Sissyboy <sissy...@alaska.net> wrote: > 2 Long out of print Andre Norton books back in print!
In what way are they "long out of print"? I bought new copies last year, published by Baen. Baen also have anthologies of the Time Traders series (including Defiant Agents and Key Out of Time"). In fact Baen seem to have dedicated some effort to publishing each of Andre Norton's works.
Not only do they publish print and eBooks but they also permit reading of the entire text on their website. Several Norton ebooks are also available for free download.
James Nicoll <jdnic...@panix.com> wrote: > In article <4aa3a5f...@news.acsalaska.net>, > Sissyboy <sissy...@alaska.net> wrote: > >2 Long out of print Andre Norton books back in print!
> >You can find them at Black Cat Books: > Or here, for free:
The same poster has posted a similar ad in soc.history.war, again of books available on Gutenberg. Apparently he's thought up the scam of publishing out-of-copyright books through Lulu.
If I wanted a print copy, I wouldn't trust these offerings to be anything but a paper dump of Gutenberg's web pages.
Well Richard, you certainly have some pretty strong opinions there. Maybe you've had a bad experience with a Print on Demand publisher in the past, or maybe you're just one of those people that likes to run their neck about a product without actually looking at it.
The truth of the matter is that someone can find out of copyright books on the web. They can go through the hassle and download it and read it via their computer, or go through the hassle and expense of printing it up themselves at home. Of course one using the self printing option will find out rather quickly that many times it isn't as nearly as pretty coming out of your printer as it was on the computer screen.
That is where someone like me comes in. I find books that I and others I know like or want. I clean up the text, edit as needed, usually reformat the layout to some degree, and as in the case of "Attack" locate and add public domain photographs and a significant amout of appendixed background material. Ater those hours are invested, I go through the process to have all that material turned into a real book that can sit on ones shelf. Considering my profit margin is about $1 a book, and I expect 10 or less books of any given title to be bought by people I know, that means my, what was the word you used, yeah "scam", that's the word. My "scam" garners me a whopping $10. Wow, look out folks, I have discovered a gold mine here!
Of course my profit margin increases if people I don't know buy my books, but really, how many are actually going to do it. Let's be real, in the unlikely event I were to sell a hundred copies of these books to people I don't know (which is highly unlikely), that means I have made $100 in return for the 4 to 20 hours I spend on each title. Considering that "scam" connatates getting something for nothing, I'm not seeing where I have garnered "something for nothing". In fact the end of the stick I'm holding is awful short.
I know guys like Richard can't fathom the basic concept I operate under, but for the benifit of everyone else I'll spell it out.
I like the feel of a book. A real book, not something from my printer that has been stapled together. The books I chose are ones I remember as a youngster, or are of a subject that interests me. The common thread throughtout my selections is that a large publisher will never put them back in print again. I fill that gap, and I do it with quality, not just a simple "page dump".
In the end I really don't care if anyone outside my sphere buys any of the titles that I have ressurected because I already have accomplished what I set out to do. I can go to my bookshelf, pull down a book that I have breathed life back into, and enjoy the feel of the pages between my fingers as I read it.
As far as posting anymore announcements on this group, we'll have to see. If all it garners is snipes by trolls who have not even bothered touching the product before they start talking out of their asses, I won't bother.
Sissyboy <sissy...@alaska.net> wrote: > As far as posting anymore announcements on this group, we'll have to see. > If all it garners is snipes by trolls who have not even bothered touching > the product before they start talking out of their asses, I won't bother.
Why is it that spammers always think they have a God-given right to spam? Any why do they assume that the rest of the world is as gullible as they are?
Steve Firth wrote: > Sissyboy <sissy...@alaska.net> wrote:
>> As far as posting anymore announcements on this group, we'll have to see. >> If all it garners is snipes by trolls who have not even bothered touching >> the product before they start talking out of their asses, I won't bother.
> Why is it that spammers always think they have a God-given right to > spam? Any why do they assume that the rest of the world is as gullible > as they are?
Steve,
I regret having to say that I read this whole thread. I don't think Sissyboy's post was intended as spam, and I have seen some very professional renditions of public domain books out of Lulu. I've even seen some small presses issue print runs of public domain books for exactly the reasons Sissyboy gave.
Sissyboy,
This newsgroup is a catchall for rec.arts.sf groups. As far as I know, it doesn't have a terms of use agreement, and it isn't used for anything but overflow. In example, rec.arts.sf.composition uses it for volatile threads that are pissing off too many contributors and only of interest to a few. That means that you're likely to get flamed, but also that you're perfectly justified to use the space for advertising. However, I've seen this newsgroup go for literally months with absolutely no posts, so your value probably won't be as great as all that.
Bill -- Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
>> As far as posting anymore announcements on this group, we'll have to see. >> If all it garners is snipes by trolls who have not even bothered touching >> the product before they start talking out of their asses, I won't bother.
> Why is it that spammers always think they have a God-given right to > spam? Any why do they assume that the rest of the world is as gullible > as they are?
