[R] 'Amazing Maurice' and the Merkins...
Kathleen M.
Will it be comming here to America? A friend of mine said it wouldn't be, and
I've asked a few places and they don't have it in thier schedual (sic) for next
year. I'm so confused...
However....
I have another question- Is the book worth an import? I've seen mixed reviews
for it, and I'm really not so sure if it's worth the currency conversion and
whatnot. >_>
Thanks.
-Kathleen
-------
-looking for answers and looking for the clue
i'm in a paradise, i'll keep it forever
"Using a key to gauge explitves on ones vehicle is a sign of trust and
friendship."- Inignaut, 'Mayhem of the Mooninites' from 'Aqua Teen Hunger
Force'
Speaker-to-Customers
"Kathleen M." wrote ...
> Help me clear something up about 'Amazing Maurice'-
>
> Will it be comming here to America? A friend of mine said it wouldn't be,
and
> I've asked a few places and they don't have it in thier schedual (sic) for
next
> year. I'm so confused...
>
> However....
It is available already in America, according to some posts on
alt.books.pratchett.
Here are some cut-and-pastes of the relevant posts:
"I am in California, and i found like 5 TAMAHER books sitting in the "Young
Adult" section @ Borders"
and
"I had a similer experience at Borders (in Texas). After searching for the
book in both the sci-fi & the kiddie section, I went to the floor guy who
steered me to the Young Adults section (I hadn't realized that this was
different from the kid's section). The guy knew Pratchett (I think he'd even
read him) but had never heard of TAMaHER and seemed suprised to find it
there. I suggested that they might have more luck moving some of the books
over to the other Diskworld stuff, and he shrugged and said corporate makes
that decision and they weren't allowed to shift stuff around"
So perhaps you're not looking in the right places.
> I have another question- Is the book worth an import? I've seen mixed
reviews
> for it, and I'm really not so sure if it's worth the currency conversion
and
> whatnot. >_>
It would be worth selling your house and car for- in fact selling your
house, car, computer, and one of your kidneys for. Life holds no pleasures
that can hold a candle to reading "Maurice".
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
soltan_
"Kathleen M." <neferti...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011203185430...@mb-cf.aol.com...
> Help me clear something up about 'Amazing Maurice'-
>
> Will it be comming here to America? A friend of mine said it wouldn't be,
and
> I've asked a few places and they don't have it in thier schedual (sic) for
next
> year. I'm so confused...
>
> However....
Unless there is another Pterry book with the name "Amazing Maurice"
somewhere in the title, the work is already available in the U.S.. I've
read a few pages at my local Barnes and Noble here in San Diego.
Perhaps I'm mistaken and that was just a fever dream caused by some
inelegantly prepared fish....
Cliff
"Speaker-to-Customers" <oct...@mcb.net> wrote in message
news:9uh57s$72h$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net...
>
> "Kathleen M." wrote ...
> > Help me clear something up about 'Amazing Maurice'-
> >
> > Will it be comming here to America? A friend of mine said it
wouldn't be,
> and
>
> "I am in California, and i found like 5 TAMAHER books sitting in the
"Young
> Adult" section @ Borders"
> and
> "I had a similer experience at Borders (in Texas).
Borders in Columbia, Maryland, has sold more than 50 as of Saturday. The
clerk who answered my questions had herself put 5 on the shelves on
Friday. And they were already all gone. Now, why are they moving in
batches of 5? Is this normal?
==
--
Cliff
"In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made
School Boards." Mark Twain
Kathleen M.
>alt.books.pratchett.
>SNIP!<
Huh. Must not be here in Florida yet. (I also have to sock my friend when I get
the chance) Hmmmmm..
thanks for the info.
(Sorry if th' title confused people. I don't know the abbrv. for 'Amazing
Maurice and his Educated Rodents', or I'd mess it up horribly)
BTW, would it be found in the Kids Section or the general Sci-Fi?
-Kathleen (who is most informed and confused)
soltan_
> BTW, would it be found in the Kids Section or the general Sci-Fi?
It is in general sci-fi at Barnes and Noble
Paul Wilkins
> Huh. Must not be here in Florida yet. (I also have to sock my friend when
I get
> the chance) Hmmmmm..
> BTW, would it be found in the Kids Section or the general Sci-Fi?
Based on the bookstores that I know, it could be ANYWHERE.
Here's a tip. If you don't find it, ask one of the clerks about who you
can speak to on finding a book. The book should be there, somewhere.
Some of theclerks may be unresponsive, the fools. You have already
looked and not found it, so put some of the effort into their hands.
Just don't be afraid to ask for help. If you can't find the book it is the
stores fault, not yours.
--
Paul Wilkins
| /\ Inform yourself | Paul Wilkins | When you ask a computer person to
| /__\ Project Mayhem | Christchurch | fix your machine, they will first
| http://tetrica.com/ | (03) 3433097 | spend hours downloading upgrades.
Peter Ellis
As with any statement that implies you've already had the best
experience you'll ever have, and that it's downhill from here on, I find
this statement extremely depressing.
I'm awfully glad I don't feel the same way.
I mean, *yes* this is a fan group, *yes* we should give praise where
it's due (and of course it certainly is), but please! This kind of
baroque hyperbole does nobody any favours, and I'm sure must be vaguely
embarrassing to Terry should he have seen this post.
It's also patent nonsense. Do you *really* mean that you'd prefer
reading Maurice to an outbreak of peace in the Middle East, that Afghan
peasants would prefer Maurice to a couple of feet of reinforced concrete
over their heads, that the doctors in your local hospital would prefer
reading Maurice to actually saving a life or two?
Or do you actually and literally mean every word of that sentence, in
which case I'm extremely sorry for you.
I mean, *sheesh*, people!
Peter
Speaker-to-Customers
"Peter Ellis" <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.16769b0a...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
> oct...@mcb.net wrote:
> >
> >Life holds no pleasures that can hold a candle to reading "Maurice".
>
> As with any statement that implies you've already had the best
> experience you'll ever have, and that it's downhill from here on, I find
> this statement extremely depressing.
>
> I'm awfully glad I don't feel the same way.
I am 48 years old. I have swum in Lake Malawi's clear waters beneath a
tropical sun. I have seen Victoria Falls, and have been led on foot past a
herd of buffalo looming majestically out of the dawn mists. I have been to
a Runrig concert in Scotland. I have seen England win the World Cup, and
more recently seen them beat Germany 5-1. I have eaten Davison's Belgian
Chocolate ice-cream. I have an active sex life with someone who teaches
pelvic floor exercises.
Reading TAMAHER was indeed better than all of them.
> I mean, *yes* this is a fan group, *yes* we should give praise where
> it's due (and of course it certainly is), but please! This kind of
> baroque hyperbole does nobody any favours, and I'm sure must be vaguely
> embarrassing to Terry should he have seen this post.
>
> It's also patent nonsense. Do you *really* mean that you'd prefer
> reading Maurice to an outbreak of peace in the Middle East, that Afghan
> peasants would prefer Maurice to a couple of feet of reinforced concrete
> over their heads, that the doctors in your local hospital would prefer
> reading Maurice to actually saving a life or two?
An outbreak of peace in the Middle East would be a relief from a source of
misery, not a pleasure. An Afghan sufficiently well educated to appreciate
TAMAHER would not be a peasant (although the Taliban would probably have
killed any man sufficiently educated, and would certainly have killed any
woman).
A doctor who enjoys reading would enjoy reading TAMAHER more than carrying
out the procedures involved in saving the lives, although if given the
choice between reading the book or saving the lives he/she would undoubtedly
come down in favour of saving the lives.
I was, of course, assuming that someone posting on a Pratchett newsgroup was
someone who had already read and enjoyed other Pratchett books, and was not
an Afghan peasant, Yasser Arafat, or a doctor so wrapped up in his/her work
that there was no leisure time left for reading.
> Or do you actually and literally mean every word of that sentence, in
> which case I'm extremely sorry for you.
