Member: JNagarya

It's possible you might like one of my books, or maybe both:

http://www.librarything.com/author/weissmanpeter

posted by copyedit52 at 9:26 pm (EST) on Nov 18, 2012

You mentioned on Cindy (malinablue)'s profile a question about when the Mulan story hit mainstream US culture. I would say in 1976 with Maxine Hong Kingston's Woman Warrior - it went into several editions after winning the National Book Critics Circle award, so it made a bit of a splash. MHK has quite a detailed first-person Mulan narrative running parallel to the memoir elements of her story. However, a case (weaker imo) could also be made for Moment in Peking by Lin Yutang, published in 1939, which refers to the story in passing because Mulan is the name of the young protagonist.

Cheers,
Catherine

posted by muumi at 11:33 am (EST) on Dec 5, 2011

Mine is the paperback version of Mulan Five Versions. That particular publisher seems to do its hardcovers without dust jackets or pictorial covers. I must admit, I have a fondness for illustrations, so while I normally opt for hardcover, I go with paperback if the hardcover is jacket-less and plain. I actually bought the hardcover version of Mulan Five Versions, and then sent it back and opted for the paperback when I realized it had no jacket. Sometimes, until you buy it, you just can't tell.

cindy

posted by malinablue at 6:37 pm (EST) on Nov 4, 2011

I enjoy reading your comments/reviews. Please keep them coming!

posted by Just1MoreBook at 7:48 am (EST) on Mar 19, 2011

Online friendship is ever so fragile. With deep regret, I delete you as a friend.

Goodbye forever.

Alex

posted by AlexAustin at 7:04 pm (EST) on Nov 1, 2010

If you didn't get a chance to read it in paperback, The Red Album of Asbury Park Remixed is now up as a podcast on Podiobooks.com Woven into the podcast are the songs of 20 contemporary Asbury Park bands (the legacy of Springsteen) Podiobooks.com is free and hassle free. The direct URL is http://www.podiobooks.com/title/the-red-album-of-asbury-park-remixed/

Best,

Alex

posted by AlexAustin at 6:28 pm (EST) on Oct 28, 2010

In its series on “Underappreciated Authors,” The Librarything group Le Salon Litteraire du Peuple pour le Peuple is doing a month-long interview with me about my novel The Red Album of Asbury Park Remixed. The interview starts February 1. If the intersection of fiction and music interests you, please drop by. The URL is http://www.librarything.com/topic/82398 Alex

posted by AlexAustin at 12:08 pm (EST) on Jan 31, 2010

I had been noticing your posts but it was your reply to a post of Doug1943's that prompted the friending. I cannot bring myself to go to the Pro-Con group and try to limit my exposure to the Radical Right.

posted by TLCrawford at 2:31 pm (EST) on Jan 23, 2010

"Perhaps someday the LT powers that be will cease being far-right wing politically, so that racism isn't treated as acceptable instead of being seen as at very least as "impolite"."

I don't think they're far-right so much as privilege-ignorant and thereby, failing the tone argument.

posted by Ani_Na at 2:32 pm (EST) on Jan 21, 2010

Thank you for your comments on the "BYORec Post - let's add some non-Dead, White Male authors to people's personal classics".

posted by Ani_Na at 4:48 am (EST) on Jan 21, 2010

Ah I see. Well I am not involved in that group or that discussion, so I'm not going to concern myself with it.

Honestly, I invited you to my group because you were a member American Revolution & Founding Fathers History group and I thought my group would appeal to your interests. :)

posted by asukamaxwell at 1:34 pm (EST) on Jan 18, 2010

One thing that Obama did I particularly appreciated was he broadened the range of topics to discuss. A lot of it was about economics which is why choosing the Wall St. types is a bit disappointing--because I think we really do need a new 'new deal'. Controlling costs, putting teeth into regulatory agencies is part of it. There is way too much wealth disparity.

