before I start my 3 part apology, let me begin by saying... ;) no seriously, let me first say that I have nothing against you, and that I hope you didn't infer "hate" from my short comment, which merely stated 1) that phrases like "I'm the author of..." and "I wrote the first book on..." have marketing (and archetype branding) value in and of themselves. [Update: You state as much yourself in your most recent blog post: "...books have this incredible power to them: they act as visible social proof that you might know something."]
2) That it's silly to assume that one would have to write every word of a book oneself when it comes to non-fiction. If you in fact are finding the time to do so on top of all your myriad other social media marketing activities, more power to you. But I see nothing wrong with farming out the grunt work on "advice books that basically tell you things you already know"...
3) Something about thin gruel, to which I added: "There are exceptions." E.g. I curated some key points from your 50 Google+ Observations over here because they were useful in structuring one's thoughts around during the first week or so:http://alexschleber.amplify.com/2011/07/04/curated-from-chris-brogans-50-google-observations/
Some detailed responses:
>> "most all of my writing is pretty thin gruel...I'm pointing out basic human marketing or business tactics and ideas that most people don't do well. The most top-selling books of all time are advice books that basically tell you things you already know and sell hundreds of thousands of new copies every year..."
- Fair enough, and +1 on the refreshing honesty. :) I don't see that as a standard to aspire to
however. For myself. To each his own.
>> "It's guaranteed that the book will talk about things that end up changing by the time it's crushed and printed into a dead tree. Who gives a shit? You don't own books that are made less useful in SOME regards? One of my favorite business books ever existed before email and still sells without a single mention of email or the internet. It's still pretty good. :)"
- I assume you addressed this to someone else because I didn't say anything about this. Of course things change all of the time. My guess is that people were questioning whether you could write something remotely substantive on a platform in "field trial", that is still subject to potential changes as far ranging as Google+ still is.
>> "And I'm not upset or defensive about any of this. I'm just always surprised by how people [<- passive-aggressive construction]
go absolutely crazy decrying what an evil person I must be for writing a book that none of you need to buy. I'm not writing it for you. I'm writing it for the people you dislike, who have all the money and who want to better understand what you do as second nature. It's okay to not like it. Just tell those people with all the money to like it. : )"
- Again, I must assume that you are mostly referring to some of the other commenters, but since you placed this as a continuation of something addressed to me, I can't be sure. Just for the record, I never used the word 'evil', nor do I think that my original comment could be characterized as anywhere near "going absolutely crazy".
I don't see what any however mild criticism of your project has to do with the "people you [we] dislike" (projection?), and what it would mean that they are presumably those "who have all the money". All
the money? As in: People who criticize you by definition must have none?! Or is it more like: "the people with all the money they are willing to give to me..."?! The world view potentially underlying these phrases worries me a little to be honest with you...
That said, I've recently been contemplating this mantra from the "Cult Of Done Manifesto" a lot:
"9. People without dirty hands are wrong. Doing something makes you right. ...
12. If you have an idea and publish it on the internet, that counts as a ghost of done..."
So in some sense you must be right for simply getting to: "I wrote the book on Google+". Will sound great at a conference too. ;)