What Books Are You Guys Reading?

[Spademan 94]

And to the crux: is the phrase I quoted above correct? or should it be "an enjoyably-well-written book?"

I am not, as (far as-I-know), Southernbuddhist? Still, I think that since "enjoyably" refers to "well-written" it certainly wouldn't be part of the hyphenation fest. That is to say: "enjoyably" refers to "well-written", an adjective describing the writing. But I kind of just (make shit-up) when it comes to syntax and grammar and punctuation and the like, including, a crap ton, of, comma's -- so I might not have any clue -what -, I am (talk)-ing abou:t. Sometimes.

[hblask 1]

And to the crux: is the phrase I quoted above correct? or should it be "an enjoyably-well-written book?"

A definitive collection of hyphenation rules does not exist. Therefore, the writer or editor should consult a manual of style or dictionary of his or her preference, preferably for the country in which he or she is writing.Compound modifiers are groups of two or more words that jointly modify the meaning of another word. When a compound modifier other than an adverb–adjective combination appears before a term, the compound modifier is often hyphenated to prevent misunderstanding, such as in American-football player or real-world example. Without the hyphen, there is potential confusion about whether American applies to football or player, or whether the author might perhaps be referring to a "world example" that is "real". Compound modifiers can extend to three or more words, as in ice-cream-flavored candy, and can be adverbial as well as adjectival (spine-tinglingly frightening). If the compound is a familiar one, it is however usually unhyphenated, for example high school students, not high-school students.[1] When the same combination of words follows the term it applies to, a hyphen is only required if the compound is listed with a hyphen in a dictionary as a separate entry, and it is otherwise considered incorrect. For example: American-football player / a player of American football and real-world example / an example from the real world, since the compounds are not adjectives. Instead, time-sensitive documents / the documents are time-sensitive and left-handed catch / he took the catch left-handed. Style guides specifically advise users to look in a dictionary if they are unsure about whether the compound exists alone as a hyphenated modifier.[2] Noun–noun compound modifiers are also written without a hyphen when no confusion is possible; for example: grade point average and department store manager.[3] Hyphens should not normally be used in adverb–adjective modifiers such as wholly owned subsidiary and quickly moving vehicle (because the adverbs clearly modify the adjectives; "quickly" does not apply to "vehicle" as "quickly vehicle" would be meaningless). However, if the adverb can also function as an adjective, then a hyphen may be required for clarity. For example, the phrase more-important reasons ("reasons that are more important") is distinguished from more important reasons ("additional important reasons"), where more is an adjective. A mass-noun example is the following: more-beautiful scenery as distinct from more beautiful scenery. Other examples are well-received speech and hard-won fight. Hyphens are used to connect numbers and words in forming adjectival phrases (particularly with weights and measures), whether numerals or written out, as in 28-year-old woman (cf. twenty-eight-year-old woman) or 320-foot wingspan. The same usually holds for abbreviated time units. Hyphens are also used in spelled-out fractions as adjectives (but not as nouns), such as two-thirds majority and one-eighth portion. Note, though, that for use with symbols for SI units—as opposed to the names of those units—both the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology reject this practice, thus a roll of 35-millimeter film, but not a 25-kg sphere.^[2][3] Where an adjective–noun compound would be plural standing alone, it usually becomes singular and hyphenated when modifying another noun. For example, four days becomes four-day week.There's more, but I'm sure you can find Wiki yourself if you really care.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I went with Spademan's rule.Thanks for the compliment. I was a grantwriter for a Shakespeare theatre for six years. Before that, I wrote a briefing paper for Congress, and since being laid off I've written term papers for pay. Plus, my first book is coming out in October, and I'm currently researching my second (to be about Hamlet). So I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm more or less a professional writer. Yay! Time for puffy shirts and pretension all around! Should I start smoking a hookah?

