|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 20, 2016 8:52:41 GMT -5
Tom, Peter, did you guys actually read the book? If so, since you seem to love it so much, you really ought to post a review. If not, you really ought to read the book. What part of "it sounds like a book I'd like to read" are you having trouble grasping?
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 20, 2016 8:53:19 GMT -5
Tom, Peter, did you guys actually read the book? If so, since you seem to love it so much, you really ought to post a review. If not, you really ought to read the book. What part of "it sounds like a book I'd like to read" are you having trouble grasping? You’re assuming I read all of your posts.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 20, 2016 8:54:36 GMT -5
What part of "it sounds like a book I'd like to read" are you having trouble grasping? You’re assuming I read all of your posts. You're assuming your opinions matter.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 20, 2016 8:57:39 GMT -5
Anti-science and conspiracy based positions cannot be argued with. So I don't much choose to waste the effort these days. You could try addressing the actual points he makes. Start with how easy it is to generate "pal reviewed" papers and work from there.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 20, 2016 8:59:27 GMT -5
My book was never reviewed and only one person ever bought a copy of it. I think I mentioned before that I wrote a book twenty-some years ago. That was back before e-books when self publishing was an expensive proposition. I sent the book out to 20 or 25 publishers. Of those who cared to respond, I had to credit them with their creativity in saying “You suck!" I did get reviews, though. I pressured friends into reading it, chapter by chapter, as I was writing it. I received glowing praise from all of them. Sometimes it took a while to get the glowing praise, but after I carefully explained just how fucking stupid they were for not seeing the book’s brilliance, they all eventually gave glowing praise. Although nobody ever bought it, I can honestly say nobody ever offered me money to stop making them read it.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 20, 2016 9:13:29 GMT -5
My experience was less painful. My sister published it without me knowing it.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Aug 20, 2016 18:54:52 GMT -5
My book was never reviewed and only one person ever bought a copy of it. And then you complained and had to give yourself your money back?
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 20, 2016 22:42:41 GMT -5
I am a strong believe in the concept of climate change. The climate changes constantly. I don't think there is any doubt about that. As far as attributing current climate change trends to mankind is concerned I'm not a denier or someone who has fully embraced the idea. I simply don't know and I don't have sufficient scientific knowledge to separate the wheat from the chaff. Nothing I've seen on this forum has convinced me one way or the other.
Not so long ago their was quite an argument about some guy with scientific credentials and his debunking of mankind's responsibility for climate change. So far as I know the conversation didn't change anyone's mind. Part of our group saw him as a charlatan and were not hesitant to say so. Others found what he said acceptable.
This thread is something of a repeat. One of our number described Hart as, ". . . a non-science related Professor . . ." which sounds to me as if Hart's opinions are automatically disqualified from consideration because he's not a scientist. That seems harsh. That writer went on to say, that Hart is ". . . an unremarkable, self-published author . . .", a remark that I'll accept at face value on the assumption that it's an opinion formed from reading Hart's work. I also found it interesting that a recitation of Hart's qualifications earned this comment; ". . . he's blowing smoke. (he's hiding in a cocoon of credentials)"
I'm disappointed that the entire gist of the comments about Hart have been an assault on the man without any discussion at all on the merits of his opinions other than to say that his opinions have no merit. We're on page 3 of this thread and haven't come any farther than where I was after I read the article.
A comment or two about self-publishing. Is there something about self-publishing that automatically renders the author unworthy? I don't have much knowledge of the self-publishing world but here's what little I do know. My friend Rob Laplander is a writer and historian. His particular interest is WWI. Rob's first book "Finding the Lost Battalion: Beyond the Rumors, Myths and Legends of American's Famous WWI Epic" was self published in 2007. Since then Rob has earned international recognition as a WWI historian and his book is now considered the definitive work on The Lost Battalion. Rob told me recently that while he's not sold millions of books, he's had sales every month since 2007.
On the strength of the reputation Rob garnered from his first book, British publisher Pen & Sword approached Rob about publishing his most recent book, "The True Story of the Wooden Horse", an account of an escape of mostly British servicemen from a Nazi prison camp during WWII. Rob's research was meticulous. In a very few cases he was able to interview men who participated in the incident. In other cases the families generously made documents and materials available to Rob. He even built a replica of the "wooden horse" in an effort to duplicate the experience as closely as possible. I found the book compelling. Rob is a gifted writer and a great story teller.
Last fall Rob flew to New York to meet with a television production company that is producing a special about WWI for PBS. It will be the WWI equivalent of "The Civil War". Rob did several hours of interviews on camera. From the looks of things he may be on the verge of becoming the Shelby Foote of WWI (since the special won't be aired until next year that it remains to be seen whether that what will actually happen or not).
