Posted: 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.
Official Discussion Forum for the works of Stephen R. Donaldson
https://kevinswatch.com/phpBB3/
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.)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.
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.....Wayfriend wrote: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.)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.
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.
Makes sense.Wayfriend wrote: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.)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.
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!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.....
I often say "shall"Tulizar wrote:I don't know about the rest of the world, but shall is not a commonly used word in the States anymore.
Yeah, I understand it is commonly used in the UK.CovenantJr wrote:I often say "shall"Tulizar wrote:I don't know about the rest of the world, but shall is not a commonly used word in the States anymore.
*shrug*
You SHALL NOT have it! It is as alll good things SHOULD be!kevinswatch wrote: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!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.....
![]()
-jay
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.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:Fist and Faith wrote:The publishers may want (insist on?) "Shall" on the theory that it's *stronger* than "Should."
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!Wayfriend wrote:The IETF seems to agree. In RFC 2119 they establish the following standards:Fist and Faith wrote:The publishers may want (insist on?) "Shall" on the theory that it's *stronger* than "Should."
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.![]()
![]()
Great idea: I'd order a dozen "Jay is Nuts" T-shirts easy.Vain wrote:Well there's an idea for a Watch T-Shirt