HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Dustjackets
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:01:12 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

In article <C16D8E.5rI@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> patk@sr.hp.com (Patrick Kearney) writes:

>I replied about brochure binding:
>
>>Perhaps it is. I suspect, though, that it's more a case of economy.
>>Brochure binding was the cheapest way a book could be bound. Just stop
>>the binding process after the actual binding, 

>You could be right. However, French publishing practices are rather
>different to the USA and England. For example, it is quite common for
>a major publisher like Gallimard to issue limited editions of a new book
>on different paper, specifically for the collector.

Vive la difference.

Nowadays the situation has changed as regards brochure binding - there
are much cheaper ways to bind a book what with plastic glues and
perfect binding and other -- modern improvements. So brochured
editions are very clearly targeted towards a special audience.

I was for some reason thinking of the situation at the turn of the
century, when this kind of binding was the rule rather than the
exception.  Escapism, I suppose ...

>I can't imagine any US or English publishers
>going in for this sort of thing on anything like the same scale, 

There has been a one or two things from University of California
Press.  I think they had two 'editions' of Kerstin Tini Miura's book
'My World of Bibliophile Bookbinding': one clothbound, and one
unbound, delivered as loose sections, intended for collectors.  But it
_is_ very unusal - probably because bookbinding is not considered to
be 'everyday art' to the same extent as I think it is in France.

>How are these things handled in Sweden?

They've been rationalized away ... 

We used to have one brocuhured edition and one hardcover edition of
practically everything - say, up to the mid-sixties. Nowadays it's all
perfect bound in hardcover, and rather uninspired printing.

There has been some 'masterpieces' (heavy irony) though: editions that
look just like brochured editions, with uncut and untrimmed edges.
However, in order to bind them economically, the publisher shaved the
back off the book and glued them up like pocket-books! And they had
the guts to advertise them as 'to be cut by hand in the old-fashioned
way' or something like that.

Only very small publishers, or those printing works of bibliophile
interest still keep up the practice of real or brochure binding.
Swedish books have a rather limited audience, though, so prices are
getting astronomical.

Don't know how I survive at all ... :-)

-- 
Anders Thulin        ath@linkoping.trab.se        013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
From: stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: John Sayles on Fiction and Movies
Date: 28 Jan 93 22:53:40 GMT
Reply-To: stamant@titanic.cs.umass.edu (Robert Stamant)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <28JAN93.03574793@vax.clarku.edu> hhenderson@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>I ran across this passage in John Sayles' book _Thinking In
>Pictures: The Making of the Movie "Matewan"_ (good book if you can
>find it): 
>
>     Much is made of the differences between fiction and movies,
>     yet in some ways they have more in common than movies and
>     theater.  It is possible in fiction to "move the eye" around
>     a setting, very much the way a tracking shot in movies does,
>     by selecting and ordering details.
>
>Any comments?

In an essay in The Literature Machine (though I may have that title
wrong) Italo Calvino writes that camera motion actually CAN'T be
captured in written fiction.  He gives as an example the close-up
shot.  At first I disagreed, thinking that a concentration of detail
gives the same effect.  Now, though, I think he's right, in that
the written details don't capture the difference in scale that a
movie cameral can.

Rob St. Amant
From: kassover@rumsey.crd.ge.com (David Kassover)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Martin Gardner
Keywords: Gardner
Date: 28 Jan 93 03:24:07 GMT
Organization: nope, not me

In article <1993Jan27.154505.25395@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall) writes:
>
>It is the same dude. I don't about writing any other fiction, but
>Gardner has had prodigous output. Beside his collections  of
>mathmatical fun and games (written under the non-de-plume of
>Dr. Matrix, sometimes), and the Annotated Alice, he has written
>reams on science and skepticism.

I believe he is also responsible for _The Annotated Snark_,
which, for some reason, is very hard to obtain in the United
States...



