To respond seriously, the "Being written in seven days" is not a benefit to me as a reader unless the book devotes some portion of itself to discussing how the authors wrote a book in seven days.
This made me think of the essay 'Solitude and Leadership' by William Deresiewicz.<p>From the essay:<p>"So why is reading books any better than reading tweets or wall posts? Well, sometimes it isn’t. Sometimes, you need to put down your book, if only to think about what you’re reading, what you think about what you’re reading. But a book has two advantages over a tweet. First, the person who wrote it thought about it a lot more carefully. The book is the result of his solitude, his attempt to think for himself. Second, most books are old. This is not a disadvantage: this is precisely what makes them valuable. They stand against the conventional wisdom of today simply because they’re not from today. Even if they merely reflect the conventional wisdom of their own day, they say something different from what you hear all the time. But the great books, the ones you find on a syllabus, the ones people have continued to read, don’t reflect the conventional wisdom of their day. They say things that have the permanent power to disrupt our habits of thought. They were revolutionary in their own time, and they are still revolutionary today. And when I say “revolutionary,” I am deliberately evoking the American Revolution, because it was a result of precisely this kind of independent thinking. Without solitude—the solitude of Adams and Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison and Thomas Paine—there would be no America. So solitude can mean introspection, it can mean the concentration of focused work, and it can mean sustained reading."
Quick, if you send me $10 via paypal in the next 24 hours, I will send you an amazing, short ebook describing "How to make TENS of dollars on hackernews in 24 hours, with almost no work!"