain,” said Anson taking Lady Teasley by the arm and tugging her along like a naughty child. “See to your men and horses.”
In a moment the coterie was assembled in this order: Baroness Hamilton, Duchess of Ancaster, Lady Teasley, the Earl of Harcourt–who would be proxy groom for the King – Admiral Anson, and the four Ladies of the Bedchamber taking up the rear. The ceremony would take place as soon as the coterie walked in the door. Inside the Duke and Princess would be ready for this, or at least such were their instructions. Admiral Anson nodded at the group then signaled for his servant to bring the King's Bible from his coach.
As was the ancient custom of a proxy marriage, the Earl of Harcourt was holding the new Queen's crown on a purple pillow. Like Anson, Harcourt was a military man who'd been in many campaigns. Harcourt was 30 with a perfect Englishman's face and a temperament harsh and unforgiving made so by the horrors seen on the battlefield. His first day in battle had been his baptism of fire. Before that day he'd been a merry enough fellow who saw only the milk of human kindness in everyone he met. Then came his first cavalry charge where he ran up on four enemy infantryman fleeing for their lives. His training kicked in: he spurred his horse and cut them down: first one, then the other, then the last two because they couldn't run away fast enough. These men had posed no threat; they wanted only to escape with their lives. He could have watched them run and no one would have said an untoward word to him about it. He could have spared them but didn't. The unfortunate event turned him into a cynic for the rest of his life–and worse, it turned him into a person with no value for human life. But here's the rub: 30 years later at 60, Harcourt died trying to rescue a dog from a well.
"Are we ready?" Anson asked everyone again. He had the Bible in his hand now. Without waiting for an answer he looked to Franz who was now standing at the palace door and called, "The King's Coterie is ready to enter, sir!"
Franz saluted, opened the door, then announced in German, "The King’s Coterie is ready to enter, Lord Duke Frederick!"
At the stair landing above Duke Frederick called down, "Enter then!" On the landing above Duke Frederick out of sight, Princess Charlotte prepared to descend. Franz looked outside to the coterie and echoed, "Enter then!"
"Enter we shall!" called back Admiral Anson leading the group in.
At the top of the stair, Charlotte steeled her nerves. The lavish wedding gown her betrothed, King George III, had sent, fitted her perfectly for the seamstress sent several months earlier by him had made sure of this. And now, although she and the King had not once laid eyes upon each other, she would in a few moments become his wife and the Queen of England … at least in proxy.
From the landing below, the Duke called up, "Charlotte, come down now, they're here!"
And she came down just as the King's Coterie walked through the door. She walked past the Duke down the flight of stairs beneath him to the main floor. She came to a standstill in front of the coterie just as it came to a standstill in front of her. She stared at them, they at her. Lord Anson forgot his speech, Lord Harcourt's mouth fell open, Lady Hamilton's eyes popped, Lady Ancaster gasped. And then to add to perfect surrealism of it all, Lady Teasley giggled.
Now the way things were supposed to happen is that Lord Anson was to begin the proxy marriage ceremony on the spot. That's how such things were done from time immemorial, or at least going back to William the Conqueror. Indeed, at the very instant Princess Charlotte appeared before them, the next thing uttered from Anson's lips should have been :
"I, Lord Anson, Vice-Admiralty of Great Britain in the powers vested in me by George William Frederick, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke and Elector of Hanover, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh, Marquess of Ely, Earl of Eltham, Viscount of Launceston, Baron of Snowdon, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, do hereby present his proxy in marriage to you the most serene Princess Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg, the Earl of Harcourt…"
At which point, Anson would have paused and allowed the Earl of Harcourt to take two steps forward, bow at the feet of the princess then stand and offer up the crown on the purple pillow. But, so struck was Anson with the features of the princess, words failed him, as in fact, words failed everyone in the coterie, save the giggly Lady Teasley.
Indeed, it is not hard to imagine they'd all still be standing there mouths agape hadn't the next extraordinary thing happened. At the top of the stairs, Duke Frederick, instead of giving the speech he had intended, rushed down the stairs to see why everyone was speechless. This was ill-advised … at least at the rate of speed he chose. It was the cavalry boots that did him in. The top cuffs meant for protecting the knee from the flanks of the horse got caught-up–and so did the Duke–sending him spilling down the stair heels over head like a circus tumbler.
"Well done!" said Lady Hamilton without thinking.
"No, madam," came the Duke's pained voice from the floor. "Not well done."
Seeing the opportunity to stall he needed, Anson, bent down to the fallen man and said, "Harcourt give me a hand—I think he's hurt!"
"I am not hurt!" cried the Duke. And he tried to stand, but couldn't because in his fall he had bent his saber around his leg. "It's this saber. If you could help me unbend it from 'round my leg–"
Wisely, Lord Anson ignored this. He was, after all, vice admiral of the most powerful navy in Europe and well knew how to think on his feet. In a moment—on Anson's orders—Franz and another house servant were carrying the protesting duke away from the foyer – where the proxy marriage should have been in progress—into the long dining hall next door, where it could not.
"Put me down, Franz! I command you!"
"Hold him fast, Franz," countered Anson. "And, Lord Duke, I insist you allow us to examine your wound before we proceed further."
"But it isn't a wound…it's nothing…if you could just help me unwrap the saber from my legs."
"I've called for our surgeon. He'll be here in a moment."
"I don't need a surgeon!"
"Better safe than sorry."
No … Duke Frederick didn’t like it one bit, but … no matter all the power he wielded in his tiny principality, the Duke was no match for the cunning of Admiral Anson who – upon seeing Princess Charlotte–had decided some serious discussion was in order before proceeding with the proxy marriage.
Meanwhile, Lady Hamilton and Lady Ancaster took Charlotte by the hand and led her back upstairs to her bed chamber. They too had sensed a pause was needed before proceeding. Also, both ladies had worked with Anson on Kingly business before (which, is why the Queen Mother chose them) and had picked up by voice and inflection his reluctance to proceed.
"A momentary delay," Lady Hamilton said to the bewildered girl. "The surgeon will attend to your brother and we'll commence straight-away … My, my, this is a lovely bedchamber, is it not, Lady Ancaster?"
"Indeed—and are those portraits of your parents above your bed, Princess Charlotte?" said Lady Ancaster pointing to the portraits on the wall.
"Yes, they are."
Both women dropped the girl's hands and went to the portraits. Baroness Hamilton dug into her silk purse for her spectacles. "May we take them down?" she asked, already unhooking one from the wall while Lady Ancaster unhooked the other.
"Yes, you may."
The older woman took the portrait to the window so as to inspect it in better light. "Very Corinthian-looking, to be sure … which makes me but wonder, Lady Charlotte, about your grandparents …”
“My grandparents, madam?”
“Do you have portraits of them?”
"Yes, we do," said Charlotte.
"And your great–grandparents?" interjected Lady Ancaster.
"Great–grandparents, madam?" said Charlotte looking from one face to the other, her own face now confused.
“Portraits of them?”
“Oh, yes, there are,” said Charlotte.
"Both sets."
“Both sets, madam?”
“Yes, portraits of each – going back to your great–grandparents.... Let me see, that would be … gosh, how many portraits would that be, Lady Hamilton?”
“Fourteen.”
“Yes, 14, I think you're right.”
The girl shrugged. She didn't understand why they would want to see so many portraits, but the ladies were nice and their French so wonderful to hear. “I can do much better than that,” she said. “Our portrait room has portraits of 70 sets of ancestors. If you ladies would follow me, please.”
Lady Hamilton's voice was an astonished whimper: “How perfectly sweet of you.”
When the surgeon walked into the dining room Admiral Anson put him on the Duke then took Harcourt by the arm and left. Franz caught up with them at the door. He was biting his lip and his hands were shaking. "Gentlemen, is their something wrong?" he asked.
Anson pointed to where the Duke and Surgeon were. "See to your duke. We'll be back directly.”
“But is there something wrong–”
Anson’s stare shut him up. “Yes, sir,” said Franz, and then he turned and hurried away from the Englishmen.
Once outside, Anson and Harcourt got into the first coach. Anson locked the door and closed the windows.
"Did you see her?" asked Anson.
"Of course I saw her. Do you think I'm blind?" answered the Harcourt.
"Not you–the royal painter, perhaps. That girl and the girl in his painting are not the same person.”
"They never are,” said Harcourt. “Those damn royal painters—they don't do likenesses; they do flattery art. You can't tell a thing about how the subject actually looks from their silly portraits."
Anson looked his man in the face. It was an impossible situation, one that could incite war between all Europe if not handled correctly. Still, there were things that had to be said before the marriage proceeded, things that if surfaced after the girl became queen might warrant a charge of treason.
"Just to be clear, Harcourt. We're only discussing the difference in appearance between the portrait and the girl, correct?"
"I beg your pardon?" said Harcourt immediately on guard.
Anson tried to bend the Harcourt to his iron gaze but could not. Harcourt, although under his command today, was an accomplished military man himself. "All I'm saying, Harcourt, is you don't see any other reason for not proceeding, do you?"
"Such as? ..."
"I'm not intimating there is a reason. I merely asked if you saw one, sir."
"But I already told you I do not, Admiral Anson."
"Of course you did, but–” and here Anson stopped because he suddenly had a better idea: "Let me put it to your like this, Harcourt: what do you understand your duties to be?"
Harcourt was waiting for this very question for it gave him the chance to—for the record—extract himself from what was beginning to look like a horrid mess.
"My duties, as you well know, Lord Anson, are to be the King's proxy in marriage to the Princess Charlotte Sophia—per your directions."
Anson winced at the words per your directions. The Earl's position was now crystal clear: he had no intention of discussing the girl's extraordinary features, at least not without assurances such talk would not come back to haunt him.
A tap came on the coach window. It was Baroness Hamilton. Anson opened the door and let her in. "Sirs," said Lady Hamilton winded. "Where have you been? I've been looking all over the castle for you."
"Have you been with the girl?" Anson asked.
"Yes, Lady Ancaster and I were in her bedchamber. She showed us portraits of her parents and grandparents.
"Did she ...?" said Harcourt.
"They have a room where they keep them. The collection goes back 70 quarters, possibly longer."
Another tap came on the window. It was the Duke. He was not happy.
"Gentlemen, the sword is removed from around my leg. The Princess is waiting. If you would follow me, please."
"One minute, sir," said Anson.
"But we are ready, sir!" said the Duke. “And the agreement says the proxy marriage must take place as soon as you walk through the door … which you've already done, sir!”
"I said one minute, sir!" said Anson slamming the window shut. He turned to Harcourt and Lady Hamilton: "Bloody little Hun and his monkey-faced sister!–" Anson didn't finish the sentence because the look of shock on the Harcourt's and the Baroness's faces stopped him cold. Then the tapping on the window came again, then the Duke's voice: "I have the marriage contract in my hands, sir. It says the proxy marriage is to take place immediately upon the arrival of the King's proxy–IMMEDIATELY! ..."
Amethyst Deceiver - 09 Jan 2009 16:29 GMT > September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > London for her formal marriage and coronation as Queen Consort to George > III. The second sentence makes no sense.
