It's hard on all of us. Some of us, though, are dedicated and have our priorities straight.
Proper hydration is the key. Starchy foods, especially potatoes, help.
I want a reputation as someone who is game for this type of thing, and who should be invited along, but wow, it's actually really hard on me.
You could try cultivating a reputation as someone who's prone to brawling after a few drinks instead.
That might or might lead to more invitations.
You can always drink less than everyone else? Although that's hard if you are buying rounds, sometimes. Also the starchy foods and spicy meat based products.
4: You better hope your homeland lets you back in after you visit.
But seriously, there's no fixing the not-sleeping thing, as far as I can tell, although food and water will fix the feeling-bad-the-next-day thing (not counting the tired-for-not-sleeping). You can try a benadryl or two (I did last night!), although often this won't so much keep you asleep as keep you in a sort of fugue state where you're mostly asleep and at least not tossing around or sitting up reading.
Toss in an ambien or xanax. Maybe take a nice relaxing bath before bed.
Maybe take a nice relaxing bath before bed.
But if you've drunk enough to be the life and soul of the party, make sure somebody's around to wake you up before you drown.
If I drink a lot I also tend to wake-up early and then spend a couple of hours in a semi-waking state of misery. Eating something fairly substantial and taking some painkillers before bed heads the worst of that off. The sad thing about aging is that while sometimes I can go out and get blootered and feel fine the next day, there are unpredictable times when it only takes 3 or 4 pints and I'm a mess the next morning.
make sure somebody's around to wake you up before you drown.
They make battery powered water alarms. The idea is that you'll know your basement is leaking before the drywall is ruined, but I don't see why you couldn't wear one as a necklace.
When drinking cocktails, substitute a bitters-and-soda every few rounds in order to slow your roll but not feel like a water- or Coke-drinking lame-o.
@10: Seriously. I always get pissed when I wake up with a hangover I didn't earn, which happens so much more often in my senescence.
You could drink even more, then you'd just pass out.
Tonic and bitters is nice also but the bartender will invariably ask "not feelin' too good?" unless you're at a party rather than a bar, unless unless it's a party with a bartender, like in TFA somewhere.
It's hit or miss for me. Two drinks can make a mess of me but then occasionally I can drink half a bottle of bourbon and still carve a pumpkin.
substitute a bitters-and-soda
That might be the thing I've been looking for. I want a concoction that tastes like it is really potent, but is actually quite weak. (Mostly I've been thinking of beers--the ideal would taste like an IPA but have the alcohol content of Milwaukee's Best Light.)
The money in alcoholic beverages, though, seems to be in high alcohol drinks that taste like milkshakes. So I'm going against the trends.
It used to be simple to establish a reputation as a hard partier: jump off something, get somebody pregnant, set something on fire, steal a constable's helmet on Boat Race night, run through Tercentenary Theater in a Godzilla suit screaming "You'll never take me alive!" when the Japanese ambassador is speaking.
Good times.
17. "Beautiful lady in red, may I have this waltz?"
16: You can always just drink Milwaukee's Best Light.
The post title is making me feel compelled to share (and marginally google-proof) the story about how my friend's mom thought the K/ss song went "I wanna rock & roll all n/ght, and part of every day," which she thought sounded awfully responsible of them. YMMV, I suppose.
20: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5pXvKEePx8
17 is funny. There are still places where you can gain that sort of reputation for that kind of thing, but they're fewer and farther between. Everyone's really *uptight* now.
there are unpredictable times when it only takes 3 or 4 pints and I'm a mess the next morning.
THIS, except a single glass of wine. Rarely, but a super pounding headache. Enough for me to get nervous about drinking. Of course, I'm willing to drink through the fear.
Wiki says that the Archbishop of Lima story is probably not true. Darn.
22: Tell me about it. [Lights cigar, flicks match at nearby polyester leisure suit warehouse.]
20 My brother-in-law also misheard it that way.
I want a concoction that tastes like it is really potent, but is actually quite weak.
A bartender recently told me about a trick he uses with a person who's plainly overserved but insisting on another drink: they can have "gin" and tonic (where you tell 'em it's a G&T but it's really just tonic). Says it works every time.
16: Try a South Hampton -- tonic water, several dashes of Peychaud's, and lime juice. Getting the bartender to actually put in lime juice and not just a wedge is the hardest part.
24. Sad. But if not true, it would be perfectly in character for its protagonist.
You know what's worse? Hockey. Can't sleep for hours after playing, dehydration gives you essentially the same thing as a hangover, if you do try to rehydrate before sleeping you're up every half hour to go to the bathroom. And now I've joined a team where they drink beer in the parking lot after late games which is just asking for problems.
29. Yeah, that was a fascinating entry to read. I do like how he got one over on the heralds.
You know what's worse? Hockey. Cancer.
When drinking cocktails, substitute a bitters-and-soda snort a line of coke every few rounds in order to slow your roll but not feel like a water- or Coke-drinking lame-o.
snort a line of coke every few rounds
...and put on some Miles Davis.
You know what's worse? Hockey. Cancer. Led Zeppelin.
Cancer Hitler buying a goal to Heaven
Cancer Hitler in goal.
Nah, always jumped the wrong way in penalties.
37: Because you know sometimes words have two meanings.
39. There's a Dolly Parton cover, orchestral country arrangement.
re: 30
Yeah. I do my kickboxing thing on a Monday night, and don't get home till late. You'd think I'd be able to sleep, but with the adrenaline, and the tiredness, I'm invariably up half the night and shattered the next morning. And that's not as tough exercise-wise as a game of hockey, I'd imagine.
NMM to another person I had not heard of before yesterday who lots of people seem to have been very fond of.
Cancer Hitler isn't real, Smearcase.
