Worst Small Press In The Genre? Midnight House!
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
The book artwork is puerile, what with the silly little demon faces
scribbled everywhere, like something you'd find in a schoolboy's
jotting pad. As many have noted the typography reeks of Microsoft Word,
making it graceless and boring. The books look like someone has scanned
the text into Word, hit the print button, then slapped the resulting
mess into crappy thin boards. As for the binding cloth and paper
choice.....these books don't merit a price of $10 let alone $40.
In the three or four years that Midnight House has been running, at
least a a dozen people, two of whom are dealers, have cited Midnight
House to me as the least talented and very worst value-for-money
publisher in the genre today. Ask among collectors who collect all
small press books and they will unanimously agree (unless they are pals
with the proprietor, of course).
The only thing stopping people from talking about this liberty-taking
publishing venture is the dominating presence of proprietor John Pelan,
a foul-mouthed bully who uses his position as Trustee at the Horror
Writer's Association to intimidate his critics (as well as to further
his career). This appalling state of affairs means that collectors and
dealers can't openly gauge public opinion about what small press books
are good value, else Pelan comes bearing down on them like some
deranged wrestler obsessed with sadistic homo-erotic violence. However,
his books are as shoddy and uncooth as the man himself, and The Haunted
River has no hesitation whatsover in advising collectors to spend their
money with other publishers.
The next worst small press publisher has to be Sarob Press. It is
reasonably well known amongst the other better established small
presses that Richard Dalby had been trotting around from pillar to post
offering sub-standard projects to all and sundry. This is not to say
that RD has not worked on some very worthy projects, just that he had
many rejections for projects which suddenly turned up on Sarob's plate.
Starting off with insipid projects was bad enough, but Sarob' s
production quality leaves a lot to be desired. Very plain, very drab,
very slight productions, these books are the wafer-thin mints of the
genre. Unforgiveably, any period illustrations they use look like they
are tenth generation photocopies. The illustrations in the G M Robins
collection are ghastly, completely undermining the book's status. Sarob
are another publisher who represent very poor value for money (although
their proprietor has far more positive reputation than Midnight
House's).
It is a great pity that Dave Fletcher at Caliban Press has not taken up
the gauntlet left discarded by Ghost Story Press. His Pamely book
'Tales Of Mystery' is easily the most attractive small press book to
have appeared in recent years. DF actually made the effort to think
about all aspects of production, and aimed to produce something a
connoisseur would want to hold and handle. It is a book that is held in
high regard amongst those that own a copy.
Although I find the Ashtree Press font size too small and the books too
dull and uniform in style, some of their books are worthy of the high
prices they command. The front cover illustrations vary from superb
(Douglas Walters) to downright embarrassing (Deborah McNering). It is a
great pity that more of the books do not feature new illustrations in
the text, and that the publisher does not utilise a larger, more
generous font. But perhaps the worst aspect of Ashtree Press's output
is the sheer volume: they pump out volume after volume, regardless of
the merits of the prose, having created a small publishing empire which
needs to support two adult careers. Quality control has been thrown
away with the bath water. This has resulted in many forgettable volumes
which have been unrealistically praised by friends and colleagues, and
a spinning-out of certain projects to extract maximum income from
interest in any one author or project. Perhaps this has finally sunk
home, as evidenced by Ashtree's recent sale which was both generous and
long-lasting; perhaps people are finally waking up the fact that
placing that standing order for any book published is a bad idea, since
not only is the quality dipping, but they might be encouraging the
publishers to publish old rope if they thought it would sell.
Gray Friar Press is a fine example of enterprising initiative.
Proprietor Gary Fry has in a very calculated fashion used Ramsey
Campbell as a springboard for his own incestous publications. Via
message board flattery and the tactic of agreeing to publish almost
anyone's story provided they are willing to buy a few copies and
flatter him back in return, Fry has moved Fusing Horizons on from a
curiously eclectic fanzine with an embarrassingly poor logo to a
paperback publisher approved of by his mentor. But is Poe's Progeny any
good? No, is the short answer. It is far from outstanding in terms of
production value, and as has already been mentioned, any friend of
Fry's or Campbell's who will buy a few copies got published in the
book. More of a sixth formers project than a grown-up book, Poe's
Progeny has neverthless wisely ensured that it gets praised in all the
right quarters by securing the support of Fry's crush, Ramsey Campbell.
Yes, there may be a very small handful of decent stories in the book -
and I mean small - but the whole taken as such is indicative of many
genre anthologies e.g. poorly selected and poor value for money.
Alas things can only get worse - the boundaries between writer and
publisher and this and that publishing house have blurred to the point
of undeniable incestousness. Thus Ramsey Campbell endorses books which
his friends the Rodens at Ashtree Press review, books which feature
stories by Fry published by the Rodens, and vice versa. Campbell also
contributes a column to the Roden's journal All Hallows, so he is
unlikely to get bad press there even if he elects to publish a year's
worth of shopping lists. And because RC is President of the Fantasy
Society and John Pelan - an occasional Ashtree employee himself - is on
the board of the HWA.....
You don't need to be a scientist to deduce that the small press genre
is rife with bullshit flattery. And I for one propose to speak as I
find and I really don't care a damn about the egos of those involved.
So in conclusion:
* Don't buy Midnight House books. They are appalling. But don't take my
word for it, ask other collectors and bookdealers (not friends of the
owner's, obviously), or take a look at one yourself.
* Be selective and only buy Sarob Press books for the prose, but be
warned, the book production is very pedestrian.
* Do not place a standing order with Ashtree Press. Much of what they
do is bland. Be very selective, but aside from the uniformity and font
size issues, you will get good value for money.
* Be very wary about small press reviews and awards - it is an
incredibly incestuous genre.
* Tartarus Press books are often very well made (well, the later ones
are; many of the earlier ones have basic faults) but they can be
tediously uniform coverwise. Watch out for spelling typos; if Tartarus
have a bad name for anything, it is for hastily prepared text with
spelling mistakes and dropped lines. (The very worst book being the
Collected Robert Aickman - a book most collectors get shot of as
quickly as they can). Some of their books also feature small text which
is weakly printed e.g. it looks faded. Examples: the Aickman and the
Onions collections are the worst I've seen. Be wary about copies of
'The Princess Daphne' - the blocking on many copies was poor and some
copies with badly blocked designs were still sold. The Mark Valentine
books are handsome and well printed, as was the single edition of The
Cheetah Girl. I would single these out for highest praise. I also liked
the quirky slightly-smaller format of the Mark Samuels collection 'The
White Hands'. (The Valentine and Samuels books also benefit from being
well written.)
CB
John Pelan
Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
> This has to be Midnight House.
>
> The book artwork is puerile, what with the silly little demon faces
> scribbled everywhere, like something you'd find in a schoolboy's
> jotting pad. As many have noted the typography reeks of Microsoft Word,
> making it graceless and boring. The books look like someone has scanned
> the text into Word, hit the print button, then slapped the resulting
> mess into crappy thin boards. As for the binding cloth and paper
> choice.....these books don't merit a price of $10 let alone $40.
What a mooncalf. You do realize that our book design is done by Brian
Metz of Green Rhino Graphics, and that Brian is one of the most
respected book designers in the US? You do realize that all of our
books are illustrated by Allen Koszowski. Allen has won more awards for
his artwork than I could begin to enumerate. Further, the price is $45,
not $40; you can't get even the simplest thing right, can you?
>
> In the three or four years that Midnight House has been running, at
> least a a dozen people, two of whom are dealers, have cited Midnight
> House to me as the least talented and very worst value-for-money
> publisher in the genre today. Ask among collectors who collect all
> small press books and they will unanimously agree (unless they are pals
> with the proprietor, of course).
Hmmm... This would explain why our titles all sell through in short
order? Obviously, you are lying as there aren't two dealers in the
world that will have anything to do with you.
>
> The only thing stopping people from talking about this liberty-taking
> publishing venture is the dominating presence of proprietor John Pelan,
> a foul-mouthed bully who uses his position as Trustee at the Horror
> Writer's Association to intimidate his critics (as well as to further
> his career).
How on earth does a volunteer position at an authors' organization
intimidate anyone?
> This appalling state of affairs means that collectors and
> dealers can't openly gauge public opinion about what small press books
> are good value, else Pelan comes bearing down on them like some
> deranged wrestler obsessed with sadistic homo-erotic violence. However,
> his books are as shoddy and uncooth as the man himself, and The Haunted
> River has no hesitation whatsover in advising collectors to spend their
> money with other publishers.
Advice on collectiblity from you is like getting stock tips from the
incontinet drunk sleeping in the park. BTW, I've forwarded your
comments to Richard Dalby and Roibert Morgan, I predict there shan't be
any more review copies of Sarob titles for little Christopher...
Cheers,
John
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
> Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
> > This has to be Midnight House.
> >
> > The book artwork is puerile, what with the silly little demon faces
> > scribbled everywhere, like something you'd find in a schoolboy's
> > jotting pad. As many have noted the typography reeks of Microsoft Word,
> > making it graceless and boring. The books look like someone has scanned
> > the text into Word, hit the print button, then slapped the resulting
> > mess into crappy thin boards. As for the binding cloth and paper
> > choice.....these books don't merit a price of $10 let alone $40.
>
> What a mooncalf. You do realize that our book design is done by Brian
> Metz of Green Rhino Graphics, and that Brian is one of the most
> respected book designers in the US? You do realize that all of our
> books are illustrated by Allen Koszowski. Allen has won more awards for
> his artwork than I could begin to enumerate. Further, the price is $45,
> not $40; you can't get even the simplest thing right, can you?
>
Your books reek of MS Word. The pages are lazily type-set and ugly to
read.
Many of the added illustrations are puerile, regardless of who does
them.
Your books are openly derided by collectors. Sorry if that fact hurts,
but it happens to be true.
> >
> > In the three or four years that Midnight House has been running, at
> > least a a dozen people, two of whom are dealers, have cited Midnight
> > House to me as the least talented and very worst value-for-money
> > publisher in the genre today. Ask among collectors who collect all
> > small press books and they will unanimously agree (unless they are pals
> > with the proprietor, of course).
>
> Hmmm... This would explain why our titles all sell through in short
> order? Obviously, you are lying as there aren't two dealers in the
> world that will have anything to do with you.
