Rob,

When I buy books on 3 for 2 offer, frequently my choice of at least one book is a bit of a 'flyer' - trying something different/ not too sure about.

Some kind of discounted pairing of books, 2 NF or (1 NF + 1F) would influence me. How that could be implemented I have no idea, apart from perhaps through your direct site sales, which leaves me out.

Kind regards, Derek

Rob,
Sorry, me again, but you've got me thinking. The model that you should try and recreate is the one that sold 'A Brief History of Time'. Here was a book that was very difficult to absorb and yet reached a popular audience - many of whom failed to get past the first chapter ( i suspect). So why? Was it the character of Hawking? Maybe but he was already a public figure. Was it that the public was made to believe that this book above all others had answers? in my opinion - yes. People believed that they would learn something new, exciting and perhaps most of all, elevating in terms of understanding. If 'The Shock Doctrine' is to acheive popular success it needs a combination of an interesting author with a public persona, a subject that intrigues but doesn't repel and (crucially i feel) answers or the impression of giving answers. Klein's book does not tick any of these boxes. That is not her fault or her publishers and i suspect that they are working very hard to change the situation. So how to get it out there and read? I would suggest a huge scandal that topples a government as a direct result of her book. The ensuing publicity should refer all media to the book and Klein herself. The other problem is that we want people to read this book not just buy it! So giving it away a la Prince with the Sunday Mail is not a goer.

I would certainly consider reading this book without any of the incentives listed above. A good (independent) review is generally enough for me. However I'd never buy it in hardcover, I'd always wait for the paperback.

Earlier I said that a good (independent) review of a book would be enough to get me to read a book. That was before I read the third review of this book on the Book Depository site (linked to by Rob). Do we think this is a real review or a spoof? It shows a scary belief in conspiracy that I am sure isn't reflected in the book itself (though of course I've not read it).

Matthew

Ugh, Matthew, I think that reviewer thinks they're helping. But their terminology is very off-putting. You could call a charity a conspiracy to help, you could call a company a conspiracy to make money. Let's use the term 'interested parties' instead shall we? Unions push for better wages, pensions, and workers rights (and you could call that a conspiracy). And business lobbies tend to push for the opposite. It's a spectrum. The book is about what happens when one extreme end of that spectrum gets its day in the sun. Remember Enron? The money to be made by cheating was so extraordinary it was too much for a few people to resist. Well, similar situations keep popping up where absolutely staggering profits are possible if those concerned can convince themselves to do A instead of B. And in this case it's something as seemingly innocuous as whether you think Friedman was a better economist than Keynes. It just happens if you believe in Friedman, then the policies you'd push might happen to make you richer than Croesus and everyone else poor. And perhaps that's not your fault; you're just following the advice of one of the greatest economic thinkers of the twentieth-century. Yes, the whole thing amounts to a giant conspiracy, but it's no more far fetched than the idea that some people will do cruel things if the reward is enormous piles of money. It's the way Klein lays the whole thing out that's so fascinating. Not only is it a very good history of half a dozen major events of the last fifty years, she dissects the alignment of interests in a way that makes you realise exactly what was going on and why.

Rob it was the comment 'any ones who dont fall into a trance because of the disasters are given electric shocks to make them lose their minds. this is based on research into electro convulsive therapy and secret experiments by the c i a into mind control.', to which I was referring. This suggests a conspiracy of the more expected type rather than renaming a school of thought as a conspiracy.

Matthew: I think the success of ABHOT can be at least partially attributed to its title. If I didn't know what it was about, I'd buy it in a second; as it is, I know I'll never get past the first chapter.

1) No. I'm constantly seeing people here reading The Tipping Point and I have no interest in reading that.

2) No, probably not. I don't like buying, or even getting for free, books that I know I'll never read.

3) Likely not. As many banned books as I've thought were interesting, there are loads of them that are not. And plenty of books are banned for silly reasons, not compelling ones.

4) No. Trust TV, the medium that made a success of The King of Queens and Married...With Children, to tell me what books to read? Not on your life.

5) Yes, with caveats. For instance, the fact that an intelligent person like you likes The Shock Doctrine makes me 80% more inclined to read it, but the subject will still scare me away.

For me it comes down to topic + reliability of the author in pretty equal portions. I'm interested in reproductive rights issues, and I think William Saletan is brilliant, so I'll probably read his book about abortion. Even though I think Daniel Gross is brilliant, I will not read his book about economics; even though I'm interested in serial killers, I won't read just anybody's book about Ted Bundy.

But I'll still pick a fiction book first, every time.

Hope that helps.

Matthew, what that prose-challenged commenter is referring to is a similarity Klein points out between how individuals react to electro-shock therapy and how countries react to economic shocks. She draws lots of parallels mainly as a rhetorical device. She also makes the point that ultra-free-market policies cause such human misery that most regimes imposing them sooner or later end up with an uprising on their hands. In non-democratic countries, that's when literal shocks start replacing the metaphorical ones. But to be honest with you, Klein does also talk about the research the CIA did into mind control, but only to mention that while it failed, it did help them get better at interrogation. And one of her major sources is declassified CIA memos, so it's difficult to dispute her there. She does accuse the CIA of engaging in and training others in torture - but if the U.S. Army can create Abu Ghraib, I don't think it's out of the question that the CIA get up to worse.