[CaneBrain 95]

I went with Spademan's rule.Thanks for the compliment. I was a grantwriter for a Shakespeare theatre for six years. Before that, I wrote a briefing paper for Congress, and since being laid off I've written term papers for pay. Plus, my first book is coming out in October, and I'm currently researching my second (to be about Hamlet). So I guess I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm more or less a professional writer. Yay! Time for puffy shirts and pretension all around! Should I start smoking a hookah?

do you find that you do your best writing at Starbucks? that's how you know you are a professional.I recently read Jim McManus' book Positively Fifth Street. It was not what I was expecting but I think I enjoyed it more for that. I also read a couple Brad Thor books....a very by-the-numbers spy series that is good enough for airplane travel.I also read Gus Hanson's book detailing his entire Aussie Millions win. A surprisingly good read....Gus has a good sense of humor.I also read a cool historical fiction book called "Devil in the White City". That was a fantastic book that I highly recommend (and it is the only "good" book I will read this summer because of the Bar exam).

[Southern Buddhist 1]

do you find that you do your best writing at Starbucks? that's how you know you are a professional.

Alas, no. I can't quite summon up that level of pretension. Plus, I think those "writers" aren't actually producing anything. They just want to be observed writing. That's also why I avoid calling myself a writer and avoid writer's groups like the fucking plague.

[hblask 1]

I also read a cool historical fiction book called "Devil in the White City". That was a fantastic book that I highly recommend (and it is the only "good" book I will read this summer because of the Bar exam).

I don't think it was fiction, I think it was non-fiction written with the zeal usually reserved for fiction. This is a fascinating book on many levels, and I'd recommend it.

[CaneBrain 95]

I don't think it was fiction, I think it was non-fiction written with the zeal usually reserved for fiction. This is a fascinating book on many levels, and I'd recommend it.

I was under the impression that it was "based on a true story" so to speak......and that the author had relied mainly on actual history but had filled in some gaps with "fiction". If it is a completely non-fiction work, that makes it a more amazing read. Definitely a great book.

[hblask 1]

I was under the impression that it was "based on a true story" so to speak......and that the author had relied mainly on actual history but had filled in some gaps with "fiction". If it is a completely non-fiction work, that makes it a more amazing read. Definitely a great book.

Yeah, it won prizes in the non-fiction category....For those of you that haven't heard of "The Devil in the White City", it tells the story of two men who converged on Chicago for The World's Fair. One was the guy in charge of the World's Fair, the other was a mass murderer who preyed on women drawn to the fair. The book intertwines their two stories in a fascinating style. Despite the fact that there aren't really any surprises, the book is interesting on every page. It's amazing how many of the things we take for granted were first introduced at the that event, and it's amazing how this killer could slip under the radar for so long.Really a great read, this is they way they should teach history in school -- as stories, not facts.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Yeah, it won prizes in the non-fiction category....For those of you that haven't heard of "The Devil in the White City", it tells the story of two men who converged on Chicago for The World's Fair. One was the guy in charge of the World's Fair, the other was a mass murderer who preyed on women drawn to the fair. The book intertwines their two stories in a fascinating style. Despite the fact that there aren't really any surprises, the book is interesting on every page. It's amazing how many of the things we take for granted were first introduced at the that event, and it's amazing how this killer could slip under the radar for so long.Really a great read, this is they way they should teach history in school -- as stories, not facts.

I haven't read that, but now it sounds really intriguing. And you're totally right -- this IS how history should be taught. I had a great history professor in college who taught like this. Leading up to any war, he would devote one lecture to "why side X can't lose," and then the following lecture to "why side Y can't lose." Even though you knew perfectly well who won and lost, he could actually leave you in suspense until the next lecture.

