Twitter!

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Ellie
Posts: 13195
Joined: 21 Apr 2010, 18:34

Re: Twitter!

Post by Ellie »

Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Nov 2019, 22:11
I'm still curious about the millionaire thing, because the list of rich writers basically begins and ends with "people who are already celebrities" and "people who've had a lot of big movies made from their books".
Sarah Dessen recently sold rights for three of her books to Netflix. I don't know if the total was a million dollars but I suspect she's not hurting for cash!
"Yours is the much better comeback." -JD

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 19447
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Twitter!

Post by Hugh Akston »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
14 Nov 2019, 22:14
Ellie wrote:
14 Nov 2019, 21:46
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
14 Nov 2019, 20:57
I wish people would stop pretending that having a million dollars worth of assets makes one rich. Not even close.
Damn, though, I'd like to be that class of poor!
Yeah, well, I'm not saying people in "that class of poor" are eating much cat food, but they're not driving Lamborghinis and eating at destination restaurants every night or jetting around the world living in luxury hotels, either. A million dollars won't buy you a place large enough for a family to live in in a decent part of New York or San Francisco or even much of Washington. It won't even return a sufficiently high yield that you can live in more than a fairly modest middle class lifestyle without dipping into capital, let alone worrying what will happen when, as it eventually will, inflation rears its ugly head again.

When I was a kid there was a TV show called "The Millionaire" in which some fabulously wealthy guy would just give away (tax free!) a million dollars to some ordinary schlubs and then we'd watch how it did or didn't change them, did or didn't make them happy, etc., knowing that that was an impossibly large sum of money for 99.99% of the population ever to possess. Hell, even the Beverly Hillbillies a few years later had to be worth $25 million to make it plausible that they could live in their mansion with "swimming pools, movie stars!" and have their banker next-door-neighbor consider them his most important customers.

Yes, people with a net worth of a million dollars are quite well off, but they're not unimaginably wealthy. They're people who made good money over the years, maybe now own their own house outright and have a comfortable but not huge investment portfolio probably built over decades.
That South Dakota college student should stop punching down on those poor best-selling authors who can't even afford a decent penthouse overlooking Central Park.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7502
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Twitter!

Post by Jadagul »

I don't think DAR was saying the authors were suffering. I read him as making almost the opposite point; it's pretty plausible that they're millionaires, because after inflation "millionaire" means "pretty successful", not "fabulously wealthy." It puts you just barely shy of the top ten percent.

Now, "just barely shy of the top ten percent" is _good_. You're ahead of eight ninths of the population. But it's not fuck-you money, or "retire on your savings" money, or "make someone's life hell just for the hell of it" money.

The cultural associations that the word "millionaire" has are really more appropriate for like $5m or $10m at this point.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Twitter!

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Hugh Akston wrote:
14 Nov 2019, 23:26

That South Dakota college student should stop punching down on those poor best-selling authors who can't even afford a decent penthouse overlooking Central Park.
Damn straight. First think he should do is get the hell out of South Dakota.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Twitter!

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Jadagul wrote:
14 Nov 2019, 23:40
I don't think DAR was saying the authors were suffering. I read him as making almost the opposite point; it's pretty plausible that they're millionaires, because after inflation "millionaire" means "pretty successful", not "fabulously wealthy." It puts you just barely shy of the top ten percent.

Now, "just barely shy of the top ten percent" is _good_. You're ahead of eight ninths of the population. But it's not fuck-you money, or "retire on your savings" money, or "make someone's life hell just for the hell of it" money.

The cultural associations that the word "millionaire" has are really more appropriate for like $5m or $10m at this point.
That's correct. And "wealthy" these days is far closer to $10 million than $5 million, as far as that goes. But in the popular imagination the word "millionaire" continues to connote a level of financial security and affluence far above, say, what a successful dentist or CPA (in South Dakota, not in Manhattan) is probably worth, whereas really all you're talking about is middle-aged, comfortably upper-middle class. According to a quick google search, nearly 13% of the U.S. population are millionaires. Hella better than being in the bottom 13% but also a long, long way from "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 29878
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Twitter!

Post by thoreau »

Regardless of what these writers are worth, they're not doing bad, and it is petty to shit on a college kid who didn't like the book.

