Pendrift, Serge, Abi*
Play Semantics As
People Scream And
Produce Satisfyingly Anguished
Postings Saying AAAAAAARGH!
-----
* Sorry, Earl
elise @44:
You're braver than I am. I was afraid to ask.
I want a configurable dictionary plugin that allows me to read books in my second language and check words that I don't know to my first language. I'm even willing to buy the dictionary separately, and it doesn't have to be a very good one.
(Yes, I know, I should be using a native-language dictionary rather than a translating dictionary. But, you know, I'm not.)
Of course, that would require there to be more eBooks in Dutch.
Fantastic!
(Actually, my first reaction was WTF that video WTF? on IM, but we'll just boil it down to fantastic.)
Chris @158:
I'm not sure. The setting says "more than 7 links", but you did only have 7 in the posting. It's possible that the link from your name counted. One quiet day, I'll do an experiment on an old thread or something (not right now; it's gone 12:30 am and I have to go to bed.)
TrishB @154:
Please note that it is entirely appropriate and thoroughly welcome to reply to comments. This blog is a conversation that we, the front-pagers, host and moderate but do not demand be only about or with us.
heresiarch @145:
Now there's a field where you don't see nearly enough "Long Tail" thinking.
Rule 34 with dinosaurs!
(I think your proposal is more "wide tail", or the 80/20 rule.)
TexAnne @141:
Imagining the looks on the, er, viewer's face when I came on screen in my un-made-up sweatshirted glory..."Hi! Let's talk about abstruse economic models and their relationship to modern technology! Ooh baby!"
Rule 34!
Released from Purgatory by the forgiveness of their posting sins:
Chris Meadows @39 (too many links)
Lisa Spangenberg @107 (malformed href)
Now I'm going to go clean up reference numbers. I may be some time.
Pendrift @408:
You remind me of my intermittent series of verbal sketches for my kids entitled "My neighbor was a zombie for six months before I noticed anything".
Little rants like, "I remember the day he wanted to tell me something about the DRAAAAINS. It's true that they've never been good in the neighborhood. And his must be blocked, judging from the smell. But I was late for work, so I just drove off."
Chris Meadows @124:
I'm going to publish your comment in a few minutes, when I've finished with my family obligations and can take the 10 or 15 minutes I'm going to need to clean up all subsequent up-references.
TNH @110:
You were completely correct, as this thread so vividly shows, and I apologize unreservedly for doubting your judgement in dealing with our erstwhile guest. I certainly paid the penalty for giving him any rope.
Fragano @400:
Well, OK, thus the theme of reanimation in her daughter's book. Write what you know...
</grim humor>
Ben @63:
Well, I say, cut out the costs associated with paper production, and the publishers have more room to assume the other risks associated with production and marketing of a title.
It sounds like a great business idea. Go for it.
Seriously, who's stopping you? Find these authors whose wonderful work is not getting published. Line up some venture capitalists, or raise funds any of the other ways that small tech start-ups do. Set the standards of copyediting and editorial work that you think the market needs. Produce the books for the platforms you think are going to sell well. Use the brave new marketing models you've proposed.
Go, go, go! Come back and post a link when you have; I'll happily check it out.
Ben @61:
Walk into the boardroom of any of the big six and tell them their primary, overriding goal isn't maximizing profit. Hell, walk into any corporation and say that.
Reading comprehension fail. I'm not calling you naive for thinking big publishers are profit-focused. I'm calling you naive for (a) ranting against it as though it's a surprise, and (b) assuming that Amazon—or any other player in the market—isn't.
But I've spent a decade hearing complaints from publishing industry people that unless the electronic version looks exactly like the print version, their art has been sullied, and it's all terrible and bad and surely the apocalypse is nigh.
You do love your strawmen, don't you? This is one reason everyone in this thread keeps giving up on discussing your reasonable points; either we have to let this stuff go (and do you then think we agree with it?) or get bogged down challenging it.
You want to have a discussion? Drop the dramatics and the handwaving and get down to brass tacks. Talk about realities. Explain, or ask, how to get around or over practical difficulties. Ask why publishing doesn't do this, that or the other thing, and then figure out how to change that.
Because right now, you're just being an gumption trap.
Ben @51:
I can't believe you said Can you try re-phrasing? just before quoting a paragraph that starts What I was saying is that...
But I don't think we're actually going to get anywhere because you're so strongly invested in the notion that the big six publishers are a greed-centered machine while the rest of the players in the market somehow aren't. (Of course Amazon say that differential pricing is a factor of scale; in reality, "the way it's done" is created at the intersection of "we can" and "it makes us money".)
Ben @49:
*Why* would Amazon take a bigger comparative chunk from smaller publishers?
Probably because they can.
Amazon is big and smaller publishers are small. The big publishers have the leverage to push back against Amazon's demands. But the threat of delisting from Amazon means bankruptcy for a smaller press.
I would have thought that was obvious after last week? Is there some extra subtlety to your question that I am simply missing?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2010 | 92 |
| 2009 | 1210 |
| 2008 | 1351 |
| 2007 | 1539 |
| 2006 | 495 |
| 2005 | 144 |
| 2004 | 12 |
Total: 4843 comments. View all these comments on a single page. (May take a frightfully long time to load.)
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by abi:
Show all comments by abi.