Re: Physics Textbooks and Authors

[herbgottlieb@juno.com]

Herb Gottlieb asked...
> > Now that the Sears and Zemansky book has been updated by Young, what 
> is your opinion of the updated version?
>
> What do you mean "updated", Herb? What was obsolete and in need of
> "updating"? Many of us feel that new editions of old textbooks in
> physics are issued more for the purpose of generating the illusion
> that the old edition somehow needs "updating" than because of any
> actual need. Usually the problems have been rearranged to render
> previous editions inconvenient to use if only problem numbers are
> assigned. 
>
> I've looked at Young before, but I was not thrilled; it didn't
> seem to me that there was a significant improvement. There are
> some things that are definite regressive changes (e.g. the loss of
> the principle of virtual work about which I've complained before).
> I haven't got a current edition, but casual examination
> suggests that the unchanged material exceeds 95% of the
> content. All new modern textbooks must resemble the 
> competition as closely as possible. Otherwise
> conservative faculty like me will never consider switching texts.
> Most new adoptions in this area are made not because a better text
> has come along, but rather because the faculty have become
> dissatisfied with one or another text and want to try something
> (only very slightly) different.
>
> Leigh

I appreciate your candid remarks and agree with everything that you 
say about these introductory physics texts. As you know, there are 
many books competing for a rather small physics-textbook market.
With very few exceptions, the authors' royalties are somewhere in 
the area of 5-15% of the books selling price with the publisher 
retaining the remainder for his costs and a small profit.  The authors 
are doing a great service for physics education but can you name 
more than a handful that can earn more than four or five dollars 
an hour for their work?  

Herb