More Questions from an L.E. Modesitt Fan

[CodeBlower]

I have a very long communte and will often help pass the time with audio books from the public library (or will buy them if the library doesn't have it and then donate it to the library after I'm done).

On behalf of library-users, I thank you -- our small-town library has quite a selection of audio-books and, as a patron, I very much appreciate thoughtful donors.

[Emperor]

Do you have a say is whether a book is published for those with disablities? Or is that choice left to the publisher? By that I mean have you any say in whether you can have your books published in brail or large print?

[DocKurtz]

On behalf of library-users, I thank you -- our small-town library has quite a selection of audio-books and, as a patron, I very much appreciate thoughtful donors.

It is my pleasure. I enjoy them quite a bit myself and if I let the library 'store' them for me it reduces not only the clutter on my shelves at home but saves me the time searching for the one I want ... much easier to request it on-line at the library and have it waiting at the counter when I get there.

Do you have a say is whether a book is published for those with disablities? Or is that choice left to the publisher? By that I mean have you any say in whether you can have your books published in brail or large print?

That's a great question. My mom volunteers once a week to record books on tape for the visually impared (she's informed me that I can't call them blind ... apparently it's one of the rules volunteers are given ... why it applies to me I haven't puzzled out) ... but I digress ... I've asked her if\how the authors\publishers give permission for this and if they receive any proceeds from it, but she didn't know. She suspects it is done with permission but without fee (since the recording are not sold), but if LEM or anyone else knows more about it and Emp's quandry I'd like to know.

Thank you,
-Doc

(overachieving ... I quoted Emp and CB! )

[lmodesitt]

If a book is produced commercially in an audio version, it's done under license, and I'd get a royalty. The same is true for printed "large print" versions of a book. The "volunteer" or Library of Congress individual recordings/braille editions fall within the copyright, but don't generate revenue or, so far as I know, cost the translator anything, but as I understand it, that area is limited either to non-profits or to individuals who record/transcribe single copies not for sale.


L. E. Modesitt, Jr.

[Emperor]

Ok thank you Mr. Modesitt.

[CodeBlower]

That's a great question. My mom volunteers once a week to record books on tape for the visually impared (she's informed me that I can't call them blind ... apparently it's one of the rules volunteers are given ... why it applies to me I haven't puzzled out) ... but I digress ... I've asked her if\how the authors\publishers give permission for this and if they receive any proceeds from it, but she didn't know. She suspects it is done with permission but without fee (since the recording are not sold), but if LEM or anyone else knows more about it and Emp's quandry I'd like to know.

I think it's mostly because "blind" leaves out so many people who really have trouble utilizing books in their printed-form.

I worked with a guy who volunteered at the local public-radio station - reading "on air", I believe.

(overachieving ... I quoted Emp and CB! )

.. and Emp didn't even notice -- I think he's been abducted by aliens and some clone has taken his place ...

[DocKurtz]

That's a great question. My mom volunteers once a week to record books on tape for the visually impared (she's informed me that I can't call them blind ... apparently it's one of the rules volunteers are given ... why it applies to me I haven't puzzled out) ... but I digress ... I've asked her if\how the authors\publishers give permission for this and if they receive any proceeds from it, but she didn't know. She suspects it is done with permission but without fee (since the recording are not sold), but if LEM or anyone else knows more about it and Emp's quandry I'd like to know.

I think it's mostly because "blind" leaves out so many people who really have trouble utilizing books in their printed-form.

...

touché ... I tend to stray from the PC line out of sheer individuality and non-conformity, but I suppose you are correct ... which means my mom is as well ... so after over 3.5 decades on this earth I still should obey my mother as she is most likely correct.

Here's an oddball question to throw back at all you (us) wannabe-literary types ... and an opportunity to double quote my new friend CB ...

... I think it's mostly because "blind" leaves out so many people who really have trouble utilizing books in their printed-form.

...

I had a college prof that would fail us on a paper if we used the word 'utilize' rather than 'use'. Her opinion (and therefore our rule) was, "IT MEANS USE, SO BLOODY WELL SAY USE". Did I mention she was a Brit (I suppose she still is)? Which means we were also taught to pronounce the 'H' in herb ... and we found as many opportunities as possible to slip it into conversations.

It drove me nuts in college because I (ahem) over-utilized (ahem) the word. She was such a good teacher that now - as so often happens - I find myself cringing when I see others use it. That said, my friends, is there a difference between use and utilize? Do we just like to impress ourselves with a three syllable word where a single syllable will do? I've posed this question to others and the typical answers are "its more like 'to use something to it's full potential' ... except that's not how we (ahem) utilize (ahem) it. Dictionaries typically define it as 'to use' which pretty much reinforces my prof's point.

/ponder off

-Doc

[Emperor]

If I had a teacher who would do that to me, I do believe I would have gone head first for their boss. To prevent some one from fully expressing their vocubulary is just absurd.

