Here are mine. A former student designs all my covers.
http://amzn.to/1ld8grm
http://amzn.to/1iWuYmP
http://goo.gl/6YTwyz
http://goo.gl/1eLv66
Pretty cool and eye-catching. (S)he must've had a good teacher. Not crazy about the wine glass depiction for Broken - it's not - but the art itself is still good. Take care. Vern
And the first ever that didn't got a trademark 'Take Care...'
lol, yeah, that was by design. Actually have omitted it on very rare occasions before - though I don't think on this new site - to enhance the image presented. Take care. Vern
BTW, Janet
Never underestimate the packaging!
That's huuuge.
00: Women and then 007
Martian: Women
Of course that would probably be my response to almost any word you put up, lol. Well, they're beautiful on any planet, anywhere, any day, any color, in any language, etc. Take care. Vern
I Wonder if anyone clicked the link for those important photos....
This is all there was:
My covers have earned wide acclaim
http://img.scoop.it/Se2weskslGn_-iFqZmN … tABnaLJIm9
You did especially well on the T-Rex bait; draws you in immediately. Take care. Vern
corra wrote:But the cup is hot?
Why? Does it depict Lady GaGa wearing nothing but a staple through her midriff?
So, on Mars and in Georgia you'd always say;
'A chilled glass of wine,' rather than 'a glass of chilled wine?'
and
'A cold can of beer,' rather than 'a can of cold beer?'
and
'A hot plate of food,' rather than 'a plate of hot food?'
and
'A full room of people,' rather than 'a room full of people?'
and
'A steeple with a church', rather than 'A church with a steeple.'
and
a 'knocker on a door' rather than a 'doorknocker?'
Are you a cart horse or a horse and cart type? '
In my opinion, it is that degree of confusion which has led to you people eating nothing but this https://letsblogaboutamerica.files.word … oodusa.jpg
I wouldn't say any of those things, but I might say:
A bottle of wine from the cooler and two glasses, please
An ice cold beer
A hot bowl of soup or a cold watermelon or just, Food, I'm hungry
A crowded room or the room is too crowded
The church puts on a good steeple chase
A door-bell or the door has/had an antique knocker
Take care. Vern
vern wrote:I think it's a natural law or something right up there with gravity.
"Up there with gravity?" Newton would have a baby. I think we got us a case of oxymora breaking out!
Oh yeah, I'm quite sure. At least they both start with a nice guttural sound, lol. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:I "got" a different opinion...
LOL! Are we going to 'get' quotation marks, apostrophes, bold or italic wherever we 'get' "got" from now on?
Ditto the lol. Yeah, we probably will; at least till another subject comes along to dim the memory. I think it's a natural law or something right up there with gravity. Take care. Vern
It's epistolary: the protagonist begins the novel writing as he would speak. He has no idea anyone's actually going to read the logs.
I "got" a different opinion in that he does seem to at least hope that someone will read it. It will/should be discovered when the next mission returns to Mars regardless of whether he is still alive or not. He takes great care to tell those who left him it was not their fault and he also speaks of trying to make it understandable by any laymen who might end up reading it.
He also is a botanist as well as a mechanical engineer so obviously well educated. So would he really speak this way? Perhaps he would as I do know fairly well educated folks who tend not to show such through their normal speech. However, he is writing this with the stated hope and possibility that it will indeed be read; otherwise his time could be much better spent on the things he is actually writing about doing in order to survive.
Regardless of his speech pattern, that is not what makes it a difficult sale in my view. I think the logs could well be incorporated by spreading them out rather than all at once in order to bring more action/drama/hook at the beginning. For instance, the story of how he was actually stranded could be told through normal narrative as well as inner thought to better effect imho. He could even bring in dialogue from his last communications with the others as well as futile attempts once he was cut off. That could increase the tension and show some small character traits of the others while trying to rescue or decide to abandon him.
At any rate, it is hard to argue with success and my hat is off to anyone who pulls it off, especially if it was indeed initially self-published. I shall have to read further based upon your report of later chapters. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:I've seen some ads for the movie which might be better than crawling through the book in this case.