No, you are the proven liar. We know this because a Legal Counsel has
allowed his condemnation of you for your lying to be published.
What independent third party solicitor has ever gone on record as
saying I've lied about anything? None, ever. The best you can come up
with is a crony allegation bereft of any factual evidence.
>
> >
> > The only thing stopping people from talking about this liberty-taking
> > publishing venture is the dominating presence of proprietor John Pelan,
> > a foul-mouthed bully who uses his position as Trustee at the Horror
> > Writer's Association to intimidate his critics (as well as to further
> > his career).
>
> How on earth does a volunteer position at an authors' organization
> intimidate anyone?
The usenet archives prove that you have tried to intimidate other
people by arguing that they should shut up because you are an important
HWA official.
>
>
>
> > This appalling state of affairs means that collectors and
> > dealers can't openly gauge public opinion about what small press books
> > are good value, else Pelan comes bearing down on them like some
> > deranged wrestler obsessed with sadistic homo-erotic violence. However,
> > his books are as shoddy and uncooth as the man himself, and The Haunted
> > River has no hesitation whatsover in advising collectors to spend their
> > money with other publishers.
>
> Advice on collectiblity from you is like getting stock tips from the
> incontinet drunk sleeping in the park.
Pretty irnonic you talking about stock tips when you were shown to have
lied about owning stock with your former ISP. Ergo, you are that drunk
tramp and I claim my five pounds!
BTW, I've forwarded your
> comments to Richard Dalby and Roibert Morgan, I predict there shan't be
> any more review copies of Sarob titles for little Christopher...
>
There never were. I have never received any review copies from either
party.
Once again you have got your facts wrong whilst displaying a
characteristic inability to stand and argue your case without running
off for reinforcements. The only Sarobs I possess are signed copies
sent as gifts by RD.
Congratulations for making it through a post without reference to
cophragy. Do come back and try to compete again, you talentless,
foul-mouthed baboon*.
CB
* Apologies to baboons the world over.
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John "Stalker" Pelan wrote:
>
>> Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
>> > This has to be Midnight House.
>> >
>> > The book artwork is puerile, what with the silly little demon faces
>> > scribbled everywhere, like something you'd find in a schoolboy's
>> > jotting pad. As many have noted the typography reeks of Microsoft Word,
>> > making it graceless and boring. The books look like someone has scanned
>> > the text into Word, hit the print button, then slapped the resulting
>> > mess into crappy thin boards. As for the binding cloth and paper
>> > choice.....these books don't merit a price of $10 let alone $40.
>>
>> What a mooncalf. You do realize that our book design is done by Brian
>> Metz of Green Rhino Graphics, and that Brian is one of the most
>> respected book designers in the US? You do realize that all of our
>> books are illustrated by Allen Koszowski. Allen has won more awards for
>> his artwork than I could begin to enumerate. Further, the price is $45,
>> not $40; you can't get even the simplest thing right, can you?
>>
>
>Your books reek of MS Word. The pages are lazily type-set and ugly to
>read.
How would you know? You don't purchase from us, and our dealers have
instructions to not sell you copies. Could it be that little
Christopher is lying again?
>
>Many of the added illustrations are puerile, regardless of who does
>them.
>
>Your books are openly derided by collectors. Sorry if that fact hurts,
>but it happens to be true.
>
Odd, we certainly haven't found this to be the case. I should point
out that the voices in your head do not regularly purchase books, so
this isn't really an area of concern.
>
>> >
>> > In the three or four years that Midnight House has been running, at
>> > least a a dozen people, two of whom are dealers, have cited Midnight
>> > House to me as the least talented and very worst value-for-money
>> > publisher in the genre today. Ask among collectors who collect all
>> > small press books and they will unanimously agree (unless they are pals
>> > with the proprietor, of course).
>>
>> Hmmm... This would explain why our titles all sell through in short
>> order? Obviously, you are lying as there aren't two dealers in the
>> world that will have anything to do with you.
>
>
>No, you are the proven liar. We know this because a Legal Counsel has
>allowed his condemnation of you for your lying to be published.
Prove it. We all know that you forge e-mails and have been publicly
reprimanded as a thief and fraud.
>
>What independent third party solicitor has ever gone on record as
>saying I've lied about anything? None, ever. The best you can come up
>with is a crony allegation bereft of any factual evidence.
Google is not your friend in this regard...
>
>>
>> >
>> > The only thing stopping people from talking about this liberty-taking
>> > publishing venture is the dominating presence of proprietor John Pelan,
>> > a foul-mouthed bully who uses his position as Trustee at the Horror
>> > Writer's Association to intimidate his critics (as well as to further
>> > his career).
>>
>> How on earth does a volunteer position at an authors' organization
>> intimidate anyone?
>
>The usenet archives prove that you have tried to intimidate other
>people by arguing that they should shut up because you are an important
>HWA official.
>
My comments posted on Usenet have not ever had anything to do with
HWA. You are lying again.
>>
>> > This appalling state of affairs means that collectors and
>> > dealers can't openly gauge public opinion about what small press books
>> > are good value, else Pelan comes bearing down on them like some
>> > deranged wrestler obsessed with sadistic homo-erotic violence. However,
>> > his books are as shoddy and uncooth as the man himself, and The Haunted
>> > River has no hesitation whatsover in advising collectors to spend their
>> > money with other publishers.
>>
>> Advice on collectiblity from you is like getting stock tips from the
>> incontinet drunk sleeping in the park.
>
>Pretty irnonic you talking about stock tips when you were shown to have
>lied about owning stock with your former ISP. Ergo, you are that drunk
>tramp and I claim my five pounds!
Quiet, toad. No one is interested in your fabrications. I'm sorry that
the new book is doing poorly, but Mr. Oliver really deserves better
than an egotistical, talentless, mooncalf that can't tell a
notch-bound book from one that is Smythe-sewn.
Now run along and direct traffic.
Cheers,
John
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
> On 2 Jan 2006 16:45:07 -0800, "Carnacki The Ghost Finder"
> <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >John "Stalker" Pelan wrote:
> >
> >> Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
> >> > This has to be Midnight House.
> >> >
> >> > The book artwork is puerile, what with the silly little demon faces
> >> > scribbled everywhere, like something you'd find in a schoolboy's
> >> > jotting pad. As many have noted the typography reeks of Microsoft Word,
> >> > making it graceless and boring. The books look like someone has scanned
> >> > the text into Word, hit the print button, then slapped the resulting
> >> > mess into crappy thin boards. As for the binding cloth and paper
> >> > choice.....these books don't merit a price of $10 let alone $40.
> >>
> >> What a mooncalf. You do realize that our book design is done by Brian
> >> Metz of Green Rhino Graphics, and that Brian is one of the most
> >> respected book designers in the US? You do realize that all of our
> >> books are illustrated by Allen Koszowski. Allen has won more awards for
> >> his artwork than I could begin to enumerate. Further, the price is $45,
> >> not $40; you can't get even the simplest thing right, can you?
> >>
> >
> >Your books reek of MS Word. The pages are lazily type-set and ugly to
> >read.
>
> How would you know?
(Sigh). As I said in my original post, it is common knowledge. I've
lost count of the number of times people have said this about your
books in conversation and email. Besides, as you well know, I stupidly
purchased copies of your first two or three books.
You don't purchase from us, and our dealers have
> instructions to not sell you copies. Could it be that little
> Christopher is lying again?
ROFL. (Not least because I am way taller than you.)
You have instructed dealers not to sell to me? That is SOOOO American!
How pathetic, how childish, how utterly.........paranoid.
This is the first time I've ever heard of a publisher trying to control
who buys his books. What a joke!
>
> >
> >Many of the added illustrations are puerile, regardless of who does
> >them.
> >
> >Your books are openly derided by collectors. Sorry if that fact hurts,
> >but it happens to be true.
> >
>
> Odd, we certainly haven't found this to be the case. I should point
> out that the voices in your head do not regularly purchase books, so
> this isn't really an area of concern.
>
Not voices in my head alas, real people who own your books.
I defy anyone present to open out a Tartarus, Ashtree, Sarob and
Midnight House book, and then claim that the MH book doesn't reek of
Microsoft Word.
To quote one person, "I'm surprised they aren't compelled to feature
the Intel logo on their title page".
>
> >
> >> >
> >> > In the three or four years that Midnight House has been running, at
> >> > least a a dozen people, two of whom are dealers, have cited Midnight
> >> > House to me as the least talented and very worst value-for-money
> >> > publisher in the genre today. Ask among collectors who collect all
> >> > small press books and they will unanimously agree (unless they are pals
> >> > with the proprietor, of course).
> >>
> >> Hmmm... This would explain why our titles all sell through in short
> >> order? Obviously, you are lying as there aren't two dealers in the
> >> world that will have anything to do with you.
> >
> >
> >No, you are the proven liar. We know this because a Legal Counsel has
> >allowed his condemnation of you for your lying to be published.
>
> Prove it. We all know that you forge e-mails and have been publicly
> reprimanded as a thief and fraud.
Ha ha ha. Pelan the bullshitter is still trying to deny that he lied.
I have proved it. Anyone who wishes to check the matter out has been
invited to email the legal counsel Mr Barry Maulding at
www.isomedia.com. Three people did and they discovered that you had
lied.
Besides, if I'm not telling the truth, why haven't you liaised with Mr
Maulding to tell him I have been misquoting him on the internet? That
would be a very serious offence, and were it to be true, my ISP would
shut my account down.
Just as your former ISP shut yours down......
> >
> >What independent third party solicitor has ever gone on record as
> >saying I've lied about anything? None, ever. The best you can come up
> >with is a crony allegation bereft of any factual evidence.
>
> Google is not your friend in this regard...
What the hell does that mean?
I asked you to name a solicitor who would put his name to branding me a
liar but you can't do that. In contrast, Mr Barry Maulding - legal
counsel at Isomedia - has branded you a liar.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The only thing stopping people from talking about this liberty-taking
> >> > publishing venture is the dominating presence of proprietor John Pelan,
> >> > a foul-mouthed bully who uses his position as Trustee at the Horror
> >> > Writer's Association to intimidate his critics (as well as to further
> >> > his career).
> >>
> >> How on earth does a volunteer position at an authors' organization
> >> intimidate anyone?
