I can think of 10 people that would buy the book immediately, assuming that the added content warranted purchase. Are you thinking of answering popular objections?
I think only you can answer this question, Victor. Will it significantly improve the book? If so, then it should be done. It then becomes a question for your publisher to answer (i.e., it becomes an economics question).
I'd be giving the main arguments some further development, and responding to criticisms. John Beversluis is coming out with a revised edition of his book in the spring of next year, which will probably have some criticisms of my book, so I thought it would probably be a good idea.
One downsider to the way I wrote my book initially is that when I subdivided the argument I left the discussion underdeveloped with respect to the specific arguments.
I won't major on responding to Carrier, though I think the issue of neglecting empirical resource is an important one.
I think a sequel would work better. Despite my pickiness {editing g!}, the vast majority of the original book work fine as it is. I know I would be interested in reading a true follow-up more than a re-presentation of the original material with tweaks here and there. The AfR field needs further exploration, not just replying.
I think it would be a great idea but I would like to see you expand on and dumb down some of the points you made in the book. I grasped the general gist of where everything was going but some points went over my head and warrant further explanation. I would definately buy an expanded edition.
7 comments:
What do you mean would people like to see this i don't get it tell me what you mean at
www.a-dumb-blog.blogspot.com
I can think of 10 people that would buy the book immediately, assuming that the added content warranted purchase. Are you thinking of answering popular objections?
I think only you can answer this question, Victor. Will it significantly improve the book? If so, then it should be done. It then becomes a question for your publisher to answer (i.e., it becomes an economics question).
I'd be giving the main arguments some further development, and responding to criticisms. John Beversluis is coming out with a revised edition of his book in the spring of next year, which will probably have some criticisms of my book, so I thought it would probably be a good idea.
One downsider to the way I wrote my book initially is that when I subdivided the argument I left the discussion underdeveloped with respect to the specific arguments.
I won't major on responding to Carrier, though I think the issue of neglecting empirical resource is an important one.
I think a sequel would work better. Despite my pickiness {editing g!}, the vast majority of the original book work fine as it is. I know I would be interested in reading a true follow-up more than a re-presentation of the original material with tweaks here and there. The AfR field needs further exploration, not just replying.
Um, re _plowing_ I meant to write. {g} (Allergy medicine today, so typing is scoofed.)
Victor
I think it would be a great idea but I would like to see you expand on and dumb down some of the points you made in the book. I grasped the general gist of where everything was going but some points went over my head and warrant further explanation. I would definately buy an expanded edition.
Damien Spillane
Post a Comment