HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Subject: Re: Unspoken Words
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:29:27 GMT

Scooter Corleone writes:

>As a person who reads a lot, I find I have a large vocabulary of words 
>that I have only read; I've never spoken them or heard them. As a result, I
>know what the words mean, but I don't always know how to pronounce them.
	
		[examples deleted]
>I was wondering if other readers had noticed this unspoken words phenomenon.

Scooter, no worries, there's two of us anyway. In college, I remember
lectures where lecturing prof uses word in strange context. That was when I
started to wonder. Two favorites:  magnanimous amd entrepreneur. Although I
have also noticed east coast and west coast differences in studying Plato. 
For example: I studied the "cryto", here they study the "kreeto", Socrates's
dialogic companions I consider as his "interlockuters" here they speak
of "interlow/cueters". I think these differences originate in where, and
from who, you learned Greek. My wife corrects me all the time and the
virtue of knowing that I'm not sure of pronounciation has caused me to
a) slow down my reading and b)have a dictionary handy at all times.

Any other confessors out there?

Keith 
kamorgan@athena.mit.edu 

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: regan1016@bestsd.sdsu.edu (T. ELIZABETH HARVEY)
Subject: Re: On-Line Library of Congress Catalog?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: San Diego State University - Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:22:00 GMT

In an article, wnoe@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Bill Noe) queries:
>Does anybody know whether the Library of Congress catalog is available on-line
>anywhere?  I know of one location (which I reach using 'telnet 192.65.218.43.')
>Unfortunately, this site does not allow guests to search for books by keywords,
>which is very inconvenient.  Can anybody offer alternate site names?

I'm in the same predicament (I use CARL UnCover, available thru my 
university library, as well as my local net ... perhaps you should try 
e-mailing the LC ... the BITNET address I have for it is: catalog@dra.com
I haven't tried it yet, myself (just got it yesterday), so I can't say 
whether that will be a help.  If it is, could you e-mail me 
(REGAN1016@bestsd.sdsu.edu) with your results?  I hope you're successful 
.. not being able to do subject searches is such a drag (not to mention a 
waste of time ...)

>wnoe@ecn.purdue.edu
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"What a man thinks of himself, that it is which determines, or rather
>indicates, his fate."					--Henry David Thoreau

---<--<-{@ | "I believe that before all else, I am a reasonable human being,
Elizabeth  | just as you are -- or, at all events, that I must try and 
	   | become one." _A Doll's House_, Henrik Ibsen
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: doom@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: Re: Dickens vs. Twain
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:25:46 GMT

Much of what I read of both was required reading for school.

Twain: "Tom Sawyer", and that essay about learning about
riverboats, I think "Life on the Mississippi" (really it's
about familarity breeding contempt).  

Dickens: "Great Expectations", "A Tale of Two Cities", "A
Christmas Carol". 

More recently I read an annotated edition of "Huckleberry
Finn".  I thought it was awful.  The annotations were far
more interesting than the novel, which seemed like a
shapeless mess to me.  I gather Twain had no idea where he
was going while he was writing it, and hence just drifted
down the river.  

None of the other Twain I had to read impressed me much
either... but I remember really getting into "Great
Expectations" *in spite* of the fact that it was required
reading.  I also really liked parts of "A Tale of Two
Cities", particular the chapter where Sydney Carton wanders
the streets of Paris all night before doing his "far, far,
better thing".  

I have to say that I like the idea of Twain better than that
of Dickens.  I've heard some one man shows replicating
Twain's act that I thought were great: funny, cynical,
intelligent.  But I've yet to pick up a taste for his
written work.
From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: magical realism--static vs. kinetic
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:37:57 GMT
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing

A little while back when we were talking about Lattimore's Homer, Guy
Davenport's _Geography_of_the_Imagination_ made its way onto my desk.
This morning as I was flipping through this delightful book, I ran across
a bit of Kafka that reminded me of our conversation about magical realism.
This is the second sentence of _Amerika_, describing the Statue of Liberty:

     The arm with the sword rose up, as if newly stretched aloft,
     and round the figure blew the free winds of heaven.