> >
> >The usenet archives prove that you have tried to intimidate other
> >people by arguing that they should shut up because you are an important
> >HWA official.
> >
> My comments posted on Usenet have not ever had anything to do with
> HWA. You are lying again.
On at least three seperate occasion (as have been notified to the HWA),
you have told "fanboys" to shut up because you are an official of the
HWA.
The only reason they haven't booted you off the HWA board is because
they pleaded poverty. They said they couldn't afford the legal costs in
investigating the issue, so I agreed to drop the matter. After all, why
should the HWA suffer because of you? And why should their meagre funds
be eaten up by investigating you?
You are a foul-mouthed liability. I pity the HWA being saddled with
you.
>
> >>
> >> > This appalling state of affairs means that collectors and
> >> > dealers can't openly gauge public opinion about what small press books
> >> > are good value, else Pelan comes bearing down on them like some
> >> > deranged wrestler obsessed with sadistic homo-erotic violence. However,
> >> > his books are as shoddy and uncooth as the man himself, and The Haunted
> >> > River has no hesitation whatsover in advising collectors to spend their
> >> > money with other publishers.
> >>
> >> Advice on collectiblity from you is like getting stock tips from the
> >> incontinet drunk sleeping in the park.
> >
> >Pretty irnonic you talking about stock tips when you were shown to have
> >lied about owning stock with your former ISP. Ergo, you are that drunk
> >tramp and I claim my five pounds!
>
> Quiet, toad. No one is interested in your fabrications.
It is a well established fact that you lied in this newsgroup about
owning shares in Isomedia.
I'm sorry that
> the new book is doing poorly,
Poorly? This, from a MS Word publisher?
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the book is doing superbly, and is
garnering the reviews it justly deserves. (A new one by the author Mark
Samuels is soon to appear on the Haunted River website.)
I was right to deny you a free review copy, though that appears to be
causing you some embarrassment and anger. You would miss most of the
references and you are singularly incapable of original thought. After
all, you are the person who described Reggie's work as "Jamesian" where
no one else has (but what can we expect - you hadn't actually read it
before expressing an opinion!)
but Mr. Oliver really deserves better
> than an egotistical, talentless, mooncalf that can't tell a
> notch-bound book from one that is Smythe-sewn.
I shall be sure to tell Reggie that you know what he deserves better
than I or him. After all, he has opted through personal choice to
publish with me rather than go elsewhere.
As for being a moon-calf, YOU are the one who had to admit that he
hadn't realised what notch-binding meant, after you suddenly discovered
that your crony Ramsey C was publishing with a devoted notch-binder in
the US. I knew all along, but - as has been pointed out to perhaps
twenty times - where we placed an order for sewn bindings, we actually
got notch-bindings. Ergo, it was neither duplicitous nor ignorant,
merely a communication breakdown.
And let me state for the record, no one - no one whatsoever - has ever
expressed a concern to either Reggie or me about the binding issue. Not
one customer. In fact, the ONLY people who have made an issue of this
thing are rival publishers e.g. you, Ray Russell and Chris Roden. No
one else cared then nor now.
You should think about this. Every time you bang on about it, it makes
you look like a sad old man feasting off sour grapes. And the 200 plus
customers who own copies of the book - not one of whom has complained -
must read your posts and wonder what the hell is motivating you
spitefulness.
(Clue: they know it's jealousy.)
You're a fat bearded wrestler who smokes and drinks too much, and by
your own admission you used to abuse cocaine. Wouldn't your time be
better spent getting fit and healthy instead of stalking me around the
internet, posting sadistic homo-eroticism? Or better still, spend a few
minutes type-setting the next Midnight House book rather than inflict
MS Word on your mug customers.
CB
PS. Observe how I posted without referencing your wife or cophragy. You
might learn from me.
John Pelan
Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
>
> The book artwork is puerile, what with the silly little demon faces
> scribbled everywhere, like something you'd find in a schoolboy's
> jotting pad. As many have noted the typography reeks of Microsoft Word,
> making it graceless and boring. The books look like someone has scanned
> the text into Word, hit the print button, then slapped the resulting
> mess into crappy thin boards. As for the binding cloth and paper
> choice.....these books don't merit a price of $10 let alone $40.
For your edification, our books are done in Page-Maker and Freehand.
I'm sure that you're not familiar with these programs as they require a
fairly high level of skill to utilize and are out of your price range.
> Although I find the Ashtree Press font size too small and the books too
> dull and uniform in style, some of their books are worthy of the high
> prices they command. The front cover illustrations vary from superb
> (Douglas Walters) to downright embarrassing (Deborah McNering). It is a
> great pity that more of the books do not feature new illustrations in
> the text, and that the publisher does not utilise a larger, more
> generous font. But perhaps the worst aspect of Ashtree Press's output
> is the sheer volume: they pump out volume after volume, regardless of
> the merits of the prose, having created a small publishing empire which
> needs to support two adult careers. Quality control has been thrown
> away with the bath water. This has resulted in many forgettable volumes
> which have been unrealistically praised by friends and colleagues, and
> a spinning-out of certain projects to extract maximum income from
> interest in any one author or project. Perhaps this has finally sunk
> home, as evidenced by Ashtree's recent sale which was both generous and
> long-lasting; perhaps people are finally waking up the fact that
> placing that standing order for any book published is a bad idea, since
> not only is the quality dipping, but they might be encouraging the
> publishers to publish old rope if they thought it would sell.
Odd, I'm sure that Ash-Tree has many standing orders (as do we).
Customers no doubt exercise caution when it comes to your
author-subsidized projects as they may get a decent short story
collection or a pamphlet of your rubbish. There's just no telling where
your antic little mind will lead, is there?
>
> Gray Friar Press is a fine example of enterprising initiative.
> Proprietor Gary Fry has in a very calculated fashion used Ramsey
> Campbell as a springboard for his own incestous publications. Via
> message board flattery and the tactic of agreeing to publish almost
> anyone's story provided they are willing to buy a few copies and
> flatter him back in return, Fry has moved Fusing Horizons on from a
> curiously eclectic fanzine with an embarrassingly poor logo to a
> paperback publisher approved of by his mentor. But is Poe's Progeny any
> good? No, is the short answer. It is far from outstanding in terms of
> production value, and as has already been mentioned, any friend of
> Fry's or Campbell's who will buy a few copies got published in the
> book. More of a sixth formers project than a grown-up book, Poe's
> Progeny has neverthless wisely ensured that it gets praised in all the
> right quarters by securing the support of Fry's crush, Ramsey Campbell.
> Yes, there may be a very small handful of decent stories in the book -
> and I mean small - but the whole taken as such is indicative of many
> genre anthologies e.g. poorly selected and poor value for money.
>
Ah, a rejection from Gray Frair to add to your lenghty resume of abject
failures.
> * Tartarus Press books are often very well made (well, the later ones
> are; many of the earlier ones have basic faults) but they can be
> tediously uniform coverwise. Watch out for spelling typos; if Tartarus
> have a bad name for anything, it is for hastily prepared text with
> spelling mistakes and dropped lines. (The very worst book being the
> Collected Robert Aickman - a book most collectors get shot of as
> quickly as they can). Some of their books also feature small text which
> is weakly printed e.g. it looks faded. Examples: the Aickman and the
> Onions collections are the worst I've seen. Be wary about copies of
> 'The Princess Daphne' - the blocking on many copies was poor and some
> copies with badly blocked designs were still sold. The Mark Valentine
> books are handsome and well printed, as was the single edition of The
> Cheetah Girl. I would single these out for highest praise. I also liked
> the quirky slightly-smaller format of the Mark Samuels collection 'The
> White Hands'. (The Valentine and Samuels books also benefit from being
> well written.)
>
> CB
You stupid twat, you wouldn't know a well-designed book if you were hit
over the head with it. In fact, I suspect that you intended your most
recent volume to double as a weapon of some sort due to the
preposterous weight of the thing. Have you not yet learned to select
proper book-paper?
BTW: For your edification, Intell manufactures chips, not
word-processing programs. As always, your remarkable ignorance is
astonishing, I shouldn't wonder that Fatima has to turn on teh computer
for you.
Cheers,
John
osc
> Your books reek of MS Word. The pages are lazily type-set and ugly to
> read.
I can't say anything about Pelan's books, but I'm betting yours are just
as incompetently done as your website -- static pages saved from Serif
PagePlus, designed by an colour blind fool and with zero understanding of
the web and HTML.
Quote michael adams: "hopeless just isn't the word"
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, you admit that you are lying again. Very good.
>
>This is the first time I've ever heard of a publisher trying to control
>who buys his books. What a joke!
We're not big on casting pearls before swine (or toads, as the case
may be).
>
>>
>> >
>> >Many of the added illustrations are puerile, regardless of who does
>> >them.
What added illustrations woul these be? We have an illustration on the
dustjacket and a cameo of teh author on the frontispiece. Are you
lying again?
>> >
>> >Your books are openly derided by collectors. Sorry if that fact hurts,
>> >but it happens to be true.
>> >
>>
>> Odd, we certainly haven't found this to be the case. I should point
>> out that the voices in your head do not regularly purchase books, so
>> this isn't really an area of concern.
>>
>
>Not voices in my head alas, real people who own your books.
Odd, we don't seem to have any shortage of customers, but thank you
for your concerns.
>
>I defy anyone present to open out a Tartarus, Ashtree, Sarob and
>Midnight House book, and then claim that the MH book doesn't reek of
>Microsoft Word.
>
>To quote one person, "I'm surprised they aren't compelled to feature
>the Intel logo on their title page".
You stupid toad, Intell makes chips, not word-processing programs. Not
that I would expect a silly git that thinks that people can install
"spy cameras" on his computer from 3500 miles away to know this. You
really aren't the sharpest pencil in the box, are you?
>
>> >> >
>> >> > In the three or four years that Midnight House has been running, at
>> >> > least a a dozen people, two of whom are dealers, have cited Midnight
>> >> > House to me as the least talented and very worst value-for-money
>> >> > publisher in the genre today. Ask among collectors who collect all
>> >> > small press books and they will unanimously agree (unless they are pals
>> >> > with the proprietor, of course).
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm... This would explain why our titles all sell through in short
>> >> order? Obviously, you are lying as there aren't two dealers in the
>> >> world that will have anything to do with you.
