A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cat anecdotes
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Medical OT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old January 23rd 12, 08:10 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
jmcquown[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,008
Default kindle


wrote in message
...
Sherry wrote:

I haven't found this to be true of iBooks. The *do* offer the newest
releases,
and also a waiting list for the ones that aren't released yet. The
problem
comes in when you're wanting to read an older, more obscure book. Most
classics
are available, and most for free, but if you're wanting to re-read a
book you
read a long time ago that's *not* a classic, you'll have to find it
elsewhere.


That is exactly my concern.

But there's no reason one couldn't use *both* an e-reader and hardcopy
books.


--
Joyce


I can't help it, I just like books. Real books. I've made my living with
computers. Heck, that's how I know all of you. But I love the feel of a
book in my hand. I like putting a physical bookmark between pages to mark
my place. I have bookshelves in my den filled with books.

I'm sure the Kindle and ibooks or whatever are fine. But I don't want to
see books go out of fashion. They've meant too much in my life.

Jill

  #92  
Old January 23rd 12, 08:46 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
Adrian[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 457
Default kindle

"jmcquown" wrote:
wrote in message ...


I can't help it, I just like books. Real books. I've made my living
with computers. Heck, that's how I know all of you. But I love the feel
of a book in my hand. I like putting a physical bookmark between pages
to mark my place. I have bookshelves in my den filled with books.

I'm sure the Kindle and ibooks or whatever are fine. But I don't want to
see books go out of fashion. They've meant too much in my life.

Jill


I don't think books will ever go out of fashion completely. They said
television would kill radio, it never happened.
--
Adrian
  #93  
Old January 23rd 12, 09:58 PM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
Lesley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,700
Default kindle

On Jan 23, 11:46*am, Adrian wrote:


I don't think books will ever go out of fashion completely. They said
television would kill radio, it never happened.


Now a lot of radio programmes stream online I probably listen to the
radio more than I watch TV

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs
  #94  
Old January 24th 12, 02:11 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
Joy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,086
Default kindle

"jmcquown" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Sherry wrote:

I haven't found this to be true of iBooks. The *do* offer the newest
releases,
and also a waiting list for the ones that aren't released yet. The
problem
comes in when you're wanting to read an older, more obscure book. Most
classics
are available, and most for free, but if you're wanting to re-read a
book you
read a long time ago that's *not* a classic, you'll have to find it
elsewhere.


That is exactly my concern.

But there's no reason one couldn't use *both* an e-reader and hardcopy
books.


--
Joyce


I can't help it, I just like books. Real books. I've made my living with
computers. Heck, that's how I know all of you. But I love the feel of a
book in my hand. I like putting a physical bookmark between pages to mark
my place. I have bookshelves in my den filled with books.

I'm sure the Kindle and ibooks or whatever are fine. But I don't want to
see books go out of fashion. They've meant too much in my life.

Jill


I like real books best too. However, I must admit that the book I'm
currently reading would be much easier to handle on a Kindle. I had an
especially hard time reading in bed last night (I just started it
yesterday). It's 11/22/63 by Stephen King. It's a very good book, but it
is humungous, and my hands aren't as strong as they used to be.

Joy


  #95  
Old January 24th 12, 02:12 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
Joy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,086
Default kindle

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
"jmcquown" wrote:
wrote in message
...


I can't help it, I just like books. Real books. I've made my living
with computers. Heck, that's how I know all of you. But I love the feel
of a book in my hand. I like putting a physical bookmark between pages
to mark my place. I have bookshelves in my den filled with books.

I'm sure the Kindle and ibooks or whatever are fine. But I don't want to
see books go out of fashion. They've meant too much in my life.

Jill


I don't think books will ever go out of fashion completely. They said
television would kill radio, it never happened.
--
Adrian


My sister and I were discussing something along those lines earlier. "They"
said that movies would kill live theater, and that TV would kill movies.
Instead, we have all three to enjoy.

Joy


  #96  
Old January 24th 12, 02:28 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
Jack Campin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 675
Default kindle

I like real books best too. However, I must admit that the book I'm
currently reading would be much easier to handle on a Kindle. I had
an especially hard time reading in bed last night (I just started it
yesterday). It's 11/22/63 by Stephen King. It's a very good book,
but it is humungous, and my hands aren't as strong as they used to be.