My lit student heart just skipped a beat. Did you actually suggest watching the movie first?
LOL, yeah, after reading those first few pages. Don't hit me, don't hit me. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:...it does make me wonder about the "junk" status of anything being merely in the eye of the beholder. Just curious about other opinions on this particular book or one which may have had the same "junk" status for you, yet did quite well in the market. Take care. Vern
Hi Vern
we were discussing similar in an adjacent group forum/thread;
In this case it is the current bestseller, (and now a major movie) ‘The Martian’
You can read the opening in the Amazon ‘Look Inside’ feature.
http://www.amazon.com/Martian-Andy-Weir … he+martian
If you read the opening three or four pages and perform a tNBW-type review upon it, I think you’ll find the writing could be considered poor or defective within several aspects.
Yet there it is; passed the agents, editors and publishers....
It’s most certainly not for me, yet people love it. It has gone to the top of the charts and the movie is massive too.
There must be a good story in there under the ‘junk’ prose.
Hello, Dill, I checked it out and yeah, it would probably get quite a few comments and questions on site. The storyline does sound intriguing, it's just the "monologue" and nothing happening detail starting out. I've seen some ads for the movie which might be better than crawling through the book in this case. I might have to check it out and see. Thanks for pointing it out. Take care. Vern
So, let me throw something else into the mix here. Some writing has been called junk and supposedly "junk" can't possibly sell. My contention is that although the junk referenced by someone earlier was never intended to sell or even be read by anyone other than those participating in this thread, there are some books which some folks would consider "junk" which have done very well. My choice for a best seller piece of junk would be A Million Little Pieces by James Frey.
Admittedly my choice for junk received a tremendous boost from Oprah Winfrey who obviously didn't consider it junk and thus recommended it on her show sending sales through the roof. Of course, she later called out the author for fabricating the story which was supposedly a memoir, but what difference does that make as far as the writing being "junk" or not. It seems to me that the saying, "One person's junk is another's treasure" can surely apply to books as well as garage sale items, etc.
It's been a while since I read it and only finished it because I figured it had to get better at some point due to all the hype it received. Well, no, it didn't in my opinion. I recall it being rather unorthodox in the way it was presented also with weird capitalization, para breaks, and even one single word on a page, four letter word beginning with F and ending in K with a U and C in the middle (I could be remembering wrong of course). None of the strange style bothered me (just the story overall imo) but it does make me wonder about the "junk" status of anything being merely in the eye of the beholder. Just curious about other opinions on this particular book or one which may have had the same "junk" status for you, yet did quite well in the market. Take care. Vern
Thought this thread was closed due to the uncivilized turn it took.
Well, it was closed. Who knows what is going on? The Shadow knows. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:Charles_F_Bell wrote:Ordinarily does not have to mean without exceptions; in fact, it rarely means that. It means: it can have other uses, such as separating lists.
So far, I had never referred to you at all. I was sticking to the subject. Your punctuation is always wrong for any purpose.
Again, no reference to you, or anyone at all.
I was not addressing you, nor did I think you were even paying attention. That sentence was junk.
ordinarily = commonly = usual use (of the three possible] of the semicolon, and your use is not one of them and is always wrong
You offered nothing of any substance in reply.
The punctuation rules for the semicolon are rules are set in concrete.
LOL You now add selective reading to your "politeness" and obstinance and other fine qualities. Duh, you list me by name in at least one statement above and elsewhere and refer directly to my writing in others. From this point on, anything you say on the subject at hand will be considered as a joke. Thanks for the past and future laughs. You are now officially the funniest stump I've ever talked to. LOL Take care. Vern
Sure, I "listed" your name in connection to a sentence written by you that is junk. I have more than once, even from friendly reviewers, been told that what I have authored won't sell. What's the difference? Absolutely, your punctuation-doesn't-matter junk won't sell. You can't have it both ways. Either you take the entire subject as a joke and walk away from it, or you engage with someone who does not think it is joke (in reality) with more than shallow or completely absent reasoning and ad-hom invective while disingenuously claiming that any calling of your poorly punctuated junk for what it is in any way a personal attack.
