Comments for L.E. Modesitt, Jr. - The Official Website http://www.lemodesittjr.com Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:32:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on It’s Not Just All About You by L. E. Modesitt, Jr. http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/09/07/it%e2%80%99s-not-just-all-about-you/comment-page-1/#comment-6151 L. E. Modesitt, Jr. Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:32:18 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14569#comment-6151 Actually, to determine skill in teaching singing, knowing who someone studied with is a far better indication of technique and skill than a list of publications or even past employment history. It also provides a reference based on experience with the person's technique and skills. Actually, to determine skill in teaching singing, knowing who someone studied with is a far better indication of technique and skill than a list of publications or even past employment history. It also provides a reference based on experience with the person’s technique and skills.

]]> Comment on It’s Not Just All About You by CG http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/09/07/it%e2%80%99s-not-just-all-about-you/comment-page-1/#comment-6149 CG Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:06:57 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14569#comment-6149 I found this article more interesting than most I have read of late, primarily because it deals with an area of employment about which I have no experience whatsoever. I work in a technical field, not the arts, and it would NEVER have occurred to me to list a teacher on a resume. I suppose it's different in those fields. My overwhelming tendency wouldn't even be to list former managers. Patents and employers, sure. Proficiencies, without doubt. Even significant projects would be listed, but not the people I worked with. I would relegate those to the "References" page. Listing your wife there would seem redundant. After all, she would hardly need to list the prospective employer as a reference. Or would she? I found this article more interesting than most I have read of late, primarily because it deals with an area of employment about which I have no experience whatsoever. I work in a technical field, not the arts, and it would NEVER have occurred to me to list a teacher on a resume. I suppose it’s different in those fields.

My overwhelming tendency wouldn’t even be to list former managers. Patents and employers, sure. Proficiencies, without doubt. Even significant projects would be listed, but not the people I worked with. I would relegate those to the “References” page. Listing your wife there would seem redundant. After all, she would hardly need to list the prospective employer as a reference. Or would she?

]]> Comment on Books, Market Segmentation, and Sales Ramifications by Mayhem http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/09/03/books-market-segmentation-and-sales-ramifications/comment-page-1/#comment-6135 Mayhem Wed, 08 Sep 2010 10:21:02 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14565#comment-6135 Thats actually one thing I really liked about the free Baen ebook collections. They would have the back catalogue of the main author, and then off to one side they would have a number of other titles that are in a similar vein to the first and that might be of interest. Sadly the collections have been a bit more static lately, focussing on the same main authors, but the Free Library has steadily increased and and is a great way to test the waters for a new authors writing style. Thats actually one thing I really liked about the free Baen ebook collections. They would have the back catalogue of the main author, and then off to one side they would have a number of other titles that are in a similar vein to the first and that might be of interest.
Sadly the collections have been a bit more static lately, focussing on the same main authors, but the Free Library has steadily increased and and is a great way to test the waters for a new authors writing style.