>
> I mean, *sheesh*, people!
>
> Peter
Have you actually read TAMAHER?
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Peter Ellis
>
>I am 48 years old. I have swum in Lake Malawi's clear waters beneath a
>
>Reading TAMAHER was indeed better than all of them.
I find myself unable to understand how this statement can even be made,
let alone the mind of someone who could make it. It's a pretty facile
ranking of "pleasure", surely? Or does everything in life come with a
score attached. What's better, the Mona Lisa or Paradise Lost? The
smell of newly mown grass or Verdi's "Otello"?
>>
>> It's also patent nonsense. Do you *really* mean that you'd prefer
>> reading Maurice to an outbreak of peace in the Middle East, that Afghan
>> peasants would prefer Maurice to a couple of feet of reinforced concrete
>> over their heads, that the doctors in your local hospital would prefer
>> reading Maurice to actually saving a life or two?
>
>An outbreak of peace in the Middle East would be a relief from a source of
>misery, not a pleasure.
Meaningless semantic tomfoolery.
>An Afghan sufficiently well educated to appreciate
>TAMAHER would not be a peasant
I notice you don't contend that they might find more pleasure in a
decent shelter from flying death, though.
>
>A doctor who enjoys reading would enjoy reading TAMAHER more than carrying
>out the procedures involved in saving the lives, although if given the
>choice between reading the book or saving the lives he/she would undoubtedly
>come down in favour of saving the lives.
>
I don't think you can so glibly separate the end and the means. That's
like saying you enjoy reading TAMAHER far more than you enjoy reading
the sentences in the book.
>
>I was, of course, assuming that someone posting on a Pratchett newsgroup was
>someone who had already read and enjoyed other Pratchett books, and was not
>an Afghan peasant, Yasser Arafat, or a doctor so wrapped up in his/her work
>that there was no leisure time left for reading.
... and of course there's no smidgen of suspicion that people can
disagree with you over the merits of Maurice, or even take different
pleasures in different things...
>>
>> Or do you actually and literally mean every word of that sentence, in
>> which case I'm extremely sorry for you.
This still applies, and I am.
>
>Have you actually read TAMAHER?
>
Yes. It's good enough, but nothing special. There are several better
books by Terry, and *many* better children's books, including pretty
much the complete corpuses of Susan Cooper, Alan Garner and Philip
Pullman, and at least half of Rowling. It's not coherently targeted at
any age group, and I honestly think children won't get nearly as much
out of it as they would from other books.
Peter
Speaker-to-Customers
"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
> oct...@mcb.net :
> >"Peter Ellis" wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm awfully glad I don't feel the same way.
> >
> >I am 48 years old. I have swum in Lake Malawi's clear waters beneath a
> >tropical sun. <etc>
> >
> >Reading TAMAHER was indeed better than all of them.
>
> I find myself unable to understand how this statement can even be made,
> let alone the mind of someone who could make it. It's a pretty facile
> ranking of "pleasure", surely? Or does everything in life come with a
> score attached. What's better, the Mona Lisa or Paradise Lost?
The Mona Lisa (63% as against 48%).
> The smell of newly mown grass or Verdi's "Otello"?
Verdi's "Otello" (67% as against 3% - I hate the smell of newly mown grass).
> >> It's also patent nonsense. Do you *really* mean that you'd prefer
> >> reading Maurice to an outbreak of peace in the Middle East, that Afghan
> >> peasants would prefer Maurice to a couple of feet of reinforced
concrete
> >> over their heads, that the doctors in your local hospital would prefer
> >> reading Maurice to actually saving a life or two?
> >
> >An outbreak of peace in the Middle East would be a relief from a source
of
> >misery, not a pleasure.
>
> Meaningless semantic tomfoolery.
> >An Afghan sufficiently well educated to appreciate
> >TAMAHER would not be a peasant
>
> I notice you don't contend that they might find more pleasure in a
> decent shelter from flying death, though.
Semantics are important when you are criticising a book review. I do not
experience a constant warm glow of satisfaction because I am not drowning; I
do not, therefore, rate "not drowning" as one of life's pleasures. This
does not mean that I would be happy about drowning; just that I regard
"life's pleasures" as positive pleasures, not as the absence of unpleasant
or painful experiences.
(Snip)
> >I was, of course, assuming that someone posting on a Pratchett newsgroup
was
> >someone who had already read and enjoyed other Pratchett books, and was
not
> >an Afghan peasant, Yasser Arafat, or a doctor so wrapped up in his/her
work
> >that there was no leisure time left for reading.
>
> ... and of course there's no smidgen of suspicion that people can
> disagree with you over the merits of Maurice, or even take different
> pleasures in different things...
>
> >>
> >> Or do you actually and literally mean every word of that sentence, in
> >> which case I'm extremely sorry for you.
>
> This still applies, and I am.
>
> >
> >Have you actually read TAMAHER?
> >
>
> Yes. It's good enough, but nothing special. There are several better
> books by Terry, and *many* better children's books, including pretty
> much the complete corpuses of Susan Cooper, Alan Garner and Philip
> Pullman, and at least half of Rowling. It's not coherently targeted at
> any age group, and I honestly think children won't get nearly as much
> out of it as they would from other books.
Remember that I am 48 years old. I don't regard TAMAHER as a children's
book in the slightest. The original poster, "Kathleen", didn't sound like a
child either, with her talk of imports and currency conversions. She asked
whether it was worth getting; I replied with the unreserved praise I felt
the book deserved.
I have read all the books you mention except Philip Pullman, and rate
TAMAHER far above any of them from the viewpoint of an adult. I cannot
comment on them from the viewpoint of a child, as it is many years since I
was one myself.
If you rate so many authors higher than Terry Pratchett, why are you posting
on this newsgroup? It is alt.*fan*.pratchett, not
alt.*not-bad-but-there-are-better*.pratchett.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Melody S-K
"Peter Ellis" <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.167742086...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
Snipped all
Each to his/her own people .....readability is in the eye of
the reader. This is a pointless debate against each other
IMHO , one thinks TAMAHER is the best thing since sliced
bread and has voiced that opinion , one doesn't and has
voiced his opinion .....
Next!
Melody
--
Hey, if you cut off your foot, you wouldn't keep putting it
in your mouth, but your body wouldn't be the same, would it?
Speaker-to-Customers
"Melody S-K" wrote ...
> Snipped all
>
> Each to his/her own people .....readability is in the eye of
> the reader. This is a pointless debate against each other
> IMHO , one thinks TAMAHER is the best thing since sliced
> bread and has voiced that opinion , one doesn't and has
> voiced his opinion .....
>
> Next!
>
> Melody
Why shouldn't Peter and I continue to bicker about the merits of TAMAHER on
this group for all eternity if we so wish? It is [R], which is pretty rare
on this group. Not genetic engineering, or rocket science, or cheese, or
small purple goats. Perhaps a.b.p. might have been better, but this is
where the query which started it all was posted in the first place.
Not that I have any intention of carrying it on any more anyway, unless
Peter posts something particularly provocative.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Peter Ellis
>
>Remember that I am 48 years old. I don't regard TAMAHER as a children's
>book in the slightest. The original poster, "Kathleen", didn't sound like a
>child either, with her talk of imports and currency conversions. She asked
>whether it was worth getting; I replied with the unreserved praise I felt
>the book deserved.
Fair enough. Suffice it to say that I don't think reading necessarily
is the pinnacle of all pleasures, and I also think it's unnecessarily
dogmatic to single out *any* single experience as "best ever". It's
moronically obvious to have to say it, but there are different types of
pleasure, and people want different things at different times.
You may think reading TAMAHER is more pleasurable than boffing the wife,
but I wager you'd not stop in the middle of the latter in order to do
the former. If it's *really* more pleasurable, why wouldn't you?