 Signature Linz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary
Irwell - 09 Jan 2009 17:21 GMT >> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The second sentence makes no sense. But these are gems worthy of Monty Python.
"Are the guest rooms ready?" the Duke wanted to know.
"Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each."
"The dining room, then?"
"Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir."
elanders - 09 Jan 2009 18:05 GMT >>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > "Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir." I confess, I don't see anything wrong with the above.
EG
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 04:54 GMT > >>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg > >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > I confess, I don't see anything wrong with the above. That's Irwell's point. You have a tin ear.
I read your original post on this thread in its entirety. Your prose style is -- how shall I put it? -- clunky. It's not so much outright wrong as it is simply off-key.
I recommend you stop all attempts at creative writing for at least six months and spend your time reading the finest English prose you can get your hands on. If that doesn't do it, I recommend stopping again, this time for good.
There's nothing wrong with a lack of talent. I lack talent in so many fields -- creative writing included -- that I doubt the remainder of my life would suffice to enable me to list them all. From what I've read of your writing, you have no talent for it. Consider trying something else.
 Signature Bob Lieblich Starting the New Year off with a clang
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 05:57 GMT >>>>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > read of your writing, you have no talent for it. Consider trying > something else. You're confused, pal.
You've got some make-believe notion in your head about what good or talented writing is. This explains why you deal in generalities -- "You're writing is 'clunky'" ... "find the finest English prose you can get your hands on."
The finest English prose I can get my hands on ...?
Where do you think I'm at, on the Space Shuttle? There's no reason for you to be vague on that point. In other words, you don't feel comfortable naming some of the finest prose out there because, quite frankly, you don't really understand why it's good, do you?
Likewise, "clunky" was a smokescreen. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd have taken a paragraph, stripped it, and told us why it fails. But that was also too risky too, wasn't it?
Even your point about "talent" is out-of-kilter. And this is not to say that I believe I don't have any, but to say the notion one must have a inborn "talent" for writing is as wrong-headed as it gets.
And it's been going on for years: bright-eyed fellows like yourself who for some reason would have us believe you know talent when you see it. In fact, you're not a successful writer yourself no doubt because you've convinced yourself you don't have "talent."
No matter, somehow you know talent when you see it and when you don't in others. But, again, we shouldn't ask you get specific because ... well, because it's not exactly something one can articulate, is it?
Too cosmic.
My novel does exactly what it intends to do. The story is rendered well. Everyone who's read the first three chapters wanted to know what happened next. That was the goal; the goal was accomplished.
A plot, as you should know, is objective. It is not cosmic. It requires no inborn ability to create. Even you can learn how to construct one.
Currently, there are many books on the market that explain how this is done. The "Marshall Plan" is one that comes to mind. There's no magic in this, no ingenious muse. You blueprint your novel the way you would build a house, then you build the house.
In this respect, my first three chapters laid a solid foundation that met every requirement a fictive piece asks ... except, perhaps, the cosmic one you call talent.
In other words, had you discussed structure, characterization, dialogue, conflict, turning points, scenes, syntax, grammar, etc., we'd have an objective way of evaluating your critique.
You didn't do this and I suspect the reason is, you can't do this ... well.
EG
elanders - 09 Jan 2009 18:16 GMT >>> September 1761 ? Return to Mecklenburg >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > "Yes, my lord, refreshments on each table, sir." Unless you mean "Your Grace" instead of "my lord", I don't see a thing wrong.
EG
Tasha Miller - 10 Jan 2009 10:55 GMT > "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." Oh dear, how potentially splashy!
Elanders, have you read the Flashman books by George MacDonald Fraser? Or any of Eleanor Hibbert's books as Jean Plaidy, specifically her Georgian Saga? I suspect I was in your target readership during my teens and I did read a great deal of historical fiction at one time. I am afraid the chapters you have presented so far have been a struggle for me to read. Some of that could probably be fixed by a good editor but I'd still be distracted by the problems you are having with historical accuracy and the story itself.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 12:04 GMT >> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'd still be distracted by the problems you are having with historical > accuracy and the story itself. What problems of historical accuracy?
There are none.
I've explained the Queen Mother thing so there are none.
If you or anyone else disagree, please identify what you're talking about.
"Fresh chamber pots and water in each" doesn't mean water in the chamber pots, it means water in the room. The fellow who pointed out his misreading of it, set the entire NG on that ill-informed path.
It's dialogue. It's how the maid would respond to the question, "Are the guestrooms ready?"
EG
LFS - 10 Jan 2009 12:49 GMT >>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > It's dialogue. It's how the maid would respond to the question, "Are the > guestrooms ready?" You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you?
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 14:41 GMT >>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you think you're making.
Now either beat it or show us you're right.
EG
tony cooper - 10 Jan 2009 16:03 GMT >> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? >Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you >think you're making. > >Now either beat it or show us you're right. She is a published author. For US $175, you can purchase her book on Amazon*. Editors and a publishing house have accepted her writing. That alone establishes that she's right, and that's as plain as the nose on your face.
*I don't have a count of what journals or other publications she's written for, but she does have at least one book on the market.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
LFS - 10 Jan 2009 16:53 GMT >>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? >> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > *I don't have a count of what journals or other publications she's > written for, but she does have at least one book on the market. I don't think that will cut any ice with this person, Tony. It clearly takes an entirely different set of skills to write in this historical farce genre, of which I confess to being hitherto completely unaware.
When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it will be impeccably punctuated.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud - 10 Jan 2009 18:23 GMT > When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on > my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of > the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it > will be impeccably punctuated. That one's going straight on my Amazon list.
 Signature David
Amethyst Deceiver - 12 Jan 2009 15:48 GMT > > When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on > > my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of > > the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it > > will be impeccably punctuated. > > That one's going straight on my Amazon list. I expect my copy to be signed.
 Signature Linz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2009 20:33 GMT >>> When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based on >>> my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I expect my copy to be signed. You can sign it yourself - you'll be one of the characters.
 Signature David
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:46 GMT >>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? >>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure that it > will be impeccably punctuated. I'm not so sure.
I'd have placed a comma after "extracts"
Agreed...?
EG
LFS - 10 Jan 2009 19:10 GMT >>>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? >>>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Agreed...? We have discussed this here before. Some think that there is no need for a comma before "but". My personal usage varies. In this case, I don't think that there is any doubt about the meaning of the sentence so no clarifying comma is necessary.
Your "pretty little boys" needed one, though: have you worked out why yet?
I have no idea why an ellipsis would ever be needed before a question mark.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 19:25 GMT >>>>>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? >>>>> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > I have no idea why an ellipsis would ever be needed before a question mark. No, and that's because unlike me, you see a comma error as an opportunity to play "let's drive the author crazy".
I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it did, tell me where.
Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on the question where you don't.
Is that the way you brits have fun?
EG
CDB - 11 Jan 2009 03:57 GMT [comma comma too down down]
> I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it > did, tell me where.
> Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on the > question where you don't.
> Is that the way you brits have fun? Of course it is. Haven't you figured out yet that you're being toyed with? Plaything. Disposable plaything.
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 11:39 GMT >[comma comma too down down] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Of course it is. Haven't you figured out yet that you're being toyed >with? Plaything. Disposable plaything. That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human being, no matter how irritating he has been. After all, no one asked you to read his or her posts. You should apologize, in my opinion.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
CDB - 11 Jan 2009 14:38 GMT >> [comma comma too down down]
>>> I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it >>> did, tell me where.
>>> Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on the >>> question where you don't.
>>> Is that the way you brits have fun?
>> Of course it is. Haven't you figured out yet that you're being >> toyed with? Plaything. Disposable plaything.
> That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human being, > no matter how irritating he has been. After all, no one asked you to > read his or her posts. You should apologize, in my opinion. I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment. Even though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep coming to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of. I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:57 GMT >>> [comma comma too down down] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of. > I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun. When you two fellows have something witty to say, let me know then I'll jump in.
EG
Frank ess - 11 Jan 2009 23:57 GMT >>> [comma comma too down down] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of. > I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun. I believe you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It is a demonstrable fact that the posters here are kind, generous, and capable. They have no need to toy with such as your "plaything"; if anything, they are victims of their own kindness, allowing elanders the pleasure of their attention, withdrawal of which will cause him to melt into a puddle of brown-sugar water.
 Signature Frank "Better a Whooshee than a Sticky-foot Lizard" ess
CDB - 12 Jan 2009 00:12 GMT >>>> [comma comma too down down]
>>>>> I told you the sentence didn't require one and if you thought it >>>>> did, tell me where.
>>>>> Rather than tell me where, you've written at least 20 posts on >>>>> the question where you don't Is that the way you brits have fun?
>>>> Of course it is. Haven't you figured out yet that you're being >>>> toyed with? Plaything. Disposable plaything.
>>> That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human >>> being, >>> no matter how irritating he has been. After all, no one asked you >>> to >>> read his or her posts. You should apologize, in my opinion.
>> I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment. Even >> though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep >> coming to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made >> sport of. I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.
> I believe you have the shoe on the wrong foot. It is a demonstrable > fact that the posters here are kind, generous, and capable. They > have no need to toy with such as your "plaything"; if anything, > they are victims of their own kindness, allowing elanders the > pleasure of their attention, withdrawal of which will cause him to > melt into a puddle of brown-sugar water. Oh, sure, the Americans. But the Brits are plaything him like a catnip mouse.
I was watching an episode of _Animal Precinct_ last night, about the activities of the NY ASPCA. After looking into the treatment of a small poodle by his indigent owner, and deciding that all the dog needed was a haircut which they could provide, the agent walked off with a deadpan line about their new friend; so I guess Americans do do irony, just a different variety of it: a kind of comment on the irony of fate, which is indeed what they use the word to mean. And I love that New York accent.
elanders - 12 Jan 2009 00:22 GMT >>>> [comma comma too down down] >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > withdrawal of which will cause him to melt into a puddle of brown-sugar > water. Get the f__k out of here.
Where do you people come from?
And what do you do for a living deliver newspapers?
Probably the closest you'll ever get to being published.
EG
Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:22 GMT > I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment. Even > though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep coming > to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of. > I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun. It seems rather disingenuous to describe elanders as "innocent".
 Signature Lew
CDB - 12 Jan 2009 15:00 GMT >> I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, and anyway I plead fair comment. Even >> though the truth is hard, it wasn't fair to let elanders keep >> coming to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made >> sport of. I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun.
> It seems rather disingenuous to describe elanders as "innocent". "Kind", was how I thought of it. Kinder than "silly", anyway. But maybe I was wrong: it's an old word for "innocent", and "silly sheep" brings our new friend back on topic.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IrcZEZ1bOJsC&pg=PA427&dq =%22silly+sheep%22 http://tinyurl.com/9wy74j
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2009 10:02 GMT >>> [comma comma too down down] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >to us for help and in his innocence being mocked and made sport of. >I'm sorry if you think I've spoiled your cruel fun. Now I think I see where you're coming from. I misread you, thinking you were launching a rather cruel attack when you wrote "Disposable plaything". Let's forget about it, CDB, OK?
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
CDB - 12 Jan 2009 15:21 GMT [elanders]
>>>> [...] Disposable plaything.