]]> Comment on Rampant Stupidity Finally Ceases to Amaze by Wayne Kernochan http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/08/27/rampant-stupidity-finally-ceases-to-amaze/comment-page-1/#comment-6061 Wayne Kernochan Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:48:24 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14532#comment-6061 Joshua - Sigh. A reasonable assumption, but not, as far as I can see, more than a small fraction of the picture. It would take too long to go into full detail, but here's the gist of it: (1) No, I don't believe that "those who make less deserve a share of the money made by those who make more." I do believe, based on my understanding of economics and history, that societies that provide redistribution of wealth in order to ensure high worker quality (good health, good education) -- which effectively means positive net worth and minimum income at about the poverty line for all -- are more stable and better off economically in the long run. This does not mean those who have less should have more; it means that those who have least get a minimum amount, and it must necessarily come from those who have more than they do. (2) No, the purpose of taxation isn't just to "communally pay for things that we all (communally) use." Defense is not something we communally use -- right now, that is something that takes up a large share of our taxes. Social Security and Medicare are only used by the elderly -- right now, that takes up another large chunk of our taxes. Moreover, we do indeed have an interest in using taxation for other purposes. The classical theory of economics says that taxation distorts markets -- even if it's "flat" (a term that ignores the effects on the self-employed and other businesses). We have to fine-tune taxes to minimize or "level out" those distortions. And the very wealthy get a much larger proportion of their net worth from investments, and of their income from returns on investments, which today are subject to an effective tax of 15% or less at the federal level plus 5% in many states -- much less than any revenue-neutral flat tax. Finally, one of the aims of our Constitution is to prevent concentrations of political power that can threaten our system. Money is power. Our income distribution is now about at the level of the Gilded Age, when the political system was bought and sold by the wealthiest. We could afford that when we did not need to worry about the rest of the world, or they about us. I am afraid that this type of skewed income distribution is much more serious a threat to our system (not to mention the world) now. The only answer I can see that has proven effective so far, from the progressives in the early 1900s and FDR in the 1930s, is increased progressivity of taxes. (3) You should be aware of the economic concept called the "tragedy of the commons." As I understand it, it states that when things are available for communal use, businesses or individuals that can do so will over-use the "free" resource, degrading its quality, often until it is no longer useful (think: the village common grazing land). The point here is that in areas like energy markets and fisheries, a "flat" tax that does not take into account the far greater communal costs of over-use of communal resources by richer companies and individuals is actually regressive, and increases the market distortions due to use of the "commons" that already exist. Joshua -
Sigh. A reasonable assumption, but not, as far as I can see, more than a small fraction of the picture. It would take too long to go into full detail, but here’s the gist of it:
(1) No, I don’t believe that “those who make less deserve a share of the money made by those who make more.” I do believe, based on my understanding of economics and history, that societies that provide redistribution of wealth in order to ensure high worker quality (good health, good education) — which effectively means positive net worth and minimum income at about the poverty line for all — are more stable and better off economically in the long run. This does not mean those who have less should have more; it means that those who have least get a minimum amount, and it must necessarily come from those who have more than they do.
(2) No, the purpose of taxation isn’t just to “communally pay for things that we all (communally) use.” Defense is not something we communally use — right now, that is something that takes up a large share of our taxes. Social Security and Medicare are only used by the elderly — right now, that takes up another large chunk of our taxes. Moreover, we do indeed have an interest in using taxation for other purposes. The classical theory of economics says that taxation distorts markets — even if it’s “flat” (a term that ignores the effects on the self-employed and other businesses). We have to fine-tune taxes to minimize or “level out” those distortions. And the very wealthy get a much larger proportion of their net worth from investments, and of their income from returns on investments, which today are subject to an effective tax of 15% or less at the federal level plus 5% in many states — much less than any revenue-neutral flat tax. Finally, one of the aims of our Constitution is to prevent concentrations of political power that can threaten our system. Money is power. Our income distribution is now about at the level of the Gilded Age, when the political system was bought and sold by the wealthiest. We could afford that when we did not need to worry about the rest of the world, or they about us. I am afraid that this type of skewed income distribution is much more serious a threat to our system (not to mention the world) now. The only answer I can see that has proven effective so far, from the progressives in the early 1900s and FDR in the 1930s, is increased progressivity of taxes.
(3) You should be aware of the economic concept called the “tragedy of the commons.” As I understand it, it states that when things are available for communal use, businesses or individuals that can do so will over-use the “free” resource, degrading its quality, often until it is no longer useful (think: the village common grazing land). The point here is that in areas like energy markets and fisheries, a “flat” tax that does not take into account the far greater communal costs of over-use of communal resources by richer companies and individuals is actually regressive, and increases the market distortions due to use of the “commons” that already exist.

]]> Comment on Books, Market Segmentation, and Sales Ramifications by jks9199 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/09/03/books-market-segmentation-and-sales-ramifications/comment-page-1/#comment-5989 jks9199 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:44:22 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14565#comment-5989 I've noticed over the last several years that it's getting harder and harder to find "new" writers. Instead, everything is about established series or very established writers that people will buy because of the name. While I'd hope that e-books and the like would give a newer writer a shot since production costs are fractional compared to an actual publishing run, the reality is that it's harder to look for them. I have to go to Amazon or wherever, and then figure out how to browse titles or flip into the book and see whether I like the writing. And that's not even getting into the tactile/visceral feel of reading an actual book... I’ve noticed over the last several years that it’s getting harder and harder to find “new” writers. Instead, everything is about established series or very established writers that people will buy because of the name.

