[R] Maurice, Bromeliad and rambles
Lodestone
I reread Maurice recently, and was struck once more by a subtle change in
Pterry's writing style. I'm finding his books far more aesthetically
pleasing now than the earlier ones. The writing has become more... lyrical,
slightly less absurd - while still maintaining the deadly humour. It's also
become more philosophical as a result - the reader has more to think about
anyway, so adding the philosophy comes with ease.
As an example, character descriptions are now practically non-existent,
especially when compared to the standard two-lines-a-character that
unfortunately crops up in the very earliest books. Ironically, this allows
the reader to picture the character in better detail (through what the
character does and says and thinks) than if the character had been
physically described. I think this is because there is no chance of the
physical description jarring with the readers own ideas. Amazingly,
different readers still usually come out with very similar visual images, as
Paul Kidby's artwork usually shows.
An offshoot of all this is the almost film-like quality of the books -
especially the two most recent. The books are more concise, more rounded -
there is less of the Tolkien/Peake style epic wandering - it is quite clear
the book is always headed somewhere. You may not know where, but it's
always *headed*.
This, of course, has increased the books' "filmability". I was struck with
this especially with Maurice. While reading, I kept thinking "Yes, I'd
angle the camera just so" or "This would look good in split-screen" or "I
can dream up some wonderful special effect for *this* part" or "This is
crying out for surround sound!" The lack of solid-set description also
would give a director/producer more of a free hand, just as the reader has
more of a free hand in reading.
I then read the jacket of Maurice, and suddenly noticed, which I hadn't
before, the note about the Bromeliad. A "spectacular animated movie", hey?
How long has this been happening for? When is it due for completion? Where
can I find more information?
Finally, turn to page 233 in your hardback copies. About halfway down.
Yes, that's right. Imagine me *wince*. Now turn over the page. Can you
see the evil grin spreading across my face? And finally, at the base of
that page, feel me erupt with laughter and stay that way for 5 minutes. My
mind is quite clearly permanently damaged.
--
Lodestone
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.
(Samuel Goldwyn)
PussInSpooks
>From: "Lodestone" lode...@microsoft.com
>I reread Maurice recently,
>Finally, turn to page 233 in your hardback copies. About halfway down.
>Yes, that's right. Imagine me *wince*. Now turn over the page. Can you
>see the evil grin spreading across my face? And finally, at the base of
>that page, feel me erupt with laughter and stay that way for 5 minutes. My
>mind is quite clearly permanently damaged.
As my copy is with my sister at present (will I *never* learn?) could you give
us a clue?
jeroen
says...
> I reread Maurice recently, and was struck once more by a subtle change in
> Pterry's writing style. I'm finding his books far more aesthetically
> pleasing now than the earlier ones. The writing has become more... lyrical,
> slightly less absurd - while still maintaining the deadly humour. It's also
> become more philosophical as a result - the reader has more to think about
> anyway, so adding the philosophy comes with ease.
>
>
and ladies came around I briefly had the impression it couldn't get much
better.
I was wrong.
--
Met vriendelijke groeten/Best regards
Jeroen Wijnands
http://spam.pagina.nl
Lodestone
news:20021016192025...@mb-mc.aol.com...
I could, but everyone woukd give me a nasty glare. Come to think of it,
that *is* one.
M.S.R
> (To avoid upsets, remember following is all opinion ;-))
>
> I reread Maurice recently, and was struck once more by a subtle
> change in Pterry's writing style. I'm finding his books far more
> aesthetically pleasing now than the earlier ones. The writing has
> become more... lyrical, slightly less absurd - while still
> maintaining the deadly humour.
Maintaining the deadly humour?
I have found the recent books less funny than the older books (T5E apart),
but have also found them to be slightly easier reads.
With his old books, I would have to read it once, quickly just to find out
where the story was heading, so I could make some sense of the story line
(upon a second read). I can read his newer books more slowly, and take in
more of the story line and features of his writing, and then, upon re-reads,
simply look for clues, puns, jokes and moments of genius that I haven't yet
found. I wonder whether this has happened to anyone else, as Pterry's
writing has changed, or whether I am simply getting more used to his writing
style.....
