Nits that I have picked at

actualwolf

actualwolf

Acolyte
Just finished TCATHR. I've a bit to say on this work as a whole but shall limit this post to errors, typographical and otherwise that should be considered for correction before publication.

All errors were found in the PDF download. I have not consulted the version hosted at Ligotti.net

p.24
The Schopenhauer quote here is rather long and difficult to parse inside the paragraph. It would seem prudent to indent it in "block quote" format.

p.35
The same would seem true for the quote from _Network_, though I recognize the awkwardness of adjusting margins inside chapter endnotes. RE: the sentence beginning with "We don't know why we're going through all this pointless pain . . ." isn't it "decay" without the S, as opposed to "decays"? I lack a copy of the film to double check.

p.42
Inside note 15 'In his essay "The Wall and the Book," The twentieth . . . '
I see no reason why the T in "the" shuld be capitalized in this case.

p.45
Note 20: "Due to the nature of hopelessness in the coda to Sapffe's essay, we are discouraged from imaging . . ."
I recognize that "imagining" is a legitimate word, but its meaning is so technically specific that it would seem better to use "imagining."

p.65 sexism?

p.69
I recognize that it's strictly a matter of personal taste, but I don't think that we need quite so many quotes from U.G. here.

P.73
The text in note 10 has been aligned to the center instead of to the left margin.

p.76
For some reason, all the notes in this chapter are given number +10 more than they should be: note 1 is note 11, note 2 is note 12, etc.

p.81
"Let it be said---human beings are the most retarded organisms on earth."
I object to the use of the word "retarded," here and not just on PC grounds (though I do acknowledge a personal aversion to the word). It just seems inappropriate to the seriousness of this work. The word retarded used to have a specific (if woefully inadequate and imprecise) clinical meaning, but exists primarily today as vulgar slang for "hopelessly stupid." Its use here, especially in the context of the emphasis, make the sentence seem inarticulate and childish. Surely there's a better choice of words that could be made here.

Also, the Sweeney Todd story dates back much further than the Bond play, with stage versions going back to at least 1847.

p.96
The second paragraph here is masterful in its rhetoric and gramatically flawless. Once quibble, however, in "1984" Orwell spelled it "doubleplusgood," as opposed to three separate words. If the concepts of the are work is to be honored through reference, I don't see why their constructions should be changed.

p.97
'Our shibboleth: "Up the Conspiracy and down with Consciousness." '
Shouldn't it be "Up with the Conspiracy . . ."?

p.100
About 20 pages into this book, I started keeping a dictionary on hand for ready reference. By far the vast majority of Mr. Ligotti's unusal word choices are nothing less than lethally accurate, but I take issue with the very first word on this page: "bedazing." Again, this is an actual word, but I see no reason why is it any more appropriate than the more common "bedazzling." Are we really trying to denote that Cioran's word-artistry was numbing as opposed to enchanting?

Also, " . . . hollering Hooah for human life." The capital H made me smile. It would be made all the better if accompanied by an exclamation point. Hooah!

p.105
Note 1: "In post-Lolita editions of 'Pnin,' the titular prodessor is depicted on the dust-jacket as an ogler of young co-eds, deceptively publicizing the book as something of a follow-up to 'Lolita,' than which nothing could be more untrue."
I find this clause in this sentence to be exceptionally awkward.

Note 2: "Ratings for television news shos confirm this fact."
I have to take issue with this statement. Ratings for local and national evening newscasts are steadily on the decline, as is newspaper readership. The 24-hour news networks stay afloat, but that is largely to due niche audience appeal. Most people (Americans at least) do not pay attention to the news if they can help it. Far more popular are so-called "reality" programs, in which real people are subjected to artificially constructed misery, or infotainment "docudramas" in which real events are sculpted to fit the standard dramatic arc. I agree with that human beings cannot get enough of each others suffering, but I don't think that TV news ratings support this.

p.117
"In his loss of a self, he brings to mind U. G. Krishnamurti and John Wren-Lewis . . ."
I don't see why Suzanne Segal is mentioned here, especially given the next sentence.
"In these instances, the individual who loses himself or herself . . ." The inclusion of the female pronoun here onsly seems to highlight this omission.

p.120
Second paragraph, second to last sentence. "Nevertheless, the outside may still endure as amusing freak . . ." Perhaps "an amusing?"

p.126
Halfway through the second graph:
"You may be traveling on slippery roads when, without warning, you vehicle begin sliding . . ." Should be "begins."

