Do some publishers have any idea?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by leebase

You aren’t very good at this. Either you play the poor mouth and “oh my oh my, don’t judge me for riding along on the art paid for by others”......or your the guy who’s a skin flint, able to support the art he consumes....but doesn’t, because he doesn’t have to as somebody else will.

I'm no daddy war bucks. I’ve been poor, I’ve had good money and I’ve fluctuated between having and not having. But ethics don’t change with circumstances. When I was out of work, I went to the very food pantry to feed my family...that I had volunteered for during better days. I could go there now and get free food. But when I can afford to buy food, I don’t go for the charity food just because nobody would dare tell me not too.

When I was a kid I went to the block parties and the fireworks show and it never occurred to me to pitch in....not that I had anything. As an adult, I go and bring more food than my family will eat and I contribute to the fireworks fund.

As a kid I got glasses with the help of the Lions Club. Now I give to the Lions Club from time to time.

Those that are poor have never been what I’ve talked about. It’s a smoke screen being put up. If you can, pay your way. Support the art you enjoy.

Yade yade yade. Don't you even dare compare a library to a food pantry.

Goal posts moved again?

[meeera]

Originally Posted by leebase

I'm no daddy war bucks. I’ve been poor, I’ve had good money and I’ve fluctuated between having and not having. But ethics don’t change with circumstances. When I was out of work, I went to the very food pantry to feed my family...that I had volunteered for during better days. I could go there now and get free food. But when I can afford to buy food, I don’t go for the charity food just because nobody would dare tell me not too.

Did you seriously just compare public libraries to charity food pantries?? Out loud? I have some librarian friends you need to meet - try saying that to their faces.

Is there some sort of major cultural/political disconnect here? Do we need to go to P&R?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by meeera

Did you seriously just compare public libraries to charity food pantries?? Out loud? I have some librarian friends you need to meet - try saying that to their faces.

Is there some sort of major cultural/political disconnect here? Do we need to go to P&R?

Technically he said no such thing. You must be purposefully misinterpreting. Next your reading comprehension is going to be questioned. It is deniable plausibility (if you get it, fine, if not I meant to say it wrong).

By the way, this was sarcasm above. I am in full agreement with you about the inability to compare. Other than that they are not the same.

[leebase]

Why would anyone consider it an insult to compare libraries to food pantries? They are both charitable efforts in the interests of society. Is there somehow a difference between accepting charity in the form of food or in the form of a book?

But before we jump heading into that rabbit hole...I’m trying to communicate that we should take our spot as society builders when we rise to the position to be able to do so. Maybe nobody has ever told you to bring more food than your own family eats to a block party or a church pot luck. Maybe nobody has explained that you bring something like a bottle of whine, a salad a dessert when you are invited to dinner.....or that you reciprocate at some point in the future. Maybe you don’t realize that you pay extra for friends and family rather than expect a discount. Maybe you don’t realize that your wedding gift should cost more than the food you eat at the wedding does.

At some point....you are supposed to be the one who makes it possible for the fireworks to happen.

You come to realize that books don’t just happen. They aren’t mechanical widgets or gallons of milk.

Support the art that brings you so much joy...take your place as a responsible adult in the world who doesn’t just show up for the goodies provided by others.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by leebase

Why would anyone consider it an insult to compare libraries to food pantries? They are both charitable efforts in the interests of society. Is there somehow a difference between accepting charity in the form of food or in the form of a book?

It's not an "insult", it's just wrong. Libraries are not charity. Libraries are for everyone.

https://bookriot.com/2017/02/23/open...-for-everyone/

I'd like to live in a world where food pantries have no need to exist, but I don't want to exist in a world without libraries.

Originally Posted by leebase

But before we jump heading into that rabbit hole...I’m trying to communicate that we should take our spot as society builders when we rise to the position to be able to do so. Maybe nobody has ever told you to bring more food than your own family eats to a block party or a church pot luck. Maybe nobody has explained that you bring something like a bottle of whine, a salad a dessert when you are invited to dinner.....or that you reciprocate at some point in the future. Maybe you don’t realize that you pay extra for friends and family rather than expect a discount. Maybe you don’t realize that your wedding gift should cost more than the food you eat at the wedding does.

At some point....you are supposed to be the one who makes it possible for the fireworks to happen.

You come to realize that books don’t just happen. They aren’t mechanical widgets or gallons of milk.

Support the art that brings you so much joy...take your place as a responsible adult in the world who doesn’t just show up for the goodies provided by others.

So I see you have moved on to the outright insults. Mate, you know absolutely nothing about me, and every single assumption you've made above could not be more wrong.

[leebase]

Lol! I have never once addressed YOU, or anybody by name. It’s general theory and ethics. Apply or deny as one deems appropriate.

And public libraries are charity. Nothing wrong with charity. Nothing wrong with block parties, pot lucks, or fireworks displays. They just aren’t magically existent.

Just like books don’t write themselves. Support the art you enjoy

[meeera]

Originally Posted by leebase

And public libraries are charity.

Again, this is completely wrong. Do you actually know any qualified librarians who believe this?

Charity: "generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless."