--
My parents are nothing but puppets
in this show I call my life
I am the puppet master
My Family - BBC1
Lodestone
news:aon5ff$n7aqa$3...@ID-144865.news.dfncis.de...
> Lodestone <lode...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > (To avoid upsets, remember following is all opinion ;-))
> >
> > I reread Maurice recently, and was struck once more by a subtle
> > change in Pterry's writing style. I'm finding his books far more
> > aesthetically pleasing now than the earlier ones. The writing has
> > become more... lyrical, slightly less absurd - while still
> > maintaining the deadly humour.
>
> Maintaining the deadly humour?
Yup!
I actually think the humour has improved - but it all depends on your own
sense of humour, I guess.
Imogen
> This, of course, has increased the books' "filmability". I was struck with
> this especially with Maurice. While reading, I kept thinking "Yes, I'd
> angle the camera just so" or "This would look good in split-screen" or "I
> can dream up some wonderful special effect for *this* part" or "This is
> crying out for surround sound!" The lack of solid-set description also
> would give a director/producer more of a free hand, just as the reader has
> more of a free hand in reading.
*hesitantly opens her mouth, then says in a rush...*
Isn'ttheremeanttobesomethingaboutJamesEarlJonesinthisparagraph?
*ducks and runs for cover*
:-)
Lodestone
news:489eb66a.02101...@posting.google.com...
*srctahes his head and doesn;t understand*
Seriously... I dunno what you mean!
Lesley Weston
lode...@microsoft.com wrote on 17/10/2002 3:45 PM:
> "M.S.R" <manpree...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aon5ff$n7aqa$3...@ID-144865.news.dfncis.de...
>> Lodestone <lode...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> (To avoid upsets, remember following is all opinion ;-))
>>>
>>> I reread Maurice recently, and was struck once more by a subtle
>>> change in Pterry's writing style. I'm finding his books far more
>>> aesthetically pleasing now than the earlier ones. The writing has
>>> become more... lyrical, slightly less absurd - while still
>>> maintaining the deadly humour.
>>
>> Maintaining the deadly humour?
>
> Yup!
>
> I actually think the humour has improved - but it all depends on your own
> sense of humour, I guess.
> --
It's a different kind of humour, neither better nor worse. I enjoy the early
and the later books equally, just for different reasons.
Lesley Weston.
Imogen
Lodestone wrote:
> *srctahes his head and doesn;t understand*
>
> Seriously... I dunno what you mean!
*comes out from behind the couch* Phew!
I know what you mean about Maurice being filmable - although I thought
much more in a Nightmare Before Christmas sense with a sound track by
Danny Elfman.
Mind you, I think everything should have a sound track by Danny
Elfman. If he wants he can come over to my place and write a sound
track for my life.
*ponders this for a moment*
It might be a bit dull though...
andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk
news:aop54b$n5d$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Imogen" <manc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:489eb66a.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > Lodestone wrote:
> > *hesitantly opens her mouth, then says in a rush...*
> >
> > Isn'ttheremeanttobesomethingaboutJamesEarlJonesinthisparagraph?
> >
> > *ducks and runs for cover*
>
> *srctahes his head and doesn;t understand*
>
> Seriously... I dunno what you mean!
Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl Jones...
--
http://www.stealthmunchkin.com
Stealth Munchkin at Team Hi-Fi Records battle of the Bands, 22 October,
Labour Club, Wigan
Danny
wrote the following stuff about Re: [R] Maurice, Bromeliad and rambles:
<snip>
>
>Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
>actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl Jones...
What, you don't think Christopher Lee would be good? He did a damn good
job in the Wyrd Sisters & Soul Music cartoons. I wouldn't want Death to
sound like Darth Vader (but sounding like Saruman or Count Dooku is OK ;p)
Seeya. Danny.
--
E-Mail: Danny (at) scoutnet dot net dot au
Lodestone
news:irm1rugascijiua0v...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 00:05:15 +0100,
<andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk>,
> wrote the following stuff about Re: [R] Maurice, Bromeliad and rambles:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
> >actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl
Jones...