(But Wikipedia says that Jodi Picoult has sold 14 million books. She's probably pretty comfortable, and can probably get invited to parties in some pretty nice areas of Manhattan if she wants.)

A fascinating question is whether the first author's "Oh, I'm so traumatized by this girl's internalized misogyny" game will hurt her or help her. It will definitely get her a shit load of hate mail, but will it rally core fans to buy more books and subscribe to podcasts and contribute to her Patreon or whatever? Will that effect outweigh the ill will that might drive away more casual readers?
" Columbus wasn’t a profile in courage or brilliance despite the odds, he was a dumb motherfucker that got lucky. Oddly, that makes him the perfect talisman for the Trump era."
--Mo

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14809
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b »

thoreau wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 00:20
Regardless of what these writers are worth, they're not doing bad, and it is petty to shit on a college kid who didn't like the book.
It's petty, but let's be real. It's not that she publicly said she didn't like the book, it's that she publicly said she deliberately got on the committee to keep any books by the writer from being included again. It's a little more of a thing that someone might actually be offended or hurt by. (Hell, people have established here that I'm a terrible, terrible person, but I wouldn't have made that tweet.)

That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin (or remotely that the author should have unleashed the flying twit-monkeys on the graduate). Just that it's a different thing from simply saying she didn't like the book, and I don't think it should be presented as such.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 20093
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Twitter!

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

So, jumping into the actual topic, so far we've established that Eric is a terrible, terrible person, that there's a recent college grad somewhere in northern flyover territory who suggested (correctly) that YA novels are "okay for girls" or some such, that pre-op Anthony Weiner then complained (can I say "bitched," since s/he is still pre-op?) that there's a long established "high culture" snobbery over anything that gives girls or young women pleasure but exalts what boys and young men like, which is doubtlessly why most college summer reading lists are largely comprised of porn, superhero stories and pornographic superhero stories, that a million dollars doesn't go nearly as far these days as it did when John Beresford Tipton, Jr. laid a cool mil on some unsuspecting yokels on B&W TV, that SJWs are basically drama-queens with an ethos and that writers are sensitive souls who will Twitterize your ass if don't give them their props.

Does that about sum it up?

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16202
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Twitter!

Post by dhex »

Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 02:13
thoreau wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 00:20
Regardless of what these writers are worth, they're not doing bad, and it is petty to shit on a college kid who didn't like the book.
It's petty, but let's be real. It's not that she publicly said she didn't like the book, it's that she publicly said she deliberately got on the committee to keep any books by the writer from being included again. It's a little more of a thing that someone might actually be offended or hurt by. (Hell, people have established here that I'm a terrible, terrible person, but I wouldn't have made that tweet.)

That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin (or remotely that the author should have unleashed the flying twit-monkeys on the graduate). Just that it's a different thing from simply saying she didn't like the book, and I don't think it should be presented as such.
That's a totally reasonable thing for someone to join a committee to do, however. They select books. A college wide read is probably a decent place for a small side dish of gravitas.
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18615
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Twitter!

Post by dbcooper »

nicole wrote:
14 Nov 2019, 14:56
Is there any greater proof that misogyny/hatred of my mom is Correct and Good than the whole world of YA?

Cultural standards and shaming are 100% necessary for a functioning society. Any non-impaired adult who reads Y/A should be shot.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14809
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b »

dhex wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 03:54
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 02:13
thoreau wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 00:20
Regardless of what these writers are worth, they're not doing bad, and it is petty to shit on a college kid who didn't like the book.
It's petty, but let's be real. It's not that she publicly said she didn't like the book, it's that she publicly said she deliberately got on the committee to keep any books by the writer from being included again. It's a little more of a thing that someone might actually be offended or hurt by. (Hell, people have established here that I'm a terrible, terrible person, but I wouldn't have made that tweet.)

That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin (or remotely that the author should have unleashed the flying twit-monkeys on the graduate). Just that it's a different thing from simply saying she didn't like the book, and I don't think it should be presented as such.
That's a totally reasonable thing for someone to join a committee to do, however. They select books. A college wide read is probably a decent place for a small side dish of gravitas.
Serious, non-sarcastic question. When I write things like, "That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin", what makes you think I don't get that or that I disagree with that?
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 7110
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: Twitter!