People bitch about taxes but it's not so much taxes for me as long as they're put to good use. Works programs at least tend to be good use. More people with jobs means more taxpayers, less crime. If you want people to be good citizens they need as well to feel that they are part of a solution. Reinvigorate manufacturing/industry by making low interest loans targeting areas of urban blight to put people to work. Making those loans conditional on jobs not being outsourced. Really I don't mind the idea of the government senting up their own lending banks to compete with privately or publicly held banks. We could also make it more worthwhile for people to save--part of what caused the Sept. 08 collape was lack of liquidity. People don't put money into savings accounts like when I was younger because they don't pay any interest. People putting more and more of their excess into retirement fund investments. It's all specualtion on something for the most part they don't see and/or don't understand. Every 10-12 years or so the stock market collapses and they go back to zero.

Anyway since you're a poetry fan what's your opinion of Philip Levine?

posted by lriley at 5:54 pm (EST) on Dec 10, 2009

National Rifle Association and Government Office of Accountability? Are they in cahoots on something or is it separate issues? Personally--technical stuff tends to give me a headache. I need some kind of narrative to help me move along. Chinese film sounds interesting though I hardly watch anything anymore. Part of that though is scheduling. Working graveyards at least for me means always tightly partitioning my time. We are moving within range of retirement though.

posted by lriley at 9:03 am (EST) on Dec 9, 2009

Not so much coercion JN--more like subterfuge. Anyway I've never been right about anything. I wouldn't know how to act if I were.

Nice site though. I put it in my favorites. Looks like your on a Camus kick.

posted by lriley at 7:48 am (EST) on Dec 8, 2009

I guess we're going to have to agree to share. I'll take the left half.

posted by lriley at 12:07 am (EST) on Dec 7, 2009

I wanted to stop by and say thanks for your reply to my question in the writer/readers group. I can't tell you how much I enjoyed reading it, so much so in fact I think I'll print it out for future refrence. A lot of what you said made sense to me; I plan my writing thoroughly and I mainly need to edit my work and occasionally I'll rewrite.
All the best (And happy Saint Paddy's day)

posted by STOCeallaigh at 8:19 pm (EST) on Mar 16, 2009

JNagarya,

Corrected the name for "The Longest War". Thanks for noting that.

Fred

posted by freddybo1 at 12:20 am (EST) on Sep 10, 2008

Thank you, I corrected it.

posted by charlottem at 8:37 pm (EST) on Sep 9, 2008

"In that instance the fact that the particular edition of the book to which he referred is actually part of a publishers series of "Classic British Literature" -- a perfectly legitimate series, and a perfectly legitimate inclusion of that book in that series."

Actually, if you read how Tim describes a series, "Classic British Literature" is not a "perfectly legitimate series". He specifically excludes publishers series from the definition. He says, "Also avoid publisher series, unless the publisher has a true monopoly over the "works" in question. So, the Dummies guides are a series of works. But the Loeb Classical Library is a series of editions, not of works."

posted by lilithcat at 7:32 pm (EST) on Aug 8, 2008

It looks like we're having a bit of a disagreement about Islandia being part of a series. Islandia had several sequels/prequels written by Mark Saxton using Austin Tappan Wright's unpublished notes regarding Islandia. (Mark Saxton was also involved in editing Islandia before publication.) The Series field in Common Knowledge is often used to indicate such relationships. You might disagree with this attribution, but I feel it is important to keep these books together in such a fashion.

posted by PhoenixTerran at 10:52 pm (EST) on Jun 6, 2008

There is already an extensive page set up for the Nutshell Series of law books. If you perhaps feel that West's Nutshell Series is more appropriate as a title, you should change the entire list, not simply the ones you own. Also, you seem to have set up other series such as Oxford Mark Twain, including individual Twain books that he had no intention of being in a series, and Penguin English Poets, including Beowulf, which was obviously not intended by the author to be a part of any series. These are publisher series for which the original authors did not intend for their books to be a part of, and as such do not fit the definition of series as LibraryThing has constructed it.

posted by uru at 4:40 pm (EST) on Jun 2, 2008

greetings
things are looking good there. I've had a productive trip to Iowa last week - included a lovely copy of DOUBLE IMAGE by Levertov and the nicest copy of Sara Coleridge's PHANTASMION I've ever seen. Wandering about the country promises to be a lot of fun as soon as I can stand to retire.

posted by bookstopshere at 10:00 am (EST) on May 13, 2008

I found your conversation with conceptDawg in the CK group, so I came to your profile and read some of the comments here. Let me preface this by saying that I am NOT trying to start a fight with you, that honestly is not my intent.

