|
12 November 2004. So far just one response to my entry of two days ago about the various kinds of publishers: "What about metaorthopedipublishers?" It was anonymous. This is the kind of response I get all the time to my neologies. There is a huge school of people who don't believe in naming things. They don't seem to realize that all our nouns are names, or that it can facilitate communication to give things names rather than spend one or more sentences describing some unnamed thing every time one mentions it.
Nymophobes rarely know how to create amusing parodies, either. They usually attack only one detail of what they're trying to mock, generally a comparatively unimportant detail, to boot (pun intended, because I'm a wit, too). That is the case here. To make "metaorthopedipublishers" work, the parodist should define it--perhaps as shoe-company publishers who only publish ads for brassieres.
I saw "Oedipus" in the parody, which I liked. "Metaorthoedipublisher." Not sure what its definition would be. I hope "metaorthopedipublisher" isn't the work of Ed Conti. If it is, it was not meant to be the barb I take it as, because my taxonomization and name-making draws the amount of hostility it does, and so rarely is encouraged.
It's clear to me, by the way, that publishers have become culturally irrelevant. The Internet has seen to that. Anyone can now publish. The problem is getting those who might be interested in your work that it exists and is worth their investigation. I have ideas on that. I've probably already posted them to my blog but I'll go over the main one again tomorrow.
|
|