View Single Post
Old 02-18-2014, 10:04 AM   #85
MikeB1972
Gnu
MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.MikeB1972 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,222
Karma: 15625359
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Device: BeBook,JetBook Lite,PRS-300-350-505-650,+ran out of space to type
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw View Post
I assume that definitions 1 and 2 are out, which leaves us looking at "preeminent performer" - doesn't that suggest something slightly different to your always subjective "very good" interpretation? To me it suggests that he's talking about one that performs extremely well, and with books I would normally think that performance related to sales rather than quality of the prose.
Unless you are already very popular though, you have no idea how a novel will sell. In this case a "Stellar Manuscript" using the definition of stellar you posted would have to be called a "Potentially Stellar Manuscript".

In the context of his post he is using stellar to mean "very good" (Which is how the Mirriam-Webster dictionary lists it).
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stellar
MikeB1972 is offline   Reply With Quote