LOL Ahh, good one. ROTFLMAO. Take care. Vern
Simon and Garfunkel -- cool. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:As pointed out previously, I did disengage after our initial encounter as noted here among other times:
Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.
Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."
My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"
As noted, you fully know that there are exceptions to every rule because you use "ordinarily" to qualify your statement,Ordinarily does not have to mean without exceptions; in fact, it rarely means that. It means: it can have other uses, such as separating lists.
vern wrote:fully aware there are no concrete rules. I then acknowledge in the original humorous vein that ordinarily the punctuation would be wrong, but I seldom deal with the ordinary. And as stated elsewhere in this thread I assumed you accepted said exception to the rules with the understanding it was a humorous response. But no, you came back later and kept harping there is no circumstance it could be a creative use with humorous intent or otherwise. So I really don't see that challenging your inflexibility is a personal attack when you continued to attack the original humorous sentence ad nauseam.
So far, I had never referred to you at all. I was sticking to the subject. Your punctuation is always wrong for any purpose.
vern wrote:And your “politeness” which you find so reprehensible comes through again:
Charles F Bell wrote:There is no context to A woman without written as a complete sentence which the use of semicolon or full stop requires except that the writer is incompetent. A writer presenting a single word without punctuation, for example, may deliberately create his "work" with no context to be had can call it "artistic," but it is really just junk. A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.
Again, no reference to you, or anyone at all.
vern wrote:And you "politely" bring it up again:
Charles F Bell wrote:In the junk authored by Vern,
vern wrote:And you still don’t acknowledge that you admit there are no concrete rules by your use of “ordinarily”
I was not addressing you, nor did I think you were even paying attention. That sentence was junk.
ordinarily = commonly = usual use (of the three possible] of the semicolon, and your use is not one of them and is always wrong
vern wrote:in our first exchange.
You offered nothing of any substance in reply.
vern wrote:So, I invite you again to admit you deliberately stoke the fire by claiming the rules to be set in concrete
The punctuation rules for the semicolon are rules are set in concrete.
LOL You now add selective reading to your "politeness" and obstinance and other fine qualities. Duh, you list me by name in at least one statement above and elsewhere and refer directly to my writing in others. From this point on, anything you say on the subject at hand will be considered as a joke. Thanks for the past and future laughs. You are now officially the funniest stump I've ever talked to. LOL Take care. Vern
In fairness, the sarcasm I employed is as "funny" as is the original post is "funny", but you never hear any such concession from "feminists" who are really just female sexists or lesbians.
I must say, you are on a roll; problem is it's headed downhill toward a cliff dropping into never-never land. It may be time to deploy a parachute. Take care. Vern
If you want to create and retain a serious tone for a discussion on punctuation, you can, or you can maintain that it has all been just a joke, then disengage, like I'd say the original poster has done, and go away.
Yes, it did all start as a humorous response to the initial gender specific punctuation link provided. But then you know that as it has been covered several times within this thread.
As pointed out previously, I did disengage after our initial encounter as noted here among other times:
Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.
Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."
My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"
As noted, you fully know that there are exceptions to every rule because you use "ordinarily" to qualify your statement, fully aware there are no concrete rules. I then acknowledge in the original humorous vein that ordinarily the punctuation would be wrong, but I seldom deal with the ordinary. And as stated elsewhere in this thread I assumed you accepted said exception to the rules with the understanding it was a humorous response. But no, you came back later and kept harping there is no circumstance it could be a creative use with humorous intent or otherwise. So I really don't see that challenging your inflexibility is a personal attack when you continued to attack the original humorous sentence ad nauseam.
And your “politeness” which you find so reprehensible comes through again:
There is no context to A woman without written as a complete sentence which the use of semicolon or full stop requires except that the writer is incompetent. A writer presenting a single word without punctuation, for example, may deliberately create his "work" with no context to be had can call it "artistic," but it is really just junk. A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.
