u/tkondaks

Thanks to everyone who gave me their feedback to my concerns in “I goofed.” Your answers really relieved me knowing I can correct the mistakes I made in my original upload for my paperback edition.

When I originally uploaded my book to KDP, it was in Word format, the same format/platform on which I wrote the book.

Could that have been the source of what created my problems? Because I subsequently saw on one of the how-to videos this sub recommends seeing that “Reedsy” suggested using EPUB.

Do folks recommend that I use EPUB?

Or should I just make the necessary changes to the same Word file I used originally and then upload it again to KDP as a Word file as I did the first time?

If I use EPUB: not sure how it works but I guess what I will do is make all necessary changes in the Word file and then feed it through EPUB which will give me a preview of howi it will ultimately look in printed form? Is that how it works?

Thanks to everyone who gave me their feedback to my concerns in “I goofed.” Your answers really relieved me knowing I can correct the mistakes I made in my original upload for my paperback edition.

When I originally uploaded my book to KDP, it was in Word format, the same format/platform on which I wrote the book.

Could that have been the source of what created my problems? Because I subsequently saw on one of the how-to videos this sub recommends seeing that “Reedsy” suggested using EPUB.

Do folks recommend that I use EPUB?

Or should I just make the necessary changes to the same Word file I used originally and then upload it again to KDP as a Word file as I did the first time?

If I use EPUB: not sure how it works but I guess what I will do is make all necessary changes in the Word file and then feed it through EPUB which will give me a preview of howi it will ultimately look in printed form? Is that how it works?

Yeah, I rushed when I uploaded my book to KDP. Too impatient. I thought I reviewed everything properly during the process but obviously I didn't.

I got the paperback in the mail yesterday. Cover, back cover looks great; content is all there and for the most part looks good.

But all the even page numbers didn't print...the odd page numbers did and every page is in order. It all corresponds to the table of contents. So a reader can still navigate around the book successfully. But still.

And a few other typesetting problems which I can live with.

My question: is this set in stone, or can I fix? Is the only alternative to upload a second edition?

Or is it not a disaster and should I just live with it?

Thoughts and advice would be much appreciated.

P.S. I haven't sold any books yet.

UPDATE

Relief!

I've read the first three responses to my post and it appears that I can make corrections.

Thanks to all!

Next step: once I have the time, I'll have several questions about the process of doing the fix. I do hope you'll all indulge me.

Most of you are familiar with my mid-burgle confidential/pooping while burgling hypothesis. On the basis of the mid-burgle confidence alone I believe that it, at the very least, establishes reasonable doubt to the charge that Rudy murdered Meredith and, at most, completely exonerates him.

Then, on top of that, there is the incongruity of a burglar taking time out to poop…yet another reason that supports his claim that he was there as Meredith’s guest.

And I don’t have to go into details in this post about either of these reasons as I’ve already done so on this forum; those not familiar can look it up in the search engine for this sub and read about it (search “the rent, the witch, and the wardrobe”).

Well, after a lot of thought, I’ve now come up with what is a third reason for Rudy’s exoneration…and it’s something I’ve posted about before. So it’s nothing new being introduced here but I’ve noticed some nuances to it that I feel its status should be elevated to a third stand-alone reason to support Rudy’s exoneration.

And I’m talking about the doorbell incident.

Rudy claims that while he was on the toilet, he heard the doorbell ring and then the voice of Amanda Knox inside the cottage immediately after, indicating that it was she, Amanda, who rang the doorbell to gain entrance.

In his written judgement finding Rudy guilty, Micheli (if memory serves) put a lot of emphasis on the absurdity of Rudy’s doorbell claim, saying that by no stretch of the imagination should it be believed because how can anyone imagine that a tenant of their own home would need to ring the doorbell to gain access. In Micheli’s eyes, this dramatically reduced Rudy’s credibility and made him out to be a liar. It seems to me to be one of the reasons why Micheli decided to convict.

And yet a few months later once Amanda’s and Raffaele’s trial began and Filomena took the stand, we learn that it was very possible that that is exactly what could have happened. Because if a key was placed in and then left in the inside side of the key slot, even a tenant with a key returning home could not open the door…and would have to knock or ring the bell in order to gain entry. Meredith knew that one of the four tenants was still in town...and that was Amanda, so if she had a paramour over it only makes sense that she would have purposely left a key in the inside side of the front door’s key slot to prevent Amanda from interrupting intimate goings-on between her and Rudy.

So Rudy was in all likelihood not lying when he claimed that Amanda rang the bell; it was not only possible but, given the circumstances, quite likely that that is precisely what happened.

So why do I think this exonerates Rudy as a stand-alone reason?

Think about it: if you’re Rudy and you’re concocting a story that Amanda Knox came to the cottage while you are on the toilet, how stupid could you be to include the ringing of the doorbell? Rudy knew – as everyone knew! – that Amanda was a tenant at the cottage. A tenant with a key. Why in hell would Rudy invent such a stupid story such as her having to ring the doorbell to enter? It is obviously something that any person with a first-grade education could pick apart if it was a concocted tale: tenants don’t need to ring the doorbell to gain access to their own home. Who in their right mind would include that made-up absurd detail?