I'd bet three unnecessary, extra bass drum hits (what? too soon?) he means Levon Helm.
Try a South Hampton
My wife has gone through a *lot* of these now. We're making a serious dent in the bitters, and have much stronger opinions on the merits of different brands of tonic. It's been harder to get from restaurant bars, but she did get some amazing ginger-beer-and-fruit-syrup drinks when we went out earlier this week.
I had the same reaction to Levon Helm reaction. Maybe you had to be there, but I don't get what's so amazing about the Band.
Man, Jammies LOVES the Band. I think they're fine, whatever, but they do inspire passion.
46: nice! I imagine you've tried Q Tonic?
48, 49: I felt that way when Michael Jackson died and almost nothing else appeared in my Facebook feed for a week.
What is wrong with you monsters?
Q was tried, and found to be tasty but much too expensive for the purpose (I've had some around from time to time for gin and tonics). Fever Tree was about as expensive and not quite as good; the Fever Tree "naturally light" even less so. The 365 store brand is a step up from schweppes/canada dry without being too much more expensive.
This all reminds me that I need to host one of the tasting/drinking events I keep threatening. Either the gins-cross-tonics matrix tasting event, or the tasting of the accumulated vintages of cheap wine from TJs ("upChuck: A vertical tasting experience").
I had the same reaction to Levon Helm reaction. Maybe you had to be there, but I don't get what's so amazing about the Band.
I think George Starostin is smart in his comments about The Band (not 100% correct, but gets a lot of what is great and what's disappointing about The Band).
... Big Pink is a doggone hard listen, and that its greatness, if there is such a thing, and if it doesn't overwhelm you at once, will take a long long time to realize.
Seriously, The Band might have knocked a lot of people off their feet back then in 1968, but by today's standards the album almost seems tame and docile, so that it's pretty easy to miss what all the fuss was about. These guys don't go for a lot of catchiness (although when you look closely, at the heart of nearly each song you still have a well-implanted hook that can eventually get you); their musicianship is very good, but not outstanding; and... ah well, the flaws of this record are sooo on the surface, I don't really need to drag on about them.
...
It's a grand album, in short... agrand album with enormous ambitions, and the very fact that The Band are able to pull it off and not make complete assholes of themselves is enough to demand at least some respect for the stuff.
...The Band's biggest asset at this point was, I think, primarily the overload of vocal talent: drummer Levon Helm, bassist Rick Danko, and pianist Richard Manuel all sing, and they all have distinct singing personalities. Manuel's soulful, plaintive, occasionally heartbreaking tenor is used most often, but Danko's a trifle "paranoid" delivery works well too, while Helm adds the necessary "earthy" element to the proceedings. Without the vocal talent, none of the material would be worth a dang.
...
The three Basement Tapes-era Dylan interpretations (two actually co-written by Dylan with Manuel and Rick Danko, to be correct) are a marvel. If 'Tears Of Rage' seems a bit slow to you at first, give it a chance and at some point Hudson's organ swirls and Manuel's absolutely gorgeous singing are going to get to you. 'This Wheel's On Fire' may not rock nearly as hard as the Byrds' version, but, again, Hudson's weird organ tone, joined by Robbie's talkbox-enhanced guitar, certainly qualifies. However, the best of these by a long, long shot is 'I Shall Be Released' - one of the two or three occasions in world history where even I, with my normally Dylan-sympathizing tastes, would never prefer Dylan's ragged take over this ethereal piece of total beauty. Manuel's falsetto could move mountains on that one.
48:The Band were (?) fucking hard. Compare them to contemporary country or country-rock, Haggard, Byrds, Dillards, Ronstadt, Gram Parsons.
I wouldn't say they rocked, again, compare to Sabbath, Deep Purple, the jam bands, even the Stones...except maybe Exile, which a lot of people find to be a challenging album.
Maybe you could compare them to Kozmic Blues Janis.
The Band had a very dense, busy, full sound that to me at the time was neither country or rock. I got longer more distinct guitar solos from Haggard's or Jennings albums even in the late 60s.
To me it was a muddy drunk's sound, neither fish nor fowl, and even though the songs were brilliant, and the performances tight and perfect, I could not stand the fucking alkies.
But Exiles set up a mood, and in a drunken stupor or 3 AM burnout the album can serve as background.
The Band demands your attention, was like five guys yelling at the top of their lungs with tight loud instrumentation going simultaneously without a fucking break and without hooks or emotional signs to grab onto but enough apparent referents to make you think you are at fault. Albert Aylers of fucking rock.
Don't mind me, I didn't care for Little Feat either. But I thought they were listenable, even if confusing and chaotic.
23: No remedy, just sympathy. It happens to me, too. It feels unfair to have a hangover without even a teensy buzz.
It feels unfair to have a hangover without even a teensy buzz.
This is a sign you're not drinking fast enough.
This is a sign you're not drinking fast enough. old.
Q and lime is my favorite! I get the tonic by the case from Amazon, because I'm awesome/horrible.
62: Hey, I do too! I feel especially horrible when all those teeny (but thick and heavy!) bottles clutter my recycling.
62: Good lord, there's a highly aggravated discussion going on in bookselling circles lately about whether one can, or should in good conscience, sell one's books on Amazon, seeing as how they're so horrible. It's pretty tense. The closing question as of yesterday afternoon was: okay, how bad would they have to be before you would refuse to do business with them?
All very uncomfortable.
I had a friend who tried to get me to go to a Band concert when I was at Cal. Didn't go, but they made a movie of it, which turned out pretty good.
I linked a snippet, I think, from Festival Express a while back, with Danko singing something with Jerry. Really, though, I'm a lot more partial to RR: I can listen to this album every week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSeUC2Caqxg
LH means more to me than Dick Clark. My son, on the other hand, suggested yesterday that with DC gone, New Years Eve was in doubt, and maybe the Mayans were right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdCyVeBNkxU
This one I think you folks might like a little better.
