Archive for the ‘Books and publishing’ Category

Gold Open Access Journals: end of June wrapup

Thursday, June 30th, 2016

I’m posting this wrapup today so that I can add to it later–my own websites, including the domain hosting PDF ebooks of GOAJ and the subject supplement (for those not wishing to use Lulu), get statistics every day at 5:30 a.m., but the statistics only cover the current month (so 18.5 hours of downloads and copies of Cites & Insights on the last day of each month are invisible…)

This follows up on the one-week update.

  • The paperbacks: I have copies of both, and they’re lovely. Nobody else has purchased either one so far. (OK, so I have two copies of each, one with defective growth/shrinkage labels, which I’ll recycle.)
  • The PDF–GOAJ: 29 copies through Lulu, an increase of 19 over June 7; some of those are probably replacement copies fixing the growth/shrinkage label problem. Also 2,363 downloads, some probably not complete, from waltcrawford.name–an increase of 1,192 from June 7. Assuming everybody’s replaced old copies, that’s a minimum of 1,211 copies to date.
  • The PDF-Subject: 10 copies through Lulu and 60 copies through waltcrawford.name
  • The dataset: 678 visits and 63 downloads, up from 330 and 32–an increase of 31 in the relevant number.
  • The site: 330 visits, an increase of 169.
  • Impact? I’ve seen one or two tweets based on the book. I have no idea whether the figures are being used (and credited) in OA presentations, but it’s early yet (and I wouldn’t necessarily know).

Countries of OAWorld: an update and question

Tuesday, June 21st, 2016

When I announced the subject supplement to Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015, I said this:

As for the second supplement, The Countries of OAWorld 2011-2015? Despite the tumbleweeds that have so far greeted my request for feedback on interest in this book, I may still do it–but it’s going to take a while longer than the first supplement did.

For one thing, I plan to write a non-OA issue of Cites & Insights (possibly trying to use Nuance Dragon NaturallySpeaking for parts of it, since my hand still isn’t back to normal).

For another, it’s a bigger effort–either 54 or 69 country chapters (depending on whether I use 25 journals or ten as the lower limit for full chapters), plus six chapters with brief coverage for other countries in each region (Pacific/English doesn’t have any other countries). Even with some trimming to make chapters shorter, it’s likely to be a much larger book.

Best guess? Some time in July or August.

It’s time for an update…

Yes, I’m planning to do it

I tried a couple of chapters to see how they’d go, and I think the country chapters tell interesting stories–even though, at this point, readers will pretty much write their own narrative.

To wit:

  • It looks as though there will actually be 83 chapters so there’s some context–an OAWorld overview, seven region overviews, 69 country chapters, and six “other countries in region” chapters.
  • So I had to make the chapters more compact than the seven pages of region chapters in GOAJ. After some experimenting, I arrived at this:
  • I’ve combined the first two tables (journals & articles), combined APC levels & revenues, simplified growth & shrinkage, and made the two graphs smaller vertically (and moved the legend to the side from the bottom to keep proportions reasonable).
  • All of the subheadings are now Heading 3 rather than Heading 2, which saves a lot of space.
  • I’ve eliminated captions, since they’re pretty much redundant.
  • The net result: the standard region or country chapter is now four pages long (“other countries in region” chapters might be a page or two longer), as long as I don’t add much commentary.
  • Trying out a couple of countries, I find that the compact form doesn’t require much textual commentary–zero to two lines is usually enough.
  • The result should be a big but manageable book, somewhere around 340-350 pages.

The sample chapters are what uncovered the label problem with growth & shrinkage tables, since these were now small enough groups (in the first country tested, Nigeria) to allow direct manual checking. (And the small groups also have wider variations, of course.)

I’m interleaving Cites & Insights and the new supplement…

Given that nobody has yet expressed interest in the new supplement, I was going to set it aside until the probably-small July C&I was done…but the country chapters turn out to be fast & interesting, so much so that I keep returning to them. So I’m working on both.

Haven’t started using NaturallySpeaking “for real” yet; someday soon…but, unfortunately, even with six-fingered typing it’s more natural for me to type what I have to say than it is to say it…

Right now (in a day that’s generally gone south), I’m probably about halfway through the C&I draft, and have done 14 chapters of the book, with the fifteenth just needing “bookification” (I’ve done and checked the template-driven tables and figures and copied them to a separate country page; just have to move them into Word).

Best bet…

Some time in July, depending in part on how many other crises arise.