Post by Andrew »

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 02:31
So, jumping into the actual topic, so far we've established that Eric is a terrible, terrible person, that there's a recent college grad somewhere in northern flyover territory who suggested (correctly) that YA novels are "okay for girls" or some such, that pre-op Anthony Weiner then complained (can I say "bitched," since s/he is still pre-op?) that there's a long established "high culture" snobbery over anything that gives girls or young women pleasure but exalts what boys and young men like, which is doubtlessly why most college summer reading lists are largely comprised of porn, superhero stories and pornographic superhero stories, that a million dollars doesn't go nearly as far these days as it did when John Beresford Tipton, Jr. laid a cool mil on some unsuspecting yokels on B&W TV, that SJWs are basically drama-queens with an ethos and that writers are sensitive souls who will Twitterize your ass if don't give them their props.

Does that about sum it up?
And it's all Warren's fault.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 16202
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Twitter!

Post by dhex »

Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 05:06
dhex wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 03:54
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 02:13
thoreau wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 00:20
Regardless of what these writers are worth, they're not doing bad, and it is petty to shit on a college kid who didn't like the book.
It's petty, but let's be real. It's not that she publicly said she didn't like the book, it's that she publicly said she deliberately got on the committee to keep any books by the writer from being included again. It's a little more of a thing that someone might actually be offended or hurt by. (Hell, people have established here that I'm a terrible, terrible person, but I wouldn't have made that tweet.)

That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin (or remotely that the author should have unleashed the flying twit-monkeys on the graduate). Just that it's a different thing from simply saying she didn't like the book, and I don't think it should be presented as such.
That's a totally reasonable thing for someone to join a committee to do, however. They select books. A college wide read is probably a decent place for a small side dish of gravitas.
Serious, non-sarcastic question. When I write things like, "That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin", what makes you think I don't get that or that I disagree with that?
Then I dunno what you were getting at. Also 3am.
"i ran over the cat and didnt stop just carried on with tears in my eyes joose driving my way to work." - God

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Twitter!

Post by Warren »

Andrew wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 06:41
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 02:31
So, jumping into the actual topic, so far we've established that Eric is a terrible, terrible person, that there's a recent college grad somewhere in northern flyover territory who suggested (correctly) that YA novels are "okay for girls" or some such, that pre-op Anthony Weiner then complained (can I say "bitched," since s/he is still pre-op?) that there's a long established "high culture" snobbery over anything that gives girls or young women pleasure but exalts what boys and young men like, which is doubtlessly why most college summer reading lists are largely comprised of porn, superhero stories and pornographic superhero stories, that a million dollars doesn't go nearly as far these days as it did when John Beresford Tipton, Jr. laid a cool mil on some unsuspecting yokels on B&W TV, that SJWs are basically drama-queens with an ethos and that writers are sensitive souls who will Twitterize your ass if don't give them their props.

Does that about sum it up?
And it's all Warren's fault.
It's Drupal Grylliade calling. They want their inside joke back.

FTR I'm uneasy that we're spilling all these pixels over this. Do I really need to pay attention to this fest of fecal flinging? Is this going to matter to me out here in goat rope?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 18615
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Twitter!

Post by dbcooper »

Image
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14809
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b »

dhex wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 07:15
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 05:06
dhex wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 03:54
Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 02:13
thoreau wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 00:20
Regardless of what these writers are worth, they're not doing bad, and it is petty to shit on a college kid who didn't like the book.
It's petty, but let's be real. It's not that she publicly said she didn't like the book, it's that she publicly said she deliberately got on the committee to keep any books by the writer from being included again. It's a little more of a thing that someone might actually be offended or hurt by. (Hell, people have established here that I'm a terrible, terrible person, but I wouldn't have made that tweet.)