Really, though, I'm a lot more partial to RR: I can listen to this album every week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSeUC2Caqxg
That video is kind of obnoxious.
The song isn't bad, but sounds a lot more like Massive Attack (I am still fond of this performance) than I was expecting.
67 -- I wish the internet had a good version of Stomp Dance.
Oh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1jLZ6aWy08
there's a highly aggravated discussion going on in bookselling circles lately about whether one can, or should in good conscience, sell one's books on Amazon
I'm curious to hear a little bit more about this because I'm still trying to figure out whether I believe, as a consumer, that Amazon is evil.
My situation is that I don't by many books from Amazon (maybe 2-3 a year), but I buy a lot of CDs from the Amazon marketplace. CDs are a little bit different just because they're so much cheaper to ship it feels like a somewhat different dynamic. In that case most of the big sellers on Amazon are also selling on eBay. So, on one hand I could just give up on Amazon completely and get 80-90% of what I'm looking for on ebay (though I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make to anybody), on the other hand, Amazon does have better search functions, and generally convenient in some ways so I buy in both places.
So I'm curious whether I'm making a bad situation worse. I have no doubt that Amazon is a giant company with sharp elbows and that there are lots of people with legitimate frustrations with them, but I don't know if that by itself is enough reason for me to dislike them.
I'm buying fewer books from Amazon because I have a Kindle.
Detroit has a first baseman called Fielder. Somebody write a sketch comedy routine.
And this is only the 16th year since 1990 that a team has had a first baseman named Fielder!
I don't know baseball player names.
Yinzers to the left. Hipsters to the right. The bar has a mixed crowd tonight.
70: Amazon is definitely evil. They're also becoming an effective monopoly in the market, which is why sellers feel they have little choice but to sell through them; consumers generally don't care about any of this, as they seek the best price (even if it's by just a penny) as well as convenience. Amazon knows all that, and smiles, driving prices ever downward.
I'm not sure I'm inclined to outline their many evils -- you will, I assume, have heard about their employment practices in their many pick-and-pack warehouses. None of that seems to make much of a difference to much of the consuming public, and we all know that. It's a shitty set-up. I blame consumerism.
Someone just toasted "the dead drummer" so I'm assuming The Band is playing.
Apparently, he also had something to do with "Sweet Caroline."
I'm glad to see that rtfs has come around to the ways of civilized persons.
70: Amazon is definitely evil.
I don't want to pull you into an argument that's going to ruin your mood, so feel free to say that this isn't a good conversation for the moment and I'm happy to drop it, but I want to play Devil's advocate for a moment (partially because I've been mulling this over since seeing Charlie Stross's recent post on the subject).
They're also becoming an effective monopoly in the market, which is why sellers feel they have little choice but to sell through them;
Here's the thing, I don't know the new book market or the used book market very well. But I can tell you that in the used CD market Amazon doesn't have a monopoly and doesn't have pricing power. If for no other reason than because of eBay. I can also say that Amazon doesn't have monopsony power -- they can't force every seller to sell through them. It's entirely possible for somebody to run a used CD business without selling through Amazon.
Secondly, I'm sympathetic to the desire to support small and local retailers. I attended a BALLE conference, for crying out loud. I live in a city which has a "buy local" organization which is considered to be one of the more successful ones in the country. At the same time I think that big massive retailers have their place in the world. I'm quite open to the fact that there are all sorts of ways in which local businesses may provide additional value, even if they're more expensive. But I still feel like they do need to provide that value. I'm not going to shop at local businesses when alternatives are not only cheaper but also a better experience.
In my own personal case I have much more affection for local used book stores than I do for the local music stores (though I still don't by many books). I think one reason is that I'm happy to browse for books and be surprised or be interested in whatever I find but, with music I'm usually looking for a specific CD and so I'm much more conscious of the limitations of inventory of the local music stores.
I'm not sure I'm inclined to outline their many evils -- you will, I assume, have heard about their employment practices in their many pick-and-pack warehouses.
At this moment that criticism resonates more strongly with me than the monopoly argument. But I also don't find that particularly motivating. That feels like a larger issue and not one that's specific to Amazon. I've certainly heard the same things about UPS and I've heard worse about Wal*Mart (and I do consciously avoid Wal*Mart). I would want to encourage Amazon to unionize but I also feel like, as with so many things, that's a political issue. I suspect I will more influence supporting pro-labor politicians than I would have boycotting Amazon. Because (a) boycotts only have an effect when they are part of an organized campaign and that doesn't really exist right now and (b) I believe there are bad stories about most companies that run large warehouse and shipping facilities and the goal should be effective regulation and worker protection, not haphazard responses.
If there was evidence that Amazon was exceptionally bad in their warehouse management then I would feel a stronger obligation to support efforts to convince them to change.
I realize that, by not talking about books at all, I've avoided the major are in which people complain about Amazon but that is, genuinely why I'm curious to understand the argument better -- because that just isn't how I interact with Amazon.
(Sorry about the length of this comment, but it something that's been on my mind.)
I decide I want something, click click click, two days later it shows up at my door. I friggin' love Amazon.
79 consumers generally don't care about any of this, as they seek the best price (even if it's by just a penny) as well as convenience
I think convenience is the bigger factor. Remember when sometimes you wanted to buy a book and you checked like four different bookstores and none of them had it, and maybe one of them offered to order it and get it for you in a week or two? With Amazon, there's usually no question of whether it's in stock or difficult to get. They have it.
I do still buy quite a few books from bookstores, though. I should stop buying books altogether because so far this year I've probably read ten and bought twenty, so I just keep falling further and further in the hole. The book hole.
