Thread: A Maggot Authored a Book - Buy it! A Great Read

Originally Posted by Spats

Ksyrium: There is no firm release date. Also, it won't be much cheaper than the paperback.

up an down: Is that a suggestion or a veiled editorial?

HA.. the former..in all seriousness, i do think you will appreciate it

So I read the book over the weekend, and liked it. Hard to describe it, but definitely worth a read.

Just noticed this thread - congrats man.

I started to read your blog, but I kept getting hung up on one small grammatical error that was used over and over again....the word "data" is PLURAL! Maybe I'll try again when I'm in a less picky mood. I'm interested in nutrition, so I'll really try to give it a go at some point again.

Anyway, not trying to detract from the point of the thread here, just wanted to offer a heads up.

Originally Posted by auvgeek

the word "data" is PLURAL!

That's true. But it has become common usage in singular form too. Datum just sounds weird to most people.

Ref: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com...or-plural.aspx

Ksyrium:

That was actually the hard part about getting it published: I was told more than once "It's great, but we don't really know what genre it is or what to do with it."

auvgeek:

When I'm talking about a dataset, no, it's singular -- because in that case, "data" is shorthand for "a set of data". Also see the article Sinecure linked about count nouns vs. mass nouns.

I will admit to deliberately conforming to popular usage in a couple of places: I could say "in large cohort studies, data are often self-reported, and self-reported data are often wildly inaccurate," but honestly, that makes me
sound like a pedant.

So I'm sorry it bothers you, but it's a conscious decision on my part. And as the article Sinecure linked points out, it's become such common usage that it's no longer considered incorrect.

I've done the same once or twice with lie/lay/lain/laid...there are places where the correct word simply looks bizarre, or leaves the tense unclear...so I use the "incorrect" term because it makes the text flow better. Any word that trips up the reader and makes them go "Wait, what?" is, in general, not a good word to use unless you're specifically trying to draw attention to it.

Sinecure:

That's a great article: thanks!

Got this off amazon when I saw this thread a few months ago but just got to reading it. Really enjoyed it, definitely thought provoking and something I'll be reading again. Nice work Spats!

What made you decide to use the fantasy setting as a backdrop to all the philosophy?

Originally Posted by Spats

auvgeek:

When I'm talking about a dataset, no, it's singular -- because in that case, "data" is shorthand for "a set of data". Also see the article Sinecure linked about count nouns vs. mass nouns.

I will admit to deliberately conforming to popular usage in a couple of places: I could say "in large cohort studies, data are often self-reported, and self-reported data are often wildly inaccurate," but honestly, that makes me
sound like a pedant.

So I'm sorry it bothers you, but it's a conscious decision on my part. And as the article Sinecure linked points out, it's become such common usage that it's no longer considered incorrect.

I've done the same once or twice with lie/lay/lain/laid...there are places where the correct word simply looks bizarre, or leaves the tense unclear...so I use the "incorrect" term because it makes the text flow better. Any word that trips up the reader and makes them go "Wait, what?" is, in general, not a good word to use unless you're specifically trying to draw attention to it.

Forgot I posted in here. I don't really buy the argument that data is short for dataset, but it's a conscious decision so I won't argue that you ought not use it. Personally, I'm a bit of a puritan when it comes to formal writing: hyphenate compound adjectives, don't end sentences in prepositions, don't use certain adverbs as disjuncts, etc so that's just my personal bias. I often agree with GrammerGirl, but I wonder how familiar she* is with scientific literature, where the word "data" is almost always used as a plural. Regardless, she's a great resource and I appreciated the refresher in mass vs count nouns.

But anyway, I'll quit cunting up your thread.

Glad you got your book published! I'll have to pick up a copy one of these days.

*Edit: that article was written by a guest writer, so I have no idea if he is familiar with scientific literature. However, "Grammer girl" has a masters in bio from Stanford...

Mathematics:

Somehow I missed your question and bump: thank you! I'm glad you find TGC so meaningful...I don't like to oversell it, but I think people like yourself are just starting to discover its depth and importance.

