There's no place like Powell's, there's no place like Powell's

[MacMcK1957]

I think it's pretty obvious why selling review copies would be bad.  My sister-in-law is a heavy reviewer for Amazon and gets a bunch of them.  From what I've seen they are often galley proof quality (not yet proofread for typos) and not very well bound.

Yes, selling them to the public would be a bad thing.

[flyingtoastr Scribe]

I've gotten ARC's that range in quality from not even having a cover all the way to "complete with a giant velvet box with additional stuff inside".

It all depends on the publisher and the book.

[doncr]

---

keriflur wrote:

I don't follow.  Yes, Powell's* website is effectively a storefront for Google's ebook business, but I don't see how this has any effect on the brick-and-mortar business.

...

* Does anyone know the grammar rule for indicating possessiveness when the proper name is already a possessive?

---

I'm not a writer but I'd leave it at just "Powell's".  See the discussion on Multiple Apostrophes at the end of that wikipedia page.  And then there's this comment from CMS online.

[JL_Garner]

---

flyingtoastr wrote:

I've gotten ARC's that range in quality from not even having a cover all the way to "complete with a giant velvet box with additional stuff inside".

It all depends on the publisher and the book.

---

The ARC that cracked me up the most was Random House sending my store an ARC of Jane Eyre. Yes, that Jane Eyre, but with cover art for the movie that was out last year staring Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender. Not sure what we needed an ARC for, the book's only been out 165 years...

[keriflur]

---

doncr wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

I don't follow.  Yes, Powell's* website is effectively a storefront for Google's ebook business, but I don't see how this has any effect on the brick-and-mortar business.

...

* Does anyone know the grammar rule for indicating possessiveness when the proper name is already a possessive?

---

I'm not a writer but I'd leave it at just "Powell's".  See the discussion on Multiple Apostrophes at the end of that wikipedia page.  And then there's this comment from CMS online.

---

I just got home and checked CMoS's 16th edition, and it seems they haven't included guidance for this in that edition either (the first article mentions it not being in the 15th ed.).  I'm going with the "rephrase to exclude the possessive" as the solution.  In this instance I could have used the full name of the store, Powell's City of Books, or just called it Powell's Books.

I was suprised to see that that they're now advocating the use of 's after names ending in s, a reversal of their previous position.

[Ebook_Pioneers]

"And I think that there are still a lot of people looking to buy e-ink, and looking to read on non-backlit devices.  That's not a thing of the past.  B&N still has advantages there, and the walled garden still works there (as long as Amazon is a closed system, B&N just needs to be more open than that)."

Manufactures couldn't give away back-lit eReaders between 1998 and 2006 until Sony came out with that first e-Ink reader. Few people wanted to read books on a glaring back-lit screen. It was the introduction of e-Ink that made eBooks truly doable and enjoyable. Tablets and back-lit color so-called eReaders are a step backwards for the few people who are trying to read books on them in my opinion, and I will never own one. If e-Ink readers ever go away, I'll simply stick to real books like most people are still doing. Having said that, last time I counted there were 88 ink-based eReaders that have come on the market during the past three years. It doesn't seem to me they're in any danger of extinction.

[MacMcK1957]

---

keriflur wrote:

I was suprised to see that that they're now advocating the use of 's after names ending in s, a reversal of their previous position.

---

Charles's? James's? Bess's?

I don't think so. Maybe it's 50 years of habit, but that just doesn't look right.

[bobstro]

I had a manager at work that still insisted on two spaces after periods until a few years ago.

[keriflur]

---

MacMcK1957 wrote:

---

keriflur wrote:

I was suprised to see that that they're now advocating the use of 's after names ending in s, a reversal of their previous position.

---

Charles's? James's? Bess's?

I don't think so. Maybe it's 50 years of habit, but that just doesn't look right.

---

This is one of those things, like the Oxford comma, that I was taught was optional but out of favor when I was in grade school.  So of course I never did it, and now it's proper.  (I've since learned the Oxford comma was always proper, my teacher was just not that classy, LOL.)  Ugh. </grammar rant>

I'll add that to the find and replace I do to change two spaces after a period to one.  That one's ingrained in me and I can't let it go, so before I send anything out, even to my critique partners, I have to F&R the whole manuscript.

[MacMcK1957]

OK, now I'm confused, as I've been working for years to break the Oxford comma habit. Now Keri says I was supposed to keep using it all along? The Wikipedia article seems quite clear that every style guide thinks it should be mandatory or forbidden. Can't win.

I also find myself through habit double-spacing after every sentence and F&R to get rid of the extras after completing a document.

You know how it is, you can't teach old dogs not to do old tricks.