Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
If you read the full context around "stellar manuscript" you get to see what he's actually saying, instead of trying to read in things he's not. Immediately before the "stellar manuscript" bit he says:
It seems obvious to me, but apparently I'm wrong, that what he's saying is that if you think your manuscript might be (all the things he says in that paragraph) then the figures suggest that you will still be better off self-publishing.
There's nothing there to suggest that self-publishing will make your manuscript all these things, there's nothing there to suggest that the figures offer any way to predict manuscripts that will be all these things. There is only the suggestion that if it does turn out to be a stellar performer then self-publishing still gives a better financial result. I am really not sure where and how you are reading anything else from the text - because in context the meaning seems pretty clear to me.
|
No, you are not wrong. That is exactly what he is saying.
That's the root of the problem.
He says the figures suggest that, but they don't. The figures show that if you achieve a certain sales volume on Kindle, you will make more money in royalties by self-publishing than through a commercial publisher. Unfortunately, that achievement depends on more factors than the quality of the manuscript alone.
We're both getting the same meaning from the words. The real disagreement is in what the numbers mean, not the words.