Same page, graph: "You are not filled with horror, not yet, as you career . . . " Careen.

I'll post any others that I find.
 
Dear actualwolf,

Your editorial catches and suggestions were drawn to my attention in a private correspondence. They are excellent. When I used to work in the editorial division of a publishing company, these were precisely the kinds of things we looked out for. You have the eyes of a pro, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were. Thanks very much.

Tom Ligotti
 
Dear Tom,

I'll say that I am a published writer and have a degree in journalism, but I can't rightly claim to be a pro when it comes to editing. I have however, tried to treat your work with the due diligence I believe it deserves.
Tte kind nature of your response to my input has caused me to look over my suggestions. Aside from a few embarrassing typos myself, I noticed one note that I have to retract.

p.65
sexism?

I wrote this more as a note to myself because I was unsure as to why Suzanne Segal was left out of the sentence that begins with "But the human experience is bursting with mysteries . . ." Upon further inspection, however, I realize it is because Segal was mentioned in a chapter endnote as opposed to the main text. I mentioned the later omission of Segal only because of use of the word "herself."

I meant to excise the earlier note before posting my comments and didn't intend to accuse you of being a sexist.

This long weekend is drawing to a close, but I fully intend to post a more personal reaction to your work soon enough.

Perhaps your personal correspondent will pass it on to you, and perhaps you will find my thoughts of interest or use.

Many thanks,
Kevin
 
Kevin,

I took "sexism (?)" as referring to my distinction between "dominator" and "dominatrix," which I thought might have gone the way of aviator/aviatrix and even actor/actress. So I changed it to "whip-snapping sadists," which seems better to me. I also deleted the "herself" you mention. I think at one time I did put Suzanne Segal in that particular list of names but then deleted it without deleting the "herself." (This is riveting, isn't it?) I put Segal in the footnotes to begin with in order to keep the main text from going on too long about the subject of ego-death. I didn't take the whole sexism thing personally, since in this context it's just a matter of being semantically up to date. Anyway, I put all your suggestions into effect this morning, with the exception of changing "career." You're a pro in my book. My note on the Home page of TLO was sincere: I really am receptive to what anyone may think is right or wrong about the writing or the ideas in CATHR. That doesn't mean I'm going to change my mind about wanting to destroy the universe--unless a brain tumor or a mystical experience changes my mind for me--but if someone says that I'm insane or stupid, then I'll definitely give that some thought.

Tom
 
In preparation for a comprehensive review/response, I'm reading through TCATHR again, taking more notes of my impressions as I go along. What follows are a few more suggestions for the first chapter. They are far less objective than those listed above, as edits on a second read thru tend to be.

p.16
"---'What a feast, and those potatoes'---"
This little sub-clause is charming. Its effect might be augmented by the inclusion of
appropriate punctuation inside the closing quote. An ellipses or perhaps an exclamation point, could further emphasize the blank optimism of the sentiment.

p.17
"By some fluke or fortune"
Fluke OF fortune?

p.20
"I am writing a book titled The Conspiracy against the Human Race"
I know that articles and lesser prepositions do not warrant capitalization inside a proper title, but what about the 'a' in 'against?'

p.21
It might be nice to include the proper title of Kaczynski's manifesto---"Industrial Society and Its Future"---if only for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with it. Maybe its just me, but discovering that he cared enough about his essay to give it a proper title was motivation enough to drop my "rants of a murderer" prejudice and actually read the damn thing.

p.23
"The author ... proposed universal suicide for a most peculiar reason (see footnote thirteen to this section)"
I'm not sure I understand what this sentence is referring to. Note 13 does not mention
Mainlander by name, and the philosophical problems proposed by a TOE don't seem related to his ideas as described in the main text. Maybe I'm just missing something?