You are right, there is NO requirement that LT members participate in Common Knowledge, Series, etc etc. You do not have to do that. It is your choice.

However, it IS asked that people do not screw up other people's data by erasing series info that is actually correct.

You seem to be saying that your edition of Baskervilles, Tom Sawyer, etc etc, is not part of a series and shouldn't be shown as so. However, as others have tried to tell you, LibraryThing does not work on an "edition" basis. The series info belongs to the WORK, not the specific edition that you have. Just because the specific edition that you have does not have a clear-cut series title/connection, that does not mean that the work itself is not a series. The AUTHOR is the one who usually decides if it is a series, not the publisher. The fact that the publisher of your edition didn't publish the whole series does not mean that the work is not a part of a series.

I do understand your frustration, because I, too, hate CK being so in-my-face, since I don't care to use that feature. But it IS a LibraryThing feature, and you can have your own opinions about what a "series" is, but the fact remains that your opinions don't necessarily agree with the owner/workers on this site, and they are the ones who ultimately get to define what goes in the "series" CK info, not you or me or any other single user.

Heather

posted by Heather19 at 11:00 pm (EST) on Apr 17, 2008

Again: there is no requirement that librarything "members" do anything more than catalog their library online. And no secondary purpose -- which are all other purposes -- for being here should be allowed to trump -- and trample -- that primary purpose.

"Yes, there is: that people don't go about trying to impose their own personal views on how something should work on everything, in face of what the developers has intended."

The standards -- and objective facts -- I cite and reference are the opposite of "personal views". Your ignoring of crucial differnces between editions -- points I've made irrefutable clear -- is the standrdless personal view being imposed.

And again: there is no requirement that librarything "members" do anything more than catalog their library online. They are not required to "particpate" in fora, or any other secondary "feature" of librarything. And they certainly aren't required to remain silent when the secondary tramples the primary underfoot.

"You have your way of organizing your library, fine. However, other people have other ideas."

The standards I apply are, again, not "my way"; they are STANDARDS. By contrast, the notion that two very different editions of the non-"same" book are nonetheless "the same" is poppycock based upon ignoring of both standards, and actual, objective differences. Those are facts, of course, which you avoid in effort to impose your subject anti-standard view, and thereby silence views you do not accept because they might tend to interfere with your view that the foremost purpose of librarything is not cataloging one's library oneline, but everything but that.

"All the information about different editions and such are there, in your library, untouchable by everyone else, and you can use them for cataloging any way you'd like."

So long as I'm willing to tolerate anti-intellectual generalizations into indistinguishability garbage polluting it.

"The series field, however, is common for everyone, and while you might think that it's a stupid thing to do so, the information there is supposed to be about what the author has created, not publishers."

"The Oxford Mark Twain" is a "series," not a publisher. Perhaps you'll begin to recoginze not only that fact of difference, but that it is a relevant difference. It is not, however, "The Writings of Mark Twain" "series". Any more than Asimov's "Robot" stories -- which have never been and are not now and never shall be a "series" -- are properly associated with his Foundation trilogy -- and yet that characterization of the "Robot" non-series is being made, and that incorrect association is being made, in the "series" field.

"There might come a feature by which one could keep different editions of books connected but still distinguish between them, which would let you do what you want. However the series feature has been designed in a specific way with a specific intention, and instead of trying to bend it to do what you want, why not leave it be, let those of us who want to use it for what its purpose is use it, and ask for something more fitting for your needs?"

Why not cease denying relevant distinctions -- such as, as example, that about which you avoid comment: between the original publication, and Fawcett publication, of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

And, no: the primary purpose of librarything, as it is presented, is the online cataloging of libraries -- not trampling that purpose under the hobnail boots of secondary purposes.

If you're going to simply repeat the same refuted anti-standard nonsense you have now done at least twice, don't repeat it in MY catalong's comment area.

posted by JNagarya at 11:43 am (EST) on Apr 8, 2008

Again: there is no requirement that librarything "members" do anything more than catalog their library online. And no secondary purpose -- which are all other purposes -- for being here should be allowed to trump -- and trample -- that primary purpose.