>> >
>> >
>> >No, you are the proven liar. We know this because a Legal Counsel has
>> >allowed his condemnation of you for your lying to be published.
>>
>> Prove it. We all know that you forge e-mails and have been publicly
>> reprimanded as a thief and fraud.
>
>Ha ha ha. Pelan the bullshitter is still trying to deny that he lied.
>
>I have proved it. Anyone who wishes to check the matter out has been
>invited to email the legal counsel Mr Barry Maulding at
>www.isomedia.com. Three people did and they discovered that you had
>lied.
>
>Besides, if I'm not telling the truth, why haven't you liaised with Mr
>Maulding to tell him I have been misquoting him on the internet? That
>would be a very serious offence, and were it to be true, my ISP would
>shut my account down.
>
Because I haven't the time to waste on shutting down your ISP. You've
failed as a writer, bookseller, editor, publisher, and even as a lowly
civil servant. You're just a sad little wanker with delusions of
grandeur.
>> >
>> >What independent third party solicitor has ever gone on record as
>> >saying I've lied about anything? None, ever. The best you can come up
>> >with is a crony allegation bereft of any factual evidence.
>>
>> Google is not your friend in this regard...
>
>What the hell does that mean?
Look it up fuckwit.
>> >> > The only thing stopping people from talking about this liberty-taking
>> >> > publishing venture is the dominating presence of proprietor John Pelan,
>> >> > a foul-mouthed bully who uses his position as Trustee at the Horror
>> >> > Writer's Association to intimidate his critics (as well as to further
>> >> > his career).
>> >>
>> >> How on earth does a volunteer position at an authors' organization
>> >> intimidate anyone?
>> >
>> >The usenet archives prove that you have tried to intimidate other
>> >people by arguing that they should shut up because you are an important
>> >HWA official.
>> >
>> My comments posted on Usenet have not ever had anything to do with
>> HWA. You are lying again.
>
>On at least three seperate occasion (as have been notified to the HWA),
>you have told "fanboys" to shut up because you are an official of the
>HWA.
Prove it or STFU.
>
>The only reason they haven't booted you off the HWA board is because
>they pleaded poverty. They said they couldn't afford the legal costs in
>investigating the issue, so I agreed to drop the matter. After all, why
>should the HWA suffer because of you? And why should their meagre funds
>be eaten up by investigating you?
>
>You are a foul-mouthed liability. I pity the HWA being saddled with
>you.
Certainly nothing that will ever be a concern of yours.
Sooner or later he'll come to his senses and then you self-publish
your own execrable drivel without harming the careers of real writers.
>
>As for being a moon-calf, YOU are the one who had to admit that he
>hadn't realised what notch-binding meant, after you suddenly discovered
>that your crony Ramsey C was publishing with a devoted notch-binder in
>the US. I knew all along, but - as has been pointed out to perhaps
>twenty times - where we placed an order for sewn bindings, we actually
>got notch-bindings. Ergo, it was neither duplicitous nor ignorant,
>merely a communication breakdown.
>
>And let me state for the record, no one - no one whatsoever - has ever
>expressed a concern to either Reggie or me about the binding issue. Not
>one customer. In fact, the ONLY people who have made an issue of this
>thing are rival publishers e.g. you, Ray Russell and Chris Roden. No
>one else cared then nor now.
Smythe-sewing is markedly superior to notch-binding. Notch-binding is
an acceptable alternative on a very small run. Both books in question
were published in very limited runs that would have made the expense
of Smythe-sewing impractical. Now please quit using the term "rival",
you are a mere chancre on the body of publishing. I consider the
Rodens and Ray Russell to be well-respected peers. You are none of
that.
>
>You should think about this. Every time you bang on about it, it makes
>you look like a sad old man feasting off sour grapes. And the 200 plus
>customers who own copies of the book - not one of whom has complained -
>must read your posts and wonder what the hell is motivating you
>spitefulness.
>
>(Clue: they know it's jealousy.)
>
>You're a fat bearded wrestler who smokes and drinks too much, and by
>your own admission you used to abuse cocaine. Wouldn't your time be
>better spent getting fit and healthy instead of stalking me around the
>internet, posting sadistic homo-eroticism? Or better still, spend a few
>minutes type-setting the next Midnight House book rather than inflict
>MS Word on your mug customers.
A pity that you're too stupid to tell the difference between a
word-processing program and typesetting. Of course, this ignorance is
reflected in your offerings, isn't it? "For the completist, or those
seeking the nadir" - A well-known bookseller on Mr. Barker's first
pamphlet.
>CB
>
>PS. Observe how I posted without referencing your wife or cophragy. You
>might learn from me.
The only thing I might learn from you is where to contract unpleasant
diseases.
Good day,
John
Gary Fry
There's only one sixth-former around here, mate. I've just read your
'opinion' about Poe's Progeny, and I shall respond in a grown-up way. I
believe the phrase is, not rising to the bait.
Best -
Gary Fry
"John Pelan" <jpe...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:t8sjr1he6ahai9bln...@4ax.com...
osc
> Not voices in my head alas, real people who own your books.
>
> I defy anyone present to open out a Tartarus, Ashtree, Sarob and
> Midnight House book, and then claim that the MH book doesn't reek of
> Microsoft Word.
>
> To quote one person, "I'm surprised they aren't compelled to feature the
> Intel logo on their title page".
That may well be the stupidest thing you've ever made up. I find it very
difficult to believe that anyone else was moronic enough to actually say
it. You are using Internet Explorer, posting through google groups, call
this "newsnet" and are constantly baffled by the slightest technical
detail. So yes... it's classic Barker.
I doubt that your books were done with anything other than an Intel
microprocessor, probably because you couldn't afford a Mac. Since you use
Serif PagePlus for your website, I'd guess you use it for the books too,
probably from one of the supplied templates, and I'll bet that you are
using a free version supplied on a magazine cover disc.
Finally, what has an Intel logo got to do with Microsoft Word?
osc
> Finally, what has an Intel logo got to do with Microsoft Word?
Having said that, I'm curious to know how small publishers do this? I've
always assumed that an author submits their text in whatever format suits
them: type-written, hand-written, MS Word, plain text etc, and the
publisher does the layout/checking and saves it in format like
Postscript/PDF or even a TeX DVI before handing it over to a printer along
with the artwork for the covers. The printer then handles all the binding
and delivers X number of books back.
John Pelan
Pretty much spot on. We can utilize pretty much whatever format the
author prefers and then once editing is done, it's off to our designer
for layout. This is usually done in Freehand or PageMaker, or Quark.
The file is then uploaded via FTP to the printer, who handles all
printing and binding in-house and delivers X number of books back. One
quaint variant with our books is that we decided early on that they
should all be individually numbered. So rather than crates that can
just be re-addressed, we have to number and dustjacket each book by
hand. The real benefit to the customer is quality control; out of some
two-dozen titles we've had less than ten copies returned.
Having just numbered 500 books over the weekend, I'm less enamored of
the practice than usual. ;-)
Cheers,
John
bioch...@earthlink.net
I can tell you what I do, and what I've learned in my Typography class;
the following information may not be 100% complete or accurate, but it
should be true in its essential details.
Typesetting started out as the process of literally setting type; that
is, taking blocks of metal with raised letters on them and placing them
into the proper order and arrangement in a frame that would be set into
the printing press. The development of lithographic offset printing by
the 1960s changed that. It involved taking a photograph of a proof
page and using the negative to create a printing template. The
template was still used in a mechanical press, but the latter no longer
required the use of metal type. In the early days one might use
old-style typesetting to create the proof, but in time other devices
were developed that made the process of creating the photo-ready proof
much easier. When I worked on my high school paper, we used a machine
that burned letters onto a strip of light-sensitive film, which was
then developed and printed out. We could then cut those strips up into
smaller pieces to arrange them onto the layout paper, add photographs
and drawings, and send the completed page to the lithographic printer.
The advent of word processing (WP) made the process of creating the
photo-ready proofs easier, and it wasn't long before methods were
developed to use the digital WP files directly to make the negative or
the template, but it wasn't until the development of the PostScript
font that true digital typesetting became possible. This in turn led
to the development of more sophsticated WP programs, that could handle
layout as well as writing and proofing; the invention of Adobe Acrobat
for the direct conversion of WP files into electronic printing
templates; and eventually the creation of Illustrator, Photoshop, and
QuarkXPress.
What individual small press publishers do depends upon their expertise
and the hardware and software they can afford, but as I understand it,
Photoshop makes it possible to create digital artwork for both desktop
and commercial printers, and Illustrator and QuarkXPress make
typesetting and layout easier. In an ideal situation, a writer would
submit a typewritten manuscript that the publisher would scan and OCR
into a WP program like Word. The manuscript would then be proofed and
formatted, then imported into QuarkXPress or Illustrator for layout.
Artwork created with Photoshop would also be imported. The printing
file would be created and sent to the printer, who would then create
the book. Alternatively, Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro could be used for
layout, or even Word itself, but the file would then be converted into
the PDF format for printing.
In my case, I use FineReader for OCR, I then import into Word for
typesetting, formatting, proofing, and layout, then convert to PDF
which I send to the printer. I also create the cover, using Photoshop
to scan and manipulate the artwork and Paint Shop Pro to do the layout,
then convert into a PDF file.
By the way, there is nothing wrong with using Word for typesetting and
layout. Illustrator and QuarkXPress are easier, but Word has gotten
sophisticated enough over the years that it can handle most any form of
layout and typesetting you need to use.
I hope this helps.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Gary Fry wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> There's only one sixth-former around here, mate. I've just read your
> 'opinion' about Poe's Progeny, and I shall respond in a grown-up way. I
> believe the phrase is, not rising to the bait.
>
> Best -
>
> Gary Fry
>
You are more than welcome, mate. But an opinion is an opinion, not an
'opinion'.
Nor was it intended as bait. I did not expect nor even desire a
response from you. I simply ventured an alternative opinion about the
book because as far as I can see, all the opinions that have been
thusfar expressed have been from friends and contributors and work
colleagues, so in my opinion, some balance is required.
Best back,
Chris
osc
> In an ideal situation, a writer would submit a typewritten manuscript
> that the publisher would scan and OCR into a WP program like Word.