I'm glad to see that rtfs has come around to the ways of civilized persons.
It's true! Thank god.
I buy tons of books, rarely purchase them online, and never from amazon. On the other hand I buy most of my cd's there. I also buy random junk that I either have a hard time finding in brick and mortar stores or which I really don't want to lug home on the subway.
But I also don't find that particularly motivating. That feels like a larger issue and not one that's specific to Amazon.
But Amazon makes a good target because of it's visibility, in the same way that Walmart does. I feel a bit guilty every time spend money at Amazon.
Anyway, I'm not sure that a rusty nail tastes better than other drinks or not, but it sure does make the bartender remember who you are.
One of the things I've learned over the years is how to be comfortable hanging out in a bar while drinking nothing but juice or soda. I'm not a complete teetotaler - I'm happy to have the occasional glass of wine or whatever - but I don't feel a need for alcohol just to be sociable. Is this an option for you for hanging out with your friends?
For what it's worth, I got out of the habit years ago when my wife was pregnant and I stopped drinking in solidarity with her. I just never got back in the habit again afterwards.
Did SWPL not include Amazon? Seems like an oversight.
a muddy drunk's sound
This.
"Stage Fright" was one of my early favorite songs. It's a bit too weighted down with teenage k-sky's sense of drama and self-importance. I don't quite know if it's good anymore.
93 is great. I just rewatched Metropolitan on Saturday, and the woman I saw it with--it was her first time--had actually been to deb balls as a young lady. I was kind of shocked--I've never met anyone who'd been to one before, or at least admitted to it. Then again, it's not really the sort of thing that comes up in conversation, unless you're talking about Whit Stillman movies.
I've been to two deb balls.* Well, one was here, so it doesn't really count. They sucked big time.
*aside from the ones I've lurked around creakily taking photos, of course.
*creepily*
Anyhow, "muddy drunk's sound" is really perceptive, but no one did it better. Still on Team Band when it comes to the Band v Grateful Dead hippie roots Americana face-off.
I like The Band a lot. I didn't like any of the RR songs Charley linked to, though.
Anyhow, "muddy drunk's sound" is really perceptive
Interesting. I don't agree. Way too tight and too light on their feet to be muddy-drunk, in my book.
97 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VnqIuXj9JA
Oh, definitely a tight band. I don't think Bob meant they were themselves falling down drunk, just that this is sort of descriptive of the effect of their sound. Or something. I mean, Gram Parsons (whom i love even more) was undoubtedly more wasted at any given moment on stage, but doesn't quite have that same drunk sound. Anyhow, I love them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-w9OclUnns&
103 -- I understand where you're coming from, and I like this* too. Thing is, it's bad to stay in a rut for 40 years, either as a creator or a listener. I've had to push myself some and appreciate the need for someone like Robertson to do so as well. You and I are pretty differently situated on this; you can enjoy things like TLW without sometimes feeling you're in danger of encasing yourself in amber.
*And whoever thinks she or he is any kind of fit heir/ess to Mavis Staples can just get the fuck off my lawn.
I understand where you're coming from, and I like this* too. Thing is, it's bad to stay in a rut for 40 years, either as a creator or a listener. I've had to push myself some and appreciate the need for someone like Robertson to do so as well. You and I are pretty differently situated on this; you can enjoy things like TLW without sometimes feeling you're in danger of encasing yourself in amber.
Fair enough, though I'm not sure I actually agree with all of this. I guess I'll see how I feel in 40 years, if I live that long.
I don't know where I'd buy books on line other than Amazon if I don't live in the United States. And "go to a bookstore" is not an answer because, although I'm a former bookstore worker and I love them dearly, firstly half the time I can't physically get there; secondly I often want ebooks; and thirdly they frequently don't stock what I want.
Any constructive solutions to this would genuinely be well received.
I'm fairly certain that my father, for example, never worried all that much about whether his musical taste had fallen into a rut. He didn't live to be 40 years older than I am now, though.
||
This Colombian prostitution scandal just keeps getting better and better.
|>
I don't know where I'd buy books on line other than Amazon if I don't live in the United States.
abebooks.com, waterstones.com?
Hmm... Wasn't aware of abebooks; their delivery prices as quoted are a bit off putting. Waterstones' site is a lot better than last time I looked, but it remains the case that half the stuff I looked for was out of stock. Do they eventually get it if you ask?
I used to use alibris a lot for secondhand books. They have a UK site but I don't know if it's any good.
I use a mix of Blackwells [often I can order online and collect in Oxford], Waterstones, and Amazon. I've use abebooks, alibris, and book depository, too. I'd guess about a third to half of what I buy is bought in bricks and mortar shops, and Amazon another third to a half or so [it varies]. Maybe 10-20% coming from other online retailers.
For music, on the other hand, I don't buy much from Amazon at all. That's usually either second hand from Oxfam's Music Shop, or the various Notting Hill $foo Exchanges; electronic from Emusic, or new CDs from wherever I happen to spot something while browsing.
Yes, alibris is pretty good. And I should have mentioned Blackwells. I've bought from book depository, but only through Amazon...
||
NMM: Bert Weedon has gone to jam with Levon.
|>
Is there any point to not buying from Amazon? I've read, and find fairly convincing, that unfocused boycotts (that is, things without a clear short-term goal) don't have any noticeable effect.
117: I can think of two reasons off the top of my head:
1) Makes Parsimon less unhappy
2) Doesn't just reduce the share of business going to Amazon, but also increases the share of business going to whomever you buy from instead. Depending on how superior the alternatives are, this may be more significant than "sending a message to Amazon."
OTOH I can think of some good reasons to buy from Amazon (though not specific to books) aside from price:
1) Their returns policy is still pretty good
2) Amazon reviews are a genuine public good, and if I decide I want something on the strength of the reviews, but buy it somewhere else, I'm a free rider.
