Iain J Coleman ([info]iainjcoleman) wrote,
@ 2007-11-17 00:57:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
An overdue revolution in publishing
Good news. I mean, what are hardbacks for, anyway?

(Post a new comment)


[info]espresso_addict
2007-11-17 01:13 am UTC (link)
Propping up piles of paperbacks?

(Reply to this)

[info]trixieleitz
2007-11-17 01:30 am UTC (link)
Being printed and shipped, at great financial and environmental expense, to warehouses, where they mostly sit in crates until they are shipped, at great financial and environmental expense, to pulping plants, where they are turned, ultimately, into egg cartons. At a guess.

And yes, very good news :)

(Reply to this)

[info]jomacmouse
2007-11-17 05:55 am UTC (link)
Kirsty Dunseath, publishing director of Weidenfield & Nicholson, said the move could lessen the prestige of the novels. "Coming out in hardback is a statement of confidence in a novel and gets the reviews," she said. "It doesn't say much for your confidence coming out in paperback.

Explain the trade paperback, in that case, which occupies a similar niche in Australian bookshops (why the heck did I keep typing bookships just then?)?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]watervole
2007-11-17 08:58 am UTC (link)
I loathe trade paperbacks as well. They're too big for my bookshelves.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]watervole
2007-11-17 08:57 am UTC (link)
About time too!

(Reply to this)

[info]sugoll
2007-11-17 10:33 am UTC (link)
It's certainly good for the environment. And for my wrists.

The article itself winds me up, though.

"literary fiction", rather than "books".

The assumption that an author's books will be popular, if the author's won a Booker prize.

The apparently revolutionary nature of this: isn't it what's being going on for years? How many books, in how many markets, have still been emerging in hardback?

The comparison of paperbacks with uses-no-resources-and-incurs-no-costs downloads.

And my favorite bit: "The vast majority of literary fiction is only published in hardback because otherwise the reviewers won't review it. It's mad. They should be reviewing on the basis of content rather than the binding."

Aside from paraphrasing an old adage, I'm shocked by the revelation that literary reviewers are snobs who make sweeping generalisations before reading a book.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…