Is that really the ideal? OCR is rarely very accurate in my experience
(various experiments while developing office management software).
I'd have thought the ideal would be computer data (whether that's plain
ASCII text or a word processing format like an MS Word/OpenOffice file),
particularly since that can be backed up and delivered very easily.
I'd have though that type/hand-written stuff would be a burden and frowned
on unless the author was a bit computer-phobic.
smee
Let me preface this by stating *emphatically* that I have far less
expertise than others in this newsgroup when it comes to matters having
to do with publishing. Having gotten that disclaimer out of the way, I
would note that one opinion you proffered with which I disagree is the
one about Microsoft Word's suitability as a layout program. As someone
who has had to use it on numerous occasions (due to "customer" demand)
to produce technical documents, I can say without hesitation that it is
totally unsuitable for anything remotely complex or out of the
ordinary. Word does have its own set of strengths, but it wasn't really
designed to be a layout tool. I also think osc is probably correct in
being a bit dubious about the preferred use of OCR; OCR has improved
dramatically over the years, but it's still an avenue for the
introduction of typographical errors. I've used it in the past, but
only as a last resort. Just my $0.02.
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
"Customers no doubt exercise caution when it comes to your
author-subsidized projects as they may get a decent short story
collection or a pamphlet of your rubbish."
I shall inform Reggie Oliver that you are now going around saying that
he had to subsidise the two books we worked together on (which he
obviously did not). It is news to me and it will be news to him.
"Ah, a rejection from Gray Frair to add to your lenghty resume of
abject failures."
No, another erroneous John Pelan conclusion. I have never submitted
anything to Gary Fry. Indeed, the only discourse we have had on short
stories was when he suddenly popped up here, praising a story of mine
that had appeared in David Longhorn's Supernatural Tales.
Here's the link to prove it:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction/msg/91e0ab33c2441951
"You stupid twat, you wouldn't know a well-designed book if you were
hit over the head with it."
Curiously, the consensus opinion on Reggie's new book is that it is
extremely well-designed. But don't just take my word for it, read the
reviews:
http://hauntedriver.co.uk/haunted_river_news.html
In addition, I have a very positive review by Mark Samuels to upload,
which is kind enough to comment very favourably on the precise issue
you raise.
I think that makes three custard-pies in your pig-ugly clown's face.
What a glutton for punishment you are!
CB
Rich Mackin
news:pan.2006.01.03....@yahoo.co.uk...
> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 06:58:14 -0800, biochemborg wrote:
>
>> In an ideal situation, a writer would submit a typewritten manuscript
>> that the publisher would scan and OCR into a WP program like Word.
>
> Is that really the ideal? OCR is rarely very accurate in my experience
> (various experiments while developing office management software).
If you've had to experience Mitek's DocumentXP package, then you have my
sympathies. :(
--
Rich Mackin (rich-at-richmackin-co-uk)
MSN: richmackin-at-hotmail-dot-com
bioch...@earthlink.net
You're right, electronic submission would be better, but many
publishers still prefer printed submissions, being as they still tend
to do editing and proofing by hand. Also, not every publisher and
writer use the same software, and some software are incompatable with
each other, so a printed submission is often necessary. I find that
FineReader is highly accurate, especially with high-constrast
printouts, but also with poor quality printouts as well, so I have few
problems with proofing scanned manuscripts.
Kevin L. O'Brien
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Let me preface this by stating *emphatically* that I have far less
> expertise than others in this newsgroup when it comes to matters having
> to do with publishing. Having gotten that disclaimer out of the way, I
> would note that one opinion you proffered with which I disagree is the
> one about Microsoft Word's suitability as a layout program. As someone
> who has had to use it on numerous occasions (due to "customer" demand)
> to produce technical documents, I can say without hesitation that it is
> totally unsuitable for anything remotely complex or out of the
> ordinary. Word does have its own set of strengths, but it wasn't really
> designed to be a layout tool. I also think osc is probably correct in
> being a bit dubious about the preferred use of OCR; OCR has improved
> dramatically over the years, but it's still an avenue for the
> introduction of typographical errors. I've used it in the past, but
> only as a last resort. Just my $0.02.
>
Illustrator and QuarkXPress are easier and more versatile, but I have
been successful at making Word do what I want it to do as far as layout
is concerned. Of course, I may not have been working on projects as
complicated as you have, but my remarks were directed at criticism of
Word as if it was shoddy, and it isn't for most tasks.
As for OCR, proofreading is always necessary, regardless of how
accurate the program is, but then even the best written electronic
manuscript still needs to be proofed as well, so I do not see this as a
significant criticism.
Kevin L. O'Brien
osc
> As for OCR, proofreading is always necessary, regardless of how accurate
> the program is, but then even the best written electronic manuscript
> still needs to be proofed as well, so I do not see this as a significant
> criticism.
I don't want to be argumentative, but just because you proofread it anyway
isn't a good argument for having an unnecessary source of (often subtle)
errors. Shifting paper around is also lot more difficult.
osc
> You're right, electronic submission would be better, but many publishers
> still prefer printed submissions, being as they still tend to do editing
> and proofing by hand. Also, not every publisher and writer use the same
> software, and some software are incompatable with each other, so a
> printed submission is often necessary.
There aren't actually that many formats when it comes to just plain old
words -- and unless the author happens to be using some *extremely*
obscure software, it shouldn't cause any problems. Most conversion
problems come from the extremely elaborate formatting that some people
insist on including in simple documents. I wouldn't have thought that
would be a major problem in your case.
On the other hand, I've had to explain to a secretary that just because
she has 100 fonts installed doesn't meant she has to use each and every
one... and clip art, and colours... in a memo... which she then prints out
and uses the colour photocopier to make 50 copies to hand around. I'm not
joking.
osc
> If you've had to experience Mitek's DocumentXP package, then you have my
> sympathies. :(
I don't want to be reminded too much of office management software. It was
the single most horrible unrewarding and tedious coding I've ever done. :)
Nebuly
> > I'd have though that type/hand-written stuff would be a burden and frowned
> > on unless the author was a bit computer-phobic.
Yes, on the few occasions when I get a typed submission that I accept,
I ask the author if he or she can send it as an attachment in word;
nine times out of ten that's not a problem. Haven't had a handwritten
submission for ages, and can't remember ever accepting anything
handwritten.
> You're right, electronic submission would be better, but many
> publishers still prefer printed submissions, being as they still tend
> to do editing and proofing by hand.
Speaking as an editor, I vastly prefer electronic submissions to typed
ones; it's the rare electonic submission that my computer can't cope
with, and it always gets sorted out. Typesetting takes a very long time
when you're dealing with 15 or more stories plus articles and reviews
in a 200 page journal three times a year, and scanning is
unsatisfactory in many ways.
As far as editing and proofing goes, once I've taken an electronic
submission and worked on it in Microsoft Word (replacing double quotes
with single, eliminating double spaces between lines, etc.), I read it
through on screen and make any changes/corrections needed. Then it's
imported into PageMaker and gets formatted into ALL HALLOWS house
style; once that's complete I print the story out, now looking pretty
much as it will when it's published, and proof it thoroughly. Once any
changes are made to the file I turn it into a pdf file and send it to
the author for him or her to proof. Having to typeset everything before
starting this process would add hours and hours to the preparation of
each issue. Thanks goodness for electronic submissions!
Barbara
bioch...@earthlink.net
[shrug] FineReader does not add any errors, that I've noticed, and
since I proof after I scan and OCR, it makes no difference in any event
whether the error was in the original or was introduced.
Kevin L. O'Brien
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Speaking as an editor, I vastly prefer electronic submissions to typed
>
So do I, and for the reasons you mention. But a quick scan of the
*Novel & Short Story Writer's Market* shows that most publishers still
prefer printed subsmissions, with a significant minority requesting
both printed and electronic.
>
> Typesetting takes a very long time
> when you're dealing with 15 or more stories plus articles and reviews
> in a 200 page journal three times a year, and scanning is
> unsatisfactory in many ways.
>
Programs like QuarkXPress make it as easy to typeset and layout as a
word processor makes it to edit and proof. In fact, as I understand
it, you can edit and proof in QuarkXPress as you typeset and layout.
Using Word, I can also typeset and do layout while I edit and proof,
it's just not as easy with Word.
>
> Having to typeset everything before
> starting this process would add hours and hours to the preparation of
> each issue. Thanks goodness for electronic submissions!
>
Personally, I find scanning & OCR, followed by proofing, editing, and
typesetting as I do the layout quite fast indeed, and skipping scanning
with an electronic submission saves less than 10% of the total work
time. Still, 90% of the submissions I receive are electronic, and I
prefer to submit my own work electronically.
Kevin L. O'Brien
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John Pelan wrote:
>
>"Customers no doubt exercise caution when it comes to your
>author-subsidized projects as they may get a decent short story
>collection or a pamphlet of your rubbish."
>
>I shall inform Reggie Oliver that you are now going around saying that
>he had to subsidise the two books we worked together on (which he
>obviously did not). It is news to me and it will be news to him.
Now, now Toad; try and improve your reading comprehension. I
specifically exempted Mr. Oliver's collections from my denunciation of
your vanity press efforts.
>
>"Ah, a rejection from Gray Frair to add to your lenghty resume of
>abject failures."
>
>No, another erroneous John Pelan conclusion. I have never submitted
>anything to Gary Fry. Indeed, the only discourse we have had on short
>stories was when he suddenly popped up here, praising a story of mine
>that had appeared in David Longhorn's Supernatural Tales.
>
>Here's the link to prove it:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.ghost-fiction/msg/91e0ab33c2441951
Proves nothing save that familiarity in your case breeds a most
justified contempt. Tell me, are you still pestering retired editors
with your crap?
>
>
>
>"You stupid twat, you wouldn't know a well-designed book if you were
>hit over the head with it."
>
>Curiously, the consensus opinion on Reggie's new book is that it is
>extremely well-designed. But don't just take my word for it, read the
>reviews:
>
>http://hauntedriver.co.uk/haunted_river_news.html
>
>In addition, I have a very positive review by Mark Samuels to upload,
>which is kind enough to comment very favourably on the precise issue
>you raise.