>
> What, you don't think Christopher Lee would be good? He did a damn good
> job in the Wyrd Sisters & Soul Music cartoons. I wouldn't want Death to
> sound like Darth Vader (but sounding like Saruman or Count Dooku is OK ;p)
I agree muchly. Did you see Lord of the Rings and Episode 5 very soon after
each other? Did you get the impressionn that Christopher Lee seems to have
filmed both at the same time, with only a slight costume change? He had
practically the same script, for goodness sake, and *exactly* the same
character!
*fumes*
--
Lodestone
"Bother," said Pooh, "There's a useful four letter word. And Christopher
Lee's been full of it, recently."
Lodestone
>I reread Maurice recently, and was struck once more by a subtle change in
>Pterry's writing style.
I read Johnny and the Dead last night, and realised the qualities I've
spoken of were clearly there in that. Which is strange... why did it take
longer to put them in Discworld?
--
Lodestone
Love, Music, Wine and Revolution
phobos
> "Danny" <Da...@scoutnet.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
> news:irm1rugascijiua0v...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 00:05:15 +0100,
> <andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk>,
> > wrote the following stuff about Re: [R] Maurice, Bromeliad and rambles:
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
> > >actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl
> Jones...
> >
> > What, you don't think Christopher Lee would be good? He did a damn good
> > job in the Wyrd Sisters & Soul Music cartoons. I wouldn't want Death to
> > sound like Darth Vader (but sounding like Saruman or Count Dooku is OK ;p)
>
> I agree muchly. Did you see Lord of the Rings and Episode 5 very soon after
> each other? Did you get the impressionn that Christopher Lee seems to have
> filmed both at the same time, with only a slight costume change? He had
> practically the same script, for goodness sake, and *exactly* the same
> character!
Hmm... sinister old fellow in robes with disturbingly long
fingernails. What, you reckon Christopher Lee's getting a little
typecast lately? Certainly it's not so varied as the roles he had
earlier in his career, when he played parts as diverse as Dracula,
Dracula, Dracula, the (amateur) witch hunter in 'The Devil Rides Out',
Dracula, Dracula, Dracula, Scaramanga, Dracula, Dracula and Dracula.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
> actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl Jones...
>
only because Steve Toussaint isn't famous enough
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"I am a man of many parts, unfortunately most of
them are no longer in stock"
Len Oil
[Christopher Lee]
> I agree muchly. Did you see Lord of the Rings and Episode 5 very soon
after
> each other? Did you get the impressionn that Christopher Lee seems to
have
> filmed both at the same time, with only a slight costume change? He had
> practically the same script, for goodness sake, and *exactly* the same
> character!
> *fumes*
*slight smell of smoke..?* :)
--
AFP Code 2.0: AC$/>M-UK d@(--) s:+>- a- UP+ R+++ F++ h- P3x= OSD+:-- ?C M--
L pp--- I->** W+ c@ B+ Cn::::+ CC- PT+>+++ Pu* 5+>++ X-- MT++ eV+(++-) r*
y+ end
Torak
news:af26c87a.02101...@posting.google.com...
> "Lodestone" <lode...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:<aordbq$k1s$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
> > "Danny" <Da...@scoutnet.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:irm1rugascijiua0v...@4ax.com...
> > > wrote the following stuff about Re: [R] Maurice, Bromeliad and
rambles:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > >Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and
the
> > > >actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl
> > Jones...
> > >
> > > What, you don't think Christopher Lee would be good? He did a damn
good
> > > job in the Wyrd Sisters & Soul Music cartoons. I wouldn't want Death
to
> > > sound like Darth Vader (but sounding like Saruman or Count Dooku is OK
;p)
I think either, really - both would work well, but I've always pictured
Death as having an English accent. Admittedly, Vader sounded English-ish,
but still...
> > I agree muchly. Did you see Lord of the Rings and Episode 5 very soon
after
> > each other? Did you get the impressionn that Christopher Lee seems to
have
> > filmed both at the same time, with only a slight costume change? He had
> > practically the same script, for goodness sake, and *exactly* the same
> > character!
>
> Hmm... sinister old fellow in robes with disturbingly long
> fingernails. What, you reckon Christopher Lee's getting a little
> typecast lately? Certainly it's not so varied as the roles he had
> earlier in his career, when he played parts as diverse as Dracula,
> Dracula, Dracula, the (amateur) witch hunter in 'The Devil Rides Out',
> Dracula, Dracula, Dracula, Scaramanga, Dracula, Dracula and Dracula.
