Link: Susan Hill’s blog :: AN ILLOGICAL IGNORANT AND POMPOUSLY WORDED LETTER IN THE TIMES TODAY.
Susan Hill has efficiently dispatched a person who wrote a letter to the Times complaining about publishers’ advances. Susan’s post is, as usual with this author, well worth a read for its characteristic mix of common-sense, experience and upfront phraseology.
An additional point to Susan’s is that publishers who pay huge advances to celebrities recoup them before any copies of the book are sold, via serialisation rights to the large newspaper corporations.
Link: Take the F-word test that can sort out the first-class from the feeble – Newspaper Edition – Times Online.
According to today’s Times, the following question is "doing the rounds of the e-mail universe, often seemingly targeted at aspirational workers and would-be intellectuals". (The preceding quote is a typical Times quote, meaningless, uncheckable, and lazy, i.e. copied out from somewhere. And, Frank and Bryan, they don’t even say "failed" intellectuals, tut tut, I ask you.)
Whinging aside, here’s the question. Please follow the instructions honestly and look in the comments to see if you got it right at first read.
"Read the following sentence — just once, at normal speed, with no looking back — and say how many times the letter F occurs: “Finished files are the result of years of scientific study combined with the experience of years.” "
Christmas wouldn’t be Christmas without a new family game. This year’s offering is one called Absolute Balderdash, which I have just spent the last hour playing instead of the more edifying pursuit of catching up with my rss subscriptions.
The game is a combination of trivial pursuit and moving counters round a board. Each turn one player asks a question from a card, which the other players have to answer as convincingly as possible on a piece of paper. The other players have to pick the one they think is correct. The questions involve movie plots, laws in various regions, books and people. The shortest is word definitions, two of which I include here.
What is the definition of cartophily?:
1. The love of maps
2. A word used to describe the cart o’phil, a term used in medieval times. The ‘y’ on the end was just for fun.
3. A person who fills up cartons of drinks.
4. The collecting of bubble gum cards depicting famous people.
Here’s another one — define "sackbut":
1. An insult often used by children.
2. An ancestor of the trumpet.
3. A container made of animal skin, filled with beer or "sack", drunk in historical times.
4. When a person is thrown into a sack and screams "but" as the process is happening.
The correct answers are in the comments. Let me know if you got them right.
Link: Books | Punters back Voldemort to kill off Harry Potter.
Dave Lull has sent me a link (above) to a Guardian/Press Association report saying that most people believe that Harry is the final Horocrux and hence will have to die to ensure Voldemort dies.
There is no further link or reference in this one-paragraph story. I will venture a prediction that the theory is completely wrong. Harry will not turn out to be a horocrux and he won’t die in the final book. The ending might be bittersweet, but I don’t think it will be a tragedy.
Quite apart from the logical sense of my view, please note that the source for the Guardian/PA story, in the absence of any other information, seems to be William Hill, bookmaker.
There seems to have been quite a lot going on in the world while I have been away from my blog, at least according to Bryan Appleyard: naked cleaners, invading skyscrapers, prime minister’s plane overshooting, and an earthquake in Dumfries. However, with great respect to Bryan and his informative, engaging blog, the best news I’ve read so far is that Books, Inq. has been made the Small Press Exchange pick of the week. Congratulations, Frank.
The Small Press Exchange aims to provide authors, booksellers, publishers, librarians and "general book enthusiasts" (aka "readers"?) with the resources they need. As well as providing industry news and directories, the site also allows people to make connections to other members via social networks.
How do you decide whether to devote two hours of your valuable time to going to the cinema? There’s a pretty good method here: The Dilbert Blog: Downer Ratio.
I think he needs to factor in the outrageous (about equal) admission and popcorn (etc) costs. The more awful the film, the more I resent paying for it and its edible accessories.
Of course there was a time when I went to the cinema at least once a week, didn’t have to fork out for popcorn, and didn’t mind if I saw a few duds. Now, however, when time is so precious, I need to key in my general preferences to Scott Adams’s general formula before my next vist to the movies.
A mere five days late, I see I won last Saturday’s set challenge, by the skin of my teeth (3 seconds). So here is the flag again.
The flag is good for another two days, until next Saturday when a new winner will emerge. Unless I pull off a hat trick.
For more information about this addictive and mercifully quick game, head on over to the deblog, from whence you can do the daily set (and other puzzles) and meet up with the other addicts/participants.