If Mark thinks that a book which would serve nicely as plate-armour is
"well-designed", than Mark and I will have to agree to disagree. No
big deal, lots of people disagree with me on lots of issues. Only one
is completely blackballed; that one would be you.
>
>I think that makes three custard-pies in your pig-ugly clown's face.
>What a glutton for punishment you are!
Apparently your math skills are as poor as your skills with the
English language. You really ought to have spent more time on your
lessons and less time amusing your schoolmates by bobbing for turds.
Good day to you.
John
John Pelan
I'm not going to take sides in this. I don't trust OCR technology, and
I don't trust the typing of most people. Whichever alternative is used
requires extremely careful proofreading.
(Reminds me, I have to go through a very long Daniel F. Galouye piece;
and given the author's penchant for dialogue in different fonts, this
will not be a particu;ar easy task.
Cheers,
John
Gary Fry
access this group regularly, I'm not going to argue. Stuff to do.
Gary
"Carnacki The Ghost Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136300520....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Gary Fry wrote:
> Fair enough, but you speculate wildly on several issues. Anyway, though I
> access this group regularly, I'm not going to argue. Stuff to do.
>
> Gary
Although I'm not a fan of Poe's Progeny and am somewhat critical of
your cynical use of Ramsey Campbell as a career stepping-stone, I
nevertheless respect the way in which you make your point.
CB
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> On 3 Jan 2006 10:24:10 -0800, bioch...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >[shrug] FineReader does not add any errors, that I've noticed, and
> >since I proof after I scan and OCR, it makes no difference in any event
> >whether the error was in the original or was introduced.
> >
>
> I don't trust the typing of most people. Whichever alternative is used
> requires extremely careful proofreading.
>
Perhaps I should explain why I trust FineReader so much.
I used to use an OCR program that came with my scanner. It tended to
introduce at least a dozen typos into whatever text I was scanning and
it had serious problems resolving low-contrast pages. A pain in the
neck, but I could work around it. Then I received a freeware version
of FineReader as part of a software package. I decided to test it by
scanning a half-dozen texts, which I then started to proof. Whenever I
found a typo I checked the text to see if the typo had been in the
original. What I found was that in five of the six digital files,
FineReader had not intorduced a single typo, whereas it introduced only
one into the sixth file. Further tests revealed that it could resolve
low-contrast text fairly well (at least well enough that the resulting
file was coherent), and since it was a program independent of the
scanner itself, I could manually adjust the brightness to try to reduce
the background as needed (my old OCR program adjusted the brightness
automatically and could not be changed).
FineReader is not perfect; it has its quirks, as all software does.
But compared to what I was used to, it is so reliable that I trust it
to accurately reproduce whatever manuscript I need to scan, while
introducing the barest minimum of additional typos, if any at all. And
as I stated previously, I proof after I scan, so it makes little
difference in the long run just how many typos are introduced,
Kevin L. O'Brien
osc
> And as I stated previously, I proof after I scan, so it makes little
> difference in the long run just how many typos are introduced,
I guess that's the central point. I wouldn't assume that proof reading is
perfect (with good reason), and having another source of errors is just
making the chance of them creeping in more likely.
Gary Fry
Gary
"Carnacki The Ghost Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136371891.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Chris
Gary Fry
Gary
"Carnacki The Ghost Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136394265....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 05:24:49 -0800, biochemborg wrote:
>
> > And as I stated previously, I proof after I scan, so it makes little
> > difference in the long run just how many typos are introduced,
>
> I guess that's the central point. I wouldn't assume that proof reading is
>
I'm not really sure what your point here is. Nothing is perfect in
this world; do you expect anything to be? The idea is to do what you
need to do as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Unless you
restrict yourself to electronic submissions only, you are going to
receive some printed submissions, and not everyone who submits printed
manuscripts can send a digital file as well. That means the printed
manuscript will have to be digitized in some fashion. You have two
choices on how to do this: retype the manuscript manually, word for
word, into a word processing program; or scan and OCR the manuscript,
then import it into that same word processing program. Option one
requires a touch-typist that can do at least 50 WPM; option two
requires a scanner and a reliable OCR program. The digital file will
have to be proofed regardless of which option you use, and to save time
it is best to proof after transcription/scanning rather than both
before and after. I am not a touch-typist and I do not have access to
one and I cannot afford to hire one and I have an OCR program that I
consider to be more reliable as far as introducing errors is concerned,
so I opt for scanning and OCRing. So I scan and OCR a printed
manuscript and then proof the digital file.
>
> . . . and having another source of errors is just
> making the chance of them creeping in more likely.
>
Transcription by touch-typist will also introduce errors, and as John
Pelan pointed out no printed manuscript can be expected to be
error-free in any event, so again I do not see your point. The
question is, how many times do you proof the submission? The answer,
of course, is however many time you need to to eliminate all the
errors, but if it takes you two hours to carefully read a 5000-word
story, then each time you proof it takes up another two hours that
could be used to do something else. One way to save yourself time is
to not proof the printed manuscript, but wait until it has been
transcribed/scanned into a digital file and then proof the file. This
is especially a good idea if you have a transcriber or an OCR program
that introduces errors at a rate of only one or two every six
manuscripts.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. I find scanning
a printed manuscript, using FineReader to OCR it, and waiting to proof
the digital file to be faster, more efficient, and more error-free than
transcribing it myself or hiring someone else to it, and a better idea
than rejecting a good story because the author cannot provide a digital
copy. Other people may feel differently, but if their main complaint
is that they cannot trust their OCR program, maybe they should acquire
a more reliable OCR program.
Kevin L. O'Brien
osc
> osc wrote:
>> I guess that's the central point. I wouldn't assume that proof reading
>> is perfect (with good reason) . . .
>>
> I'm not really sure what your point here is. Nothing is perfect in this
> world; do you expect anything to be?
A type-written manuscript has to go through an analogue to digital
conversion which is both time consuming and error prone. It's an extra
step in which errors are always introduced (unless it happens to be a very
short document). Proof reading isn't perfect, so you will inevitably end
up with more errors in the end result.
> Unless you restrict yourself to electronic submissions only, you are
> going to receive some printed submissions, and not everyone who submits
> printed manuscripts can send a digital file as well.
This started when I asked you about your comment that typewritten scripts
were ideal. I can't see how that's true... it would seem to be the last
resort for authors who don't/won't own a computer. The fact that the
manuscript has to be proofread anyway doesn't change the fact that, if you
use OCR, you are introducing a whole new batch of errors that you hope
proof reading will catch.
> and a better idea than rejecting a good story because the author cannot
> provide a digital copy.
No-one ever suggested that.
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> A type-written manuscript has to go through an analogue to digital
> conversion which is both time consuming and error prone. It's an extra
> step in which errors are always introduced (unless it happens to be a very
> short document). Proof reading isn't perfect, so you will inevitably end
> up with more errors in the end result.
>
So, what alternative do you suggest? Restrict all writers to
electronic submissions? The only problem with that is that nearly all
publishers accept paper submissions (most still prefer them in fact)
but still use electronic printing files, so they are set up to convert
paper to digital. They consider it a mark of being a professional
publisher. If you were a publisher, would you really reject a
manuscript just because it could not be submitted electronically?
Would you really tell the writer, "I'm rejecting your submission
because it would be too much trouble for me to convert it into a
digital file; it would produce too many errors and I don't want to
spend the time having to proofread for them"? Most writers would just
submit their work somewhere else.
As I said, the solution is to get yourself a reliable OCR program, one
that does not introduce errors, or at worst does so once or twice every
half-dozen manuscripts or so.
>
> This started when I asked you about your comment that typewritten scripts
> were ideal. I can't see how that's true. . .
>
And I admitted that electronic submissions would be better. What led
us to this point was your insistance that converting from paper to
digital is too much trouble and would add too many errors. I've tried
to explain that this isn't true; that most publishers still prefer
paper submissions and yet convert them to digital files so it cannot be
too troublesome for them, that there are OCR programs that add few if
any errors, and since you have to proof the digital file in any event
it really doesn't make any significant difference how the conversion is
done. You simply do not believe me.
>
> . . . it would seem to be the last
> resort for authors who don't/won't own a computer.
>
As I've said, most publishers still prefer paper submissions. That
requires that they digitize them, so even a writer who does use a
computer still has to print out and submit a paper copy.
>
> The fact that the
> manuscript has to be proofread anyway doesn't change the fact that, if you
> use OCR, you are introducing a whole new batch of errors that you hope
> proof reading will catch.
>
Except that there are OCR programs that do not add any errors, or add
so few that it is insignificant.
>
> No-one ever suggested that.
>
Yet it would seem to be the logical conclusion of your argument:
scanning and OCRing paper manuscripts is too time-consuming and
introduces too many errors, so only electronic submissions should be
accepted and all paper manuscripts should be rejected. Except that
scanning is not too time-consuming, OCR does not have to introduce too
many errors if you have the right program, and most publishers still
prefer paper over electronic submissions so they have to convert to
digital (so if it is as much trouble as you imply, why have they not
switched entirely to electronic submissions?).
Kevin L. O'Brien
smee
> osc wrote:
<snip>
> > This started when I asked you about your comment that typewritten scripts
> > were ideal. I can't see how that's true. . .
>
> And I admitted that electronic submissions would be better. What led
> us to this point was your insistance that converting from paper to
> digital is too much trouble and would add too many errors.
<snip>
At the risk of speaking for osc: No, that is *not* what lead you to
this point. As osc said, it was the line in your original message
stating that: "In an **ideal situation** [stress added by me], a writer
would submit a typewritten manuscript that the publisher would scan and
OCR into a WP program like Word." osc simply disagreed, stating that
the preferred situation would be for the original submission to be
digital, skipping the OCR process and thereby saving some finite amount
of time and also avoiding the potential introduction of additional
typographical errors. You've since even agreed with this position. You
agree -- osc agrees -- everybody seems to agree. So what are you
arguing about? Please don't let this develop into another "virii"-type
debate.
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
A leopard never changes its spots!
(Read into that what you like.)
osc
> So, what alternative do you suggest? Restrict all writers to electronic
> submissions?
I just said that wasn't what I meant.
> They consider it a mark of being a professional publisher. If you were
> a publisher, would you really reject a manuscript just because it could
> not be submitted electronically?
Again, I already told you that wasn't what I meant.
