So you think that a child should be punished because they have don't have well-educated parents...
What do you mean by "punished"? I think "put at a disadvantage" is more a appropriate description. There's a vast different between the two.
It's because of this line of thinking that the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is growing.
Okay, reality check here. There always has been, and always will be, "haves" and "have-nots". That's not to say that we shouldn't try to lift up the have-nots, but the important point is who I mean by "we".
America is based on a principle of self-responsibility. WE are *responsible* for improving our lives--not the government, not the school system, and not the taxpayer. Somewhere along the way the concept of government giving people a chance to improve their lives has been twisted into the government's responsibility for the care, nurturing, and overall happiness of every person who steps foot on our soil.
If "we" want to improve the "have-nots", it will be because individuals step up and make a difference in the lives of other individuals--not because we insist that teachers be living saints.
You're on the right track, but there are still some barriers to the system you describe. Namely, distribution and marketing. So you've managed to cut out Simon & Schuester (for instance). How do you get your book to Barnes & Noble?
If your name is Stephen King or Anne Rice, they'll take you no matter the name of your publisher. But by opening the micropublishing floodgates, book stores would suddenly have access to countless new authors with no real clue as to who will sell and who won't. Stores only have limited shelf space, so someone has to decide which books are ordered and which ones are not. By being associated with a publishing house, there's an implicit statement of quality and, more importantly from a bookstore's point of view, marketability.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in the business side of micropublishing. However, I am a desktop publisher by profession so I do know a little bit about printing. There are very good business reasons for the way publishers print their books. There is a certain amount of money associated with setting up a document for printing-- for things like printing plates, proofs, etc. Once a project is actually on the press and running, it doesn't cost that much more to print extra copies.
For instance, if you wanted to print one copy of "Gone with the Wind" it might cost you $5000 in setup to get all proofs and plates and prep the printing press, yet only $150 to actually print and bind that one copy. [I'm pulling those numbers completely out of the air, but the ratios aren't far off.] So if you've already spent the five grand in setup, you may as well print extra copies so that you don't have to come back and do it all again. Micropublishing somehow cuts the setup cost to make it profitable to run smaller quantities, but there may be some sort of tradeoff such as printing quality, durability, etc.
I will advise my friends, family, and associates to avoid purchasing new books by your members, and instead patronize used book stores, the Amazon.com Marketplace, and especially public libraries for books by your members.
To: letter writer
Subject: Guild practices
I have read your letter to the Author's Guild, and I would like to point out a few items.
First and foremost, I think your moral outrage is misspent. The Authors Guild is just that. It's an entity set up to look out for the interests of the authors---not the publishers, the venders, or the readers. Amazon made a business decision for the good of their stockholders. The Authors Guild made a business decision for the good of their members.
Your library analogy is interesting, but I think you miss the core point of the guild's arguements. Their complaint revolves around selling new books and used ones side-by-side.
And concerning the greed factor, please understand that most authors make between 6-10% of the cover price of the books. In the case of books written in a series owned by someone else, the percentage can be decidedly lower. In other words, a $5 book produces 30 cents in income for the author. At that rate the author loses money on the postage for replying to a fan letter! With the average SF/Fantasy novel selling fewer than 20,000 copies, we're talking an income of $7,000 for what probably was a year's worth of work.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean by "punished"? I think "put at a disadvantage" is more a appropriate description. There's a vast different between the two.
It's because of this line of thinking that the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is growing.
Okay, reality check here. There always has been, and always will be, "haves" and "have-nots". That's not to say that we shouldn't try to lift up the have-nots, but the important point is who I mean by "we".
America is based on a principle of self-responsibility. WE are *responsible* for improving our lives--not the government, not the school system, and not the taxpayer. Somewhere along the way the concept of government giving people a chance to improve their lives has been twisted into the government's responsibility for the care, nurturing, and overall happiness of every person who steps foot on our soil.
If "we" want to improve the "have-nots", it will be because individuals step up and make a difference in the lives of other individuals--not because we insist that teachers be living saints.
And it's available by distance education!
http://www.tamu.edu/ode/disted/
There's also a Master Technology Teacher certification in the works for this Fall.
http://cecoe.tamu.edu/
And we all know that if we see it in the movies it must be true, right?!?!
If your name is Stephen King or Anne Rice, they'll take you no matter the name of your publisher. But by opening the micropublishing floodgates, book stores would suddenly have access to countless new authors with no real clue as to who will sell and who won't. Stores only have limited shelf space, so someone has to decide which books are ordered and which ones are not. By being associated with a publishing house, there's an implicit statement of quality and, more importantly from a bookstore's point of view, marketability.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm not an expert in the business side of micropublishing. However, I am a desktop publisher by profession so I do know a little bit about printing. There are very good business reasons for the way publishers print their books. There is a certain amount of money associated with setting up a document for printing-- for things like printing plates, proofs, etc. Once a project is actually on the press and running, it doesn't cost that much more to print extra copies.
For instance, if you wanted to print one copy of "Gone with the Wind" it might cost you $5000 in setup to get all proofs and plates and prep the printing press, yet only $150 to actually print and bind that one copy. [I'm pulling those numbers completely out of the air, but the ratios aren't far off.] So if you've already spent the five grand in setup, you may as well print extra copies so that you don't have to come back and do it all again. Micropublishing somehow cuts the setup cost to make it profitable to run smaller quantities, but there may be some sort of tradeoff such as printing quality, durability, etc.
To: letter writer
Subject: Guild practices
I have read your letter to the Author's Guild, and I would like to point out a few items.
First and foremost, I think your moral outrage is misspent. The Authors Guild is just that. It's an entity set up to look out for the interests of the authors---not the publishers, the venders, or the readers. Amazon made a business decision for the good of their stockholders. The Authors Guild made a business decision for the good of their members.
Your library analogy is interesting, but I think you miss the core point of the guild's arguements. Their complaint revolves around selling new books and used ones side-by-side.
Regarding your assertation to avoid buying new books. I'd like to quote sf/fantasy authorMichael Stackpole. He has some interesting things to say about the business.