It's also unnecessarily dogmatic to single out any single book as the
"best ever". Lords and Ladies is right up there among my favourites,
but I wouldn't want to reread it immediately on finishing it, and
there's times when I'm far prefer to read something else. The same
applies to Small Gods, Interesting Times,Hogfather, Good Omens, Wyrd
Sisters, Pyramids and several other Pratchett books.
I'm not criticising your evident enjoyment of Maurice, just the
overblown and unnecessary hyperbole you use to state it, which I still
think is most likely untrue if you think about it, and faintly
embarrassing to those witness to such excessive statements.
>
>I have read all the books you mention except Philip Pullman, and rate
>TAMAHER far above any of them from the viewpoint of an adult. I cannot
>comment on them from the viewpoint of a child, as it is many years since I
>was one myself.
This is your opinion, and I won't argue with your right to hold it - I
simply disagree as an adult and even more especially from a child's
viewpoint.
>
>If you rate so many authors higher than Terry Pratchett, why are you posting
>on this newsgroup? It is alt.*fan*.pratchett, not
>alt.*not-bad-but-there-are-better*.pratchett.
There are very few authors I'd consistently rate higher than
Pratchett.[1] However, we disagree over the merits of TAMAHER.
Besides, I wasn't aware it was necessary to suspend critical judgement
if you are a fan, nor that it was necessary to believe an author is the
best in all of Creation before calling yourself a "fan".
Peter
[1] Possibly Iain Banks, since I've only come across one of his that
didn't do much for me, as opposed to half a dozen Pratchett books that
leave me cold.
Marco Villalta
> I have an active sex life with someone who teaches
> pelvic floor exercises.
We are getting a great deal of inside information on afpers' sex
lives as of late, but this takes the cake, I think.
<boggle>
--
Marco Villalta
Danish graffiti from 1984:
"Sex kills -- die happy!"
Collected by Torben Olsen
Lord Lucan
All Sorts of stuff
my little bit -
"Call no man happy until he is dead" - Herodotus
Lord Lucan
David Roy
news:MPG.16777accc...@news.tiscali.se:
> Paul Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>
>> I have an active sex life with someone who teaches pelvic floor
>> exercises.
>
> We are getting a great deal of inside information on afpers' sex
> lives as of late, but this takes the cake, I think.
>
> <boggle>
>
Takes the cake? What kind of exercises are these?!?
David
Speaker-to-Customers
"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
(in response to a "Speaker-to-Customers" post mainly snipped to save space)
> Fair enough. Suffice it to say that I don't think reading necessarily
> is the pinnacle of all pleasures, and I also think it's unnecessarily
> dogmatic to single out *any* single experience as "best ever". It's
> moronically obvious to have to say it, but there are different types of
> pleasure, and people want different things at different times.
>
> You may think reading TAMAHER is more pleasurable than boffing the wife,
> but I wager you'd not stop in the middle of the latter in order to do
> the former. If it's *really* more pleasurable, why wouldn't you?
Just because something is extremely enjoyable doesn't mean that one would
want to do it all the time. I would not want to eat Belgian chocolate for
hours on end, nor to watch England beating Germany for more than 90 minutes,
to play GURPS Discworld for more than 5 hours at a stretch (unless Phil
Masters was running the game personally), or to do something else (which I
won't go into for fear of boggling Marco Villalta's mind again) for more
than about two and a half hours.
> It's also unnecessarily dogmatic to single out any single book as the
> "best ever". Lords and Ladies is right up there among my favourites,
> but I wouldn't want to reread it immediately on finishing it, and
> there's times when I'm far prefer to read something else. The same
> applies to Small Gods, Interesting Times,Hogfather, Good Omens, Wyrd
> Sisters, Pyramids and several other Pratchett books.
>
> I'm not criticising your evident enjoyment of Maurice, just the
> overblown and unnecessary hyperbole you use to state it, which I still
> think is most likely untrue if you think about it, and faintly
> embarrassing to those witness to such excessive statements.
If you are in a crowd of people chatting amongst themselves, and want to be
heard, wouldn't you shout? I was the only person who answered Kathleen's
question about whether the book was worth getting. What kind of message
would it have sent if I had said "well, it's not bad" and no-one else had
made any comment?
I genuinely did enormously enjoy reading it, and do indeed regard it as the
most enjoyable book I have ever read. Olaf Quimby's rules requiring
certified dockyard accounts before you can say that a face launched a
thousand ships do not apply on Usenet, even on afp. So why not use
extravagant language to emphasise my point?
> >I have read all the books you mention except Philip Pullman, and rate
> >TAMAHER far above any of them from the viewpoint of an adult. I cannot
> >comment on them from the viewpoint of a child, as it is many years since
I
> >was one myself.
>
> This is your opinion, and I won't argue with your right to hold it - I
> simply disagree as an adult and even more especially from a child's
> viewpoint.
> >
> >If you rate so many authors higher than Terry Pratchett, why are you
posting
> >on this newsgroup? It is alt.*fan*.pratchett, not
> >alt.*not-bad-but-there-are-better*.pratchett.
>
> There are very few authors I'd consistently rate higher than
> Pratchett.[1] However, we disagree over the merits of TAMAHER.
> Besides, I wasn't aware it was necessary to suspend critical judgement
> if you are a fan, nor that it was necessary to believe an author is the
> best in all of Creation before calling yourself a "fan".
>
> [1] Possibly Iain Banks, since I've only come across one of his that
> didn't do much for me, as opposed to half a dozen Pratchett books that
> leave me cold.
There are several Pratchett books that leave me cold too. "The Carpet
People" I think is dreadful, "TCOM" and "TLF" I regard as run-of-the-mill,
"The Dark Side of the Sun" and "Strata" are reasonable but by no means
outstanding. I can take the "Johnny" books or leave them.
There are other authors who have an unbroken success rate as far as I am
concerned. To name only the authors on my bookshelf above the computer:
Robert van Gulik, Tim Powers, and James Cobb. All are authors whose
complete works I have read, all have written only books that I greatly
enjoyed.
However none can rate above Pratchett, because he has written 17 of my 20
favourite books. The fact that "The Carpet People" wouldn't make my top
1,000 does not outweigh that.
It was the way you quoted a huge list of authors whose works you regarded as
better than TAMAHER that jarred on me. There are at least 3 regulars on afp
who I am fairly sure have never read a Pratchett book in their lives*. I do
feel that you should rate an author, or musician, very highly before you can
style yourself as a fan.
I often post on alt.books.tom-clancy, although I don't rate Clancy all that
highly; there are no groups specifically for Larry Bond or James Cobb, who I
rate much higher, and that is the only group where Bond and Cobb are
on-topic that I have found. However, I would never dream of posting on
alt.fan.tom-clancy.
However, you obviously are a genuine fan, and I apologise for implying that
you are not. If I'm going to argue over the merits of a book, I'd rather
argue with someone erudite and well-read than with a philistine.
(*There is also someone who seems to have read no other books beside
Pratchett, to have never listened to music, or to have seen any films. I
don't regard her as a fan, only as someone who is exceedingly strange.)
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Richard Eney
Kathleen M. <neferti...@aol.com> wrote:
>>It is available already in America, according to some posts on
>>alt.books.pratchett.
>BTW, would it be found in the Kids Section or the general Sci-Fi?
It was very specifically in the YA section of the Kids Dept. at Borders
bookstore in southern MD. Also, it was on an end section, not on the
regular shelves. Took me ages to find it.
=Tamar
Melody S-K
"David Roy" <david...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:Xns916E125327731d...@193.252.19.141...
The same ones that teach how to chuck a ping pong ball
without using your hands? ;)
Paul Wilkins
> It was very specifically in the YA section of the Kids Dept. at
> Borders bookstore in southern MD. Also, it was on an end section, not
> on the regular shelves. Took me ages to find it.
I've given up that now, and take a much faster method.
<spot store clerk lurking somewhere>
"You! Yes, you behind the book pile. Stand still laddie! I'm looking for a
book."