Sissyboy <sissy...@alaska.net> wrote: > I like the feel of a book. A real book, not something from my printer that > has been stapled together. The books I chose are ones I remember as a > youngster, or are of a subject that interests me. The common thread > throughtout my selections is that a large publisher will never put them back > in print again. I fill that gap, and I do it with quality, not just a simple > "page dump".
That may all be as you say, and I hope it is. If so, my apologies. It's just that since the Internet reached the masses, there is no end to the schemes dreamt up to leech on the attention of the millions. Just the other day I came across someone publishing "books" on Amazon of reprinted Wikipedia articles. (I haven't seen them, but the people reviewing them on Amazon have.) There's someone else who produces computer-generated "books" by trawling the Internet for data on things like the market in onion futures in Lower Slovenia. There may even be someone, somewhere, dumping Gutenberg pages onto paper and selling them through Lulu.
Such is the world we live in. Anything that looks like it could be a scam will have an uphill struggle to be taken seriously.
As far as not geeting a great deal of exposure, that's fine with me. I've reached that age that when a project becomes a hassle it goes away. And a high profile usually results in a lot of hassle. My day job is my day job, everything else I do is for enjoyment.
Since it sounds like you get around maybe you could do me a favor.
I need an opinion that does not come from family or friends about the product of my enterprise. And I mean a true, honest opinion concerning the technical aspects. Things like type face, format, production quality from LuLu, stuff like that. Like I said, it needs to be honest, and of tangible things that I can improve on in furture releases.
If you're interested, I'll send you one of my books, on my dime, your choice. "Attack" is the one I'm most happy about, and I think shows off best the level of quality that I have reached to this point. But like I said, your choice. All I want in return is your honest opinion about what can be improved. Whether you share that opinion with others is up to you.
If you're interested drop me an email at johninfairba...@alaska.net
> Steve Firth wrote: >> Sissyboy <sissy...@alaska.net> wrote:
>>> As far as posting anymore announcements on this group, we'll have to >>> see. >>> If all it garners is snipes by trolls who have not even bothered >>> touching >>> the product before they start talking out of their asses, I won't >>> bother.
>> Why is it that spammers always think they have a God-given right to >> spam? Any why do they assume that the rest of the world is as gullible >> as they are?
> Steve,
> I regret having to say that I read this whole thread. I don't think > Sissyboy's post was intended as spam, and I have seen some very > professional renditions of public domain books out of Lulu. I've even > seen some small presses issue print runs of public domain books for > exactly the reasons Sissyboy gave.
> Sissyboy,
> This newsgroup is a catchall for rec.arts.sf groups. As far as I know, it > doesn't have a terms of use agreement, and it isn't used for anything but > overflow. In example, rec.arts.sf.composition uses it for volatile > threads that are pissing off too many contributors and only of interest to > a few. That means that you're likely to get flamed, but also that you're > perfectly justified to use the space for advertising. However, I've seen > this newsgroup go for literally months with absolutely no posts, so your > value probably won't be as great as all that.
> Bill > -- > Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise > your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
> As far as not geeting a great deal of exposure, that's fine with me. > I've reached that age that when a project becomes a hassle it goes away. > And a high profile usually results in a lot of hassle. My day job is my > day job, everything else I do is for enjoyment.
> Since it sounds like you get around maybe you could do me a favor.
> I need an opinion that does not come from family or friends about the > product of my enterprise. And I mean a true, honest opinion concerning > the technical aspects. Things like type face, format, production quality > from LuLu, stuff like that. Like I said, it needs to be honest, and of > tangible things that I can improve on in furture releases.
> If you're interested, I'll send you one of my books, on my dime, your > choice. "Attack" is the one I'm most happy about, and I think shows off > best the level of quality that I have reached to this point. But like I > said, your choice. All I want in return is your honest opinion about > what can be improved. Whether you share that opinion with others is up > to you.
> If you're interested drop me an email at johninfairba...@alaska.net
>>>> As far as posting anymore announcements on this group, we'll have to >>>> see. >>>> If all it garners is snipes by trolls who have not even bothered >>>> touching >>>> the product before they start talking out of their asses, I won't >>>> bother.
>>> Why is it that spammers always think they have a God-given right to >>> spam? Any why do they assume that the rest of the world is as gullible >>> as they are?
>> Steve,
>> I regret having to say that I read this whole thread. I don't think >> Sissyboy's post was intended as spam, and I have seen some very >> professional renditions of public domain books out of Lulu. I've even >> seen some small presses issue print runs of public domain books for >> exactly the reasons Sissyboy gave.
>> Sissyboy,
>> This newsgroup is a catchall for rec.arts.sf groups. As far as I >> know, it doesn't have a terms of use agreement, and it isn't used for >> anything but overflow. In example, rec.arts.sf.composition uses it >> for volatile threads that are pissing off too many contributors and >> only of interest to a few. That means that you're likely to get >> flamed, but also that you're perfectly justified to use the space for >> advertising. However, I've seen this newsgroup go for literally >> months with absolutely no posts, so your value probably won't be as >> great as all that.
>> Bill >> -- >> Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise >> your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
-- Living on the polemic may be temporarily satisfying, but it will raise your blood-pressure, and gives you tunnel vision.
|
