BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Difficult to believe, but true.

Amazon are selling it at £ 9.

Looking For Madeleine Hardcover – 11 Sep 2014
by Anthony Summers (Author), Robbyn Swan (Author)
Be the first to review this item
Hardcover
£9.00
1 Used from £14.16
13 New from £9.00

£9.00
RRP: £18.99
You Save: £9.99 (53%)

Looking For Madeleine by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan (11 Sep 2014)

£6.99 Kindle Edition
Available for download now
£18.99 £9.00 Hardcover
Get it by Friday, Sep 12

Some of the verbs seem to have been "whooshed" ! !

" />

No mention of half hourly, or even hourly visits,  just slugging it back till the early hours.

" />

(Thursday was NOT dry and warm, it was still fairly cold and quite windy as the weather reports clearly show.)
I love the idea of "the prospects for the rest of the holiday . . ." ONE DAY !
Rest seems to be copied and pasted from Kate's book.

PeterMac wrote:Some of the verbs seem to have been "whooshed" ! !

" />

One thing is quickly apparent. Whichever of Flanagan and Allen is responsible for that bit, they can't write for toffee.

On the table. An open book. Blank pages. No facts.
Not even the insufferable confusion of the propinquity of a child and death could possibly have led to this miasma of lucre generation.
And so it sits. On the table, Unread. Disregarded. And. Vilified.

PeterMac wrote:On the table. An open book. Blank pages. No facts.
Not even the insufferable confusion of the propinquity of a child and death could possibly have led to this miasma of lucre generation.
And so it sits.  On the table,  Unread. Disregarded.  And.  Vilified.

So it's not going to be "the book at bedtime'on Radio 4 then?

ETA having read the intro above .... Mills and Boon would have turned it down. Is it a child? Is it a puppy?  Is the search on for a man with incredibly strong and muscular arms? Is it a weighlifter?

You should have been a crime writer Peter.

PeterMac wrote:On the table. An open book. Blank pages. No facts.
Not even the insufferable confusion of the propinquity of a child and death could possibly have led to this miasma of lucre generation.
And so it sits.  On the table,  Unread. Disregarded.  And.  Vilified.

Makes you wonder who actually is going to buy and read it. Perhaps barely anybody.

BlueBag wrote:You should have been a crime writer Peter.

Yes I can see it now - lining Waterstones - the glossy novels of PM -

The 48 Unanswered Questions
The Scent of Death
Dont you Know Know it?
The Camera doesn't Lie
The Open Boot

PeterMac wrote:On the table. An open book. Blank pages. No facts.
Not even the insufferable confusion of the propinquity of a child and death could possibly have led to this miasma of lucre generation.
And so it sits.  On the table,  Unread. Disregarded.  And.  Vilified.

So that's a def NO from Peter .....looking for a thumbs down emoticon.

Prob be on the carboot tables @ the w/e for 10p. Nobody here is surprised. S&S track record and a fleeting 2 years of "researching" without interviewing the main suspects was pathetic journalism.
I think C & P would be a closer description than researching.

BlueBag wrote:You should have been a crime writer Peter.

I was.  Prosecution files.

I used to get criticised for beginning all my statements with "It was a dark and stormy night . . ."

Or try a Haiku
A dark night.  Cold.  Calm.
Somewhere a child cries and calls
She dies. No one comes.

tigger wrote:

PeterMac wrote:On the table. An open book. Blank pages. No facts.
Not even the insufferable confusion of the propinquity of a child and death could possibly have led to this miasma of lucre generation.
And so it sits.  On the table,  Unread. Disregarded.  And.  Vilified.

So it's not going to be "the book at bedtime'on Radio 4 then?

ETA having read the intro above .... Mills and Boon would have turned it down. Is it a child? Is it a puppy?  Is the search on for a man with incredibly strong and muscular arms? Is it a weighlifter?

Ha Ha...a burly Mummy?  Never heard of such a thing!

Not one bit surprised the book didn't take off or fly off the shelf.
S&S are too late into the picture with such a book. If the contents are lifted wholesale from the process files and Kate's bewk, no one is going to be interested in a C&P book coming on the back of Redwood spotty-smelly-man and his 7 dwarfs still at large.

