Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Wherein Michelle is irritated

Someone on Facebook kindly pointed out that someone appears to be selling a used (!) copy of Cast in Silence on Amazon.com.

Cast in Silence doesn't exist as a new book yet. It doesn't exist as an ARC yet. It barely exists as a finished manuscript, because I am still working my way through the AAs mentioned a couple of days ago.

The "merchant" in question is asking how much? Guess. The answer is here.

I'm not entirely sure what he -- or to be fair, she or they -- hope to gain from this, and mine is not the only "used" book offered for sale at this price. The other one thirty seconds of perusal turned up is Maria Snyder's also as yet unpublished book. I cannot imagine that anyone--besides a publisher--would pay 1,000.00 for a book of mine, let alone one that doesn't even exist.

So. Just in case you're curious: He isn't selling an ARC. Because it doesn't exist. He isn't, as far as I can tell, selling anything genuine. If anyone asks you about this, please pass it on, or point them here.


Apr. 11th, 2009 07:58 pm (UTC)
FWIW, the guy's explanation makes sense. Artificially increasing the prince to $1000 for an erroneous entry is not the most brilliant idea--the system should filter out such entries and instead report an error some other way--but I can well imagine someone programming the system that way because it's easy and they don't realize it could cause serious problems later on. I might use a trick like that myself if I were working on some unimportant scripts, but it's not something appropriate for a production system. Detected errors shouldn't make it into the output in a production system, they should be caught and reported elsewhere.

Wrt filtering, it seems to me he hadn't realized that as-yet-unpublished books would enter the system, so there wasn't even the thought of code to handle that. The system just detected "an error" and this was its (admittedly very poor) way of handling it.
Apr. 11th, 2009 08:24 pm (UTC)
His entry makes partial sense to me, but his explanation of what caused the problem doesn't, oddly enough. I did write a longer post (and bump up his letter), in which I address this a bit.