Now this line, while deliberately imaginative rather than "accurate,"
does not seem, to me, akin to magical realism.  "Why not?", I ask
myself.

Here's one answer: because the arm with the sword does not move. 
The winds are blowing, but the imagined arm is static, rather than
kinetic.

I'm sure there are lots of other reasons for not applying the term
magical realism to Kafka's _Amerika_, or to this one line, but try
this on for size: Do not many magical realists make use of motion--
e.g., Gabriel Garcia Marquez's yellow butterflies in flamboyant
flight--as if the "magic" were breaking through, bursting forth, from
the real?

                                                  --Fiona Webster
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: _A Constitutional History of the United States_
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:50:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <9207291415.AA13678@cfdev1.shearson.com>, mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > Unfortunately, I run into too many college students like the gal
> > who recently expressed amazement at discovering the U.S. had a
> > Civil War in the last century.  (Yes, educated in California).
> 
> This is unfortunate.  I'm as amazed by this as I am by the fact that
> there are still people who refer to women as "Gals."  It is unfortunate
> that education does not imply enlightenment.
> 
> Mark

I wasn't aware that it was perjorative.  "Gal" is sufficiently
non-descriptive of age to cover anything from a little girl to
an elderly woman, without conveying anything about her age.

English will be SO MUCH SIMPLER once we remove all those evil
words with subtle shades of meaning.

I will remember -- "gal" is doubleplusungood.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"Well, maybe the Holocaust was right *for that culture*." -- a moral relativist
with whom I work.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: gere@umunhum.stanford.edu (Susan Gere)
Subject: Re: Spoilers - continuing discussion, part 2
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 16:51:52 GMT

Mark Taranto writes:
>
>gere@umunhum.stanford.edu (Susan Gere) writes:
>
>> I *did* find _The French Lieutenant's Woman_ intensely annoying when
>> the book itself used this reality-switching technique, however. Texts
>> ought to keep their places.
>
>I do not share Susan's view.  THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN was one of
>the first books that I read, when I decided to start reading again.
>Consequently, I had few expectations about how a text ought to behave.
>I rather like texts that get out of line.
>

 On further thought it may have been not so much the form of narrative 
used as other factors which led to my reaction. For one, the Virgin/Whore 
thing leaves me quite cold. And I was horrified at the time by a history
graduate student I knew whose (I judged) dysfunctional romantic notions
so enamored her of the book that she wanted to incorporate it into the
seminar she was teaching (totally inappropriately in the case, IMHO).

 I've noticed that personal circumstances unrelated to a book [film, etc]
can often color one's reaction to the work quite strongly: for instance, 
an irrational distaste for Christianity or the author himself can spoil 
the enjoyment of a perfectly good children's book like the Narniad.

Pity 'tis, 'tis true.  But there you are.
From: barclay@RAIL9000.gatech.edu (Barclay Blanchard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Spoilers - continuing discussion, part 2
Date: 25 Jul 92 16:05:12 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

In article <1992Jul24.165152.26088@leland.Stanford.EDU> gere@umunhum.stanford.edu (Susan Gere) writes:
>>> I *did* find _The French Lieutenant's Woman_ intensely annoying when
>>> the book itself used this reality-switching technique, however. Texts
>>> ought to keep their places.
>>
> I've noticed that personal circumstances unrelated to a book [film, etc]
>can often color one's reaction to the work quite strongly: for instance, 
>an irrational distaste for Christianity or the author himself can spoil 
>the enjoyment of a perfectly good children's book like the Narniad.
>
I found The French Lieutenant's Woman disturbing.  It's been so long since 
I read it that I don't remember exactly why; it had something to do with
what seemed like a sick relationship to me, but I can't remember which pair
(present or past) revolted me.