The tumbling price before take off is quite expected.

I suspect the number of books sold is irrelevant.

That wasn't the point of the book.

Serialisation... that's where the disinformation will be disseminated.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

PeterMac wrote:On the table. An open book. Blank pages. No facts.
Not even the insufferable confusion of the propinquity of a child and death could possibly have led to this miasma of lucre generation.
And so it sits.  On the table,  Unread. Disregarded.  And.  Vilified.

Makes you wonder who actually is going to buy and read it. Perhaps barely anybody.

PeterMac got mugged.... what ...£18.99?

Not sure whether he's going to read S&S's  crap swan song ?

BlueBag wrote:I suspect the number of books sold is irrelevant.

That wasn't the point of the book.

Serialisation... that's where the disinformation will be disseminated.

The authors made a bundle and the Publisher lost a bundle.

The winner? The Mccans. About right, innit? That's the whole purpose of the book.

Well we don't know what the deal was.

Maybe someone else funded the "research" and S&S offered it at low cost to the publisher.

BlueBag wrote:Well we don't know what the deal was.

Maybe someone else funded the "research" and S&S offered it at low cost to the publisher.

Brian Kennedy ?

Just a thought... no significance if the book is very cheap on Amazon... often new books are tremendously discounted there.

Don't do Amazon.

Is there a way of 'tracking' book 'sales' on there?

comperedna wrote:Just a thought... no significance if the book is very cheap on Amazon... often new books are tremendously discounted there.

No intention of buying it,but is it available through other outlets?

Just a few thoughts on traditional publishing (as opposed to self-publishers).

The publisher is a traditional one, therefore no one pays them to put the book in print. The standard contracts are that the writer(s) supply the manuscript, the publisher accepts, the publisher pays out an advance to the writer(s) against royalties and then a percentage (small) according to sales. The writer(s) have to make back the advance in sales percentage before they see any more money after their advance. If the book sells poorly, the writers don't get any more money and the publisher takes a loss. Serialization rights help the publisher and the writer.

Unfortunately there's a disturbing trend with some nonfiction publishers to put out "factual" nonfiction which is, in fact, just a rehash of existing published work. Occasional interviews conducted but otherwise, just requoting the stuff that's already out there.

It may be that the authors were approached and paid money independently to compile this account, because of their prior track record. They would have been able to easily find a publisher on the back of their prior record.

I think the publishers are taking a bit of a risk though, if they paid out a big advance to these writers. They may end up losing money in the long run if book sales fail to make up what they've paid out to the writers.

canada12 wrote:I think the publishers are taking a bit of a risk though, if they paid out a big advance to these writers. They may end up losing money in the long run if book sales fail to make up what they've paid out to the writers.

We have no idea of the deal.

The "advance" may have been quite small.

There may have been a pre-advance-advance from someone else.

PeterMac wrote:Some of the verbs seem to have been "whooshed" ! !

" />

"........ a small child, warm from its slumber, still in nightclothes ".    Were S&S there then that night; did they actually touch the small child?  Well, they must have because they`ve stated it was warm.

Woofer wrote:
"........ a small child, warm from its slumber, still in nightclothes ".    Were S&S there then that night; did they actually touch the small child?  Well, they must have because they`ve stated it was warm.

Except that DCI Redwood has already said she was probably not alive when she left the apartment.
So he is wrong as well.

I get my copy when the next mule train arrives, possibly mañana - which for those who speak and understand Spanish does not mean tomorrow.
It usually means "At some unspecified time in the future . . . possibly . . . or possibly not . . . who can say."

PeterMac wrote:

Woofer wrote:
"........ a small child, warm from its slumber, still in nightclothes ".    Were S&S there then that night; did they actually touch the small child?  Well, they must have because they`ve stated it was warm.

Except that DCI Redwood has already said she was probably not alive when she left the apartment.
So he is wrong as well.

I get my copy when the next mule train arrives, possibly mañana - which for those who speak and understand Spanish does not mean tomorrow.  
It usually means "At some unspecified time in the future . . . possibly . . . or possibly not . . . who can say."