Leo Breebaart
"Speaker-to-Customers" <oct...@mcb.net> writes:
> I do feel that you should rate an author, or musician, very highly
> before you can style yourself as a fan. [...] I often post on
> alt.books.tom-clancy, although I don't rate Clancy all that highly;
> [...] However, I would never dream of posting on alt.fan.tom-clancy.
I don't think that posting to alt.fan.pratchett implies that you are
"styling yourself" as a fan, certainly not in the sense you seem to
define the concept. It's one of those words that has no generally
agreed-upon definition to begin with.
The presence of the word 'fan' in "alt.fan.pratchett" is entirely an
accident of history, an artifact of newsgroup naming technicalities and
personal choice of our, um, creator. It's not and has never been a
specification or requirement. In fact, the way in which afp has evolved,
sometimes the word 'pratchett' has no bearing on what goes on in the
newsgroup, either. It may well be that things are completely different
for the ab.t-c/af.t-c combo, but that's them, and we're us -- there's no
connection other than that they're all newsgroups.
I think that anybody should (and can) feel comfortable posting to
alt.fan.pratchett if they have something pertinent to say. There is no
requirement of liking all the books, of liking a sufficient percentage
or liking them at all, of rating them above other things, or even of
having *read* any of them.
What matters, the *only* thing that matters, is the
appropriateness-within-context of the *content* of the post. One's
position or even presence on the spectrum of Discworld fandom is
irrelevant. Afp would not have survived (and thrived) as a newsgroup for
so long if that hadn't always been the case. There are indeed more than
enough 'fanboy' newsgroups on Usenet, in and out of the alt.fan
hierarchy. Afp's never been one of those (even if criticism of Discworld
is not always as welcome as I personally would like it to be), and I
think that's to its credit.
--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>
Mary Messall
"Life holds no pleasures that can compare to death?" <g>
But I think Herodotus attributes that to someone else... That's the bit
about the valient lads who die bravely carrying their mother to some
great honor, which is after all the pinnacle of happiness and the dream
to which we all aspire, vs the king (now which king was it? Starts with
a C... or was it L?) Okay, hang on, I'm going to cheat and look it up.
Ah. Croesus (as in "rich as") king of the Lydians. And it's Solon who
tells him not to consider himself happy (certainly not the happiest in
the world) until he is dead...
'Thus did Solon admonish Croesus by the example of Tellus, enumerating
the manifold particulars of his happiness. When he had ended, Croesus
inquired a second time, who after Tellus seemed to him the happiest,
expecting that at any rate, he would be given the second place.
"Cleobis and Bito," Solon answered; "they were of Argive race; their
fortune was enough for their wants, and they were besides endowed with
so much bodily strength that they had both gained prizes at the Games.
Also this tale is told of them:- There was a great festival in honour
of the goddess Juno at Argos, to which their mother must needs be taken
in a car. Now the oxen did not come home from the field in time: so the
youths, fearful of being too late, put the yoke on their own necks, and
themselves drew the car in which their mother rode. Five and forty
furlongs did they draw her, and stopped before the temple. This deed of
theirs was witnessed by the whole assembly of worshippers, and then
their life closed in the best possible way. Herein, too, God showed
forth most evidently, how much better a thing for man death is than
life. For the Argive men, who stood around the car, extolled the vast
strength of the youths; and the Argive women extolled the mother who
was blessed with such a pair of sons; and the mother herself, overjoyed
at the deed and at the praises it had won, standing straight before the
image, besought the goddess to bestow on Cleobis and Bito, the sons who
had so mightily honoured her, the highest blessing to which mortals can
attain.'
Seems particularly perverse, this mother's great joy when her sons fall
down dead in front of her from pulling her cart five and forty furlongs
so she wouldn't be late to a festival. And since Herodotus goes on to
explain Croesus's own miserable fate (brought on, no doubt, by his
hubris in calling himself happiest in the world) and said miserable
fate consists of the death of his son in a hunting accident (followed
by a series of military defeats and eventually capture), I am a bit
confused. Is it supposed to be great or miserable to lose your son in a
stupid way?
-Mary (wibbling.)
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz --> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
Peter Ellis
>"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
>
>Just because something is extremely enjoyable doesn't mean that one would
>want to do it all the time.
In which case I suspect we may be in violent agreement (at least in part)
>
>What kind of message
>would it have sent if I had said "well, it's not bad" and no-one else had
>made any comment?
<troll> A warranted one... </troll>
>
>I genuinely did enormously enjoy reading it, and do indeed regard it as the
>most enjoyable book I have ever read.
Fair enough.
>
>Olaf Quimby's rules requiring
>certified dockyard accounts before you can say that a face launched a
>thousand ships do not apply on Usenet, even on afp. So why not use
>extravagant language to emphasise my point?
"The best book I've ever read", fine. "The greatest pleasure in life"
just grates on me somehow, besides appearing exceedingly disrespectful to
your no doubt lovely and oft-boffed wife. :-)
I further think it's often a category error to compare different
pleasures, and reading my favourite book does not compare to eating my
favourite foods, whether favourably or unfavourably.
Lastly, there's the point you concede above: namely that one will want
different experiences at different times. I'd say that immediately after
reading (say) L&L, it would no longer be as pleasurable to immediately
reread it, and that other experiences would be more pleasurable. If I
read you right, you'd say it's still equally pleasurable an experience,
but simply a pleasure one does not yet wish to re-experience. This,
however, will require you to come up with some definition of pleasure
other than the intuitive "what one enjoys doing". But we're degenerating
into semantics here, which is probably a good time to shut up.
>
>It was the way you quoted a huge list of authors whose works you regarded as
>better than TAMAHER that jarred on me.
I quoted three who were better children's authors, and I'll stick by that.
>
>I often post on alt.books.tom-clancy, although I don't rate Clancy all that
>highly; there are no groups specifically for Larry Bond or James Cobb, who I
>rate much higher, and that is the only group where Bond and Cobb are
>on-topic that I have found. However, I would never dream of posting on
>alt.fan.tom-clancy.
Interestingly enough, abp and afp work almost exactly oppositely to this.
a.b.p has evolved to be a group for discussion of the books of Terry
Pratchett. Discussion of other fantasy authors would not strictly be
"on-topic", except in comparison to Terry's works.
a.f.p. has become a place where those who enjoy his books talk about
subjects of common (or indeed uncommon) interest.
As regards Clancy, the earlier books were excellent, in large part because
of the plausibility and believability of the plots. After about the
third, the manifold coincidences inherent in having the same sodding cast
encounter more and more international incidents completely destroyed the
very thing that made the original few into good books. I wonder if he
realises this?
Peter
Jen Birren
> This deed of
> theirs was witnessed by the whole assembly of worshippers, and then
> their life closed in the best possible way. Herein, too, God showed
> forth most evidently, how much better a thing for man death is than
> life. For the Argive men, who stood around the car, extolled the vast
> strength of the youths; and the Argive women extolled the mother who
> was blessed with such a pair of sons; and the mother herself, overjoyed
> at the deed and at the praises it had won, standing straight before the
> image, besought the goddess to bestow on Cleobis and Bito, the sons who
> had so mightily honoured her, the highest blessing to which mortals can
> attain.'
>
> Seems particularly perverse, this mother's great joy when her sons fall
> down dead in front of her from pulling her cart five and forty furlongs
> so she wouldn't be late to a festival. And since Herodotus goes on to
> explain Croesus's own miserable fate (brought on, no doubt, by his
> hubris in calling himself happiest in the world) and said miserable
> fate consists of the death of his son in a hunting accident (followed
> by a series of military defeats and eventually capture), I am a bit
> confused. Is it supposed to be great or miserable to lose your son in a
> stupid way?
On reading that and squinting *just so* it looks like it might mean
"Their life closed in the best possible way, and this is how it
happened: the mother was thrilled about her sons pulling her to the
temple and everyone telling her how great they were; she asked the
goddess to give them the highest blessing to which mortals can obtain,
and the goddess helpfully struck them dead." So your *own* death would
be the blessing, not your childrens'.