[snip more of the same]
>> This started when I asked you about your comment that typewritten
>> scripts were ideal. I can't see how that's true. . .
>>
> And I admitted that electronic submissions would be better. What led us
> to this point was your insistance that converting from paper to digital
> is too much trouble and would add too many errors. I've tried to explain
> that this isn't true;
No, I said that converting from paper to digital via OCR is "more trouble"
than getting it in digital form in the first place, not "too much trouble"
(those are your words not mine). Likewise, I never said it adds "too many
errors" (your words, not mine), I said it "adds errors"... although I
suppose in this case the unnecessary addition of errors is always "too
many."
"More trouble" and "introduces errors" are simple undeniable facts when it
comes to OCR vs getting it in digital form in the first place. You are
transferring data from the author to the publisher... every conversion
step you add introduces more errors, particularly when the conversion
involves nasty unpredictable steps like OCR. Errors are cumulative.
> that most publishers still prefer paper submissions and yet convert them
> to digital files so it cannot be too troublesome for them, that there
> are OCR programs that add few if any errors, and since you have to proof
> the digital file in any event it really doesn't make any significant
> difference how the conversion is done. You simply do not believe me.
You are just ignoring the simple technical details behind the procedure
you follow. It's quite a simple argument: OCR is an error-prone process,
and proofing isn't perfect. You may wrap this in as many repetitions of
the same misunderstanding as you wish... but it will not change the basic
facts of the matter.
> Except that there are OCR programs that do not add any errors, or add so
> few that it is insignificant.
I doubt you could even get a salesmen from an OCR company to make that
claim. If you could, I would never buy any software/hardware from him as
he doesn't understand the limitations of the stuff he's selling.
And this doesn't even get into the handling/shipping and back-up
arguments.
> Yet it would seem to be the logical conclusion of your argument:
> scanning and OCRing paper manuscripts is too time-consuming and
> introduces too many errors, so only electronic submissions should be
> accepted and all paper manuscripts should be rejected.
Again, you appear to be arguing with yourself here. My argument is that
your comment about typewritten scripts being "the ideal" was simply wrong.
I never suggest or even implied that you, or anyone else, should be
turning down manuscripts because they are not submitted digitally. In
fact, I made it pretty clear that's not what I was saying... this appears
to be something you've read into it without any cause.
> most publishers still prefer paper over electronic submissions so they
> have to convert to digital (so if it is as much trouble as you imply,
> why have they not switched entirely to electronic submissions?).
Inertia and technical cluelessness are the usual reasons. Furthermore, I'd
guess that many publishers prefer paper for manuscripts submitted to them
to read with a view to potentially publishing simply because they'd have
to pay the cost for printing the thing to read it otherwise.
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
they might re-emerge as BOLOCKS.......?
osc
> Please don't let this develop into another "virii"-type debate.
Yeah, it's obviously "viruses" :) Besides, I don't want to argue over OCR,
because I hate the stuff. It's one of those things that the more you know
about the technical details, the less you trust it... and in my old job I
got a double dose of loathing and mistrust. Enough to avoid it if at all
possible.
I just found it interesting to see how small book publishers handle these
matters. I won't be continuing the thread.
smee
> I won't be continuing the thread.
Ditto.
Yrs,
Michael
Mike Plowman
>You are just ignoring the simple technical details behind the procedure
>you follow. It's quite a simple argument: OCR is an error-prone process,
>and proofing isn't perfect. You may wrap this in as many repetitions of
>the same misunderstanding as you wish... but it will not change the basic
>facts of the matter.
>
>> Except that there are OCR programs that do not add any errors, or add so
>> few that it is insignificant.
I have worked in document management for most of my career and managed
a great many large digitisation projects including the 1837 Online
census projects. While these projects, due to the nature of the source
material, (handwritten doeuments on microfilm) were not OCR's and I
had them keyed in India, I have dealt with OCR'ing of all kind of
material from modern hard copy to ancient documents such as the
Charles Burney collection at the British Library.
I have never, and never would, offer any guarantee of 100 percent
accuracy to any client., even from pristine modern printed hard copy.
The scanning process itself can introudce artefacts into tye image
which could cause an OCR error and considerable testing of accrucacy
woyld be done as the sampling stage of a contract before levels of
accuracy would be agreed for a contract.
Having said that, Abby Finreaders engine is exceptionally good. We use
the SDK and incorporate it into our own applications as needed and get
some very high accuracy. We would normally quite 99.9 percent for good
hard copy.
Even on appalling microfilm conversions such as the Britsh
Parliamentary Papers we managed an average of 94 percent.
--
Mike Plowman
Coronation Street Visual Updates - www.csvu.net
"There was life before Coronation Street,
but it didn't amount to much." Russell Harty
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Gary Fry wrote:
> Just a 'small handful' of the contents, eh?
>
> Gary
>
No.
And stop top-posting. Everybody hates it.
CB
Gary Fry
it. Perhaps I'm governed by a foolishness I can't perceive. What do you
think?
Gary
"Carnacki The Ghost Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136471615....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gary Fry
Ah, right. I feel so foolish now. I suddenly see what everyone else has been
seeing. I'm like one of those blind men who has held a trunk and thought he
was holding a snake, and then after listening to others, realises the whole
thing before him is an elephant. To mix metaphors, I've stepped back to see
the wood from the trees. It all falls into place; I know I've been such a
prat, and that only *I* haven't seen it.
What do you think?
Gary
"Gary Fry" <g....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Tfcvf.84076$PD2....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> I have never, and never would, offer any guarantee of 100 percent
> accuracy to any client., even from pristine modern printed hard copy.
>
And of course I never claimed FineReader, or any OCR program, was or
even could be 100% accurate. What I said was no significant errors;
ie, very few introduced errors averaged over several manuscripts.
>
> Having said that, Abby Finreaders engine is exceptionally good. We use
> the SDK and incorporate it into our own applications as needed and get
> some very high accuracy. We would normally quite 99.9 percent for good
> hard copy.
>
> Even on appalling microfilm conversions such as the Britsh
> Parliamentary Papers we managed an average of 94 percent.
>
Thank you for the confirmation. I do not have percentage values for
the work I do, but as I described earlier, I used to get a dozen or
more errors per manuscript with other, less reliable OCR programs.
Since I switched to FineReader, however, I get one or two errors per
half-dozen manuscripts. This is not, as osc tries to claim, a
misunderstanding on my part, or an attempt to ignore technical
realities; this is a direct observation. FineReader has, for me at
least, rendered scanning manuscripts trouble-free and OCRing them
virtually error-free.
Kevin L. O'Brien
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Yeah, it's obviously "viruses" :) Besides, I don't want to argue over OCR,
> because I hate the stuff. It's one of those things that the more you know
> about the technical details, the less you trust it... and in my old job I
> got a double dose of loathing and mistrust.
>
It's apparent that your personal experience has soured you to OCR. I
can understand that, but your personal experience is insufficient to
conclude that it is an undeniable fact that OCR is troublesome and
prone to error. My personal experience is exactly the opposite: that
with a reliable program like FineReader, the scanning and OCRing of
manuscripts is virtually trouble- and error-free. So we will have to
agree to disagree, but I still feel that if you had worked with a more
reliable OCR program you wouldn't hate OCR so much.
>
> Enough to avoid it if at all possible.
>
Yes, I got that impression. The way your arguments went, publishers
who received paper submissions (from authors who could not supply
electronic copies) were faced with two choices: reject the submission
or deal with having to convert it to digital. Considering your
distrust and dislike of OCR programs, it seemed that you were
suggesting that publishers should just save themselves the trouble and
reject the paper submissions. If in fact you were not implying that,
then the only other option is that publishers must somehow deal with
digital conversion, right?
Well, that's what I've been trying to say all along. Since most
publishers still prefer to receive paper submissions even though they
use digital files for printing purposes, and since there is still a
significant minority of authors who, for whatever reason, can only make
paper submissions, publishers must have a way to perform digital
conversion regardless of how troublesome and prone to error it might
be. And they do this by purchasing OCR programs that are reliable
enough that their rate of error introduction is insignificant, and by
hiring professional proofreaders that, while not perfect, nonetheless
can spot 99.9% of all errors regardless of their source.
So it seems that even in this regard, we agree. That makes our
difference of opinion one based on our enthusiasm for OCR. You hate it
and mistrust it, and so prefer to avoid it; I trust it because I find
its rate of error to be insignificant and consider it to be an enormous
time- and labor-saving device, so I embrace it.
So be it. I think we can respect each other's opinion, don't you
agree?
Kevin L. O'Brien
Nebuly
Since most publishers still prefer to receive paper submissions
even though they use digital files for printing purposes, and
since there is still a significant minority of authors who, for
whatever reason, can only make paper submissions, publishers
must have a way to perform digital conversion regardless of how
troublesome and prone to error it might be. <<
Not necessarily. Publishers might prefer to receive paper submissions
for reading purposes, but ask for an electronic file upon acceptance of
a work; and I suspect there are very few authors out there today who do
not use computers and would be unable to supply an electronic version
of their work. I still receive a few paper submissions, but for the
most part these are computer printouts anyway; I can only think of one
instance in the last three years or so where I have accepted a print
submission and the author has not been able to send the file
electronically.
Barbara
osc
> You hate it and mistrust it, and so prefer to avoid it;
No, I don't hate and mistrust it so much as I hate and mistrust the
misuse of it by those who don't really understand it. I know quite a lot
about the details of it... and while I'm constantly impressed by the
research and algorithms that are needed to do it at all, I'm very much
aware of its limitations.
OCR introduces errors... this is simply a fact. If you think Mike said
anything different, you misread his message. When you use OCR, you
introduce errors into the chain if information that leads from the author
to you, the publisher. This doesn't make it a *bad* thing, if the author
only wishes to submit his work on paper, it saves huge amounts of time and
with clean print-outs and plenty of contrast it's much better than
someone transcribing it manually into a computer... it just doesn't make
it ideal. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make this.
>Considering your distrust and dislike of OCR programs, it seemed that you
>were suggesting that publishers should just save themselves the trouble
>and reject the paper submissions.
Apart from the three or four times that I made it quite clear that I was
suggesting no such thing.
> I trust it because I find its rate of error to be insignificant and
> consider it to be an enormous time- and labor-saving device, so I
> embrace it.
