Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2014 Ripper Conference In The U.K.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
    Thats easy. Certain publishing houses have good reps for certain genres and if they are publishing a book theres a better than even chance of it not being crap.

    You may get a crock occassionally but in general you know you have a good chance of getting a decent well edited book if its a good publishing house.
    But we're talking about Ripper books. If a list were made of the 20 worst Ripper books of all time, what do you wager there'd be more traditionally published books than self-published? Better yet, let's consider hoaxes. Thus far, each and every one (to my knowledge) was backed by a publishing house. I will agree that most of these books were decently edited, so I didn't have to be disturbed by a sea of typos while being told John Williams was Jack the Ripper, and then his wife, and then his dog, etc. But then an indie author can hire the same editors to clean up his manuscript for a couple hundred bucks. Truth is, now that most people buy books online now, the need for publishers (with their access to book stores) are no longer necessary. Someone like Paul Begg, with his advances in the tens of thousands, would still do well going the traditional route. But someone like myself is liable to only get an advance of 1k or 2k...maybe 3k if I had an agent (who'd then take his cut), and then I'd never see another dime. I've already made more than that and my book doesn't go 'out of print' unless I decide it does.

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
      But we're talking about Ripper books. If a list were made of the 20 worst Ripper books of all time, what do you wager there'd be more traditionally published books than self-published? Better yet, let's consider hoaxes. Thus far, each and every one (to my knowledge) was backed by a publishing house. I will agree that most of these books were decently edited, so I didn't have to be disturbed by a sea of typos while being told John Williams was Jack the Ripper, and then his wife, and then his dog, etc. But then an indie author can hire the same editors to clean up his manuscript for a couple hundred bucks. Truth is, now that most people buy books online now, the need for publishers (with their access to book stores) are no longer necessary. Someone like Paul Begg, with his advances in the tens of thousands, would still do well going the traditional route. But someone like myself is liable to only get an advance of 1k or 2k...maybe 3k if I had an agent (who'd then take his cut), and then I'd never see another dime. I've already made more than that and my book doesn't go 'out of print' unless I decide it does.

      Yours truly,

      Tom Wescott
      That all sounds very good indeed. But ripper books are maybe 1% of my total book buys so the traditional model works well for me as a customer so far.

      P

      Comment


      • In the days before message boards, I rather enjoyed finding a Ripper book in a shop, a Ripper book I never knew existed, eg. I bought Fido's book that way, and Begg's Uncensored Facts before I had any idea who Fido and Begg were.

        But since I joined message boards, every new release is advertised and I'm treated to the general thumbs up or down of the community on whether or not they're worth reading. So in that sense, a bit of the magic has gone.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
          That all sounds very good indeed. But ripper books are maybe 1% of my total book buys so the traditional model works well for me as a customer so far.

          P
          Books are books in the end. They're either good or bad. Most of the books I buy are traditionally published, but I daresay they'd for the most part be just as good - only cheaper - if they were self-published. Online reader reviews are what move books nowadays. Goodreads and Amazon. Paul mentioned that reviews can be manipulated, and this is true to an extent, although Amazon has made that far more difficult. But what I learned to do is look at the 1 and 2 star reviews (which you can safely bet were not planted) and if they make more sense than the 4 and 5 star reviews, I skip the book. If they make less sense, then I can purchase the book with confidence.

          Yours truly,

          Tom Wescott

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
            In the days before message boards, I rather enjoyed finding a Ripper book in a shop, a Ripper book I never knew existed, eg. I bought Fido's book that way, and Begg's Uncensored Facts before I had any idea who Fido and Begg were.

            But since I joined message boards, every new release is advertised and I'm treated to the general thumbs up or down of the community on whether or not they're worth reading. So in that sense, a bit of the magic has gone.
            True that. It's like having to wait weeks to see a monster movie on Creature Feature, then staying up late to see it, knowing it might be your only chance to do so. Now you just go to youtube or itunes. The upside is you can see anything you want whenever you want, the downside is you did nothing to feel you earned it. You gotta leave something to behind in order to move ahead, I guess.

            Yours truly,

            Tom Wescott

            Comment


            • De Scientia

              Hello Paul. Thanks.

              "The mistake was a product of science."

