Comments for A.T. | Cleveland

Comment on A Few More Words by tom zurinskas

tom zurinskas — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:04:06 +0000

English spelling “causes” dyslexia, was the opinion of Keith Stanovich who found twice as many dyslexic learners of English as Italian, a language with a more phonetically consistent spelling.

Comment on What about a Mid-list Non-Fiction Author’s Co-Op? by Anne Trubek

Anne Trubek — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:01:27 +0000

lowlisters too!

Comment on What about a Mid-list Non-Fiction Author’s Co-Op? by Daniel "Boom Boom" Nester

Daniel "Boom Boom" Nester — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:24:07 +0000

This sounds like a great idea. What if you’re not even midlist?

Comment on What about a Mid-list Non-Fiction Author’s Co-Op? by Anne Trubek

Anne Trubek — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:54:45 +0000

So with this concept, it’s more for authors who decide they want to self-publish but to do it through this group than individually.

The advantage of what I’m imagining–a group of already somewhat established authors/writers, who have contacts amongst pubs and reviewers, is that it would be easier to reviewed, etc.
The names of the group members could serve a similar function as a blurb–”So and so is part of this company? I bet the book is good.”

Comment on What about a Mid-list Non-Fiction Author’s Co-Op? by michael erard

michael erard — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:16:43 +0000

Conceptually I’m more aligned with a temporary autonomous publishing company rather than ever building a permanent organization. You’re enabling works to be published, and enabling people to publish those works by fitting the work as a module into everything else they do. The group of authors forms itself and decides on a single project from one of the members to publish. Some unspeakable ceremony sealing the pact occurs. The Kickstarter mechanism raises funds for the production of the single work and provides evidence of an audience and initial buy-in by that audience. (Or perhaps the group chooses two proposals, then lets Kickstarter results decide which one to pursue.) Then the co-op segments the editorial tasks so one can, for instance, choose to copy-edit one or two or three chapters. Maybe royalty structure is decided by units of input. (This borrows heavily from peer production models, e.g., Librivox.) This solves a couple of problems: 1) the quality control issue 2) the free rider issue 3) the need to have production costs covered.

Then you choose a distribution model that nobody else does (I suggested bundling hard with digital copies — see this MobyLives post: http://mhpbooks.com/49000/is-bundling-ebooks-with-print-books-a-good-idea/), which gets you begrudging fame and secondary media coverage.

But autonomously published books will still be outside the usual reviewing & publicity mechanisms.

Comment on What about a Mid-list Non-Fiction Author’s Co-Op? by Anne Trubek

Anne Trubek — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:41:59 +0000

Right. We’d need start-up costs (either from our own savings acts or elsewhere) and people with experience w/lots of the different facets. Distribution seems the toughest piece. Also, convincing people of the prestige factor–but if authors w/reputations buy-in…

Comment on What about a Mid-list Non-Fiction Author’s Co-Op? by Tim Carmody

Tim Carmody — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:32:16 +0000

Quite possibly brilliant: authors buy shares and put in work, get dividends from any profits of the operation, add a part-time or a full-time staff. You’d have to figure out the proper reimbursement structure for individual works though. And have a mechanism to punish freeriders (the bane of any co-op).

Comment on A Few More Words by Marc Brody

Marc Brody — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:23:25 +0000

I read the Wired article and found myself replacing the word “french language” into “english language”. I am a french tutor helping high school students struggle with the arbitrary, arcane rules of written french that most native speakers of french don’t understand or know. As a French American, I love my native language. I also know it suffers from overprotection, rigid rules that make no sense and can and should be reformed. Most people don’t know that in the 1830′s french was simplified to make it standardized and easy to read.

Oops…. back to English. My point is that as a tutor I am constantly struggling to explain to native speakers of english why their native language contains words that are spelled one way and pronounced another. Or, why “neighbor” and “labor” sound the same but must be memorized. I try to explain languages evolve and change with time and that logic is not always applicable to spelling. The written codified form of language we read is there to ensure we all have a reference point to agree on a word/definition format.

Then, I try to explain how and where the same spelling variations occur in french. I try to explain why in French the last sounds of a word are only there because it makes them appear more “latin” than germanic or even worse “provinical”. Or, why an accent that indicates a sound no longer is pronounced must be included in a word. Try that one! If you find a way to explain it, contact me.

Yes, a written language(s) can (and maybe even should) be simplified over time without loss to meaning. But for some, it can strike to the heart of one’s identity and even a culture. After reading the article, I realized much of the same problems and debate surrounding spelling is not unique to English.

Be safe out there. Its a brave new written world.
Marc Brody
California

Comment on New Rules: Writing Well In The 21st Century by meg

meg — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:47:58 +0000

(Coming late to the party, but…)

Actually, “foobar” was a word 10 years ago (spelled “fubar”) — it dates back at least to World War II. Snafu, tarfu, and fubar are the good, better, and best of fuckedupness (and the three brothers in a wartime morale-building film).

Yours in pedantic etymology, etc. etc.

Comment on Responding to the SAT Essay: We Need Revolution Caused By Discontent by Paula Behnken

Paula Behnken — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:57:22 +0000

I had no idea kids were expected to do what only the most experienced broadcast reporters do on the scene of breaking news. How ridiculous! The only person who benefits from this exercise is the poor scorer, who must go blind and brain dead in a week.
Thank you for alerting readers to this issue and for encouraging the College Board to rethink its goals, as well as how it reaches them.