Book Publishers Suck
Posted on | October 20, 2005 at 5:58 pm | 9 Comments
Seriously, book publishers suck. What’s the point of hardback books? Only to gouge the consumer, as far as I can tell. Seems like an outmoded publishing model that needs to be retired. I’ve had this hardback copy of Dan Simmons’ Olympos sitting on my nightstand for weeks and have only read the first few chapters. After reading its prequel Illium (in paperback) and really liking it, I was looking forward to the sequel and so bought the hardback. But the thing is frickin’ huge. It’s 700 pages and probably weighs more than Kate Moss on a cocaine binge. I don’t want to throw that huge brick into my backpack every time I go out, so I end up not taking it with me anywhere. Heck, I don’t even want to move it from room to room. And it takes up too much space on my nightstand. But if it was a paperback, I’d probably be done reading it by now.
Okay, I can understand how hardback books are useful for libraries and their patrons, archival purposes, and collectors, but that’s about it. It seems like it’s mostly just an extra revenue stream for the publishers, who are trying to get people to buy the hardbacks before the paperbacks come out a year or so later. But why not just come out with the paperbacks at the same time? Hey, they’re almost as expensive as hardbacks these days anyway. Many hardbacks seem as sloppily put together and likely to fall apart as paperbacks. Let the consumer decide. You could even make the paperbacks be as expensive as the hardbacks (on initial release) and see what happens. I bet more people would buy the paperbacks. The publishers could still manufacture and sell hardbacks for libraries etc., they just wouldn’t need to manufacture as many.
And if the existing model is based mostly on tradition (and the prestige value of a concrete volume), that’s even worse than the profit rationale. Change with the times, people! Take some clues from the dying music industry, the revitalized video industry, and the comic book industry (where trade paperback collections are rapidly becoming more popular than the more timely but more expensive monthly “pamphlets”). I don’t think books will ever completely go away, as there is always going to be a large segment of the population who finds alternate reading methods (e-books, etc.) inconvenient and not as satisfying, at least until they figure out a way to beam the text directly into your cortex. But I do think the model can start changing.
What if the video business decided to go with the book publishing model? They wouldn’t have nearly the DVD revenue stream that they have now. Think of what it would be like if a couple of months after the movie hits the theaters, the first DVD comes out and it’s physically larger than a normal DVD (so it won’t fit on a standard shelf, or takes up more room on it) and is more expensive. Then a year later, the smaller, less expensive version comes out (and probably has more special features due to the wait). Studio profits would go down the drain. Remember how it kind of used to work that way? The studios would release really expensive videotapes of the movie some months after it was gone from the theaters, with the intention that only rental stores would buy them. Then like a year later, the price would go down enough so that normal consumers could buy them. That model sucked for everyone and was not even profitable for the studios (compared to today’s model). I can’t imagine them going to back to that. So why are the book publishers sticking to the same type of system?
This whole issue will be coming to a head for me next month, when A Feast For Crows, the latest book in a George R.R. Martin fantasy series that I really love (the only fantasy series I read), is finally being released after an a way-too-long wait. The book is 800 pages long (and is only half of the actual book – Martin decided to publish the other half separately at a later date). I really want to read it right away, but I don’t know if I want to read it bad enough to lug around such a huge, heavy tome. It appears that a trade paperback version is being released around the same time (at a higher price than the hardback), so maybe I’ll just get that instead. That’s what I did with the previous book, A Storm Of Swords. Not quite as heavy as the hardback, but still kind of a pain.
Lifting a book is not my idea of exercise…
Latre.
Comments
9 Responses to “Book Publishers Suck”
October 21st, 2005 @ 2:31 pm
I’ve spent much of my career weeding library books, and you’re right, Rog, the hardcovers aren’t necessarily more durable than the paperbacks. Patrons usually prefer paperback when offered a choice, and you can fit a lot more of them on the shelf (thereby reducing the damned need to weed library books all the time too). And paperbacks are cheaper, as again you astutely point out, which, should you be following library budget news, you might guess is a Big Benefit of paperbacks. However, one can display hardbacks – excuse me, trade cloth editions simply by propping them open, whereas paperbacks require those wire display thingies that some other librarian has usually taken all of for her display. So there’s that.
October 21st, 2005 @ 2:43 pm
Hey!
Why doesn’t the book publishing industry follow the video model?
First, they could release a stripped-down version of the text in paperback. Then – usually around Xmas – issue an expanded “Author’s Cut” with now-restored deleted chapters and interviews with all involved (rendering my original version all but worthless)!
Yeah – that would be a real step forward.
October 21st, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
Doug, that would only work if the publishers gave no indication about the impending Author’s Cut when they released the original (now worthless) version.
Notice how even the music industry has started using this model: the Limited Edition CDs with extra cuts released some months after the original.
Janet, that really surprises me that libraries would not prefer hardbacks. So, really, there’s no reason at all for them to exist…
October 21st, 2005 @ 9:22 pm
oy vey!!! You know why hardbacks exist…for us crazy -ass f-irst edition -completest-collectors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 21st, 2005 @ 9:35 pm
Got enough exclamation marks there, Patty? I can loan ya a few if not.
October 22nd, 2005 @ 8:29 pm
Believe it or not, a local author’s book came out in paperback, about 2 years after its initial hardcover publication, with “deleted scenes.” Of course, the “deleted scenes” were written at the paperback publisher’s behest to make the book more like a “special edition” DVD. I really hope that trend never catches on… I guess old books are pretty much static, but I’d hate to say, for instance, Kurt Vonnegut being forced to write “deleted scenes” for “Slaughterhouse-5.”
October 27th, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
Hardbacks are good (if they’re well-made, which, as has been pointed out, is not always the case) for those of us who (a) are losing their near-field vision and (b) appreciate book design. However, there’s really no such thing as a well-designed 700-page book.
But I think publishers are following the video model. The hardback is analogous to the theatrical release, the paperback to the DVD.
Ilium and Olympos were recently foisted upon me by a co-worker. We can talk about them when you’re done…
October 27th, 2005 @ 6:15 pm
Seeing as how movies come out on DVD like 2-3 months after the theatrical release these days, I still hold that the book publishers are lagging.
I will be interested to hear your opinions of Illium/Olympos. I thought Illium was great, but I have this feeling (reinforced somewhat by the opening chapters of Olympos, which I really need to get back to) that Simmons blew his wad on the first one and there’s really nowhere left to go. And the literary allusions don’t do much for me.
January 5th, 2006 @ 10:46 am
I had the same problem with Neal Stephenson’s Quicksilver in hardback. I never wanted to carry it places with me, so it took forever to read. I kept setting it aside to read other large (but more easily transportable) books.