And the question (if anybody cares)…

I have a new third-order measure, but I’m not sure whether it’s explainable or useful, or how to describe it.

Here’s how it works–I’ll use one Asian nation as an example:

  1. I take the percentages of journals that either grew or shrank by 25% or more between 2014 and 2015, separating delisted journals (Gray OA) and those still in DOAJ. For India, those figures are:
    Gray OA: Up 19.0%, Down 44.8%
    DOAJ16:  Up 23.8%, Down 37.2%
  2. I take the up/down ratio for each side: Gray 0.42, DOAJ 0.64
  3. I divide the DOAJ16 ratio by the Gray OA ratio: 1.5

That’s the measure. In short, Indian journals still in DOAJ are 50% more likely to have grown significantly rather than shrunk significantly, as compared to delisted/gray OA journals.

(Choosing a different Asian country, the up/down ratios are 2.89 and 2.00–journals are much more likely to be growing–but the ratio’s 0.7.)

So the multipart question is:

  • Is this a meaningful metric?
  • If so, how can I describe it in a few words, augmented by an explanation in the preface?

At this point, “damfino” is the best I can do on both.

If there are no responses, I’ll eliminate the metric. (It would appear as text, not as a table.)

Comments are open or you can email me at waltcrawford@gmail.com

GOAJ: A Subject Approach (and an update)

Wednesday, June 15th, 2016

goafsub_cvrxGold Open Access Journals 2011-2015: A Subject Approach is now available as a free PDF or a $6 trade paperback.

As usual, you’ll find links for the Lulu paperback, the free Lulu pdf, and the pdf on my website for those not wishing to open a Lulu account at the project page, waltcrawford.name/goaj.html

The new book is a supplement to Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015, adding a chapter on each of 28 subjects and slightly expanding the subject-segment chapters from the earlier book.

Update

As of right about now (4 p.m. PDT, June 15, 2016) at figshare and Lulu and as of 5:30 a.m. for waltcrawford.name, here’s what I see:

  • The data:  633 views and 55 downloads. Since the views only show 50 rows, I regard the 55 downloads as meaningful.
  • The project page: 259 views. This tells me (see below) that most people forwarding information on the PDF provide a direct link to the PDF rather than to the project page. The latter is a courtesy, but the former is neither surprising nor unfortunate.
  • The paperback: One copy–mine. I’ve received it and it looks great, and I think it’s an enormous bargain at $6 (or less–lately Lulu’s been having one-day sales almost every day). I find it much easier to use than the PDF ebook, but then I’m old and still print-oriented. (Hey, if 20 people buy the paperback, I’d make enough money to have lunch at my favorite local Chinese place–except for tip.)
  • The Lulu PDF: 28 copies.
  • The waltcrawford.name PDF: 1,769 copies. (Now that it’s around 2MB, those might all be successful downloads.)
  • Cites & Insights 16:5, almost entirely an excerpted version of the book: 454 copies

Of course, it’s possible (and entirely legal) that some folks have forwarded PDF copies to others, but I’ll ignore those…

In any case, it appears that Gold Open Access Journals 2011-2015 has reached up to 2,251 people so far, although it’s likely that some downloads failed and some people who read C&I also downloaded the full PDF.

I’d call that reasonable success for a niche publication in its first 16 days.

As for the second supplement, The Countries of OAWorld 2011-2015? Despite the tumbleweeds that have so far greeted my request for feedback on interest in this book, I may still do it–but it’s going to take a while longer than the first supplement did.

For one thing, I plan to write a non-OA issue of Cites & Insights (possibly trying to use Nuance Dragon NaturallySpeaking for parts of it, since my hand still isn’t back to normal).

For another, it’s a bigger effort–either 54 or 69 country chapters (depending on whether I use 25 journals or ten as the lower limit for full chapters), plus six chapters with brief coverage for other countries in each region (Pacific/English doesn’t have any other countries). Even with some trimming to make chapters shorter, it’s likely to be a much larger book.

Best guess? Some time in July or August.

(Still inviting feedback.)

 

 

The semi-obligatory “I Still Read Books” post

Wednesday, December 30th, 2015

I started keeping a spreadsheet of books I’d read three or four years ago (OK: January 6, 2011–make that “five years ago”)  because I was starting to use the excellent local public library a lot more and, being old, didn’t want to accidentally pick up the same book twice.

As a side-effect, the spreadsheet lets me know how many books I’ve actually read each year.