(I bet Herodotus, however much he thought dying in triumph was the best
thing that could happen to one, didn't say "my book is doing jolly well;
I'm at the height of my fame and honour; time to kill myself!")
Jen
Speaker-to-Customers
"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
> I further think it's often a category error to compare different
> pleasures, and reading my favourite book does not compare to eating my
> favourite foods, whether favourably or unfavourably.
If you do not compare different pleasures, how do you decide what to do?
Reading need not be compared with eating, as it is perfectly possible to do
both at the same time. However it is not possible to read and watch a film
at the same time, nor to read and ski at the same time (unless you want your
face to become an integral part of a pine tree), so you have to choose which
one you would rather do.
Sometimes this is purely a matter of scheduling; you can read on the plane
on the way to the ski slopes, so it does not come down to a straight choice
between them. A film starts at a specific time, so you must adjust your
priorities to account for that, whereas you can start reading at any time.
There are other considerations besides pleasure, of course. Ski-ing
involves many risks; from the risk of being hi-jacked on the way to the ski
slopes and flown into a building, to the risk of being caught up in an
avalanche.
The greatest risk involved in reading is that of being so caught up in the
book that you lose track of time and are late for work or miss your stop on
the bus/train. Both of which happened to me while reading TAMAHER. Luckily
I was not reading it on the way to a skiing holiday, so I did not end up in
Nairobi with a wallet containing only Swiss Francs; I only had to walk
quarter of a mile home from the wrong bus stop.
(Snip)
> Interestingly enough, abp and afp work almost exactly oppositely to this.
>
> a.b.p has evolved to be a group for discussion of the books of Terry
> Pratchett. Discussion of other fantasy authors would not strictly be
> "on-topic", except in comparison to Terry's works.
>
> a.f.p. has become a place where those who enjoy his books talk about
> subjects of common (or indeed uncommon) interest.
Sometimes I wonder. Some regulars react to comments which actually are
Pratchett-relevant with blank incomprehension.
> As regards Clancy, the earlier books were excellent, in large part because
> of the plausibility and believability of the plots. After about the
> third, the manifold coincidences inherent in having the same sodding cast
> encounter more and more international incidents completely destroyed the
> very thing that made the original few into good books. I wonder if he
> realises this?
The earliest books were written in collaboration with Larry Bond. Once Bond
started writing under his own name, Clancy was left on his own. Having
found a formula which sold well he adopted the "if it works, don't fix it"
principle.
After establishing a cast he liked he churned out more and more books
featuring them, pitting them against bigger and bigger enemies, until by now
he has painted himself solidly into a corner. The next book will have to
feature an alien invasion, because he has dealt with every conceivable human
enemy.
With at least 4 rotating and intermixing casts Terry has avoided that
pitfall for much longer. It is still a danger that looms in the future.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Joerg Neidig
"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
"Peter Ellis" wrote ...
I think your answer of the question if TAMAHER was enjoyable was
extremely eloquent and funny. I believe that you did not mean it
literaly. At least I don't really think (hope) that reading TAMAHER is
the best thing that can happen in my life. Still, reading your answer
makes me want to continue reading right away.
To be honest I do not really understand the discussion. Someone who has
a problem with spotting an exaggeration (which is used widely in
literature) or who has a problem with enjoying eloquent but maybe not
really exact sentences may have problems with reading novels by PTerry.
Frankly, discussing your answer is like discussing aubout the literal
truth in "the pen is mightier than the sword". (I think there was
already a thread about that topic. There usually is.)
Joerg
--
Dipl.-Ing. Jörg Neidig
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl Automation und Prozessinformatik
IC 3/53
D-44780 Bochum
Tel.: (0234) 32.26632
Fax.: (0234) 32.14101
Speaker-to-Customers
"Joerg Neidig" wrote ...
> Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> "Peter Ellis" wrote ...
> Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> "Peter Ellis" wrote ...
> Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> "Peter Ellis" wrote ...
> Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> "Peter Ellis" wrote ...
>
> <snip a lot>
> truth in "the pen is mightier than the sword". (I think there was
> already a thread about that topic. There usually is.)
In "The Mouse that Roared" by Leonard Wibberley, a great book which was
turned into a poor film (as often happens, alas), he comes up with "though
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword speaks louder and stronger at
any given moment."
Discuss.
Or "Discus". Leading to "the discussion is mightier than the discus", a
suitable topic for debate among Ephebian philosophers. The resolution of
this one would probably lead to fractured skulls and dislocated elbows.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Speaker-to-Customers
"Melody S-K" wrote ...
>
> "David Roy" wrote ...
> > Marco Villalta wrote :
> > > Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
>
> > >> I have an active sex life with someone who teaches
> pelvic floor
> > >> exercises.
>
> > > We are getting a great deal of inside information on
> afpers' sex
> > > lives as of late, but this takes the cake, I think.
>
> > > <boggle>
> > Takes the cake? What kind of exercises are these?!?
>
> The same ones that teach how to chuck a ping pong ball
> without using your hands? ;)
Yes, those exercises. She's actually a continence advisor;
but the exercises have very interesting side effects.
Paul Groaner-in-Ecstasy
Eric Jarvis
I learned some fer me oomeback...initially from a physio at St
Thomas'...then some more "advanced" ones from the occupational
therapist I went out with for a while...ping pong balls were not
involved in any way shape or form thobut
--
eric
"I got in touch with my inner child,
he told me to grow up"
Livia Mitson
Speaker-to-Customers <oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>If you do not compare different pleasures, how do you decide what to do?
I don't need to, my children tell me what I should be doing.
And when they're not, I'm still generally not doing anything which would
be categorised by most people as a pleasure.
[watches entire thread dissolve into an argument about what a pleasure is
exactly, why they can/can't be compared, and why as a result economics is
bunk.]
Livia
--
Livia Mitson afpSister to Adrian livia at wheelwright dot net
The poet sings of little children / Trailing clouds of glory
But what he'd do if he met mine / Is quite another story
Daibhid Chienedelh
> Richard Eney wrote
> > It was very specifically in the YA section of the Kids Dept. at
> > Borders bookstore in southern MD. Also, it was on an end section, not
> > on the regular shelves. Took me ages to find it.
>
> I've given up that now, and take a much faster method.
>
> <spot store clerk lurking somewhere>
> "You! Yes, you behind the book pile. Stand still laddie! I'm looking for a
> book."
ISTR that in WHSmith's in Inverness it's in the YA *and* SF sections
*and* on a free standing display in front of the door with a megaphone
blaring "New Pratchett, folks! Form an orderly queue!"
Pterry is officially Inverness's favourite author, AFAIK. The local
ones all do quite well, but there's only so many books about the '45
or Nessie you can read[1].
[1] A book about the '45 *and* Nessie would be interesting...
--
Dave
Re-elected for a second glorious term as Official Absentee of EU
Skiffeysoc http://www.ed.ac.uk/~sesoc
"People who doubt things are harmless. No-one ever marched behind the
banner of mild conjecture."
-Andy Hamilton "The News Quiz" 12/10/01
Speaker-to-Customers
"Daibhid Chienedelh" wrote ...
(Snip)
> Pterry is officially Inverness's favourite author, AFAIK. The local
> ones all do quite well, but there's only so many books about the '45
> or Nessie you can read[1].
>
> [1] A book about the '45 *and* Nessie would be interesting...
And a Pratchett one about the '45 and Nessie would be more interesting
still.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Flabbergast
<oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>
>If you do not compare different pleasures, how do you decide what to do?
>Reading need not be compared with eating, as it is perfectly possible to do
>both at the same time. However it is not possible to read and watch a film
>at the same time,
There's only one word I have to say about this, _subtext_. Strangely
enough reading and watching a film is deemed to be possible for Swedes
by whom ever it was that decided not to dub foreign films. Not just
Swedes, the Swedes is just an example.
>nor to read and ski at the same time (unless you want your
>face to become an integral part of a pine tree), so you have to choose which
>one you would rather do.