Please warn me next time you plan on doing this, so I can put on my
Rolling-On-The-Floor suit and not ruin my normal one.
andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk
"Danny" <Da...@scoutnet.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:irm1rugascijiua0v...@4ax.com...
<andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk>,
> wrote the following stuff about Re: [R] Maurice, Bromeliad and rambles:
> >Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
> >actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl
Jones...
>
> What, you don't think Christopher Lee would be good? He did a damn good
> job in the Wyrd Sisters & Soul Music cartoons. I wouldn't want Death to
> sound like Darth Vader (but sounding like Saruman or Count Dooku is OK ;p)
I didn't say he'd be *my* choice - just explaining to Lodestone that he'd be
lots of other people's choice.
Myself, I'd go for Tom Baker...
Lesley Weston
use...@ericjarvis.co.uk wrote on 19/10/2002 5:32 PM:
> andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
>> actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl Jones...
>>
>
> only because Steve Toussaint isn't famous enough
And because Valentine Dyall is dead.
Lesley Weston.
Eric Jarvis
true
but would it be possible to cobble together enough of Valentine Dyall's
voice to electronically alter somebody else's to record it with pretty
much the same tone?...just a thought...Death's voice has to be
electronically altered anyway
I'm not saying who I'd use to do the voice...just in case I ever get to
actually do so one day
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"I am a man of many parts,
unfortunately most are no longer in stock"
Eric Jarvis
>
> "Danny" <Da...@scoutnet.net.au.invalid> wrote in message
> news:irm1rugascijiua0v...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 00:05:15 +0100,
> <andrew...@stealthmunchkin.fsnet.co.uk>,
> > wrote the following stuff about Re: [R] Maurice, Bromeliad and rambles:
>
> > >Conversation about filming Pratchett books leads on to casting, and the
> > >actor most commonly suggested for the voice of Death is James Earl
> Jones...
> >
> > What, you don't think Christopher Lee would be good? He did a damn good
> > job in the Wyrd Sisters & Soul Music cartoons. I wouldn't want Death to
> > sound like Darth Vader (but sounding like Saruman or Count Dooku is OK ;p)
>
>
> I didn't say he'd be *my* choice - just explaining to Lodestone that he'd be
> lots of other people's choice.
> Myself, I'd go for Tom Baker...
>
that's closer to the sort of phrasing I'd want to use...Death is NOT some
one dimensional ominous presence...he's a well meaning eccentric who would
like to conform but simply doesn't ever quite "get it"...unless that gets
across it isn't Terry Pratchett's version of Death, it's just the
archetype that it's based on
I've said this over and over again in casting threads...the crucial thing
to look for isn't who has played a similar role, but what really makes the
character work on the page and who can portray that...it isn't always the
large scale overall "shape" of the character...what makes Terry's
characters so brilliant are the things that work against the archetypes
--
eric - afprelationships in headers
"I'm British, deep down I sincerely believe that
there isn't anything that can possibly happen that
can't be best dealt with by having a cup of tea"
Richard Eney
Lodestone <lode...@dotdivine.co.uk> wrote:
>Thus spake Lodestone:
>>I reread Maurice recently, and was struck once more by a
>>subtle change in Pterry's writing style.
>I read Johnny and the Dead last night, and realised the qualities
>I've spoken of were clearly there in that. Which is strange...
>why did it take longer to put them in Discworld?
Wild guess: At the time JATD was written, Discworld had a certain
image, at least (I assume) in the minds of the publishers. JATD
might have been a kind of experiment: 'If I write something without
a pun or joke on every page or so, will it work? Will people
understand it? And will it sell?'
Even the best publishers are reluctant to change something that is
working. Hence the authors who use different pseudonyms, not so
much to hide their identities as to indicate the type of book to
the reader who is expecting a particular experience.
=Tamar
Terry Pratchett
<dic...@radix.net> writes
>Wild guess: At the time JATD was written, Discworld had a certain
>image, at least (I assume) in the minds of the publishers. JATD
>might have been a kind of experiment: 'If I write something without
>a pun or joke on every page or so, will it work? Will people
>understand it? And will it sell?'