That suggests a truly grim possible development.

Books (particularly popular genre fiction) started to bloat as soon
as authors got their hands on word processors. If you had to write
every word with a pen, or bang out every letter on a typewriter for
every rewrite, you had a built-in incentive not to use any more words
than necessary. But even with authors using word processors and
outliners to keep track of all their superfluous characters, there
was still a physical limit to how big a book you could expect to sell.
Don DeLillo's "Underworld" pushed at it, Vikram Seth's "A Suitable
Boy" went way over it in its hardback edition for a lot of readers.

But now every book can weigh the same and there is no limit to
logorrhoea. People have been softened up to tolerate garrulity
by blogs that go on forever.

A future where civilization winds down to a dead stop as people freeze
into pupa-like immobility while reading interminable stories on their
e-readers. Perhaps Stephen King could write a book about it...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 http://www.campin.me.uk Twitter: JackCampin
  #97  
Old January 24th 12, 04:06 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,349
Default kindle

Jack Campin wrote:

I like real books best too. However, I must admit that the book I'm
currently reading would be much easier to handle on a Kindle. I had
an especially hard time reading in bed last night (I just started it
yesterday). It's 11/22/63 by Stephen King. It's a very good book,
but it is humungous, and my hands aren't as strong as they used to be.


That suggests a truly grim possible development.


Books (particularly popular genre fiction) started to bloat as soon
as authors got their hands on word processors. If you had to write
every word with a pen, or bang out every letter on a typewriter for
every rewrite, you had a built-in incentive not to use any more words
than necessary. But even with authors using word processors and
outliners to keep track of all their superfluous characters, there
was still a physical limit to how big a book you could expect to sell.
Don DeLillo's "Underworld" pushed at it, Vikram Seth's "A Suitable
Boy" went way over it in its hardback edition for a lot of readers.


But now every book can weigh the same and there is no limit to
logorrhoea. People have been softened up to tolerate garrulity
by blogs that go on forever.


A future where civilization winds down to a dead stop as people freeze
into pupa-like immobility while reading interminable stories on their
e-readers. Perhaps Stephen King could write a book about it...


Actually, I don't agree that word processors are to blame. Publishers
are pretty strict about the number of words per book, depending on ...

(Oops, here's where I give away my lack of knowledge, because I don't
remember what exactly it depends on. But a friend of mine is in the process
of having a memoir published, and she had to cut it down to 90,000 words
because of, um, *something*. Different categories of books have different
maxiumum lengths, I just don't remember what the categories are.)

My theory about Stephen King is that he's an exception, and can do whatever
he wants. His books badly, *badly* need editing, but why would his
publisher pay an editor? His books are going to be bestsellers no matter
what's in them.

--
Joyce

audiophile, n:
Someone who listens to the equipment instead of the music.
  #98  
Old January 24th 12, 08:35 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
Joy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,086
Default kindle

wrote in message
...
Jack Campin wrote:

I like real books best too. However, I must admit that the book I'm
currently reading would be much easier to handle on a Kindle. I had
an especially hard time reading in bed last night (I just started it
yesterday). It's 11/22/63 by Stephen King. It's a very good book,
but it is humungous, and my hands aren't as strong as they used to be.


That suggests a truly grim possible development.


Books (particularly popular genre fiction) started to bloat as soon
as authors got their hands on word processors. If you had to write
every word with a pen, or bang out every letter on a typewriter for
every rewrite, you had a built-in incentive not to use any more words
than necessary. But even with authors using word processors and
outliners to keep track of all their superfluous characters, there
was still a physical limit to how big a book you could expect to sell.
Don DeLillo's "Underworld" pushed at it, Vikram Seth's "A Suitable
Boy" went way over it in its hardback edition for a lot of readers.


But now every book can weigh the same and there is no limit to
logorrhoea. People have been softened up to tolerate garrulity
by blogs that go on forever.


A future where civilization winds down to a dead stop as people freeze
into pupa-like immobility while reading interminable stories on their
e-readers. Perhaps Stephen King could write a book about it...


Actually, I don't agree that word processors are to blame. Publishers
are pretty strict about the number of words per book, depending on ...