>>> That is a totally unacceptable way to refer to a fellow human >>> being, no matter how irritating he has been. [...]
>> I spoke in sorrow, Chuck, [...]
> Now I think I see where you're coming from. I misread you, thinking > you were launching a rather cruel attack when you wrote "Disposable > plaything". Let's forget about it, CDB, OK? Done.
Lew - 11 Jan 2009 01:23 GMT LFS wrote:
>> When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based >> on my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing world >> of the aue poster. I won't be posting extracts but you can be sure >> that it will be impeccably punctuated.
> I'm not so sure. > > I'd have placed a comma after "extracts" > > Agreed...? No. The comma there is not required, although it is common, at least in some style guides.
<http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm>
> Use a comma + a little conjunction (and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so) > to connect two independent clauses ... > Contending that the coordinating conjunction is adequate separation, > some writers will leave out the comma in a sentence with short, > balanced independent clauses At worst you can say that there are two schools of thought here.
 Signature Lew
Skitt - 11 Jan 2009 01:49 GMT > LFS wrote:
>>> When I have the time, I am planning an excursion into fiction, based >>> on my extensive collection of insights into the ever-intriguing [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > At worst you can say that there are two schools of thought here. You left out the final sentence of advice in the reference paragraph: If there is ever any doubt, however, use the comma, as it is always correct in this situation.
I'd use a comma. I have plenty of them.
 Signature Skitt (AmE)
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:39 GMT >>> You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? >> Look, you little nose-picker, you're wrong about whatever point you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Amazon*. Editors and a publishing house have accepted her writing. > That alone establishes that she's right ... It does not.
And why are you interrupting when grown folks are talking, Tony?
EG
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 11:31 GMT <snip>
>> What problems of historical accuracy? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >You really don't understand about the use of commas, do you? Are you referring to the unnecessary comma after "misreading of it" and the missing one after "Queen Mother thing"?
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:03 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Are you referring to the unnecessary comma after "misreading of it" > and the missing one after "Queen Mother thing"? No, Chuck. We're talking about how commas are used outside of Dublin.
No comma is required after "Queen Mother thing", it's just your delirium tremens kicking in again that makes you think so. And the comma after "misreading" is required because it's where the introductory clause ends.
EG
Skitt - 11 Jan 2009 19:25 GMT >>>> I've explained the Queen Mother thing so there are none. <snip>
>>>> "Fresh chamber pots and water in each" doesn't mean water in the >>>> chamber pots, it means water in the room. The fellow who pointed >>>> out his misreading of it, set the entire NG on that ill-informed >>>> path. <snip>
> No comma is required after "Queen Mother thing", [...] A comma there is optional but never wrong.
> And the comma after "misreading" is required because it's where the > introductory clause ends. Say what? Grammar English's Famous Rule of Punctuation: Never use only one comma between a subject and its verb. "Believing completely and positively in oneself is essential for success." [Although readers might pause after the word "oneself," there is no reason to put a comma there.]
Ref.: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
 Signature Skitt (in SF Bay Area) www.geocities.com/opus731/
Don Phillipson - 10 Jan 2009 17:00 GMT > What problems of historical accuracy? > There are none. . . . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It's dialogue. It's how the maid would respond to the question, "Are the > guestrooms ready?" The main complaint is anachronism, which can be either material (e.g. a foyer in a castle or palace) or social as in this case. Dukes did not ask their household staff whether guests' rooms are ready. This was the task of the duke's butler or steward: and the duke asks no such questions because he is confident in his steward (and the steward knows he would be dismissed immediately if anything was unready.)
Maidservants in 1760 appeared only when summoned (i.e. did not stand in the hall awaiting orders: that was what footmen did). Maids were spoken to only by senior staff (butler and housekeeper) (except only for maids or valets assigned personally to individual family members or guests.)
Making a duke behave in 1760 like the manager of a Holiday Inn in 1960 is a double anachronism, one of speech, the other of social (household) organization. One of the most enjoyable aspects of being a duke 250 years ago was the expectation that everything you wanted would be ready instantly without your even having to give an order.
 Signature Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 12:12 GMT >> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I'd still be distracted by the problems you are having with historical > accuracy and the story itself. Oh, and please, no bleeding heart stepping in to scold me about how I asked for criticism and now I'm rejecting it. Asking for criticism doesn't mean I can't comment on the criticism.
And by the way, there's an art to critique.
For example, Tasha, when you say you have a problem with the story itself--what is the author supposed to get from that? Is he supposed to look at the tea leaves in his cup for a clue to what you mean?
Or maybe ask his astrologer?
EG
Tasha Miller - 11 Jan 2009 00:44 GMT >>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And by the way, there's an art to critique. Well, I'm quite sure I don't possess it so we can probably agree on that, at least. I am commenting as a reader and not as a writer.
> For example, Tasha, when you say you have a problem with the story > itself--what is the author supposed to get from that? Is he supposed > to look at the tea leaves in his cup for a clue to what you mean? Other posters have covered your style and historical problems so there's no need for me to comment on those unless it is something that does stand out. As well as the more obvious ambiguous ordering in your sentence I thought you might have used the term chamber pot when you meant ewer or water jug. I thought that was possible because your other errors in word usage have made that a reasonable explanation. (No, I'm not going to list them, that's been done already by others.)
The most engaging aspect to your writing for me has been how unintentionally funny it is. You spend far too much time on often incorrect and trivial details and very little on the actual story line. In my opinion your story is simply turgid.
I recently read a collection of short stories by Ian Rankin (a successful genre writer) and in his introduction he mentioned paring down one of his stories from its original novella length. It is my experience as a reader than good writers write tightly. I certainly don't write tightly but neither do you and you're the one writing a book.
> Or maybe ask his astrologer? As I keep suggesting, if you are going to write within a genre, read widely within it first and learn the rules.
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 01:31 GMT >>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > As I keep suggesting, if you are going to write within a genre, read > widely within it first and learn the rules. Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it.
I you deal in cliches. Your entire non-critique, critique is derivative, the sort of thing I'm sure you've rolled out here time and time again tweaking it a little each time for each newby.
It's weak-minded and derivative, as I say, and has absolutely nothing to do with the excepts I've presented here -- nothing.
Now try and wrap your little head around this: the people in this news group are not writers. At best, they're fact checkers, anonymous clerks, the kind of people who work in publishing houses as readers for a little over minimum wage.
And I really hate to bust your bubble, but if you're going to make a career of kissing a.s, at least have some idea of whose a.s you're kissing.
EG
Sara Lorimer - 11 Jan 2009 04:27 GMT > Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just > joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. I don't know why you care so much about who's been professionally published and who hasn't, but since it's important to you: I've seen several published writers here say that your work needs help.
 Signature SML
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 05:05 GMT >> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. > >I don't know why you care so much about who's been professionally >published and who hasn't, but since it's important to you: I've seen >several published writers here say that your work needs help. And, of course, although you are to modest to proclaim yourself one, you are a published author. Different genres, but the point is that you have written books that have been accepted by publishers and purchased by readers. A goal that I doubt will be reached by elanders.
I own books written by two other aue people. I have one of Truly's books and one of Rey's books. I've never found one of James's books, but he is probably the most prolific and successful writer in the group. ("In" including those who are, or have been, aue regulars) Still writing for British television, I think. Brian has a book out, or will soon have a book out. Laura has at least one book on the shelves.
elander has the same chance of getting published as Sis does of marrying.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 08:40 GMT >>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > elander has the same chance of getting published as Sis does of > marrying. Odd.
You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony.
Is there not enough room here to list them all?
EG
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 13:19 GMT >You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony. > >Is there not enough room here to list them all? I worked for the _Indianapolis Times_, a Scripps-Howard newspaper,for a little over a year as an assistant to the writer of a restaurant reviewer. I believe this tops your experience as a reporter for a Virgin Islands free shopper.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:48 GMT >> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reviewer. I believe this tops your experience as a reporter for a > Virgin Islands free shopper. No, I was a full-fledge news reporter.
Assistant to the restaurant reviewer...?
What did you do -- carry his doggy bags for him?
EG
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 16:01 GMT >>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >What did you do Nothing important. You asked, I told.
> -- carry his doggy bags for him? What does a full-flege do? Groom his plumage?
Do I sense a "whoosh" flying in for a landing?
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 16:10 GMT >>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Do I sense a "whoosh" flying in for a landing? > "The whooshing round here has been so intense that I'm wearing hat, coat and gloves to type this", she observed, coldly.
Obaue: I *like* that final comma but it may not be strictly necessary.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 16:21 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your >>>>> own, Tony. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Obaue: I *like* that final comma but it may not be strictly > necessary. "It changes the nuance", he suggested subtly.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Robin Bignall - 11 Jan 2009 22:00 GMT >>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >"The whooshing round here has been so intense that I'm wearing hat, coat >and gloves to type this", she observed, coldly. "Are you wearing a bodice under that lot?" I ask, lasciviously.
>Obaue: I *like* that final comma but it may not be strictly necessary.  Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 22:09 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, Robin Bignall wrote
>>>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your >>>>>> own, Tony. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> > "Are you wearing a bodice under that lot?" I ask, lasciviously. "No," he replied, theatrically.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:12 GMT >>>>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> > "Are you wearing a bodice under that lot?" I ask, lasciviously. <Dick Emery> Oh, you are awful... but I like you!
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:42 GMT >>>> You told us about everyone's publishing credits but your own, Tony. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Do I sense a "whoosh" flying in for a landing? > Ok, full-fledged.
First writing error I've made.
Keep in mind, I responding to 20 people at once.
EG
Amethyst Deceiver - 12 Jan 2009 16:00 GMT > > What does a full-flege do? Groom his plumage? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > First writing error I've made. Well, the first that you've noticed.
 Signature Linz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary
Arcadian Rises - 11 Jan 2009 10:40 GMT > On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:27:57 -0800, SL...@DELETEcolumbia.edu (Sara > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And, of course, although you are to modest to proclaim yourself one, > you are a published author. What's so modest about it?
And what's the big deal about being a published author, nowadays, when everybody &his brother can become a published author? It's easier than going through medical school and a lot less glorious than saving lives.
When every year brings at least 30,000 of new published authors, the decent thing to do is not to clutter the overcrowded market. Better go blogging than asking your friends for meaningful Amazon reviews.
�>
> I own books written by two other aue people. �I have one of Truly's > books and one of Rey's books. �I've never found one of James's books, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or will soon have a book out. �Laura has at least one book on the > shelves. Never read any of the above, but I read on this forum several aue contributors with a real gift for words. None of them brags about being a published author, although some might have done the obligatory academic publishing.
> elander has the same chance of getting published as Sis does of > marrying. � Perhaps both are better off maintaining their status quo.
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 12:07 GMT <snip>
>I've never found one of James's books, >but he is probably the most prolific and successful writer in the >group. ("In" including those who are, or have been, aue regulars) >Still writing for British television, I think. You must not have looked very hard. Here's a list of 166 of his books, any one of which you can buy: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywor ds=James+Follett
 Signature Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 13:20 GMT ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >any one of which you can buy: >http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywor ds=James+Follett My book shopping is done in the Orlando used-book stores.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Chuck Riggs - 12 Jan 2009 10:07 GMT >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >My book shopping is done in the Orlando used-book stores. Oh my. I'll say no more.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 08:36 GMT >> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. > > I don't know why you care so much about who's been professionally > published and who hasn't, but since it's important to you: I've seen > several published writers here say that your work needs help. Name one.
EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 10:31 GMT >>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Name one. Two: Sara. Me.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Mike Page - 11 Jan 2009 11:57 GMT >>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Two: Sara. Me. And this one concurs.
 Signature Mike Page Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 11 Jan 2009 18:42 GMT >>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > And this one concurs. as does this one.
 Signature athel
Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:31 GMT >>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > And this one concurs. So do I, except I think it is beyond it.
 Signature Lew
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 12:01 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. >>>> You're just joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Two: Sara. Me. And if written-to-order books and articles count -- as they seem to as far as our ex-hack's "bibliography" is concerned -- I'd guess that a lot of the AUE regulars have been published numerous times.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 13:22 GMT >>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Two: Sara. Me. Not counting Rey?
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 13:29 GMT >>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Not counting Rey? Since Sara and I had already been outed, this seemed a more than adequate response in numerical terms. But, as Harvey as pointed out, many posters here have seen their work published in a variety of different forms. elanders [1] has yet to specify further criteria relating to publication eg Amazon ranking, book reviews, journal ranking, font size, type of paper.
[1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 13:58 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
> But, as Harvey as pointed > out, many posters here have seen their work published in a > variety of different forms. elanders [1] has yet to specify > further criteria relating to publication eg Amazon ranking, My (commissioned) book from 1991 on Romney Marsh churches apparently stands proudly today at rank number 1,643,034 on amazon.co.uk.
When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my triumphalism, I tell ya'.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 14:37 GMT > On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my > triumphalism, I tell ya'. My sole authored effort is at 1,955,621. But Prof Page and I hit the heights above you at 1,556,155.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 11 Jan 2009 18:52 GMT >> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My sole authored effort is at 1,955,621. But Prof Page and I hit the > heights above you at 1,556,155. Ha. If we're being triumphalist, then my best effort is at 100,264 (it would be nice to be in five figures, but honesty compels...). However, that's not a book likely to interest anyone here. The only one that conceivably might is languishing at 981,753. The first time I could afford to buy a (used) car (other than a cast-off bought cheaply from my parents) it was on the one-year proceeds from a book.
 Signature athel
Frank ess - 11 Jan 2009 23:44 GMT >>> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > cheaply from my parents) it was on the one-year proceeds from a > book. Naturally my twenty-four years'-worth of works-for-hire aren't eligible, nor is my 400+-page Web "presence", but there is a photo of me in action in Amazon USA #27,611.
 Signature Frank "Grasping at Straws" ess
Nick - 11 Jan 2009 14:54 GMT > On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my > triumphalism, I tell ya'. I'm a co-author of "Exploring Gloucestershire's Industrial Heritage", which doesn't even appear on Amazon. Then there's my thesis, of course (if 4 copies counts as "published", and a lot of internal writing for work.
I suspect a lot of people write things - instruction manuals, proposals, minutes, whatever - for their employers that get read by at least as many people than many filler articles in small newspapers. I'm also pretty sure that it's more important that they are readable and clear as well.
 Signature Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:55 GMT >> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > pretty sure that it's more important that they are readable and clear as > well. What I'm getting here, Nick, is that like you and Laura, this group is made up of benchwarmers.
EG
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 16:02 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, elanders wrote
>>> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > What I'm getting here, Nick, is that like you and Laura, this > group is made up of benchwarmers. Unlike them, you've refused to cite anything specific you've had published, and the only possible conclusion is that you haven't even made it to the bench yet.
Come back and let us know when you've actually managed to get something traceable in print; who knows -- we might even let you warm the bench for a little while.
Sara Lorimer - 12 Jan 2009 15:23 GMT
> My (commissioned) book from 1991 on Romney Marsh churches apparently > stands proudly today at rank number 1,643,034 on amazon.co.uk. > > When I meet the guy at 1,643,035, he's gonna feel the lash of my > triumphalism, I tell ya'. *Looks down at Harvey from the windy heights of spot 1,065,162*
 Signature SML
HVS - 12 Jan 2009 15:37 GMT On 12 Jan 2009, Sara Lorimer wrote
> >> My (commissioned) book from 1991 on Romney Marsh churches [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > *Looks down at Harvey from the windy heights of spot 1,065,162* I yam suitably 'umbled, I yam.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:52 GMT >>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd. Imagine you book has a title?
Do you plan to name that title?
EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 16:05 GMT >>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're >>>>>>> just [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Imagine you book has a title? It certainly does.
> Do you plan to name that title? No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:40 GMT >>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're >>>>>>>> just [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills. You're 15 minutes are over, Laura.
Beat it.
EG
billrigby@hotmail.com - 13 Jan 2009 18:43 GMT [...]
> > No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills. > > You're 15 minutes are over, Laura. I'm surprised no-one has yet commented on elanders' second actual writing mistake.
Will.
tony cooper - 13 Jan 2009 19:16 GMT >[...] >> > No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'm surprised no-one has yet commented on elanders' second actual >writing mistake. I think that the interest has waned. He has become too boring to bother about.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 Jan 2009 17:08 GMT >>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're >>>>>>>> just [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >No, let's see if you can find it. A good writer needs research skills. According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an author includes one in German about radiology. <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3> or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robin Bignall - 11 Jan 2009 22:11 GMT >>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're >>>>>>>>> just [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] ><http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3> >or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9 Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered Accountant" has it all: history, romance, bodice-ripping, mystery, financial skullduggery, galleons, treasure and balling with Sir Walter. Can't wait to see it in print. [I think he means "bowling". Ed.]
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
Mike Lyle - 11 Jan 2009 22:49 GMT [...]
> Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered > Accountant" has it all: history, romance, bodice-ripping, mystery, > financial skullduggery, galleons, treasure and balling with Sir > Walter. Can't wait to see it in print. > [I think he means "bowling". Ed.] "No, that was Drake," he said, ducking.
 Signature Mike.
Leslie Danks - 11 Jan 2009 22:55 GMT > [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "No, that was Drake," he said, ducking. Huh? Ducking with Sir Walter? Who was shooting at them?
 Signature Les (BrE)
Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 04:33 GMT > > [...] > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Huh? Ducking with Sir Walter? Who was shooting at them? Dich Cheney.
He gets around.
 Signature Bob Lieblich But there's no truth to the rumor that Cheney played Darth Vader in Star Wars
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 12 Jan 2009 06:36 GMT >> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > "Huh? Ducking with Sir Walter? Who was shooting at them? " Fired off Les
 Signature athel
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:56 GMT > [...] >> Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "No, that was Drake," he said, ducking. <applause>
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Mike Lyle - 11 Jan 2009 23:03 GMT >> [...] >>> Laura's "The Secret Life of Elizabeth the First's Chartered [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > <applause> "We thank you. You have been a great audience," he boomed majestically.
 Signature Mike.
Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:37 GMT >>> "No, that was Drake," he said, ducking. "I wish I were that quick," he said swiftly.
 Signature Lew
Robin Bignall - 12 Jan 2009 21:39 GMT >[...] >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >"No, that was Drake," he said, ducking. There was me, trying to contrast the one watching galleons float on the sea with the other watching his cloak float on a puddle. In the first case it led to the destruction of the Armada, while in the second it led to, er, what, if she really was the Virgin Queen? Possibly, in frustration during his time in the Tower, he invented the bicycle.
 Signature Robin (BrE) Herts, England
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:52 GMT >>>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're >>>>>>>>>> just [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Walter. Can't wait to see it in print. > [I think he means "bowling". Ed.] <makes note> I have yet to finish "All Human Life is There: the secrets of a Usenet newsgroup". I'm halfway through the seventy-third appendix, provisionally entitled "The Half Life of a Troll", which contains some complex statistical analysis investigating the correlation between a range of variables, including the guise in which the troll appears, the number of whooshes the troll elicits, the steepness of the descent into invective and the creativity of the invective, as measured on the Maledicta scale. This will enable the computation of the average length of time taken for RRs to lose patience and the construction of a finely calibrated automatic posting device which will insert, in any thread initiated by a troll, a Godwin-type post to end the thread.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 04:34 GMT [ ... ]
> <makes note> I have yet to finish "All Human Life is There: the secrets > of a Usenet newsgroup". I'm halfway through the seventy-third appendix, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > calibrated automatic posting device which will insert, in any thread > initiated by a troll, a Godwin-type post to end the thread. Adolf Hitler.
Next!
Roland Hutchinson - 12 Jan 2009 05:06 GMT > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Next! It doesn't work that way. You have to say that a troll is _like_ Adolf Hitler.
Oops! That's gone and done it.
Sorry, Squire.
 Signature Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 22:22 GMT >>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're >>>>>>>>> just [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3> > or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9 Radiology ...!
That's actually worse than a cook book.
Hahahahaha......
A regular Gertrude Stein in scrubs.
Say, Laura, if I buy a copy for my coffee table, will you xray it for me and sign it?
the xray, I mean.
Bahahahaha....
EG
R H Draney - 12 Jan 2009 06:42 GMT elanders filted:
>Radiology ...! > >That's actually worse than a cook book. Make up your mind; I have to know how to adjust the chair....r
 Signature "You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:29 GMT >>>>>>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're >>>>>>>>> just [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > <http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiral-CT-Laura-F-Spira/dp/3131357428/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1231693585&sr=1-3> > or http://tinyurl.com/9z2hh9 Odd, that. I see that another of my (genuine) jointly authored publications is apparently unavailable, which is odd as it was only published a couple of months ago.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 22:38 GMT >> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an author >> includes one in German about radiology. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > publications is apparently unavailable, which is odd as it was only > published a couple of months ago. I think it sold out following its selection as Richard and Judy's "Book of the Week".
 Signature David
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 22:56 GMT >>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an >>> author [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I think it sold out following its selection as Richard and Judy's "Book > of the Week". News just in: an updated edition is being rushed out to coincide with the release of the film version. Appearing at your local Odeon very soon: "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations".
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 23:14 GMT >>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an >>>> author [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > soon: "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights > from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations". Damn. I had forgotten, until that paragraph, that I know a little of the details of your area of expertise, insofar as it relates to my own work.
 Signature David
LFS - 12 Jan 2009 06:21 GMT >>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an >>>>> author [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the details of your area of expertise, insofar as it relates to my own > work. Yes, I'd probably find a chat with you about internal control issues quite useful at some point.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2009 09:00 GMT >>>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an >>>>>> author [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Yes, I'd probably find a chat with you about internal control issues > quite useful at some point. So now you're a gastroenterologist?
I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford.
 Signature David
LFS - 12 Jan 2009 09:10 GMT > I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford. Oh, do, we could organise a boink. Don't suppose you'll be anywhere near here this coming Friday? Katy J and I have plans to meet up. Will anyone else be about?
