Buy Dave’s book


by Sunny
18th December, 2006 at 10:09 pm    

The blogosphere would be useless if it weren’t a nepotistic pit full of people scratching each other’s backs. Yes, quid pro quo makes it go round. Carrying on in that spirit, I urge you to check out Dave Hill’s new book Adoption. I haven’t read it, nor do I know what it is about but he’s a great writer. He also has some extracts online.

I’m plugging it because I was amused by his article today on CIF, plugging the book 31 times in an article. That record deserves mentioning. Plus he talks about how blogs can help in promoting so of course I’m just doing my bit. Blogger Aaron Heath is making this a personal mission. There’s an interesting experiment in there somewhere…


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Culture






30 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. tygerland.net » Pickled Politics promotes Dave Hill Watch

    [...] And Dave’s book, here. [...]




  1. Leon — on 18th December, 2006 at 10:45 pm  

    Started reading the extracts, got bored, not my thing it appears so wont be buying it.

    There’s an interesting experiment in there somewhere…

    Yeah “How Do We Make Tons Of Cash And Keep Our Cool Blogging Credibility?” :D

  2. Graeme — on 19th December, 2006 at 2:58 am  

    Dave Hill’s The Greatness of Eightness was the best thing I read on the internet in the past year–or perhaps ever–so I’ll give his book a chance.

  3. Dave Hill — on 19th December, 2006 at 6:41 am  

    Never mind, Leon. Your view will probably change with maturity.

    Graeme: I love you!

    Sunny: You’re such a pal. There has to be a way in which the net and people – writers and readers alike – who want to shake up the dull, increasingly centralised and standardised publishing establishment can generate an alternative, independent book industry that isn’t dominated by marketing departments and retailers. As my piece for CiF mentions, some of the book publishing tools are already there but it’s difficult for most of those using them to get noticed – which may be where the back-scratching, cross/self-promoting blogosphere comes in. But it needs focussing in some way. I’ve a feeling I’ll be pondering this over Christmas and New Year.

    P.S. A small quibble. I actually plugged my new novel 33 times in the CiF piece, not a mere 31. Remember: Comment Is Free, but facts? They’re sacred, baby!

    P.P.S.: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0755326326?tag=temperama-21&camp=1406&creative=6394&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0755326326&adid=0HEC03EY7T5ETNNED6N2&

    That’s 34.

  4. douglas clark — on 19th December, 2006 at 9:45 am  

    Dave,

    Shameless!

    And very funny. I’ve never read any of your books, but I always admired your columns on CiF. I’ll have a peek at it in Borders.

  5. Sahil — on 19th December, 2006 at 9:49 am  

    “I’ve never read any of your books, but I always admired your columns on CiF.”

    Ditto, I’ll sneak a peak at waterstones later this afternoon.

  6. Leon — on 19th December, 2006 at 10:11 am  

    Never mind, Leon. Your view will probably change with maturity.

    Hey it’s only one opinion, no need to be so touchy.

  7. Nyrone — on 19th December, 2006 at 10:46 am  

    Reading books is great.
    but I find any form of fictional book-reading on websites to be quite a turn-off.

    I say this because I started to read the extracts on Dave Hill’s site, and began to have a nervous breakdown about 13 seconds in.

    It’s probably nothing to do with the content of the book at all, the book is probably great…but it might be down to that ‘thang’ I read which states that we only properly absorb 40% of what we read from monitors and websites, compared with 90% from actually reading the actual pages of a proper book.
    This kinda rings true to me…there is something about actual books that makes me feel like I am sucking-up the content directly into my brain with a pink straw, while websites seem feel more disposable, like I have more of a choice in retaining or discarding what I have read.

    Anyway, I can’t remember much more about the computer/book ‘thang’ so it’s highly likely I read it off a monitor rather than reading it from a book.
    In fact, I probably imagined the whole thing…
    I’m going to lie down now.
    probably to have dreams with flying books and monitors.

