The Reading Vent & Rant Thread

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One thing that does bother me is certain words that take me out of the book.

I know the book I am reading is an old book. It's copyright 1934.

The words so far are (and some don't mean what you may think).

1. ejaculated
2. thank-offering
3. hare

The book is A Man Lay Dead by Ngaio Marsh.

Holmes caused Watson to ejaculate all the time.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Holmes caused Watson to ejaculate all the time.

That's some real stamina on Watson's part.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

That's like saying "ebook reader apps are available as tablet, phone, etc. Apps."

They are just NOT the same as using a quality dedicated device. Ok in a pinch but that's about it.

If I need to use an app, I will use Google Sheets instead. My calculator doesn't get used every day, but it does get used multiple times a week and having a dedicated device is very worth it for me.

I use my HP multiple times every. single. day. I don't know what I'd do without it. No, using some app or some other thing...wouldn't be the same. This calculator has been with me for what, 35-38 years? Hell.

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One thing that does bother me is certain words that take me out of the book.

I know the book I am reading is an old book. It's copyright 1934.

The words so far are (and some don't mean what you may think).

1. ejaculated
2. thank-offering
3. hare

The book is A Man Lay Dead by Ngaio Marsh.

Yeah, Jon, sorry, but I read a LOT of Golden Age stuff and I see those all the time. It's right up there with "inculpated," which was commonplace in the early 19th Century but has fallen into disuse now.

And yes, Watson did cause Holmes to ejaculate often!

Hitch

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Holmes caused Watson to ejaculate all the time.

From the link I posted:

Another Sherlock Holmes spit-take moment is found in 'The Speckled Band': Holmes apologises to Watson for 'knocking him up'. At the time, this meant to cause somebody to wake up (by knocking on their bedroom door), and did not have the modern meaning of 'to render pregnant'. Juuuuuust in case the Holmes/Watson relationship needed any more Ho Yay... or Mpreg... It's worth another spit-take when Holmes goes on to explain that Mrs. Hudson has just knocked him up, after having been knocked up herself.

(I beg of you, if you do not know what Mpreg is, do not look it up.)

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

From the link I posted:



(I beg of you, if you do not know what Mpreg is, do not look it up.)

Yup. You gotta go with the (real) flow, in reading anything from the 18th or 19th centuries. Hell, from the mid-20th, too.

Hitch

[andyh2000]

It's possible that 'knock [him/her/them] up' is still an idiom meaning 'wake up' in some dialects of British English. At least it was about twenty years ago - I was on a trip and somebody I knew vaguely happened to be on the same trip in the same hotel. She asked me to knock her up in the morning - luckily I guessed what she meant although I hadn't come across the phrase in that context before.

Andrew

[Apache]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

It's possible that 'knock [him/her/them] up' is still an idiom in some dialects of British English. At least it was about twenty years ago - I was on a trip and somebody I knew vaguely happened to be on the same trip in the same hotel. She asked me to knock her up in the morning - luckily I guessed what she meant although I hadn't come across the phrase before.

Andrew

I have also heard this phrase used years ago.
Apache

[JSWolf]

Even though you know the no longer used definition of these no longer used works (in that way), they can still take you out of the book as the first thing you may think of is the modern meaning.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Even though you know the no longer used definition of these no longer used works (in that way), they can still take you out of the book as the first thing you may think of is the modern meaning.

Maybe depends on your age, culture and how many old books you read?

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by andyh2000

It's possible that 'knock [him/her/them] up' is still an idiom meaning 'wake up' in some dialects of British English. At least it was about twenty years ago - I was on a trip and somebody I knew vaguely happened to be on the same trip in the same hotel. She asked me to knock her up in the morning - luckily I guessed what she meant although I hadn't come across the phrase in that context before.

Andrew

I have friends/acquaintances that STILL use this, in the UK and in Ireland. I may have giggled like a 12y.o. the first time I heard it used, 30-ish years ago, but thankfully, I've grown up since then. So, yes, it's still in use. Not commonplace here, in the US, but still in use. (And IIRC, I have at least one Canuck friend that uses it as well.)

Originally Posted by Quoth

Maybe depends on your age, culture and how many old books you read?

Yeah, to some extent, or how...difficult you want to be about your reading material. I won't put some book down from the 1920's, let's say, because it's racist or sexist or homophobic. If you can't take people and events from the past as they really were, you're trying to rewrite history--and that never ends well.

Hitch

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yeah, to some extent, or how...difficult you want to be about your reading material. I won't put some book down from the 1920's, let's say, because it's racist or sexist or homophobic. If you can't take people and events from the past as they really were, you're trying to rewrite history--and that never ends well.

Hitch

Choosing not to read such attitudes doesn't mean trying to rewrite history. It simply means that one is making a choice about how one spends one's limited recreational reading time. It's easily possible to acknowledge that that is how people were while also deciding "I'd rather use my spare time reading something else, something I will enjoy reading."

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Choosing not to read such attitudes doesn't mean trying to rewrite history. It simply means that one is making a choice about how one spends one's limited recreational reading time. It's easily possible to acknowledge that that is how people were while also deciding "I'd rather use my spare time reading something else, something I will enjoy reading."

Sure--but it also means that you cut yourself off from ALL the great classics, too. I mean, if you're not going to read anything with attitudes that don't reflect that which is construed as "correct" today, you can't read Austen. You can't read anything from the Golden Age of detective fiction, including Sayers, Christie, Chandler, etc. You can pretty much read NOTHING before, well...maybe 2010.

Now...I'm sure that this isn't you, Uncle Robin, but I've found that those who typically espouse this tend to be highly selective in what they consider "offensive" versus what they don't. Some will assert that they won't read, say, Stout (Rex Stout, Nero Wolfe) because there are a few books with offensive language or stereotypes in it, but they'll read Austen without blinking an eye--which depicts an age in which women are little better than chattel, and utterly dependent upon MEN (and making a good marriage) to come out okay. Under the primogeniture rules, well, they're just screwed--and hey, that's just fine to read, but if Rex Stout's characters utter the "n" word, well...that's unreadable. My point is, people very rarely seem consistent in this "I won't invest time in this offensive-to-me-literature" application. But then again, people are rarely logical or consistent in anything, so I'm not sure why it should surprise me in this, either.

To me, deciding to eschew "offensive" literature would be horribly limiting, but sure, each and every person has to make their own choices about what they wish to do. We all make those choices, those decisions, every day, in what we choose to watch, see, read, and upon what we will and won't invest our very sparse recreational time. So, yes, I agree with your point.

Hitch

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Hitch

if you're not going to read anything with attitudes that don't reflect that which is construed as "correct" today

What a patronising assumption. It denies the very real possibility that some might choose to avoid mores of the past because they find them personally offensive. Personal mores, personal ethics and personal choices can in fact be just that, not simply submssion to some alleged societal diktat of "correctness".

[Sirtel]

For me, things that I find offensive in real life are vastly more numerous than things I find offensive in fiction. Of the latter there aren't much I can't read. For example, I'm perfectly able to enjoy Austen, regardless of the fact that I'm fiercely independent in real life. Also, I can read and enjoy various politically incorrect fiction, but I cannot stand most of those things in real life. For me, fiction and life just aren't the same.