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2009 09:36 GMT >> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford. > > Oh, do, we could organise a boink. Don't suppose you'll be anywhere near > here this coming Friday? Katy J and I have plans to meet up. Will anyone > else be about? This Friday? No, sorry, theatre booked in Manchester so I'm staying in the North West. Have fun.
 Signature David
Mike Lyle - 12 Jan 2009 17:29 GMT >>> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This Friday? No, sorry, theatre booked in Manchester so I'm staying > in the North West. Have fun. Are you planning lunch or evening?
 Signature Mike.
Wood Avens - 12 Jan 2009 18:35 GMT >>>> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Are you planning lunch or evening? In Oxford, on Friday? Lunch. We'd love you to join us.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Mike Lyle - 12 Jan 2009 23:04 GMT >>>>> I'll see if I can engineer a trip to Oxford. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > In Oxford, on Friday? Lunch. We'd love you to join us. I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break somewhere reliably parkable would be juste le billet. Have you anywhere in mind?
 Signature Mike.
LFS - 12 Jan 2009 23:20 GMT > I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break somewhere > reliably parkable would be juste le billet. Have you anywhere in mind? Yes, indeedy - Quod in the High, 12 noon. Set lunch, 2 courses for a tenner. http://www.quod.co.uk/main/food/set-lunch/
There's parking for hotel guests, you might like to give them a call and see if it extends to the restaurant - otherwise the Park and Ride is best.
Great! Anyone else up for it? The shy and reclusive Mr D? Wolffs?
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Wood Avens - 13 Jan 2009 09:10 GMT >> I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break somewhere >> reliably parkable would be juste le billet. Have you anywhere in mind? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Great! Anyone else up for it? The shy and reclusive Mr D? Wolffs? Another parking option is the St Clements car park, behind the Angel & Greyhound pub where we've had boinks in the past. The Quod is five minutes walk or so from there, across Magdalen Bridge and along the High on the south side.
 Signature Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Paul Wolff - 13 Jan 2009 10:07 GMT >Mike Lyle wrote: >> I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Great! Anyone else up for it? The shy and reclusive Mr D? Wolffs? Hmm. Hang on six hours more for a really, really late lunch, and a free glass of wine may be ours:
Join us for the set lunch menu between 6 - 7pm and enjoy a glass of house white or red on us.
I asked at a pub the other day if they served their "Sunday Lunch" on any other day of the week, and the proprietor seemed to think it a silly question. But it wasn't half as silly as their not lighting the bar fire until 2pm on a frosty New Year's Eve.
Still thinking. Is booking needed?
 Signature Paul
LFS - 14 Jan 2009 09:32 GMT >> Mike Lyle wrote: >>> I'm heading for the London zone on Friday, so a lunch break [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Still thinking. Is booking needed? If there are more than three of us, it may be advisable.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Paul Wolff - 14 Jan 2009 10:46 GMT >Paul Wolff wrote: >>> Mike Lyle wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >If there are more than three of us, it may be advisable. Then count me in, please. I shall number one.
 Signature Paul
LFS - 14 Jan 2009 11:04 GMT >> Paul Wolff wrote: >>>> Mike Lyle wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> > Then count me in, please. I shall number one. OK, we're up to four, I think. Unless I am informed of additions to, or subtractions from, that number by 9 am GMT tomorrow, I'll book accordingly for 12 noon on Friday.
Please don't bring chocolate.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Mike Lyle - 14 Jan 2009 12:34 GMT >>> Paul Wolff wrote: >>>>> Mike Lyle wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Please don't bring chocolate. OK, no chocolate: I've eaten most of the Christmas whack, anyhow. I'll number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends: the cliché expert and her husband.
 Signature Mike.
LFS - 14 Jan 2009 15:15 GMT I'll
> number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends: the cliché > expert and her husband. Cliché expert? An expert in devising them or spotting them? Dear me, I shall have to be careful...
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
tony cooper - 14 Jan 2009 15:40 GMT >I'll >> number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends: the cliché >> expert and her husband. > >Cliché expert? An expert in devising them or spotting them? Dear me, I >shall have to be careful... You'll have to watch your p's and q's.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
HVS - 14 Jan 2009 16:01 GMT On 14 Jan 2009, tony cooper wrote
>> I'll >>> number /three/, having invited a couple of congenial friends: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You'll have to watch your p's and q's. It'll be like walking on egg-shells; everyone will be as nervous as a cat on a hot tin roof.
Anything could happen -- and probably will!
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Mike Lyle - 14 Jan 2009 19:56 GMT > On 14 Jan 2009, tony cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Anything could happen -- and probably will! As long as nobody says they avoid clichés like the plague: I think she'd lost count of people telling her that before even the first edition was ready for press. I wonder if "Don't mention the war!" is a cliché...
 Signature Mike.
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 23:18 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are >>>> the/an author [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the US: Insights from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley > Consultations". I read that as the "Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Constellations".
[Memo to self: clean glasses in morning.]
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
LFS - 12 Jan 2009 06:24 GMT > On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > [Memo to self: clean glasses in morning.] I have no doubt that, to some people, Nigel Turnbull, John Sarbanes and Michael Oxley are all stars.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Mike Lyle - 12 Jan 2009 17:01 GMT > On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote [...]>>
>> News just in: an updated edition is being rushed out to coincide >> with the release of the film version. I liked the cartoon version best. The musical was crap, though: they should have let you do the lyrics. Mike Page's daughter Elaine was pretty good, mind you.
>> Appearing at your local >> Odeon very soon: "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [Memo to self: clean glasses in morning.] X-thread note. Wear glasses into the shower. Plus point: you can't really help cleaning them. Minus point: you can now see that the bathroom wants cleaning too.
 Signature Mike.
LFS - 12 Jan 2009 17:29 GMT >> On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > should have let you do the lyrics. Mike Page's daughter Elaine was > pretty good, mind you. <giggle>
>>> Appearing at your local >>> Odeon very soon: "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > really help cleaning them. Minus point: you can now see that the > bathroom wants cleaning too. Do be careful. I had a terrifying moment recently when I stepped into the shower and found myself blinded as a white mist covered my eyes: after several seconds of panic, which felt like hours, I realised that I was still wearing my glasses.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 Jan 2009 23:21 GMT >>>> According to Amazon (UK) the list of books of which you are the/an >>>> author [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >soon: "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights >from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations". I wonder how that will fare against the competition from:
_I Did You My Way_, by Bernard Madoff.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 04:36 GMT [ ... ]
> News just in: an updated edition is being rushed out to coincide with > the release of the film version. Appearing at your local Odeon very > soon: "Reporting on Internal Control in the UK and the US: Insights > from the Turnbull and Sarbanes-Oxley Consultations". Dammit, Laura, the very title is a spoiler.
Do you do autographs with dedications?
 Signature Bob Lieblich Your ardent disciple
LFS - 12 Jan 2009 06:40 GMT > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do you do autographs with dedications? Anything for you, Bob.
If you're at all interested, you can read it here: http://www.icas.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=5775
The help of aue posters is formally acknowledged in Page, M and Spira, L.F (2009) ‘Economia, or a Woman in a Man’s World’ Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(1) 146-160
This one has pictures, too. Unfortunately I can't provide a web link but I'm happy to send a copy to interested parties.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Amethyst Deceiver - 12 Jan 2009 16:08 GMT > > [ ... ] > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > This one has pictures, too. Unfortunately I can't provide a web link but > I'm happy to send a copy to interested parties. I've got a link, but I'm not sure if it's Manchester only.
 Signature Linz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 22:47 GMT >> On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:05:52 +0000, LFS >> <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > publications is apparently unavailable, which is odd as it was only > published a couple of months ago. Don't give up quite yet, Laura.
Oprah might call.
EG
Frank ess - 11 Jan 2009 23:28 GMT [ ... ]
> [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd. I'm getting some kind of sticky-toed lizard image.
 Signature Frank ess
Skitt - 11 Jan 2009 23:50 GMT
>> [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd. > > I'm getting some kind of sticky-toed lizard image. I'm thinking of antelope hunters.
 Signature Skitt, drawing from experiences in these places: http://www.geocities.com/opus731/places.html
Irwell - 12 Jan 2009 03:31 GMT > >>> [1] I imagine that an elander is something like a cowherd. >> >> I'm getting some kind of sticky-toed lizard image. > > I'm thinking of antelope hunters. Eland is often used in crosswords, maybe that is why elanders has a hard on for Bob.
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:50 GMT >>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Two: Sara. Me. Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura.
EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 15:58 GMT >>>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just >>>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura. I see you are refining your criteria as I predicted but our published works do not fall into that genre - a pity, as it can be lucrative.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:47 GMT elanders wrote:
>> Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura.
> I see you are refining your criteria as I predicted but our published > works do not fall into that genre - a pity, as it can be lucrative. Why don't cookbooks count? Do they not need to be grammatically correct? Clearly written? Engaging?
Consider the classic /Joy of Cooking/ [1], or the /James Beard Cookbook/, which are extremely well written. And there are any number of thematic cookbooks, such as /Dishing Up Vermont/, <http://www.northshire.com/siteinfo/bookinfo/9781603420259/0/>, which deliver entertaining biographies or regional anecdotes in addition to the recipes. It takes a good writer to make a good cookbook.
[1] described by Craig Claiborne of the NY Times as "a masterpiece of clarity".
 Signature Lew
Athel Cornish-Bowden - 12 Jan 2009 06:43 GMT > elanders wrote: >>> Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Consider the classic /Joy of Cooking/ [1], or the /James Beard Cookbook/, Nice to know that James Beard is still appreciated. Such cooking as I ever learned came from his book, way back in 1968.
 Signature athel
Irwell - 12 Jan 2009 16:21 GMT >> elanders wrote: >>>> Yeah, well, cookbooks don't count, Laura. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nice to know that James Beard is still appreciated. Such cooking as I > ever learned came from his book, way back in 1968. We worked our way through 'Beard on Bread' but have found the bread machine a lot easier.
Arcadian Rises - 11 Jan 2009 16:00 GMT > >>>> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just > >>>> joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Not even Alexandre Dumas' cookbook and culinary encyclopedia?
Tasha Miller - 11 Jan 2009 06:05 GMT >>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > career of kissing a.s, at least have some idea of whose a.s you're > kissing. Well, you certainly know how to construct a non sequitur. Well done!
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 08:42 GMT >>>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > Well, you certainly know how to construct a non sequitur. Well done! Better quit while you're ahead, Tasha.
Your nose is beginning to turn brown.
EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 09:50 GMT [in response to some very sensible comments from Tasha]
> Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're just > joining the bandwagon-- a bandwagon with not one published writer on it. Wrong.
> I you deal in cliches. Your entire non-critique, critique is derivative, > the sort of thing I'm sure you've rolled out here time and time again [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now try and wrap your little head around this: the people in this news > group are not writers. Wrong.
At best, they're fact checkers, anonymous clerks,
> the kind of people who work in publishing houses as readers for a little > over minimum wage. > > And I really hate to bust your bubble, but if you're going to make a > career of kissing a.s, at least have some idea of whose a.s you're kissing. As far as I can tell, from dipping in and out of the various threads you have launched, there is little evidence available about the "published writer" status of any of the posters. You now seem to be arguing that any critical comment is only of value if the commentator has this status. As you have been made aware, I am a published writer, yet you choose to dismiss my views. There are others here, who have taken the time and trouble to respond to you, who are also published writers but see no need to offer credentials because this is an unmoderated newsgroup and anyone can post, read, respond or ignore according to their whim.