[reas0nabledoubts]

3Wow....i looked through my Recluce Series books and realized I have only two and a half books to go before im done.....

I only had one book before the start of the summer and now i have all of them, most of them read.

I guess thats what happens when im reading late into the night every day because I cant put the book down haha.

I decided that I would try some more of Mr. Modesitt's Fantasy Books.

Any Suggestions? Since i absolutely fell in love with the Series, I would like to read something similar to it.

Ill probably reread the series in a year or so.

[Emperor]

Don't limit yourself to just his fantasy. his Sci-fi is just as great
However if your dead set on on fantasy, the Spellsong Series is a good one with a different take on things. I was never really sure if the Corean series was fantasy or not, but it is another great set of books to read.
I've only read one of his Sci-fi novels so I don't have anything to say rightfully about the series there, but its on the list of things to read

[CodeBlower]

Here's an oddball question to throw back at all you (us) wannabe-literary types ... and an opportunity to double quote my new friend CB ...

... I think it's mostly because "blind" leaves out so many people who really have trouble utilizing books in their printed-form.

...

I had a college prof that would fail us on a paper if we used the word 'utilize' rather than 'use'. Her opinion (and therefore our rule) was, "IT MEANS USE, SO BLOODY WELL SAY USE". Did I mention she was a Brit (I suppose she still is)? Which means we were also taught to pronounce the 'H' in herb ... and we found as many opportunities as possible to slip it into conversations.

It drove me nuts in college because I (ahem) over-utilized (ahem) the word. She was such a good teacher that now - as so often happens - I find myself cringing when I see others use it. That said, my friends, is there a difference between use and utilize? Do we just like to impress ourselves with a three syllable word where a single syllable will do? I've posed this question to others and the typical answers are "its more like 'to use something to it's full potential' ... except that's not how we (ahem) utilize (ahem) it. Dictionaries typically define it as 'to use' which pretty much reinforces my prof's point.

/ponder off

-Doc

One of the things I think English excels at, other than having lots of "rules" for pronunciation that are immediately violated by the next word out of your mouth, is an abundance of words for any moment, description or what-have-you.

In no defense of my words, but by way of explanation, "use" didn't seem quite the right fit for sight-impaired and printed-matter -- so I chose "utilize".

But, to me, the cool part (if there actually is one) to our language is that I could've used "employ", "exploit", "assimilate", or "operate" -- depending on what twist I wanted to give to my words.

I'm not saying I made the best choice, just that your professor could probably find a bit more enjoyment in life by exploring the alternatives to a word, rather than attempting to censor Dan Webster's compendium.

But, as I had a high-school English teacher that wasn't all that much different, I too cringe when our language "falls into disrepair" mid-conversation.

And as for "Herb" ... too many episodes of WKRP have forever forced me to grin whenever I read/hear the word.

[Emperor]

"IT MEANS USE, SO BLOODY WELL SAY USE".

something in this tells me that either the teacher hated the job or wasn't fully commited to it. Prolly needed a very long vacation.

[DocKurtz]

She was quirky ... and I do believe she was trying to get us to branch out with our vocabulary. For instance - as someone mentioned in one of the replies above - for years I've used the word employ rather than utilize as it has more umph but doesn't give me cold sweats and nightmares .

Unfortunately the root of the dilemma remains ... do USE and UTILIZE mean the same thing. My college trama tells me bloody well yes it does and I will probably be forever scarred for it. It's a question for the ages as far as I'm concerned. Something along the lines of "why do women wear a pair of pants, but just one bra?"

/sigh
/wink

-Doc

[Emperor]

*side note might offend someone one read at own discression*

One is hard enough to get into let alone a pair of bras.


However to the topic of hand. What does a dictionary say about Use and Utilize?
Does one refer back to the other? Could you read the same thing from two different definitions?

*i'm starting to see a one hand clapping coming out of this*

Maybe what we need to do is check the budget to see if we have the money to fund the research it will take to finally have an answer to this question of whether or not Use is the same thing as Utlilze.

In English each word has its place in a proper sentence. My favourite is always when to Use Kneeither and when to use Nyether *spelt wrong for emphasis* Both are spelt the same both mean the Exact same thing....but I find maybe people say the wrong one in a sentence...Yes I know I'm knit picking on something here, but i'm hopefully to someone making a point.

[DocKurtz]

I think we have officially hijacked this thread - sorry all - not that I wouldn't love to hear a real author's opinion on USE and UTILIZE.

To answer your question, Emp, I have looked it up a few times. UTILIZE is usually defined as 'to use' which would - I suppose - make my college Prof correct.

For the record I DID learn a ton from this Prof. For instance I have about 4 copies of "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" (one for me, the others to loan) and have become a bit of a grammar nazi in my business writing because of what she taught us all. I'm sure I am a better and more broad writer than I was because of her. I guess having ulcers over UTILIZE is a small price to pay.