p.38
The choice of "use" over "worth" is important and its explanation worthwhile. It might be made even clearer by the inclusion of the common phrase "What's the use?" which is often used as shorthand for futility. I only suggest it because you similarly included the phrase "Is life worth living?" to establish the precise meaning of 'worth' in this context. It really helped to crystallize the difference, at least for me.

p.44
" . . . Raymond Kurzweil established a regimen of taking 250 supplements per day in hopes of living long enough . . ."
Unclear on the use of the past tense here. Other figures, even the long deceased, are referred to in present tense for the most part. Kurzweil is still alive, and presumably, still downing half a pound of vitamins daily.

More later,
Kevin
 
Kevin,

Thanks for the new batch of suggestions. I integrated all of them into the CATHR manuscript with the exception of "What's the use," which I didn't perceived as a counterpart to "Is life worth living" but exclusively as a colloquialism that I couldn't elevate into a greater existential principle. Everything else was great, though. A couple of the things you pointed out were matters that I puzzled over myself, such as the tense proper to the mention of Ray Kurzweil. And when someone else echoes my own questions about a point of expository prose, then I feel assured that it should be changed.

TL
 
Suggestions for corrections in chapter 2 are few, though notes for later analysis are many because this is where the work really begins to come together, pick up steam, etc.

p.49
Maybe you want to break up this page into smaller paragraphs.

p.62
The clarity and unity of thought in this page-long paragraph is admirable, but it is difficult to parse in its current form. Might be worth breaking up into at least two shorter graphs.

p.63
Again, it would be easier on the reader to hae this page broken up into multiple paragraphs.

" . . .fetuses, the brain damaged and super retarded . . .'
Super-retarded, with a hyphen.

" . . . and therefore purposeless, meaningless, and useless . . ."
I assume that you have your reasons, but why not employ the refrain: MALIGNANTLY USELESS? On this second read thru I appreciate the different choruses that recur through out the test ("I think therefore . . ." "Ask any . .")

p.69
In previous notes I suggested that you might want to cut down on the U.G. quotes but here, I lobby for the inclusion of a favorite of mine:

"If books and talks could change people, this world would become a paradise."

While it doesn't limn the essence of his philosophy as good as others it is wholly relevant to this chapters later discussions of futility and the delusion of orderly progress ("pyramids").
 
Only two notes for "Consuming Horror" and "Living Horror," one per. I hope to finish my second read thru this weekend. Looking forward to drafting a response of substance beyond mere formal quibbles.

p.77
"Nuland's fellow surgeons would have viewed a decision not to operate as his patients rather his own." It seems like this sentence is missing a word or two.

p.101
"If they fought against a murderous regime, they will show their ex-compeers what murder really is. If they started a revolt against unjust taxation, they will end by taxing everyone in sight, except perhaps religions and corporations."

I understand the point here, but reject the logic of this sentence as overly simplistic. Sometimes the new boss really is the same as the old boss, but I think that it's as often true that the rebels outdo their predecessors in new forms of malfeasance, just as people who are overly conscious of the mistakes their parents made in raising them screw up their own kids in entirely different ways. The murderous delusions of the Bolsheviks were not just a rehashing of the inbred apathy of the Romanovs. They were something, if not worse, than certainly weirder. Don't even get me started on Mao.

"Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy." -Kafka
 
Kevin,

I believe I clarified and strenghtened the sentence about Nuland. Here's the change: "Nuland's fellow surgeons, so he informs us, would have viewed his deferring to a patient's wish to let her body dies without further tampering as an ethical call. But that was not his call to make. He was not a moral philosopher. He was a surgical technician assigned to keep bodies beating with life; all decisions on what to do with those bodies must comply with this assignment or he would have to answer for why they did not. And to answer that his patient chose not to go under the knife would be unacceptable, since doctors should be the only one to decide such things."