You have chosen to expose your work here. Those responding to your posts have done so for all sorts of reasons. Some have offered thoughtful and serious responses but you have not seen fit to thank them. Some have responded less seriously, offering a less tolerant critique of your work. And many regular posters have ignored you completely. If you were serious about seeking helpful feedback, you would have thanked those who have provided you with material to improve your work and taken the opportunity to engage with those posters rather more positively. There are newsgroups and web communities specifically devoted to writing: these would be more appropriate arenas for the type of critique that you may be seeking. However, your behaviour here suggests that you are not at all serious about this.
If you aspire to be a published writer, you will certainly find that editors and publishers will not be prepared to engage with you unless you play the game according to their rules. Your behaviour here may reflect the deliberate adoption of a newsgroup persona: if not, I would suggest that, in addition to improving your writing, you will need to modify your behaviour.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 10:15 GMT > [in response to some very sensible comments from Tasha] >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > suggest that, in addition to improving your writing, you will need to > modify your behaviour. What have you published, madam?
And spare me your wailing and gnashing of teeth.
A simple title will do.
EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 10:36 GMT > What have you published, madam? > > And spare me your wailing and gnashing of teeth. > > A simple title will do. Do your own research, it'll be good practice for your future writing career.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 16:38 GMT >> What have you published, madam? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do your own research, it'll be good practice for your future writing > career. Hahahaha...
You're a joke.
EG
Arcadian Rises - 11 Jan 2009 10:50 GMT [...]
> If you aspire to be a published writer, you will certainly find that > editors and publishers will not be prepared to engage with you unless > you play the game according to their rules. Your behaviour here may > reflect the deliberate adoption of a newsgroup persona: if not, I would > suggest that, in addition to improving your writing, you will need to > modify your behaviour. In other words, don't try to emulate Mark Twain or Henry Miller, but the huge army of brown nosers who know how to play politics in order to see their prose printed.
> -- > Laura > (emulate St. George for email) Robert Lieblich - 11 Jan 2009 16:16 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the huge army of brown nosers who know how to play politics in order > to see their prose printed. This is grossly unfair, AR, and you should know that. Civility is not brown-nosing, and "f.ck you" (to quote one of elanders's pithier retorts) is not civility.
Geniuses get to make their own rules, as the likes of Einstein, Wagner, and Pollock demonstrate. The rest of us can try to emulate them, but it won't get us anywhere.
I have been uncivil to elanders, as he has to me, but neither of us expects anything from the other -- aside from incivility -- and neither will get anything. Including satisfaction.
And both you and I have better things to do than this.
 Signature Bob Lieblich Furrfui
Roland Hutchinson - 12 Jan 2009 05:11 GMT > Geniuses get to make their own rules, as the likes of Einstein, > Wagner, and Pollock demonstrate. Now that's one heck of a law firm.
 Signature Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Robert Lieblich - 12 Jan 2009 05:43 GMT > > Geniuses get to make their own rules, as the likes of Einstein, > > Wagner, and Pollock demonstrate. > > Now that's one heck of a law firm. I was an associate back in the day. It was hell to pay when Pollock went to court.
 Signature Bob Lieblich They paid us in operas and paintings (if only)
Chuck Riggs - 11 Jan 2009 11:57 GMT >>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>>> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> >Really, miss, you have no idea what you're talking about. Instead of writing the invective we're beginning to expect from you, you should thank Tasha for her constructive comments on your writing attempts, especially since they can use all the help they can get. But continue with your nonsense, elanders, and you'll soon find yourself without a readership in this group.
<snip>
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 15:45 GMT >>>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>>>> Oh dear, how potentially splashy! [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > <snip> I've been waiting for you to kill file me, Chuck.
What are you waiting for?
EG
Roland Hutchinson - 10 Jan 2009 14:12 GMT >> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." > > Oh dear, how potentially splashy! It would, after all, be the height of studied rudeness to ask one's guests to make water for themselves.
 Signature Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 14:51 GMT >>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >> Oh dear, how potentially splashy! > > It would, after all, be the height of studied rudeness to ask one's guests > to make water for themselves. > In Here's the passage:
"Are the rooms ready?"
"Yes, My Lord, fresh chamber pots and water in each."
In other words, bereft of wit, you chowder heads removed the first sentence to take the sentence out of context.
You're poking fun at an error of your own design--masturbating.
Consider:
"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."
Same structure. Anything wrong with it?
EG
Leslie Danks - 10 Jan 2009 15:20 GMT [...]
> Consider: > > "Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each." > > Same structure. Anything wrong with it? This has two possible meanings, just as the original sentence did. If it's deliberate and done for laughs, there's nothing wrong with either of them. If it's not deliberate, some readers will laugh anyway; others will trip over it. My guess is that you know that anyway and are simply trolling. If you don't know, and seriously believe the sentence is OK, I suggest you try your hand at something different -- an evening course in welding, for example.
 Signature Les (BrE)
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 15:40 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > your hand at something different -- an evening course in welding, for > example. Tell me, if you're making a point about the passage, why do you eliminate the context?
This requires me to put it back in context every time I reply.
Here's the passage:
------------------------------------>
"Are the guestrooms ready?
"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."
------------------------------------->
Now maybe you're talking about a Brit thing, because in the states there's nothing wrong with the exchange. It's not ambiguous. The meaning of the second speaker is known at once. It's how we talk.
We don't say, "Yes, there are fresh towels in each room and soap in each room."
It's not how we talk.
Actually, I don't think it's how you talk either.
EG
Leslie Danks - 10 Jan 2009 16:54 GMT >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Tell me, if you're making a point about the passage, why do you > eliminate the context? Sorry, Old Bean -- got a bit carried away with the pinking shears.
> This requires me to put it back in context every time I reply. Worse things have happened at sea. And, in any case, you know the context, I know the context and anyone else following this part of the thread up to now will also know the context.
> Here's the passage: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Actually, I don't think it's how you talk either. Well, of course it isn't -- and, incidentally, you get a couple of extra points for cunningly replacing "chamber pots and water" with "soap and towels", which is a much less risible example of this type of ambiguity. It's still ambiguous, though. I would prefer:
"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each room."
It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it would scare away many of your putative readers.
 Signature Les (BrE)
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:51 GMT >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it > would scare away many of your putative readers. This is silliness, it truly is, and you fellows need to stop.
There's nothing wrong with that sentence.
EG
Lew - 10 Jan 2009 22:54 GMT >>> ------------------------------------> >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>> >>> Actually, I don't think it's how you talk either. Leslie Danks wrote:
>> Well, of course it isn't -- and, incidentally, you get a couple of extra >> points for cunningly replacing "chamber pots and water" with "soap and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it >> would scare away many of your putative readers.
> This is silliness, it truly is, and you fellows need to stop. > > There's nothing wrong with that sentence. Actually, the referent for "each" is ambiguous in that it could be either "towels" or "guestrooms". It's similar to,
"Are the dinner places set?" "Yes, my Lord, fresh glasses and a cocktail in each."
When the context was "guestrooms" and "chamber pots", the ambiguity was less easily resolved by the context and much funnier.
 Signature Lew
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 01:09 GMT >>>> ------------------------------------> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > When the context was "guestrooms" and "chamber pots", the ambiguity was > less easily resolved by the context and much funnier. There wasn't a thing wrong with the original text.
I'm keeping it.
Let's move on.
EG
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 19:05 GMT > >> [...] > >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > It just takes one extra word, it removes the problem, and I doubt that it > would scare away many of your putative readers. I have left all the context in place.
My objection -- based solely on my own experience, of course, as if there was something else I could draw on -- is that the maid is unlikely to say anything beyond "Yes, my lort." Period. On top of which, I find it hard to believe that the lord of the manor would be checking the condition of the guest rooms with the maid. He should have staff for that and should be ablt to take it for granted that all is as it should be -- although I must concede that the author is entitled to populate the household as eccentrically as he wishes.
Look, elanders, it's clear that you came here for approbation and are trying to persuade us of your virtues by argumentation because you are unable to demonstrate them in your prose. Okay, you're entitled to feel that we're all a bunch of ignorant misantrhopes and you are the Shakespeare of the historical romance. Just don't expect us to agree with you merely because you say so.
I've had some experience of editing and publication myself. A good editor, if he or she could be assed to do the job, might be able to save you from yourself, but I doubt that you could actually persuade one to bother. Left to your own devices. if you can't do any better than you've done so far, you might as well give up all hope of publication. If you want to write for your own amusement, don't let us get in your way, but don't expect us to tell you we like what we obviously do not like.
Just for laughs, here's a cursory crituque of one paragraph from your thread-opener:
Not long after [add comma] six coaches arrived ["pulled" should be "pulled up," which means "arrived" so why not just say "arrived"?] in front of the Palace of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons [Were they in the coaches or alongside? If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, not the coaches. (And they must have been awfully tired.) Synechdoche need not be stretch to cover this.] : twelve [prefereable to "12"] slim-waisted men bristling ["Bristle" implies some sort of aggressiveness. I'd say "wearing," which is neutral. Surely they weren't arriving to attack the palace.] with sword, pistol, and campaign gear. Poor, [It's early in 2009, but this is a strong contender for dumbest comma of the year] Franz, the Duke's butler, [Ah, he does have a staff to give orders to the maid] looked out the window as if the French Army was outside. [He may have reacted as if the French Army was outside, but he didn't "look," in the sense of "fasten eyes on" that way. He could have "looked" that way in the sense of facial expression, but then he wouldn't be "look"ing out a window. You've jumbled two senses of the word.] The Duke came to the top of the stair and called to him, "Franz, outside, quick!" [How about "Franz -- Outside! Quick!"?] Franz snapped to his too-tall height, [The cliche is "snapped to attention." Tinkering with it only makes things worse. Also, have we already established that Franz is "too tall" (a cousin of Ed Jones, perhaps)? If we have, then "full height", if you must mention his height, is preferable. If not, putting it here distracts from the action; the reader wonders how tall is "too tall," and how can one be "too tall". Does Franz bang his head on door lintels?] adjusted his alpine cap and flew out the door. ["Flew." Pure cliche. Almost any other verb would be preferable. Also, if he's "snapped to [attention]", how can he fly out the door. I envision a basketball player doing a rapid goose-step.] Somewhere in the room [What room? all the action so far has been outside or at the door. The next sentence makes clear that the gasp came from behind the duke. Say that.] a woman gasped. The Duke whipped his head around [cliche] in search of the usurper. [What makes the gasper a usurper? There's no setup for this. A partial repair would be putting something in the preceding sentence. Try "As Franz ran out, the duke heard an unexpected gasp behind him." I'm not sure you can tell the gender of a gasper merely from the gasp, and it isn't necessary for what follows, so I've omitted it.] Seeing no one, he lost his patience: [Show, don't tell. How about "Seeing no one, he roared:] "Everyone in front of me, now!" {Surely this is not what he roared. He's the duke of a German castle, not S. Epatha Merkerson.] he commanded. Instantly the maids and attendants came out of their hiding places. [Why were they in hiding places? Is this common behavior for the servants in German castles? Of is the point that neither we nor the duke expected them to be hiding? If so, this is a bit late to be finding out.] "We'll have none of this!" he thundered. [Tom Swift, anyone?] I won't stand for it! And where is Frau Schwellenberg?
