Wow. From a newsletter written by people who help authors (mostly non-fiction) market their books: "We spent over $50,000 on Instagram Influencers last year and it resulted in (I'm not kidding) less than 50 books sold."#Writing #WritingCommunity
-
@dandylover1 Yep, he's under 40.
@alan I'm forty-one. But I'm also a grammar prescriptivist, and I hate modern usage. It goes well beyond this common mistake to include corporate, computer gaming, and sports speak in everyday language, political correctness, etc. etc.
-
@alan I'm forty-one. But I'm also a grammar prescriptivist, and I hate modern usage. It goes well beyond this common mistake to include corporate, computer gaming, and sports speak in everyday language, political correctness, etc. etc.
@dandylover1 I am afraid the language has changed on us. Cynically, it seems nobody has time for that extra syllable on fewer vs less. I have heard less used as fewer on both BBC and CBC news broadcasts. I take this as the official death knell of what we grew up with. Personally I see it as a relatively small hill to do battle over.
I will still fight the battle over "awesome" to only mean "fantastically good." My stock response is "Do you mean awesome as in putting a man on the moon, or awesome as in dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians without warning?" Fortunately, the popularity of this misuse seems to fading. I preferred "sick" in that context, and by preferred, I mean detested slightly less.
Then there's the use of literally in a figurative context. I have hope that literally can still be rescued from linguistic nullification.
-
@dandylover1 I am afraid the language has changed on us. Cynically, it seems nobody has time for that extra syllable on fewer vs less. I have heard less used as fewer on both BBC and CBC news broadcasts. I take this as the official death knell of what we grew up with. Personally I see it as a relatively small hill to do battle over.
I will still fight the battle over "awesome" to only mean "fantastically good." My stock response is "Do you mean awesome as in putting a man on the moon, or awesome as in dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians without warning?" Fortunately, the popularity of this misuse seems to fading. I preferred "sick" in that context, and by preferred, I mean detested slightly less.
Then there's the use of literally in a figurative context. I have hope that literally can still be rescued from linguistic nullification.
@alan No one has time to speak or write correctly at all, it seems, barring a few of us. Not only do they drop the syllable here, but in ridiculous words such as convos, conbos, apps, pics, etc. And for others who may be reading this, yes, etc. is short for et cetera, but it is a genuine abbreviation, not nonsense.
-
@alan No one has time to speak or write correctly at all, it seems, barring a few of us. Not only do they drop the syllable here, but in ridiculous words such as convos, conbos, apps, pics, etc. And for others who may be reading this, yes, etc. is short for et cetera, but it is a genuine abbreviation, not nonsense.
@dandylover1 Language is a living thing that inevitably changes with each generation. We would have trouble understanding someone speaking what was correct and proper English from 200 years ago. Case in point, I welcome the neologism "enshittification" with open arms, for it succinctly encapsulates something that's highly specific to the times. Attempting to stand in the way of change in language is futile, especially with English, which I have characterized as the "Borg of Languages". For me it's not the wisest use of my time to rail against changes that don't openly break the meaning of a word, hence my selectivity.
As for etc., I have recently become fond of using etm. instead, when appropriate (which is surprisingly often).
-
@dandylover1 Language is a living thing that inevitably changes with each generation. We would have trouble understanding someone speaking what was correct and proper English from 200 years ago. Case in point, I welcome the neologism "enshittification" with open arms, for it succinctly encapsulates something that's highly specific to the times. Attempting to stand in the way of change in language is futile, especially with English, which I have characterized as the "Borg of Languages". For me it's not the wisest use of my time to rail against changes that don't openly break the meaning of a word, hence my selectivity.
As for etc., I have recently become fond of using etm. instead, when appropriate (which is surprisingly often).
@alan Actually, I personally believe that the best English was precisely from the nineteenth century, and yes, this is an opinion. People then mostly wrote well, had rich vocabularies, were able to describe things in ways that made readers feel as if they were witnessing them, and had a beautiful euphony that has been lost. Language wasn't hurried. By the twentieth century language had begun to change, though early on, there were still good writers. The further one goes into that century, the more is lost. Honestly, if someone today had trouble understanding English from 1825, I would have to wonder what sort of education he received, unless the text was full of slang. (Edit: Changed "were" to "was" since in this case, it might be. I'm accustomed to writing were in the subjunctive mood e.g. if she were there. Also corrected errors, since my fingers are apparently writing ahead of my brain.)
-
@dandylover1 Language is a living thing that inevitably changes with each generation. We would have trouble understanding someone speaking what was correct and proper English from 200 years ago. Case in point, I welcome the neologism "enshittification" with open arms, for it succinctly encapsulates something that's highly specific to the times. Attempting to stand in the way of change in language is futile, especially with English, which I have characterized as the "Borg of Languages". For me it's not the wisest use of my time to rail against changes that don't openly break the meaning of a word, hence my selectivity.
As for etc., I have recently become fond of using etm. instead, when appropriate (which is surprisingly often).
@alan Not only do I not welcome that neologism, I am disgusted by it. It seems that everyone thinks using obscenities in public, with anyone, and at any time, is perfectly acceptable. It's one thing with friends, partners, family, etc. and quite another online, during interviews, on clothing, etc. This just goes to show a lack of education. Surely, a better would could have been created to describe the same thing.
-
@alan Actually, I personally believe that the best English was precisely from the nineteenth century, and yes, this is an opinion. People then mostly wrote well, had rich vocabularies, were able to describe things in ways that made readers feel as if they were witnessing them, and had a beautiful euphony that has been lost. Language wasn't hurried. By the twentieth century language had begun to change, though early on, there were still good writers. The further one goes into that century, the more is lost. Honestly, if someone today had trouble understanding English from 1825, I would have to wonder what sort of education he received, unless the text was full of slang. (Edit: Changed "were" to "was" since in this case, it might be. I'm accustomed to writing were in the subjunctive mood e.g. if she were there. Also corrected errors, since my fingers are apparently writing ahead of my brain.)