              Most definitely NOT. Real science CANNOT cause bad reasoning. Your dictum here is a result of confusion. And now, perhaps, you can see, first hand, why science needs a better terminology.

              "It was not a product of pseudo-science."

              You mean biology? I have stated repeatedly that biology is not pseudo-science. But what happened was NOT biology.

              "Something grounded in science is science even if it is incorrect."

              Absolutely WRONG. You are making an egregious error. Truth CANNOT give rise to the false.

              "It is not the product of false or pretend science."

              It is a product of a mistake--not science. So the one who is "doing" this is NOT doing science.

              "Outside of that, I am a simple wordsmith . . ."

              I would have said business man.

              ". . . with my trusty OED at my side, and the OED defines pseudo-science as a spurious or pretended science."

              And what he did, when he made the error, was NOT real science. It was spurious reasoning. Hence, my "pseudoscience."

              And in logic, we have LONG since gotten past the LEXICAL definition.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • Absolutely WRONG. You are making an egregious error. Truth CANNOT give rise to the false
                It is a product of a mistake--not science. So the one who is "doing" this is NOT doing science.
                And what he did, when he made the error, was NOT real science. It was spurious reasoning. Hence, my "pseudoscience."

                And in logic, we have LONG since gotten past the LEXICAL definition
                Omlor in his day didnt even come out with philosobabble like this.

                This is like something some spotty 16 year old trying to impress someone would come with.

                For some odd reason it reminds me very much of the Fast Shows Jazz Club presenter Louie Balfour who could always be relied upon to gush forth a torrent of absolute meaningless tripe.

                p

                Comment


                • I have to agree with Lynn that I don't see how Jari's mistake could be a 'product of science' if the same science used otherwise produces error-free results?

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                    H

                    And in logic, we have LONG since gotten past the LEXICAL definition.

                    Cheers.
                    LC
                    Well, all I can say is that maybe you should think about going back to it. It would help us all to understand what you mean.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                      I have to agree with Lynn that I don't see how Jari's mistake could be a 'product of science' if the same science used otherwise produces error-free results?

                      Yours truly,

                      Tom Wescott
                      Really? So you think it is the product of pseudo-science?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                        Really? So you think it is the product of pseudo-science?
                        I didn't say that. Producing Catherine Eddowes' DNA from an item she apparently never touched can't be called a product of any science.

                        Yours truly,

                        Tom Wescott

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                          And what he did, when he made the error, was NOT real science. It was spurious reasoning. Hence, my "pseudoscience."

                          Cheers.
                          LC
                          Which is the crux of your argument isn't it? The science was real science, but the error was spurious reasoning. Pseudo-science is spurious science. Therefore spurious reasoning is pseudo-science.

                          Comment


                          • definition

                            Hello Tom. Thanks for that.

                            "Science" = df. "Exact or demonstrable knowledge."

                            "Knowledge" = df. "Justified, true belief."

                            Note that "truth" is hence built into the definition of science. REAL science cannot be false--only pseudo-science.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Paul View Post
                              Which is the crux of your argument isn't it? The science was real science, but the error was spurious reasoning. Pseudo-science is spurious science. Therefore spurious reasoning is pseudo-science.
                              There is no reasoning. The entire thing was a frantic effort to avoid having to face up to the fact that he stated that louhelainen was involved in pseudoscience.

                              Then to reinforce the whole construct he to add layer upon layer of pseudophilosophy to it to try and pretend he had a valid point and now we have to endure repetitions of this stuff ad nauseum.

                              Thats always been the problem with much of the humanities and the liberal arts - a free for all of any old crap couched in vaguely esoteric terms to cover up its intrinsic worthlessness.

                              Its fine to have an open mind but not to the extent that it becomes a slop bucket for the ridiculous.

                              P

                              Comment


                              • avoiding confusion

                                Hello Paul. Thanks.

                                "Well, all I can say is that maybe you should think about going back to it. It would help us all to understand what you mean."

                                Out of the question. We developed a specialised vocabulary to AVOID confusion.

                                As an alternate suggestion, why can't laypeople learn a bit of logic/philosophy? I'd be only too happy to open a thread with tutorials--and I say that SINCERELY and warmly.

                                Cheers.
                                LC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X