And you "politely" bring it up again:
In the junk authored by Vern,
And you still don’t acknowledge that you admit there are no concrete rules by your use of “ordinarily” in our first exchange. So, I invite you again to admit you deliberately stoke the fire by claiming the rules to be set in concrete or you are simply treating it like the humorous intent of the initial post. Or you can take your own advice and disengage from trying to perpetuate your role as the Punctuation God.
From Wikipedia, we learn:
***“The first printed semicolon, was the work of the Italian printer Aldus Manutius the Elder in 1494.[3] Manutius established the practice of using the semicolon to separate words of opposed meaning and to allow a rapid change in direction in connecting interdependent statements.[4] Ben Jonson was the first notable English writer to use the semicolon systematically. The modern uses of the semicolon relate either to the listing of items or to the linking of related clauses.”***
So we learn at least two things from this: You masquerade as a false Punctuation God as you didn’t create the semicolon and retain omnipotent control; and unlike your position, its use has changed over the years so is not set in concrete any more than any other punctuation or grammatical rule. From your staunch stand on the subject at hand, I dare say it is reasonable that you consider all other such standard rules set in concrete also. I mean how could one standard rule be set in concrete and not the others?
To summarize, you accept no concessions that the thread and my take were initially humorous, you can’t admit you qualified your so-called concrete rules initially with “ordinarily”, you call others impolite while instigating attacks on their opinions, and you wish me to disengage so you don’t have to put up with these reminders. Sound about right?
I’ve accepted and proclaimed early on I’m no expert on “standard punctuation” and never pretended to be; my initial response was and continues to be in a creative humorous vein –
I seldom deal with the ordinary.
-- where your “concrete” rules do not apply. When you can accept that and take your own advice to disengage your obstinate disparaging remarks, then you will hear the last from me on this subject. Until then I will strive to make room on my schedule. Take care. Vern
PS: Edited to emphasize "concrete."
Your and Vern's rudeness and lack of attention to facts on this simple matter of punctuation does not reflect well on the sort of technical discussion, or certainly what ought to be a straightforward exchange, in TNBW forums.
You failed to respond to my response to such allegations in a previous post as noted here:
It's a yes-or-no question not directed to you whose invective has gone past annoying. Even if Janet may answer in a way that I would not like, she would answer politely sans ad hominem.
The one who states,
A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick.
is being polite?
Perhaps you might care to explain how your position is unlike the pot calling the kettle black as you've done nothing but dodge/ignore past invitations. You also refuse to admit that you know there are exceptions to all your supposed rules set in concrete as indicated by my prior post:
Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.
Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."
My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"
As noted, you fully know that there are exceptions to every rule because you use "ordinarily" to qualify your statement, fully aware there are no concrete rules. I then acknowledge in the original humorous vein that ordinarily the punctuation would be wrong, but I seldom deal with the ordinary. And as stated elsewhere in this thread I assumed you accepted said exception to the rules with the understanding it was a humorous response. But no, you came back later and kept harping there is no circumstance it could be a creative use with humorous intent or otherwise. So I really don't see that challenging your inflexibility is a personal attack when you continued to attack the original humorous sentence ad nauseam.
I keep hoping you will come out of the closet and admit to either you do know there are exceptions for creativity in punctuation or as surmised earlier you are merely playing off your obstinance as a running joke with you playing the sarcastic role of Punctuation God. Alas, I probably hope in vain. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:Charles_F_Bell wrote:You're not admitting you made a mistake with A woman without; her man is nothing, too.
What mistake?
A woman without; a man is nothing. uses a semicolon incorrectly according to a punctuation rule which is set in stone, and ordinary readers unfamiliar with an archaic use of without as an adverb would take that without to be a preposition without an object, and furthermore, even with reading without as an adverb, there is no verb or adjective within that phrase to modify. It is about as gross a violation of simple punctuation rules as there is, and yet you never acknowledged the mistake and even went on a tear against me for pointing this fact out even though there contained at the outset no comment from me about you personally and only about the "punctuated" sentence A woman without a man is nothing. that, in fact, requires no additional punctuation without an effort to change the obvious meaning as is.
Or: A woman without; her man is nothing.