That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin (or remotely that the author should have unleashed the flying twit-monkeys on the graduate). Just that it's a different thing from simply saying she didn't like the book, and I don't think it should be presented as such.
That's a totally reasonable thing for someone to join a committee to do, however. They select books. A college wide read is probably a decent place for a small side dish of gravitas.
Serious, non-sarcastic question. When I write things like, "That's not to say she wasn't entirely right to try to get the author's books off the list, or that the writer shouldn't have had a thicker skin", what makes you think I don't get that or that I disagree with that?
Then I dunno what you were getting at. Also 3am.
"It's not that she publicly said she didn't like the book, it's that she publicly said she deliberately got on the committee to keep any books by the writer from being included again....it's a different thing from simply saying she didn't like the book, and I don't think it should be presented as such."

But, eh. It's a waste of time to say, "obviously, she didn't deserve a Twitter mini-whirlwind", so I'll just leave it at, "She sowed the wind."
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18566
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Twitter!

Post by lunchstealer »

The Internet of Lies claims that Picoult is worth $10M. Which is rich but only barely. It's at the threshold of fuck you money.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Twitter!

Post by Warren »

lunchstealer wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 14:09
The Internet of Lies claims that Picoult is worth $10M. Which is rich but only barely. It's at the threshold of fuck you money.
Jumping on Ellie's bandwagon. Would that I were only barely rich.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18566
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Twitter!

Post by lunchstealer »

I will also just chime in that, having been a teen boy at the time I started college, I was already reading the kind of shit a teen boy would read. I'd've been pissed if I'd gotten assigned Red Storm Rising or Ender's Game going into undergrad at a locally elite college. I should be challenged at least a little to get out of my comfort zone and read stuff I should be reading as an adult rather than stuff I'd already be reading. That's not to say that it should never be assigned at the college level*, but not as a big intro requirement for the whole school, which is my understanding of the assignment in question.

* My school had a one-month 'Interim' term where you'd take one single special-topic course each January. My freshman year I took a sci-fi lit course offered by one of the Philosophy profs. Assigned stuff like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "The Dispossessed" which ... that's quite a contrast reading those two back-to-back, and I think a legitimate academic exercise. But that was a specialized course, not a general entering-class-wide assignment. For reference on the types of courses you'd take in the interim, others I took were a mirror-making course through the physics department, an intensive fencing course which included coaches from UNC and Duke both of whom were pretty legendary in American fencing circles, and an independent study course which involved a trip to UTEP to work with seismic data processing software on some data I'd been part of collecting at a geophysics field school the previous summer. I had applied for courses that took trips to Belize and Nepal, but got wait listed for those. Kicked myself really hard when I just assumed NOBODY would ever pull out, so I didn't bother to get my passport, but someone did and I was offered their slot and couldn't take it.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18566
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Twitter!

Post by lunchstealer »

Warren wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 14:21
lunchstealer wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 14:09
The Internet of Lies claims that Picoult is worth $10M. Which is rich but only barely. It's at the threshold of fuck you money.
Jumping on Ellie's bandwagon. Would that I were only barely rich.
Oh fuck yeah. I'm hardly poor, but I'm on the low threshold of comfortable. I'd happily be the not-rich of having the $1M net worth, as it's far more secure than my current much-smaller-than-that worth. Making it to barely-rich would be fucking amazing.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 18566
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Twitter!

Post by lunchstealer »

Oh damn this just amuses the hell out of me. Thread.

(hat tip, The Inimitable Mr. Darkly)

"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 16952
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: Twitter!

Post by Aresen »

If you guys aren't rich, how come you're libertarians? :P
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 29652
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Twitter!

Post by Warren »

Aresen wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 16:02
If you guys aren't rich, how come you're libertarians? :P
Because we want to be rich and we don't know enough about thieving to steal it.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25364
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Twitter!

Post by JasonL »

$10M seems high for merely “rich”. I mean median net worth is like $70,000 and $640,000 gets you in the top quintile.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 14809
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Twitter!

Post by Eric the .5b »

lunchstealer wrote:
15 Nov 2019, 14:09
The Internet of Lies claims that Picoult is worth $10M. Which is rich but only barely. It's at the threshold of fuck you money.
Thanks—I had trouble finding out about either. I just have run into a lot of people talking about writers who've had some modest success as if they're making Stephen King money. (Or considering any random writer as having had some modest success just because they're published.)
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 15 Nov 2019, 18:11, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

Post Reply