I would have to concur with your garmet answer ... tho I'll leave additional conjecture alone.

-Doc

[lmodesitt]

Since you requested an author's opinion, I offer two sentences.

When using a shovel, one should use it in a way commensurate with maximizing its useful life.

When employing a shovel, one should utilize it in a way commensurate with maximizing its useful life.

While these are not sterling prose, they illustrate what that long-ago teacher seems to have forgotten -- that repeating the simplest term possible rather than using alternatives makes for boring writing -- and reading.


L. E. Modesitt, Jr.

[CodeBlower]

Hehe .. and with that answer, we're back on-topic!

(Apologies for my part -- didn't mean to derail things ...)

[Kvetch]

Which means we were also taught to pronounce the 'H' in herb

You mean Merkins don't?


RE: Use/Utilise - I was reading through, formulating my own contribution, but Mr Modesitt got in first. I'll expand on it though:

English is lucky in as much as it has lots of synonyms (or at least, words with closely ovelapping meanings) - and using a mixture of the words helps break up the repetitiveness of prose.

For example:

I used the internet to look up the meanings of the words, then I used a pocket dictionary, then I used the Oxford English.

in comparision to, say:

I used the internet to look up the meanings of the words, then I referred to a pocket dictionary, then I utilised the Oxford English.

[Utilised holds tones of much more deliberate, powerful use - I'd never utilise a pocket dictionary, but if I had an opportunity to utilise the 20 volume OED, well - I would!]

With that in mind, if you are going to use words I think you should start off with the simple, sensible ones, and only start stretching for more unusual prose when it is needed* - I find writing that looks like it has been run through an automatic thesaurus iritating to read.

Finally, if you go over to some of the other fora in this discussion board, you'll be able to have discussions about this kind of thing without feeling you are hijacking a thread (Since I came to this board two years ago, from LEM's site, I've branched out further and further, and have ended up as a forum administrator, and feel that I should encourage some of you homebodies to explore a little ).


*I'd have used 'necessary' their, but I've got a bad mental block with how ot spell it.

[Echus Cthulhu Mythos]

*I'd have used 'necessary' their, but I've got a bad mental block with how ot spell it.

/chuckles at bad spelling in that sentance.

[fortyseven]

*I'd have used 'necessary' their, but I've got a bad mental block with how ot spell it.

/chuckles at bad spelling in that sentance.

that IS really funny

[Kvetch]

In my defense, I was writing that at 2 in the morning, after spending 3 hpurs catching up on posts on this forum. Cut me some slack, dudes

[colour of candor]

haha don't worry about it I can't spell even with 8 hours of sleep

[Emperor]

I do at times wish I was able to better grasp the full meaning of how english grammar is supposed to be.

"If'n I ain't able to find ain't in the dictionary, it ain't mean ain't ain't no word."

I used to say that all the time to a teacher of mine because we would get into arguements as to whether or not ain't was an actual word. I have yet to actually look it up in the dictionary but the journey is the most important part of any trip.

So apart from before, can anyone really say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the English language? Not to discredit any english teachers as many have had a very influencial time in my life, but can we take what they say as correct? How do you define what is proper in english when we speak entirely different? Many tend to write how they speak *nothing wrong with that at all*, but when you look at it from a proper english perspective it is generally found to be incorrect.

Perhaps I'm way off on my thought process this morning, but it does make for an interesting question for some one to answer

[reas0nabledoubts]

I recently Lost alot of money gambling. At the end of the game, i was thinking...."****, If i were only a Order or Chaos mage with the truth reading skills...."

I wonder who would win in a Poker game with all the Main Characters haha

[lmodesitt]

There are at least two classes of English in point of fact: spoken English and written English. Recently, I also came across an article that also suggested a third class, simplified international English.

There are in fact certain aspects of language that can generally be said to be "correct" and incorrect. For example, singular subjects do take singular verb forms; prepositions should agree with their antecedant referrents; sentences should begin with a capital letter and end with a period; independent clauses cannot be joined with commas...

At the same time, there are accepted instances, if rare, when almost any "rule" is broken.

The reason for such rules is simple. The idea is to minimize mis-communications, which can create problems ranging from misunderstandings to total disasters. Just because "you" and "your friends" understand each other perfectly when using a personalized form of English doesn't mean that anyone outside your circle will.

Because English is spoken widely by a great range of what are effectively different cultures and/or subcultures that tend to use languge as much for self-identification as communication there is always a tension between the need for such identification and the need for clear understanding.

In my opinion, the need for clear communications across a range of subculrures is one reason why rules for "written" English are important and need to be followed -- particularly in technical and scholarly work. In practice, that's why "legalese" comes out as it does.



L. E. Modesitt, Jr.