Lazeez,this probably isn't the right thread for this question but it seemed to be the closest. I know you've requested that no one post links to other sites and I fully understand that. How do you feel about discussions regarding the dead tree published works of authors on the site?
It would probably be best to use the Contact link for direct questions like this one. You will usually receive a quicker reply.
You can probably answer the question yourself by considering whether such discussions take readers away from SOL.
AJ
The problems that I have seen involved links to the sites that particular stories were on, not mention of the stories/author's themselves. The issue is site competition, not author competition.
That being said, a dead tree book you have to pay for--or perhaps be able to find in a library (something I personally haven't done in years)--isn't really in competition with the books or authors here on SOL.
regarding the dead tree published works of authors on the site?
Has any author on SOL been traditionally published or are you talking about them self-publishing?
The OP is asking about linking or discussing dead tree works here, on this site. Not necessarily authors here who might also have dead tree works.
Specifically, linking to dead tree works like some will supply links to works on other sites like Lit or ASSTR. Which is a no no.
Basically, I don't think Lazeez has a problem with discussion of stories posted on SOL. He will object when a discussion includes links to other story sites, and someone suggesting his members go to other story sites.
of authors on the site?
I think you better clarify what you mean or else it's pointless to discuss.
Again, I don't think Lazeez has a problem with people discussing any books in general. Why create such a site as SOL unless you want to promote people to write or read books. His issue would be directing his subscribers--ie. the people who support THIS site--to other similar sites. Such activity would pull away his subscribers and, theoretically, end this site.
Dead tree books are no threat. An individual would have to usually buy such works offline, or even online at say Kindle or Amazon, which is an entirely different market than SOL.
Directing to any of the online story sites or collections (I can think of at least 20 off hand, many of them specialty stories) is DIRECT competition with SOL's market. Therefore they are a threat to SOL's existence. Which, face it, not one of us wants to do. Heaven forbid SOL disappear or languish into obscurity like ASSTR has. (In case you don't remember, from the late 80's until about 6 years ago, ASSTR was KING of alt sex stories. 25 years and now it's basically yesterday's trash.)
Sorry, that was a rant, I know. Suffice to say, in my opinion, for what it is worth, I don't think Lazeez cares if you DIRECT people to 50 Shades or Candide and Justine or The Story of O or the Bible for that matter. If he does care, I hope that he corrects me. Those works do not draw from SOL's market other than occupying a reader while they finish them. What he would care about is what threatens SOL.
ASSTR became irrelevant a lot more than 6 years ago, unless your criteria is when Artie stopped posting and that was October 2011.
It happened in two phases:
- authors started posting here as well as there.
- authors stopped posting there (a few holdouts still do).
I'd date it as shortly after the Nifty and Leslita Archives started spamming the "New Stories" page by updating the same few hundred files cyclically every few days, probably around 2004-2005.
Suffice to say, in my opinion, for what it is worth, I don't think Lazeez cares if you DIRECT people to 50 Shades or Candide and Justine or The Story of O or the Bible for that matter.
It all depends how it's done. If a book comes up in a discussion, then it's fine.
But usually when I allow some sort of linking, things tend to degenerate into spam. I'm sure that if I come out and state that it's ok to link to dead tree books, a bunch of authors who publish on Amazon would come and post links to their books.
So, discussing dead tree books is ok as long as it's in the natural flow of a conversation.
However, starting a thread simply to discuss an offsite book/story and link to it is not acceptable. That would be obviously spam for the purpose of promoting that book.
I can appreciate hate that. Discussion or recommendations are one...err, two things, advertising is another.
What he would care about is what threatens SOL.
But it's also a double-edged sword. Limiting my ability to link to my own content makes me question whether or not to continue supplying free material to SOL. It's his site, and he's free to operate it the way he sees fit, just as I am free to make use of it (or not). If it's not mutually beneficial, then one (or both) of us is going to lose out.
Fundamentally, if it comes to a point where I can't direct readers to my site (fortunately, we're not there yet, but we're inching in that direction), I have no incentive to share my work for free. In that case, we all lose.
But it's also a double-edged sword. Limiting my ability to link to my own content makes me question whether or not to continue supplying free material to SOL.
I think it's more a case of where and how you do the links. In the past Lazeez has been very liberal in his allowing of telling people about personal sites in blogs as long as what you tell them is available there is also available here. However, links in forum discussion aren't the same as a blog where the people are going to the blog specifically to look for info about your stories while the forum is about discussions in general.