Nah. Dunt work like that. I still don't know exactly what I do when I
shift between adult and children's books, but when JATD was written I
was writing DW it exactly as I wanted to write it (or was capable of
writing it.) None of the Johnny Maxwell could have worked with the DW
tone of voice, so I tried a different approach. However I developed
either style, though, it was all done by me -- there have never been
style directives from the publishers.
--
Terry Pratchett
Lodestone
news:MWCWlIAj...@unseen.demon.co.uk...
> In article <aovbib$9rj$2...@news1.radix.net>, Richard Eney
> <dic...@radix.net> writes
> >Wild guess: At the time JATD was written, Discworld had a certain
> >image, at least (I assume) in the minds of the publishers. JATD
> >might have been a kind of experiment: 'If I write something without
> >a pun or joke on every page or so, will it work? Will people
> >understand it? And will it sell?'
>
> Nah. Dunt work like that. I still don't know exactly what I do when I
Not a great deal :-D
I find (and love) that the children's books lose none of the superb
characterisation etcetera. They just use slightly "easier" wordings and are
a tad shorter. And tend to be (until now) a touch more philosophical. Like
Sophie's World with laughs ;-)
--
Lodestone
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
(Lenin)
Terry Pratchett
<lode...@microsoft.com> writes
>
>Not a great deal :-D
One journalist threw me recently by saying the rhythms of the sentences
are less complex. It's hard to write when people tell you this.
--
Terry Pratchett
Sherilyn
Important things, rhythms. They counterpoint the surrealism of the
underlying metaphor, kind of thing.
--
Sherilyn
"The real pity is that *some* people here might just end up with the
newsgroup they deserve." -Chris Hill on demon.local.
Lodestone
I can imagine :-D
Bugger the rhytms, but the sentences themselves are less complex. I think.
But often the ideas they convey are *more* complex.
I know what it is (maybe)!
I think they're more minimalist.
Sylvain Chambon
alt.fan.pratchett} ->
[About Terry's children's books, or is that Terry's books for children,
or children's books by Terry, or books for children by Terry?]
> Whilst noticing a slight difference in style I tend towards the view that
> the writing is recognisably PTerry.
Actually, I only read the Johnny books in French (I *do* have Johnny and
the Dead in English though, I just haven't gone around to reading it) so
I couldn't say. It was, however, recognisably the same translator :-)
Funny thing is, in it he (Couton, the translator) occasionnally used
phrases that are typical of the West of the country (or even, at time,
Nantes). Feels strange. It didn't happen in the DW translations AFAICS,
mostly because of the difference in setting[1].
Sylvain (post guaranteed 100% point-free)
[1] The word I'm thinking about is to designate plastic bags, like
carrier bags or bin liners. (While most people I know say "sac
plastique", people from the West say "poche" and I have only heard
"pochon" used in Nantes).
David K. Wall
> Frequently the best way to pass on a complex idea is to explain it in
> simple language.
I remember reading somewhere that Wittgenstein complained that people were
continually arguing about the meaning of one of his books. He said it was
all written down, why was there an argument? B. Russell said to him that
maybe he should have written it more clearly....
--
David K. Wall - use...@dwall.fastmail.fm
"Oook."
Matthew Blissett
> Terry Pratchett <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In article <ap1ukh$5ce$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Lodestone
>> <lode...@microsoft.com> writes
>>>
>>> Not a great deal :-D
>>
>> One journalist threw me recently by saying the rhythms of the
>> sentences are less complex. It's hard to write when people tell you
>> this.
>
> Important things, rhythms. They counterpoint the surrealism of the
> underlying metaphor,
of the humanity of the poet's compassionate soul, which contries through the
medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, trancend that, and comes to
terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other...
Yep, I can see why it threw you.
Aren't rhythms only important in plays and poems and things???
--
Matt
Daibhid Chiennedelh
>Date: 26/10/02 23:02 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <apf3d3$fqs$1...@library.lspace.org>
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
>> Terry Pratchett <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> In article <ap1ukh$5ce$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Lodestone
>>> <lode...@microsoft.com> writes
>>>>
>>>> Not a great deal :-D
>>>
>>> One journalist threw me recently by saying the rhythms of the
>>> sentences are less complex. It's hard to write when people tell you
>>> this.
