just because you have written a book does not make you an author

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

OK. If you want to believe that people buy books at random/troll outrageously,feel free. I know I won't be reading any more of your posts.

If I went into any book shop near me, which I do, I would see offers, buy two get one free or buy one get one half price and there is an offer on now buy one at full price and get another for £1. The supermarkets always sell paperbacks cheaper than Amazon; 2 for £7 or 3 for £10.

So yes there are plenty of people browsing the book shelves and reading the blurbs. They may come in with a book in mind and go out with another one or two that they found because they 'did' browse.

But many be mobile readers don't use books shops as much.

Shame you wont be responding because you could have with drawn the troll comment and agreed with me that people do buy books at random.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by moonshot

But many be mobile readers don't use books shops as much.

Shame you wont be responding because you could have with drawn the troll comment and agreed with me that people do buy books at random.

Wait...! What? I'm nearly exclusively ebooks these days and I most certainly *browse* the Kindle ebook store. Why would you think that own an ebook reader and buying books would be any different that purchasing from a B&M store? Have you just been choosing books that show up on the front page of the Kindle/Kobo storefront?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by moonshot

If I went into any book shop near me, which I do, I would see offers, buy two get one free or buy one get one half price and there is an offer on now buy one at full price and get another for £1. The supermarkets always sell paperbacks cheaper than Amazon; 2 for £7 or 3 for £10.

So yes there are plenty of people browsing the book shelves and reading the blurbs. They may come in with a book in mind and go out with another one or two that they found because they 'did' browse.

But many be mobile readers don't use books shops as much.

Shame you wont be responding because you could have with drawn the troll comment and agreed with me that people do buy books at random.

You haven't described random behavior at all. Looking at the cover of a book, reading the blurb, reading endorsements of the book and reading some of the text and making a decision whether or not to buy a book is clearly not buying at random. That is simply using some of the techniques that people use to tell the difference between a book they might like and a book they might not like, it's non-random behavior. If they were buying books at random, assuming that because it was published it was good, they would reach out, grab a book and buy it.

Looking at the cover, reading the blurbs, endorsements, sampling the text are behavior that people would only engage in if they knew they could not assume that just because the book was published, it was a good book that they would like. There have been ample techniques for finding good books, it seems you ignore them because they undermine your premise.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2eMkth8FWno" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Catlady]

This thread is a disaster because everyone seems to be talking about something different.

OF COURSE the dictionary definition of author means anyone and everyone who creates anything. But: If you're at a party, say, and get to chatting with Person X, who tells you he's an author, just what do you think that means? I very much doubt you think it's someone who wrote a forum post that day, even though he IS the author of that post.

Likewise, Person Y says she's a singer, you expect that to mean something more than that she sings lullabies to her baby. If you find out that's all she does in the way of singing, don't you think she's a pretentious fool?

That a book must have an author is true, but that's not the issue, and it's pointless to keep harping on that. Applying a label to oneself, defining oneself as a member of a particular group, sets up expectations for other people, and if you fall short of them, you look like a jerk.

For me, as I said before, the first criterion is, if you make money doing it, you can use the label. (And please don't tell me there are famous authors who are exceptions; OF COURSE there are exceptions.)

Hardback, paperback, e-book, traditionally published, self-published--these may be indications of quality for some of us, but that seems to be another discussion.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Catlady

For me, as I said before, the first criterion is, if you make money doing it, you can use the label. (And please don't tell me there are famous authors who are exceptions; OF COURSE there are exceptions.)

So yet another definition. It's all yours. I don't agree, but if you want to define 'making money' as the only authors you want to read, you'll also miss out some great authors. Just don't pretend that your definition is the *only* definition there is.

[Katsunami]

The problem is that moonshot wants to define a foolproof, always applicable criterium which unfaillingly points out good books (= "by an author") and bad books (= "not by an author").

This is not possible, for two reasons:

1. As I said: someone's vegetables will be someone else's weeds. A book that is deemed to be a great read by some, might be thrown in the trash by others.
2. If such a criterium could exist, one would switch from being an author to not being one, or the other way around, because the criterium implicitly states that authors can only write good books. As soon as an author writes a bad book, he would cease to be an author until he writes a good book again.

So... logically...

A. Each book is good AND bad, depending on whom you ask.
B. Because of this, the writer of said book is both an author AND not an author.

This causes writers to be in superposition with regard to authorship, and the result of being an author or not depends on the observer/measurer.

Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics that holds that a physical system—such as an electron—exists partly in all its particular theoretically possible states (or, configuration of its properties) simultaneously; but when measured or observed, it gives a result corresponding to only one of the possible configurations (as described in interpretation of quantum mechanics).

