OT.....on books...

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:51:49 -0700, rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
John B wrote:


...and a special thanks to rdean for not letting me spend three
hundred dollars for a lap dance on Bourbon Street...


Hmmmm, his price has gone up. Last time I saw rdean performing
lap dances on Bourbon Street he was only charging $250.


$250??? Are you ****ing kidding me? I'd go $20, max, with a photo.

Er, excuse me, there, Stanley Manley - you want a lapdance from a guy, and are
willing to pay for it, to boot...?

Hey, whatever floats your innertube...that's why there's chocolate and
vanilla...or hand-packed fudge ripple and tutti-frutti, as the case may be...

Hey, it may not help, but it's all I'm willing to do,
R
....OTOH - Mike, you have a customer at table 5...tune up yer banjo and have
Dieter shine up yer chaps...

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:17:45 -0500, jeff wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:41 -0500, jeff wrote:

John B wrote:
"Daniel-San" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 7:29 pm, Giles wrote:

oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"
Not always distinguishable.


Positivists versus empiricists versus post-modernists versus post-
structuralists versus....

Mine head spinneth.

-Dan


This causes a pain between my ears that I do not understand...

john ..

...and a special thanks to rdean for not letting me spend three hundred
dollars for a lap dance on Bourbon Street...



jeezus...culture should not suffer such indignity. john, if ever we
share a venue that offers such an extravagance for the senses, such
culture and pulchritude, such hedonism, such economic trickle down, and
such pure naked joy...well, my friend, i'll buy the drinks and pat you
on the back and remind you that dollars are meant to be spent, that the
platonic enjoyment of the magnificent female form...an incomparable
gift...is worthy of investment. and, as things go in my line of work,
that 300 dollars is incredibly inexpensive for such events in the life
of a married man... (um, unless there's video). i'd reckon you would
have remembered that $300, and pleasant memories have value. i doubt you
now remember where it was actually spent. g

Yeah, **** you - you're just ****y because you can only charge $300.00 _AN
HOUR_...

HTH,
R
....money-maker shaker...

PS - Oogie-boogie or whatever - and you're worried about some fifteen-year-old
comments...this thread seems like it might eliminate me from reaching my
long-standing goal to be Miss California...


g...

but, of course, art is priceless. still, your response seems a bit
insensitive for an aspiring beauty queen. ...

jeff


And speaking of hourly rates, I was talking with some gay friends about the
whole "same-sex marriage" thing, and what came to my mind was that they may not
be ready to get that for which the ask. I mean, if a guy of unknown sexual
orientation brings furniture into your house, he is called a "delivery man" and
you can probably get the store to waive the charge, but if a gay guy brings it
in, he's called a "interior decorator" and he charges 10 grand and marks it up
300 percent. And if you go to a guy of unknown sexual orientation for a
haircut, he's called a "barber" and it's about 15 bucks, including the tip. But
if a gay guy cuts your hair, it's 150 bucks and he whines like a bratty little
girl if the tip isn't at least 50. Now, have you boys considered what "gay
divorce lawyer" is gonna mean...? I mean, bent over and royally screwed might
seem all hot and sexy NOW, but...pardon the pun...

HTH,
R
....eh, I was never big into sashes and tiaras anyway...

On Nov 20, 8:11*am, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:17:45 -0500, jeff wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:41 -0500, jeff wrote:

John B wrote:
"Daniel-San" wrote in message
....
On Nov 18, 7:29 pm, Giles wrote:

oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"
Not always distinguishable.

Positivists versus empiricists versus post-modernists versus post-
structuralists versus....

Mine head spinneth.

-Dan

This causes a pain between my ears that I do not understand...

john ..

...and a special thanks to rdean for not letting me spend three hundred
dollars for a lap dance on Bourbon Street...

jeezus...culture should not suffer such indignity. john, if ever we
share a venue that offers such an extravagance for the senses, such
culture and pulchritude, such hedonism, such economic trickle down, and
such pure naked joy...well, my friend, i'll buy the drinks and pat you
on the back and remind you that dollars are meant to be spent, that the
platonic enjoyment of the magnificent female form...an incomparable
gift...is worthy of investment. and, as things go in my line of work,
that 300 dollars is incredibly inexpensive for such events in the life
of a married man... (um, unless there's video). i'd reckon you would
have remembered that $300, and pleasant memories have value. i doubt you
now remember where it was actually spent. g

Yeah, **** you - you're just ****y because you can only charge $300.00 _AN
HOUR_...

HTH,
R
....money-maker shaker...