That said, for used books I have had good experiences with abebooks and alibris.
Makes Parsimon less unhappy
Should we send her a note every time we're not buying from Amazon? We could send the notes, thus not making parsimon more unhappy, and still buy from Amazon anyway.
Should we send her a note every time we're not buying from Amazon?
Maybe we'll help save the post office while we're at it!
I buy sunscreen through Amazon, because I can't get the brand I like locally.
Nobody has mentioned (in this thread) Powells as a source of books online. They have a union too.
I also bought a laptop and AppleCare through Amazon. You get a discount on both, though you have to watch the pricing on electronics. They fluctuate within a day if demand is really heavy.
With respect to the book trade I think Amazon is being blamed for larger technological and economic changes which don't really have anything to do with them in particular. These changes are going to eliminate a lot of middlemen which is good for readers and authors (or rightsholders) but not so good for the middlemen many of whom seem to be in total denial. For example publishers who think they can maintain the same selling prices for ebooks as hardbacks.
87
I think convenience is the bigger factor. Remember when sometimes you wanted to buy a book and you checked like four different bookstores and none of them had it, and maybe one of them offered to order it and get it for you in a week or two? With Amazon, there's usually no question of whether it's in stock or difficult to get. They have it.
Funny that you say that. There are a couple books that I've been meaning to read for years now, haven't found them in physical bookstores or e-book format, but my level of interest is low enough that I'm content to forget about it for a couple months until I get the idea and check again. I've never checked Amazon for them because I don't use Amazon much - one gag gift, three or four graphic novels, that's probably it in the past year, and I can't think of anything else specifically at all although there was probably something before those.
But since you mentioned this, I searched Amazon for them. One is "temporarily out of stock", and for the other, new copies start at $152. Both of these books, for the record, were published within the past 10 years, written by a bestselling modern author, so one would think they shouldn't be too hard to find, but apparently they are.
I've been meaning to try reading Les Miserables in French, and this thread reminded me to check Amazon for a French version. They have it as ebooks, with a price of... $0.00. I thought Congress took care of that dangerous public domain thing.
The other thing with small merchants, service is really variable. When buying odds and ends either off of eBay or directly from a small-time specialist, maybe 20% of the time, merchant either loses the order or fails to ship. Then tracking and dealing with the refund request is a real hassle. This is super easy with Amazon-brokered transactions, otherwise is a headache.
For "how bad would they have to be," honestly the answer depends on how big the difference in reliability and in abusiveness is wrt closest competitor. For Amazon, as I'm shifting to mp3 or streaming listening, I love how easy it is to turn now-surplus CDs into money. It may be bad for professional secondhand booksellers, but it's certainly created markets both for people like me as well as allowing charities that get boxes of books for nothing to list them.
What is the best ebook choice for facing-page translations? Is there one? For French and Russian, I can manage, but it goes much faster when I can quickly find the translated difficult sentence on the page. I have found nothing, no reader I see deals gracefully with keeping place in two books simultaneously, and I haven't found a source of single documents with coordinated pagination, bible excepted.
Both of these books, for the record, were published within the past 10 years, written by a bestselling modern author, so one would think they shouldn't be too hard to find, but apparently they are.
This makes me really curious. Do you have an idea what's going on with them?
Also, I have to say that Amazon Web Services - the thing where they host your web infrastructure in the cloud - are friggin' awesome. They've really changed the game in the small-to-mid-sized web hosting space over the past few years.
I'm running a bunch of websites on an Amazon EC2 virtual server these days.... when I was running these sites on a rented physical server in a data center, it was costing me 4 times as much.
Plus, backups are much easier to manage, and, if I crash the server, its stupid easy to spin up a new one.
Les Misérables is in the public domain, so you can download it directly from Project Gutenberg. That's undoubtedly where the Kindle Store version comes from, in any case.
For books that have few sellers and few buyers, badly-programmed pricing algorithms yield bizarre results.
I tried searching for "excellent" and after sorting high-price first, found this out-of-stock 2010 paperback about folding bicycles for $2322.
Thinly traded markets are hard to program.
131: Really Gareth Rees? GYWO was really comforting for me in a horrifying kind of way back when the war was starting -- thanks for it.
Argh. Bad with names. The thread above is about David Rees, the GYWO guy. Nothing to do with Gareth Rees. Ignore 133 and on about your business.
What is the best ebook choice for facing-page translations? Is there one?
Not really, other than a custom-built PDF. But the Kindle, and I assume other e-readers, has dictionaries built in.
This is totally anecdotal, but the friends I've had who've worked in the local Amazon distribution center (all seasonal or part-time as a second job) have ranked it as better than their other similar jobs. That's been in the last few years, though, so probably they've stepped things up to be nicer to their workers.
135. Is there software for generating these from two source texts? I've been thinking about writing something.
I worked in distribution centers for an electronics store and for Big Lots. Nobody let me drive the forklift because of entirely justified views about my motor skills.
129: No idea. The books in question are The Science of Discworld II and III, by Terry Pratchett, if anyone is curious or just happens to have read them.
I've never tried too hard to find out - like I said, relatively low level of interest. Now that I'm researching them, Wikipedia has nothing unusual to say about their publishing history. I assumed for a while that there might be some across-the-pond publishing rights issue, but most of his other stuff is easy enough to find. A few books of his aren't, but they're older and not in the Discworld series like these are.
Admittedly, they are both available used from Amazon, and probably from other sources as well (parsimon?), and maybe the out-of-stock one won't take long to get in stock, so I could get them if I really wanted to and after all this talk I just might. (II is the one that's out of stock, though, so I probably wouldn't order III until that arrives.) I still think it's surprising that they're this hard to find, though.
