Ann Coulter's Slander...anyone read it?

[kvrdave]

I just finished it and it was a hoot. I don't want to give anything away, but I would enjoy talking with anyone else who has read it.

[fallow]

I read the first 10 pages and thought it was absurd. "Some people claim its all liberals faults...to make it short, it is." I'm sure there is someone out there that could pose a just as clever and opposing argument.

[kvrdave]

There probably is, but I doubt it would be a best seller.

I thought it was incredibly funny. The part you quote was meant to be funny. Much of her writing is meant to be amusing (at least it was to me).

But there were incredible examples in there. Amazing.

[Jepthah]

I'll help readers of this thread who are considering purchasing the book to save money by giving a one-sentence summation.

"Liberals are horrible evil big lying poopy-heads, because sometimes they say that conservatives are horrible evil big lying poopy-heads, but conservatives are actually better looking, less smelly and not at all evil like those horrible, evil, smelly, ugly lying liberal poopy-heads."

Now I would like a high-paying job writing the jacket copy on political bestsellers, so please give me some names and emails of publishers to submit this thread address to. :)

[Toxygen]

You're a horrible evil big lying poopy-head liberal, aren't you? :p

rotfl

[kvrdave]

Serious question...why do books like this (or Rush's or Micheal Reagan, etc.) sell so much bett than the left equivilent like Al Franken's, Micheal Moore, etc.?

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by kvrdave
Serious question...why do books like this (or Rush's or Micheal Reagan, etc.) sell so much bett than the left equivilent like Al Franken's, Micheal Moore, etc.?

Because they don't do sensationalism as well (and do you know that is factually true, that those books did not sell as well?). And us poopy-head Liberals/Libertarians can't get our blood to boil quite hot enough to produce 'dittohead'-like effects that cause mass book purchasing. ;)

[Neush]

Ann Coulter is the last person Republicans should be flocking around. At least what Rush said had an element of educated thinking behind it. Ann Coulter is a vapid moron plain and simple. I saw her interviews for her book on "The Today Show" and on "Hardball" and on "Fox News" and each and every time she did nothing but whine about how everybody is out to get her and how no one lets her speak her mind. So Chris Matthews shut up (for once, that was a sight unto itself) and she didn't have one single cohesive argument to support what it was she was propagandizing. I flipped through her book at the library, but found pretty much what I expected in the first chapter or two... another narcissistic politico blowhole that has got way too much free time. If I were a republican I would stay as far away from her as the Democrats should be from Clinton.

[kvrdave]

Originally posted by Jepthah


Because they don't do sensationalism as well (and do you know that is factually true, that those books did not sell as well?). And us poopy-head Liberals/Libertarians can't get our blood to boil quite hot enough to produce 'dittohead'-like effects that cause mass book purchasing. ;)

It is really hard to say how many copies of a book sells because publishers don't release that information (stupid, imo), so all you can really do is go by weeks on the Best Sellers list and try to integrate that with intial print. In the case of Rush's second book, he wasn't on the Best Sellers list nearly as long as his first book, but much of that had to do with his initial printing being around 2 million books. His first book had to have many printings, and thus stayed on the list longer.

So, I am going simply based on the fact that they either don't make it to the Best Seller's list, don't climb, or don't stay as long as the others. Now, how can you say that it has to do with sensationalism? I would probably agree with that on Ann Coulter's book because see is pretty caustic, but Rush's contained no rally cry (aka a Micheal Moore book) to action, etc. It had quite a bit of humor in it as well.

Aside from Slander, I can't think of any conservatively written book that has caustic style to it, and even hers was laughable and beat up on many Republicans as well.

And don't tell me that Liberals can't get their blood to boil...they are 95% of all strikes, protests, sit-ins, sick-outs, etc. So do you really think that is it? Are you basing that on what you believe the books might contain, or have you ever read one?

Thanks guys.

[Mutley Hyde]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/01/books/bestseller/0901besthardnonfiction.html

I dunno... 26 weeks and Stupid White Men is only down to #4? Not too bad. Yeah, so Ann's only been out for a few months, but still, half a year on the list, top 5 no less... the Moore book isn't any flash in the pan there folks.

