Boston T. Party
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 90
from Zak Smith:
especially optics. Thus, this 80/20 Rule author must pick several of what
he sees as the best in their category (and "wave" my hands at the rest).
Besides, I urged precision rifleman to go Leupold or IOR, so how did I
cheat them of anything?
Even if I could own/borrow 30+ scopes to mount/zero/test on a dozen
rifles (which would take months of shop/range time), publishing the results
of such would obviate your advice of streamlining BGB to a "pamphlet."
You're welcome to urge me to write more extensively, or less
extensively, but please choose one.
But that has never been my argument.
My contention is that book authors understand what it takes
to be a book author, and thus their criticism (however harsh)
is often leavened with a perspective and fairness which some
readers cannot muster. Very few books are a total POS, but
your "characterization" of BGB was so sweepingly negative
(and without substantiation) that you stopped just short of
calling it a POS.
A fellow author, whatever his contrary view of the book, would
have at least mentioned in passing the BGB is a very unique
title which has been singularly responsible for morphing hundreds
of the unarmed into the armed, and the armed into Riflemen.
Perspective and fairness is what you lacked in your remarks.
A fellow author would have understood how precious all books are,
and would have described what was good and helpful in BGB.
You allege to know a better format with ostensibly better information?
Fine. Write and publish it. Otherwise, your wholly negative remarks
sound like those guys at gun shows who complain about everybody's
high prices, yet never counteroffer and actually buy anything.
I specifically asked you to cite any material error which if left
uncorrected would lead an unsuspecting reader astray. You
have yet to cite any such example.
As Theodore Roosevelt described in his essay on the Critic,
I am "in the arena"--several of them, actually. When I see you
there also, taking a marketing and freedom risk with your own
hand-crafted material, your opinion will increase in merit to me.
particularly the M1/M14 and Optics chapters. Such improved the book,
though "considerably" would be stretching it since the 2002 version
was pretty good to begin with.
But why would you want to review it, since the book's format is
"obsolete"? In order to quip, "Yep, still obsolete!"?
You are clearly predisposed against the format, the coverage, the
ranting, etc. of BGB. Why subject yourself to more of the same?
I can count on my fingers those who complained within earshot of
its excessive length.
Given the magnitude of the subject and sub-subjects involved of
History, Law, Safety, Tactics, Training, Shooting, etc.--an 848 page
book is a pamphlet. Nobody had ever before attempted such a
comprehensive volume (though Tappan's Survival Guns was a
step in that direction).
You've dispensed publishing advice, so I'm curious as to your publishing
bona fides. Please provide the ISBNs of the books you've made
a significant contribution to in research, writing, design, lay-out,
printing, and marketing. Have you any experience with reducing an
already successful large volume to an even more successful pamphlet?
What strong selling book has gone this route?
Boston
It is infeasible for any one author to test every product in its field,If the goal is to evaluate the available choices, it is irresponsible to merely test ("have tried") a couple and wave your hands at the rest of the field.
especially optics. Thus, this 80/20 Rule author must pick several of what
he sees as the best in their category (and "wave" my hands at the rest).
Besides, I urged precision rifleman to go Leupold or IOR, so how did I
cheat them of anything?
Even if I could own/borrow 30+ scopes to mount/zero/test on a dozen
rifles (which would take months of shop/range time), publishing the results
of such would obviate your advice of streamlining BGB to a "pamphlet."
You're welcome to urge me to write more extensively, or less
extensively, but please choose one.
I agree.The argument that only an author can criticize an author is a fallacy.
But that has never been my argument.
My contention is that book authors understand what it takes
to be a book author, and thus their criticism (however harsh)
is often leavened with a perspective and fairness which some
readers cannot muster. Very few books are a total POS, but
your "characterization" of BGB was so sweepingly negative
(and without substantiation) that you stopped just short of
calling it a POS.
A fellow author, whatever his contrary view of the book, would
have at least mentioned in passing the BGB is a very unique
title which has been singularly responsible for morphing hundreds
of the unarmed into the armed, and the armed into Riflemen.
Perspective and fairness is what you lacked in your remarks.
A fellow author would have understood how precious all books are,
and would have described what was good and helpful in BGB.
You allege to know a better format with ostensibly better information?
Fine. Write and publish it. Otherwise, your wholly negative remarks
sound like those guys at gun shows who complain about everybody's
high prices, yet never counteroffer and actually buy anything.
I specifically asked you to cite any material error which if left
uncorrected would lead an unsuspecting reader astray. You
have yet to cite any such example.
As Theodore Roosevelt described in his essay on the Critic,
I am "in the arena"--several of them, actually. When I see you
there also, taking a marketing and freedom risk with your own
hand-crafted material, your opinion will increase in merit to me.
The 3rd printing (2005) has about 100 pages revised from 2002,The copy I was sent is, I believe, the 2002 printing. If you believe the latest revision is considerably better, send me a copy for review.
particularly the M1/M14 and Optics chapters. Such improved the book,
though "considerably" would be stretching it since the 2002 version
was pretty good to begin with.
But why would you want to review it, since the book's format is
"obsolete"? In order to quip, "Yep, still obsolete!"?
You are clearly predisposed against the format, the coverage, the
ranting, etc. of BGB. Why subject yourself to more of the same?
In the 5 years BGB has been out in its various sizes (720pp. and up),In my opinion, as I said before, BGB would have been a more successful vehicle had it been condensed down to a much shorter book
I can count on my fingers those who complained within earshot of
its excessive length.
Given the magnitude of the subject and sub-subjects involved of
History, Law, Safety, Tactics, Training, Shooting, etc.--an 848 page
book is a pamphlet. Nobody had ever before attempted such a
comprehensive volume (though Tappan's Survival Guns was a
step in that direction).
You've dispensed publishing advice, so I'm curious as to your publishing
bona fides. Please provide the ISBNs of the books you've made
a significant contribution to in research, writing, design, lay-out,
printing, and marketing. Have you any experience with reducing an
already successful large volume to an even more successful pamphlet?
What strong selling book has gone this route?
Boston