For example publishers who think they can maintain the same selling prices for ebooks as hardbacks.
It's hard for me to think the cost of printing really affects supply of books all that much. Thus it's not crazy for publishers to try to aim for the same price point. Wrong, but not crazy. But perhaps you meant to refer to all those ancillary changes to supply of books and other entertainment with the reference to 'ebooks'.
I tried searching for "excellent" and after sorting high-price first, found this out-of-stock 2010 paperback about folding bicycles for $2322.
That has money-laundering scheme written all over it.
The Science of Discworld
Looks relatively available on ebay.
139: Oh, they're available used. Out of print isn't that weird, I was thinking that there really weren't copies available at all, which seemed very strange. (There's a knitting designer whose out of print books are like that, unavailable below a hundred bucks or so -- Alice Starmore -- but that's a function of all sorts of weird legal machinations.)
141. I really don't think so, it's common and for effective money laundering, leaving the crazy price posted indefinitely would be an unforced error. Detailed description of one benign mechanism.
Amazon says "from $30" but if you click in, you'll be lucky to get it for less than $150.
There are a lot like that, out-of-print, unscanned, 1950-1990 niche academic books. Nobody is making, or will ever make, any money from that copyright.
The Science of Discworld II and III are in print in the UK. Try UK online booksellers that ship to the USA, e.g. amazon.co.uk or play.com.
Book Depository is also good for getting UK books
Oh, I suppose maybe a McClain descendant might get a $10 or $100 dollar check every decade which would provide some kind of transient emotional gratification.
But 146 is a typical, should be the ruling example, because the vast vast majority, 99%+ books still in copyright will never make any money. The rules, the laws, makes almost everything unavailable in order to provide a tiny fraction of authors and publishers a windfall.
The McClain should be scanned by Amazon for oh a $50 dollar cost, covered by an annual membership fee and profits made from newer books that the McClain inspires readers to buy.
But 146 is a typical
?? There are at least 4 copies under $40. Is the claim that these are a single, multiply listed physical copy that's unavailable?
The publisher economics might apply to mass-market fiction, but I think not to nonfiction. Some University press with a young editor will go first in digitizing the back catalog in a few years and start selling old books as e-Books cheaply.
Oh, and Dover press or NYRB Classics both keep old and in-copyright material in print, providing a limit on how popular something can be without a new printing.
140
It's hard for me to think the cost of printing really affects supply of books all that much. ...
It's not just the cost of printing, its the cost of shipping them to bookstores and managing returns (bookstores usually don't have to pay for stock they don't sell) and inventory. These costs all go away with ebooks. The publishers think they should get the entire savings as pure profit but simple economics 101 reasoning shows in a competitive market the benefit will be split between buyers and rightsholders. The middlemen publishers aren't doing anything for either that would entitle them to the savings.
150
But 146 is a typical, should be the ruling example, because the vast vast majority, 99%+ books still in copyright will never make any money. The rules, the laws, makes almost everything unavailable in order to provide a tiny fraction of authors and publishers a windfall.
There is little reason for an ebook to ever go out of print so this may change. Just like netflix provided a market for old TV shows.
This turned out very long.
84: NickS, sorry, I didn't see this until now. I can say a few things. Everything I say has to do with the secondhand book market (not the new book market), and it's primarily from the perspective of the seller.
First off, my remark about Amazon's "monopoly" was glib. Agreed.
I'm quite open to the fact that there are all sorts of ways in which local businesses may provide additional value, even if they're more expensive.
Here's the thing: where used books on Amazon are concerned, they're often *cheaper* if you buy from the same seller via a different online venue. We and many other sellers offer our books for sale on a number of online sites (Abebooks.com, Alibris.com, perhaps Biblio.com, Antiqbook (European market), Tomfolio (a bookseller's collective), the seller's own website).
Because Amazon's commission + fees are relatively high, anywhere from 18-30% of the total sale (it's 15% of the book price + something like $1.50 of the $3.99 domestic shipping fee), many sellers raise their base prices by, oh, 25% on Amazon -- it offsets the cost of doing business through them. This means that the same book is offered for $20 in a handful of places, and for $25 on Amazon. Customers aren't, in this case, saving money by buying through Amazon. Further: a number of sellers list their books at the lower/base price on the other sites for a period of time (a month, 6 months), and if -- more likely when -- it doesn't sell there, they go ahead and list it on Amazon at a 25% mark-up.
It not infrequently sells at the higher price on Amazon in short order. From the bookseller's perspective, this is shrugworthy: a sale is a sale, and one gets one's base price regardless of where the thing sells. The customer has been somewhat snookered, true: s/he is paying more than necessary, the additional $ going into Amazon's pocket. This is because the customer didn't know there was anyplace else online to buy used books (apparently): Amazon has an increasing 'monopoly' on customer eyeballs. The used book seller may feel somewhat badly about this -- poor customer just paid more than what I actually wanted for the book.
Couple random thoughts about that: in the early days, Amazon tried to make it part of its contract when you signed up to sell through them that you would not attempt to sell through any other online venue. Hm, nice try, not going to happen. Then they revised the agreement to state that you would not offer the book for sale elsewhere at a lower price. Ixnay on that as well, I'm afraid: one can sell one's own book on one's own site or anywhere else one likes at any price one may like, sorry. So they withdrew that as well. Eventually they settled on declaring that customers buying through Amazon are Amazon's customers, not the bookseller's, and they eliminated any email address for the customer, and included in the agreement that one would not engage in any independent correspondence with the customer.
That last bit actually results in canceled sales: since Amazon charges a fixed rate for domestic, expedited, and international shipments, we and many other booksellers decline to offer expedited or international shipping on multi-volume sets or very heavy books (which cost much more to ship). We get requests -- though Amazon's system -- from customers plaintively saying that they'd be happy to pay more for shipping if we'd be willing to ship this particular title to Europe. If they ordered the title through another venue, we'd be happy to do that; but we are not allowed to disclose that to the customer, and must simply say no.