>>
>> Important things, rhythms. They counterpoint the surrealism of the
>> underlying metaphor,
>
>of the humanity
...or vogonity...
>of the poet's compassionate soul, which contries through the
>medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, trancend that, and comes to
>terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other...
>
>Yep, I can see why it threw you.
>
>Aren't rhythms only important in plays and poems and things???
Well, no. As the above passage from DNA demonstrates, since it has a strong
rhythm that leads brilliantly to the humourous lameness of the conclusion ("and
one is left with a profound and vivid insight into..". "...into whatever it was
the poem was about!") I believe it even says that Arthur was reaching a
crecendo, before losing the rhythm at the final stage.
Rhythm is an important part of fiction and *the* most important part of comedy,
whether you call it "timing", "pacing", "beats" or whatever.
--
Dave
Now Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc for three years
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
"I hate playing *frivolous* Mornington Crescent. It wrecks the whole thing."
-Humphrey Lyttleton
Brian Howlett
[snip]
>
> Rhythm is an important part of fiction and *the* most important part
> of comedy, whether you call it "timing", "pacing", "beats" or
> whatever.
>
"What's the secret of good comedy?"
"I don't know. What is the secret of good"
"Timing"
--
Brian Howlett
-----------------------------
European?
No, my ice lolly's melting...
Kegs
>> Rhythm is an important part of fiction and *the* most important part
>> of comedy, whether you call it "timing", "pacing", "beats" or
>> whatever.
>>
> "What's the secret of good comedy?"
> "I don't know. What is the secret of good"
> "Timing"
or the version played out in mid-wales one bright and frosty november day
[scene Llangollen at the eisteddford centre, on the weekend of the dee tour
in the carpark outside in the cold two kayakers arre getting changed into
their clothes.]
pavey: You know what the secret of good comedy is ben?
ben: No stu what is it.
pavey: just remember, timing is everything!
[pavey whips away bens towel leaving Ben nude and embarrased doing a 100m
dash to the car to get his trousers]
--
James
hot...@jameskeasley.com invert to reply
Linux-'Cos Micro$oft is for Capitalists running DOS
Marco Villalta
> One journalist threw me recently by saying the rhythms of the sentences
> are less complex. It's hard to write when people tell you this.
So easily sigable. But I shall be stronk.
Well, I don't know about "rhythms of the sentences", but there is
an index that one can use to measure the difficulty to read a
text, called the "readability index", or lix (whatever it
translates to at your locality).
The lix number is calculated thus, quoting my encyclopedia:
1. Count the number of words in a piece of text.
2. Count the number of words with more than six letters.
3. Calculate the percentage of long words.
Example: A text has 720 words, whereof 90 have more than
six letters.
90 ÷ 720 = 0,125 0,125 × 100 = 12,5
4. Count the number of sentences. Divide the number of words by
the number of sentences.
Example: 720 words, 60 sentences, gives 720 ÷ 60 = 12,0
5. Add the two figures obtained in points 3 and 4 together:
12,5 + 12 = 24,5
Examples of lix ranges:
20-25 Childrens' books
25-30 Simple literature
35-40 Ordinary fiction
40 Topical information
50 Technical textbook
60 Hard technical textbook for specialists
Taking TAMAHER and, say, SM and comparing them, we get the
following. Since I do not intend to do an essay on this, I've
choosen small sample spaces -- opened Maurice at random, and
found that two paragraphs on p. 129 totalled exactly 107 words,
then tried ot find something similar in Soul Music, found four
paraghraphs on p. 146 with one word more -- so this is merely a
comparison.
TAMAHER SM
107 words 108 words
17 long words 15 long words
Percentage long words:
15.89 13.89
7 sentences 8 sentences
Words/sentence ratio:
15.29 13.5
Lix:
31,18 27,39
Naturally, this is in no way indicative of anything at all, since
to do a proper comparison you'd have to count the entire books.
But I'm not quite *that* ambitious. Moreover, this example was
made with the Swedish rules on an English text, and you probably
shouldn't do that...