I think it's more a case of where and how you do the links. In the past Lazeez has been very liberal in his allowing of telling people about personal sites in blogs as long as what you tell them is available there is also available here. However, links in forum discussion aren't the same as a blog where the people are going to the blog specifically to look for info about your stories while the forum is about discussions in general.
Links in blogs now cause them to be hidden from the front page of the site. Sadly, some individuals spammed the blogs with links, ruining it for all of us.
Links in blogs now cause them to be hidden from the front page of the site.
True, but you can put a URL in without it being a link. If you include the http:// the system sees it as a link, but if you post only what comes after that it's just a piece of text of a URL. Examples below:
https://storiesonline.net/ablog/Ernest_Bywater
storiesonline.net/ablog/Ernest_Bywater
For many years I've worked a system where I finish the story, post it to my Lulu site where people can buy the story as an e-pub or a print book, upload the first chapter to SoL / FS / SciFi Stories (as appropriate) and make a blog entry. Since the 'no link' issue arose I post just the URL and not a link. Once the first chapter of the story is up I upload the rest of the story to SoL / FS / SciFi stories with posting dates of every other day. That way Lazeez gets the whole story as soon as I can upload it. The delay is because the Wizard insists on having the first chapter processed before I can add more chapters for later dates.
Edit to add: Note how the link displays differently to the URL as text. Thus people have to go to a lot more work if they wish to look at it. I also make it clear in the blog entry the whole story will appear on this site with the frequency of posts.
Thus people have to go to a lot more work if they wish to look at it.
That's not true in Chrome - highlight the URL text, right click your mouse and select 'go to .....'.
AJ
That's not true in Chrome - highlight the URL text, right click your mouse and select 'go to .....'.
Oops, learned something new. With my Opera browser it works the same, but I'd never before tried.
HM.
Oops, learned something new. With my Opera browser it works the same, but I'd never before tried.
In Firefox just select a name like 'storiesonline.net' and a right click allows you to open it in either a new tab or a new window. You can also choose to use the selected text as a search item using your configured default search engine.
Mentioning links to competitors can be avoided by scrambling the name a little. This had the added benefit that the competitor site doesn't rise in ranking when search engines crawl the site and recognize a link. So if you have to name a site use "lit", "ass", etc.
I didn't mean to stir things up so much. It's just that I bought a copy of one of Ken Hammond's (KaHmnd) books and wanted to comment on it.
Knight's World is generally a little better written and edited than his posted stories (which are well written) but still contains a few homonym errors. As there is no single underlying plot it isn't truly a novel but more a linear series of short stories about the same characters. It is a very enjoyable read and because you can read one story, put it down for a few days, then read the next story, and so on, it's a good book to read when you can only devote 15 minutes at a time.
a few homonym errors
Like surf when he wanted serf. Which I saw in a posted story recently.
To be honest there are a lot fewer in the book. Just enough to occasionally catch your attention. Over the years reading what are in reality amateur authors over the internet, the most common are to/too, their/there/they're, and definitely/defiantly. The last really surprised me as they are so different. I used to see that a lot but it's less common now. I suspect it was from an earlier version of a spell-checker.
definitely/defiantly. The last really surprised me as they are so different.
My guess it's autocorrect in the spellchecker.
Some others often found:
Hanger/hangar, quite/quiet/quit, thorough/through/though.
Then when to use I or me.
'I went to the mall'. Here it's obvious, 'I' is correct, but why use 'me' if there are other persons, as in: 'John, Heather and me went to the mall'?
The other way round:
'Bert met me at the mall.' Obvious, isn't it? So why write 'Bert met Jim, Anne and I at the mall'?
English is my second language and I want to improve my English reading stories in English. If an author writes bad English my English will get worse reading his stories. So I react harsher to those stories and stop reading the story or even any story by this author.
HM.
'I went to the mall'. Here it's obvious, 'I' is correct, but why use 'me' if there are other persons, as in: 'John, Heather and me went to the mall'?
The other way round:
'Bert met me at the mall.' Obvious, isn't it? So why write 'Bert met Jim, Anne and I at the mall'?
Just to confuse you.
'John and I went to the mall.' is formal and always acceptable.
'Me and John went to the mall.' is informally acceptable.
:)
AJ
English is my second language and I want to improve my English reading stories in English.
Sometimes what's not grammatically correct sounds better to native speakers. I once had a girl from Pakistan beta read my Last Kiss novel. I don't remember the exact sentence, but the following will demonstrate the situation.
He was taller than her.
English isn't that beta reader's first language. Actually, it's her 3rd. She told me it should be:
He was taller than she.
