Nice attempt at spin.
You - Nothing to see here, they are just cutting poor selling books, no outside pressure. (ignoring the many links showing outside pressure)
Me - Dr Seuss doesn't sale well? Really?
Me - Dr Seuss is selling pretty good. Here is a story about Dr Seuss selling 1.2 million copies in the week following the announcement. The sales figures for the 6 books in question are not given.
You - How dare you show data. snark, snark, snark.
Even 17,000 copies for books that are 80 years old is really good. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that Dr Seuss books remain best sellers is simply spinning a narrative. The Dr Seuss franchise is a gold mine that the Dr Seuss institute mines. They draw in millions of dollars a year.
I would tend to argue that the directors of the institute have a moral duty to defend the books and keep them in print rather than cave. It's not like people are going to stop printing articles about how racist Dr Seuss is because the institute sacrificing six books trying to appease such people. In the long term, such actions hurt the franchise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Again: I don't care what you think of me personally. But if it makes you feel better to type it--have at it.
As for the data: I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse.
Me: the 6 books in question were poor sellers
You: Seuss a poor seller? You want to stick with that?
Me: yes the 6 books in question were poor sellers.
You: there's been a huge surge in Seuss sales after the kerfuffle. Do you still want to stick with your story?
Me: Yes. The 6 books in question were (and still are poor sellers).
You: Do you deny that this triggered a run on Seuss books?
Me:
I've never once denied that this tempest in a teapot caused Seuss sales to spike after the fact. But primarily because it wasn't relevant AT ALL to my point that the 6 books that the Seuss Foundation decided not to reprint were poor sellers.
|