Amazon faces class-action lawsuit over eBook pricing

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And some would consider authors who churn out best selling book after best selling book to BE simply generic authors.

Fine, they are welcome not to read them.

[DiapDealer]

Hey, you were the one pointing out there are different types of readers. I was just joining in.

But thank you for your permission to not read the churnings of some authors. Very considerate of you.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of what?

The ability of some authors to publish their grocery list and have it be a best seller.

(That was something Stephen King said about himself, actually.)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

The ability of some authors to publish their grocery list and have it be a best seller.

(That was something Stephen King said about himself, actually.)

Ah, I see. I seem to recall him saying something like that now that you mention it. It makes sense that some authors might be jealous of other bestselling authors. I was just trying to figure out how a reader who didn't care for the "like clockwork" output "churned out" by a lot of the perennial bestselling authors might be considered jealous of them.

But mostly I was trying to comment on the common mistake that those who vocally oppose the notion that books (especially fiction read for entertainment) actually ARE fairly fungible tend to make: namely that they think it means settling for reading lesser quality books written by "generic" authors, or even that it (fungibility) means any genre could conceivably be interchanged with another.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Ah, I see. I seem to recall him saying something like that now that you mention it. It makes sense that some authors might be jealous of other bestselling authors. I was just trying to figure out how a reader who didn't care for the "like clockwork" output "churned out" by a lot of the perennial bestselling authors might be considered jealous of them.

Well, like with almost anything else, I'm sure there are readers who are jealous of an author's success when they imagine they could do it just as well because it looks so easy, requiring no more talent than churning butter.
That's what it sounds like when the negativity speaks to the prolific output, rather than the content of the output. Which is different than being jealous of their talent.
There are people who are jealous of artists because of how well they paint, and there are people jealous of Jackson Pollock's success because they think they could splatter paint just as easily.

But to your point:

But mostly I was trying to comment on the common mistake that those who vocally oppose the notion that books (especially fiction read for entertainment) actually ARE fairly fungible tend to make: namely that they think it means settling for reading lesser quality books written by "generic" authors, or even that it (fungibility) means any genre could conceivably be interchanged with another.

I don't understand.

ApK

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

I don't understand.

Saying books are fungible has nothing to do with suggesting readers should be able to get the same enjoyment out of a book written by a hack, and/or in a genre they don't care for, as they do out of a book written by their favorite author.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Read this article.

https://platformthing.com/2012/05/17/fungible-ebooks/

I won't buy any of my favorite writers books at the prices they charge. I'll try to get it at the library, otherwise I will buy 2-3 other books instead with that money. If I happen to come across a sale of said book at 2.99 or less, THEN I will buy it. Otherwise, I will keep reading the tons of other books that I have.

Unfortunately, that article doesn't have valid links to either side of the argument they are discussing.

The arguments they do bring up to support the idea that books are fungible are:
1. Books are fungible at a macro level.
2. If I have a pile of books and I don't know what's in them, then they are fungible.

Both of those are laughable arguments in terms of individuals buying books, which was the point of the discussion. They are really trying to explain why books wouldn't all cost the same, if books were fungible. Which is putting the cart before the horse.

Fungibility is about interchangeability. You can't swap out steak for oatmeal, because it makes a difference to the buyer which one they get. You can usually swap oats grown in California for those grown in Iowa, and you can usually swap a 2016 Series dollar bill for a 2000 Series. Because different types of food are not fungible, but different types of oats are.

The fact that I will buy a different book if the one I want to read is unavailable or too expensive isn't evidence of fungibility.

[DNSB]

I'm finding the use of fungible by several posters in this thread rather confusing. As far as I am aware, fungible means that an item that has been contracted for is able to replace or be replaced by an identical item. I find identical and similar to have rather different meanings.

For instance, I order a 2 litre container of 2% lactose free milk. By the definition of fungible that several posters seem to be using, if I received a 2L container of 1% chocolate milk, that would be considered fungible.