I checked and she was correct. But I didn't change it. The correct version sounded too stuffy/odd to my native English speaking ear. This wasn't dialogue, btw, so the grammar should be correct. But the correct grammar simply sounded odd to me.
I checked and she was correct. But I didn't change it. The correct version sounded too stuffy/odd to my native English speaking ear. This wasn't dialogue, btw, so the grammar should be correct. But the correct grammar simply sounded odd to me.
Native English speakers do not do declension well! Other than a few pronouns, it doesn't exist (and even there, the who/whom declension is disappearing, except for with pedants, of which I am one).
Think "I/me/my/mine" and apply that to all nouns, as is the case with Latin, Russian, and many others.
If we did it for all our nouns, it wouldn't sound weird.
This is why the linguist and professor John McWhorter says that in non-formal speech, there is nothing wrong with 'Billy and me went to the store'.
Think "I/me/my/mine" and apply that to all nouns, as is the case with Latin, Russian, and many others.
If we did it for all our nouns, it wouldn't sound weird.
Except "He was taller than I" is correct but still sounds too formal so I would write "He was taller than me."
The online Webster's quotes Shakespeare as having written "he was fatter than me," and the same dictionary says "than" is both a conjunction and a preposition.
The online Webster's quotes Shakespeare as having written "he was fatter than me,"
So I'm in good company. LOL
He was taller than she.
The idea that what you wrote is correct grammar seems to derive from the theory that use of the 'be' verb implies what would otherwise be the subject and object of the sentence are the same. Clearly they are not. Therefore I use the form that intuitively sounds correct.
AJ
Therefore I use the form that intuitively sounds correct.
Which is McWhorter's basic point - what sounds correct IS correct, and grammar, being point-in-time and observational, will catch up later. This happens irregardless(*) of whether we like it or not!
(*) Is that a word? Yep. Why? It conveys correct meaning which we all understand. The dictionaries always lag usage (cf 'I literally died' to mean 'figuratively' - this one I can't stand! When I say 'literally' I literally mean 'literally'! - BUT it does convey what the speaker, usually a teen, means)
what sounds correct IS correct,
Before I learned the lay/lie rules, the incorrect use of the word sounded correct to me. Now it doesn't. So that argument doesn't hold up.
As to "literally died," that's colloquial.
This happens irregardless(*) of whether we like it or not!
(*) Is that a word?
It's in my dictionary as an informal colloquialism for 'regardless', but most writing experts seem to rail against it on the basis there's no point using a longer version of a word when the shorter version means the same and is acceptable in more contexts.
AJ
It's in my dictionary as an informal colloquialism for 'regardless', but most writing experts seem to rail against it on the basis there's no point using a longer version of a word when the shorter version means the same and is acceptable in more contexts.
Dictionaries and grammars always trail common usage, and 'experts' (at least in English) can no more control the development of the language than one can negotiate with a two-year-old!
(*) Is that a word?
Pertaining to regardless and irregardless, someone asked Grammar Girl "If it's in the dictionary, does that make it a real word?" https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/irregardless-versus-regardless
Grammar Girl has a graphic in the beginning that says: "A word listed in the dictionary as 'nonstandard' means the word is in common use but is not considered a proper word."
Some people mistakenly use "irregardless" when they mean "regardless," and that's considered to be an error. "Regardless" means "regard less," "without regard," or "despite something."
The prefix "ir-" is a negative prefix, so if you add the prefix "ir-" to a word that's already negative like "regardless," you're making a double-negative that means literally "without without regard."
Language experts speculate that "irregardless" comes from a combination of the words "regardless" and "irrespective" and that another reason people might say "irregardless" is that they're following the pattern of words such as "irregular" and "irreplaceable." But "regardless" already has the "-less" suffix on the end, so it's not like "regular" and "replaceable." It's already negative. And because "irregardless" is a double negative, some people also speculate that it could have arisen because people sometimes use double negatives for emphasis.
Now, on to dictionaries. Although it's true that the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, Dictionary.com, and the OED all list the word "irregardless," they also all call it "nonstandard." Listing a word as nonstandard is a way that dictionaries concede that a word is in common use, but isn't really a proper word. Standard language is defined as the language spoken by educated native speakers, but comprehensive dictionaries also include nonstandard words, dialect, colloquialisms, and jargon--words like "ain't," "conversate," and "irregardless." It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it's there, they think it's fine to use that word in every circumstance. It's the "Look, it's a word!" phenomenon. But you have to look a little further to see what kind of word it is, and if it's nonstandard in some way, you should use it with caution. You'll sound uneducated if you go around saying things like "I ain't gonna conversate with him irregardless of the consequences."
