3 ms·
I own thousands of printed books. A few I have actually read. I don't own an ereader and don't plan to get one. I also hate reading pdfs on the computer since
by bugsy 16y ago
I own thousands of printed books. A few I have actually read.
I don't own an ereader and don't plan to get one. I also hate reading pdfs on the computer since the text is straining and I prefer to read for fun lying down or outside and not at a desk.
I think the author of the article is delusional. She thinks of herself as a NYT best selling author because of some number she estimated of downloads of her work, all of which she assumes are by people who want to not only read her work, but buy it as well.
First there is no evidence of the number that read it electronically. So 10 a week bought it, fine those are the fans. But the others may be hoarders, may be downloading bots, who knows.
Second, if comparing to best selling authors by multiplying sales figures by a factor of 80 to account for "piracy", one should also multiply the big name authors' sales figures by 80 as well since they should be accorded the same privilege. And then, not a best selling author anymore since the relative ranking is the same as before.
What is very normal is most authors never make back their advance. This has been happening for 100 years. An advance of $15,000 says that the publisher knew the book would not sell a lot of copies, and they were right.
It's nice to have a printed book, gives you some credibility. It's not typical to make a living selling printed copies of your work, that's something that only happens for a small number of authors.
To make more money, improve your skills, write more, and even develop a fan base by giving away free short stories, or selling them to magazines for the (very low) magazine rate. Few read magazines anymore so you can instead develop fans with free samples.
It's very unlikely that the pirated copies are changing the bottom line in any meaningful way. It's just as likely they are bringing in more fans and sales as it is that sales are being lost. It's entirely possible that without the free advertising of the piracy she only sells 5 hard copies a week instead of 10.
- davidw 16y ago> I also hate reading pdfs on the computer since the text is straining and I prefer to read for fun lying down or outside and not at a desk. Ignoring the rest of your post, the Kindle basically solves the above problems. I can read for hours with it, whereas I get fidgety reading a PDF on the computer in a few minutes, and my eyes feel tired as well.
- bugsy 16y agoIn case it was not clear, the part of my post following the word "also" only refers to reading pdfs on a desktop/laptop/pad computer screen. The reasons why, before the "also", I stated "I don't own an ereader and don't plan to get one." are not stated. They are: I tried a Kindle and found the user interface difficult, the speed slow, and did not like the markup options. The battery stuff is also an issue, as is the cost. I can't read 100 books at once so there is no point to being able to carry 100 books with me. Hard copies are so much better for me there's no comparison. Didn't mean to get into a discussion of preferences or technology, nor is this expanded comment meant to reflect in any way on what works for other people who obviously have different values and interests. I was starting my previous comment with the preamble to briefly give some background to my claim that I own many printed books but no ebooks. This was because I wanted to establish I have no personal motivation or interest in whether ebooks are available of her work or not. The motivation of the comment was a criticism of elements of her article, such as comparing herself to a potentially best-selling author.