posted
I do. Shadowlands, by Tad Williams. I scoured it in the bookstore, and I swear it said it was a stand alone book. I got it home, and voila! It is the first in a series. Again, I am faced with a dilemma.
Choices:
1.Start the book, and break my bookshelf design pattern by buying the hard cover(as I just did with A FEast for Crows.)Thenm wait in agony for the third book to be released.
2. Put the book away and not start it until the second one comes out in paperback, then wait until the third one comes out in paperback. (yeah, right)
3. Well, I won't list them. The point is, I really did scour the book to see if it was one of a series, decided it was not, and bought it. I think Mr. Norrell did something to that book.
[ July 14, 2006, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or 4 : try to find the hardback edition in a library if there's one available and wait for the paperback to buy it.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd probably return the book, get something else, and then do as Anna suggested, checking the books out and enjoying them on the people's dime before shelling out for your own copies of the paperbacks.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
4. Get it from the library, and leave your obsessive-compulsive bookshelf design pattern alone.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: I do. Shadowlands, by Tad Williams. I scoured it in the bookstore, and I swear it said it was a stand alone book. I got it home, and voila! It is the first in a series.
I wasn't disappointed, either. Until I got to the end and realized that it was the first book in a trilogy. And not only that, but the odds of the other two books ever being published are extremely low.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
His first book, "Initiate Brother," is book one of two. Now, the second book, "A Gatherer of Clouds," is out of print. It is like having someone take the book from you in the middle. There is no break, it just continues on. I don;t understand why they did that.
And as for scouring.
I just looked at the book. I must have read the back cover, and called that scouring.
Also, I usually check with Tom before any Tad Williams purchase, and I did not.
So, I deserve the agony I will be in when I read this book, buy the hardcover, and then wait for the third.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I can deal with the bookshelf OCD. But, come on, eating one thing at a time? One is supposed to eat everything in a complex pattern, not random, but NOT taking turns, so that there is one bite left of each food on the plate at the end. You may leave your favorite bite for last this way.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, man, you are both so wrong, even you, tCW!
Never, ever leave your favorite for last, as you sometimes get full before you get there. Duh. And, potatoes forst(or rice, or any buttered starch), because the butter has to be able to melt, so the salt can dissolve in it.
Sharpie, my best friend eats that way! The Balance Method, we call it.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. I generally have a pretty good idea of how much I'll eat, so I rarely have problems with getting to full to eat the favorite bit. However, if I think that I will be too full, I'll eat it earlier in the meal.
Or, my personal favorite is to eat the favorite first and then get seconds of it to eat last .
I don't really have any preference for when the starches are eaten. Unless we're talking buttered bread, which comes at the end of the meal so it can be used to wipe up any extra sauce or broth.
posted
I was traumatized as a child into not saving the best for last. And it was a trauma that didn't even happen to me.
When my Mom was a kid, she was eating a sundae. She took the cherry off the top because it was her absolute favorite thing.
My grandfather walked by, and assuming that she didn't want the cherry, picked it up and popped it into his mouth.
My Mom was so traumatized by this that I must have heard the story dozens of times while I was growing up. I've only told it to my daughter a couple of times, but then, she's only 5. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, with the Balance Method (I like that term; it sounds very sane), you don't have to worry about being interrupted or too full. You have guaranteed that you have had some of the best already.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the double portion method you don't have to worry about being interrupted or too full, either. And if you're worried about weight gain, just do two half portions. Although I will admit that if there are teenage boys in the house, there probably won't be any left for seconds, in which case the favored food must then be divided into halves, each of which constitutes a portion. Then one portion can be eaten at the beginning and the other at the end.
There you have it, an obsessive/compulsive guide to always being able to eat your favorite part of the meal, even in adverse conditions.
posted
My only scarring experience with food stuff was when I was growing up. I had 3 sisters, and whenever my dad ordered a pizza for some reason, he would get one large, and we would all slam through the first two pieces in a mad race to be the one to get the third piece, as there were only 9 slices.
IT was a gamble because you could enjoy slices 1-2 and forget the third, or you could hork down 2 and go easy on number 3, the taste of victory pizza in your mouth..... Any thoughts?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had 3 siblings as well, and we always ate fast because 1) it was hard to defend your food against the hungry hordes if you finished last, 2) if there were any leftovers, you only had a ghost of a shot at them if you finished first or second, and 3) the last one to finish often got tagged to clean up the kitchen. None of us ever dawdled. Dinnner took about 5 minutes.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Amilia. I actually read both books, but I don;t understand why the first is still in print when the second isn't.
That is a pretty good price for AGoC, though! I do not have the books at all anymore, so I might have to get myself a little present.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, my similar problem: my original set of the Chronicles of Narnia is literally falling apart (many of the books are now in 2 or 3 pieces). I want to replace them but they've changed the order of the books; instead of the order he published them in, they now number them in chronological (within the story) order. I hate the new order (it's just so wrong). But I don't want to buy a set and rearrange them on the shelf - then they'll have numbers on the spines out of order: 2456317. So I'm waiting for them to publish them with NO numbers on the spines and suffering with my falling-apart books.