So I leave finding out the English rules and doing a proper
analysis as an exercise for the reader. (Mr. Pratchett *ought*
to have the books as text files, enabling a quicker way of
getting the statistics, at least...) :-)
--
Marco Villalta
Whaddaya mean I'm two weeks late and completely pointless?
Steve James
> Terry Pratchett <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > One journalist threw me recently by saying the rhythms of the
> > sentences are less complex. It's hard to write when people
> > tell you this.
> So easily sigable. But I shall be stronk.
> Well, I don't know about "rhythms of the sentences", but there
> is an index that one can use to measure the difficulty to read
> a text, called the "readability index", or lix (whatever it
> translates to at your locality).
> The lix number is calculated thus, quoting my encyclopedia:
> 1. Count the number of words in a piece of text.
> 2. Count the number of words with more than six letters.
> 3. Calculate the percentage of long words.
>
Isn't this out of Dead's Poets Society? There it was shown just how
stupid this sort of pseudo-mathematical treatment is invalid [1]
Steve (Steeljam) *BF DAcFD (UU) *
Resident Opsimath in Redivivus Studies
[1] not as someone who cannot function fully
Lodestone
news:memo.20021113...@steeljam.compulink.co.uk...
> In article <MPG.1838d44ef...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
marcos_b...@hotmail.com (Marco Villalta) wrote:
> > Terry Pratchett <Te...@unseen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > One journalist threw me recently by saying the rhythms of the
> > > sentences are less complex. It's hard to write when people
> > > tell you this.
> > So easily sigable. But I shall be stronk.
> > Well, I don't know about "rhythms of the sentences", but there
> > is an index that one can use to measure the difficulty to read
> > a text, called the "readability index", or lix (whatever it
> > translates to at your locality).
> > The lix number is calculated thus, quoting my encyclopedia:
> > 1. Count the number of words in a piece of text.
> > 2. Count the number of words with more than six letters.
> > 3. Calculate the percentage of long words.
> <snip>
> >
> Isn't this out of Dead's Poets Society? There it was shown just how
Well, it's a similar kind of thing. I was gaan tae post to say the same
thing: yo cannot treat writing mathematically.
--
Lodestone
Lesley Weston: "If minimalism is reduced, what does it become?"
Steve: "Crotchetism"
alt.books.pratchett
Marco Villalta
> marcos_b...@hotmail.com (Marco Villalta) wrote:
>
> > Well, I don't know about "rhythms of the sentences", but there
> > is an index that one can use to measure the difficulty to read
> > a text, called the "readability index", or lix (whatever it
> > translates to at your locality).
> > The lix number is calculated thus, quoting my encyclopedia:
<snip>
> Isn't this out of Dead's Poets Society?
Nope. That was a method of measuring a poem's "value" by looking
at its metre etc. (and a demonstration of how silly that would
be). This is a method of measuring the difficulty of reading a
text. Two different, if possibly similar, things.
> There it was shown just how
> stupid this sort of pseudo-mathematical treatment is invalid
Um, I may be wrong, but that sentence looks like it needs some
rephrasing...
--
Marco Villalta -- afpStuff in headers
Drethelin
mathematically, but I agree that we do not know enough about the way the
brain interprets information to grade writing mathematically.
Drethelin, posting for the first time, and stealing a signature style.
"Marco Villalta" <marcos_b...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.183e329fe...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Cathy Young
> Drethelin, posting for the first time, and stealing a signature style.
[entire quoted text removed]
Your signature style being that you use the whole previous post as your sig?
Cathy
Alec Cawley
> I personally think all things should be treated atleast pseudo
> mathematically, but I agree that we do not know enough about the way the
> brain interprets information to grade writing mathematically.
And being ignored by me, because taken out of context at the top of the
screen, that sentence is total gibberish. Please try to put your replies in
context (such as, close to what they are are reply to).
--
@lec Šawley
From address is valid
Drethelin
"Cathy Young" <cyou...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:d8ae4e6d.02111...@posting.google.com...
Sorry, must have been an error of some sort, I know atleast one other person
saw my message
Drethelin
"Alec Cawley" <nos...@spamspam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1373342.T...@aleccawley.com...
I apologize, and will try to do better in the future.
Steve James
Aquarion
wrote:
Ten points, Plus five bonus points correcting your mistake ;)
--
'rion