Public libraries are a taxpayer-funded community resource for everyone. Here's the Australian Library & Information Association's statement on public library services; feel free to look up your own local one.

https://www.alia.org.au/about-alia/p...brary-services

Occasionally libraries involve themselves in community charity programmes among their multitude of other programmes - mine right now hosts a collection point for stationery for a project for children escaping domestic violence (run by a group outside the library system) that I'm collecting gear for - but nothing about a public library's core business is charity. It's not run from generous donations, and it's not aimed at the "poor, ill or helpless" (though they are of course included, as is everyone else).

[darryl]

@leebase. Though I am not personally offended, I can see how many people would be. To all your other potentially offensive imputations you have now added the idea that people who can afford to but do not pay absolutely top price for a book are not responsible adults, and are essentially sponging off those who do. It is as if you have ignored the whole conversation whilst endlessly repeating your mindless mantra based on the fallacy that paying top price acts by some mysterious way as an incentive for authors to write more books. It is irrelevant whether you regard books as widgets or art. They are sold in the course of commerce, and their price varies. The strongest your argument that you should pay the highest price you can afford gets is that it may make a book slightly more profitable to the publisher and enhance the authors chance of being published again in the future. If you read fjtorres post #693 again, you will see that even this is not true. Typically the publisher will receive the same amount, with the retailer bearing the costs of any discounts.

To quote fjtorres post:

The publisher negotiates a fixed price with the distributor and that is *all* they see. Pay cover price, 10%, 30%, 45% off? Makes no difference to the publisher. The difference between 10% and 45% is no difference to them. Or the author.

The discount comes from the retailer's pocket, not the publisher's.
Not the author's.

[pdurrant]

I'm impressed by the persistence shown on both sides in keeping the same argument going for 50 pages.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm impressed by the persistence shown on both sides in keeping the same argument going for 50 pages.

Both sides? It is not exactly black and white. I disagree with both extremes. Neither am I tricked into paying too much, nor should I feel obligated to pay too much. While you cannot agree to both at the same time, it is possible to disagree with both and still be consistent.

[pdurrant]

I should have realised that any statement in this thread was liable to generate another argument.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by leebase

You aren’t very good at this. Either you play the poor mouth and “oh my oh my, don’t judge me for riding along on the art paid for by others”......or your the guy who’s a skin flint, able to support the art he consumes....but doesn’t, because he doesn’t have to as somebody else will.

Do you only ever watch movies in the cinema when they first come out, or do you sometimes watch them later when they are on TV? Doesn't that make you just the same sort of skin-flint refusing to support art as those reading books from libraries?

Do you listen to music for free on the radio rather than buy every album the moment it comes out?

And I'm going to say it: Not every book is a work of art, the same as not every movie is a work of art, not every TV program is a work of art and not every five-year-old's drawing stuck to the side of a fridge is a work of art.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Do you only ever watch movies in the cinema when they first come out, or do you sometimes watch them later when they are on TV? Doesn't that make you just the same sort of skin-flint refusing to support art as those reading books from libraries?

Do you listen to music for free on the radio rather than buy every album the moment it comes out?

Even worse; I go to public art galleries and museums, too, instead of sticking to just acquiring my own personal art and historical-artifacts collection. I've been to free music concerts paid for by the council. And I enjoy public parks and botanic gardens and beaches. And send my kid to a public school. And last time I had an injury that needed it, I went to a public emergency department. I even let the local government authority come collect my rubbish instead of taking it to the tip myself. Shock, horror, skinflint, failing to take responsibility for myself like a real grownup.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I didn't know that. What happened there? I thought Gettysurg was a bestseller published by one of the Big 5? (I'm not a fan of alternate history and certainly not a fan of Newt, so I'm ignorant of the story.)

My bad, 1945 was the big flop by Gingrich published by Baen Books and co-written by William R. Forstchen. It came out in 1995. Gettysburg came out later, had a different publisher, but with the same co-writer. Both Gingrich and Forstchen are historians and both are fairly prolific writers, Forstchen is also a SF author as well as being a history professor. Gingrich was a history professor before he got into politics.

Yea, the Civil War series was quite good, IMPO. I have the first three. Apparently there is a fourth, but I haven't read that one and wasn't aware of it until I double check just now. Gettysburg was an alternate history with a Killer Angel feel to it. If you are interested in the Civil War, it's well worth reading.

Like most people (apparently), I haven't read 1945. I just got the two books mixed up. It's been a long while since it was mentioned by Jim Baen on his web board. The sequel to 1945 was never written. Apparently, Baen was expecting it to be a huge hit so he spent big bucks on it and lost a bundle on it. I don't know any of the details beyond that.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There was definitely a "Paying the highest price for books supports an author more than paying a cheaper price" argument being floated. No need to try and retcon it away.

I think it's been fairly well established that paying for books supports the author. In fact, I'd wager to say that no one here has ever argued otherwise. But what has been thoroughly debunked, in my opinion, is the notion that paying new-release prices for traditionally published works somehow supports an author even more (which WAS a notion that was floated). And it certainly doesn't make anyone more of a patron than someone who waits for the price to come down.

With the exception of indie authors who are getting most (if not all) of their ebooks proceeds, the only thing that can be definitively stated about those who pay the highest price for books by their favorite authors is that they spend more money on their books than others. That's about it.

I'm not sure of your logic here. Authors get paid a percentage of the price of the book (either of list or the net depending on the contract). Fairly obviously, they get more for an initial release hard back than they do for a paper back since the hard back cost more. Of course, the exact percentages vary according to the contract.