The article in Washington post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031603150.html

...
"Since his first novel "A Time To Kill" was released in 1989, Grisham has sold more than 250 million books worldwide, according to Random House. Several of his novels have been turned into films. "
...

How many trees were killed to print 250 million books?

How many trees were planted after? =)

How many trees were killed to print 250 million books?

Assuming each tree yields 2 tons of wood that can be used for producing paper for books, and assuming each book contains 200 pages, it will require about 531,000 trees to print 250 million books.

How many trees were planted after? =)

Each year about 1.5 billion new trees are planted in the U.S.A.

Assuming each tree yields 2 tons of wood that can be used for producing paper for books, and assuming each book contains 200 pages, it will require about 531,000 trees to print 250 million books.

Well, according to the information below there are over 26,000 trees in the NYC Central Park - 20 times less than used for 250 million books.
http://www.centralparknyc.org/site/PageNavigator/virtualpark_cptreedbase

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2003/10/273632.jpg

Well, according to the information below there are over 26,000 trees in the NYC Central Park - 20 times less than used for 250 million books.
http://www.centralparknyc.org/site/PageNavigator (http://www.centralparknyc.org/site/PageNavigator/virtualpark_cptreedbase)

Don't forget all the water and oil used to produce the paper and all the toxic waste is left over after making it that gets put back into our environment.

I'm not saying ebooks are greener than books... but paper uses a lot more resources than just trees.

BOb

Don't forget all the water and oil used to produce the paper and all the toxic waste is left over after making it that gets put back into our environment.

I'm not saying ebooks are greener than books... but paper uses a lot more resources than just trees.

BOb

Agree. They should call the first Grisham novel "A time to kill a tree" ...

"A Time To Kill a Tree" - i bet that would go over well with Forest Protection Services lol :)

A quote from the article:

"If a new book is now worth about $9 then we have seriously devalued that book," Grisham said on the "Today" show.

"Suddenly the whole industry is going to change, you are going to lose publishers, you are going to lose bookstores. I am probably going to be alright, but the aspiring writers are going to have a hard time getting published," he added.

Pedantic aside: surely a professional journalist working for Reuters knows that "alright" is not actually a word? It should, of course, be "all right." If not, does the Washington Post no longer employ copy editors? Yes, I know, dumb question.

For those who haven't read Grisham's books (I have read them all, mostly with enjoyment...might be replacing my hardback collection, many purchased second-hand, with ebooks now), The Pelican Brief had some environmental interest, mostly to do with an oil company drilling in a protected wildlife area.

P.S. For those who haven't read his books, my favorites are A Time to Kill and The Rainmaker. The Firm is one of the most suspenseful books ever; but I prefer the others for their human interest and great characters.

Pedantic aside: surely a professional journalist working for Reuters knows that "alright" is not actually a word? It should, of course, be "all right." If not, does the Washington Post no longer employ copy editors? Yes, I know, dumb question.


I must respectfully disagree with you. If "already", "altogether", "always", etc., are "acceptable" contractions, why do you object to "alright"?

alright is listed as a word at dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alright

although it does list it as "non-standard"... so it's in the same category as aint.

BOb

alright is listed as a word at dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alright

although it does list it as "non-standard"... so it's in the same category as aint.

BOb

Another one there :). There's a whole shed-load of "all + xxx" -> "alxxx" contractions, so I really don't see what's so bad about this particular one ;).

alright is listed as a word at dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alright

although it does list it as "non-standard"... so it's in the same category as aint.

BOb

But if you click through to the usage note (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/all+right)...

Usage Note: Despite the appearance of the form alright in works of such well-known writers as Langston Hughes and James Joyce, the single word spelling has never been accepted as standard. This is peculiar, since similar fusions such as already and altogether have never raised any objections. The difference may lie in the fact that already and altogether became single words back in the Middle Ages, whereas alright has only been around for a little more than a century and was called out by language critics as a misspelling. Consequently, one who uses alright, especially in formal writing, runs the risk that readers may view it as an error or as the willful breaking of convention.

I would forgive it in a casual context (such as this forum, for example), but in an article published by a major newspaper and distributed by a major syndicate, it is not acceptable.

I would forgive it in a casual context (such as this forum, for example), but in an article published by a major newspaper and distributed by a major syndicate, it is not acceptable.

We're going to have to agree to differ about that. It's not acceptable to you. I have no problem at all with it.

And now to completely derail the topic...

Assuming each tree yields 2 tons of wood that can be used for producing paper for books, and assuming each book contains 200 pages, it will require about 531,000 trees to print 250 million books.

Each year about 1.5 billion new trees are planted in the U.S.A.

But are the same type of trees? And how long does it take the newly planted ones to be able to perform the same function as the removed ones? I'm asking as I really want to know not to put you on the spot. :)

And now to completely derail the topic...





But are the same type of trees? And how long does it take the newly planted ones to be able to perform the same function as the removed ones? I'm asking as I really want to know not to put you on the spot. :)

I guess 25-40 years depends on type of tree...

"Nearly 4 billion trees worldwide are cut down each year for paper, representing about 35% of all harvested trees. Fortunately, many of the trees used for paper come from tree farms which are planted and replenished for that purpose. Pictured is a NASA image of total vegetation in the western hemisphere where most paper is consumed. The US is the world's largest consumer of paper by far."
http://ecology.com/features/paperchase/

http://ecology.com/features/paperchase/images/1.jpg

We're going to have to agree to differ about that. It's not acceptable to you. I have no problem at all with it.

It's not acceptable to most editors, I would think. That's why I was surprised to see it in an article in a major newspaper.

ANYWAY, getting back to the original item, really looking forward to having his books available on digital & hopefully it will be in epub.
Sorry, I didn't see the other thread on this subject.

I own a copy of that book... Guess I better go put in a pot plant to cover it!

Actually it is a normal convention in newspaper editing to use contraction. The AP style book is used by a large majority of newspapers world wide, lists a lot of these rules.(There are other style books too) It has always been done to save space in the paper that is why a lot of headlines and cutlines are written the way are too. In the past colum inches were expensive and time consuming to typeset. A large part of newspaper tradition was base around cost and time savings.
Also English is a living language that continues to evolve and change. For some people it is for the better and some the worse.

At least alright is far better than the slang term aight that I hear all the time from my son's teenage friends.

Each year about 1.5 billion new trees are planted in the U.S.A. Wow, that's a lot... In the west we are constantly dealing with a problem called "grassland encroachment" -meaning trees are expanding into areas that have historically not been forested.

At least in the Rockies and west, fire suppression has led to more trees than ever before! Unfortunately, they are smaller and more susceptible to disease and most of them are only good enough for pulp... Many of the stands are dead timber boxes just ready for inferno!

... still, there are better uses for them than printing a billion Grisham (or other) books.:p

"aspiring writers are going to have a hard time getting published"

Loooooooool.

Also, a goodly proportion of the potential market already have the books as ebooks ofc. And a lot of those are not going to rebuy at this stage....