Yes, there is: that people don't go about trying to impose their own personal views on how something should work on everything, in face of what the developers has intended. You have your way of organizing your library, fine. However, other people have other ideas. All the information about different editions and such are there, in your library, untouchable by everyone else, and you can use them for cataloging any way you'd like. The series field, however, is common for everyone, and while you might think that it's a stupid thing to do so, the information there is supposed to be about what the author has created, not publishers. There might come a feature by which one could keep different editions of books connected but still distinguish between them, which would let you do what you want. However the series feature has been designed in a specific way with a specific intention, and instead of trying to bend it to do what you want, why not leave it be, let those of us who want to use it for what its purpose is use it, and ask for something more fitting for your needs?

posted by andejons at 11:23 am (EST) on Apr 8, 2008

andejons --

"I seem to not have gotten my point across."

You got it across. It is incorrect -- and exclusive.

"I do understand that there is a difference between different editions . . . ."

Often more than one relevant difference, as I continue to illustrate.

And those differences are seen and acknowledged and made part of the record in libraries -- not simply ignored.

"of a book, However, that difference is not seen as very important here, since LibraryThing is a community as much as, or even more than, a organizer for books, . . . ."

"a organizer" is incorrect; "an" before a vowel, and sometimes before "h".

Not only is that not the fact " even more than, a organizer for books," as the latter is precisely the representation made for librarything as being it's first purpose; there is no requirement that a librarything "member" do anything more than that. As well, as consistently made clear, my dealings with books, including on a website which has as its central focus books, and cataloging them online, is to treat them with the respect required of competent identification of them. Again: there is no requirement that librarything "members" do anything more than catalog their library online. And no secondary purpose -- which are all other purposes -- for being here should be allowed to trump -- and trample -- that primary purpose.

"which means that different editions are grouped together. . . ."

Which, as I said, is stupid, as it ignores the differences, which do matter. Worse, books which don't belong in this or that "series" are incorrectly dragooned into them anyway. Worse still, books which have no legitmate relation to each other are not only associated by giving them the exact same identity as one another, they are flatly declared, by fiat, to be "sequels" and parts of "series" even when they are not in fact those things.

"'The important question for when books are combined is not "Is all of the content exactly the same?", but rather "can two people who've read these versions say they've read the same book?'"

The important question is why dumbing-down is the goal of some librarything "members" so that that "rule" excludes other views -- and, more crucial, standards. Standards which are long-standing, ad which acknowledge and make record of relevant differences. Want to read absolutely everything written by (as example) Toni Morrison? Then see below for an important piece of writing by her which your approach wholly ignores because such differences are "irrelevant".

"If both a friend and I say that we've read "Huckleberry Finn", no one would say that we've read different books just because there were different forewords."

THIS "one" OBVIOUSLY DOES say EXACTLY that. The intelligent would say that, because if they were different editions, they would be different.

That the differences matter is OBVIOUSLY true of, on one hand, the version of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as part of "The Oxford Mark Twain," which is (1) a facsimilie first edition (some subsequent editions are edited to remove "offensive" material)(2) with the original illustrations (many later editions have illustrations different than the originals, or no illustrations at all), (3)an introduction by well-known author Toni Morrison, (4) and an afterword by Twain-scholar Victor A. Doyno.

And on the other, the 1996 edition, published neither by Harpers nor Oxford nor UC's Mark Twain Library -- the latter being a significant fact -- but rather by Fawcett (which those knowledgeable would consider "unexpected"), which includes (1) the long-lost then recently rediscovered half of Twain's original final MS., parts of which had been excised from the first edition published -- and all subsequent editions -- (2) an introduction by Twain biographer Justin Kaplan, and (3) a foreword by Twain-scholar Doyno. That OBVIOSULY means the two editions are not "the same," and thus that a person who read the first, and a person who read the second, have not read "the same" book.

There are other differences among editions which matter: one edition of Huckleberry Finn had (gave it away to a friend years ago) included different scholarly perspectives on the book than those I've cited. Those different perspectives matter, and at the same time add to the richness of the reading of the book.

(Did you know, by the way, that Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 -- a book about book-burning/suppression of reading materials, based upon their being different from the official gov't view -- has been edited over the years by the publisher/s to remove the "controversial" material? That is, of course, by your view, irrelevant, as all editions are "the same," one edition being indistinguishable from another because all differences among editions are irrelevant. But, even though OBVIOSULY not "the same," we'll pretend otherwise, because it would be other than anti-intellectual, and might even verge on, being "scholarly," or even merely intelligent, to recognize that they are not "the same".)

