Rude author blasts commentor who complains about typos

[leebase]

More hogwash....you should sell bacon. Now audiobooks threaten democracy? really!!??

So if someone listens to a history book they are less informed than someone who reads chick-lit?

Now I'm frightened that you have the same amount of votes that I do.

Lee

[anamardoll]

"So this is how democracy dies... to the sound of audiobooks playing..."

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

"So this is how democracy dies... to the sound of audiobooks playing..."

Sure, sure.

[anamardoll]

Don't tell George Lucas.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

Listening and reading engage the mind differently; they are different skills.

...that achieve the same goal. So it really doesn't matter which skill set you use.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...that achieve the same goal. So it really doesn't matter which skill set you use.

What goal? If the goal is to experience the work in an optimal way they are not the same. For each text either reading or listening to it will be the optimal way to experience it. And I really think that for most texts reading is the optimal way because most text really demand that you can vary the speed you process the text.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by tompe

What goal? If the goal is to experience the work in an optimal way they are not the same. For each text either reading or listening to it will be the optimal way to experience it. And I really think that for most texts reading is the optimal way because most text really demand that you can vary the speed you process the text.

This is *entirely* subjective. I hated "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" until I listened to it -- the narrator brought meaning and inflection to the text that I simply wasn't. Other people will feel differently than I in regard to that text, and their opinion is just as valid as mine because this is subjective.

Tl;dr: This is a very silly argument.

[OneandonlyDoc]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Lastly and most importantly: Can you understand this? TXT U 2MOZ. The world is changing. Are semi-colons and colons so vital anymore? If I write the city of Lindon, do you realise that I actually meant London? Of course you do. So get off your high horse and tell your network of Ebook bloggers to go ind fcuk themselffs.

....wow. No, I so don't know that you're talking about London if you write Lindon. I assume that you're talking about some place called Lindon, and no, I don't speak TXT, either. WTF was that supposed to mean?

How old is this guy? Eighteen, nineteen? Mired in the "Me Me Me Special Snowflake Everything I Do Is Awesome Even When It's Not?" There's something to be said for self-confidence, sure...but you're right, Ficbot, the typos are his problem.

I recently self-published a novelette. A reader told me that he found ONE TYPO (form instead of from, a product of typing too fast and something I overlooked on multiple read-throughs). What did I do? Immediately turned around and fixed the copy as fast as I could.

There's no excuse for not turning out some kind of quality product just because you're self-publishing. Period, end of story.

Cut, print, that's a wrap.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by tompe

And I really think that for most texts reading is the optimal way because most text really demand that you can vary the speed you process the text.

I don't do that; and never did. I read silently at the same speed I read aloud.

[mr ploppy]

I just read the first 2 chapters and I don't see what the fuss is about. The formatting is horrid, it looks like the Word files I get from secretaries who don't know how to start a new page without adding lots of returns.

But there's no more typos in it than you get from most professional writers these days. A few missing commas, a few apostrophes where there shouldn't be one, and the odd joinedword.

Makes me wonder what books the reviewers are reading if this one stands out in any way.

[carpetmojo]

[QUOTE=anamardoll;
This is why you will always, ALWAYS, learn more from reading "Twilight" rather than listening to a multi-cast recording of Shakespeare's plays. [/QUOTE]

Hang on, hang on ................

I'm quite happy to let it pass as a bit of artistic licence........... actually, no, I'm afraid I cant. Not to put too fine a point on it, that's rubbish, if you'll pardon my directness.

Listening to a "good" cast read Shakespeare can be much better than reading it, no question.
[In fact, a mediocre cast might do, come to think of it..........]

They were, let's not forget, written to be primarily heard, mainly by people who couldn't read anyway.

[And seen, naturally]

And as for comparable content, as regards to learning anything ?

Job done, surely........

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

...Tl;dr: This is a very silly argument.

And most of them around here aren't?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Listening to a "good" cast read Shakespeare can be much better than reading it, no question.
[In fact, a mediocre cast might do, come to think of it..........]

I'm a STRONG proponent of listening/watching Shakespeare over reading him, so that was actually why I picked him for the example.

So, I agree.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I don't do that; and never did. I read silently at the same speed I read aloud.

I keep reading the same sentences over and over and then I fall asleep.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by elcreative

And most of them around here aren't?

Hey! Watch it!