Is too, not something I've done recently[1], but fully possible. As is
reading and bicycling, which I've done rather more, or even reading
and walking simultainously.
Actually I think most people have a wide enough field of vision that a
book page don't take up all of it. So while reading, it is quite
possible to be aware enough about the world around you to aviod things
like walking into a wall or a tree.
Note: I do not recomend reading while controlling any for of transport
in speeds above strollling speed or in traffic.
<snip>
>Sometimes I wonder. Some regulars react to comments which actually are
>Pratchett-relevant with blank incomprehension.
<snip>
And? your point being?
This is the bit of this whole discussion that leaves me rather with a
bad taste in my mouth.
Are you somehow implying, not just with this comment, but several
others that you've made in this thread leading up to it. I've just
choosen this point to put my nose in. That unless you've, what? read X
number of Pratchett books? You're not really worthy of posting to AFP.
Or even to be counted as a _true_ fan. Because that is very much of
what it looks like from here.
Then let me just say this, AFP-type fandom [2] is not a pissing
contest, you're not a bigger fan, or somehow more 'respected AFPer'
because you've got triplicates of all the books. The first editions
wrapped in protective little plastic bags and you only touch them
wearing gloves. It's not about having visited every convention, CCDE,
furnishing your house with Bernard's, Clarecraft's or anyone elses
lovely trinkets.
It's not even necessary to have read all of the books, even less to
memorize them.
That is just a small part what makes AFP a strong and lasting online
community [3]. With the added advantage of an enjoyable one.
Remember that pTerry have written other things than just DW novels. It
is possible, to be a great fan of the Johnny books and really don't
like the DW thingy at all. Even dislike it enough to not read them.
And that books like Pratchett's, just because they are where you live,
easily or affordably available everywhere.
Does any of those really make for less of a Pratchett fan, in your
world?
okbye
[1] Ages since I last was skiing.
[2] <OB-disclaimer> I do not speak for the group, this is my view of
AFP-typ fandom only. Mine and mine alone, gettit!
[3] Sherilyn - shut up![4] I know your view about communities and have
no wish to rehash that bit *again*.
[4] Or don't that is entirely up to you of course :P
Speaker-to-Customers
"Flabbergast" wrote ...
> "Speaker-to-Customers"wrote:
(Snip)
> >Sometimes I wonder. Some regulars react to comments which actually are
> >Pratchett-relevant with blank incomprehension.
> <snip>
>
> And? your point being?
>
> This is the bit of this whole discussion that leaves me rather with a
> bad taste in my mouth.
> Are you somehow implying, not just with this comment, but several
> others that you've made in this thread leading up to it. I've just
> choosen this point to put my nose in. That unless you've, what? read X
> number of Pratchett books? You're not really worthy of posting to AFP.
> Or even to be counted as a _true_ fan. Because that is very much of
> what it looks like from here.
X must be equal to or greater than 1. If X = 0 then what the hell is the
individual doing here at all?
> Then let me just say this, AFP-type fandom [2] is not a pissing
> contest, you're not a bigger fan, or somehow more 'respected AFPer'
> because you've got triplicates of all the books. The first editions
> wrapped in protective little plastic bags and you only touch them
> wearing gloves. It's not about having visited every convention, CCDE,
> furnishing your house with Bernard's, Clarecraft's or anyone elses
> lovely trinkets.
>
> It's not even necessary to have read all of the books, even less to
> memorize them.
>
> That is just a small part what makes AFP a strong and lasting online
> community [3]. With the added advantage of an enjoyable one.
But a somewhat closed one, and often hostile to newbies, unless they hit
exactly the right note from the beginning. There are people who cruise
newsgroups, Google-searching for specific words relating to their own
personal obsessions, and then descending on any groups they find which have
mentioned that word. On most groups they are regarded as a bloody nuisance;
here they sometimes fit right in, although they may never even have heard of
Terry Pratchett, and can remain for years.
I'm not proposing a crusade to drive away the heretics. I am not a newbie,
I have been reading and occasionally posting to the group since January
1998, and I am well aware of the difference between abp and afp. I just
feel that the occasional mention of Pratchett books on afp should not always
be met with shock and "get thee hence to abp!", and that non-believers
should once in a while be encouraged to actually read Pratchett.
> Remember that pTerry have written other things than just DW novels. It
> is possible, to be a great fan of the Johnny books and really don't
> like the DW thingy at all. Even dislike it enough to not read them.
>
> And that books like Pratchett's, just because they are where you live,
> easily or affordably available everywhere.
>
> Does any of those really make for less of a Pratchett fan, in your
> world?
Someone who likes only a small part of Pratchett's work is less of a
Pratchett fan than someone who likes the majority of it, yes. I would
regard that as part of the definition of a fan.
Analogy:
I really like the track "Higher" on Creed's album "Human Clay", so I bought
the album. I found that I only liked one other track, and regarded
everything else on the album as utter rubbish. I would therefore not regard
myself as a Creed fan, and will not buy any more of their albums.
I like the vast majority of Runrig's tracks, although there are a couple I
regard as utter rubbish. I do regard myself as a Runrig fan, and have
bought all their albums. Had I not been able to buy all the albums, because
of none-availability or shortage of money, I would still have wished to do
so, and would still have regarded myself as a fan.
I feel the same principle should apply to Pratchett. If you like only a
small part of his work, and dislike the majority, you are not a fan. If you
like the majority, and dislike only a small part, you can regard yourself as
a fan if you so desire.
If you have only been able to get hold of a small part of his work, but
really liked what you have seen so far, you are at liberty to call yourself
a fan; until such time as one of his books, which you have not read, appears
in your local library and you decide that you can't be bothered to get it
out and read it.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Sherilyn
wrote:
>
>On Wed, 5 Dec 2001 14:37:30 -0000, "Speaker-to-Customers"
><oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>>
>>If you do not compare different pleasures, how do you decide what to do?
>>Reading need not be compared with eating, as it is perfectly possible to do
>>both at the same time. However it is not possible to read and watch a film
>>at the same time,
>
>There's only one word I have to say about this, _subtext_. Strangely
>enough reading and watching a film is deemed to be possible for Swedes
>by whom ever it was that decided not to dub foreign films. Not just
>Swedes, the Swedes is just an example.
Do you really mean subtext? That's a term referring to theme or character
motivation in a drama. Those words at the bottom of the screen are called
subtitles or (sometimes) captions.
>
>>nor to read and ski at the same time (unless you want your
>>face to become an integral part of a pine tree), so you have to choose which
>>one you would rather do.
>
>Is too, not something I've done recently[1], but fully possible. As is
>reading and bicycling, which I've done rather more, or even reading
>and walking simultainously.
How about skiing and bicycling?
>Actually I think most people have a wide enough field of vision that a
>book page don't take up all of it. So while reading, it is quite
>possible to be aware enough about the world around you to aviod things
>like walking into a wall or a tree.
We use different parts of the eye. The fovea at the center detects detail and
color, whereas most of the rest of the eye is better at distinguishing motion.
The human eye is perfectly capable of darting around to give us an acceptable
field of vision.
>
>Note: I do not recomend reading while controlling any for of transport
>in speeds above strollling speed or in traffic.
Hear hear!
[...]
>[3] Sherilyn - shut up![4] I know your view about communities and have
>no wish to rehash that bit *again*.
It's on lspace.org somewhere. No need to be rude.
[...]
--
Sherilyn
Jen Birren
[Reading and skiing at the same time isn't possible]
> >reading and bicycling, which I've done rather more, or even reading
> >and walking simultainously.
Sherilyn wrote:
> How about skiing and bicycling?
What a lovely image, a bike whizzing down a mountain on skis a la the
grand piano in Help!
OLF Jen
Orjan Westin
news:3C0F6200...@hotmail.com...
>
> Sherilyn wrote:
> > How about skiing and bicycling?
>
> What a lovely image, a bike whizzing down a mountain on skis a la the
> grand piano in Help!