But the past/present switching attracted me to the book in the first place;
that seemed as if it could have been done quite cleverly.

BTW, another book that annoyed me in a (somehow I can't articulate) similar 
way was Sophie's Choice, by
Styron.  The main character seemed like such a self-important twit.
Or maybe it was that Sophie's Choice reminded me of Fowles' The Magus
because both were told from the POV of (as it seemed to me) intellectual snobs.


-- 
Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard    barclay@rail9000@gatech.edu
"I've been laughed at by some of the funniest people."
--Lissie, Alice Walker's _The Temple of My Familiar_
From: jjh00@outs.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Bathroom reading
Date: 29 Jul 92 15:58:53 GMT
Reply-To: jjh00@OUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Joel J. Hanes)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

>  betsyp@apollo.hp.com (Betsy Perry) writes (of M.F.K.Fisher):
>
>> I like her translation of Brillat-Savarin; it's the ideal
>> back-of-the-toilet book, amenable to non-chronological and
>> interrupted reading.


mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:
>
> I've always found Eliot's THE LOVE SONG OF J. ALFRED PRUFROCK to be
> the perfect length for a shit.
>
>Any other suggestions?


Boswell's _Life_Of_Samuel_Johnson_LLD_ works for me.  You can pick
it up, start reading on any page, and put it down a few pages later,
refreshed.

In our college household, Boswell kept company with Strunk and White
_The_Elements_of_Style_ on the back of the commode.

---
Joel Hanes
From: dlb@fanny.wash.inmet.com (David Barton)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Great last sentences
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:40:37 GMT
	<liam.056h@durie.amigans.gen.nz>
	<1992Jul24.155625.2819@newstand.syr.edu>
Organization: Intermetrics Inc., Washington Division, USA

In article <1992Jul24.155625.2819@newstand.syr.edu>
mprisco@lynx.cat.syr.edu writes:

   Here's a paraphrase of a modern mystery writer and now I can't
   remember the writer (Grafton, Julie Smith, Lia Matera????) but
   the last sentance is something like:
   "And I blew him away."

Grafton.  "A is for Alibi".  I think this was not quite the last
sentance; there was an epilog.

					Dave Barton
					dlb@hudson.wash.inmet.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto)
Subject: What happens to authors when they die
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 17:57:14 GMT


There seems to be a lot of speculation about where Isaac Asimov ended up.
A number of people seem to be saying that since he was an atheist, he
won't go anywhere.

        Is an after life inconsistent with atheism?  Nope!

        Is it possible that an atheist could die, and then discover
        that he is wrong -- that there is a God and that there is
        an afterlife?  Yep!

The flip side of this also applies.

        Could a true believer could die, and end up nowhere because
        he is wrong.  Yep!

        Then again, does the existence of God imply an afterlife?  Nope!

So what will become of us?  I'm not in a hurry to find out.

But there are several things I want to know:

        What happened to all of those people in Limbo, when
        Vatican II got rid of it?

        And what happened to all of those Catholics who were
        sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?  Were they
        given amnesty when the rule was changed, or are
        they stuck there?

        If reincarnation is real, why do we have to forget everything
        when we come back?  It would make much more sense to me if I
        didn't have to learn Calculus again.

        Where did I leave my keys?


Well -- books, yes -- I'm sure there is something out there that applies.
Besides, we were talking about an author.  Don't they just live on in their
works?  (oh, come on -- you knew all along I'd have an answer)


Mark
From: kamorgan@athena.mit.edu (Keith Morgan)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: What happens to authors when they die
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:53:11 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Mark Taranto muses on the ultimate:


>        Is it possible that an atheist could die, and then discover
>        that he is wrong -- that there is a God and that there is
>        an afterlife?  Yep!

This reminds me of a very funny early Steve Martin routine: guy dies,
ends up at Pearly Gates, looks around and moans: "Oh no! They told us
in college that this was all bullshit!"  

