Now you're getting Wiggy with it
You sir, are a brave, though perhaps foolhardy, man.
I'm wondering why you would write that, elliot.
I don't think what James wrote was particularly brave. Is it brave because he dared go where sheep don't follow?
Anyway, I thought his review rather tame.
I know how you feel, James. I wasn't that fond of the last Harry Potter book.
They can't all be gems.
Charlie surely had no intention of writing a book that would actually be read by those who stood to benefit by it. He did, however, write a book that he the preacher could sell to the choir, who would happily sing its hooks and jingles.
The book is an absolute joke. It must have taken all of a weekend to write. It's also laughable to look at his website. Every time some schmuck anywhere on the web makes even a passing reference to it, Chickenhawk Charlie has another excuse for a breathless post calling attention to the reference.
If Charlie expected the book to be an advice tutorial for bad parents, he'd have gotten a government stipend to pay for it. Those who need to learn from his books are the very same people who don't graduate from MPS.
Most of these 50 anecdotes are common sense to those who actually raise their children with God and values in mind. I agree with Sykes most of the time, but realize his book writing is generally preaching to the choir and is most definitely Charlie practicing Capitalism. And practice makes perfect. Liberals have no audience for books, unless they are salatious garbage or required reading in Public education forums. Having said all that, I'm constantly amazed at otherwise successful (financially) people who shouldn't have pro-created.
Andy Reid of the Eagles comes to mind.
Astute critique -- no one, apparently including the publisher, has looked so clearly at who the heck is the market.
Obviously, he needed an editor as wise.
"Astute critique -- no one, apparently including the publisher, has looked so clearly at who the heck is the market."
Point 1, very much so. Point 2, I doubt it. The publisher no doubt understands very clearly who the market is.
Yikes. Point 1, to which you say "very much so," IS about the publisher and defining the market.
Is there a rule in Sykes' book about the importance of reading skills?
Point 1 is about the AUTHOR and defining the audience. The PUBLISHER could give a rat's ass about who reads Charlie's book, as long as they buy it, and three copies for their friends.
Reading skills indeed....
You really don't know how doing books is done, do you?
Authors, especially those published before, tend not to devote years (or days for this one, whichever) to writing books and only then see if publishers want them.
Authors present proposals -- one is called a prospectus -- of only about five pages, which must address the market for a publisher to give a heck. Sometimes a sample chapter, but often not for previously published authors such as Sykes.
Then, even while a book is being written, authors receive lengthy questionnaires from publishers, with very few questions about the book and the author. Nope, pages and pages are given to questions about . . . marketing. Identifying potential markets and how to reach them.
So, to restate the obvious, to suggest that publishers don't care who might buy the book, about how to define the market and whether the book really addresses that market -- our blog host's point -- is what they do.
What you do with the posterior of a rodent is your business. Stick to that, because you sure don't know the book business.
Market. Audience. You confuse the two, or perhaps are incapable of recognizing the distinction. One can succeed in the market (a point the blog host did not address), and fail with the audience, which is the point he made.
Uhhh, no -- not as the term "audience" is used in the blog host's post. He does not use it to mean Sykes' radio audience or bookstore audience. . . .
Commenting by HaloScan