 The Cornish saying "Dreckly" (Directly) corresponds somewhat with "Manana", but has less urgency.

I've just read that bit again.
"Moments later a man is seen walking purposefully, carrying something in his arms.  The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber, still in nightclothes.
A child will go missing this night, Thursday 3rd May 2007 . . .   "

How much nonsense is it possible to put in two short sentences ?

Moments later a man is seen walking purposefully, carrying something in his arms. A bundle, perhaps ?
The something appears to be a small child   Only later did it transmogify into a small child.
warm from its slumber   Warm FROM its slumber - IN its slumber - or unconscious ?
still in nightclothes.  The pink, then white, then pink pyjamas ?
A child will go missing this night, Or, in the interests of accuracy and truth "A child will be REPORTED MISSING this night.
A child will go missing this night, But NOT this one, since DCI Redwood has categorically stated and confirmed on the most prestigious TV Crime show that this was NOT Madeleine.  So that sentence is totally irrelevant.   It merely hindered the investigation for 5 years.

I can hardly wait for the rest !

Summers and Swann seem like absolute twerps.

Perhaps they should crawl back under the stone that they never bothered to turn over and investigate the Moon landings.I'm sure some publisher will pay them for their expertise on cosmic issues.

tigger wrote:

PeterMac wrote:On the table. An open book. Blank pages. No facts.
Not even the insufferable confusion of the propinquity of a child and death could possibly have led to this miasma of lucre generation.
And so it sits.  On the table,  Unread. Disregarded.  And.  Vilified.

So it's not going to be "the book at bedtime'on Radio 4 then?

ETA having read the intro above .... Mills and Boon would have turned it down. Is it a child? Is it a puppy?  Is the search on for a man with incredibly strong and muscular arms? Is it a weighlifter?

When's the book signing? they'll be queing round the block.   Better make sure the book- shop doors are open early otherwise they'll be jemmying the shutters up in their haste to buy this book. 

PeterMac wrote:I've just read that bit again.
"Moments later a man is seen walking purposefully, carrying something in his arms.  The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber, still in nightclothes.
A child will go missing this night, Thursday 3rd May 2007 . . .   "

How much nonsense is it possible to put in two short sentences ?

Moments later a man is seen walking purposefully, carrying something in his arms. A bundle, perhaps ?
The something appears to be a small child   Only later did it transmogify into a small child.
warm from its slumber   Warm FROM its slumber - IN its slumber - or unconscious ?
still in nightclothes.  The pink, then white, then pink pyjamas ?
A child will go missing this night, Or, in the interests of accuracy and truth "A child will be REPORTED MISSING this night.
A child will go missing this night, But NOT this one, since DCI Redwood has categorically stated and confirmed on the most prestigious TV Crime show that this was NOT Madeleine.  So that sentence is totally irrelevant.   It merely hindered the investigation for 5 years.

I can hardly wait for the rest !

Reads a bit like Mills and Boon, doesn't it?

The reviews are not going to increase the sales

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

A disgrace!
By  Amelia Soares   on 11 Sep 2014
What a load of tosh !!! Did the authors bother to read the portuguese police files on the case in depth? I bet not...they talked to...Kate and Gerry McCann instead!
"There are no significant inconsistencies in the statements of the McCanns and their friends"
WHAT???!!! Once again, READ THE FILES!
And, calling those who "dare" to doubt the Mccanns and friends version of events, "HATTERS" is inadmissable and unprofessional!
Sorry, but for me, this book has Clarence Mitchell's fingerprints all over

Inaccurate and disappointing
By  Diane W   on 11 Sep 2014
I waiting for the publication of this book with anticipation only to be sadly disappointed , this author to my mind has plucked random ideas out of the air with no evidence to substantiate them, I feel he decided the parents innocent of involvement prior to writing the book and set out to prove that ignoring well established facts about the case. Very poor

Disgusting and disgraceful
By  Barbara Williams   on 11 Sep 2014
I would give you a zero star if possible. Have you two sold your souls to the devil? Disgusting and disgraceful.