>So what will become of us?  I'm not in a hurry to find out.
>
>But there are several things I want to know:
>
>        And what happened to all of those Catholics who were
>        sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?  Were they
>        given amnesty when the rule was changed, or are
>        they stuck there?

Surely the rule couldn't be changed retroactively? After all, the sin
was committed with full knowledge that it was a sin, the fact that
it's no longer a sin can't erase the memory of committing the sin, can
it?

>Mark


--Keith

--
Keith Morgan		      | Just because your voice reaches half-
MIT Libraries                 | way around the world doesn't mean
kamorgan@athena.mit.edu	      | you are wiser than when it reached 
                              | only to the end of the bar. Ed Murrow
From: chucks@uars2.acd.ucar.edu (Chuck Smythe)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Asimov and the Decay of SF
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:36:19 GMT
Organization: Ntl Center for Atmospheric Research, Atmospheric Chemistry

In article <1992Jul29.163435.20024@syma.sussex.ac.uk> mapd1@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nigel Ling) writes:
 
  conclusion that many scientists are pretty narrow, and very dreary
  company too. Anyone who believes literature is a waste of time is,
  I believe, either extraordinarily ignorant or a fool, more so if
  that person is supposed to be well educated. For some reason science
  is often viewed as the preserve of the "clever". Scientists may be
  clever at their subjects, but in all other walks of life most are
  just ordinary people with no special talents.
 
As usual, there is a wide range.  Like most people in savagely competitive
professions, most scientists are workaholics and just don't find the time
to pay close attention to things like Literature.  There are happy exceptions,
people so brilliant that can manage both.  Then there are we unhappy exceptions
who spread ourselves too thin, preferring mediocrity to tunnel vision.

Still, I was startled a few years ago when I went racing down the hall
shouting that we had a supernova.  My supervisor, Dr. "Grant Swinger",
a rather cultured Yalie, responded "So?"  He neither knew nor cared that
this was the most spectacular astronomical event in a few centuries...
This is tunnel vision with a vengeance.

				Chuck Smythe
From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Male-male love in Tolkien (was Re: C.S. Lewis)
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:32:37 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)

In article <1992Jul30.211426.15457@leland.Stanford.EDU>, jchokey@leland (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>	I can't help but think that there's even a hint of a more erotic love
>that Sam has for Frodo during the "mind-reading" episode in Lothlorien. [...]

You're projecting.  That's all.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: help please, when did Isaac Asimov die?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:57:47 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.191303.20390@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> 
  billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>: >>
>: >>NOT Isaac!  He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>: 
>: But do atheists _go_ anywhere when they die?
> 
>I would not say that he was an atheist. More correctly, he just did not
>accept any "Devine text" as literal truth. 

You might not say he was an atheist, but Asimov sure did.

>Bill

C Frog
From: mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The Conquest
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:25:33 GMT
Organization: Yale CS Mail/News Gateway


msmorris@watsci.waterloo.edu (Mike Morris) writes:

> Whew! It's longer than I thought.

I, on the other hand, have come to expect this of Mike.

Slow down!  You're going to burn yourself out!

Mark
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
From: tsmaster@media.mit.edu (David LeCompte)
Subject: Re: help please, when did Isaac Asimov die?
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:16:32 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.232310.9261@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>
>Hm. I must have missed it when I read the autobiography. Guess I will
>have to re-read it. I will report back in a couple of years, after I
>get my library bookcases built, so I can find the books.
>
>Bill
Make sure you add in the weight of the books during construction. :)

-- 
---------------------
ObSig
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: spg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:32:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.062039.5500@cco.caltech.edu> lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>
>There's a big difference between not believing there is a god and believing
>that there is no god.

Well the predicate logic equations would be different, I can see that,
but what is the practical difference? Seems the same to me.