Your first response to the above sentence: "Ordinarily the two parts of semicolon phrasing can stand alone, and the above fails. The first half ends in a preposition, has no verb, and does not make sense."
My response: "Really? I seldom deal with the ordinary. Take care. Vern"
As noted, you fully know that there are exceptions to every rule because you use "ordinarily" to qualify your statement, fully aware there are no concrete rules. I then acknowledge in the original humorous vein that ordinarily the punctuation would be wrong, but I seldom deal with the ordinary. And as stated elsewhere in this thread I assumed you accepted said exception to the rules with the understanding it was a humorous response. But no, you came back later and kept harping there is no circumstance it could be a creative use with humorous intent or otherwise. So I really don't see that challenging your inflexibility is a personal attack when you continued to attack the original humorous sentence ad nauseam. But as noted in previous posts, I now accept that it just your way of showing humor. And it really is funny when you think about it. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:Charles_F_Bell wrote:It's a yes-or-no question not directed to you whose invective has gone past annoying. Even if Janet may answer in a way that I would not like, she would answer politely sans ad hominem.
***
Submitted by Mark Allen on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 11:03am
Share This:Creative Punctuation Can Be Key to the Narrative
Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further... And one fine morning —
I fail to see an incorrectly used semicolon that you defend as "creative" or something. In fact, I fail to see any creative punctuation at all but punctuation inappropriate for the office and scientific paper.
No one said there was a creative semicolon and the subject at hand isn't specifically about a semicolon,
You're not admitting you made a mistake with A woman without; her man is nothing, too.
What mistake? I told you long ago that no one was arguing that it was correct standard punctuation. It was and is a creative humorous variation of the gender specific methods of punctuating the sentence as provided by the link which started this thread. You might also see my previous post; I'm getting the hang of your sense of humor now. LOL. Perhaps you could capitalize on it more with a change of moniker to "Chuck The Jokester." It could prove a valuable asset for your new career. Take care. Vern
Edited to mess with the punctuation.
Charles_F_Bell wrote: "It's a yes-or-no question not directed to you whose invective has gone past annoying. Even if Janet may answer in a way that I would not like, she would answer politely sans ad hominem."
The one who states, "A defender of such junk, presumably knowing better, is a cultural nihilist which is worse than being a dumbass hick" is being polite? Hmm...that's you if you didn't recognize it. Oh, never mind, I get it now. You're joking; you finally realized that this thread started off in a humorous manner. LOL That is funny. Glad to see you coming around. Take care. Vern
vern wrote:Charles_F_Bell wrote:Be that as it may, is A woman without; her man is nothing punctuated properly? Imagine away and interpret A dog between; samurais to them were whose bottoms .
So, everyone is inept except Charles F Bell.
It's a yes-or-no question not directed to you whose invective has gone past annoying. Even if Janet may answer in a way that I would not like, she would answer politely sans ad hominem.
***
Submitted by Mark Allen on Mon, 02/24/2014 - 11:03am
Share This:Creative Punctuation Can Be Key to the Narrative
Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter — tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further... And one fine morning —
I fail to see an incorrectly used semicolon that you defend as "creative" or something. In fact, I fail to see any creative punctuation at all but punctuation inappropriate for the office and scientific paper.
No one said there was a creative semicolon and the subject at hand isn't specifically about a semicolon, rather creative punctuation of any kind which evidently is inept under your authority. If any punctuation can be used creatively, then what would be the basis for excluding the semicolon per se. So, I notice you don't present your credentials to oppose the thirty years experience by the author of the article. You merely keep repeating the same refrain that that poor semicolon is totally inept in any possible circumstance, creative or not.
If you fail to see the creativity, perhaps you could argue with the author of the article and pit your vast experience against his. I once thought you offered at least some hint of intelligent insight to the threads you entered. Stubborn inflexibility has made that once highly regarded insight a joke. Even Einstein conceded he made a mistake when he declared, "God does not play dice" when speaking of quantum physics. He later said that was the biggest mistake of his life. Perhaps someday the genius in you might even allow that you are not an infallible genius on the creative use of punctuation. Until that day, I will be a little sad and disappointed for what has been lost. Take care. Vern