@dandylover1 I do believe it is highly dependent on the author. I've read early works where the author was clearly getting paid by the word. I've read modern works where authors have demonstrated the extensive scope of their vocabularies sole for the purpose of demonstrating the extensive scope of their vocabularies. And then in both periods I have read works where every single word seems to have been honed to fit into an eloquent whole.
-
Wow. From a newsletter written by people who help authors (mostly non-fiction) market their books: "We spent over $50,000 on Instagram Influencers last year and it resulted in (I'm not kidding) less than 50 books sold."
-
@alan Not only do I not welcome that neologism, I am disgusted by it. It seems that everyone thinks using obscenities in public, with anyone, and at any time, is perfectly acceptable. It's one thing with friends, partners, family, etc. and quite another online, during interviews, on clothing, etc. This just goes to show a lack of education. Surely, a better would could have been created to describe the same thing.
@dandylover1 Ah, there we have a chasm. I reject the idea that a word should be considered inferior merely by convention. The word either fits or it doesn't. Enfecalmatterification just doesn't cut it.
-
@madgeface I'm not sure I'd use vindicated, but yes, the concept of having sufficient disposable cash to spend on even trying something like that is foreign, and even if I was rolling in excess cash, I don't think I would have tried that tactic. I'm far more interested in finding people who appreciate what I do in an organic way. If that somehow explodes into wild success, I'd rather feel that I'd earned it, rather than purchased it.
-
@madgeface I'm not sure I'd use vindicated, but yes, the concept of having sufficient disposable cash to spend on even trying something like that is foreign, and even if I was rolling in excess cash, I don't think I would have tried that tactic. I'm far more interested in finding people who appreciate what I do in an organic way. If that somehow explodes into wild success, I'd rather feel that I'd earned it, rather than purchased it.
Dang and I forgot to add "subscribe to my newsletter" there.
See, I struggle with even low-level organic growth! -
@dandylover1 I do believe it is highly dependent on the author. I've read early works where the author was clearly getting paid by the word. I've read modern works where authors have demonstrated the extensive scope of their vocabularies sole for the purpose of demonstrating the extensive scope of their vocabularies. And then in both periods I have read works where every single word seems to have been honed to fit into an eloquent whole.
@alan Yes. There were good and bad writers, verbose and laconic ones in every century. It just seems that, for the most part, writing has become simpler from the twentieth century onward, and while there are still some decent writers today, there are also those who make me lament the decline of education. Sadly, I constantly see this online, and while they are mostly not professionals, it is very frustrating.
-
Dang and I forgot to add "subscribe to my newsletter" there.
See, I struggle with even low-level organic growth! -
@alan Subscribed. Well, to your toots, anyway.
-
@alan Yes. There were good and bad writers, verbose and laconic ones in every century. It just seems that, for the most part, writing has become simpler from the twentieth century onward, and while there are still some decent writers today, there are also those who make me lament the decline of education. Sadly, I constantly see this online, and while they are mostly not professionals, it is very frustrating.
@dandylover1 We agree on that! I have long lamented how we have allowed commercial interests to turn the educational system into factories who produce worker/consumers. Were I in charge, no student could escape basic education without the ability to use logic, recognize and rebut fallacious arguments, and engage in critical thinking. Everything else would be a welcome bonus.
-
@madgeface Check out https://getshelflife.com/ His focus is on non-fiction, and mostly business-related stuff, but he has the occasional tip/insight that applies to fiction, and probably to technical books too.
-
@alan Subscribed. Well, to your toots, anyway.
@madgeface Everything eventually winds up on either my nerd/rant blog or my artist/writer blog anyway, so in defiance of all marketing wisdom I just let people get those through RSS (although often delayed, there has to be some perk for subscribing!)
I use perk loosely.
-
@madgeface Everything eventually winds up on either my nerd/rant blog or my artist/writer blog anyway, so in defiance of all marketing wisdom I just let people get those through RSS (although often delayed, there has to be some perk for subscribing!)
I use perk loosely.
@alan I 'd like to be the rational me who checked feedly daily in 2018ish and then again in the (can't believe I'm typing this) early 20s when I tried to make it a personal think again but it didn't work out. I'll try again, eventually.
-
@alan I 'd like to be the rational me who checked feedly daily in 2018ish and then again in the (can't believe I'm typing this) early 20s when I tried to make it a personal think again but it didn't work out. I'll try again, eventually.
@madgeface I just add the feeds to my email client (Thunderbird). My understanding is that the equivalent from Microsoft supports this as well, and I saw some convoluted way to do it in GMail.
I have Tbird set up with a unified folder of tagged and unread messages, so I just pick them off like I do with newsletters. Less than 20 in all, so it's manageable (and when it isn't, I go to the feed's folder and "mark all as read"... I'm a heretic.)
-
@madgeface I just add the feeds to my email client (Thunderbird). My understanding is that the equivalent from Microsoft supports this as well, and I saw some convoluted way to do it in GMail.
I have Tbird set up with a unified folder of tagged and unread messages, so I just pick them off like I do with newsletters. Less than 20 in all, so it's manageable (and when it isn't, I go to the feed's folder and "mark all as read"... I'm a heretic.)
@alan While you're a heretic there, I've drawn my skirts up (because somehow there are multiple skirts) as if to flee at the mention of Microsoft, having recently done battle with Word and lost. I would rather not cross the streams like that. Although I'm now actually and IRL subscribed to your Substack.
