Stephen wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>
>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>> originally written.  Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>
> 
> Cause it sounds wrong.
> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?

"It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to "Who 
will be coming tomorrow?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.

I heard even he only gets 15%.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:31:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.
> 
> I heard even he only gets 15%.

That's quite a good rate (by my own experience), but of course, 15% of 
the numbers of books that he collects royalties on is significantly more 
than the 6% (or in one case, 1/4 of 6%) that I've collected on the sale 
of about 2,000 books over the last 15 years.

I joke that every 3 months when I get the $25 cheque for the one that's 
currently in print, I can afford to buy dinner for two at our local 
diner.  It takes 3 months to make enough royalties in order for it to be 
worth it to the publisher to cut a cheque (they won't do it for < $25).

I think I'm due to eat again in another 2 months. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:30:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 7:02 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:42:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's no infinitive in either version.
>>>
>>> True, I did misname it - but I found the sentence structure awkward as
>>> originally written.  Just misidentified why it was awkward. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Cause it sounds wrong.
>> How do non-native speakers identify wrong grammer, I wonder?
> 
> "It will be John and I coming tomorrow" sounds fine to me in answer to
> "Who will be coming tomorrow?"

It's a bit formal, and still doesn't sound right to me.  In answer to 
that question, most people would say "John and I" or some variation 
thereof - "Me and John" would be grammatically incorrect, but what a lot 
of Americans would actually say, or "John and me" for that matter.)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> writes:

>> Try to see if you can dig up the profit margins publishers operate on.
>> It's often quite low. At times, a bestselling author makes more money
>> than his publisher does (after you take out expenses).
>
> In my experience (as an author, but not a bestselling author), royalty 
> rates for authors are typically sub-10% of wholesale (which is half of 
> the cover price).  That's in non-fiction; fiction tends to sell for less 
> (esp. in paperback) so the royalty structure may be somewhat different, 
> but for most authors it's not enough that they can give up their jobs and 
> live off the royalties.
>
> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.

Agreed - that's why I said best selling authors. Even that's a
stretch. I really meant people like King, Grisham, Grafton, etc.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> writes:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Authors like Stephen King are the exception rather than the rule.
>
> I heard even he only gets 15%.

Yes, but he has few expenses. The publisher may get most of the money,
but they often lose a lot of that in shipping, salaries, etc. I don't
have a source, but an insider once claimed that at times, people like
Stephen King get more money than the publisher does on a given book -
after you take into account all expenses.

That's why authors are trying to demand a bigger cut for ebooks. A big
chunk of publishing costs disappear.

Post a reply to this message

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> writes:

>> I suspect marketing is a lot more effective with music than with
>> books. And music is different: Not many people buy random albums from
>> nobodies while in a music store. With books, they do.
>
> Do they?

Apparently. I've often bought an interesting looking book at the
store. I think lots of people go to bookstores just to browse and buy a
random book. That random book they buy is often one that's placed in a
convenient location in the store. 

What percentage of (fiction) books are bought this way, though, I don't
know.

> I'd also imagine it'd be easier to check for good music than for good
> books: you just gotta listen for a sample for a while rather than read
> a few pages...

I'm not sure I know any one who merely listened to a sample of a song
and bought it. Most people hear the whole thing somewhere, and then buy
it. But then again, my friends aren't crazy about music.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> writes:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 13:01:09 -0800, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
>>>> Because with ebooks, it's easier to self publish than it is for
>>>> musicians to do so.
>>>
>>> It is easier to write a book than to record a demo or album, but the
>>> publishing is just as easy.
>> 
>> True - I meant the whole process.
>
> Anybody can write a crap book (or song).  Writing a good one?  I'd argue 
> that writing a book and writing a song are about equally the same.  I did 
> music theory and composition once upon a time, and I've published at 
> least a couple books (not self-published, but through a publisher), and I 
> can tell you that the process of writing a book is not any harder or 
> easier than writing a song.

Well, I'd think having access to a studio really helps when you're
recording a song...

> To do so well, you have to know the proper syntaxes and structures to 
> use.  Write a book using incomprehensible language or grammar, and it'll 
> be crap.  Write a song that doesn't at least in some fundamental way 
> follow basic musical structure, and it'll be nothing more than noise.

I was thinking more about stuff like recording equipment, etc.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/17/2011 8:54 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> nemesis<nam### [at] gmailcom>  writes:
>
>> yes, but not the screen size.  Which means you can read in big letters
>> and scroll all the time to see more text... :p
>
> Most ereaders have screens comparable to or bigger than paperback
> books. If reading on an ereader is a problem, then reading a book will
> be a bigger problem.
But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and 
very little glare, or light induced strain. So, no, it is possible to 
have no problem with a book, yet have problems with an ereader, the most 
common issue being the "blurriness" of the text on some models.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

> But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring, and
> very little glare, or light induced strain.

I can't say anything about any other e-readers (I don't even know of the 
existence of any), but the Kindle's display really is quite nice. It's 
arguably clearer than the actual paper book I'm currently reading, since 
it doesn't have paper grain. You'd have to stare very hard indeed to see 
the pixels.

Post a reply to this message