-- 
David Kassover             "Proper technique helps protect you against
uupsi!khazad!kassover	          sharp weapons and dull judges."
kassover@aule-tek.com                   F. Collins
kassover@ra.crd.ge.com
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: New ideas on SF -or- Confessions of an pulp reader
Keywords: Like flys to wanton schoolboys...
Date: 22 Jan 93 07:34:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <21JAN199313453791@rigel.tamu.edu> spb0457@rigel.tamu.edu (SubGenius) writes:
>+------------------------------------SubG-------------------------------------+
>I can't parse this very well.  Are you implying that because nobody (that I
>can think of) apart from a few blokes on r.a.b. considers that _G[ravity's]
>R[ainbow]_ is >science fiction, therefore it is?

	Parsing aside, quite a few people consider _GR_ to be sf.  

	As is evidenced by the fact that it was a Nebula finalist the year
it was published--Nebulas being the awards given annually by the Science
Fiction Writers of America.


-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
	"That's a bird bone chair, Bob.  I don't know if I should sit there."
				Tom Waits
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.reviews,misc.kids
From: evanh@sco.COM (Evan Hunt)
Subject: THE WEB ONLINE REVIEW (middle grades)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:04:01 GMT
Keywords: sports, easy reads


THE WEB ONLINE REVIEW. Book reviews by Wendy E. Betts. Copyright
1993 THE WEB. Reproduction prohibited without permission.

_Orp Goes To The Hoop_ by Suzy Kline. Putnam, 1991 (0-399-21834-3) 
$15.95; Avon Camelot, 1992 (0-380-71829-4) $3.50

Third in a series about a boy who loves sports and hates his name.
Orville, aka Orp, is thrilled to discover he's a natural at 
basketball, but his new found skill brings some unwelcome popularity
with the cheerleader his best friend likes.  A little scheming, with
the help of his kid sister, saves the day.

Even those indifferent to basketball will find Orp a likeable
character, with a humorous penchant for absurd metaphors: "...I
never could forget her blue eyes.  Those two YMCA pools."  Serious
readers won't get much out of this short, simple story, but more
hesitant readers should find it pleasant and unintimidating.

_Molly Maguire, Wide Receiver_ by Ann Sullivan.  Avon Camelot, 1992
(0-380-76114-9) $2.99

Another nice, simple story for the sports lover.  Molly is determined
to play football, even if it means pretending to be a boy.  By the time
she's found out, she's proven how good she is and is welcomed on the
team. It's a fun read, but not as good a book as Jerry Spinelli's
_There's a Girl in My Hammerlock_, which also offers a more serious and
realistic look at the problem of sexism in school sports.


-- 
Evan Hunt, Asst. Editor, THE WEB
For more information about THE WEB, e-mail to evanh@sco.COM.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: stame@emunix.emich.edu (Stewart Tame)
Subject: Re: Buried Treasure -or- So, whaddaya use for bookmarks?
Organization: Eastern Michigan University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:28:24 GMT

In article <24JAN199318545652@rigel.tamu.edu> spb0457@rigel.tamu.edu (SubGenius) writes:
>
>
>
>I spent yesterday puttering around used books stores and bars, so when
>I awoke this morning I had a couple piles of books that needed to be sorted 
>out and shelved (as it turned out, my haul this time was about three feet
>of shelfspace worth of books), and a mild headache.
>
>   [big list deleted]
>
>Where this is leading, of course, is to an inquiry as to what, if anything,
>anyone else has found her- or himself using to mark her or his place in a
>book (and, incidentally, to extract confessions from those villians that
>fold over the corner of the page).
>

Well I generally used a piece of paper folded over until it's approximately
an inch across by x inches long (x varies depending on the original size of
the paper.)  The paper starts out white but quickly becomes covered with
phone numbers, page numbers of nifty quotes, and other things I want to
remember short term.  In rereading _Lord of the Rings_ which I'd not
touched since high school I came across a Dennis the Menace cartoon
clipped from the paper.  I have absolutely no memory of ever having
clipped the cartoon but I can't explain how else it would have gotten
there.

