Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:29:54 -0400
From: "Michael Walsh" <MJW at mail.press.jhu.edu>
To: <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Texas, more than you thought
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

>Technically, the titles of books should be italicized and shorted works =
be
>inside quotation marks. But I don't think the troublr of italicizing is
>worth the bother in such an informal medium as e-mail. As a wise person =
once
>said (the name escapes me at the moment), "Consistency is the hobgoblin =
of
>small minds."

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803*1882)
  QUOTATION:  A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, =
adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
 ATTRIBUTION:  Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance.
(http://www.bartleby.com/100/420.47.html)

mjw

 If that is true, I've worked with many a small mind over the
>years!
>
>Erica
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Strong, Lee [mailto:StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL]
>Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 9:10 AM
>To: 'WSFA members'
>Subject: [WSFA] Re: Texas, more than you thought
>
>Erica,
>	Yes, I would like to borrow _Alternate Realities_ at the next WSFA
>meeting.  I looked for it in two library systems and they don't have it.
>	I did find a copy of Heinlein's _The Number of the Beast_ and
>started rereading it for his thoughts.  My previous read influenced my
>thoughts on this subject.
>	And as a professional proofreader, is it correct to indicate the
>title of a book by quotation marks or underscores or what?  I have been
>using quotation marks for short stories and before-and-after underscores =
to
>simulate italics for full length books, etc.  However, most people use
>quotation marks for both, and I request your advice.
>
>Lee
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Erica VD Ginter [mailto:eginter at klgai.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:47 PM
>To: 'WSFA members'
>Subject: [WSFA] Re: Texas, more than you thought
>
>This discussiond reminds me of "fictons," created by Heinlein, in which =
all
>possible imagined universes exist; each such universe is a ficton. Spider
>Robinson has adopted the idea and used it with distinction in some of his
>Callahan's stories.
>
>I am also reminded of one of my favorite nonfiction books, "Alternate
>Realities: The Search for the Full Human Being," by Lawrence LeShan
>(Ballantine 1976, NY, ISBN 0-345-3494-5). LeShan talks about the =
different
>approaches to viewing the universe we all share, i.e., the
>religious/mystical vs. the scientific, and argues the validity of each
>approach. I should reread it and review it for the journal, but I just
>bought Stan Robinson's new book, soooooo... (It's received so many =
excellent
>mainstream reviews that I had to go to 4 bookstores to find it! We're =
proud
>of you, Stan!)
>
>Erica
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Strong, Lee [mailto:StrongL at MTMC.ARMY.MIL]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 7:57 AM
>To: 'WSFA members'
>Subject: [WSFA] Re: Texas, more than you thought
>
>	Sam, I understand your point of view and agree with it in part.
>However, I think we should reserve the term "alternate history" for
>universes where objective history differs one from another.  Otherwise, a
>useful term acquires a totally different meaning and becomes almost =
useless.
>Perhaps we should use "ideoverse" to describe an individual worldview =
within
>a single universe by analogy with the established term "ideolect" used by
>speech scientists to describe individuals' unique speech sub-languages
>within a standard language.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Samuel Lubell [mailto:lubell at cais.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 11:26 PM
>To: WSFA members
>Subject: [WSFA] Re: Texas, more than you thought
>
>At 09:01 AM 4/8/02 -0400, you wrote:
>>Sam,
>>	If you're really interested, I think I can find my hard copy
>>reference.  Most of the proposals I read in a bound master's thesis at =
the
>>University of Mississippi.
>>
>>Lee
>>
>
>Not that interested, sorry.  But I will comment that every work of =
history
>is an alternate history as two historians, looking at the same events =
will
>come up with different interpretations.
>