Amazon's boilerplate response to seller complaints about that, by the way, is that we should just raise the price of the book/set on Amazon to offset the shipping difference. That is foolish on any number of fronts, but you know what it does do: the 15% Amazon commission is that much higher.
Amazon also doesn't allow for reduced shipping on orders for several books from the same seller: the customer is forced to pay $3.99 shipping/book, even though the books can be combined in one shipment for a much lower cost. This discourages customers from establishing a relationship with any one seller.
One last thing on the shipping front, then I'll quit this very long thing: Amazon's very into promoting the idea of free shipping. Apparently customers love it. One should realize, though, that the vast majority of sellers who offer free shipping have just increased the asking price of the book proportionately to offset that shipping loss. Customers do not seem to realize this. When the asking price of the book itself it raised, Amazon's 15% is of course higher. Some while ago -- I didn't notice exactly when -- Amazon added a "Show free shipping offers only" option to the search results for any given title. Customers who opt to view only those offers may well be paying $30 + $0 shipping, when if they'd looked at the not-free-shipping options, they'd have been able to pay $20 + $3.99 shipping. Amazon prefers that the customer go for the $30 offer, since they get 15% of $30 rather than 15% of $20.
Nobody said they weren't smart.
I realize I've gone on at length, but a few other bits of things.
Someone upthread mentioned my being unhappy about Amazon. Not exactly: they account for something like 60% of our sales, and given that people don't know they can buy our books (for less) elsewhere, they produce sales we otherwise wouldn't have. That's why we sell there. Others in the book trade aren't quite so sanguine about the whole thing, because let's face it, in our case, Amazon makes, oh, say, $30k a year, maybe $40k (depends on the year, really) off us. That doesn't come out of our pocket, though: it comes out of the customer's pocket.
On the 'boycott Amazon' thing: I don't exactly call for that, and make no claims in that regard. I do think that Amazon wouldn't have so much power to shape the used book trade if people didn't think they were the only game in town.
On other places to look to buy used books: bookfinder.com is an umbrella search engine that searches Amazon as well as the smaller online bookselling venues in one fell swoop (if you use them, I recommend checking off the "classic search" option on the front page). Bookfinder was recently bought by Abebooks, which is in turn now owned by Amazon; Bookfinder was originally started by a couple of grad students at Berkeley, or Stanford or somewhere.
On the notion that if you make use of Amazon's truly nice reviews and so on to identify books you might want, you should order from them, or else you're a free rider. This goes nowhere for me. Amazon sweeps up a tremendous amount of sales from customers who've scoped out what they want in various brick-and-mortar stores (like Best Buy or Barnes and Noble): customers browse, question the staff, then leave and order the same item via Amazon online. The phenomenon is known as "showrooming", and it's gradually putting some brick-and-mortar showroom stores out of business. Amazon doesn't earn any allegiance on this front.
Much of what I said in comment 155 had to do with customers paying more than they need to. There's a concurrent phenomenon, which has to do with Amazon's encouragement of what are known as automatic repricers. These are very large sellers who employ software that determines when they've been underpriced: the software just automatically drops their own price to a penny, or 15 cents, or 50 cents, below the current lowest price. You can watch a book that was fairly priced at $20 drop to 51 cents in a matter of days. That's great for customers. From bookseller's perspectives, it shifts the public's perception of the value of a book, so that the price point they perceive to be reasonable increasingly drops.
That's a whole 'nother topic. No more talking at astonishing length.
Anyway, I buy most of my books from the bargain pile at the campus bookstore. They remainder a fair number of popular nonfiction titles.
Thank you, parsimon, for following up, that's interesting. None of that convinces me that they're evil, but it does give me a much better sense of the used book trade and what people mean when they say that Amazon has a monopoly. It's interesting because everybody says that the internet is good at directing traffic away from people who offer the exact same product as other sites, only a higher price, but it sounds like Amazon has managed to brand itself strongly enough that hasn't happened.
I wonder how much of Amazon's used book sales aren't cannibalized from their new book sales. People who probably wouldn't have considered a used book as an option will see it suggested by Amazon.
Love it Parsi, thanks, that's inteesting. Always nice to hear from people with real experience here.
Yes, Parsi, it was interesting. For one thing, I had no idea about bookfinder.com.
Try bookfinder.com (again, I do recommend checking off the "classic search" option).
I took a look earlier at the Discworld II and III titles that Cyrus was talking about upthread: many copies available used, but bookfinder also returns new copies. Basically, Amazon looked at solo is not at all a reasonable reflection of the market.
I wonder how much of Amazon's used book sales aren't cannibalized from their new book sales. People who probably wouldn't have considered a used book as an option will see it suggested by Amazon.
If you're wondering whether people buy more used books in general because Amazon has either suggested a title they otherwise wouldn't have known about, or has pointed out that one can buy this used: the answer is no, overall.
The latter is what I wondered about. Thanks.
Amazon simultaneously suggests to buyers that buying new from them is more reliable (and quicker, which they are able to do because of the poorly paid pick-and-pack employees) than buying used from one of the used booksellers. They contribute to distrust of used book sellers. They compete with used book sellers.
It's really quite brilliant in its way.
I'm only now reading the Charlie Stross piece, by the way. It's been linked in bookselling circles, but I hadn't gotten around to it.
155
... This is because the customer didn't know there was anyplace else online to buy used books (apparently): ...
Or perhaps the customer is willing to pay Amazon more because they trust Amazon more.