		-- Stewart "it's become something of a personal icon
				now" Tame

****************************************************************************
 I understand it's obligatory to mention Kibo somewhere in one's postings.
****************************************************************************
		Email:  stame@emunix.emich.edu
****************************************************************************
Disclaimer:  Not only do my opinions represent those of Eastern Michigan
University, but also those of Dan Quayle, Richard Nixon, Frank Zappa,
Pee-wee Herman, Bart Simpson, Tipper Gore, Murphy Brown, Maggie Thatcher,
and the Easter Bunny.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: ARL00SJB@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Re: Ancient History Novels
Organization: UNC Charlotte
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:14:04 GMT

In article <dvalent.727826409@husc.harvard.edu>
dvalent@husc10.harvard.edu (Daniel Valentine) writes:
 
>
>I'm not sure just how much older you meant, but how about
>_The_Clan_of_the_Cave_Bear_ and its sequels?
>
>Dan Valentine
>
I liked _TCotCB_ just fine, but as the series progressed, it began to
seem extremely ponderous to me.  Jean Auel seems a detailed, painstaking
researcher, and in the first book, the details of life in prehistoric
Europe were facinating.  In the succeeding books, I kept having the
thought, "Enough, already.  Get *on* with it, can't you?", after about
the umpteenth ceremony of greater whatever, or this chapter's description
down to the minutest detail of the meal they were hunting/preparing/eating.
It took me a *loooong* time to finish the 3rd book, because I kept
starting (and finishing) other books that held my attention more.  I
actually got (and began) the 4th book, but I think I laid it down
somewhere face down about mid-book, and I've read 7 or 8 books since
that time.  The thing that keeps me going is sheer tenacity - I do
so *hate* not finishing what I begin (same principle kept me reading
David Eddings second series about Belgarion, et.al. - "I'll be damned
if I'll stop until I get to the end!" - although I thought that he
could have done the whole 6 books in 1.
 
--Jean
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.meta
From: kate@cactus.org (Katherine M. Catmull)
Subject: Re: Relative clauses (was: Re: About Truth...)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:08:38 GMT


A recently-overheard spoken nonrestrictive clause (whew!):

". . . and he brought me a Baby Ruth, which is my FAVORITE candy bar!"

And here's one I just used myself:

"Even George Bush, whom I loathe, deserves better than that."   

Do these sound funny to anyone? They sound fairly normal/common
to me.

Had to jump in--

Kate


-- 
- - - - - - - -
kate@cactus.org
Be the voice of night and Florida in my ear.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall)
Subject: Re: Martin Gardner
Keywords: Gardner
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:45:05 GMT


It is the same dude. I don't about writing any other fiction, but
Gardner has had prodigous output. Beside his collections  of
mathmatical fun and games (written under the non-de-plume of
Dr. Matrix, sometimes), and the Annotated Alice, he has written
reams on science and skepticism.

He wrote the classic, _ Fads and Fallacies In the Name of Science_ 
in the 50's which is an excellent account of numerous fads and
other malarky that is propagated in the name of science. It is
amazing to note that if you go over to alt.health.alternative you
will still see people advocating the same things. He mainly
issues collections of articles theses in book form. Examples
are _Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus_ and _Not Necessarily the New Age_.


Andrew Hall
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: rafem@gvlf8-k.gvl.unisys.com (Ralph Marrone)
Subject:  _V._  by T. Pynchon
Organization: Unisys Defense Systems, Great Valley Labs, Paoli, Pa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:41:16 GMT

I'm just about finished Pynchon's _V._ and I have several questions
about his reference to "Killroy."  So, here goes:

<*><*> possible SPOILER <*><*>




Pynchon's Killroy is the little guy that peers over all sorts of
things.  You know, the the little peeping tom-like guy that looks 
somewhat like this


                        o o
                      
              -----nnnnn U nnnnn-----


I've thought that this was Killroy;  that is, until I read Paul
Fussell's _Wartime_ (subtitled something like "Understanding the
Behavior and Pyschology of World War Two").  In _Wartime_ Fussell talks
about this same little guy, but he refers to him as Chad, not Killroy.
He also goes on to say that Chad was a British construction.  Can someone
clear this up for me?  Since Pynchon is usually quite accurate, I find it
hard to believe that he was off the mark with Killroy/Chad.


