Headlines By Email
Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
- Nice analysis 1 month 2 weeks ago
- Justifying the practice... 2 months 1 day ago
- Details 2 months 3 weeks ago
- Congrats on 20 years. 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy Brithday 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy birthday, LISNews! 3 months 2 weeks ago
- chapter 1-8 claims 10 months 1 week ago
- Not a novella? 1 year 1 week ago
- women of a certain age (sounds like a criticism right there...) 1 year 8 months ago
- Reading as a punishment 1 year 10 months ago
Recent blog posts
- Appreciating the ‘powerful good’ of the public library
- New Domain, New Blog
- A.I. as virtual research mediators
- Fed Life Working Without Pay
- Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union
- Cites & Insights December 2018 (18:9) available
- Cites & Insights 18:7 (October 2018) available
- Cites & Insights 18:6 (September 2018) available
- Apparently Alex Jones isn't totally silenced
- Cites & Insights 18.5 (August 2018) available
Arguing for the sake of arguing?
My point was that, from an author's perspective, most mainstream books are "failures" in that they never return any additional income (and most normal writers don't get big advances).
Neither of the articles does anything to refute that point. For that matter, neither actually demonstrates that big publishers don't lose money on most of their books; the two industry insiders are just tossing out their own anecdata and calculations. (The second case is a writer who I long ago lost any respect for, but that's a different issue.)
I sense that you're arguing for the sake of arguing. You can have the last however-many words. Oh, by the way, since you're so concerned with writing, you should be aware that "its" as a possessive does not have an apostrophe, and I don't think you mean to say "a book has not earned out it is advance," which is what you did say.