Sometimes words make the transition from nonstandard to standard English. My dictionaries assure me that "snuck" is a word that falls into this category (although I know some of you won't like that). But since "irregardless" has been disparaged its whole life, and many educated people still rail against it, and the word isn't commonly seen in edited writing, I don't believe "irregardless" is going to make the transition to standard language any time soon.
Grammar Girl has a graphic in the beginning that says: "A word listed in the dictionary as 'nonstandard' means the word is in common use but is not considered a proper word."
In her opinion. I maintain that if a word unequivocally conveys its intended meaning, it's a proper word, dictionaries and experts notwithstanding.
Were there no proper words before dictionaries?
In her opinion. I maintain that if a word unequivocally conveys its intended meaning, it's a proper word, dictionaries and experts notwithstanding.
If you read your own words, it is obvious that the meaning is not unequivocal and, in fact, heavily contested.
You can continue to use it, of course, but you can't unilaterally announce a change of status simply because you say so.
It's like telling everyone, just because you say it is so:
'You could care less' and
'You couldn't care less'
Now mean the same thing, just because so many people screw that up.
If you read your own words, it is obvious that the meaning is not unequivocal and, in fact, heavily contested.
I ask again: Were there no proper words before dictionaries?
Were there no proper words before dictionaries?
Of course there were lots of proper words along with a number of words that were not accepted as proper words.
What I would like to know is, who appointed the dictionary companies to be the arbiter of whether a word is or is not acceptable to use?
What I would like to know is, who appointed the dictionary companies to be the arbiter of whether a word is or is not acceptable to use?
They aren't, not in a direct sense anyway. Acceptable use is defined by common(majority) usage in real situations.
What the dictionaries are supposed to be is a compilation of common usage. On the other hand, under certain conditions, common usage can change faster than the dictionaries can reasonably keep up with.
However, it would be difficult if not impossible for an individual to verify common usage directly on the fly when needed so dictionaries are a handy substitute.
They aren't, not in a direct sense anyway.
True. However I have lost count of the number of times that I and others have based statements on the validity of what dictionaries proclaim.
I also agree the common usage of words and phrases change. When common usage changes drastically, then the dictionaries should document both the former and current usage of a word or phrase, but they don't do that all of the time.
Language changes. What was bad becomes acceptable and what was once OK is now graded as wrong.
When I was in elementary school in the early '60s, we were taught that gray was preferred but grey perfectly OK. Now teachers in the US will usually mark grey as misspelled. Is gray considered wrong in the UK?
The first modern English dictionary is only about 250 years old (Samuel Johnson)and the first comprehensive dictionary with standardized spelling is less than 200 years old (Webster's) and was based on American English. The Oxford English Dictionary is only 135 years old and is of British English. Most major countries that are primarily English speaking have evolved variations in the language. I've even seen a spell-checker program that was selectable for British or American English. And some, like here, mark correctly spelled words as misspelled (selectable).
Is gray considered wrong in the UK?
I don't believe there are any circumstances in which 'gray' would be considered acceptable in the UK other than in a publication intended for the American market.
AJ
'gray' would be considered acceptable in the UK
When it was a persons name. Mr. Gray
When it was a persons name. Mr. Gray
I actually thought about including that exception, then I decided nobody would be that nitpicky :(
AJ
'gray' would be considered acceptable in the UK
When it was a persons name. Mr. Gray
Here in Australia as well.
Grey is a colour, Gray is a persons name. Or at least it was when I was at school; these days, who knows?
When I was in elementary school in the early '60s, we were taught that gray was preferred but grey perfectly OK. Now teachers in the US will usually mark grey as misspelled. Is gray considered wrong in the UK?
I always used 'grey' growing up (elementary school in the late 60s). Now, I have to stop myself from writing it in anything formal, unless it's 'Earl Grey' :-)
While I was yanking Michael's chain about the way he phrased his comment, I am generally very forgiving about things like this.
If I get the meaning of the sentence without having to go back and parse it again, or several times like with some writers, I don't kvetch.
Wince, cringe, and even retch, silently, but I don't kvetch.
Having said that, I gravitate towards writers don't have to rely on the reader being able to translate nonsense to get their point across, they manage to make themselves clearly understood the first time around.
On a side note, I have long at it in my mind that gray is color while grey was an emotion (or denotes emotional content.. a grey mood, a grey sky etc). I have no idea where I got that, but there you go.