[Josh-da-man]

One of the reasons "conservative" themed books do well is because the (speciality) publishers buy premium real estate in the bookstores and flood them with their books. (I'm thinking that positions on the bestseller charts are determined before any books are actually sold, though I'm uncertain on that point.) Also heard that groups will buy up bulk quantities of the books to give to their members.

I think there's also a core audience that's going to be buying the books as a show of ideological solidarity. (Which is one difference I've noticed between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives will stick together, whereas liberals will generally turn on each other rather easily. I can think of many more public and nasty feuds between liberals than I can conservatives.)

There's also a healthy propaganda machine that serves the conservative cause, from talk radio to the Drudge Report.

[kvrdave]

Originally posted by Josh-da-man
One of the reasons "conservative" themed books do well is because the (speciality) publishers buy premium real estate in the bookstores and flood them with their books. (I'm thinking that positions on the bestseller charts are determined before any books are actually sold, though I'm uncertain on that point.) Also heard that groups will buy up bulk quantities of the books to give to their members.

I think there's also a core audience that's going to be buying the books as a show of ideological solidarity. (Which is one difference I've noticed between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives will stick together, whereas liberals will generally turn on each other rather easily. I can think of many more public and nasty feuds between liberals than I can conservatives.)

There's also a healthy propaganda machine that serves the conservative cause, from talk radio to the Drudge Report.

:lol:

I would have said the exact same but saying liberals. Sadly, I'm sure we both think we are correct, too. :lol:

[jfoobar]

Originally posted by kvrdave
Serious question...why do books like this (or Rush's or Micheal Reagan, etc.) sell so much bett than the left equivilent like Al Franken's, Micheal Moore, etc.?

It might have something to do with the high rate of illiteracy within their fanbase. :)

But seriously, Coulter is every bit as much a moron as Franken. Give me P.J. O'Rourke any day.

[BoatDrinks]

Just a note on best seller lists...

The NY Times Best Seller list means nothing as far as how many copies of a book have sold. It is a list that is based solely on the number of books pre-ordered from the publisher.

A book can be high on this list (like Skipping Christmas) and be a complete flop.

You can also "buy" your way onto the NYT best seller list as Nick Sparks did. You simply have it in your contract that your book will open at a certain level on this list and if the buyer wants your stuff bad enough they do it.

The most accurate list in terms of which books are selling the most number of copies is the USA Today Thursday best seller list. It is based solely on number of copies purchased from bookstores (includ. internet).

As for Coulter's book; I really don't think this book would have generated half as much hype or sales had it not been for the Katie Couric interview.

[movielib]

Originally posted by JustinS


It might have something to do with the high rate of illiteracy within their fanbase. :)

But seriously, Coulter is every bit as much a moron as Franken. Give me P.J. O'Rourke any day.
:up: P. J. O'Rourke :up:

My personal PJO favorite: All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty

[dcmurph61]

P.J. favorite: hmm, either Holidays in Hell or Republician Party Reptile. Anyone know if P.J. has anything new in the works?

[Sierra Disc]

See, I'm a flaming liberal for the most part yet I love PJ O'Rourke's books -- because they're WELL-WRITTEN, something Coulter or Limbaugh can never aspire to. I can handle reading something that goes against my philosophy if it's at least intelligently put. Even "Stupid White Men" was a little left for me but I enjoyed it anyway because he put it fairly amusingly. Coulter's just the flavor of the month.

[Josh-da-man]

Originally posted by JustinS
It might have something to do with the high rate of illiteracy within their fanbase. :)


Then why are their books all written at a third grade level? :p

[al_bundy]

Also who wants to read someone whine about how the government needs to raise everyone's taxes and cripple business. A lot of people work for public companies and know that it's not as horrific as the media paints it to be. Everytime I've seen donahue and michael moore rant their heads off on TV I laugh because I know they are all blowing things out of proportion and passing over a lot of facts.

But being slightly right of center, I don't buy any of these books. No matter from which end of the political spectrum it comes from, the political books are usually a bunch of opinions and a few bad examples blown out of proportion.