War on Terrorism (Politics)

[Boreades]

I forgot to mention that Einsatzgruppenversorger A1413 also carries members of the Marinefliegerkommando. Another long word, we just use little words and call our version Fleet Air Arm.

Sad if Harpo has no intel, I thiought he knew everyone worth knowing inside the Circle Line.

I'll have to ask one of my neighbours. Ex-skipper of the Ark Royal. He probably knows whos-who in CINCEASTLANT and STRIKFORNATO.

[Mick Harper]

Well, I certainly understand matters better than an ex-captain of the Ark Royal, indeed better than all the ex-captains of all the Ark Royals. The reasons for this -- and they are AE reasons -- are laid out in An Unreliable History of the Second World War. I will address your question as soon as you have posted a review of the book. Obviously I don't want to go over old ground.

[Boreades]

I've got as far as the contents page. I'll post a review of the book as soon as I've found a magnifying glass that's powerful enough for me to read the rest of it without straining my eyes. Obviously I don't want to upset the author by wondering why they chose such a terribly small font size. Perhaps it was production costs?

I have idly wondered if there used to be (or should have been) a chapter on the SOE. Said by some to be much more effective at precision bombing of strategic targets than the RAF, and at a fraction of the cost in time, people and resources. But that came under the category of Ungentlemenly Warefare, and was shut down as soon as the orthodox Defence Staff got their chance in 1945.

[Mick Harper]

There is a section on the SOE. You should consult the Index which is in an even smaller font. It never ceases to amaze me the reasons people advance why they haven't read a particular book -- something I have, alas, had to get used to over my lifetime as a writer. The best was somebody, met after an interval of eighteen years, saying, "I just haven't had the time."

The AE point here is that there is only one reason people don't read a book and that is because they don't want to. It is after all a considerable investment in time and, apart from exams, a voluntary one. Indeed, personally, I find I can't read a book unless I am enjoying it. Duty is not sufficient. The eyes glaze over after a coupla lines. But this does, I grant, present a problem when sent a book which comes with some personal baggage. Then people universally adopt a policy of careful ignoral, assuming it is better not to upset the writer overtly even though the writer is even more upset by the careful ignoral. This is in addition to negative feedback being better than no feedback. It will cost us £29 for instance to reprint the book with a larger font. Though of course the negative feedback has to be true. People tend to lie.

[Boreades]

Very well. I haven't read the book and that is because I don't want to damage my eyes.

I'm sorry to have to say this, but is it too much to ask that publishers of a book do so in a type face and size that can be read at night with glasses on?

Or do it as an eBook where the reader can zoom in & out to their heart's and eyes' content?

[Mick Harper]

And then they double down!

Not that the typeface isn't an issue, others have complained.

[Boreades]

The typeface is fine.
It's the font size that I'm complaining about.

[Mick Harper]

The font size is exactly the same as for all other British A-format (4.3 in × 7.0) paperbacks i.e. 33 lines per page, 350 words per page.

[Mick Harper]

This is not to say these matters are unimportant. We could have decreased margins, increased pagination, chosen a larger book format and so forth. Certainly it would seem that these sorts of paperbacks are for younger eyes. But there is another aspect to consider.

Apart from one friend, who is an artist and knows the fundamental importance of feedback for good and ill, not a single person has in fact given me any. This includes my nearest and dearest as well as all the people on this site. Not a single one has done me the courtesy of saying, "Sorry, Mick, couldn't make any headway" or "Sorry, Mick, managed to finish it but thought it was crap." (With or without reasons in both cases, it all helps.) Except now for Borrie of course, under a bit of pressure.

Thus I can carry on telling myself it was the font size to blame rather than myself. It was the medium not the message! Not the best way to profit from one's mistakes.

[Boreades]

I have been for a walk with one of our dogs. Which might or might not include a visit to the beach to stare at the sunset / our Post Office / Pub. Mind and spirits refresh, I find myself (shock horror) agreeing with Mick.

It's the medium, not the content. It's yer actual marketing.

People are easily swayed by the packaging. If the content is large and important, why confuse people by putting in a small and unimportant-looking media? Unless we want to emphasis something like recycling?

Similarly, if the content is important, why make it hard for people (of a certain demographic) to read the content? It's counter-productive.

If you are proud of it, big it up.

[Mick Harper]

There were marketing reasons for the choices we made. But aren't you overlooking one fact? None of this applies to you.

[Boreades]

[Mick Harper]

Of course, of course. I had quite forgotten our long and close relationship had been sundered for want of a magnifying glass.

[Boreades]

In future, please include a magnifying glass with each book.

[Ishmael]