I love the George Bernard Shaw quote, ""Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language."
Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language."
From a short on-line search
"according to quote number 31 on Page 638, the fourth edition Oxford Dictionary of Quotations states:
"England and America are two countries divided by a common language. Attributed in this and other forms, but not found in Shaw's published writings."
The source also had a somewhat although not very similar quote from Oscar Wilde's writings.
"Quote Investigator: In 1887 the Irish playwright and wit Oscar Wilde published a short story called "The Canterville Ghost". 1 While describing one of the main characters, the narrator included a comical remark contrasting England and America that was similar to the saying under examination. Emphasis added to excerpts by QI: 2
Indeed, in many respects, she was quite English, and was an excellent example of the fact that we have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.
Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language.
TIL!
I'll make sure, in the future, to append "most often attributed to GB Shaw," to the quote.
'You could care less' and
'You couldn't care less'
Now mean the same thing, just because so many people screw that up.
Ditto
Me either and
Me neither
I find it rather ironic when a character in a SOL story has qualifications in English and/or other languages yet says "Me either" when they mean "Me neither", particularly when they correct other characters on their English usage
AJ
True, but you can put a URL in without it being a link. If you include the http:// the system sees it as a link, but if you post only what comes after that it's just a piece of text of a URL. Examples below:
I think this violates the spirit of what Lazeez set as the rules. The link 'working' didn't seem to be a factor.
Are you planning to host for other authors or just yourself? Laz may disagree but I think this is an important difference.
GMW founded BtFH back in 2005 and she was advertising the site in as many places as she could, although I can't remember if that included blog-entries here. I do remember people complaining to her about it, probably in a Yahoo group.
BtFH looked like competition to SoL for a while, although it never quite achieved critical mass.
Are you planning to host for other authors or just yourself? Laz may disagree but I think this is an important difference.
Just for me. I have no intention of creating anything which competes directly with SOL (granted, me making my work available is competition of a sort, but it's just me).
If you were the site owner, how would you address the issue of writers posting their stories here until they'd built a substantial following, then decamping to paysites while retaining a SOL presence primarily to redirect their followers?
(I'm not saying that's what you're doing - I think you're being very fair to SOL in that you share full versions of your stories, providing the site with a lot of high-quality content.)
AJ
If you were the site owner, how would you address the issue of writers posting their stories here until they'd built a substantial following, then decamping to paysites while retaining a SOL presence primarily to redirect their followers?
I don't have a perfect solution, though being able to occasionally put a link to my Patreon or my website in my blog and not have it banned from the front page would be reasonable, I think. Generally, I only put the link in a blog post when the story starts, or when it's finished and I give a status report. For Book 10 of AWLL, that's 100 days apart. I think that's reasonable.
When I first asked Lazeez for permission to put links to Patreon in my blog and in the story information, I did so with a commitment to make AWLL free to SOL for all time. I didn't commit for 'Good Medicine', but it, too, is free here on SOL. But, because of abuse, I now can't put links in my blog entries without having them hidden.
I just want to make that point again - I contacted Lazeez before I did anything, got his permission, and offered, in exchange for it, a guarantee that AWLL would always be free. Unfortunately, the conditions have changed, and I'm afraid they're going to change again. If they do, then I have to consider my options. I'm not making a threat here, I'm simply asking for something which is mutually beneficial.
I am only able to produce stories at my current pace because of the patronage I have, and I need to find new patrons as there is a natural flow of 'I only intend to patronize for a specific time' patrons. And that's fine. Heck, I have no issues with someone coming in, pledging for a month, downloading everything, and then ending their patronage. Most don't do that, for which I'm grateful. SOL is the best source for new patrons. I feel that it's a reasonable exchange - I provide my stories for free and he provides me the audience whom I can inform about my Patreon and my website.
Of course, I also realize that Lazeez has to pay the bills, and as such, he needs people to stay on SOL and sign up for premier membership. A careful balance needs to be struck, and to me, being able to occasionally inform readers here that additional content is available on Patreon seems reasonable.
I'm open to suggestions, obviously, and I'm no huge fan of Patreon, but it works for me (at least for now). If some other solution presents itself, which can generate the same kind of monthly income and also gives Lazeez a cut, I'll sign up in a New York minute!
I think you hit the nail on the head in your reply to Ernest, in which you said
Sadly, some individuals spammed the blogs with links, ruining it for all of us.
Let's hope Ye Olde SOL Bookshoppe provides a solution to authors who need financial support to be able to write.
AJ