As for the logic of revolutionaries and the regimes they replace: "Later, these revolutionaries may prove themselves worthy of their promotion by outdoing in villainy those they replaced. If they fought against a murderous regime, no logic prevents them from excelling their old enemies in bloodshed and showing their ex-compeers what murder really is. If they started a revolt against unjust taxation, no inferences should be made that they will not end by taxing everyone in sight, except perhaps religions and corporations."

Thanks again,

TL
 
Mr. Ligotti, your perception is painfully acute. I happen to be an employee of a non-profit organization (religious). I fear that they will come after us soon, too. Why not? Yet more money to waste in a foolish fashion...
 
G.S.,

I believe that in another post you typed yourself as one who is amused by the absurdity of human doings. (I apologize if I'm wrong about this.) I think that we all had better learn to be so amused lest we be sucked into the depths of mad outrage. And not just amused, but positively welcoming of every destruction being wrought upon us.

TL
 
Absolutely, Mr. Ligotti, but I realize that I veer sometimes toward the maudlin when I toss a few back. Human moods are so fickle, it seems...
 
This is the last of my editorial suggestions. Further notes of a more reflective and less nit-picking nature will be posted in a different thread, eventually followed by something resembling a formal response/review.

CREATING HORROR

p.112
"And costumes straight from Wardrobe . . ."
I don't see the need for the capital 'W' here.

p.125
"Not all plots end in death, only those which walk a character right to the end, just as every plot in real life does."
I'd like to see that second "plot" in ironic quotes.

"If we could be conscious of the way each of our stories will end, that would be the end the story."
Either "That would end the story" or "That would be the end of the story

p.127
I recognize that the intensity of this second paragraph is due in part to its not allowing the reader a chance to catch his breath, but I still maintain that long paragraphs like this are difficult to parse.

p.130, note 3.
"This is the default position for all theiets. . .'
I disagree. It may depend on your definition of theists, but many believers that I've
encountered do not require any kind of text to justify their belief. Rather like Pascal, the assume that because they are aware of their existence that some superior consciousness must have been involved. I recognize that these people are certainly not immune from the god-book culture in which they live, but I would think that it's just as likely that the impulse to assume that's something there just because you want there to be is the very same that led people to write such books in the first place.
Can't say how many times I've heard something along the lines of: "There's gotta be /something/, you know. I /feel/ it." With no further attempts at justification. That non-statement is apparently good enough for them!

"Need it be said that myriads of readers will line up if the line they are being handed . . ." I know that repetition is a prominent feature in your style, but the two "line"s make my teeth clench.

Also, you surely know by now what I have to say about the length of this paragraph.

p.131, top graph
"A distinguished author once said . . ."
Who? I am genuinely curious as a reader.

Note 4,
". . . THERE IS NOTHING INATELY IMPRESSIVE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE OR ANYTHING IN IT."
INNATELY, with two Ns.
 
Kevin,

Thanks for your latest batch of "nits." All of them were well taken and resulted in changes. It's been my experience that when intelligent readers call you on something there's an extremely good chance they're right. Furthermore, they often fix on something that a writer was unsure of in the first place. Your objection to the sentence with the double use of the word "line" is a good example. The change now reads: "Need it be said that readers will cluster together like flies on feces whenever they smell something that will please them with scandalous lies?" The original sentence was indeed too cute for its own good, and to my mind the change is a great improvement. Furthermore, one change always leads to at least three others, so each of your editorial suggestions have at minimum trebly enhanced locale instances of CATHR's style.

As for the identity of the "distinguished author," it was Joyce Carol Oates. Whether or not one agrees with the characterization of her as distinguished, this is generally her reputation in contemporary American literature. I didn't want to cite Oates because I couldn't cite the source. I wrote down the quote in my notebooks about 30 years ago and never forgot it.

Thanks again,

TL
 
If any writer should fear doom through to much self-reflection it should be JCO. She throws books behind her like she's trip something that's chasing her. The woman had produced over 100 original volumes the last time I counted---and that was in 1998. And that was only books that she's published under her own name--not counting unpublished manuscripts (of which I know she has at least a dozen) nor the mysteries she;s been known to crank out under various pseudonyms. While I think that she's an excellent writer, she's certainly distinguished by her prolificacy if nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top