<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>GoodWordEditing.com - Latest Comments in How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://goodwordediting.disqus.com/</link><description>Editing, writing, faith, and work. And poetry because I like poetry.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:23:09 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://www.goodwordediting.com/how-well-read-are-acquisitions-editors/202/#comment-2830003</link><description>So, Eve, are you suggesting that "classics" only sell well because the educational system has functioned as a marketing vehicle to force students to buy books they never read? : )&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I actually like some of them. Pride and Prejudice, for instance.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Marcus</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:23:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://www.goodwordediting.com/how-well-read-are-acquisitions-editors/202/#comment-2830004</link><description>Probably because it &lt;i&gt;used&lt;/i&gt; to speak to so many people, but no longer does.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Why? &lt;br&gt;I think because &lt;br&gt;a)many no longer read them &lt;br&gt;b)the language is difficult for many to wade through and &lt;br&gt;c)there are so many new books out there that are enticing all of us.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Just a thought, of course. :)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eve</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:32:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://www.goodwordediting.com/how-well-read-are-acquisitions-editors/202/#comment-2830005</link><description>The thing about a classic is that it speaks to people in many different contexts, though. Right? Why is that so hard to market, though?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Marcus</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:34:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://www.goodwordediting.com/how-well-read-are-acquisitions-editors/202/#comment-2830007</link><description>Rather than defend the acq. editors, I would hope that they and anyone in a position of critic or evaluator would be sobered and humbled.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;LL's point is also spot on...context - historical, cultural, circumstantial all matter in our evaluation.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Every Square Inch</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:53:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://www.goodwordediting.com/how-well-read-are-acquisitions-editors/202/#comment-2830006</link><description>Well, that's always the situation with classics, isn't it? You have to go back into their worldview to enjoy them. And that's fun, but probably not something I want to do with everything I read. Our best stuff will one day be classic, and it probably won't fit either.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Real Live Preacher</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:07:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://www.goodwordediting.com/how-well-read-are-acquisitions-editors/202/#comment-2830008</link><description>L.L., you are the master of the two sentence comment. Awesome.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Marcus</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:37:43 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: How Well Read Are Acquisitions Editors?</title><link>http://www.goodwordediting.com/how-well-read-are-acquisitions-editors/202/#comment-2830009</link><description>It shows the power of context, doesn't it? And that in itself is an interesting topic to consider.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">L.L. Barkat</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:39:48 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>