Okay, some of the missing info may appear in a previous chapter, but somehow I doubt it. The principal point remains intact -- you have a tin ear. Your writing is off-key. You don't have to agree with me on this, or on any of my critiques, but I don't have to agree with you that you are the land-based version of Patrick O'Brian -- and I don't.
But enough.
 Signature Bob Lieblich Wasting his time (again)
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 20:12 GMT >>>> [...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > > But enough. Bob, you weren't doing editing, you were doing stand-up. The closest you came to a genuine edit is the Tom Swiftie, but even there, you showed you don't know the full rule about Tom Swifties.
Everything else was a set-up looking for a punchline, a punchline never delivered -- not once.
Well, that has no more to do with editing than spam has to do with steak.
I write "six coaches pulled in front of the palace" and you say, no -- it should be "arrived in front of the palace."
Why, Bob?
Because "pulled should be pulled-up and pulled up means arrived."
Of course "pulled" is a perfectly fine verb that transmits an imagine that links to the coach and horses, but you would have me kill that imagery and replace it with a word that tells us only that they got there.
Then you say "pulled" is wrong anyway and should be "pulled up." Why do you say that, Bob? You really don't know, do you? It sounds glib enough. Is that why you believe "pulled" should be "pulled-up", Bob?
And here's another one of your gems, Bob:
>looked out the > window as if the French Army was outside. [He may have reacted as if > the French Army was outside, but he didn't "look," in the sense of > "fasten eyes on" that way. He could have "looked" that way in the > sense of facial expression, but then he wouldn't be "look"ing out a > window. You've jumbled two senses of the word.] Honestly, Bob, what in the world are you talking about?
I wrote "He looked out the window..." and your edit is, "but he din't 'look,' in the sense of 'fasten eyes on'"
What...?
You go on Bob: ------------------------------------ He could have "looked" that way in sense of facial expression, but then he wouldn't be 'look'ing out a window. You've jumbled two senses of the word" -------------------------------------
My, God, Bob, what on earth are you talking about? Were you sniffling glue when you wrote that? It makes no sense. It's complete jabbberwocky.
The Duke looked out the window. That's a basic as a sentence gets. And how does "fasten his eyes on" come into discussion? Where'd you get that from? The only place I can thing of is the textbook edit that warns you shouldn't write "he put his eyes on..." but that's something completely different, Bob.
Every other "edit" you made is just as farcical as the one directly above -- completely worthless.
My recommendation to you, Bob, is that you don't post -- or edit -- when you're field testing Hallucinogens.
ED
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 21:19 GMT [Snip all context. If you care, you can find it.]
> Bob, you weren't doing editing, you were doing stand-up. The closest you > came to a genuine edit is the Tom Swiftie, but even there, you showed > you don't know the full rule about Tom Swifties. Of course, I do. Yours was no Tom Swiftie. It was merely so ludicrous that it put me in mind of Tom Swifties.
> Everything else was a set-up looking for a punchline, a punchline never > delivered -- not once. You ask for sperific instances, then complain when you get them.
> Well, that has no more to do with editing than spam has to do with steak. Do you have any idea what a book editor does?
> I write "six coaches pulled in front of the palace" and you say, no -- > it should be "arrived in front of the palace." > > Why, Bob? > > Because "pulled should be pulled-up and pulled up means arrived." Absolutely so.
> Of course "pulled" is a perfectly fine verb that transmits an imagine > that links to the coach and horses, but you would have me kill that > imagery and replace it with a word that tells us only that they got there. Coaches do not pull -- intranstive. That's a matter of English idiom. Horses pull coaches. coaches "pull up." Coaches can "pull" in the transitive only. As between "arrive" and "pull up," I prefer "arrive." You don't have to tell us, or even suggests, that coaches are pulled by horses -- no one expects them to be pushed by gerbils You have simply missed a point of idiom.
> Then you say "pulled" is wrong anyway and should be "pulled up." Why do > you say that, Bob? You really don't know, do you? It sounds glib enough. > Is that why you believe "pulled" should be "pulled-up", Bob? Because intransitive "pull" is unidiomatic with "coaches." That's why.
> And here's another one of your gems, Bob: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Honestly, Bob, what in the world are you talking about? If I say "John looked at the picture," that's one sense of "look." He is seeing something. If I say "John looked as if he had seen a ghost," that's another sense of "look." He is being seen (if not in actuality, then by the reader). You jumble these two sense. You have him "look out the window" and "look as if the French Army was outside" -- but you use "look" only once. The result is that the one use of the word has to carry two inconsistent meanings. You could have written "He looked out the window and reacted as if the French Army was outside." No award-winner, but at least it's accurate.
> Were you sniffling > glue when you wrote that? It makes no sense. It's complete jabbberwocky. If you aren't prepared to pay attention, wny do you ask for specifics.
> The Duke looked out the window. That's a basic as a sentence gets. Nothing wrong with it -- until he then looks as if the French Army had arrived.
> And > how does "fasten his eyes on" come into discussion? Where'd you get that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Every other "edit" you made is just as farcical as the one directly > above -- completely worthless. So when you complain of conclusions and ask for specifics, you ignore the specifics and express conclusions.
> My recommendation to you, Bob, is that you don't post -- or edit -- when > you're field testing Hallucinogens. "Field-testing" needs a comma, and there's no need to capitalize "Hallucinogens." I'd also replace "don't" with "not." That aside, it's clear that you're playing "Heads I win, tails you lose." Those who tell you you're a lousy writer are criticized for not explaining in detail. Those who give you details are critiicized by you in conclusory form.
I predict that you will never be paid a cent for any of your fiction and that you will still be overcompensated.
 Signature Bob Lieblich Feh!
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 22:42 GMT > [Snip all context. If you care, you can find it.] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course, I do. Yours was no Tom Swiftie. It was merely so > ludicrous that it put me in mind of Tom Swifties. First of all in the strict sense, a Tom Swiftie is only adverbs ending in ly. Secondly, the second part of the rule says if you don't over do it, there are times you can get away with it.
Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. I use them far more infrequently, but yes, sometimes I do use them. In the instance you cite it was George II. I wanted him to come across as a farcical character. The action is pretty intense and I thought I could get away with it.
Are you aware of a work of fiction that doesn't contain some Tom Swifties? But then you'd have rejected Harry Potter for them, huh?
"We'll have none of this!" he thundered.
>> Everything else was a set-up looking for a punchline, a punchline never >> delivered -- not once. > > You ask for sperific instances, then complain when you get them. Your edits are weak-minded and you often miss context. In the scene with the Tom Swiftie, the King is the only one with them. That should have told you I was going for effect, but it did not.
> >> Well, that has no more to do with editing than spam has to do with steak. > > Do you have any idea what a book editor does? I know it has nothing to do with what you've done.
>> I write "six coaches pulled in front of the palace" and you say, no -- >> it should be "arrived in front of the palace." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Absolutely so. Absolutely not.
Here's a link with thousands of instances of pulled being used precisely the way I use it. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pulled
What about "the train pulled into the station." "the car pulled in front of the station"
>> Of course "pulled" is a perfectly fine verb that transmits an imagine >> that links to the coach and horses, but you would have me kill that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are pulled by horses -- no one expects them to be pushed by gerbils > You have simply missed a point of idiom. But "pulled" is also an idiom.
Google "pulled in front".
Indeed, pulled is one of the most frequently used idioms we have -- he pulled a fast one... pulled the wool over my eyes ... pull his career down ... he has no pull...
We don't say "the horses pulled in front of the palace" no more than we say "the engine pulled in front of the places" Google it and it returns nothing.
>> Then you say "pulled" is wrong anyway and should be "pulled up." Why do >> you say that, Bob? You really don't know, do you? It sounds glib enough. >> Is that why you believe "pulled" should be "pulled-up", Bob? > > Because intransitive "pull" is unidiomatic with "coaches." That's why. No it's not. It's said all the time -- the carriage pulled in front ... the coach pulled in front ... the car pulled in front ... the coach pulled ahead ... the driver pulled ahead ... the red wagon pulled ahead ... and so on.
>> And here's another one of your gems, Bob: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > written "He looked out the window and reacted as if the French Army > was outside." No award-winner, but at least it's accurate. Ok, that's a little bit better, and had you explained it like that, I'd have got your drift. But "fasten eyes on" makes no sense at all.
That said, "he looked out the window as if the French Army was outside" is serviceable. It's also idiomatic. I've heard this and you've heard this and people say it all the time. Directly above you make an argument for the idiomatic use of words and expressions, here you say it's a fatal error.
You should try to be consistent.
>> Were you sniffling >> glue when you wrote that? It makes no sense. It's complete jabbberwocky. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > in detail. Those who give you details are critiicized by you in > conclusory form. Field testing does not need a comma ... or for that matter, the hyphen you give it, Bob. And there's no need to capitalize "heads". And learn how to spell criticize, Bob. Honestly, if you're going to hold yourself forth as a writing guru, at least edit your own work.
And I probably am a lousy writer, but not because of any of the reasons you gave. Your edits are useless, fella. You take language and idioms by the ankles and shake them until things fall to the ground. That's not skill, Bob; it's not editing either. It's masturbation, and any fool can do that.
And I'll prove this. Post some of your fiction here and watch as I red-pencil the same kind of silliness you do.
Go ahead. Post it right here, Bob.
> I predict that you will never be paid a cent for any of your fiction > and that you will still be overcompensated. Gee, of course I hope you're wrong, but tell us about your bona fides, Bob. Why should anyone place a dime's worth of store in anything you have to say about writing?
Are you published ...?
EG
Robert Lieblich - 10 Jan 2009 23:29 GMT [ ... ]
> And I'll prove this. Post some of your fiction here and watch as I > red-pencil the same kind of silliness you do. > > Go ahead. Post it right here, Bob. Sorry, fella. I don't write fiction, nor do I pretend to. What I write on usenet is intended as casual conversation, so of course it could be vastly improved by good editing. But that would require someone other than me to do the editing, and that's plainly impracticable. It's not as if I'm trying to peddle the stuff to anyone as literature. As best I can recall, I've never tried to sell a piece of prose to anyone for any reason.
As for whether what I'm doing is silliness, I suppose that depends on how you think the reader will react. I'm a reader, and I reacted, but of course you are free to treat me as a pathological case and ignore me -- which seems to be what, for the most part, you are doing. Either we talk past one another or we simply disagree. Neither is much fun beyond small doses.
> > I predict that you will never be paid a cent for any of your fiction > > and that you will still be overcompensated. > > Gee, of course I hope you're wrong, but tell us about your bona fides, > Bob. Why should anyone place a dime's worth of store in anything you > have to say about writing? If they think I know what I'm talking about, they will. If not, they won't. I've been posting to AUE for more than ten years, so there's plenty of evidence. Again, though, most of that is cursory and off-the-cuff. I'd try harder if I were trying to sell something.
