Originally Posted by DarkScribe
As for publishers and authors gaming the print media system, why do so many well established authors, including people like King and Patterson get reviews that point out that their work is degenerating - not as good as their earlier work?
As you say, those are well-established authors; they will sell well, even with negative reviews, simply because of their existing renown and fan base, unless they do something incredibly heinous (and even that doesn't prevent some authors from continuing to sell well).
In the meantime, Locke has managed to garner notice and press in order to make a lot of money from his books; and he did it legally, in a way that might be considered morally suspect in any venue except
the reality of marketing. If we can accept loud-mouthed hucksters, diva supermodels, badly-behaving rock stars, media-saturating entertainment conglomerates, actor scandals and wardrobe malfunctions, why not this?