http://newpublisherjournal.com/ The New Publisher's Journal en-us http://newpublisherjournal.com/1197668072.shtml I've just sent out a whole bunch of galleys to reviewers for a book that we're publishing this spring, and it's unpredictable who's going to review it. I always include the big-name reviewers, but I don't have high hopes, given they have limited space to fill with the numerous books they receive. I hope a few will have the courtesy to read the book and write a few words about it, kind or not, so long as the name gets out there.If I ever wanted an insight into how book reviewers operate, I have it today: The National Book Critics Circle has released the results from their ethics poll, with some interesting statistics. An interesting one to me is the status of negative reviews -- should a reviewer withdraw a review if it is unkind to the book? The results are split down the middle: equal parts thought it was ethical and unethical. Back in 1987, however, 74% thought it was unethical to hold back a negative review. So, on the surface we're being nicer, but my guess it has less to do with ethics and more to do with service to the reader -- offering recommendations as opposed to reviews. Movie reviewers still give 1 star, but there's a limited number of movies out at a given time. Readers are stuck with a deluge of potential books at any time, so they (as I know I do) prefer to be given an idea of what's good, as opposed to a list of what to ignore. Most of the other ethics questions have to do with a reviewers personal bias: do they know the author, would they benefit from giving the book a good review, and so on. However, one particular statistic will answer that big question most authors have: did the reviewer really read the whole book? I've seen one review of one of our books that really made me wonder, but according to this survey, reviewers, by and large, say it's unethical to review a book without completing it. View the entire survey results here. http://newpublisherjournal.com/1197668072.shtml Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:34:32 CST http://newpublisherjournal.com/1189285911.shtml Of the big 6 publishers on the American scene, only one is actually headquartered in New York. http://newpublisherjournal.com/1189285911.shtml Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:11:51 CDT http://newpublisherjournal.com/1188377341.shtml In In How To Make People Buy Books Knopf art director Chip Kidd reveals "the madness behind his method" with three specific covers.None of them appeal to me much -- but then I'm likely not his target market. I found this to be the most interesting part of the article:"I cannot make you buy a book, but I can try to help make you pick it up," he says. "There are so many factors that go into whether somebody buys a book -- the jacket's just one of them." http://newpublisherjournal.com/1188377341.shtml Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:49:01 CDT http://newpublisherjournal.com/1174692987.shtml There's long been a rule that publishers may not review the books they've published. It makes sense to nearly everyone simply because the publisher is obviously biased in favor of the book; after all, a publisher is the one who has invested in the book and wants to make money in return. But is this really fair?You might think that investment vote speaks enough on its own, but that's like saying a book review that reads , "I like it a lot!" tells a reader anything. Why can't publishers say why they opted to publish the work? Even if you are the cynical type who thinks the answer to "why publish it" is "to make money," what makes the publisher think the book will sell -- and sell enough that they are willing to invest in it? Authors have the opportunity to be interviewed and discuss what motivated or inspired them, so why not publishers?Obviously, reviews done by publishers should clearly be stated as such; I don't believe anyone should hide their connections to a book (or any product). But in a world where it is now acceptable for publishers and authors to pay for book reviews, why isn't it possible to let publishers have their say?One of the primary reasons we became publishers was based on the excitement of reading, of being able to print books we liked therefore making them available for other readers. In the current state of publishing affairs, we are unable to gush with enthusiasm about our books. Our vote to invest is all we are allowed to say (other than press releases which are to be facts only, ma'am.) Here I am, stuck being silent, unable to share my excitement at offering this book to readers. Frankly, that sucks.So does not being able to enjoy talking with authors. I love talking with authors. I love hearing how they came up with that particular idea, what inspires them -- and what happens to them out & about as they live the role of published author. Why I am I forbidden to share these stories?Somewhere along the line publisher pride or any PR has become synonymous with dirty trickery. That may be true for many organizations; but it doesn't have to be. If a publisher clearly states that they are the publishers of the work, doesn't that give readers and possible book buyers the opportunity to think and decide for themselves?(At least it's more honest, in my opinion, than a paid reviewer writing about books.) Consumers buy thousands of items based on a commissioned salesman's pitch -- a person who is paid if and only if we buy from him. We scrutinize what he says, using common sense to look past face value to evaluate if what he says is true. We'll take the advice of others, read reviews, and for larger purchases consult consumer guides before deciding what we want to buy. Are clearly disclosed publisher comments, reviews or author interviews any different than the pitch of a salesman paid on commission? I don't think so.Rules which suck the life out of publishing and the spirit out of reading itself are rules meant to be broken. So I'm going to begin this journey of talking about our own books. I'm going to dish with Ephemera Bound authors and editors. I'm going to enjoy what I do. If I'm lucky, readers are going to share with me too. Is this a bit unorthodox? Yeah. But then Ephemera Bound isn't your typical press. We don't settle for "that's just the way it's done" -- especially if it sucks so much fun out of publishing. Publishing should at least be as much fun as reading which, as any reader will tell you, involves sharing your thoughts about the book. We can accept that. And we hope you can too. http://newpublisherjournal.com/1174692987.shtml Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:36:27 CDT http://newpublisherjournal.com/1170807889.shtml I just read about another library closing. Not just 'a' library, but an entire library system. "ALL 15 Jackson County Library branches WILL BE CLOSED as of Saturday, April 7, 2007, due to a lack of funding." As a lover of libraries, I am moved beyond words really... It's devastating. I can't imagine a community without a library. At the Jackson Country Library blog Katherine Leppek's poem, Say It’s Not So covers it all anyway, so I'll keep my personal emotions out of it all.But as a publisher, I must speak of library closings. Some publishers dislike libraries giving away free reads and whatnot (incredulous, but true; I've heard it with my own ears!) but this is very short-sighted indeed. (If you read here, you know we don't subscribe to such notions and value libraries deeply.) If a publisher worries about one library copy, even if the same title and number of readers are replicated at X locations, they are missing the point of individual copy sales versus a look at the love of reading and cultivating new readers. At least at the very surface, library closings show via the lack of funding that reading isn't valued by communities. They don't want to put the money where the books are. You can say they can't afford to, but it call comes down to choices. They've deemed some other project or program as more important than reading. What's worse, closing libraries only deepens the divides in this country. Those who can afford Barnes & Noble will still read; but what of those who cannot afford to buy books? Is this proof that reading is dead? Or is this a matter of government spending cutting out the poor and leaving books to become luxuries for the wealthy only? I might argue that as libraries are one of the only "proper" and "legitimate" organized strongholds against censorship in this country that their dwindling numbers might be part of the conservative plan to restrict &/or remove freedoms. If that's too much of a conspiracy theory for you, then at least realize that the loss of library strength becomes a win for those who would silence voices. At the very least those communities lose.Reading is food for the soul, the intellect. Books are bringers of ideas. There are powers which would have us all less nourished. Dumber. Complacent.To some, reading is a radical act.As citizens, we must all speak against public library closings. Write so that your leaders vote to fund, not close. Donate to your library as an act of civil disobedience. Do whatever you can in support of your fellow readers -- and those that would be readers if they only had a library. http://newpublisherjournal.com/1170807889.shtml Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:24:49 CST