[edanm]

So that we understand you better - what exactly are you proposing as the mechanism of these power interests pushing this book? Are you suggesting there are specific people who are actively pushing this book, who are not directly tied to the marketing of the book? Or that are directly tied, but since they are "power interests" or some such, they are trying harder than they do marketing other books?

I mean, I think you're wrong. But more than that, I think you're not saying something well-defined. What does it mean that "cultural power interests that are interested in stability" (paraphrased) are pushing the book in a way that's more than just marketing? Who exactly is doing this? Is this coordinated? Is this more than just "some people like this book so are talking about it", which is a much more innocuous way to phrase that?

[maxniederhofer]

what exactly are you proposing as the mechanism of these power interests pushing this book?

> slating for reviews, inclusion on top lists, discussions on television shows, interviews with author etc.

Are you suggesting there are specific people who are actively pushing this book, who are not directly tied to the marketing of the book?

> yes

since they are "power interests" or some such

> Are you suggesting that power is not a legitimate criterion of social analysis? Just to understand the quotations

What does it mean that "cultural power interests that are interested in stability" (paraphrased) are pushing the book in a way that's more than just marketing?

> It means they are doing it because they don't care about the sales, they care about the message being spread widely.

I'm not saying it's coordinated. I'm not saying it's some sort of conspiracy. But yeah, it's clearly more than "some people like this book"

[edanm]

The quotes around "power interests" is because you used the term and I was quoting you directly, it's not a phrase I would personally use.

Assuming it's not coordinated or a conspiracy, how is it different than "some people like this book"? I mean this sincerely - I really don't understand why people liking this book and talking about it doesn't completely explain what we're seeing. That's what explains pretty much every other book that people talk about a lot, which is a lot of books.

Meta: This is just an FYI, but I'm pretty sure the standard way of quoting and answering a previous comment is to put the original text after the ">", and the reply or whatever else you want to write without the ">". The way you did it is the reverse of this, and kinda makes your comment hard to parse.