There you have it.

A writer is a quantum particle.

This problem was solved by sheer logical reasoning, and the thread can therefore be closed. If you leave it open while the solution is here, it would mean that the thread is solved and not solved at the same time, which would make this a quantum thread. Those threads are dangerous on a forum. They could explode, you know.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There you have it.

A writer is a quantum particle.

This problem was solved by sheer logical reasoning, and the thread can therefore be closed. If you leave it open while the solution is here, it would mean that the thread is solved and not solved at the same time, which would make this a quantum thread. Those threads are dangerous on a forum. They could explode, you know.

And then *my head* explodes...

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

So yet another definition. It's all yours. I don't agree, but if you want to define 'making money' as the only authors you want to read, you'll also miss out some great authors. Just don't pretend that your definition is the *only* definition there is.

Instead of criticizing my criterion, give me yours. Seriously, is it anyone who has ever put pen to paper, for any reason, anytime, anywhere?

If someone introduces himself as an author, what does that mean to you?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This thread is a disaster because everyone seems to be talking about something different.

OF COURSE the dictionary definition of author means anyone and everyone who creates anything. But: If you're at a party, say, and get to chatting with Person X, who tells you he's an author, just what do you think that means? I very much doubt you think it's someone who wrote a forum post that day, even though he IS the author of that post.

Likewise, Person Y says she's a singer, you expect that to mean something more than that she sings lullabies to her baby. If you find out that's all she does in the way of singing, don't you think she's a pretentious fool?

That a book must have an author is true, but that's not the issue, and it's pointless to keep harping on that. Applying a label to oneself, defining oneself as a member of a particular group, sets up expectations for other people, and if you fall short of them, you look like a jerk.

For me, as I said before, the first criterion is, if you make money doing it, you can use the label. (And please don't tell me there are famous authors who are exceptions; OF COURSE there are exceptions.)

Hardback, paperback, e-book, traditionally published, self-published--these may be indications of quality for some of us, but that seems to be another discussion.

Exactly. I was thinking about writing something similar but I do not have to do it now. I was especially annoyed by the "all books have an author"-argument and also thought the "protected title"-argument was just silly and missed the point.

[QuantumIguana]

If someone told me at a party that they were an author, an artist or a musician, all I know is that they write books, create art or make music. It doesn't imply that they write good books, create good art or create music, or that their creations would be to my liking.

We have no basic for limiting the definition of author, artist or musician to someone who is able to make a living at it, because that sort of reasoning leads to absurdities. If writing good books is a prerequisite to being an author, it follows that there is no such thing as a bad author. It implies that the starving artist meme is invalid - there could not exist such a thing as a starving artist, instead, we would have a non-artist. A person playing guitar for tips in the subway station is in fact a musician.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. I was thinking about writing something similar but I do not have to do it now. I was especially annoyed by the "all books hav an author"-argument and also thought the "protected title"-argument was just silly and missed the point.

Why would you be annoyed by an iron-clad argument? But by all means, prefer nonsense if you wish.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by moonshot

Can you show evidence for this ?

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

sure, I do this

Me too.

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Go to a bookshop near you. Stand in it and watch the people buying books. Count how many walk in, blindfold themselves and pick a book at random from the shelves (tip: the total will be zero).

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. I was thinking about writing something similar but I do not have to do it now. I was especially annoyed by the "all books have an author"-argument and also thought the "protected title"-argument was just silly and missed the point.

Wait.. Some books don't have an author? Could you point me a one of these authorless books?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by Catlady

If someone introduces himself as an author, what does that mean to you?

I would assume that he had written a book.

It's possible that he mainly wrote short stories, or worked in some other medium such as blogging, but my base assumption would be that he had written at least one book.

That doesn't mean to say that someone who specialises in short stories or does some serious blogging isn't also an author.

But note, there is absolutely no recognition of a base level of quality in this assumption.

Graham

[moonshot]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You haven't described random behavior at all. Looking at the cover of a book, reading the blurb, reading endorsements of the book and reading some of the text and making a decision whether or not to buy a book is clearly not buying at random. That is simply using some of the techniques that people use to tell the difference between a book they might like and a book they might not like, it's non-random behavior. If they were buying books at random, assuming that because it was published it was good, they would reach out, grab a book and buy it.

Looking at the cover, reading the blurbs, endorsements, sampling the text are behavior that people would only engage in if they knew they could not assume that just because the book was published, it was a good book that they would like. There have been ample techniques for finding good books, it seems you ignore them because they undermine your premise.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/2eMkth8FWno" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I was giving a reasonable reply to a daft suggestion, shop blindfold etc.