One final question:  Pynchon's description of Killroy/Chad's intial 
incarnation as a band-pass filter that evolved into the peeping tom
was funny.  However, since it's been a long time since I've dabbled
with anyting remotely resembling a band-pass filter, can someone tell
me what such a filter does?


Regards,


Ralph Marrone
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.president.clinton
From: lew@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (lewis.h.mammel..jr)
Subject: Re: Maya Angelou inaugural poem
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:41:21 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.books
Summary: the world turned upside down

In article <00966F26.3AE00A40@vms.csd.mu.edu>, 9072falkk@vms.csd.mu.edu (Kathy Falk) writes:
> 
> Maya Angelou's Inaugural Poem as posted to CLINTON@MARIST by James Barrett:

>   [ ... ] 
> 
>    But today, the Rock cries out to us, clearly, forcefully,
>    Come, you may stand upon my
>    Back and face your distant destiny,
>    But seek no haven in my shadow.
> 
>    I will give you no more hiding place down here.

These lines seem to find an echo in this passage from
Lyell's Principles of Geology:

	But if we may be allowed so far to indulge the
	imagination, as to suppose a being, entirely confined
	to the nether world - some "dusky melancholy sprite,"
	like Umbriel, who could "flit on sooty pinions to
	the central earth," but who was never permitted to
	"sully the fair face of light," and emerge into the regions
	of water and air; and if this being should busy himself
	in investigating the structure of the globe, he might
	frame theories the exact converse of those usually adopted by
	human philosophers.

Hmmm.

Lew Mammel, Jr.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 20:19:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Why I signed off this list
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books

In rec.arts.books, garrett@cs.rochester.edu (Bill Garrett) writes:

> I find it sad that the only responses to a persons saying that he
> had been driven out of a supposedly open news group because of the
> conditions there are playful and don't address the problem.  
> 
> I agree sadly that rec.arts.books is not open to all interested in books,
> just those interested in books who have developed hair trigger defense
> mechanisms for dealing on the net.

Is this not merely a reality to be dealt with?

Yes, the net is a harsh place.  Perhaps there is some good to
be gained in learning to absorb criticism constructively.

doug
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,talk.politics.soviet
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Robert Conquest's _The Great Terror_
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:43:31 GMT

In article <13987@optilink.COM> cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer) writes:
| In article <1993Jan16.012254.19411@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
|> In article <kosinov.727131357@ceg.uiuc.edu> 
|> kosinov@ceg.uiuc.edu (Greg Kosinovsky) writes:
|## In fact, Nikolai Krylenko, one of the key executors of War Communism (as the 
|##Commissar of Interior) stated bluntly that killing the innocent was essential,
|##since people aren't scared enough when only the guilty are killed.
|# 
|# Essentially the same principle underlies the public support for
|# capital punishment in the US.  What exactly are you trying to prove,
|# and why is it relevant to my point?
| 
| Huh?  I've never met a person who supported execution of the innocent
| (except, of course, in rec.arts.books, where intellectuals hang out
| and justify murder of 1 1/2 year olds by Communists).  I am not 
| comfortable with capital punishment, but I know better than to make 
| the claim that Americans support execution of the innocent.