(Oops, here's where I give away my lack of knowledge, because I don't
remember what exactly it depends on. But a friend of mine is in the
process
of having a memoir published, and she had to cut it down to 90,000 words
because of, um, *something*. Different categories of books have different
maxiumum lengths, I just don't remember what the categories are.)

My theory about Stephen King is that he's an exception, and can do
whatever
he wants. His books badly, *badly* need editing, but why would his
publisher pay an editor? His books are going to be bestsellers no matter
what's in them.

--
Joyce


Many of King's books have been big ones, although none as big as this one.
I'm well into it now, and, while it isn't at all what I was expecting (at
least not so far), it's holding my interest as most of his books do, and not
grossing me out as much as many of them.

Incidentally, a couple of Isaac Asimov's books were pretty large, and he
refused to use a computer or word processor.

Joy


  #99  
Old January 24th 12, 08:49 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,349
Default kindle

Joy wrote:

My theory about Stephen King is that he's an exception, and can do
whatever
he wants. His books badly, *badly* need editing, but why would his
publisher pay an editor? His books are going to be bestsellers no matter
what's in them.


Many of King's books have been big ones, although none as big as this one.
I'm well into it now, and, while it isn't at all what I was expecting (at
least not so far), it's holding my interest as most of his books do, and not
grossing me out as much as many of them.


I wasn't talking so much about the size, but rather the redundancy of
his wording. He'll use 3 metaphors to describe something when one would
do just fine. I know he likes to write in a conversational tone, which
is one of the things that makes his books appealing, but that doesn't
mean he has to ramble on.

About 10 or 15 years ago there was a trend of celebrities getting gigs
reading books for audio recordings. These weren't like Books On Tape,
because they were abridged. This is usually objectionable, but not with
Stephen King's books. I remember one book, "Desperation", from 1995 or
so. The physical book was over 700 pages, but I had the audio book. The
cuts they made for the audiobook made it into a reasonable-length story.

Incidentally, a couple of Isaac Asimov's books were pretty large, and he
refused to use a computer or word processor.


I didn't know that. Asimov, one of the masters of "hard" science
fiction, a Luddite?

--
Joyce

I prefer to live with Feline Sapiens, thank you very much.
  #100  
Old January 24th 12, 09:21 AM posted to rec.pets.cats.anecdotes
Joy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,086
Default kindle

wrote in message
...
Joy wrote:

My theory about Stephen King is that he's an exception, and can do
whatever
he wants. His books badly, *badly* need editing, but why would his
publisher pay an editor? His books are going to be bestsellers no
matter
what's in them.


Many of King's books have been big ones, although none as big as this
one.
I'm well into it now, and, while it isn't at all what I was expecting
(at
least not so far), it's holding my interest as most of his books do, and
not
grossing me out as much as many of them.


I wasn't talking so much about the size, but rather the redundancy of
his wording. He'll use 3 metaphors to describe something when one would
do just fine. I know he likes to write in a conversational tone, which
is one of the things that makes his books appealing, but that doesn't
mean he has to ramble on.

About 10 or 15 years ago there was a trend of celebrities getting gigs
reading books for audio recordings. These weren't like Books On Tape,
because they were abridged. This is usually objectionable, but not with
Stephen King's books. I remember one book, "Desperation", from 1995 or
so. The physical book was over 700 pages, but I had the audio book. The
cuts they made for the audiobook made it into a reasonable-length story.


Incidentally, a couple of Isaac Asimov's books were pretty large, and he
refused to use a computer or word processor.


I didn't know that. Asimov, one of the masters of "hard" science
fiction, a Luddite?

--
Joyce


Yes, very much so. He even refused to fly. He wouldn't travel anywhere
unless he could go by train and take his typewriter with him. He 'had' to
spend at least six hours a day writing.

Joy


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
{OT] Medical stuff [email protected] Cat anecdotes 19 October 9th 06 06:19 AM
Medical update Christina Websell Cat anecdotes 37 August 3rd 06 06:08 PM
[OT] One More Medical Update CatNipped Cat anecdotes 24 July 19th 06 02:36 AM
funding for medical help rumble Cat health & behaviour 42 May 29th 06 08:33 PM
We could use some medical purrs Dan M Cat anecdotes 38 May 26th 06 08:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.