PS - Oogie-boogie or whatever - and you're worried about some fifteen-year-old
comments...this thread seems like it might eliminate me from reaching my
long-standing goal to be Miss California...

g...

but, of course, art is priceless. still, your response seems a bit
insensitive for an aspiring beauty queen. *...

jeff

And speaking of hourly rates, I was talking with some gay friends about the
whole "same-sex marriage" thing, and what came to my mind was that they may not
be ready to get that for which the ask. *I mean, if a guy of unknown sexual
orientation brings furniture into your house, he is called a "delivery man" and
you can probably get the store to waive the charge, but if a gay guy brings it
in, he's called a "interior decorator" and he charges 10 grand and marks it up
300 percent. *And if you go to a guy of unknown sexual orientation for a
haircut, he's called a "barber" and it's about 15 bucks, including the tip. *But
if a gay guy cuts your hair, it's 150 bucks and he whines like a bratty little
girl if the tip isn't at least 50. *Now, have you boys considered what "gay
divorce lawyer" is gonna mean...? *I mean, bent over and royally screwed might
seem all hot and sexy NOW, but...pardon the pun...

HTH,
R
...eh, I was never big into sashes and tiaras anyway...-

Moron.

g.

"Giles" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 8:11 am, wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:17:45 -0500, jeff
wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:41 -0500, jeff
wrote:

John B wrote:
"Daniel-San" wrote in message
...
On Nov 18, 7:29 pm, Giles wrote:

oz, who distinguishes between "truth" and "fact"
Not always distinguishable.

Positivists versus empiricists versus post-modernists versus post-
structuralists versus....

Mine head spinneth.

-Dan

This causes a pain between my ears that I do not understand...

john ..

...and a special thanks to rdean for not letting me spend three
hundred
dollars for a lap dance on Bourbon Street...

jeezus...culture should not suffer such indignity. john, if ever we
share a venue that offers such an extravagance for the senses, such
culture and pulchritude, such hedonism, such economic trickle down,
and
such pure naked joy...well, my friend, i'll buy the drinks and pat you
on the back and remind you that dollars are meant to be spent, that
the
platonic enjoyment of the magnificent female form...an incomparable
gift...is worthy of investment. and, as things go in my line of work,
that 300 dollars is incredibly inexpensive for such events in the life
of a married man... (um, unless there's video). i'd reckon you would
have remembered that $300, and pleasant memories have value. i doubt
you
now remember where it was actually spent. g

Yeah, **** you - you're just ****y because you can only charge $300.00
_AN
HOUR_...

HTH,
R
....money-maker shaker...

PS - Oogie-boogie or whatever - and you're worried about some
fifteen-year-old
comments...this thread seems like it might eliminate me from reaching
my
long-standing goal to be Miss California...

g...

but, of course, art is priceless. still, your response seems a bit
insensitive for an aspiring beauty queen. ...

jeff

And speaking of hourly rates, I was talking with some gay friends about
the
whole "same-sex marriage" thing, and what came to my mind was that they
may not
be ready to get that for which the ask. I mean, if a guy of unknown sexual
orientation brings furniture into your house, he is called a "delivery
man" and
you can probably get the store to waive the charge, but if a gay guy
brings it
in, he's called a "interior decorator" and he charges 10 grand and marks
it up
300 percent. And if you go to a guy of unknown sexual orientation for a
haircut, he's called a "barber" and it's about 15 bucks, including the
tip. But
if a gay guy cuts your hair, it's 150 bucks and he whines like a bratty
little
girl if the tip isn't at least 50. Now, have you boys considered what "gay
divorce lawyer" is gonna mean...? I mean, bent over and royally screwed
might
seem all hot and sexy NOW, but...pardon the pun...

HTH,
R
...eh, I was never big into sashes and tiaras anyway...-

Moron.

g.

G.

He is a short man of great stature and there is no comeliness about
him...but he has a mind like a steel trap.

If opposites attract do identicles testicle?

John.... who would pay green dollars for a recipe better than Blue Runner
Red Beans in a can...they are from New Orleans

On Nov 19, 10:25*am, Daniel-San wrote:
ker SNIP!

History is always written from
a particular point of view, one that is shaped by the historian's life
and personal predilections.

And, from one particular point of view, isn't being done very well of
late. Gordon S. Wood on academic history writing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111701864.html

Wm

On Nov 23, 8:38*am, Wm wrote:
On Nov 19, 10:25*am, Daniel-San wrote:
ker SNIP!

History is always written from
a particular point of view, one that is shaped by the historian's life
and personal predilections.

And, from one particular point of view, isn't being done very well of
late. *Gordon S. Wood on academic history writing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/11/17/AR200...

Wm

After reading the entire article one IS left with the impression that
professor Wood thinks it isn't being done very well.....sort
of.....despite the lengthy and entirely unconvincing apologia between
the first two paragraphs and the last sentence.

Historical writing need not be narrative in order to qualify as good
writing. Scientific literature in general need not be narrative in
order to qualify as good writing. The simple truth is that most
people, regardless of what they do for a living, are not good
writers. The not quite so simple truth is that the vast majority even
of those whose work necessarily includes a great deal of writing are
not good writers (not too surprising when one considers all the other
factors that come to bear on publishability). If most scientific
papers (in any field) are not exemplary for their literary merits (and
they sure as hell ain't) it pays to remember that most books,
articles, monographs, lectures and virtually ALL other visual, graphic
and oral communications ain't either.

But then, you already knew that.

giles

On Nov 23, 8:32*pm, Giles wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/11/17/AR200...