"This is the sameness upon which books are grouped together into one "work"."

Even when that "sameness" is wishful-thinking, imposed by force.

"Since the "series" is common to every copy and edition of such a "work", . . . .

As pointed out before, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, aside from being part of "The Writings of Mark Twain" (published by Harpers) "series," and part of the Mark Twain Foundation's "Mark Twain Library" -- which has major differences from your "all the same" "copies" -- and part of the "The Oxford Mark Twain," is not a sequel, or itself part of any "series," any more than Tom Sawyer Abroad

posted by JNagarya at 10:24 am (EST) on Apr 8, 2008

I seem to not have gotten my point across. I do understand that there is a difference between different editions of a book, However, that difference is not seen as very important here, since LibraryThing is a community as much as, or even more than, a organizer for books, which means that different editions are grouped together. The important question for when books are combined is not "Is all of the content exactly the same?", but rather "can two people who've read these versions say they've read the same book?" If both a friend and I say that we've read "Huckleberry Finn", no one would say that we've read different books just because there were different forewords. This is the sameness upon which books are grouped together into one "work". Since the "series" is common to every copy and edition of such a "work", it means that the one who have identified all your Huckleberry Finns as being part of the Oxford series is the one who first entered "The Oxford Mark Twain" as the "series" for one of them -- you.

posted by andejons at 4:18 am (EST) on Apr 8, 2008

I am that "idiot" you've referred to in jjwilson61's comments section. From what I've seen, you seem to have misunderstood what "series" is supposed to mean around here. A series is NOT something that pertains to individual volumes, but rather to the work in question, and thus the information entered in that field will appear for every holder of that book (which is why it is under "Common Knowledge"). You were upset about some book of George Orwell being marked as a part of some series you don't have. That was because someone else also had missed this.

Since the series is common for every copy of a book, everyone that has such a copy should be able to recognize his copy as part of that series. So, while my copy of Huckleberry Finn has nothing to do with any Oxford series of Mark Twain books, I can recognize that it does have something in common with "The adventures of Tom Sawyer", being the sequel of that book.

posted by andejons at 3:43 pm (EST) on Apr 7, 2008

Look near the top of the Your Library page and see where it says Display Styles A B C D E (edit)? Click on the edit. This gives you a page where you can specifically change what you see for each style by using the drop-down lists. If you need more help please ask.

posted by jjwilson61 at 2:26 pm (EST) on Apr 7, 2008

I apologize for being so agitated over your first few paragraphs that I responded before I see that you did respond to my point about series being about continuation of characters. However, rather than discuss it here between just you and me, I think that it would make more sense to discuss it on the talk thread I posted so some sort of agreement as to what a series is can be made amnong the whole LT community.

(And do you realize that you can edit your library views to remove the shared Common Knowledge fields?)

posted by jjwilson61 at 10:36 am (EST) on Apr 7, 2008

And I agree that the Complete Works of George Orwell or of Mark Twain are not series.

posted by jjwilson61 at 10:27 am (EST) on Apr 7, 2008

I don't think that you understand what a series is. (Well, there's also publisher's series but I'm not talking about those). A book is in a series if it has the same characters as other books, usually but not necessarily by the same author. This has to do with the text of the work and is completely independent of editions.

Please come to this thread to discuss it,

http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?topic=33970

posted by jjwilson61 at 10:25 am (EST) on Apr 7, 2008

"Because, at very least, my edition is not part of any "series". (Nor did the author itend it as a volume in a "series".)"

I'm completely flumoxed by that comment. The stories all have the same characters in the same settings; how could that not be a series. And the author certainly intended to write the stories with the same characters so how could he not have intended it to be a series. I'm wondering if we are using the same word to mean two totally different things.

posted by jjwilson61 at 10:14 pm (EST) on Apr 6, 2008

Why did you decide that The Hound of the Baskervilles is not part of the Sherlock Holmes series?

posted by jjwilson61 at 12:16 pm (EST) on Apr 6, 2008

Belligerent!? I find it frustrating to have to repeaedly correct OTHERS' miscategorizations in MY catalog.

