“If you claim that you’ve “disproved” Yog’s Law, or that you’ve found “a fallacy” in Yog’s Law, or that Yog’s Law “doesn’t apply,” either you’re a scammer, you’re a dupe of scammers, or you have no clue about publishing.”
“A few years ago an individual created out of thin air a concept he called “Yog’s Law.” I have no idea who “Yog” is or what planet he may be from but just like Superman there is “kryptonite” in this concept and that “kryptonite” is the facts. His over-simplistic “Money always flows to the writer” is his central argument. The problem with that concept is that he makes it sound like a movie script. Write a book, ask mom how good she thinks it is, send it to a publisher, they take it and make you a millionaire while you sit at home and watch TV. Of course writers should make money for their work, but the premise that they will never have to spend money if they publish, promote or market their books is incredibly naïve . . . . “Money flows to the author? . . . . Sure, J.K. Rowling and James Patterson are multi-millionaires, but they have each cranked out several books, have movie deals, and have to sell an incredible volume of books. They are in the extreme minority, of which I am certain Mr. Yog’s Law is not a member.””
- Richard Tate
“James [Macdonald], I am really surprised by your latest post about Tate being liars. Up until this point I had thought that you wanted to have an open and honest conversation about Tate . . . . That led me to believe that you were sincere in engaging in this discussion but at this point, I am starting to question your intent . . . . The fault in Yog’s Law is that it does not provide for a set point in time at which one should take stock of his or her net gains or losses . . . . As writers, if we are to be objective, we should look at all sides of a story and try to gather as much reaearch [sic] as possible . . . . James [Macdonald], I, like you, believe in providing the general public with all of the facts so they can make informed decisions that best meet their specific needs which is why I came her [sic] in the first place. I believe that is what your original intent was in writing Yog’s law. I also believe that is what Anne’s and Victoria’s original intents were. However, I’m starting to get the feeling that you are all just writing to defend your point of view and not really to seek the truth . . . . Sorry, but to me, that is more of a personal attack and is immaterial to the issues being discussed here. . . . Just one last observation on your post. I find it interesting that you got so upset about Tate writing about you and your beliefs on one of their blogs when this has been commonplace for you to do over the years through the forums you frequent. Please believe me when I tell you that I don’t say that in an argumentative way, rather, it’s simply an observation. (Emphasis Added)
“Tate Publishing of Oklahoma: TATE PUBLISHING AND THE FACTS ABOUT “YOG’S LAW”.”Tate Publishing of Oklahoma. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Apr. 2011. <http://tatepublishingacquisitions.blogspot.com/2011/04/tate-publishing-and-facts-about-yogs.html>.