And yet that is part and parcel of his story.

That it turned out to be something that was not only possible to occur but, indeed, probable means that it wasn’t a stupid near-impossible story that no rational person would include in a made-up story. Instead, it was in all likelihood true. And if true, then Rudy – who couldn’t possibly know the secret of the inside-slot – was Meredith’s invited guest.

The incongruity of an absurd occurance that is very likely to be true goes a very long way towards giving credibility to the entire story.

Just as it’s improbable that Rudy could have known that Meredith’s palm print was on Amanda’s wardrobe door – thereby serving as independent corroboration of his claim that Meredith told him she suspected Amanda of stealing her rent money and then seeing Meredith enter Amanda’s room to search for it – so, too, does not knowing about the inside-key slot thing and claiming he heard the doorbell corroborate his claim to be on the toilet as an invited guest.

The bottom line: something that was used, in part, to justify Rudy’s guilty verdict turns out to be the exact opposite: it’s a reason to exonerate him.

My paperback is listed as $19.99; printing cost is $4.16; Rate is 60%; yet Amazon says the royalty is $7.84.

Why $7.84?

My math says it should be:

$19.99 less $4.16 = $15.83 x .6 = $9.49.

Can anyone explain the $1.65 difference?

Say I just self-published to Amazon KDP but I want to generate buzz by getting the book into the hands of people who can review it?

Can I email them a free copy of me book, one that I generate by myself into, say, a pdf file?

I am worried that perhaps Amazon KDP has a rule that you're not allowed to do that.

ANSWER: They should all still be in prison.

Amanda: that's an easy one. She should have gotten a life sentence for murdering Meredith.

Lorena: pretty easy, too. A stiff 40 years for cutting a man's penis off is, in my book, a reasonable sentence.

Monica: a little harder to justify...but I'll try.

Firstly, why I refer to her as a bully. People seem to forget that the reason Linda Tripp started to audio record her conversations with Monica is that Linda claimed that Monica would threaten her with her boyfriend's wrath (that boyfriend being Bill Clinton). So, quite wisely, to protect herself, she started to tape record her phone conversations with Monica. And I would say threatening someone justifies referring to them as a bully.

As for a sentence in prison which would extend to today? The day before the Monicagate story broke, there were 5,000 journalists from around the world in Havana, Cuba who were there to cover the historic visit there by John Paul II, he of Polish and communist-busting fame. Many felt his Cuba visit signaled the beginning of the end of communism in Cuba. And those journalists were going to be the ones to bring this narrative to the world.

Then the Monicagate story broke. And each and every one of those 5,000 journalists packed up their steno pads, their cameras, and their microphones and headed off to Havana airport and left the country, thus relegating the "Pope in Communist Cuba" story to the bottom of page 25 in the New York Times.

Now, diverting the world press's attention from your giving blowjobs in the Oval Office and getting the president's semen on your blue dress doesn't appear on first glance to have any connection to the enslavement of 11 million people in a totalitarian communist island but, hey, she should take some responsibility for it.

I have the “Microsoft Office Home and Student 2019” version of Word. On it, I have written a book in which I have about 12 “Heading 1” sections. Under several of these “Heading 1” sections I have “Heading 2” subsections. Under one of the “Heading 1” section, the main one, I have about 130 “Heading 2” subsections that I would like to number, in sequence. I want the number to appear in front of the “Heading 2” subsection title. An example:

Before numbering, the title of the “Heading 2” subsection would read: “The weather is nice”

After numbering, I want the title to read: “1. The weather is nice” and the next one to read: “2. Mr. Happy is in town” and the next one to read: “3. Christmas is nice” and so on.

I do not want to number any other “Heading 1” sections or their subsections, just the “Heading 2” subsections of the main section I am choosing to number.

Can you tell me how to do it?

In his written Motivations Report (on pages 72-73), Judge Micheli writes the following (English translation):

>[236] Even before going off by himself, in any case, RUDY heard some ring at the door: at the dueprocess interview, he does not say anything to tie the voice he heard to that of Ms KNOX, but in the version of facts given to the Public Prosecutor he manifests his conviction of having recognised the American’s voice.

>[237] At this point, the article of faith above-mentioned but overcome yet another hurdle, to justify how come AMANDA would have rung the doorbell, seeing that she lived in that house and she was obliged to make use of the keys.

>[238] The alternative, other than to take the main road which leads to Mr GUEDE not telling the truth, are convoluted enough: one would have to imagine that Ms KNOX had lost her keys who knows where, or thought – because she was carrying something heavy and unwieldy? – she couldn’t use them, or else she had found MEREITH’s keys in the lock, which would have impeded her ability to open the door.

