View Single Post
Old 02-19-2014, 07:39 PM   #97
gmw
cacoethes scribendi
gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.gmw ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
gmw's Avatar
 
Posts: 5,809
Karma: 137770742
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Device: Kobo Aura One & H2Ov2, Sony PRS-650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion View Post
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.
My turn to do the bolding. Yep, that's what the figures say, and that is what the report says. And the figures in the report form part of the context for the phrase "stellar manuscript". We saw that "stellar" has multiple definitions, and I'm happy to accept that some may use it for "very good", but it is commonly associated with performance rather than quality (when we see a movie has are "stellar cast" we don't automatically assume these a high quality actors, we assume they're ones that help to sell lots of movies), which is the variation that make sense in this context.
gmw is offline   Reply With Quote