My target is 39. To wit: The library’s check-out period is four weeks; I always take out three books (one “general” fiction, one nonfiction, one alternating between mystery and fantasy/science fiction). So: 13 four-week periods times three books.

This year, as last year, I managed to pass the target by a comfortable margin: 62(!) books read, assuming I don’t finish the current book before January 1. Or, rather, looking at the spreadsheet more carefully, I started 62 books and finished 59. Three (The Book of Lost Books, The Bite in the Apple, and William Safire’s Take My Word for It) I abandoned partway through.

So: Here are the books I thoroughly enjoyed, giving them full honors:

Thief of Time Terry Pratchett
Pale Kings and Princes Robert B. Parker
Night Watch Terry Pratchett
Monstrous Regiment Terry Pratchett
The Lake, The River & The Other Lake Steve Amick
This Case Is Gonna Kill Me Phillipa Bornikova
Hugger Mugger Robert B. Parker
The Pleasure of My Company Steve Martin
An Object of Beauty Steve Martin
Potshot Robert Parker
The Professional Robert B. Parker
Rough Weather Robert B. Parker
1634: The Ram Rebellion Eric Flint
Night Passage Robert B. Parker
Paper Doll Robert B. Parker
A Blink of the Screen Terry Pratchett
The Bromeliad Trilogy Terry Pratchett

and a few others that I enjoyed, but didn’t rate quite as high (A- rather than the A for those above)

Waiter Rant The Waiter
The Truth Terry Pratchett
Turtle Recall: the Discworld Companion Terry Pratchett & S. Briggs
Crimson Joy Robert Parker
Box Office Poison Phillipa Bornikova
1632 Eric Flint
1633 Eric Flint & David Weber
1634: The Bavarian Crisis Eric Flint & Virginia DeMarce
Now & Then Robert B. Parker
1634: The Baltic War Eric Flint & David Weber
Ring of Fire Eric Flint
Big Trouble Dave Barry
1635: The Eastern Front Eric Flint
True History of the Kelly Gang Peter Carey
Widow’s Walk Robert B. Parker

For those of you saying “Crawford’s got no Serious Literary Taste, he’s in there reading them Robert B. Parker and Terry Pratchett and Eric Flint genre pieces of crap,” I can only say phbttb. I’ve been a sucker for Pratchett since I first encountered Discworld (on a cruise ship, as it happens), and I’m pretty sure I’ve read all the adult Discworld novels and a couple of the nonfiction works (I’ll seek out the rest of the juveniles, and while I’m too damn old to start rereading stuff, it’s hard to let go of the Discworld folks). I’ve always been a fan of Robert B. Parker’s books, except for the fact that they’re so fluid and fast-moving that I finish one in at most three brief evening reading sessions. I’ve been captured by the 1632 alternate history told from the ground up, and that’s the way it is. I’m sure there are a few “serious” books in there. Somewhere.

 

One-third of the way there!

Sunday, November 22nd, 2015

With today’s French purchase of a PDF copy of The Gold OA Landscape 2011-2014, and including Cites & Insights Annual purchases, we’re now one-third of the way to the first milestone, at which I’ll upload an anonymized version of the master spreadsheet to figshare. (As with a previous German purchase, I can only assume the country based on Lulu country codes…)

Now an even dozen copies sold.

Reading the way you prefer

Monday, September 28th, 2015

I ran into an odd blog post (on a ALA divisional blog) this morning–and didn’t comment directly for two reasons:

  1. I’m not a member of the division
  2. I’m hoping that I simply misread or misunderstood the post.

The post seemed to be saying that libraries/library groups should be helping to persuade younger people to do all their book reading in ebook form. (I believe it springs from the New York Times piece regarding a slowdown in ebook sales.)

Again, I’m probably misunderstanding what was being said–but I have certainly seen in the past discussions that seemed to say that the “digital shift” was not only inevitable but desirable, and that good librarians should be backing it.

And I just don’t get it.

I’ve suggested for some time that there is no such thing as an inevitable digital shift when it comes to books: that there’s no reason to believe, based on precedent or history, that ebooks would sweep away print books entirely–or that this was even a desirable thing.

