On 3/24/2012 5:07 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

First I'll take you example of the Bible. The word bible comes from the
Greek word biblios or something close to that. It means a collection of
books. So the title bible tells exactly what the bible is.

You know that *now*. You didn't know it two minutes before you did a
Google search on "Bible".

You mean you just learned that from doing a Google search. Me, I learned
that word back when I was 19 years old from a guy in Oregon that was of
Greek heritage. I never forgot it. You just learned the meaning of a
word I've known almost 40 years. That's how far you are behind me.



Authors generally name their books with names that increase sales. So
to an author the purpose of a title may be to catch attention as well
as provide a way to identify the book.

That's true. A good, catchy title helps to sell a book.

Even if the title implies a lie.


Why do you think it is important to know the percentage of books that
have a title that gives no clue to what the book is about?

It's important because

It isn't important.


As I see
it that is not relevant. It appears you just threw that out for no
reason other than to be typing something. My guess is that a majority
of novels have titles that do not indicate what the book is about. But
I think a majority of text books do have titles that indicate what the
book is about. I suggest you look at the New York Times best sellers
list and see if you can guess what the books are about from the
titles.


It's true that novels are the most likely to have a title that may not
tell you anything about what the book is about

Hilton wrote a novel - well, fiction in any case.

You've really made a hell of a lot of claims about a book you've never
even laid eyes on.

The fact you're citing it as gospel tells me everything I need to know.
Oh, that and the fact that the author was a crackpot conspiracy theory
lawyer who eventually got disbarred.

You're full of one lie after another aren't you. I never cited that book
for anything. I wouldn't do that because I didn't read it. I don't know
what it says about Dole. After looking at it I assume it's an indictment
of Dole but I don't know that for sure so I wouldn't presume to use it
to prove anything. You keep saying I'm using it when in fact I am not
and never have. I only mentioned it because it probably does paint a
negative picture of Dole. But I would expect that from what I knew about
Dole from years ago.



Do you know that Hilton sued the San Francisco Airport and a few dozen
other agencies for hundreds of millions of dollars because he says the
airport noise made him go so completely nuts that his wife and children
left him? Look it up. That's your boy, Ptooey - some scholar and legal
whiz-bang, haw haw haw.


Yes, I did know that. But for all I know the man has become mentally
unstable in the last few years. That happens to people when they get old
sometimes. He may be off his rocker. I don't really know just like I
don't know if his book is any good or not, which I freely admit and you
don't have the balls to admit.

Earnest Hemingway blew his head off. Does that mean his writing was no
good? I don't think so. I don't know about Hilton one way or the other.
There's a good chance the book has plenty of validity to it. Hilton had
a good education, a law degree, and good jobs for many years. I don't
know about now but I wouldn't presume he was a nut all his life. You're
the one who makes all the presumptions.


Hawke