[checkymcfold 0]

re: the hyphenation of more than two words:i actually discussed this at some length with my advisor (from whom i learned pretty much everything i've ever learned with regard to tightening up my writing) a few years back, and her opinion was that the "rules" would be so contextual that they don't even matter, and thus that the rhetorical value of what you're achieving in so doing is going to outweigh anything you pay grammatically. like, for academic writing, she said that you really shouldn't ever hyphenate more than two words unless you're trying to poke fun at whatever thought you're expressing that way, largely because it comes off looking odd and silly in that context.it's probably adequate to extend that thought to pretty much any form of writing, i'd imagine, and since wang--afaik, at least--thinks pretty much everything is ridiculous on some level, he has more leeway to use that construction than most of us.as to the postmodernizing of history, i'm of the opinion that in order to properly understand the meaning of story-fying history, one first needs to have a firm understanding of history as fact-based. otherwise, you end up with the sort of wishy washy postmodernity that ends up annihilating all sense of meaning. in linguistic, psychological, and philosophical terms alike, i don't think that it would make any sense to have postmodernity without first having modernity. that doesn't mean that i think modernity is on equal footing with postmodernity, but rather that you can't really understand the latter without first grasping the former--however deficient it might be--with some veracity.(fwiw, i actually find that latter question really, really important in the grand scheme of things)

[frautotenkinder 1,025]

Two of the best books I ever read about history, and how the role of the individual directly plays into his or her role in society are A Bright Shining Lie by Neil Sheehan, and The Return of Martin Guerre by Natalie Davis.I read both of these books over ten years ago, and still think back to them.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I'm currently reading a whole slew of books on Elizabethan and Jacobean England. Here's a snippet:While the English were nervously awaiting the Spanish Armada in 1588, the main fear was that the Armada would be followed by a massive invading army, and propaganda and rumors flew. One broadsheet alleged that the invaders would, and I quote:

rape your daughters, bugger your servants, and sodomize your sow.

Viva l'Espana.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

as to the postmodernizing of history, i'm of the opinion that in order to properly understand the meaning of story-fying history, one first needs to have a firm understanding of history as fact-based. otherwise, you end up with the sort of wishy washy postmodernity that ends up annihilating all sense of meaning. in linguistic, psychological, and philosophical terms alike, i don't think that it would make any sense to have postmodernity without first having modernity. that doesn't mean that i think modernity is on equal footing with postmodernity, but rather that you can't really understand the latter without first grasping the former--however deficient it might be--with some veracity.(fwiw, i actually find that latter question really, really important in the grand scheme of things)

Curmudgeon-y nonsense.

[Graydon 0]

Mike Matusow's book "Check Raising the Devil". It was an interesting read and it sound like he really got screwed to serve 6 months in jail. He definitely wasn't an angel obviously, but it seems he was just a pawn in what the police really wanted...

[Tactical Bear 3]

re: the hyphenation of more than two words:i actually discussed this at some length with my advisor (from whom i learned pretty much everything i've ever learned with regard to tightening up my writing) a few years back, and her opinion was that the "rules" would be so contextual that they don't even matter, and thus that the rhetorical value of what you're achieving in so doing is going to outweigh anything you pay grammatically. like, for academic writing, she said that you really shouldn't ever hyphenate more than two words unless you're trying to poke fun at whatever thought you're expressing that way, largely because it comes off looking odd and silly in that context.it's probably adequate to extend that thought to pretty much any form of writing, i'd imagine, and since wang--afaik, at least--thinks pretty much everything is ridiculous on some level, he has more leeway to use that construction than most of us.as to the postmodernizing of history, i'm of the opinion that in order to properly understand the meaning of story-fying history, one first needs to have a firm understanding of history as fact-based. otherwise, you end up with the sort of wishy washy postmodernity that ends up annihilating all sense of meaning. in linguistic, psychological, and philosophical terms alike, i don't think that it would make any sense to have postmodernity without first having modernity. that doesn't mean that i think modernity is on equal footing with postmodernity, but rather that you can't really understand the latter without first grasping the former--however deficient it might be--with some veracity.(fwiw, i actually find that latter question really, really important in the grand scheme of things)