While I’d hope that e-books and the like would give a newer writer a shot since production costs are fractional compared to an actual publishing run, the reality is that it’s harder to look for them. I have to go to Amazon or wherever, and then figure out how to browse titles or flip into the book and see whether I like the writing.

And that’s not even getting into the tactile/visceral feel of reading an actual book…

]]> Comment on Books, Market Segmentation, and Sales Ramifications by L. E. Modesitt, Jr. http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/09/03/books-market-segmentation-and-sales-ramifications/comment-page-1/#comment-5966 L. E. Modesitt, Jr. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:01:46 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14565#comment-5966 It's not that they want to give up paperbacks; they want to give up any paperbacks that don't sell tens upon tens of thousands. We'll still have the million-seller popcorn and thriller paperbacks, just not much else. It’s not that they want to give up paperbacks; they want to give up any paperbacks that don’t sell tens upon tens of thousands. We’ll still have the million-seller popcorn and thriller paperbacks, just not much else.

]]> Comment on Books, Market Segmentation, and Sales Ramifications by Mayhem http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/09/03/books-market-segmentation-and-sales-ramifications/comment-page-1/#comment-5956 Mayhem Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:31:37 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14565#comment-5956 Interesting to see they no longer want to offer paperback books. When I shop, I seldom buy anything else, as I like to have all my books approximately the same size and shape so they fit on my increasingly overloaded bookshelves. Hardcovers are right out for my own collection, I feel they more suit public libraries and places where books get used and abused, rather than general purpose reading. Trade paperbacks tend to be the worst of both worlds, they have the size and weight of a hardback, without the longevity. Another factor would be resale value - on the secondhand market fiction hardbacks have a fraction of the value they originally sold for, while paperbacks are usually 50-60%. From friends working in that trade, hardbacks are simply not wanted by the majority of customers and very hard to move. Non-fiction is a different story, as they tend to be more ... strategic purchases than impulse buys. As for ebooks, the main benefit I find to them is it lets me read at work while looking as if I am doing something else. That being said, the exposure from the broad range of books released by Baen electronically has meant that they have become pretty much the only publisher I will buy a physical book for sight unseen - I don't buy books I haven't read before, or at least read that author before. I hate spending money on something only to find I didn't enjoy it, while a good book I will reread every few years with great contentment. Interesting to see they no longer want to offer paperback books. When I shop, I seldom buy anything else, as I like to have all my books approximately the same size and shape so they fit on my increasingly overloaded bookshelves. Hardcovers are right out for my own collection, I feel they more suit public libraries and places where books get used and abused, rather than general purpose reading. Trade paperbacks tend to be the worst of both worlds, they have the size and weight of a hardback, without the longevity.

Another factor would be resale value – on the secondhand market fiction hardbacks have a fraction of the value they originally sold for, while paperbacks are usually 50-60%. From friends working in that trade, hardbacks are simply not wanted by the majority of customers and very hard to move. Non-fiction is a different story, as they tend to be more … strategic purchases than impulse buys.

As for ebooks, the main benefit I find to them is it lets me read at work while looking as if I am doing something else. That being said, the exposure from the broad range of books released by Baen electronically has meant that they have become pretty much the only publisher I will buy a physical book for sight unseen – I don’t buy books I haven’t read before, or at least read that author before. I hate spending money on something only to find I didn’t enjoy it, while a good book I will reread every few years with great contentment.

