Quote:
Originally Posted by eschwartz
Again, you aren't saying anything meaningful about the points raised... which is about par the course. 
Again -- no one said publishers consider paying a 7-figure advance to be bad, it is simply that they are no longer able to snap up those books on the cheap -- which is less "good" than before (and which is not the same thing as "bad").
Again, fjtorres has already answered the point you attempted to make:
Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue. It isn't working, and I for one am about ready to just stop paying attention to your latest wild distractions. |
It's not obfuscation to point out the flaw in a statement. You seem to want to ignore those little logic holes and insist that everyone else does also. If the basic assumption for an statement is flawed, then you can't just sweep it under the rug and pretend that the statement is sound.
Publishers have never picked up books by established authors on the cheap, so why should it be bad when they still can't? Publishers pay advances based on what the book will make. This is only bad if the book doesn't cover the advance. If he was presenting evidence that more books were not covering their advances, then the big publishers would have a problem. But that doesn't seem to be his argument. Sorry, fjtorres has not addressed that point.