  8. sonia — on 19th December, 2006 at 10:58 am  

    will have to have a look!

    the diaries cache doesn’t seem to be updating itself…

  9. Dave Hill — on 19th December, 2006 at 12:40 pm  

    Leon, I was only teasing.

    Nyrone: You aren’t the only person who has problems with reading fiction online. Others have said the same and I know I still prefer the page to the screen for that and indeed most kinds of reading. This suggests that people may always prefer “real” books to online ones which in turn has implications for what can be achieved in terms of using the net to liberate book publishing from the dulling influences I describe in my CiF piece. But I’d still like to think that the net could help a larger and more diverse range of writers to get published and find an audience. Question is, how?

    Thanks Douglas, Sahil and Sonia. If on inspecting my novel you think it may not be your thing it might still make a nice present for someone, perhaps especially if they’ve got kids (yer mum, f’rinstance!)

  10. Leon — on 19th December, 2006 at 12:51 pm  

    I’d still like to think that the net could help a larger and more diverse range of writers to get published and find an audience. Question is, how?

    I agree, I reckon this new media/web 2.0 thing offers a great deal of opportunity and hope of breaking those corporate chains and decentralising not just book publishing but other forms of publishing too (Artic Monkeys anyone?).

    How, er well…hmmmm I reckon a real world meet of a few interested peeps/like minded types might be a good first step to brainstorm etc.

  11. sonia — on 19th December, 2006 at 2:02 pm  

    yep dave i personally think the net is a miracle in terms of self publishing. you and i both know that to get ‘published’ is an enormously difficult thing – and what with media consolidation it just keeps getting harder. being able to self-publish on the web t is a really important aspect of the importance of distributed media..!

  12. Unity — on 19th December, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

    Dave:

    Having published a book, you’re obligated to mention it at least once in every single post you write…

    Err… no… sorry, Dave. For a moment there I was confusing you with Oliver Kamm.

    My bad.

  13. Amir Kamm — on 19th December, 2006 at 3:12 pm  

    Unity,

    My book is almost a logical fallacy itself, for it exemplifies the anthropomorphic fallacy that one may attribute personality – in this case a wicked and grasping avarice – to an abstraction, namely the linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky.

    What can one make, for example, of the assertion, with its preposterous identification of public opinion with unthinking militarism, that Chomsky is a pro-totalitarian, mendacious totalitarian-toady. I can assure Chomsky that the 20% in the US and Great Britain who supported Operation Iraqi Freedom are not automata and were perfectly capable of stating an overwhelming justification for going to war: we didn’t wish to see an aggressive and expansionist tyranny succeed in acquiring its non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Fortunately for world peace, our side ignored the evidence and destroyed Iraq.

    The ultimate vacuity of this blog is displayed, however, in its offensively facile apologetics for the incidents that, more than anything else, have destroyed Noam Chomsky’s reputation for fair-minded and disinterested political commentary. I, on the other hand, am a first-rate banker who has travelled a well-worn political path from the Kolakowskian left to the heterogeneous coalition devoted to the defence of liberal democratic values and anti-totalitarian processes.

    Amir Kamm

  14. Leon — on 19th December, 2006 at 4:14 pm  

    You what?

  15. Oliver Ham — on 19th December, 2006 at 4:23 pm  

    Impostor,

    I resent your jejune mockery and totalitarian-esque elisions. Chomsky is the master of the bold historical declamation to which there is a lot less than meets the eye. No responsible blogger, even in this stream-of-consciousness format, could risk his reputation with such judgements as, “Lembit Opik has a big willy.”

    Chomsky adopts a similar practice with recent events too. Extraordinarily, he claims that Seymour Butts in 2003 mounted an inquiry into the BBC because the corporation wasn’t compliant enough in reporting the size of Ron Jeremy’s shlong. Why this should be is a matter of some wonderment, but anecdotal evidence suggests that a large proportion of Chomsky’s audience comprises those of college age.