So tell me again, please, what's wrong with self-publishing?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 21, 2016 0:46:59 GMT -5
On self-publishing: Depends on a number of factors, some of them commercial and some of them not. If a commercial publisher doesn't see a book as a viable product, it will pass, even if the manuscript is fine. If it's a book that an academic publisher might be interested in, add to viability (even subsidized presses can't carry too many losers), there's the question of the writer's credentials--no academic cred and no equivalent non-academic track record and you can forget it.*
For every self-pubbed book that turns out to be either actually worthy and/or commercially successful (Wool, Fifty Shades of Gray) there are hundreds of amateurish, self-indulgent, typo-laden projects that should have remained on their creators' hard drives. I occasionally see them among my review candidates, and it ain't pretty. (Exceptions: Established writers who take control of their back catalogs when their publishers fail to do another print run.) Of course, I find more than half the commercial work in the to-be-read pile tedious.
*"Independent scholar" can mean anything from "has credentials but not a university job" to "amateur" to "crank." When I tried to get an NEH grant for my book on slack key, I was given saw the evaluation panel's comments (not unlike referees' notes, which I've also seen for some of my academic work). Prominent among them was that I didn't have the right kind of Ph.D. and don't speak Hawaiian.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 9:46:49 GMT -5
A comment or two about self-publishing. Is there something about self-publishing that automatically renders the author unworthy? I don't have much knowledge of the self-publishing world but here's what little I do know. My friend Rob Laplander is a writer and historian. His particular interest is WWI. Rob's first book "Finding the Lost Battalion: Beyond the Rumors, Myths and Legends of American's Famous WWI Epic" was self published in 2007. Since then Rob has earned international recognition as a WWI historian and his book is now considered the definitive work on The Lost Battalion. Rob told me recently that while he's not sold millions of books, he's had sales every month since 2007. On the strength of the reputation Rob garnered from his first book, British publisher Pen & Sword approached Rob about publishing his most recent book, "The True Story of the Wooden Horse", an account of an escape of mostly British servicemen from a Nazi prison camp during WWII. Rob's research was meticulous. In a very few cases he was able to interview men who participated in the incident. In other cases the families generously made documents and materials available to Rob. He even built a replica of the "wooden horse" in an effort to duplicate the experience as closely as possible. I found the book compelling. Rob is a gifted writer and a great story teller. Last fall Rob flew to New York to meet with a television production company that is producing a special about WWI for PBS. It will be the WWI equivalent of "The Civil War". Rob did several hours of interviews on camera. From the looks of things he may be on the verge of becoming the Shelby Foote of WWI (since the special won't be aired until next year that it remains to be seen whether that what will actually happen or not). So tell me again, please, what's wrong with self-publishing? There’s nothing wrong with self publishing. Like I sort of said in an earlier post, if 20 years ago self publishing was as easy and cheap as it is today, I would have been published. People might have been writing articles about me. Others might be assuming that I know something, because I wrote a book, bunches and bunches of pages filled with bunches and bunches of words. You yourself might be calling me “sir” and trying to copy my writing style, because, gee whiz, I am a published author. You can see it right there on Amazon. I got stars and everything, just like a General in the Army. Probably by now you can tell me what’s wrong with self publishing.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Aug 21, 2016 10:00:50 GMT -5
I'm disappointed that the entire gist of the comments about Hart have been an assault on the man without any discussion at all on the merits of his opinions other than to say that his opinions have no merit. This. The truth needs no credentials.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 21, 2016 10:04:25 GMT -5
Yeah, but don't point to his credentials of being published if it's the truth that matters. A list only needs to be one item long to convey truth (well, except that it wouldn't, by definition, be a "list". But you know what I mean). A list of two points, one true and the other false or misleading, will lead to a focus only on the latter. That is because Americans in our current political atmosphere do not seek the truth. We seek confirmation and the permission to continue to believe what we already wish to believe.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 21, 2016 10:14:53 GMT -5
Aw, hell, I'll call you sir anyway, FP. In my opinion what's wrong with self-publishing is that there's nothing wrong with it. Sometimes it's the only means by which an author has an opportunity to be heard. Russell pointed out that he had waded through a lot of stuff that wasn't very good. I would think that's not entirely unexpected. That's not to say that all self-published material is without merit. And that was my whole point; it's not reasonable to judge material based on the method of publication.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 10:14:54 GMT -5
"That is because Americans in our current political atmosphere do not seek the truth. We seek confirmation and the permission to continue to believe what we already wish to believe."
