"Fear" sells more than 750,000 copies its first day

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

It probably sells well in all large urban markets, not so well in the rest of the country.

Luck;
Ken

Wouldn't be so sure.

Political fear-peddling works everywhere.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Wouldn't be so sure.

Political fear-peddling works everywhere.

Have you read the book?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't know what it is with FLP in the past few months; the acquisition of audiobooks has slowed to a trickle, and the acquisition of e-books isn't much better.

My Philadelphia is the most impoverished of any US city nearly as large.

The physical library branches aren't the best either.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Wouldn't be so sure.

Political fear-peddling works everywhere.

Woodard does not have a reputation for "Fear Mongering". He is a journalist with very high standards and always makes sure of his facts before publishing them. I would not call his helping to bring about the resignation of President Nixon as "Fear Mongering".
Apache

[issybird]

Let's be careful to stay on this side of P&R, folks.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by jackie_w

I'm interested to know whether books like this have any kind of sales longevity with the US reading public? Is it the case that if it doesn't sell in September/October it won't sell at all because the political story has moved on by then?

The story will move on, and sales will plummet.

This is anecdotal, but when I took a break from what I was reading to read Fear, I was (as I am now) reading All the President's Men. So it is possible for this author to write a book that has long-term backlist potential. But All the President's Men was released less than two months before Nixon's resignation, so you feel you have gotten most of the story. The one or two books that last will not be written until the officeholder's stay in office is almost, or completely, over.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Apache

Woodard does not have a reputation for "Fear Mongering". He is a journalist with very high standards and always makes sure of his facts before publishing them. I would not call his helping to bring about the resignation of President Nixon as "Fear Mongering".
Apache

Woodward isn't the journalist that he use to be. His last several books have had mixed reviews to say the least. Even All the President's Men has been revisited once it became known that Feld was the informant. Some argue that the Deep Throat character in the book was actually a composite of several people, one of whom was Feld. Some who were there have said that Fear has a number of fabrications in it.

My guess is that only the people who were actually there know for sure and that people's personal opinion on Trump will color how they view the book. My guess is that like a lot of the other books that have come out over the last year or so, the buzz around this book will die out fairly quickly.

[geekraver]

It's hard to believe because it feels like a lifetime but we're not even halfway through Trump's first term. The real story will come out afterward, once people are either not profiting from him (either way) or trying to protect him. I expect Fear is going to be interesting but as it cannot be close to definitive this early it will fade quite fast.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Apache

Woodard does not have a reputation for "Fear Mongering". He is a journalist with very high standards and always makes sure of his facts before publishing them. I would not call his helping to bring about the resignation of President Nixon as "Fear Mongering".
Apache

You did see the winkie, right?

They are selling/peddling a book titled Fear.
And they saw no irony in the title?

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Apache

Woodard does not have a reputation for "Fear Mongering". He is a journalist with very high standards and always makes sure of his facts before publishing them...

That is a new one for me; I've never seen "journalist" with either "with very high standards", or "always makes sure of his facts before publishing", let alone both, in the same sentence before.

[darryl]

One of my libraries in Australia has 7 holds on 5 copies of the ebook. I rarely read these sorts of books and have little respect for modern journalism. I may make myself number 8 and give it a try, if only so as to draw my own conclusions on the controversy surrounding it. I'm certainly pre-judging it and not favourably. Journalism has never been more important yet the standard of modern journalism is not encouraging.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by darryl

Journalism has never been more important yet the standard of modern journalism is not encouraging.

I don't like saying it, but it's the standard of the audience that is the problem. No one wants the detailed story these days. I'm a "reader", but I have to think it over a lot before attempting a double page spread of a story in a newspaper. We just want something that strikes the right emotional chords in as few words as possible. I don't blame the journalists for not being able to overcome that.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I don't like saying it, but it's the standard of the audience that is the problem. No one wants the detailed story these days. I'm a "reader", but I have to think it over a lot before attempting a double page spread of a story in a newspaper. We just want something that strikes the right emotional chords in as few words as possible. I don't blame the journalists for not being able to overcome that.

I'm not so sure that the standard of the audience is lower than in the past. And in any event there is not just one audience.

Jim Hacker on who reads newspapers

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by darryl

I'm not so sure that the standard of the audience is lower than in the past. And in any event there is not just one audience.

Jim Hacker on who reads newspapers

Text version (first quote): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751828/quotes

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I'm not so sure that the standard of the audience is lower than in the past. And in any event there is not just one audience.

Jim Hacker on who reads newspapers

Anyone remember studying about Hearst and yellow journalism. Bad journalism is arguably why the Spanish-American War occurred in 1898. It's not particularly new.