I’ve tried to be consistent in saying what the title of this post suggests. Expanding:

  • It seems likely that some people will prefer to do all or most of their extended-narrative reading on digital devices, either because they like them better, they’re more convenient, they believe they should do so…or for whatever reasons.
  • It seems likely that some people will prefer to do all or most of their extended-narrative (that is, “book”) reading from print books, either because they like them better or for whatever reasons.
  • It seems likely that some people will prefer to read some books in print form, some in digital form–and that the variety and distribution of preference will be different for different people.
  • Public libraries should not be “out ahead of the users” on such matters unless there’s a clear and consistent shift in preferences–and even then, maybe not. (Which is not to say public libraries shouldn’t provide ebook services, but maybe that they shouldn’t screw up their budgets or priorities to emphasize ebook services.)

I’ve said for some time that I expect book publishing and print book publishing to be a healthy business throughout my lifetime, with total print book revenues certainly in the billions and probably in the tens of billions of dollars per year. But I’ve tried to avoid nonsensical prophecies about the long-term balance between print and e.

Maybe ebooks will stabilize at 20% of the total book market. Maybe they’ll wind up being 25%, or 30%, or even 80% (although achieving a majority is beginning to seem less likely, but I’m no prophet). Maybe there is no equilibrium level, with percentages shifting back and forth.

In any case, books should be available in the form readers prefer, public libraries should support those preferences to the best of their abilities, and it should never be a matter of shoving one medium down people’s throats preferring one medium at the expense of another despite apparent use patterns.*

Of course, I’m ancient enough to go back to all those predictions that all books would become movies (although never stated that way), because of course everybody really wants their books to be singing and dancing. It always struck me that those making such predictions weren’t really book readers, and it turns out most book readers aren’t especially interested in “enhanced books.”

Those of you who read my stuff in another area may note that I also don’t foresee OA sweeping away traditional journal publishing in any great hurry, or even in my lifetime. I’m just not much of a triumphalist or a single-path advocate. Such is life.


*I do believe a case can be made that public libraries should resist aggressively bad ebook contracts, to the extent that they effectively privilege ebooks over print books if there’s not clear evidence of similar patron preferences–but that’s part of what I’m saying.

Personalized ads: An odd incident

Sunday, September 20th, 2015

Yes, I know most sidebar ads on websites are affected somehow by what you’ve searched or what sites you’ve gone to before. No big surprise, that, although it’s always amusing to see all the ads for competitors to something you just purchased.

But…

I don’t remember ever seeing Lulu running these sidebar ads; since Lulu’s a service company for self-publishers more than it’s really an online bookstore, that was OK with me.

Somehow, though, for the past three or four days, I’ve been getting loads of Lulu sidebar ads, usually scrolling through three to six different items on order.

One of which is almost always the paperback version of The Gold OA Landscape 2011-2014.

Which is odd on a couple of counts:

  • I’ve already purchased a copy–not surprisingly, since it’s my book, and especially since I can’t approve it for global distribution (Ingram, Amazon, B&N) until I receive my copy and “approve” it.
  • For that matter, if I do order a copy, it won’t cost the $60 shown in the ads: as the author, I pay only production costs, with no real profit for Lulu.
  • At least the last time I checked, searching for “the gold OA landscape” at Lulu yields the PDF ebook but not the paperback (Lulu’s book search is sometimes a little strange). But, of course, the ad takes me right to the product page that should show up on a search.

Is anybody else seeing this book advertised in sidebars? I’d love to think so, but I’m not going to assume it’s true.

By the way, another book that seems to show up for me all the time is Ann Dodds Costello’s Smart Women: The Search for America’s Historic All-Women Study Clubs. Which actually looks pretty interesting; I might yet buy a copy. (The link here is for the currently-$32 hardback; there’s also a $24 paperback and $8.99 ebook. It’s a 426-page book.)

Hmm. If I do buy that book, then Lulu’s ads are working…even if they’re also advertising my own stuff to me.

Stretching irony

Friday, August 28th, 2015

You’re writing a guide to local trails. Those trails are free. Your guide must therefore be free. Right?

You’re doing (unfunded) research on the nature of contemporary radio. Radio is free to the listener. Therefore, you won’t charge anybody for the book based on your research. Right?

I could provide many more such absurd, well, let’s call them sillygisms, since to call them syllogisms would be silly.

But then there’s:

You’re writing a guide to/doing unfunded research on/publishing about open access. Therefore, it’s ironic if you charge for it.

Huh?

Yep, here it comes again, just as it did in the first review when ALA Editions published Open Access: What You Need to Know Now (which was my writing, not an ALA official proceedings). This time, it’s the Library Technology Reports issue, which is apparently finally out. And an almost immediate tweet calling it ironic that the OA-related report requires a subscription.