Um, I built a 'biskicle' when I was a lad - take a bike and replace the
weels with short skis. No brakes and great speed on packed snow made
bruises certain. Fun, though...
Orjan
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
<oct...@mcb.net> wrote:
>
>"Flabbergast" wrote ...
(Snip)
>> That is just a small part what makes AFP a strong and lasting online
>> community [3]. With the added advantage of an enjoyable one.
>
>But a somewhat closed one, and often hostile to newbies, unless they hit
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Disagrement from me there... I'm a "newbie" (actually, I've been
lurking on and off since 95), and never thougth of the group as
hostile... okay, from time tot time, there _are_ ambush by the kind of
creatures which like lurking underneath a bridge, but even so the
global "tone" of the NG is that there are a lot of people having fun
together. When I come back to the group, of course, I RTFFs and lurk a
little before posting, but that's not because I'm afraid of being
reduced to smoking ashes when I post, it's only in order not to
re-start the Never Dying Thread (TM) which was smothered a few days
ago...
>exactly the right note from the beginning. There are people who cruise
>newsgroups, Google-searching for specific words relating to their own
>personal obsessions, and then descending on any groups they find which have
>mentioned that word. On most groups they are regarded as a bloody nuisance;
Not on those I read... I tend to FLH when I come across a group where
newbies are flamed on a regular basis. There are always a few newbies
who never heard about faqs, emily postnews and so on, and when these
people are drawn and quartered just because they don't know any
better, it's time to troll anonymously :-)
Of course, if a newbie is tactfully pointed to Emily Postnews and to
the facts, and reacts with a flamethrower, it's a fair target [miamm!]
<inno>
>here they sometimes fit right in, although they may never even have heard of
>Terry Pratchett, and can remain for years.
It's rather unlikely, but might happen.
>I'm not proposing a crusade to drive away the heretics.
<dejected> oh! <pouts>
> I am not a newbie,
>I have been reading and occasionally posting to the group since January
>1998, and I am well aware of the difference between abp and afp. I just
>feel that the occasional mention of Pratchett books on afp should not always
>be met with shock and "get thee hence to abp!", and that non-believers
>should once in a while be encouraged to actually read Pratchett.
Undead! Undead! <GR&RLH>
>
>
>Paul Speaker-to-Customers
>
FiX
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On 6 Dec 2001 02:44:35 -0800, Sherilyn <sher...@suespammers.org>
wrote:
>>Is too, not something I've done recently[1], but fully possible. As is
>>reading and bicycling, which I've done rather more, or even reading
>>and walking simultainously.
>How about skiing and bicycling?
Err, AAMOI there *is* a sport of ski-bicycling! (I forget if it has
another name)
Basically you take a bike, put skis on it instead of wheels, put short
skis on your feet and ride it down the side of a mountain!
Cheers,
Graham.
Speaker-to-Customers
"Flabbergast" wrote ...
> "Speaker-to-Customers" wrote:
> >
> >If you do not compare different pleasures, how do you decide what to do?
> >Reading need not be compared with eating, as it is perfectly possible to
do
> >both at the same time. However it is not possible to read and watch a
film
> >at the same time,
>
> There's only one word I have to say about this, _subtext_. Strangely
> enough reading and watching a film is deemed to be possible for Swedes
> by whom ever it was that decided not to dub foreign films. Not just
> Swedes, the Swedes is just an example.
>
> >nor to read and ski at the same time (unless you want your
> >face to become an integral part of a pine tree), so you have to choose
which
> >one you would rather do.
>
> Is too, not something I've done recently[1], but fully possible. As is
> reading and bicycling, which I've done rather more, or even reading
> and walking simultainously.
Scene; the Odium Leicester Square. Sharon and Ptraci are in the stalls,
watching a showing of "Downhill Reader", the story of how Eddi Reader won
Gold in the Olympic Slalom while reading "Captain Corelli's Mandolin".
Sharon turns to Ptraci and says, "The man next to me has borrowed the
usherette's torch and is reading 'Fanny Hill, or The Memoirs of a Woman of
Pleasure', by John Cleland."
"Just ignore him", Ptraci replies.
"I can't. He's using my hand to turn the pages."
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Sherilyn
<ridcully footnote="[1]">
What obvious tosh! How on earth would you be able to work the pedals with those
stupid skis on your feet?
</ridcully>
<footnote reference="[1]" content="Does anybody know how the coding on the
lspace afpost browser is proceeding?" footnote="[2]" />
<footnote reference="[2]" content="I hope that support for footnotes within
footnotes has been restored" footnote="[3]"/>
<footnote reference="[3]" content="If so, this is a test for the circular
reference bug." footnote="[1]" />
Sorry this is only a fragment, but I couldn't find the RFC.
--
Sherilyn
There just has to be a DEATH reference in there somewhere.
geoff...@hotmail.com
I've seen skis for paraplegics. One ski to sit on and a short ski
strapped to each elbow. Neat, but apparently quite scary the first
few times.
Geoff
--
Geoff Field, Professional geek, amateur stage-levelling gauge.
Spamtraps: geoff...@hotmail.com, gcf...@bigmailbox.net, or
geoff...@great-atuin.co.uk; Real Email: gcfield at optusnet dot com dot au
My band's web page: http://www.geocities.com/southernarea/
David Roy
news:9ulbdp$ic1$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net:
>
> "Peter Ellis" wrote ...
>
>> I further think it's often a category error to compare different
>> pleasures, and reading my favourite book does not compare to eating my
>> favourite foods, whether favourably or unfavourably.
>
> If you do not compare different pleasures, how do you decide what to
> do?
Eh? You'd have to be a seriously devoted and scientifically-minded
hedonist to go through life with that kind of outlook. How do the rest of
us decide what to do? Mainly by juggling with
duty/mood/opportunity/need/whatever.
Reading need not be compared with eating, as it is perfectly
> possible to do both at the same time. However it is not possible to
> read and watch a film at the same time
Piffle. I know lots of people who are perfectly able to read and
watch a film at the same time.
, nor to read and ski at the same
> time (unless you want your face to become an integral part of a pine
> tree), so you have to choose which one you would rather do.
Well, if I've got myself to the top of an Alp, and I'm wearing skis,
then I'm very likely to choose skiing over reading. If I'm sat, later
that night, in front of a roaring log fire and everyone else has gone to
bed, I'll probably choose reading over skiing. Context and opportunity
rule - not strict (and faintly loony) comparisons of levels of pleasure.
(snip)
>> Interestingly enough, abp and afp work almost exactly oppositely to
>> this.
>>
>> a.b.p has evolved to be a group for discussion of the books of Terry
>> Pratchett. Discussion of other fantasy authors would not strictly be
>> "on-topic", except in comparison to Terry's works.
>>
>> a.f.p. has become a place where those who enjoy his books talk about
>> subjects of common (or indeed uncommon) interest.
>
> Sometimes I wonder. Some regulars react to comments which actually are
> Pratchett-relevant with blank incomprehension.
Yes? Even if we take the newsgroup name literally, it's a place for
fans of Pratchett to hang out. There's nothing in there about believing
that he's the bestest author ever, not reading anyone else, or only talking
about him and his books. (There is over on abp.)
David
David Roy
news:9umhmo$e6r$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net:
>
> "Flabbergast" wrote ...
>> "Speaker-to-Customers"wrote:
> (Snip)
>
>> >Sometimes I wonder. Some regulars react to comments which actually
>> >are Pratchett-relevant with blank incomprehension.
>> <snip>
>>
>> And? your point being?
>>
>> This is the bit of this whole discussion that leaves me rather with a
>> bad taste in my mouth.
>> Are you somehow implying, not just with this comment, but several
>> others that you've made in this thread leading up to it. I've just
>> choosen this point to put my nose in. That unless you've, what? read X
>> number of Pratchett books? You're not really worthy of posting to AFP.
>> Or even to be counted as a _true_ fan. Because that is very much of
>> what it looks like from here.