Anybody who has ever heard me ramble about grammar knows that I think the rules regarding structure and syntax are incredibly important. I won't repeat my argument here -- I doubt it's even remotely original -- but I think the logic that informs your argument about the postmodernization of history is very similar -- in style and philosophy -- to the way I justify, as BigD would say, my rabid descriptivism. In brief (and probably not all that brief, since brevity has become increasingly difficult for me, evidenced by this now-lengthy parenthetical): we must understand before we can manipulate. If I want to use the hyphen -- to more-clearly express my point, or as a rhetorical device -- I must have a certain level of understanding of the hyphen. What is its normative use/purpose? I can then use it -- either as it was intended to be used or differently -- in order to more clearly express my sentiments. I imagine, on some level, that's similar to what you're saying about History. My conclusions regarding the hyphen were consistent with those of your advisor. I am still fooling around with it, but I find that excessive hyphenation can draw attention to the hyphenated phrase. If this attention is undue, then it's simply a distraction. Good post, Checky. We'd get along swimmingly, I imagine, except you probably like to get high more than I do, which might be a stumbling block.

[Theraflu 1,035]

Good post, Checky. We'd get along swimmingly, I imagine, except you probably like to get high more than I do, which might be a stumbling block.

I remember a post about you walking around stoned for days listening to In Rainbows when it first came out, so you must have liked getting high to a higher (teehee) degree than normal people, or "normies" as I like to call them.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I remember a post about you walking around stoned for days listening to In Rainbows when it first came out, so you must have liked getting high to a higher (teehee) degree than normal people, or "normies" as I like to call them.

I can clearly recall typing that post in the computer lab. I was uncomfortably high (<---- redundant for me) on campus. Getting stoned and listening to new Radiohead releases is a personal tradition.I can enjoy being all high and shit if I'm by myself listening to music or watching porn, but that's about it.

[Tactical Bear 3]

I babble about language all the time, but I'm mostly a hypocrite, and an uneducated one at that. For example, I claim to believe in the value of brevity, but I'm longwinded. So, while I already have a summer project (I might be going to China or something), I could use another. Anybody have any suggestions for reading on Linguistics or Stylistics or something? Except for a passing familiarity with Wittgenstein (obscuritanism schmobscuritanism), my cupboard is empty, save what I've gathered from poetry used to pick up chicks (see: Neruda, Pablo) and enjoyable trash-fiction (see: King, Stephen).Somebody -- Checky? Southern Buddhist? BigD?? -- recommend some stuff.

[Nikki_N 17]

I babble about language all the time, but I'm mostly a hypocrite, and an uneducated one at that. For example, I claim to believe in the value of brevity, but I'm longwinded. So, while I already have a summer project (I might be going to China or something), I could use another. Anybody have any suggestions for reading on Linguistics or Stylistics or something? Except for a passing familiarity with Wittgenstein (obscuritanism schmobscuritanism), my cupboard is empty, save what I've gathered from poetry used to pick up chicks (see: Neruda, Pablo) and enjoyable trash-fiction (see: King, Stephen).Somebody -- Checky? Southern Buddhist? BigD?? -- recommend some stuff.

Bill Bryson wrote a book called Mother Tongue. It's a history of the English language and how it developed in Britain as various folk inhabited or conquered there. It's not super intellectual, but it's an entertaining read about a scholarly subject.

[brvheart 1,752]

I babble about language all the time, but I'm mostly a hypocrite, and an uneducated one at that. For example, I claim to believe in the value of brevity, but I'm longwinded. So, while I already have a summer project (I might be going to China or something), I could use another. Anybody have any suggestions for reading on Linguistics or Stylistics or something? Except for a passing familiarity with Wittgenstein (obscuritanism schmobscuritanism), my cupboard is empty, save what I've gathered from poetry used to pick up chicks (see: Neruda, Pablo) and enjoyable trash-fiction (see: King, Stephen).Somebody -- Checky? Southern Buddhist? BigD?? -- recommend some stuff.