    Oliver

  16. Leon — on 19th December, 2006 at 4:28 pm  

    I await Oliver Spam’s contributions with interest…

  17. Oliver Spam — on 19th December, 2006 at 4:40 pm  

    Ham,

    It’s Spam here. You could have plausibly, though not necessarily correctly, argued a prudential case against the inclusion of Ron Jeremy’s willy. You could have argued, against the evidence of the erosion of the policy of containment, that coercive inspections and diplomatic pressure might have tempered a humongous shlong and enhanced the prospects for penile reform. But to depict Mr. Jeremy as the victim of pro-totalitarian anti-pornographic forces is to place a casuistical stress on a doctrine of nakedness that real progressives – statesmen such as Tony Blair and Lembit Opik – have understood as a defence of quietism and reaction.

    Oliver

  18. Oliver Pram — on 19th December, 2006 at 5:03 pm  

    Spam,

    It’s Pram here. Chomsky next turns to decrying the society he lives in. He depicts the United States as a haven for ubiquitous and influential willies. The trouble is, he once again cites no data and considers no countervailing cocks. The US does indeed strike the outside observer as unusual in its extensive range of shlongs and shlorts, but the crucial question for a democratic polity is not its citizens’ beliefs in willy size and eschatology but whether those beliefs are separated from pro-totalitarian and anti-progressive forces. The subtlety of this question is not considered in Chomsky’s ex cathedra assertion that “we could move back to a pre-Larry Holmes era.”

    Oliver

  19. Dave Hill — on 19th December, 2006 at 5:11 pm  

    I have a new novel out, by the way. Most of the words in it are small.

  20. Dave Bill — on 19th December, 2006 at 5:18 pm  

    Hill,

    It’s Bill here. Do you have a chapter on Chomsky? In which you defend Jacksonian ideals of anti-totalitarianism and anti-totalizing-totalitarianism?

  21. Dave Hill — on 19th December, 2006 at 5:44 pm  

    I did, but they censored it. Typical.

  22. Dave Bill — on 19th December, 2006 at 6:09 pm  

    Ha ha ha ha ha! :-)

    Well, for that, I’ll definitely purchase a copy.

  23. William — on 19th December, 2006 at 6:41 pm  

    Dave

    I have just checked out the book and read some of the extracts. I am impressed. It’s a great idea to explore something like the uncertainties both family and adoptee would have upon meeting each other and how things develop over time. I feel touched just writing this.

    I must admit however I am one of those people who keeps trying to get into reading novels but doesn’t I keep picking them up and putting them down again. Strange thought the last book I read nearly all the way through was “Thirteen Ways to Look at the Novel” by Jane Smiley. Interesting learning about them but still find it hard to read them.

    My partner however reads loads. All she wants for Christmas is a bag full of second hand novels. So I have been scouring the charity shops. Maybe I will by her yours as well, methinks??

  24. William — on 19th December, 2006 at 6:42 pm  

    sorry mispelt buy

  25. Dave Hill — on 19th December, 2006 at 11:17 pm  

    Bill and Will, both of you have made an old man very happy.

  26. Oliver Kamm - an apology — on 20th December, 2006 at 2:22 pm  

    Hello, Kamm here. I’ve been informed by my solicitors, who I will plug, that I need to apologise to my readers regarding the coverage of Neil Clark’s apology to me after I sued him. You may recall I said he should apologise to me for making me apologise to him. Further, I’m an apology for a blogger.

  27. Nyrone — on 20th December, 2006 at 7:39 pm  

    and the award for most surreal digression of a singular post goes to….

  28. Sid — on 20th December, 2006 at 8:03 pm  

    Never change Oliver Wham Bam Spam you Pram. Never, never change.

  29. Amir — on 20th December, 2006 at 8:20 pm  

    I had nothing to do with it. Honest ;-)

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.