Washington post: Thriller writer John Grisham ends holdout on e-books

[Kris777]

The article in Washington post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031603150.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?

[Billjr13]

How many trees were planted after? =)

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by Kris777

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.

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by Billjr13

How many trees were planted after? =)

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

[Kris777]

Originally Posted by yekim54

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/P...rk_cptreedbase

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Kris777

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

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

[Kris777]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

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" ...

[LuBiB]

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

[MaggieScratch]

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

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"?

[pilotbob]

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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

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 .

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

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...

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

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.

[dsvick]

And now to completely derail the topic...

Originally Posted by yekim54

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.

Originally Posted by yekim54

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.