(In fact, unless I’m mistaken, the first chapter–which includes the key facts–is free online; the key facts were in my freely-available American Libraries excerpt; and the spreadsheet used for the report is freely available. But never mind.)

And here I am plugging away on a much broader report…which, to date, I can only be sure four people will ever see. Because, you know, I’m going to charge for it. Not enough to make, say, minimum wage for the time involved, but I’m going to charge for it. And no, it’s not ironic. (Somebody’s paying for pretty much every OA journal, by the way…)

It does get tiresome at times.

The books of 2014

Wednesday, December 31st, 2014

I could recount blog activity for 2014, but that would be really brief and boring. I would promise to do better in 2015, but don’t know that I will…

As for the year in general: I certainly didn’t plan to spend much of it visiting some 16,000 journal and publisher websites some 23,000+ times in all–but Beall’s fast-growing list concerned me enough to try to want to add some, y’know, facts to the discussion. As a result of spending hundreds (I’m not even thinking about how many hundreds) of hours on the single project that turned into four projects, I really didn’t make much headway on watching old movies–instead of the usual one or two per week, I think I managed one a month, maybe less.

But I did do OK on book-reading, mostly library books. My annual goal continues to be 39: three books each time I go to the library–one genre fiction alternating between mystery and science fiction/fantasy, one “non-genre” fiction, one nonfiction–and going to the library at least once every four weeks (that’s the circulation period in Livermore). Anything more than that is gravy.

This year, it looks like I read 58 books, or, rather, I started 58 books and finished 55 of them. (I gave up on three books, two of them to my considerable surprise because they’re by authors I like in general: to wit, Connie Willis’ All Clear and Gene Wolfe’s The Urth of the New Sun. The third was John Barth’s Once Upon A Time–and, you know, I’ve liked Barth a lot as well.)

The pleasant surprise is just how many books I liked enough to give A or A- grades–although that includes starting to read Robert Parker again and reading some of the Discworld books (in mass-market editions) that have been sitting on my shelf before the pages yellow completely.

Here’s the list, including an astonishing 30 books in all, in no particular order:

The Long War Terry Pratchett & S. Baxter
Robert B. Parker’s Lullaby Ace Atkins
James and the Giant Peach Roald Dahl
Jingo Terry Pratchett
Back Story: a Spenser novel Robert B. Parker
Bad Business Robert B. Parker
Chance Robert B. Parker
Telegraph Avenue Michael Chabon
The Christmas Train David Baldacci
The Science of Discworld Terry Pratchett & others
Fatal Voyage Kathy Reichs
How the Beatles Destroyed Rock ‘n’ Roll Elijah Wald
Mary Ann in Autumn Armistead Maupin
Cross Bones Kathy Reichs
Bones to Ashes Kathy Reichs
The Know-It-All A.J. Jacobs
The Last Continent Terry Pratchett
I’m Feeling Lucky Douglas Edwards
Hush Money Robert B. Parker
Fire and Rain David Browne
The History of a Hoax…Old Librarian’s Almanack Wayne A. Wiegand
Raising Steam Terry Pratchett
The Monuments Men Robert M. Edsel
Double Deuce Robert B. Parker
The Camel Club David Baldacci
Sudden Mischief Robert B. Parker
Inherent Vice Thomas Pynchon
The Human Division John Scalzi
Hundred Dollar Baby Robert B. Parker
The Fifth Elephant Terry Pratchett

Of those 30, 27 came from the library; three of the Pratchett books were among the seven on my bookshelf as the year began; and some Beta Phi Mu members (I’m not one–I don’t have an MLS–but my wife is or was) may have spotted the odd book out, Wiegand’s charming little chapbook.

Also fair to note that I’m either an easy grader (probably true for books) or I’m good at selecting library books–normally by browsing–that I’ll like. Another 18 books got B or B+ and two more got a middling B-. Only seven books that I finished got C+ or lower, most of them badly-written or seriously ahistoric nonfiction, and only one book earned a D even though I read the whole thing.

Here’s to 2015 being at least as good in books. (Looking at this list, I’m surprised I gave The Last Continent an A-; at the time, I noted that it was the least satisfying Discworld novel I’ve ever read.)

Oh, and Inherent Vice was a pleasant surprise, given that I’d basically given up on Thomas Pynchon after having been an early fan.

