Evil is afoot! "Shall" is no more! Horror!

Post by **Worm of Despite** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:42 pm

Wow, this is quite a blow! As a rule, I don't buy a fantasy book unless it's entirely in Old English and/or outmoded words.

Post by **wayfriend** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 12:49 pm

Tulizar wrote:Didn't SRD state that he wasn't even sure what Lord Foul's Bane meant---didn't know what "Bane" referred to?? Crazy publishers.

Well, that was when he was an unknown (desperate, powerless) author, and that was also when Lester was his editor. I don't think SRD works under those conditions any more, at least he says as much in the GI. (For example, he got four books this time.)

Post by **Relayer** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:01 pm

As long as there are 600+ pages of words that are neither Should nor Shall, I shall be content.

(edit: I've just become an Elohim! I guess "Relayer" wasn't a very good Ramen name anyway...)

Post by **Seareach** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:15 pm

Wayfriend wrote:
Tulizar wrote:Didn't SRD state that he wasn't even sure what Lord Foul's Bane meant---didn't know what "Bane" referred to?? Crazy publishers.
Well, that was when he was an unknown (desperate, powerless) author, and that was also when Lester was his editor. I don't think SRD works under those conditions any more, at least he says as much in the GI. (For example, he got four books this time.)

I'm with Wayfriend here...back then he was an unknown author who'd received 47 rejections...I'm sure he'd make some concessions. Now? Well, you're all stuck with Linden Avery aren't you. If he'd listened to you (and editors) Liden would be a "no more". I would say "why is it called 'should' instead of 'shall'?" and he would say "because the original quote from Kevin is "should" and that suits what I'm doing better" and I'd accept that. If you'd only ever read "Should Pass Utterly" would you say "hey, I don't like it"...I think not, because you probably woudln't have ever come up with the alternative title of "Shall Pass utterly"...if you get my drift.....

Post by **Tulizar** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Wow, this is quite a blow! As a rule, I don't buy a fantasy book unless it's entirely in Old English and/or outmoded words.

Wayfriend wrote:
Tulizar wrote:Didn't SRD state that he wasn't even sure what Lord Foul's Bane meant---didn't know what "Bane" referred to?? Crazy publishers.
Well, that was when he was an unknown (desperate, powerless) author, and that was also when Lester was his editor. I don't think SRD works under those conditions any more, at least he says as much in the GI. (For example, he got four books this time.)

Makes sense.

Post by **kevinswatch** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 5:08 pm

Seareach wrote:If you'd only ever read "Should Pass Utterly" would you say "hey, I don't like it"...I think not, because you probably woudln't have ever come up with the alternative title of "Shall Pass Utterly"...if you get my drift.....

Yes...but now that we HAVE heard of the glory that is the title "Shall Pass Utterly", we crave it. Desire it. We MUST have it! Gimme gimme gimme! Death to Should! Long Live Shall!

-jay

Post by **CovenantJr** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:26 pm

Tulizar wrote:I don't know about the rest of the world, but shall is not a commonly used word in the States anymore.

I often say "shall"

*shrug*

Post by **Tulizar** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:25 am

CovenantJr wrote:
Tulizar wrote:I don't know about the rest of the world, but shall is not a commonly used word in the States anymore.
I often say "shall"

*shrug*

Yeah, I understand it is commonly used in the UK.

I think shall should be used more often, but I'm pretty certain its everyday usage has eroded to the point of nonexistence in the US. Most people seem to use will in place of shall. Instead of saying shall, a person might stress will to emphasize their intention. Shall seems to be reserved for more formal documents or writing in general.

Post by **Seareach** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:36 am

kevinswatch wrote:
Seareach wrote:If you'd only ever read "Should Pass Utterly" would you say "hey, I don't like it"...I think not, because you probably woudln't have ever come up with the alternative title of "Shall Pass Utterly"...if you get my drift.....
Yes...but now that we HAVE heard of the glory that is the title "Shall Pass Utterly", we crave it. Desire it. We MUST have it! Gimme gimme gimme! Death to Should! Long Live Shall!

-jay

You SHALL NOT have it! It is as alll good things SHOULD be!

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:46 am

The publishers may want (insist on?) "Shall" on the theory that it's *stronger* than "Should."

Post by **Seareach** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:49 am

Fist and Faith wrote:The publishers may want (insist on?) "Shall" on the theory that it's *stronger* than "Should."

true, but his explanation for why he wants to use "should" might sway them. All jokes aside, I do actually prefer "shall" but there's (to me) something definite about "shall" and something less definite about "should"...perhaps it will end up being that it all "shall pass utterly". Maybe the reason he's changed it is because "should" doesn't actually give away the answer, so to speak. Who knows.

Post by **wayfriend** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:20 pm

Fist and Faith wrote:The publishers may want (insist on?) "Shall" on the theory that it's *stronger* than "Should."

The IETF seems to agree. In RFC 2119 they establish the following standards:

In RFC 2119 was wrote:1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

...

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Post by **Seareach** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:36 pm

Wayfriend wrote:
Fist and Faith wrote:The publishers may want (insist on?) "Shall" on the theory that it's *stronger* than "Should."
The IETF seems to agree. In RFC 2119 they establish the following standards:

In RFC 2119 was wrote:1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

...

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

Ah! Bravo!

Post by **Vain** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:27 am

So why use the word "utterly", which means "completely, absolutely"?

Should Pass Utterly = Think about it thoroughly before you potentially mess it up completely....which you may or may not - it depends

Shall Pass Utterly = If you don't then you're screwed

Post by **Fist and Faith** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:15 am

Should Pass Utterly could mean something like "Here's what I think should happen..."

Or it could mean something like:
"Will things pass utterly?"
"Yeah, that should do the trick."

Shall Pass Utterly is more definite. Either it's the way things will go down, or it's the only outcome Foul has any intention of achieving.

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:31 am

Shall is definitive. Shall = Will

Should = Might

*shrug* Or at least that's the way I've always used them.

Maybe it's a (false?) hope that not everything will go.

--A

Post by **kevinswatch** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:58 am

Heh. It would be funny if for the next Donaldson event (aka, some book reading or signing or something) we all wear t-shirts that read "Bring Back Shall!"

He'd probably think we're all nuts. (If he doesn't already). Hehe.-jay

Post by **Avatar** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:03 am

Haha, we are all nuts. And none more so than our esteemed admin.

--A

Post by **Vain** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:57 am

Well there's an idea for a Watch T-Shirt

Post by **wayfriend** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:59 pm

Vain wrote:Well there's an idea for a Watch T-Shirt

Great idea: I'd order a dozen "Jay is Nuts" T-shirts easy.

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

Evil is afoot! "Shall" is no more! Horror!