Comments on: Book Publishers Suck

By: dennis

dennis — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:46:03 +0000

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.

By: Flasshe

Flasshe — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:15:48 +0000

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.

By: Tim W.

Tim W. — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:21:35 +0000

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...

By: Sue

Sue — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 02:29:48 +0000

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.”

By: Flasshe

Flasshe — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:35:45 +0000

Got enough exclamation marks there, Patty? I can loan ya a few if not.

By: patty

patty — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 03:22:48 +0000

oy vey!!! You know why hardbacks exist…for us crazy -ass f-irst edition -completest-collectors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Flasshe

Flasshe — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:51:43 +0000

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…

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:43:45 +0000

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.

By: Janet

Janet — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 20:31:54 +0000

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.