One note there: “Robert B. Parker’s Lullaby” is a Spenser mystery written by the writer Parker’s estate chose to continue the series. It’s very good…and is what started me reading Parker again after an absence of 20 or 30 years. I’m sure I’ll wind up rereading some books I’ve previously read. That’s fine with me. I will surely read Atkins’ other Parker books.

Those of you who look at this list and say “Sheesh. He sure doesn’t read much Serious Literature or Truly Worthwhile Nonfiction” are entirely welcome to your own opinion. You may be right.

liberation management: a non-review

Sunday, July 6th, 2014

I tried, Really, I did! Apparently once some years ago, three or four times in the last couple of weeks.

But I just couldn’t! Right around page 225 of 834, I decided I don’t need a soporific and no longer care why Tom Peters is/was so important.

The book title’s in the post title (the first two words, with “necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties” as a subtitle), all-lower-case and all, It’s by TOM PETERS, all upper case (with the T and M in yellow, the O in red, and “PETERS” in green with a red shadow–all very impressive).

Inside the book, oddly enough, the orthography is more normal!

Oh, sorry, reading Peters, I got in the habit of thinking every second or third sentence should end in an exclamation point–possibly as a way to enliven some seriously plodding prose.

The copy I have is a $15 mass-market paperback published by Ballantine (it’s a Fawcett Columbine book) in 1994, two years after Knopf published the hardcover. Both are divisions of Random House. The book’s copyright is held by “Excel/, A California Partnership” (I assume the slash is part of the corporate name but the comma isn’t). “A Note About the Author” at the end tells us that Peters is founder and chief of The Tom Peters Group (which, he tells us in the book, is really five different corporations or something like that), which is in Palo Alto even though “he and his family spend much of their time on a farm in Vermont, thanks to the information technology revolution (the Fax machine).”

Really. In 1992, the Fax machine (capital-F) was an “information technology revolution.” Maybe so; while the commercialization of the internet and the first ISPs go back to 1989, by 1992 it probably wasn’t very widespread.

Oh yes: there’s a doorstop of a book that I should say something about.

The first thing to say is that, if Knopf is/was supposed to have high editorial standards, they sure seem to be missing on this book. The proofreading is fine, but a good editor should have sat down with Peters and said something like “Drop 90% of the exclamation points, try saying things five or ten times instead of thirty or forty times, cut this by 75% and we might have a decent book–with a lot of editorial work.”

But, of course, Tom Peters was already hot stuff by this time, based on a book (with a coauthor) that may or may not have had falsified data (the link is to Wikipedia’s article; on one hand, I can believe Fast Company sensationalized a headline, since the magazine tends toward sensationalism–but on the other, based on too many other business books to count, I certainly believe that Peters cherry-picked at the very least).

This quote from an LJ review of this book is cogent: “Peters doesn’t have the benefit of an official coauthor, and it shows” (In Search of Excellence and his second book did have coauthors).

What I learned from the 200 pages I did read:

  • Tom Peters is 100% certain that every company in America must transform itself (long before now) into small self-selecting project teams that work closely with customers to meet their needs–pretty much “we’re all consultants of one sort or another,” although he doesn’t put it that way. (Somehow, I don’t see that working in ordinary retail at all, but I lack Peters’ vision.) It is, of course, true, as every student of Steve Jobs and Apple knows, that its successes in the iStuff category came about strictly because Jobs and small groups met with potential customers to see how Apple could best meet their needs…oh, wait…
  • Peters is Very Sure of Everything He Says! Hey, he’s a multimillionaire at this point so who am I to quibble? (One of the links from the Wikipedia article has him dismissing the fact that 98% of internet startups–companies done the way he thought everybody should do things–had failed. In essence, he said “So what? Some succeeded.”)
  • Peters is upfront in saying that everybody has to be a businessperson and, at least implicitly, that everybody must create and keep building Their Own Brand.
  • What comes through loud and as clear as the turgid prose allows is this: Peters’ future is 100% for extroverts. There’s no room for introverts in the “nanosecond nineties.” If you’re not out pushing yourself into project teams, creating your own new projects, and being assertive about everything…well, you’re toast.

Some of that may be unfair. In any case, I gave up. I’m sure others read this brick all the way through, were enlightened by it, and went on to found the only companies that could possibly survive the nineties and beyond. No, I don’t intend to read Peters’ more recent books. I’ll give some other absolutist guru a try.