Originally Posted by Mathematics

What made you decide to use the fantasy setting as a backdrop to all the philosophy?

It wasn't a matter of "decide". It's Gryka's story, and that's the world she lives in. I just tried to write it down as truthfully as I could.

Let me expand on that idea. The world of The Gnoll Credo is not a direct ancestor of our own, nor is it a typical "fantasy" universe. As you know, it contains fantastic creatures (though we don't meet any of them directly, except for the gnolls), but no magic -- everything must survive on its own merits, just as in our own world.

This is in direct contrast to genre fantasy, where everything is a backdrop to the the hero's quest, and doesn't have to make any sense. (When elves aren't busy being beautiful and noble and awesome, what do they eat? Where are the farmer elves? If Mordor is such a blasted wasteland, what are the orcs eating? Each other?) Creatures, and entire races, are simply plot devices...it's best not to ask such questions.

In contrast, once I considered questions like "How does a race of purely carnivorous pack-hunters live and survive? What sort of philosophy would they have?" I was able to meet Gryka, and ask her. These questions have no meaning in a magical universe, because things exist in a magical universe for two reasons: because they sound cool, and because they can either help or hinder the hero on his/her quest. Such questions only have meaning in a universe like our own, where existence is contingent on the ability to successfully live and reproduce.

Does this help?

auvgeek:

Formal writing is important in formal contexts, where rules are rules and one must abide by them -- but I believe that in an article written for general consumption on the Web, using "data" as a plural count noun makes me sound pedantic.

Meanwhile, if you do pick up a copy of TGC, please let us know your thoughts.

(Note: I sincerely hope that, after all that, you wrote "GrammerGirl" to be funny.)

Originally Posted by Spats

(Note: I sincerely hope that, after all that, you wrote "GrammerGirl" to be funny.)

I was kinda hoping someone would catch that...though perhaps nobody thought it was as amusing as I did.

As an aside, apparently I'm outvoted and pedantic on this whole subject. Even IEEE accepts data as a singular. Sorry again for derailing the thread and for being a dick.

Also, I read the first few chapters of your book for free online. Excellent writing style! Will be ordering a copy.

Originally Posted by auvgeek

As an aside, apparently I'm outvoted and pedantic on this whole subject. Even IEEE accepts data as a singular. Sorry again for derailing the thread and for being a dick.

Also, I read the first few chapters of your book for free online. Excellent writing style! Will be ordering a copy.

I understand where you're coming from: it's annoying to find out, after having a rule repeatedly beaten into your head, that it either has been relaxed or doesn't apply in the context in question.

I'm glad you enjoyed the teaser! If it makes you want to buy the book, it's a success

I just finished the book this morning. Actually, I finished the main story last night, woke up this morning, and the first thing I did was grab the book and start reading the epilogue. After a couple of pages, I realized I hadn't taken my morning piss yet, but continued reading anyway. I didn't want to put it down. This is one of the most engaging books I have read in a long, long time.

The Gnoll Credo is the long-lost cousin of Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" - but better and much more to the point. It's funny - I was reading Ishmael at the same time I was contemplating changing my diet based on Spats' nutrition posts on TGR. Now, a year-and-a-half later and 50 lbs lighter (and a helluva lot healthier), I'm reading Spats' book while contemplating the next huge change in my life.

I have never been one to revel in customs or traditions, finding many of them silly and most of them dangerous. They just feel awkward, and in many ways, fake. Just another method for controlling the masses (holidays and the associated nerga comes to mind here). I've always tried to step outside the box that has been constructed for us, mainly against our will, to try to see what really is going on. I've just never been able to articulate my observations the way Spats has. He is an excellent, excellent writer, and in my opinion, the societal observations he hits upon in The Gnoll Credo are spot on.

I definitely will be sharing this book with friends, and even some family, who I think will appreciate the message.

Thanks, Spats

Deutsch:

It means a lot to hear that Gryka's story resonated with you. Thank you. And yes, I figure if Daniel Quinn deserved 500 G's for Ishmael, TGC ought to be worth at least a few mil

You're traveling a hard road. I hope TGC helps in some small way.