I keep telling myself to get over it. But what if someone sees these wrongly-numbered books on my shelf and READS THEM OUT OF ORDER?! Oh, the horror!
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh but it's Tad Williams! You must read them all now from the library, then buy the edition of your choice later for future ponderings and lendings!
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just bought a LW&W with no number on it. It was the only one with no number, though. (i.e. The rest of the series had the revisionist numbers on them. Also the three or four other covers of LW&W.)
Or you could check out used book stores. However, there may have been a run on original order Narnia books, as I was only able to find one set of Macmillan (and therefore correct) Narnia books at Alibris. And it was $50.00. But the wonderful thing about that place is that there is always something new, so keep checking.
Posts: 364 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: whenever my dad ordered a pizza for some reason, he would get one large, and we would all slam through the first two pieces in a mad race to be the one to get the third piece, as there were only 9 slices. ... Any thoughts?
Yeah. What kind of wacky pizza shop did your dad patronize? In these parts, a pizza has eight slices. I've seen them slice it: first cut divides the pie into two halves. second cut is at right angles to the first, and divides the pie into quarters. third and forth cuts mirror the first two, but with the pie rotated 45 degrees, so that the pizza is neatly divided into eighths.
So how is your dad's pizzeria cutting their nine-slice pie? And is it some kind of nefarious scheme to sell more pieces by the slice out of each pie?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Orincoro, what about your parents? Did they have their own pizza? A kid pizza and a grownup pizza?
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You silly Narnia purists. Even when I read the books as a kid, I quickly realized the proper chronological order and read them that way, even though the numbers told me differently.
This may have had something to do with the fact that I disliked The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and didn't want to start reading the series with it. It's still my least favorite in the series.
posted
Oh, wait! Maybe they had square pizzas in Orincoro's pizzeria, and they cut those into ninths tic-tac-toe style. I'd call dibs on an edge piece for the correct proportion of crust:middle.
Or maybe Orincoro is fabricating the entire episode...
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curses! I'm really craving pizza now, and I don't have any . I can't even make some because my husband gobbled up all the pepperoni one night. I swear I can't keep sausage in the house with him around.
*slinks off to find something, anything, to substitute for pizza*
posted
Oh no, Tante, the best pieces of square pizza have the most crust: the corners. The middle piece is the worst, you've got nothing to hold on to!
As for the Narnia predicament, leave them in order and instruct the person how to read them. Or just buy a whole new set with them in the right order. You could probably find one somewhere.
Out of curiosity, what's your order and what's the new order?
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Kojabu: the way they were originally published was: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe Prince Caspian The Voyage of the Dawn Treader The Silver Chair The Horse and His Boy The Magician's Nephew The Last Battle
I really like to read them that way, at least the first time, because he makes references in the later books to the first book, and in the first book he introduces surprises that aren't surprises if you've already read the other books.
But the way they were written, book 6 - The Magicians Nephew - is a "flashback", it takes place back at the beginning of the Narnian world, way before any of the others. Also, The Horse and His Boy is like a Narnian legend that takes place at the same time as the events in TLTW&TW. It's mentioned in one of the early books (the author says something along the lines of, "he told a very good story called The Horse and His Boy which is quite worth hearing, if I ever get around to telling it"), but it wasn't published until 5th. Nowadays they publish them in chronological order:
The Magician's Nephew The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe The Horse and His Boy Prince Caspian The Voyage of the Dawn Treader The Silver Chair The Last Battle
I really don't care about the order of the rest of them, but changing the first book in the series - the one that introduces Narnia with all its surprises - seems so wrong to me.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm, I read them in the chronological order because that's how my set came. I don't think it bothered me all that much, though I haven't read them in years.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I struggled through a Modesitt novel I really hated, because a student had given me book 2, and I felt compelled to buy and read Book 1. Booooring, and I am not easily bored.
Anyway, there was "Shadowmarch" sitting on the shelf, all blue and coppery. I cannot put it down. I am reading it in anticipation of the horror I will feel when the next book is unavailable. I could care less if it is hardcover and ruins my anal collection. I WANT BOOK 2.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
If you had just hit the "back" arrow at the top of your browser it would have gone back, and your post would still be in the window waiting to be sent.
I should know, I have needed to do that more than once.
BTW, I am sorry I don't live there anymore. You could have borrowed my copy of " Gatherer of Clouds".
If you had just hit the "back" arrow at the top of your browser it would have gone back, and your post would still be in the window waiting to be sent.
Not always.
Not even predictably, in my experience.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, if I ever (HA) write anything longer than, say, a setence, I will CTRL-A CTRL-C it just in case.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. I can't even make some because my husband gobbled up all the pepperoni one night. I swear I can't keep sausage in the house with him around.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
