What are eBooks?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nope. Fictional literature is not allowed to have fictional characters speak words whose origins can be traced to the names of fictional characters from other fictional literature. It's quantum stuff. I'm frankly surprised the page the sentence was on wasn't sucked into a black hole immediately after I read it.

In which case all authors of fictional literature must learn to use a much smaller vocabulary if they want to keep you happy. According this this site Shakespeare invented over 1700 of our common words. Some of the examples given include: hint, generous and gloomy.

More seriously, I agree with your sentiment. If I still strongly associate a word or phrase with some other fiction that has no right to be known in this new universe ("beam me up, Scotty!") then I will definitely be disturbed in my reading. But the impact is going to vary widely from reader to reader. For example I probably wouldn't have complained about "quixotic" unless I sat back and thought about it. ... And that's largely the point. A good book/story can get away with more than slow/bad one. The more time the reader spends distracted or bored or skimming the more critical they will be of the details.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by gmw

More seriously, I agree with your sentiment. If I still strongly associate a word or phrase with some other fiction that has no right to be known in this new universe ("beam me up, Scotty!") then I will definitely be disturbed in my reading. But the impact is going to vary widely from reader to reader.

Oh I agree entirely. I was mostly having a little fun (though "quixotic" did truly trip me up). Clearly the degree to which a reader may be disturbed by words/phrases like this is largely based on personal preference/tolerance, experience and familiarity with the etymology of particular words. I'd never seriously suggest that it's the duty of all authors to limit their fictional characters' vocabularies to words whose etymology won't "break the fourth (fictional) wall," so to speak. I'd just encourage authors to be cognizant of the fact that such words/phrases do exist for some readers.

Spoiler:

... and to avoid using the ones that will bug me (or failing that, to not take it personally whenever I encounter one I can't--rational or not--ignore).

[issybird]

Originally Posted by meeera

I'm actually somewhat ok with that aspect of the sentence, as I reckon incipient can stretch to the earliest swelling of the belly. But there's a nasty dangler at the end:

"From the chimneys of scattered farmhouses and small stone cottages, smoke rose, straight as columns, up into the still air, and flocks of sheep, heavy with wool and incipient pregnancy, gathered around feeding troughs, stuffed with fresh hay."

(OK, OK, perhaps the sheep were stuffed with fresh hay. But I don't think that's what we were supposed to think.)

Thanks for expanding and correcting my imperfect memory! And providing yet more evidence that Rosamunde Pilcher is not the author for me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

I'm actually somewhat ok with that aspect of the sentence, as I reckon incipient can stretch to the earliest swelling of the belly. But there's a nasty dangler at the end:

"From the chimneys of scattered farmhouses and small stone cottages, smoke rose, straight as columns, up into the still air, and flocks of sheep, heavy with wool and incipient pregnancy, gathered around feeding troughs, stuffed with fresh hay."

(OK, OK, perhaps the sheep were stuffed with fresh hay. But I don't think that's what we were supposed to think.)

I don't have any issues with that sentence. "Stuffed with fresh hay" is a predicate for the noun that it's next to, "feeding troughs". We could perhaps lose the comma between the two, but there's nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We could perhaps lose the comma between the two, but there's nothing grammatically wrong with the sentence.

The comma is the problem. It turns 'stuffed with fresh hay' into just one of the attributes listed for the sheep.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

Thanks for expanding and correcting my imperfect memory! And providing yet more evidence that Rosamunde Pilcher is not the author for me.

Oh gosh. What's overstuffed is that sentence.

[Apache]

And the sheep stuffed with fresh hay would soon be full of something else that would not be quite as fresh.
Apache

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I regard the publisher's role as a "gatekeeper" as important...

...Baen...

EDIT: Okay, admittedly a bit trollish But to pursue the question further and avoid "arguing taste," is it even reasonable to present Baen as an example of traditional publishing? Isn't nontraditionality of selection, promotion and distribution a substantial part of their shtick? Maybe they're playing some kind of gatekeeper role, more in terms of subject matter than quality, perhaps, but I'd place them somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between "self pub" and "trad pub." Their business model is at least in part an attempt to disrupt traditional publishing. Do most of their authors even approach them through agents?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by taosaur

What is it that you find amusing about this, may I enquire? Baen publish damned good SF and fantasy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by taosaur

EDIT: Okay, admittedly a bit trollish But to pursue the question further and avoid "arguing taste," is it even reasonable to present Baen as an example of traditional publishing?

In what specific way would you consider them not to be a traditional publisher? They sign publishing contracts with authors, and publish hardbacks, paperbacks and ebooks.

Isn't nontraditionality of selection, promotion and distribution a substantial part of their shtick?

Not that I'm aware of. They are a traditional publisher specialising in SF and fantasy, just as, say, TOR and Ace do. In what way would you regard Baen as different to TOR?

Maybe they're playing some kind of gatekeeper role, more in terms of subject matter than quality, perhaps...

I'm afraid I disagree. Baen certainly act as a gatekeeper in quality terms. Amazon is full of appallingly bad SF. The reason I buy Baen's monthly bundle each month, sight unseen, is precisely because 20-odd years' experience has taught me that they publish books that I enjoy. I see nothing remotely funny about that even if you do.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Apache

And the sheep stuffed with fresh hay would soon be full of something else that would not be quite as fresh.
Apache

Actually, it would be quite fresh, if not fresher...

[Geralt]

I find the choice of Bean questionable as well, don't they just do mostly rightwing military sf and fantasy?

If Harry has mentioned Tor or Gollancz as fantasy/sf gatekeepers I would though ok. But Bean?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

I find the choice of Bean questionable as well, don't they just do mostly rightwing military sf and fantasy?

If Harry has mentioned Tor or Gollancz as fantasy/sf gatekeepers I would though ok. But Bean?

Firstly, they are called "Baen", not "Bean".

Secondly, sure they are SF and fantasy publishers (certainly not only "right wing", though!), but what does that have to do with whether or not they act as effective "gatekeepers" for that genre? It is a fact that I enjoy what they publish, therefore for me personally they are highly effective as gatekeepers. Naturally, that would not be true for someone who does not like the type of books that they publish.

[Geralt]

It was a typo. Chill.

Well if what they publish is rightwing military sf and fantasy, they are pushing an agenda more then doing some gate-keeping.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

It was a typo. Chill.

Well if what they publish is rightwing military sf and fantasy, they are pushing an agenda more then doing some gate-keeping.

I've already told you that what they publish is far from exclusively "right wing". One of their best-known authors, Eric Flint, is rather well-known for being extremely "left wing".

They are no more "pushing an agenda" than Harlequin are pushing a romance agenda; they are simply a specialist genre publisher, just like Harlequin are.