>[239] A possibility, this latter, that is remote, to put it in few words: it’s true that the latch in that lock was defective and it would always necessary to manhandle it, but exactly for that reason, and due to the fact that all the girls were aware of it, each of them would have been careful in not leaving their keys inserted. Perhaps Ms KERCHER had done so exactly that night, knowing that none of the others would have come back that night, and so ensure a guaranteeing for herself a major security against unwelcome intrusions? And how could she have been sure that no one would have changed their mind, admitted that they would have communicated their intentions, or not had the necessity, in any case, to stop by the house early in the morning the next day? As well, she had barely entered with Mr GUEDE, who – in the reasonable expectation from the moment she had opened the door and closed it behind him – was unable to open them like one who would have surely spent the night with her: and so, at least for him, she would have had to open it.

>[240] In short, the question “Why would Ms KNOX have had to ring the doorbell, given that she had the keys?” appears fatally destined to remain without a plausible answer.

But the answer is plausible...and it is supplied by Filomena some four months later at Amanda's and Raffaele's trial. Here is what she said:

>When inside, the housemates would lock the door and keep the key in the lock, which would prevent someone else from unlocking it from the outside with another key.

And:

>QUESTION – If someone else had the same key, or another identical key, and wanted to open the door from the outside, could they do so or would this key have blocked them?
ANSWER – I don't remember if a situation like this ever happened, but I think he would have been locked out, because the key prevented the other key from entering.

From: Google Translate. Romanelli et al., testimony, 2009-02-07-Testimony-MC-Romanelli-Battistelli-v-Altieri-Battistelli-v-Grande-Altieri-v-Grande.pdf February 7, 2009, 14-5.

So, here we have a lesson why the fast-track worked against Guede: witness testimony and cross-examination of witnesses in a fast-track trial isn't allowed.

Yet when Filomena is on the witness stand some four months after Guede is found guilty, the whole I heard the doorbell ring while on the toilet and it was Amanda claim turns out to be plausible and in all likely true.

But it is considered a lie by Micheli because he finds it incredulous that Amanda wouldn't use her key to gain entry. But, of course, it was certainly plausible -- and most probable! -- that Amanda would have to have rung the doorbell if Meredith left the key in the key hole on the inside side of the lock!

So, in a situation in which Rudy is made out to be a liar, he did, in actuality, tell the truth.

My two favourite Dollarama products:

Macadamia nuts. Not only is the price the best I've seen in any retail outlet but the quality is the best: small potions vacuumed sealed makes for the freshest tasting product.

Figs. Best "dried" figs I've tasted anywhere. I put dried in quotations because they are the most moist dried figs I've ever had. Downside: seasonal. It seems they are only available for a month or so every year.

Two things we've constantly heard from the innocenti here:

1. It was only after the media and police suggested that there was friction between Meredith and Amanda did Meredith's British friends take that position. And the evidence for this is their depositions a day or so after the murder in which Meredith's friends said everything was fine between Meredith and Amanda.
2. Meredith had a boyfriend, Giacomo, who lived downstairs. As such, Meredith would not cheat on a boyfriend, so Rudy is lying when he says he was Meredith's invited guest on November 1, 2007 and that they had consensual sex.

Friction

So, I've gone back and read the depositions of Purton, Bidwell, Frost, Power and Hayward from the days following the murder.

And guess what? Except for one mention (about meeting somewhere), Amanda is never even brought up. And unless the police are specifically asking you about Amanda's and Meredith's relationship, there is no reason to even mention anything about friction between the two.

So for those innocenti who have cited these depositions as proof that everything was fine between Amanda and Meredith because no one mentioned friction in the depositions is misleading. And dishonest

Giacomo

And, curiously, as I read through the depositions I found these two tidbits about Meredith's relationship with Giacomo (Google Translate):

According to Jade Bidwell:

"Meredith said that her boyfriend wasn't very reliable, in the sense that he didn't seem like the faithful type in relationships, because she had once called him on an evening when he had told her he was staying home, but she had instead guessed he was out. From the way she spoke about her boyfriend, I think she didn't really consider him a 'boyfriend' " (my emphasis)

And according to Robyn Butterworth:

"Meredith said that even though it wasn't a serious relationship, there was a strong feeling between the two." (my emphasis)

More than three days without any contact between these supposed boyfriend and girlfriend

In his deposition, Giacomo says that he tried to contact Meredith starting on the 29th of October and Meredith never texted or called him back. Giacomo was back in his home town. So that's over three days that this supposed boyfriend and girlfriend were not in contact (until Meredith's death the evening of November 1, 2007). Hmm. Maybe they weren't so tight after all...

The moral of the story

You can't trust what many innocenti on this forum claim.

I apologize in advance if this forum is not the appropriate one for these queries...but if it isn't, please direct me to the correct one!

I am on ChatGPT Pro. I've written a non-fiction book which I fed into ChatGPT in sections for grammar check and other recommendations. And I've completed that...and I found ChatGPT invaluable in both its editing ability and the recommendations it made.

Now I'm thinking: should I upload the entire first draft of book to ChatGPT and ask it other questions, such as:

"give me your brutal, non-glazing assessment of the book and any recommendations to make it better."

What do you think?

Is it a good idea to upload the entire book? What questions would you ask?

This is the first time I am doing this and would appreciate any suggestions anyone has.

Thanks in advance.