Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



cheryl_bites ([info]cheryl_bites) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2010-08-25 14:09:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:books, greatest author whom ever lived!

Vintage book wank exclamation mark
(Apologies for the age of this wank [2007] and the shortage of fights, but the strangeness mostly makes up for it.)

Once there was a man called Nathan Carnes. Nathan really liked exclamation marks and the word “whom”, and he wrote a book called Space Ark! so that he could use both frequently. He also liked rainbows and the Copperplate font, so he created a website to promote his opus, and found a vanity publisher who was prepared to realise his dream of the world’s most amateurish cover.



The opening sentence of the Excerpt page:

Oceana's triplicate synthetic recreation from the Space Ark's enormous registry of binary data was the first Being to be regenerated from the Terrestrial Ark's voluminous digital archives of androgynous doubles and carnal genetic ancestors.

(This is probably my favourite sentence:

For, no one ever grew tired of strolling nightly each month on the trinity of special eves to gaze awestruck skyward to the nighttime heavens if only to delight in their beloved nocturnal spectacle of sacred light.

I think it’s the comma.)

But, of course, if he’d just stopped there, it wouldn’t be a wank. What’s more, he was getting restless. During its 15 years (!) of vanity publication, the book had managed to sell only 2,700 copies (er, he says). Accordingly, Nathan sent what I assume was intended to be a query letter to literary agent Miss Snark [blog is archival], and, further, promised to let her see sample pages for the low, low price of $35!



A copy of the manuscript with digital color cover and inside illustrations is not free to publishers or agents. You MUST purchase a copy of the ENTIRE BOOK via our web site to peruse it. No sample chapters will be sent; no exceptions. No author biography or synopsis will be sent as all such preliminary info. is available at www.spaceark.net... You should be willing to make a minor investment on an item whose potential for manifold return is great! If not, then we're not interested in doing business with you.

Miss Snark was laughing too hard to mock much, but the 146 commenters had quite a lot to say (much of it to do with whether it’s possible for a work to have an exclamation mark in its title and still be good, but we’ve not got space for that). One of them was author Ben Jeapes, who had once worked as a publisher and remembered Nathan Carnes well; Nathan was the one who called him dense, a dumb-ass, a dodo and a dilettante. (Oh, and a jerk and a “wanna-be publisher” as well, but they don’t alliterate.)

you're obviously in the wrong biz; I suggest the law for you in which to dabble next, Mr. wet-behind-the-ears Dilettante, as you like to argue for no apparent purpose except to waste your time writing e-mails instead of looking at web sites which feature authors' books!

PS We can't use ya', sorry... Finally, take note: this is a rejection of you & your puny service which needs to be overtly stated to some one as dense as you... Got it? GOOD!


Regrettably, I’ve been unable to find any more of Nathan’s public utterances. I am disappointed about this because I’m pretty sure every one of them is gold. Oh, well; I shall take comfort from his “reviews”, which feature an ENT specialist, one of the agents condemned by Preditors and Editors and someone who says, “Your vocabulary is one of the richest I have encountered. Wow!” (Hint: there are times when that’s not a good thing.)



(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]eiviiaru
2010-08-25 07:26 pm UTC (link)
To be fair, if you had the kites on wires, you could probably make it work without too much complication or expense. That said, the effect would unquestionably be way more goofy than inspiring.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]queencallipygos
2010-08-25 07:36 pm UTC (link)
To be fair, if you had the kites on wires, you could probably make it work without too much complication or expense.

(Warning: Stage manger brain now engaged.)

Okay. If the kites were on wires, they would have to lay track for those wires to run on, find stagehands dedicated to controlling each one of those wires for the rest of the show, and plot a course for each one without tangling the wires. Unless they just looped the wires over the rafters, in which case each kite would have a very, very short and two-dimensional flight path.

Also -- I realize I didn't make this clear -- the kites were supposed to fly over the AUDIENCE, not just on the stage. So whatever means you used to control the flight of the kites, it would also have to be something the audience couldn't see.

And if you did go the "radio-control" route, you'd have to have someone on hand to do that, and also futz with finding a frequency that didn't interfere with the radio-controlled headsets the stage crew is using to communicate with each other...and find an operator who was able to control more than one at once, or hire multiple operators, because -- more than one kite.

...sorry -- this is what stage managers do, is think through things like this so they can take the director aside during production staff meetings and say, "you SURE you want to do this?"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eiviiaru
2010-08-25 11:26 pm UTC (link)
Also -- I realize I didn't make this clear -- the kites were supposed to fly over the AUDIENCE, not just on the stage. So whatever means you used to control the flight of the kites, it would also have to be something the audience couldn't see.

wait what

See, I was just picturing "kites fly up into the rafters of the stage, hover there for remainder of show"; you're right that it would take some complicated wire rigging, but I think it could still probably be managed. Flying them into the audience, though, is complete crazypants time.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]tarash
2010-08-26 09:14 am UTC (link)
"Also -- I realize I didn't make this clear -- the kites were supposed to fly over the AUDIENCE, not just on the stage. So whatever means you used to control the flight of the kites, it would also have to be something the audience couldn't see."

I've been involved a couple of student theatre productions and the theatre we've always been in has lighting rigs and things like that, and I imagine most theatres do, so how the hell are you supposed to do a kite AS WELL AS hang up the proper lighting you want? Whatever rig you use for the kite is going to get in the way of the lighting rig.

I love it when people who have no experience with theatre whatsoever write a play.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]brennalarose
2010-08-26 01:21 pm UTC (link)
*2nd gen theater techie brain engaged*

He wanted what? With what? Has he been eating the same mushrooms as CdS?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map