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: help please, when did Isaac Asimov die?
Reply-To: urf@icl.se
Organization: None: On USENET I speak only for myself.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 05:53:02 GMT

gilmore@venice.sedd.trw.com (Larry Gilmore) writes:

>>>>RIP Isaac.
>>>^^^^ ^^^^^
>>>NOT Isaac!  He's up there raising H*** with someone!
>>
>>Ah, a-hem, that would be *down* there.

>NOT!  Isaac is UP there, that's why he's RAISING it!

As an atheist, he is naturally in neither place.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson  ( N.G.U.Fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk )
 / <- this is an ASCII map of Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: jchokey@leland.Stanford.EDU (James Alexander Chokey)
Subject: Re: Male-male love in Tolkien (was Re: C.S. Lewis)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 17:33:27 GMT

In article <84925@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.211426.15457@leland.Stanford.EDU>, jchokey@leland (James Alexander Chokey) writes:
>>	I can't help but think that there's even a hint of a more erotic love
>>that Sam has for Frodo during the "mind-reading" episode in Lothlorien. [...]
>
>You're projecting.  That's all.

	And you're denying.  Right?  Don't be so anti-interpretive.  Explore
the possibities that the text has to offer--  or come up with a better 
argument as to why this is an untenable suggestion.

	--  Jim C. <jchokey@leland.stanford.edu>


Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: kasprj@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak)
Subject: Re: P.K. Dick in Hell (was Re: What happens to authors when they die)
Reply-To: kasprj@rpi.edu
Organization: The Big Wedge 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 05:39:52 GMT

In article <rauser.712208995@sfu.ca>, rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:

|> What could be more insulting than a "novel" adapted from a screenplay
|> which was based on an original short story?
 
 How about a novelization based on a TV series based on a movie based on a
radio show based on an original novel? 
 
 Wonder how many people out there will recognize that one. Probably a fair 
number.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.misc,rec.humor,alt.folklore.urban,alt.religion.kibology
From: 10726446@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (LAU WAI KUEN)
Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 07:55:09 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.165010.10803@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> spg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) writes:
>From: spg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie)
>Subject: Re: Agnostics and Athiests
>Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:50:10 GMT

>In article <1992Jul24.075717.104265@zeus.calpoly.edu> rcasey@zeus.calpoly.edu (Rosalie J Casey) writes:
>>
>>       If you had a bet to take, either for a god and go to 
>>'eternal bliss', or that there is no god and take your chances...
>>
>>where would your money be?

>But if it's just a question of hedging your bets why stop with worshipping
>just one God. After all, betting on the wrong horse loses you more than
>hanging on to your money (what if the real God is jealous).
>So to be safe you should worship Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Apollo, Zeus, Thor,
>the Sun, the Moon, Satan, the Big Rabbit,...



  Don't forget SATIN, the great god of sheets, and other fabrics.

Halcyon

"It needs but one foe to breed a war, not two.  And those who have not 
swords can still die upon them."
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Little Men
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:02:46 GMT

barclay@RAIL9000.gatech.edu (Barclay Blanchard) writes:

>In article <22JUL199208582109@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov> calvo@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov (Sherri Calvo) writes:
>>"Swiss Family 
>>Robinson", another book I read and re-read in my youth, turned out 
>>upon recent re-examination to be full of goopy religious 
>>sentimentality.
>>
>>Anybody else dig out the dusty classics of their childhood lately? How 
>>did it go?
>>
>I had a similar experience with Madeleine L'Engle's Wrinkle in Time.
>And I found the math inaccurate (something about multi-dimensions, it's
>been over a year since I re-read it).

>Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard    barclay@rail9000@gatech.edu

I agree. It's supposed to be so wonderful, but ugh!!! Nothing
can turn me off to an entertaining book more than sloppy ethics!

And I had that impression at the time I read the damn thing, too.
(At 12.) 

Lenore Levine
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu

P.S. I also got that impression (of ethical sloppiness) but coming
from a very different direction, from Stranger in a Strange Land,
which I also read when I was about 12. (About the time it came out.)