After reading the entire article one IS left with the impression that
professor Wood thinks it isn't being done very well.....sort
of.....despite the lengthy and entirely unconvincing apologia between
the first two paragraphs and the last sentence.


IMO, there hasn't been a bit of really good *writing* in academic
history since the days of Hofstadter, et al. There has of course been
a great deal of fine history, but writing has, I think, become
reflective of the subject matter. As historiography shifted from
narratives of consensus-minded progress to tales of contested
struggle, the writing, too, became, well, contested, if I may torture
a comparison. Of course there are numerous exceptions to my little
"rule" here -- Laurel Ulrich, Alfred Chandler, Leon Fink, Joan Scott,
David Farber, and Andrea Colli are a few historians that come to mind
-- but I'd agree that "good" writers account for a very small
percentage of the academy's written output.


Historical writing need not be narrative in order to qualify as good
writing. *

Absolutely correct, but history (hah!) has shown that historical
writing does need to be packaged as a narrative if intended for public
consumption. The non-specialist, educated reader has shown a strong
preference for narrative writing, and biographical narrative in
particular. I won't claim to have read all the winners of the Pulitzer
in history, or the Bancroft, either, but I'd wager that the vast
majority of those books are narrative in nature. This tidbit may of
course say more about the nature of award committees than it does of
writing and the consumption thereof, but I'd speculate that one drives
the other.

As a personal aside, I find the typical academic monograph to be
almost unreadable -- even the books in the fields in which I claim
some level of specialization. Academics may not sell many books, but I
think that's largely because of the fact that they tend to write for
other academics. Historiography today has (laudably) become so
inclusive, the very possibility of a grand narrative (a la Hofstadter)
is precluded -- or, if attempted, will suffer paralysis by
inclusiveness. This, I believe, causes the historian to focus on very
small topics -- and engage in debates with other historians over
minutia. This, I believe, has become a self-replicating problem,
contributing to the ever-growing distance between academics and the
general public. There are of course other factors that contribute to
that divide, but I think the academic tendency to only see other
academics as the writer's audience is one of the more important
factors.


-Dan
(Not claiming to be a "good" writer)

On Nov 23, 10:44*pm, Daniel-San wrote:
On Nov 23, 8:32*pm, Giles wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...09/11/17/AR200....

After reading the entire article one IS left with the impression that
professor Wood thinks it isn't being done very well.....sort
of.....despite the lengthy and entirely unconvincing apologia between
the first two paragraphs and the last sentence.

IMO, there hasn't been a bit of really good *writing* in academic
history since the days of Hofstadter, et al. There has of course been
a great deal of fine history, but writing has, I think, become
reflective of the subject matter. As historiography shifted from
narratives of consensus-minded progress to tales of contested
struggle, the writing, too, became, well, contested, if I may torture
a comparison. Of course there are numerous exceptions to my little
"rule" here -- Laurel Ulrich, Alfred Chandler, Leon Fink, Joan Scott,
David Farber, and Andrea Colli are a few historians that come to mind
-- but I'd agree that "good" writers account for a very small
percentage of the academy's written output.

Historical writing need not be narrative in order to qualify as good
writing. *

Absolutely correct, but history (hah!) has shown that historical
writing does need to be packaged as a narrative if intended for public
consumption. The non-specialist, educated reader has shown a strong
preference for narrative writing, and biographical narrative in
particular. I won't claim to have read all the winners of the Pulitzer
in history, or the Bancroft, either, but I'd wager that the vast
majority of those books are narrative in nature. This tidbit may of
course say more about the nature of award committees than it does of
writing and the consumption thereof, but I'd speculate that one drives
the other.

As a personal aside, I find the typical academic monograph to be
almost unreadable -- even the books in the fields in which I claim
some level of specialization. Academics may not sell many books, but I
think that's largely because of the fact that they tend to write for
other academics. Historiography today has (laudably) become so
inclusive, the very possibility of a grand narrative (a la Hofstadter)
is precluded -- or, if attempted, will suffer paralysis by
inclusiveness. This, I believe, causes the historian to focus on very
small topics -- and engage in debates with other historians over
minutia. This, I believe, has become a self-replicating problem,
contributing to the ever-growing distance between academics and the
general public. There are of course other factors that contribute to
that divide, but I think the academic tendency to only see other
academics as the writer's audience is one of the more important
factors.

-Dan
(Not claiming to be a "good" writer)

I considered a number of approaches to a response after reading the
above material.....there are many that I think would be
fruitful.....but have decided to stick with the simplest and most
direct. Where consumption is concerned, the general public is the
final arbiter. "Good" writing is whatever the consuming public
decrees it to be. Arguable. No doubt about it. But in the long run,
the numbers and the critics come to a more or less solid consensus.

The bottom line is that regardless of current fashions in
historiography (or any other field of inquiry), it IS narrative.....or
it's abject nonsense. Radical, perhaps, but an easy enough assertion
to test.

Start with an example from a most rigorous field......logic. The
classic syllogism is a delicious case in point.

giles
who is not much swayed by claims.....or disclaimers.....from
writers.