As for agreeing with me on points? Thanks for telling me which.

posted by JNagarya at 7:39 pm (EST) on Apr 4, 2008

"Art and Reality: Ways of the Creative Process Joyce Cary
Cary, Joyce 1961 World Perspectives (Volume 20|XX) "

Are you saying that this is the 20th volume in the World Perspectives series?
Or that this is the 20th series of a long-running World Perspectives "super-series?"

If it is the former then my change was absolutely correct. The first number in the paren is the numerical sort. The second is the "title" that you want the volume to go by—if it is not an arabic numeral, as in this case.
If it is the latter then the change was wrong and this is specifically one of those instances that I spoke of that has numbers within the series name.

posted by conceptDawg at 6:05 pm (EST) on Apr 4, 2008

It would have been much better to have replied to the talk post that I posted since you would have been able to see that I have agreed with you on many points. The only point that I don't agree with you on is the use of parens. That's just a fact of life. That's how the system is designed: to parse information within the parens for meaningful metadata. I must ask if you have read any of the Common Knowledge help/instructions before becoming belligerent with me. I'm not here to fight with people. I'm here to help.

If you do not want CK data showing up in your catalog then simply turn it off. Use the "(edit)" link next to your list of view styles (A,B,C,D,E) at the top of your catalog. From there you will be able to remove all Common Knowledge fields from your catalog. You won't have to look at them.

Alternatively (and preferably), you can edit the CK to remove bad data that you see. If it is changed back at a later time then send a note to the person that changed it and tell them why they are wrong (in your opinion). They may understand their error then. Alternatively, they may be correct.

posted by conceptDawg at 5:52 pm (EST) on Apr 4, 2008

I didn't mean to cause such a stir up. But there certainly is a reason to have a number in parenthesis after the series name. The number in parenthesis denotes the order of the particular work within the series. The number is in parenthesis because it is descriptive data and so as not to cause confusion for series that actually have numbers at the end of them (Space 1999, for instance). This is stated quite clearly on both the CK help page and on the right hand side of every series page.

I've started a thread detailing our discussion so that other people can offer ideas and might be able to give you faster answers than I will since I'll probably be writing code most of today. Just follow the link and you'll also be able to reply to the discussion, etc.

http://www.librarything.com/talktopic.php?newpost=1&topic=33828

posted by conceptDawg at 4:17 pm (EST) on Apr 4, 2008

Can you move the previous comments to a talk thread in the CK group? It will give us a better way to interact and I think that others may gain from joining in on the conversation, especially in regards to the 1984 and Mark Twain items.

posted by conceptDawg at 3:56 pm (EST) on Apr 4, 2008

I've noticed that you have been editing a lot of series information in your catalog. Please note the warning message in the popup dialog that mentions this information is GLOBAL data shared by every user on LibraryThing. Changing the data in these columns is affecting every user. There is also a specific way in which Common Knowledge (CK) data should be entered. You can find information about this on the CK help page (linked in the window that pops up when you change one of these items).

Think of Common Knowledge as a smaller version of something like Wikipedia where everybody helps build a collective store of information.

posted by conceptDawg at 3:00 am (EST) on Apr 4, 2008

I imagine the TV Guide for 1997 is a regional edition, although I couldn't find any notation inside to indicate that. I see that your cover is about the Pats. I like mine better !

posted by book58lover at 9:26 pm (EST) on Apr 2, 2008

LordNigelKnickKnack --

"Lovely AND lively remarks in PoliCons!"

I had nothing better to do than to stimulate the Neanderthals into expressing their traditionalist gruntings, while soiling their cages with the unmentionable offalings of infants. It should be obvious, of course, that I prefer the singing of frogs -- and can't stand that any more than I can tolerate the rubber-legged screechings of crickets that anticly believe they are stars in some creakingly antique opera.

"-And some turtles ARE slow enough to allow gems to be hammered onto their shells."

Over the top: turtles are in themselves symetrical gems.

posted by LordNigelKnickKnack at 12:22 am (EST) on Mar 24, 2008 | reply | archive | delete

posted by JNagarya at 7:44 am (EST) on Mar 24, 2008

Lovely AND lively remarks in PoliCons! -And some turtles ARE slow enough to allow gems to be hammered onto their shells.

posted by LordNigelKnickKnack at 12:22 am (EST) on Mar 24, 2008