Add It Up
Whenever I see number tossed around in an article, I often wonder what's the source. Can I trust them? Usually, there's nothing to be done, but sometimes you can see there's something wrong without even checking elsewhere.
For instance, a recent piece on S. E. Hinton in the LA Times. Like millions of other kids, I read The Outsiders (as well as That Was Then, This Is Now) growing up. It's practically a rite of passage.
Turns out it's 40th anniversay of The Outsiders, and the book is a perennial bestseller. As the article notes: "According to Viking, a division of Penguin Group USA, The Outsiders has sold more than 13 million copies and still sells more than 500,000 a year."
Okay, "more than 13 million." I presume this also means less than 14 million. And it "still" sells "more than" half a million a year. Well, how long has it been doing this, because at a consistent rate of half a million, it would have sold more 20 million so far. (The article suggests it took a little while for the book to take off, but even at 30 years it would have sold 15 million). Which suggests to me three possibilities.
1) It's possible the book was doing okay, selling, say, a quarter million a year and then for some reason a decade ago or so it picked up. This seems unlikely, however, since you'd think sales would have been hotter in the early days of success, and also around the 80s when the film version was released.
2) These numbers are just wrong, and either Viking, or the Times, made a mistake.
3) It was not originally published by Viking, and the company is referring only to its sales since it put out the book.
No matter what's true, we don't seem to be getting the whole story.
Then there's this: Early on, Hinton's age is stated as 59. Later, a New York Times review of The Outsiders from 1967 says the author is 17 years old. Add it up.
1 Comments:
Funny numbers- you just need a big one to make a point. For purposes of this article, the writer was trying to convey the idea of "A whole lot of copies." and accuracy is not the first object to the writer.
The Numbers Guy in the WSJ tends to take claims of numbers in a variety of articles and scrutinize them.
(OK this is off-point- but when did "literally" become a meaningless intensifier instead of meaning "actually"- this morning I heard a radio announcer say that he had "literally thousands of calls" on something when he just meant "a lot" and guessing from the demographics of the listening audience I'm guessing was less than 50 )
Post a Comment
<< Home