> Are you published ...? Actually, yes, but not in any sense particularly relevant here. Here's a teaser: <http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/sschooner/Memorex2.html>. I've also sold some crossword puzzles for publication, but that was before the triumph of the Web, and none seem to be online.
 Signature Bob Lieblich Harmless drudge
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 01:06 GMT > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > sold some crossword puzzles for publication, but that was before the > triumph of the Web, and none seem to be online. Oh, Gawd.
I followed the link.
You're even more pathetic than I thought.
EG
Sara Lorimer - 11 Jan 2009 04:27 GMT > Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. Does she? I can't remember any, and they tend to stick out. Could you point some out to me, please?
 Signature SML
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 09:01 GMT >> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. > > Does she? I can't remember any, and they tend to stick out. Could you > point some out to me, please? Exactly.
A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed.
But try it like this: do you know of any best-selling writing who doesn't use Tom Swifties?
EB
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 10:30 GMT >>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But try it like this: do you know of any best-selling writing who > doesn't use Tom Swifties? Obaue: "Writer...who", "writing...which"
Yes, indeed. I've just read "Scarpetta" by Patricia Cornwell, second in the NYT best selling hardback fiction list this week. Not a Tom Swifty to be seen.
Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to support your assertion.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 10:47 GMT >> A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed. >> >> But try it like this: do you know of any best-selling writing who >> doesn't use Tom Swifties? > > Obaue: "Writer...who", "writing...which" TCE: "Writing ... that".
 Signature David
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 12:13 GMT >>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to > support your assertion. Was she serious?
Of course Rowling uses them, but let's make a *real* point here.
Let's look at Gertrude Stern's use of them. Here are a few lifted from one chapter of Stein's "Three Lives"
"Oh! Oh!" groaned Miss Mathilda. "But Anna," argued Miss Mathilda "Oh, Anna!" cried little Jane running back into the house, "We never use them in the summer, Miss Jane," she said thickly.
"Miss Mary!" cried Anna running to her mistress and supporting all her helpless weight back in the chair.
"There's ma now," cried Julia in an uneasy triumph _______________________________________________________________
And you'll recall, Stein taught Hemingway how to write.
Look, the point is this: anything is fine if done well.
EG
LFS - 11 Jan 2009 13:19 GMT >>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Look, the point is this: anything is fine if done well. Ah. Say no more. My suspicions have been confirmed.
 Signature Laura (emulate St. George for email)
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 13:49 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, LFS wrote
>>>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> "We never use them in the >> summer, Miss Jane," she said thickly. -snip-
> Ah. Say no more. My suspicions have been confirmed. "One should never use Swifties in the summer", he temporised.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Sara Lorimer - 12 Jan 2009 15:29 GMT > > Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to > > support your assertion. > > Was she serious? Yes. To me, a Tom Swifty is something along the lines of "'I've dropped my toothpaste,' Tom said crestfallenly."
I don't remember seeing any of those in the Harry Potter books. I'm wondering if I missed them, or if Tom Swifties are something else to you.
 Signature SML
elanders - 12 Jan 2009 16:52 GMT >>> Anyway, that's not how it works. Sara asked you for an example to >>> support your assertion. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > wondering if I missed them, or if Tom Swifties are something else to > you. I don't know. I don't even care.
All I know is, I use "he/she said" 95% of the time which is far more than Gertrude Stein and a whole lot of other distinguished authors do.
EG
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2009 10:35 GMT >>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed. Hardly worth bothering then.
 Signature David
Robert Lieblich - 11 Jan 2009 16:51 GMT > >>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hardly worth bothering then. I dunno, David. Maybe the idea is to bury them where the rabble read right past them but the cognoscenti detect them and gasp in admiration. Of course, that's damned tough to do. Of course, there's always Gertrude Stern (sic).
I note also that elanders is flexible in his definition of "Tom Swiftie." None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom Swiftie" by strict definition.
 Signature Bob Lieblich Not so swift himself
HVS - 11 Jan 2009 16:58 GMT On 11 Jan 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote
>>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Swiftie." None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom > Swiftie" by strict definition. "None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the definition", he said expansively.
 Signature Cheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
tony cooper - 11 Jan 2009 17:27 GMT >On 11 Jan 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >"None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the >definition", he said expansively. "Your point is well-taken", he said sharply.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Lew - 12 Jan 2009 01:57 GMT Robert Lieblich wrote
>>> I note also that elanders is flexible in his definition of "Tom >>> Swiftie." None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom >>> Swiftie" by strict definition. HVS wrote:
>> "None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the >> definition", he said expansively.
> "Your point is well-taken", he said sharply. "elander's examples were a bunch of crap," he pooh-poohed.
 Signature Lew
elanders - 12 Jan 2009 02:28 GMT > On 11 Jan 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "None of those examples is a Tom Swiftie even if you stretch the > definition", he said expansively. Who gives a flying fatman?
Call it a friggin' Tom Slowee, for all I care.
The point is, if you think it's the best thing to stick in, stick it in.
It's not all that important.
You novel is not going to be wrecked because of it.
That's all.
EG
elanders - 11 Jan 2009 21:32 GMT >>>>> Rowling uses thousands of Tom Swifties in Harry Potter. >>>> Does she? I can't remember any, and they tend to stick out. Could you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Swiftie." None of his examples in this thread is a "Tom Swiftie" by > strict definition. You should talk about flexibility, Bob. You made about 25 edits on my except none of which you're apparently interested in defending. I've set up a thread for you to do that, but you've yet to respond.
Your problem is you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference.
For example, I wrote:
"Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons"
Your edit was:
"Were they in the coaches or alongside? If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, not the coaches."
Well, that's ridiculous, Bob. It takes our colloquial use of language and tortures it into something it was never meant to be -- a pool of words to be inserted into crossword puzzles.
We don't write "accompanying the people in the motorcade" we write
"Accompanying the motorcade was a detachment of motorcycle police." http://tinyurl.com/6tu2do
In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not.
---------------------------------------------------->
Here's another example of your wrongheadedness:
I wrote --
"12 slim-waisted men bristling with sword, pistol, and campaign gear ..."
Your edit:
"Bristle" implies some sort of aggressiveness. I'd say "wearing," which is neutral. Surely they weren't arriving to attack the palace.
----------------------------------------------------->
Wrong, Bob.
Their purpose has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were armed to the teeth. Again, your edit is just wrongheaded.
Also, for reasons unclear, you told me to get rid of "12" and write it out.
Again -- wrong, Bob.
And in every edit following these you do the same thing -- replace what I've written for no other reason than you were able to find an alternative you preferred.
Well, that's not editing; that's a guy trying to write my book for me.
Finally, here's something else that's not editing: cheap shots.
I wrote:
"Poor, Franz was looking ..."
Obviously, the comma after poor is a typo.
Not in your book, Crossword Puzzle Bob. In your book it's the "dumbest comma of the year!"
---------------------------------------------> Bob's edit:
Poor, [It's early in 2009, but this is a strong contender for dumbest comma of the year] ---------------------------------------------->
Ironically enough, right after making this claim, you gave us a sentence with three of your own typos.
But wait ... Crossword Bob was just getting warmed up ...
Once he figured he had everybody's attention, he gave us this gem:
-------------------------------------------------> I recommend you stop all attempts at creative writing for at least six months and spend your time reading the finest English prose you can get your hands on. If that doesn't do it, I recommend stopping again, this time for good.
There's nothing wrong with a lack of talent. I lack talent in so many fields -- creative writing included -- that I doubt the remainder of my life would suffice to enable me to list them all. From what I've read of your writing, you have no talent for it. Consider trying something else. ------------------------------------------------->
Can you imagine that?
He gets every edit absolutely wrong, has never penned as much as a love letter in his life, and yet has the nerve to give the kind of pompous speech Ezra Pound would have had too much humility to give to the worst hack writer of all time.
Honestly, Bob, since you've never studied plot, characterization, dialogue, action, narrative, etc ... since you know zero about these things, what are you doing pontificating on fiction?
You have no expertise in the field. You've admitted this yourself -- so why are you holding yourself forth as a guru?
And how long have you been pulling this crap around here?
How long have you been telling young writers their writing sucks and should try something else?
How long, Crossword Bob?
EG
CDB - 10 Jan 2009 15:59 GMT >>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>> Oh dear, how potentially splashy!
>> It would, after all, be the height of studied rudeness to ask >> one's guests to make water for themselves.
> Here's the passage:
> "Are the rooms ready?"
> "Yes, My Lord, fresh chamber pots and water in each."
> In other words, bereft of wit, you chowder heads removed the first > sentence to take the sentence out of context.
> You're poking fun at an error of your own design--masturbating.
> Consider:
> "Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."
> Same structure. Anything wrong with it? In a constructive spirit, for once: reigning dukes don't inquire after the state of the towels. They have someone who does, and, if preparations are lacking, several someones who will suffer for it; but they themselves assume that all is in readiness, if they think about it at all, as they do not.
I understand that this is not a serious objection, since your target demographic doesn't know or care about sociological or historical accuracy, even of the amateurish kind of which I am capable.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:52 GMT >>>>> "Yes, My Lord. Fresh chamber pots and water in each." >>>> Oh dear, how potentially splashy! [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > demographic doesn't know or care about sociological or historical > accuracy, even of the amateurish kind of which I am capable. Another fellow made this point and it's a good one.
Don't know why I had to pull teeth to get you guys to start making quality observations like the above.
EG
Arcadian Rises - 10 Jan 2009 15:03 GMT [...]
> read more � Yes Sir!
I cannot believe that at least 5 distinguished aue contributors, in a collective pavlovian reaction, jumped to peruse your prose.
And no, EG, there is no punch line.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 15:44 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And no, EG, there is no punch line. I can't believe five distinguished aue contributors have not been able to articulate why the following passage is poorly constructed:
------------------------------------>
"Are the guestrooms ready?
"Yes, My Lord, fresh towels and soap in each."
------------------------------------->
EG
Arcadian Rises - 10 Jan 2009 18:03 GMT > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I can't believe five distinguished aue contributors have not been able > to articulate why the following passage is poorly constructed: Why don't you take it up with your editors? Perhaps they will recommend an expert to answer all your questions you can afford.
elanders - 10 Jan 2009 18:53 GMT >>> [...] >>>> read more [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Why don't you take it up with your editors? Perhaps they will > recommend an expert to answer all your questions you can afford. Why don't you go to hell?
EG
Irwell - 10 Jan 2009 23:18 GMT >>>> [...] >>>>> read more [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > EG Where is that pretty chamber maid(made)? Stoke-0n-Trent, or is she taking the piss?
CDB - 11 Jan 2009 04:16 GMT [contumely]
>> Why don't you take it up with your editors? Perhaps they will >> recommend an expert to answer all your questions you can afford.
> Why don't you go to hell? Wandering vaguely the other day, I was struck by the thought that to give someone "the Devil down below" might have been a way of avoiding "Hell", at a time when that word was considered too strong for the ears of the genteel. CTAlert, and all that.
|
|
|