Day: July 29, 2006

Yeh, I am sometimes kinda nit-picky. So?

One reason I like eBooks in html format is that I can easily edit them when the author and editors have fallen down on things that they ought to catch. I mean, after all, if I paid $4 for a book, I have a right to expect these folks to earn their $$ by doing a workmanly job of writing and editing it. (You’re not paying me jack for reading this, so mty typos stay. So there.)

Case in point (and the spur for this nit-picky post): I’m reading a book right now that’s really pretty well-written. The author not only has a history degree (and other neato keano DV stuff) but he wasn’t ruined by a history degree in a contemporary college/university, that is, he knows his stuff. It’s fiction, but this guy’s fiction is usually pretty tight, and any historical/cultural references are pretty much on target.

So, when I ran across a piece of dialog where a character said (according to the author’s “transcription”), “Here, here!” I was just a tad disgusted.

As the guy should know, the expression is “Hear, hear!” as derived most likely from the expression “Hear him, hear him!” as I recall the OED stating it. It’s an expression of strong agreement.

“Here, here!” means, well, nothing, has no roots outside of subliterate blatherings and is entirely unworthy of this author.

So, yeh, I’ve corrected a few other usages, typos, misspellings and expressions in this particular book, and I kinda have to wonder if

1.) The editor wasn’t waaaay under the weather (or relying on some sub-par copyreaders) or
2.) The co-author (yeh, there’s someone else in the mix), whom I’ve never read before, wasn’t responsible for this bit, or
3.) Both.

I vote for both.

But at least I can correct the usage, save MY copy (corrected) and read on…

Nice thing about eBooks in html format…

🙂

Below, a revision and expansion of a comment I made on Bloggin’ Outloud in a short response to Lyn’s post, Current Argument: Gay Marriage, Part 1. Talk amongst yourselves… *heh*

---

I don’t have any animus toward gay people, but I do very much resent homosexuals attempting to co-opt gaity as their own exclusive province. I am about as completely heterosexual as can be imagined (and I have a very vivid and fecund imagination), yet I have moments, days, even weeks of experience being truly gay. Not homosexual, but gay.

Indeed, I have known very few homosexual individuals who have been gay. Most I have known are–on various three-dimensional axes–as far from being gay as could be imagined. In fact, the homosexual activists often in the news are angry, strident, whiners and moaners and shouters-down of opposing views and altogether unpleasant individuals. That’s about as far from gaity as can be imagined.

That lil idiocy of homosexual activism dispensed with, what about the silliness of homosexual “marriage”?

Oh. Yes. That.

At best it’s an oxymoron.

Optimally, it’s just another way for a miniscule portion of society to blow itself up in importance and whine and moan and shout its way into manufacturing a “right” that makes no sense.

It’s silliness puffed up large. All sizzle, no steak. All hat, no cattle. etc. As ideas go, it’s as profound and worthy of discussion in the marketplace of ideas as the meritorious idea of tainted marshmallows as a steady diet is profound and worthy of debate in the marketplace of ideas.

If homosexuals want to harm themselves by their deviant behavior (and a 2%-4% group deviating from the norm is just that: a deviation), they have that right, but to ask society to place a stamp of approval on it is assinine.

Arguments about genetic disposition toward deviant behavior—even if true—are spurious, as are arguments about equal rights for homosexuals (re: marriage, etc.). Were I to have a “genetic predisposition” toward violent resolution of conflict (and some people do, you know), society would still be justified in censoring my behavior were I to engage in deviant behavior and punch out everyone I disagreed with, no matter how much I whined, bitched and moaned about “equal rights” for a violence-prone minority group.

In fact, what about that hugely-discrinminated-against minority group, cannibals? Where are their equal rights?

Bah. Behavior has always been and always will be moderated, circumscribed and censored or allowed by societies. Civilized society (there has really only been one for the past 1,000 years or so, you know) has always denoted—rightly—that marriage is between some number of men and women (various sorts of polygamous/polyandrous arrangements have been accepted, although monogomy has been the norm for civil acceptance). Changing that for a 2%-4% portion of society is truly allowing the gnats to bridle the horse.

It’s silly, and when society allows the silly to drive public discourse, it’s in serious trouble.

Put the homosexual marriage silliness back in the closet with the other silly season arguments and issues and get on with real issues that affect ALL of society, including the other 96%-98%.

Stuffing the closet at The Random Yak