It's not a time- or labour-saving device over receiving the data in
digital form in the first place, quite the opposite -- which is the point
I made in the last message.
> So be it. I think we can respect each other's opinion, don't you agree?
Since we seem to be constantly talking at cross-purposes, I don't think
there's much option. So this is definitely the end of the thread for me.
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> Not necessarily. Publishers might prefer to receive paper submissions
> for reading purposes, but ask for an electronic file upon acceptance of
>
Well, I did qualify my premise with ". . . and since there is still a
significant minority of authors who, for whatever reason, can only make
paper submissions. . . ." Besides, so far as I have been able to
determine (from perusing the *Writer's Market* and other such sources),
most publishers do not ask for both paper and electronic submissions,
and a significant minority do not want electronic submissions at all.
So I stand by my conclusion.
>
> . . . and I suspect there are very few authors out there today who do
> not use computers and would be unable to supply an electronic version
> of their work.
>
I guess it depends upon how one defines "significant minority", but I
have heard of at least a dozen writers who say they use a typewriter
instead of a computer.
>
> I still receive a few paper submissions, but for the
> most part these are computer printouts anyway; I can only think of one
> instance in the last three years or so where I have accepted a print
> submission and the author has not been able to send the file
> electronically.
>
About 10% of the authors who have sent me submissions over the same
time period did not use a computer, but that may have more to do with
our respective sub-genres. In any event, unless you rejected the
manuscript to save yourself the trouble, you still had to convert that
one submission to digital format, regardless of how much trouble and
how error-prone it was, so I stand by my conclusion.
Kevin L. O'Brien
bioch...@earthlink.net
>
> OCR introduces errors... this is simply a fact.
>
Not with a reliable program, like FineReader. And what is also a
simple fact is that I was able to prove that, to myself, with a simple
test: five manuscripts scanned and OCRed free of errors, and only one
error introduced into the sixth. That is a rate so insignificant as to
be virtually error free.
>
> Apart from the three or four times that I made it quite clear that I was
> suggesting no such thing.
>
I was referring to the impression your arguments made before your
clarified your stance.
>
> It's not a time- or labour-saving device over receiving the data in
> digital form in the first place, quite the opposite -- which is the point
> I made in the last message.
>
True, but you are ignoring my point: when you cannot receive the
manuscript in digital form, you have to convert it, regardless of how
troublesome and error-prone it is, and so you use a reliable OCR
program, like FineReader, that has an insignificant rate of error
introduction. Either that, or you reject the manuscript on the
unprofessional grounds of wanting to save yourself the trouble.
Kevin L. O'Brien
Nebuly
time period did not use a computer, but that may have more to do with
our respective sub-genres. In any event, unless you rejected the
manuscript to save yourself the trouble, you still had to convert that
one submission to digital format, regardless of how much trouble and
how error-prone it was, so I stand by my conclusion.<<
Any editor who rejected a non-electronic manuscript that they would
accept were it submitted electronically, simply to save him- or herself
the trouble, should be looking for another line of work. When I read a
manuscript, the form in which it's submitted is the last thing on my
mind; I'm considering whether or not it's a good story. How I then
choose to get a non-electronic submission into electronic form depends
on a number of factors: sometimes scanning is a better option,
sometimes it's faster to typeset. But as I said, I suspect the number
of authors who are absolutely unable to submit something electronically
if requested is a small one, and will continue to decrease as the years
go by.
Barbara
smee
> And stop top-posting. Everybody hates it.
Ahh, yes -- Chris Barker, aka Mr Netiquette.
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Gary Fry wrote:
> Oh, you mean stop putting my messages at the top instead of at the bottom?
> Ah, right. I feel so foolish now. I suddenly see what everyone else has been
> seeing. I'm like one of those blind men who has held a trunk and thought he
> was holding a snake, and then after listening to others, realises the whole
> thing before him is an elephant. To mix metaphors, I've stepped back to see
> the wood from the trees. It all falls into place; I know I've been such a
> prat, and that only *I* haven't seen it.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Gary
>
The issue of 'top-posting' isn't rocket science. Dialogue should flow
downwards like water. It makes logical and rythmic sense.
Trunks, snakes and elephants? You're the psychologist, as you may have
mentioned just once or twice in passing. So why don't you tell us what
your awkwardly expressed vision means?
Cheers,
CB
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Smee has always prefered John Pelan's ugly profanities to my caustic
civility. I think that means he likes a 'bit of rough'.
Ray Winstone fan perhaps?
Gary Fry
and everyone else knows that.
Btw, I had no issue with you until you posted a thread called "The worst
small press in the genre" and included mine. What do you expect? Me to go,
"Oh, fine, Chris - go ahead, rubbish me behind my back." If you wish to
review Poe's Progeny, feel free (read it ALL first, of course, before making
a judgement). I'm all for 'balance' (IF you can manage that).
But frankly at present, what I've witnessed from the outside is this: you're
like a kid in a playground who, when the rest wish to play an impromptu game
of football, says, "Oh, those coats aren't proper goalposts! But we're not
wearing professional strips... And we don't have a referee - who's going to
decide on fairness?" Then when he's sat all alone in a corner after
everybody else has quite justifiably called him a wanker, he's thinking,
"Huh? Why is everybody being like that? I don't understand their attitude."
Like, wake up and smell the coffee!
Gary
PS When are you meeting Ramsey Campbell for debate at the hotel in
Liverpool? I'm definitely coming along for that.
"Carnacki The Ghost Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136550762.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Mike Plowman
wrote:
>PS When are you meeting Ramsey Campbell for debate at the hotel in
>Liverpool? I'm definitely coming along for that.
>
I think it's the day after he pays me a visit to 'sort me out' as he
promised to do in mid-December on his way to visit family in Wantage
and Reading.
Curiously, despite that fact that I waited in, he didn't seem to turn
up.
smee
> Smee has always prefered John Pelan's ugly profanities to my caustic
> civility.
Caustic civility??? HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Stop it, Chris,
you're killing me! Oh, my. I was certainly wrong about you, thinking
you had no sense of humor.
Yrs,
Michael
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
"I mean simply that you appear to know everything except that you're a
bore, and everyone else knows that."
I've been called many things but rarely a bore. Still, better a bore
than an arse-kisser like you, eh?
"Btw, I had no issue with you until you posted a thread called "The
worst small press in the genre" and included mine. What do you expect?
Me to go, "Oh, fine, Chris - go ahead, rubbish me behind my back." "
You call posting to a public usenet group that I know you frequent
rubbishing you behind your back then clearly you have a very odd
perspective.
"If you wish to review Poe's Progeny, feel free (read it ALL first, of
course, before making a judgement). I'm all for 'balance' (IF you can
manage that)."
No thanks.
"But frankly at present, what I've witnessed from the outside is
this:..."
Oh goody, some quack internet analysis from someone who said he wasn't
going to 'rise to the bait'.
"...you're like a kid in a playground who, when the rest wish to play
an impromptu game of football, says, "Oh, those coats aren't proper
goalposts! But we're not wearing professional strips... And we don't
have a referee - who's going to decide on fairness?" "
Erm, no, actually. I am like the kid in the playground who stopped
playing football at twelve because I preferred to hive behind the
pavilion smoking cigarettes and talking about music, or, if it was
raining, to pore over books in the library.
Bearing in mind that I was constantly in trouble for breaching the
rules on wearing school uniform I hardly think I would care about
jumpers-for-goal-posts or wearing "professional strips".
Bad diagnosis, doc. Oops, you haven't finished.
"Then when he's sat all alone in a corner after everybody else has
quite justifiably called him a wanker, he's thinking, "Huh? Why is
everybody being like that? I don't understand their attitude.""
Oh dear, not only wide of the mark, but curiously projective. Were
*you* that lonely little boy sitting in the corner, Gary? Come on,
spill your brain, you're with friends here.
"Like, wake up and smell the coffee!"
A trite American cliche? That's how you opt to end your bizarre rant?
No, hold on, a parting barb from the top-posting and trunk-obsessed
Friar:
" PS When are you meeting Ramsey Campbell for debate at the hotel in
Liverpool? I'm definitely coming along for that."
Yes, I did rather guess that RC would seek to manipulate things so that
not only would he be on home turf, but that he would also bring along a
rabble of dope-addled sycophants to brow-beat and intimidate me. A real
life version of the Ramsey Campbell Message Board in fact!
So it will come as no surprise to you that I would rather massage Anne
Widdecombe's feet than spend an evening with Ramsey & His Stream Of
Strolling Sycophants. I will quite happily debate issues with RC in any
forum unmoderated by him or his cronies, a solution which not only
allows for argument to stand or fall by merit, but one which removes
the oppresive intimdation factor which RC appears so eager to benefit
from.
Cheers,
CB
Gary Fry
Gary
"Carnacki The Ghost Finder" <haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136571229....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
John Pelan
<haunte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, just as we all thought; a coward as well as a liar, fraud, and a
thief. Quite the resume...
Cheers,
John
sean
Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
> a rabble of dope-addled sycophants to brow-beat and intimidate me. A real
> life version of the Ramsey Campbell Message Board in fact!
I think several people would be surprised to discover that they were
dope-addled. You seem to have a cartoonish image of this particular
message board, in which all the characters on it hang around in a big
gang, smoking pot and plotting against CB. I assure you, this is not
the case. That should go without saying, really.
Carnacki The Ghost Finder
Gary Fry wrote:
> Whatever. Yawn.
>
> Gary
Oh, I doubt very much that my post caused you to yawn, Gary. No, you
quite sensibly realised that your 'diagnosis' had been exposed as
quackery and you therefore opted to retire from the fray.
I respect you for it. Pelan would have posted something horribly
profane involving fecal matter and Roden would have changed the subject
entirely and ended on a vaguely threatening note.
CB
Gary Fry
> Oh, I doubt very much that my post caused you to yawn, Gary. No, you
> quite sensibly realised that your 'diagnosis' had been exposed as
> quackery and you therefore opted to retire from the fray.
>
As I say, you know everything except the most important thing...
Gary
sean
Carnacki The Ghost Finder wrote:
>
> Oh, I doubt very much that my post caused you to yawn, Gary.
I wouldn't doubt it. That is the effect (well, one of them) you have on
people.