]]> Comment on Books, Market Segmentation, and Sales Ramifications by J. Lee http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/09/03/books-market-segmentation-and-sales-ramifications/comment-page-1/#comment-5924 J. Lee Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:54:12 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14565#comment-5924 It's interesting to read about the shift in market segmentation. I think one thing that has not yet fully emerged is the section of the population who are not "more computer-innovation-invested” but who are moving to e-readers. I have a friend whose mother had a stroke 5 years ago and essentially had to quit reading as she could no longer manage holding a book and turning pages. We scrounged many audio books for her but they have the requirement to change out cd's - also a difficult task one handed. With the purchase of an e-reader she is now able to read again. (She chose the Kobo as it was the lightest one available and is easy to use one-handed.) As she has more time due to no longer working, she reads more. Another example is a friend's father who has vision issues and difficulty with corrective lens. The discovery that an e-reader allowed font size changes to make reading easier was an instant sell. No longer did he have to wait for large format books from the library or fret that his favorite science fiction was not available in those formats. Both of these folks had stopped buying paperbacks as they couldn't read them anymore. What they are doing now is buying e-books. The baby boom generation may be a market segment just discovering what e-readers and e-books can do for them. Of the people I know who have e-readers, the majority has shifted over the last year from the young techo-savvy types to the older folks who find that bit of technology is just what they needed. It will be interesting to see what impact this aging group has on the shift in book formats. It’s interesting to read about the shift in market segmentation. I think one thing that has not yet fully emerged is the section of the population who are not “more computer-innovation-invested” but who are moving to e-readers. I have a friend whose mother had a stroke 5 years ago and essentially had to quit reading as she could no longer manage holding a book and turning pages. We scrounged many audio books for her but they have the requirement to change out cd’s – also a difficult task one handed. With the purchase of an e-reader she is now able to read again. (She chose the Kobo as it was the lightest one available and is easy to use one-handed.) As she has more time due to no longer working, she reads more.

Another example is a friend’s father who has vision issues and difficulty with corrective lens. The discovery that an e-reader allowed font size changes to make reading easier was an instant sell. No longer did he have to wait for large format books from the library or fret that his favorite science fiction was not available in those formats. Both of these folks had stopped buying paperbacks as they couldn’t read them anymore. What they are doing now is buying e-books.

The baby boom generation may be a market segment just discovering what e-readers and e-books can do for them. Of the people I know who have e-readers, the majority has shifted over the last year from the young techo-savvy types to the older folks who find that bit of technology is just what they needed. It will be interesting to see what impact this aging group has on the shift in book formats.

]]> Comment on But then…. by Matthew Runyon http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/08/31/but-then%e2%80%a6/comment-page-1/#comment-5757 Matthew Runyon Sat, 04 Sep 2010 01:44:53 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14563#comment-5757 It isn't just your books. I can think of several things (television shows at the top of the list) that I don't like at all, yet feel oddly compelled to participate in. I think the most applicable to your case is my feelings about the book Ask the Dust by John Fante. I detested the story, I outright /hated/ the main character, I despise the "genre", I am sick and tired of the atmosphere of the book and all others like it... And yet the sheer mastery of how /well/ it was written compelled me. But it took me a while and the help of my Creative Writing professor to understand all that. So, take someone who isn't inclined to analyze, who doesn't have a professor prodding them along...And you get someone who doesn't like the material, /does/ like the craftsmanship, and doesn't know this. It isn’t just your books. I can think of several things (television shows at the top of the list) that I don’t like at all, yet feel oddly compelled to participate in.

I think the most applicable to your case is my feelings about the book Ask the Dust by John Fante. I detested the story, I outright /hated/ the main character, I despise the “genre”, I am sick and tired of the atmosphere of the book and all others like it…

And yet the sheer mastery of how /well/ it was written compelled me. But it took me a while and the help of my Creative Writing professor to understand all that. So, take someone who isn’t inclined to analyze, who doesn’t have a professor prodding them along…And you get someone who doesn’t like the material, /does/ like the craftsmanship, and doesn’t know this.

]]> Comment on by Milford Havens http://www.lemodesittjr.com/2010/07/02/14474/comment-page-1/#comment-5745 Milford Havens Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:57:15 +0000 http://www.lemodesittjr.com/?p=14474#comment-5745 Admittedly, I really like the Imager series! Excellent does not even come close to how I view this series. I really hope L.E.M. will expand upon the times in Terahnar. The possibilities seem endless. One being how does Dartazn do in Westisle...Adventures do not always mean the characters need get a promotion...Also, I really enjoyed the little quotes and quips above the chapter headings in the first Imager book! Keep them coming...:) Admittedly, I really like the Imager series! Excellent does not even come close to how I view this series. I really hope L.E.M. will expand upon the times in Terahnar. The possibilities seem endless. One being how does Dartazn do in Westisle…Adventures do not always mean the characters need get a promotion…Also, I really enjoyed the little quotes and quips above the chapter headings in the first Imager book! Keep them coming…:)

]]>