tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post8829006104028200409..comments2023-11-05T05:01:58.563-05:00Comments on Ward Six: More bestsellersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-63023788051516035282011-02-14T15:55:24.920-05:002011-02-14T15:55:24.920-05:00More filler, I guess. Fills up the page real cheap...More filler, I guess. Fills up the page real cheap.rmellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03133206908895131438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-42609848391080230622011-02-14T15:16:10.607-05:002011-02-14T15:16:10.607-05:00I've never understood the Hollywood box office...I've never understood the Hollywood box office tallies, either. Why does any normal person want to know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-79694474268106149622011-02-14T10:19:04.540-05:002011-02-14T10:19:04.540-05:00Is it a factor of the loss of publicity when a boo...Is it a factor of the loss of publicity when a book is no longer selling well in hardcover, and thus is dropped from the big list? Now nothing need be dropped except when people stop buying it. What this means, then, is that six-year-old books can now get free advertising while newer books struggle to get known.<br /><br />There's always been the paperback sales list, where Gladwell's books racked up 100+ week presences, but this was placed on a separate page spread---after the hardcover list. It didn't seem to detract from what was going on in new books.<br /><br />Now it's like looking at Hollywood box office tallies that have incorporated video rentals. As a service to the industry, maybe it's great. But as a service to readers, not so much.Dave Maddenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09337339704557197444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2046663689477874544.post-75513174640264573082011-02-14T10:16:35.754-05:002011-02-14T10:16:35.754-05:00Mild horror, yes. With some gaping of the mouth. M...Mild horror, yes. With some gaping of the mouth. Maybe the NYT wants us to know how savvy they are. How very "now." A symptom of the industry's vertigo. An e-book isn't a "real" book, is it? Or is it? Is book publishing dead? And with it, the NYTBR? Who would want that? Our kids? On the other hand, it's reassuring. E-books, as you say, are just books. And amen for that. This reminds me of a scene in the minor classic "Duets" from the year 2000. A woman is sitting at her desk and using what looks to be an ancient Macintosh portable. Her husband tries to talk to her. She says "Not now, I'm online." Remember those days? When you had to go online to be online? To dial in (or dial up)?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08700077737827482112noreply@blogger.com