[ApK]

Agree with Sleepybob.
If I understood the gist, the article seems to make the argument that from the PUBLISHER'S point of view, the mid-list is the mid-list and best sellers are best sellers, and any best seller will bring them the same money and any mid-list will bring the same money, so what specific books they put out for sale in those categories doesn't matter. And therefore it should be the same from the READER'S point of view.
I found that silly.

To DNSB, I think I was the first to bring up the word here (which I'm starting to regret).
I meant it just as you say: interchangeable. One dairy's gallon of 2% milk is very likely interchangeable with another dairy's gallon of 2% milk. I may have a preference for one, but if it's out of stock, or too expensive, I can buy another brand and my 2% milk-needing recipes will come out just fine. Get choco milk instead, then not so much.

It was in direct response to the comment that "if a book is priced too high, just buy a different book."

While a semantic discussion of the term "fungible" and it's meaning in economics and other contexts would be useful and interesting, it wasn't my intention to skew the thread that way. All should please read "simply interchangeable" where I wrote "fungible" if that helps.

ApK

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I'm finding the use of fungible by several posters in this thread rather confusing. As far as I am aware, fungible means that an item that has been contracted for is able to replace or be replaced by an identical item. I find identical and similar to have rather different meanings.

For instance, I order a 2 litre container of 2% lactose free milk. By the definition of fungible that several posters seem to be using, if I received a 2L container of 1% chocolate milk, that would be considered fungible.

So what exact, single word would you suggest to describe to the situation where I'm in the mood for grand conspiracy romp, and I can scratch that particular itch equally well with a wide variety of choices if the first one I look at is a) unavailable, or b) more money than I want to pay? I'll happily use that word to convey the type of interchangeability I mean if it will stop people from getting all dogmatic about economic concepts being "bent" in ways that aren't at all difficult to comprehend (and generally adhere to the spirit of the concept).

EDIT: let's try this. The pleasure I derive from the experience of reading a good book is fungible. It is identical to the pleasure I derive from reading any good book.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

EDIT: let's try this. The pleasure I derive from the experience of reading a good book is fungible. It is identical to the pleasure I derive from reading any good book.

But surely only in some cases. Right?

By the way, I finally have a conclusive answer to your sig question.
I found a duck and named him "Why." So the answer is "yes."

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

But surely only in some cases. Right?

Not sure I follow.

Originally Posted by ApK

By the way, I finally have a conclusive answer to your sig question.
I found a duck and named him "Why." So the answer is "yes."

I better change it then.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Not sure I follow.

Only what I (and others) have been saying: yes, if you're just in the mood for some kind of book, one might be every bit as good as another.

But in many cases, you want ("need?") a specific book, then you're not going to get the same feeling of pleasure out of any other.
(the pleasure of completing the multi-book story you're in the middle of, the pleasure of passing the class because you bought the right text book, the pleasure of reproducing the recipe you loved because you bought the cookbook that HAS that recipe in it...whatever....)

It seemed obvious, as I thought we agreed. I think there is a lot of rehashing the same ground here, verging on

Either that or there's a lot of talking at cross-purposes.

[JSWolf]

Can we please get rid of that dead horse smiley? It is offensive to have a dead horse being beaten with a stick.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

Only what I (and others) have been saying: yes, if you're just in the mood for some kind of book, one might be every bit as good as another.

But in many cases, you want ("need?") a specific book, then you're not going to get the same feeling of pleasure out of any other.
(the pleasure of completing the multi-book story you're in the middle of, the pleasure of passing the class because you bought the right text book, the pleasure of reproducing the recipe you loved because you bought the cookbook that HAS that recipe in it...whatever....)

It seemed obvious, as I thought we agreed. I think there is a lot of rehashing the same ground here, verging on

Either that or there's a lot of talking at cross-purposes.

No. At this point in my life I'm just never looking for a specific book any more. I'm about A book, not THE book. I recognize that many might be after a specific book, but I'm not one of them. I thought you were asking ME specifically "but not in all cases, right?", hence my confusion. I get the same sense of enjoyment/accomplishment out of every good book I finish. No exceptions. I do as few multibook stories as possible; haven't read for a class in decades, and don't do cook books. I read standalone fiction for pure enjoyment. But I recognize others mileage will vary.