I don’t think that’s particularly American or a reflection on our current political atmosphere. I think it’s just human nature. Some do better with giving opposing views fair consideration, but we’re all inclined to favor our existing opinions and beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 10:32:08 GMT -5
Aw, hell, I'll call you sir anyway, FP. In my opinion what's wrong with self-publishing is that there's nothing wrong with it. Sometimes it's the only means by which an author has an opportunity to be heard. Russell pointed out that he had waded through a lot of stuff that wasn't very good. I would think that's not entirely unexpected. That's not to say that all self-published material is without merit. And that was my whole point; it's not reasonable to judge material based on the method of publication. Yes and no. If you’re playing the odds, stay away from self published books unless you have reason to seek out a particular book. It might be a book that a friend wrote, a book on a particular subject that’s hard to find in traditional markets, or a book by a known and favored author who decided to self publish for any number of reasons. But indiscriminately reading through self published book after self published book is going to be painful. There’s nothing wrong with your friend’s book just because it was self published. I don’t know what his reasons were for going that route. I suspect that he would have had access to a wider audience if he had gone with a traditional publisher. But from what I can see from Amazon reviews, his book looks like a good book. If I was interested in reading it, I wouldn’t not buy it just because he self published. In the case of Michael Hart’s book, it just didn’t seem to hold up to any level of scrutiny. It’s a book that counters scientific consensus (I think. Maybe that wasn’t his point.) written by a non-scientist. It’s self published. That might mean something and it might not. It has very few reviews, and the favorable reviews are all highly suspect. I don’t think anybody here was saying it’s a great book, because as far as I can tell, nobody here actually read the book. Instead the whole thing was an argument that used the book as validation of a point of view.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 10:32:43 GMT -5
Sir. I forgot that part.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 21, 2016 10:42:52 GMT -5
Yeah, but don't point to his credentials of being published if it's the truth that matters. A list only needs to be one item long to convey truth (well, except that it wouldn't, by definition, be a "list". But you know what I mean). A list of two points, one true and the other false or misleading, will lead to a focus only on the latter. That is because Americans in our current political atmosphere do not seek the truth. We seek confirmation and the permission to continue to believe what we already wish to believe. John, you've hit on the root of what's wrong with the whole climate change brouhaha. It's no longer a spirited scientific debate. The issue has become so entangled in politics that it now seems impossible that any reasonable exchange of ideas can happen. In this thread the conversation has devolved to the point that we're being told that an opinion can't even be examined because the author has too many academic credentials or because someone didn't like the questions asked in an interview. What a concept. It is a time-saver, though.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Aug 21, 2016 10:48:19 GMT -5
Yeah, but don't point to his credentials of being published if it's the truth that matters. A list only needs to be one item long to convey truth (well, except that it wouldn't, by definition, be a "list". But you know what I mean). A list of two points, one true and the other false or misleading, will lead to a focus only on the latter. That is because Americans in our current political atmosphere do not seek the truth. We seek confirmation and the permission to continue to believe what we already wish to believe. John, you've hit on the root of what's wrong with the whole climate change brouhaha. It's no longer a spirited scientific debate. The issue has become so entangled in politics that it now seems impossible that any reasonable exchange of ideas can happen. In this thread the conversation has devolved to the point that we're being told that an opinion can't even be examined because the author has too many academic credentials or because someone didn't like the questions asked in an interview. What a concept. It is a time-saver, though. Sure, you can believe that if you want to.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Aug 21, 2016 10:55:32 GMT -5
Wait a minute. I didn’t like the questions asked in the interview. Am I obligated to like the interview? If not, am I obligated to keep my opinions to myself?
I read the interview. Well, parts of it anyway. I had a pretty good idea of what it was about. And I didn’t like it. I didn’t stop there, though. I wasn’t going to dismiss the whole thing just because of what I thought was a crappy interview. So I looked the book up on Amazon. I wanted to see what people had to say about it. People who had read the book. Not people who want to use the book to express and support their opinions, but people who had actually read the book. And I didn’t like what I found there either.
IMO, being open minded means that I’m willing to listen. It does not mean that I have to agree.
You may have a different opinion.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Aug 21, 2016 11:07:33 GMT -5
"That is because Americans in our current political atmosphere do not seek the truth. We seek confirmation and the permission to continue to believe what we already wish to believe." I don’t think that’s particularly American or a reflection on our current political atmosphere. I think it’s just human nature. Some do better with giving opposing views fair consideration, but we’re all inclined to favor our existing opinions and beliefs. I agree with you, to an extent. I make a living doing financial analysis. I've been doing it for a long time. When I begin an analysis I often have an opinion of what's likely to be revealed. As you wrote, that's human nature. The results of my analysis are sometimes unexpected. The purpose of my analysis, though, isn't to confirm my opinions. The purpose is to find things out so I can then recommend a course of action. I would be a fool to ignore results that were counter to my assumptions. In my experience one of the most difficult things about constructing an analysis is to avoid putting it together in such a way as to produce a predetermined result. It's not difficult to do. As the result of the politicization of the climate change debate and the harshness of the dialogue I have begun to fear that both sides may have engaged in science that is designed to bolster a particular belief. That's scary and dangerous. I'm sure that a lot of people are tired of hearing Doug's oft repeated advice that if results of an experiment can't be repeated it's not science. Nonetheless, he has a point.
|
|