168: This makes little sense, James. The only thing buying a used book from an independent seller *through Amazon* rather than through another online site gets you is Amazon's A-to-Z guarantee, which provides the buyer with a refund if the seller refuses to provide the refund him- or herself (though there is a lifetime limit of three A-to-Z guarantee claims). Does the latter situation occur often?
No, I don't think people realize they're paying Amazon a roughly 20% cut, in fact. I don't think it's the case that they're aware that there are other options out there, and have made a conscious decision to buy via Amazon because of the A-to-Z guarantee.
I'm only back to this thread because there's an awesome campaign in bookselling circles to smack down a very large Amazon seller (a "megaseller") who's engaging in shenanigans that we just can't abide, oh no.
169
This makes little sense, James. The only thing buying a used book from an independent seller *through Amazon* rather than through another online site gets you is Amazon's A-to-Z guarantee, which provides the buyer with a refund if the seller refuses to provide the refund him- or herself (though there is a lifetime limit of three A-to-Z guarantee claims). Does the latter situation occur often?
I have had trouble buying online from small scale sellers (I don't remember the details but in one case it was something like ordering a greatest hits volume 2 cd and getting volume 1) and made use of a similiar guarantee. Presumably it doesn't happen much with Amazon sellers because Amazon will remove a seller who gets too many claims. Just as Amazon limits buyer claims.
No, I don't think people realize they're paying Amazon a roughly 20% cut, in fact. I don't think it's the case that they're aware that there are other options out there, and have made a conscious decision to buy via Amazon because of the A-to-Z guarantee.
People don't care if Amazon is getting a cut. They do care if they are paying a premium but may be willing to do so for the convenience and security of dealing with Amazon.
(I don't remember the details but in one case it was something like ordering a greatest hits volume 2 cd and getting volume 1)
That's horrible because Vol. 2 has both "Private Eyes" and "I Can't Go for That (No Can Do)".
171: I have had trouble buying online from small scale sellers (I don't remember the details but in one case it was something like ordering a greatest hits volume 2 cd and getting volume 1) and made use of a similiar guarantee.
I'm curious: did you have any correspondence with the seller before you applied for the A-to-Z guarantee? In other words, did the seller refuse to make the situation right themselves?
173
I'm curious: did you have any correspondence with the seller before you applied for the A-to-Z guarantee? In other words, did the seller refuse to make the situation right themselves?
It wasn't Amazon, I think it was half.com (remember them?). As I said I don't remember the details but as I recall the sellers (who seemed perhaps confused) were demanding I do something which was not possible given the way things were set up.
half.com was terrible (they were outliers, that's how bad they were). We, as sellers, ditched them, their interface and procedures were so bad. It still exists -- eBay bought them.
half.com was like the frat party of online bookselling. No wonder you got freaked out.
half.com was terrible (they were outliers, that's how bad they were).
That's funny. I actually started buying things on half.com and didn't try eBay until after they bought half.
As far as the advantage of Amazon over other alternatives, these days the biggest questions for me before buying from a site which I've never purchased from before are (a) will they require me to set up an account and (b) do they allow PayPal payment. I have too many online accounts already to want any more and I'd just as soon not have to give my credit card to anybody new if I can avoid. Both of those are barriers to making the first purchase at an unknown site. Once I've bought two or three things from someplace then I don't worry about it anymore, but they are barrier to entry for me.
Okay, that's interesting, Nick. (For what it's worth, all of the lesser-than-Amazon sites I mentioned in 155.3 allow Paypal payments, except for Alibris. Although I think it's more a matter of the seller accepting Paypal payments, but I think the vast, vast majority do.)
You do, yes, have to set up an account, which is to say, put in your name and mailing address and email address and a password (so you can access the record of your order later if needed) -- that is sort of a drag. Frankly, Abebooks is a fairly safe space.
But whatever.
Back when I was buying lots of used academic books, Alibris actually seemed like a bigger player in that market than Amazon (this was 2001-2004). I had a couple things not arrive, but the refunds were processed as soon as the things came back to the seller.
The only issue I had, and I had it with Amazon sellers too, were a couple cases where the good/very good distinction was not what I expected it to be (as in, a book with a broken spine and pages starting to come out is not "very good". But the pages were readable.
For expensive electronics like a laptop, I'd buy from Amazon for the return guarantee. I bought an HP laptop through Amazon that never worked and HP refused to take a return. Instead, they wanted me to send it off to the factory for repair, which is not something I considered to be "new" or worth a new price anymore. Amazon took the return and I got a refund. And then bought a different brand/model in a different store.
The only issue I had, and I had it with Amazon sellers too, were a couple cases where the good/very good distinction was not what I expected it to be (as in, a book with a broken spine and pages starting to come out is not "very good".
No, it's not. I strongly recommend leaving feedback on the order when something like that happens; I recommend checking sellers' feedback before ordering, as well.
179.1: Yeah, Alibris actually started the online used book selling phenomenon (initially in its former incarnation, called Interloc, in the 80s, and they actually invented the format many booksellers still use for uploading, something called UIEE). Amazon wasn't originally a forum for used items at all; they saw what Alibris, and then ABE, and eBay, were doing, and decided to open up to used books, putting both new and used under the same roof -- which was quite a novel idea at the time. They thereby gradually bypassed what had been, for buyers, a binary choice between destinations (that is, Amazon or wherever for New; ABE or Alibris or the like for Used). Then they started buying up the competition -- they bought ABE, which then bought Bookfinder.com -- and in recent years they're taking any number of steps to marginalize the Used book market (now increasingly under its own roof) altogether. Sigh.
I realize that I'm nattering on endlessly about all this, but this is the Guardian article that started the week-long discussion on bookselling lists about whether one is well- or ill-advised to do business with Amazon.
Re: Benquo's 119.(2), note the remarks in the article regarding Amazon's own 'free rider' status.