Skip to main content

The Joy of Bookshops

Stuck in Swindon for an hour, I made my usual venture into a bookshop - in this case Waterstones. As always, this brought on mixed feelings. There was the genuine pleasure of being amongst so many books, tempered by the sadness that there were few of my own books in sight. (Borders in Swindon always has a much better selection.)

I don't know why it is, but the local bookshops seem to have a positive dislike of authors. Every time I've had a book out I have written to them, and despite stocking my books, they've never bothered to respond, even with an email or call. Contrast this with the excellent branch of Waterstones at the Science Museum in London, who really make an author feel at home.

It's a shame.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Bob O'Hara26 September 2008 at 06:26

    On my return from ScienceBloggong 08 (and other excursions), I had to wait in Manchester airport, so I also headed for the bookshops. None of my books were there, unfortunately (simply because I haven't written them yet - if they had been there I could save a lo of time by just copying what I had published). Anyway, I did find one of your book there - in the spirituality and hocus-pocus section.

    I didn't buy it - the price was written in large words (well one large word) across thye front cover, and I didn't have that much money on me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg26 September 2008 at 09:04

    Good to hear Bob, despite the section (I can't imagine which of my books they thought suited spirituality).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more