Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

sydneyreviewofbooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#61

Post by thaumasiotes »

dragonwriter wrote: post #52
thaumasiotes wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll probably get some of these wrong because I'm not in the the US and don't quite grok the network/cable divide Almost all of those are broadcast shows. I strongly suspect that all of them are, but I don't have personal knowledge of the entire list. As far as I can tell, the divide is pretty straightforward: Cable: nudity Broadcast: everything else In theory there's no requirement for a cable show to have nudity,…

> As far as I can tell, the divide is pretty straightforward: > Cable: nudity > Broadcast: everything else This is almost entirely wrong; non-premium cable (which is and was always the vast majority of cable) had and observed essentially the same structure and content rules as broadcast, with ad breaks and no swearing or nudity. Premium cable where each channel or later small branded group of channels is a separate s…

What are some shows that were made for non-premium cable?

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#62

Post by dragonwriter »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #61
dragonwriter wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As far as I can tell, the divide is pretty straightforward: > Cable: nudity > Broadcast: everything else This is almost entirely wrong; non-premium cable (which is and was always the vast majority of cable) had and observed essentially the same structure and content rules as broadcast, with ad breaks and no swearing or nudity. Premium cable where each channel or later small branded group of channels is a separate s…

What are some shows that were made for non-premium cable?

Just a few examples:

Deadliest Catch (Discovery Channel, 2005-)

Monk (USA Network. 2002-2009)

Mad Men (AMC, 2007-2015)

The Shield (FX, 2002-2008)

Beavis and Butt-Head (MTV, 1993-1997 & 2011)

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#63

Post by School-Cotton »

dragonwriter wrote: post #62
thaumasiotes wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are some shows that were made for non-premium cable?

Just a few examples: Deadliest Catch (Discovery Channel, 2005-) Monk (USA Network. 2002-2009) Mad Men (AMC, 2007-2015) The Shield (FX, 2002-2008) Beavis and Butt-Head (MTV, 1993-1997 & 2011)

24 and Breaking Bad are also very popular examples.

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#64

Post by galaxyLogic »

andrewflnr wrote: post #20
galaxyLogic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is simply because the writer needs to take a pause afteer writing some amount. And the reader also prefers to take pause. Having chapters aligns the interests of both readers and the writer.

Nah, as a writer who talks to other writers with wildly different processes, I don't think that's how it works for anyone. Time spent writing is almost unrelated to visible time markers in the text. It's not a big deal to stop writing in the middle of a scene or stop one and start another in the same session (assuming we're writing linearly at all). Scene and chapter boundaries are something we specifically think abo…

True. Personally when I write I do like to always start the next chapter or whatever is the "unit" or "task". But then stop. The units for the writer are probnably not the same as for the reader. But they serve the same purpose, taking a break, letting you think a bit about what was done and what will be done next.

There is a rhythm. We live one day at a time. We tell one story at a time. We post one HN post at a time. :-)

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#65

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

School-Cotton wrote: post #63
dragonwriter wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a few examples: Deadliest Catch (Discovery Channel, 2005-) Monk (USA Network. 2002-2009) Mad Men (AMC, 2007-2015) The Shield (FX, 2002-2008) Beavis and Butt-Head (MTV, 1993-1997 & 2011)

24 and Breaking Bad are also very popular examples.

24 was Fox, if I'm not mistaken, and its format is very much the same as all broadcast shows.

Breaking Bad isn't the same format. No obvious commercial breaks, no saccharine Hays-Code-like bullshit.

Others mentioned The Shield, which is FX, and I tend to think of FX shows as not being of the broadcast mold. Monk was USA, I think, which as a network was borderline, but seems like a few of their original programming shows were not-horrible. Then someone said Deadliest Catch, but that's just cheap reality tv sludge and I feel dirty having typed out its title. Even the worst 1980s NBC sitcom was better than reality tv shows.

It's come to my attention that you're all, every last one of you, watching tv wrong.

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #65
School-Cotton wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

24 and Breaking Bad are also very popular examples.

24 was Fox, if I'm not mistaken, and its format is very much the same as all broadcast shows. Breaking Bad isn't the same format. No obvious commercial breaks, no saccharine Hays-Code-like bullshit. Others mentioned The Shield, which is FX, and I tend to think of FX shows as not being of the broadcast mold. Monk was USA, I think, which as a network was borderline, but seems like a few of their original programming sh…

> Breaking Bad isn't the same format. No obvious commercial breaks

Breaking Bad (like Mad Men, also on AMC) was presented with commercial breaks on AMC in its original run, and is structured around those breaks.

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#67

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

dragonwriter wrote: post #66
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

24 was Fox, if I'm not mistaken, and its format is very much the same as all broadcast shows. Breaking Bad isn't the same format. No obvious commercial breaks, no saccharine Hays-Code-like bullshit. Others mentioned The Shield, which is FX, and I tend to think of FX shows as not being of the broadcast mold. Monk was USA, I think, which as a network was borderline, but seems like a few of their original programming sh…

> Breaking Bad isn't the same format. No obvious commercial breaks Breaking Bad (like Mad Men, also on AMC) was presented with commercial breaks on AMC in its original run, and is structured around those breaks.

Can't tell to watch the blurays. Hats off to the editors, I guess.

Re: Why did books start being divided into chapters? A new history

#68

Post by bloak »

alkyon wrote: post #54

> Literature from before 1800, Davis notes, is ‘mostly unread, even by writers’ I strongly disagree. There are many counterexamples, some authors are still widely read. Besides Shakespeare, it's Defoe, his Robinson Crusoe is one of defining books for me, later I also enjoyed Journal of the Plague Year and Moll Flanders. Swift's Gulliver's Travels is in top ten list all of the books I ever read.

It's a bit hard for the casual reader to discover to what extent the spelling and punctuation, and perhaps more than just the spelling and punctuation, has been updated for modern editions of those books, but there are photographs online of the original 1726 edition of "Gulliver's travels" and it looks like the main obstacle to me reading it, if I could afford a copy, would be the way they wrote s as ſ, which is a trivial matter. The book is still worth reading and still fairly widely read, I would guess.

On the other hand, if I hadn't done Shakespeare at school and someone were to hand me a First Folio (1623) I don't think I'd make much progress with it. Of course most people don't read plays anyway.

Post reply on HN