But it is certain that mistakes will be made, and the
innocent sometimes executed, even if not very often.
This is a well-known fact and the public remains 
unmoved by it, the beneficial effects of the death
penalty being considered more important.  Therefore 
they support the same idea of terror as Krylenko;
the difference is that Krylenko was explicit.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky rec.arts.books:25992 alt.sex:42822
From: cramer@optilink.COM (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Texas law-makers are stupid
Date: 20 Jan 93 22:29:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1993Jan18.203106.28902@cactus.org>, kate@cactus.org (Katherine M. Catmull) writes:
# Someone wonders if the sodomy law in Texas has been thrown out
# yet.
# 
# The answer is no. However, it has been successfully challenged in
# lower courts anwas argued before the state Supreme Court just
# a week or two ago. They're thinkin' about it.
# 
# The Attorney General has expressed no enthusiasm for defending this
# rule, and took it to the Supreme Court expressly in order to get
# a definitive ruling and get the issue off his back. So one can
# hope the Court will do the right thing.
# 
# Kate

At the risk of being an utter pest, why hasn't the Legislature
of Texas repealed this law?  Is it perhaps because the majority
of Texans don't mind having such a law on the books?  

Majority rule is a terrible idea -- except when liberals are
trying to justify their latest form of majority oppression of
minority rights, at which point majority rule becomes an unarguable
assumption.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
"When freedom destroys order, order will destroy freedom." -- Eric Hoffer
Not a goal, just a statement of reality.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: daq@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:27:03 GMT
Organization: SPUGE
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

From the discussion, I get the impression that the US typically
uses the concept of obscenity to attack a given book.  To clarify,
I am speaking of federal government efforts to block publication as
opposed to local or state efforts.

Is this assertion true?  Is anything book rigorously avoids 
anything of a sexual nature safe from censorship in the US?

doug

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:54:04 GMT

In article <C1Fnt4.6Fs@fc.hp.com> daq@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>From the discussion, I get the impression that the US typically
>uses the concept of obscenity to attack a given book.  To clarify,
>I am speaking of federal government efforts to block publication as
>opposed to local or state efforts.

>Is this assertion true?  Is anything book rigorously avoids 
>anything of a sexual nature safe from censorship in the US?

Heck, no.  Printing government secrets, esp. of the "national security"
type, will do it too.  Ex-CIA people are forbidden by contract to
discuss aspects of their work; and, of course, the government will
enforce copyrights.  You can't publish somebody else's material.

Libel laws may be construed as censorship, too, and can be applied
by Federal courts.

Anyway, the US bans books on "obscenity" grounds every day.  Every day
somebody publishes a new piece of child porn (just a guess; I don't
know this); every day, it's banned by prior restraint and postal 
statutes.

A famous case along this line was _Show Me_, a radical German sex ed book.
A friend of mine worked on the case, which went to the Supreme Court.
He has a copy, btw.  It's a bit much, imho--but I doubt it's killed anyone.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
From: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu (michael bruce mcdonald)
Subject: A question regarding the conclusion of *Blood Meridian*
Reply-To: s1mbm@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 07:55:40 GMT

Obviously, this post contains SPOILERS . . .















I asked the r.a.b.binicals about *Blood Meridian* the other day, and
received not answer one, but I do hope someone can help me out this time.

I hate the feeling of not understanding the denouement of a novel, but that's
just what has happened to me with this one.  What exactly do you think happens
to "the kid" in the jakes with the naked judge.  The judge's nakedness, along
with the description of him enfolding the kid into the immensity of his
nakedness, obviously suggests something sexual, yet a passerby discovers
something unspecified in the jakes a little later, voicing his surprise in 
a way that suggests the discovery of a corpse.  What's the story?  And just
what the hell do you make of the epilogue?

I'll have to try *All the Pretty Horses* real soon, since this work has
received a lot of praise here.  At the moment, however, I'm soured on
McCarthy.  I truly admire his style, and suppose I should be happy to have
read *BM* (how appropriate!) simply for the specialness of its style.
Unless someone can convince me otherwise, however, I'm left thinking that
McCarthy ultimately had no *story* to tell, other than the story of 
Manifest Destiny meets The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly meets Texas Chainsaw
Massacre.  Put that way, it sounds pretty interesting, at least to my
warped mind, but I'm left a little frustrated with the book, for I know not,
have little sense of, what McCarthy is ultimately *about* in this work.
What is he trying to *do*?  

I'd really appreciate hearing your views concerning any of these matters.

michael mcdonald
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,alt.president.clinton