Read a C.S. Lewis book. The Problem of Pain, maybe.

[checkymcfold 0]

I babble about language all the time, but I'm mostly a hypocrite, and an uneducated one at that. For example, I claim to believe in the value of brevity, but I'm longwinded. So, while I already have a summer project (I might be going to China or something), I could use another. Anybody have any suggestions for reading on Linguistics or Stylistics or something? Except for a passing familiarity with Wittgenstein (obscuritanism schmobscuritanism), my cupboard is empty, save what I've gathered from poetry used to pick up chicks (see: Neruda, Pablo) and enjoyable trash-fiction (see: King, Stephen).Somebody -- Checky? Southern Buddhist? BigD?? -- recommend some stuff.

beyond wittgenstein, jean francois lyotard is a good start for the philosophical side of things.his just gaming is good on language and semiotics, i think. it's been a long time since i've read that, though.the differend is a good example of what he does with linguistics. it's the most complicated philosophical text i've ever read, fwiw.i'll think on some more for you. i just know that a lot of the linguistics kids in my program were all up on lyotard's dick for at least a year or two, and i didn't find him all that silly, myself, which i don't often say about people who work with semiotics and linguistics.

[checkymcfold 0]

Anybody who has ever heard me ramble about grammar knows that I think the rules regarding structure and syntax are incredibly important. I won't repeat my argument here -- I doubt it's even remotely original -- but I think the logic that informs your argument about the postmodernization of history is very similar -- in style and philosophy -- to the way I justify, as BigD would say, my rabid descriptivism. In brief (and probably not all that brief, since brevity has become increasingly difficult for me, evidenced by this now-lengthy parenthetical): we must understand before we can manipulate. If I want to use the hyphen -- to more-clearly express my point, or as a rhetorical device -- I must have a certain level of understanding of the hyphen. What is its normative use/purpose? I can then use it -- either as it was intended to be used or differently -- in order to more clearly express my sentiments. I imagine, on some level, that's similar to what you're saying about History. My conclusions regarding the hyphen were consistent with those of your advisor. I am still fooling around with it, but I find that excessive hyphenation can draw attention to the hyphenated phrase. If this attention is undue, then it's simply a distraction. Good post, Checky. We'd get along swimmingly, I imagine, except you probably like to get high more than I do, which might be a stumbling block.

bolded 1: bdmg has used this term with me before, and i kind of forget what it means as an "ism." help?bolded 2: yes, precisely.bolded 3: i'd be afraid of cracking the beautiful, fleeting e-crush i've developed on you through our shared love of girls-that-look-like-little-boys, words, grammar, and radiohead, of which i'm reminded 2-3 times a year or so. that said, i don't really get high too much anymore (real job, ahem), but i do spend at least 5-6 album-length stoner sessions to get acquainted with any highly anticipated release, radiohead or otherwise. thus, we wouldn't need to talk much if we timed things correctly, and i don't even mean that euphemistically.

[avsfan 0]

Pattern Recognition- William Gibson

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Somebody -- Checky? Southern Buddhist? BigD?? -- recommend some stuff.

Infinite jest is my default recommendation to anyone intelligent who likes fiction.but here's a classic that I think has slipped through the cracks a little..Something happened by Joesph Heller. Heller's by far most famous work is catch 22, but this book, written in the 70's I believe, is about the soul crushing nature of suburban life, in an extremely dark and funny way. Even though it's not about war, it's a much darker and sadder novel that catch-22. I won't say it's better than catch 22, because I think that book is almost perfect, but it deserves much more attention and readership than it gets

[Nikki_N 17]

Pattern Recognition- William Gibson

I need to read more Gibson. I've read Neuromancer and Burning Chrome. Both were good. Neuromancer was loaned to me by my husband shortly after we met. He totally knew how to get me hot. I'm such a nerd. I follow Gibson on twitter. He's a fun follow.