>
> X must be equal to or greater than 1. If X = 0 then what the hell is
> the individual doing here at all?
They like the conversation?
(snip loads)
> I feel the same principle should apply to Pratchett. If you like only
> a small part of his work, and dislike the majority, you are not a fan.
> If you like the majority, and dislike only a small part, you can regard
> yourself as a fan if you so desire.
>
> If you have only been able to get hold of a small part of his work, but
> really liked what you have seen so far, you are at liberty to call
> yourself a fan; until such time as one of his books, which you have not
> read, appears in your local library and you decide that you can't be
> bothered to get it out and read it.
If you feel the need to define fandom that closely, fine. Good luck
to you. But why does it matter?
David
Speaker-to-Customers
"David Roy" wrote ...
> "Speaker-to-Customers" wrote :
> >
> > If you do not compare different pleasures, how do you decide what to
> > do?
>
> Eh? You'd have to be a seriously devoted and scientifically-minded
> hedonist to go through life with that kind of outlook. How do the rest
of
> us decide what to do? Mainly by juggling with
> duty/mood/opportunity/need/whatever.
I *am* a seriously devoted and scientifically-minded hedonist.
Without the money, fame, and good looks to really pursue that to extremes,
alas. I have to juggle duty/mood/opportunity, like most people; however I
don't *decide* to go to work, I *have* to go to work. I do have to decide
between leisure activities, and feel that choosing the one I will get most
pleasure out of is a perfectly valid way of making that choice.
> > Reading need not be compared with eating, as it is perfectly
> > possible to do both at the same time. However it is not possible to
> > read and watch a film at the same time
>
> Piffle. I know lots of people who are perfectly able to read and
> watch a film at the same time.
In the cinema? Really?
See my post news:9uoo1u$qeu$1...@MANNET-3800-2.mcb.net
06/12/01 21.31.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as an asteroid impacted on the Hundred-Acre Wood.
(borrowed from Dragon Prince)
jmessall
> On reading that and squinting *just so* it looks like it might mean
> "Their life closed in the best possible way, and this is how it
> happened: the mother was thrilled about her sons pulling her to the
> temple and everyone telling her how great they were; she asked the
> goddess to give them the highest blessing to which mortals can obtain,
> and the goddess helpfully struck them dead." So your *own* death would
> be the blessing, not your childrens'.
You're most likely right, but is that really any less worrying?
> (I bet Herodotus, however much he thought dying in triumph was the best
> thing that could happen to one, didn't say "my book is doing jolly well;
> I'm at the height of my fame and honour; time to kill myself!")
The old hypocrite...
Mind, he'd probably say "No, suicide is never a triumphant death." He
just happened to pick a nice, safe profession like writing <waits for
writers to dispute this> which does not happen to carry the risk of
death as a necessary consequence of success. It's not like you
immediately hit the best seller lists and die, although I'm sure
Herodotus would profess to be thrilled if it did work that way... (It
does often work the other way, however. You die and immediately hit the
best seller lists.)
-Mary
Sherilyn
wrote:
>
>Orjan Westin <NospamRepla...@cunobaros.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Jen Birren <jana...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3C0F6200...@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>> Sherilyn wrote:
>>> > How about skiing and bicycling?
>>>
>>> What a lovely image, a bike whizzing down a mountain on skis a la the
>>> grand piano in Help!
>>
>> Um, I built a 'biskicle' when I was a lad - take a bike and replace the
>> weels with short skis. No brakes and great speed on packed snow made
>> bruises certain. Fun, though...
>
>I've seen skis for paraplegics. One ski to sit on and a short ski
>strapped to each elbow. Neat, but apparently quite scary the first
>few times.
>
I have never seen Winter Paralympics, but I wonder if luge is popular. Slalom
on low skis must be rather fun. Ski jump, I think, might have to be rethought a
bit. Anybody here competed in paralympics, or organised?
--
Sherilyn
momo
> Lord Lucan wrote:
> > "Peter Ellis" <pj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.16776f654...@news.cable.ntlworld.com...
> > All Sorts of stuff
> > my little bit -
> > "Call no man happy until he is dead" - Herodotus
>
> "Life holds no pleasures that can compare to death?" <g>
>
<snips myth>
Hey, I translated that in ancient Greek once:-) Brought back
more or less fond memories of school in Germany.
The story goes on that Croesus tries to save his sons from
all harm and thus forbids them to take part in any war, and
even hires a so-called body guard, whose name ironically means
'bad luck', and full-fills destiny by killing the king's son.
After that he commits suicide, convinced that he is the most
unhappy man in the world. Tragic.
The story is similar to the one of Polykrates and his ring....
a reference can be found to it in WS. The Greek gods made
sure that *no one* thought themselves above them. As a Japanese
prover goes 'The nail that sticks up will be hammered down.'
My Greek teacher always used the methaphor of the wheat field
and the scythe. Gods were known to be jealous, and nobody mortal
could be content, otherwise he was punished by the deities.
Such was life.
I think the concept of not being truly happy until dead is
something that Buddism made use of.... such it was an honor
for a samurai to be orderd to commit hara kiri by his master,
as there was a probable chance to be reincarnated as a better person.
And the goal of meditation *is* to rid yourself of all worldy
goods and evils.
Eh, my Japanese history teacher explained it like that, anyway.
It's always scary to post something like this on afp, mind you:-)
All the best,
Momo
Flabbergast
>motivation in a drama. Those words at the bottom of the screen are called
>subtitles or (sometimes) captions.
Subtitles that's der bunny!
okbye
Norman L. DeForest
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
> "Flabbergast" wrote ...
[snip]
> > Are you somehow implying, [...]
[snip]
> > [...] That unless you've, what? read X
> > number of Pratchett books? You're not really worthy of posting to AFP.
> > Or even to be counted as a _true_ fan. Because that is very much of
> > what it looks like from here.
>
> X must be equal to or greater than 1. If X = 0 then what the hell is the
> individual doing here at all?
[snip]
Really? I could think of a situation where someone may be a fan without
having read *any* Pratchett books. Someone may be blind and may have
*listened to* some of the audio recordings available of Pterry's books.
For that person, reading may not be an option.
Norman "only 1959 postings to go" De Forest
--
Norman De Forest [=||=] af...@chebucto.ns.ca
">I'm sure that if I'm wrong, someone will correct me."
"This is NANAE. Someone will probably correct you anyway..."
-- Stephen Whitis in news.admin.net-abuse.email, Wednesday, Nov 8, 2000
Gurpreet Singh
"Norman L. DeForest" <af...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.101...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca.
..
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
>
> > "Flabbergast" wrote ...
> [snip]
> > > Are you somehow implying, [...]
> [snip]
> > >
> > > [...] That unless you've, what? read X
> > > number of Pratchett books? You're not really worthy
> > > of posting to AFP.
> > > Or even to be counted as a _true_ fan. Because that
> > > is very much of
> > > what it looks like from here.
> >
> > X must be equal to or greater than 1. If X = 0 then
> > what the hell is
> > the
> > individual doing here at all?
> [snip]
>
> Really? I could think of a situation where someone may
> be a fan without
> having read *any* Pratchett books. Someone may be
> blind and may have
> *listened to* some of the audio recordings available of
> Pterry's books.
> For that person, reading may not be an option.
>
>
> Norman "only 1959 postings to go" De Forest
>
Seeing as this group tends to have nothing (whatsoever) to do with PTerry
(most of the time), apart from its name, I can see many situations where
people are referred to this group, for the general conversation, despite not
being a fan of PTerry.
Suzi
alt.fan.pratchett, Gurpreet Singh <Gurpree...@ukgateway.net>
wibbled...
[Snip]
> Seeing as this group tends to have nothing (whatsoever) to do with PTerry
> (most of the time), apart from its name, I can see many situations where
> people are referred to this group, for the general conversation, despite not
> being a fan of PTerry.
In which case they would be off-topic for the group as this is a group
for fans of Terry Pratchett :-)
Suzi