Jim Doherty wrote:
> Brian,
> I think you're overeacting a bit here.
You're entitled to your opinion, Jim, and I'm not saying that
I'm right and you're wrong, but I've gotten literally dozens
of emails from people saying they agree with me, and I almost
never get those otherwise.
Charles was
> doing nothing more than defending his editorial
and
> business choice in reprinting Collins's early
work
> while allowing that everyone is entitled to his or
her
> opinion.
I'm not questioning his right to do that, or his obligation
to do so, or his right to make a buck doing something he
clearly loves. I've had a couple of private email exchanges
with Charles over the years and found him to be a fine
fellow, doing a great job. After all, I consider Al Guthrie a
good friend, and am thrilled that someone here in the States
saw fit to publish his work.
This has nothing to do with my comments previously in this
thread.
Why defend your business model/publication choices on a
literary discussion list? Your thoughts below...
> And yes, hard as it is to swallow, in the
publishing
> BUSINESS, "popular" and "good" are synonomous
terms.
Great, so over the EMWA list, where they discuss stuff like
that, it would be more appropriate, no?
After all, we don't usually mention what gets published and
why it gets published here, and when we talk about Pelecanos'
work, we don't preface our comments by saying, "The
million-selling DC area author George P...." We talk about
what we liked, and what we didn't, and what worked for us,
and what didn't. And NO ONE here is going to take seriously a
response to someone's criticism of an author's work that says
something along the lines of: "Well, he's sold a LOT more
books than you have, so shut your cake-hole."
Again, I am not accusing Charles of that sort of thing, but
you opened this particular door. I don't come to RARA AVIS to
read people being apologists for what they do/don't publish,
etc. I come here to discuss (mostly to lurk) hb/noir writing.
I enjoy that. I am not comfortable watching a back-and-forth
on why something was/wasn't published that contains
unjustifiable claims of overwhelming popularity in it. If I'm
offline here, well and good, but I don't think that's the
intent of RA.
Al Guthrie is a great example of someone who is now published
who resists the opportunity to shill for his own work on
every single list to which he is subscribed (see "Konrah,
Joe"). I'm not accusing Charles of shilling, I'm saying that
in my opinion a discussion of why we still ought to buy a
book he carries, rather than leaving it to a discussion of
the literary aspects of the book itself and leaving it up to
individuals is inappropriate.
> That which is popular sells, that which
sells
> generates profit, and, in business, profit is
what
> distinguishes good from bad. That's the
reality
> Charles, and every other publisher and editor in
the
> book industry, has to deal with.
I am intimately involved with the economics of the publishing
world
(frequently moreso than I would like), particularly with
regard to the vicissitudes of what makes a small press run.
In fact, I'm writing something for a medium-sized non-fiction
press right now that deals with teaching materials, rather
than working on anything resembling a mystery. Why? Because
writing is a business, they'll pay me, and I'm a
writer.
My first book (which I never tout here, and have mentioned
once or twice in context on other lists) was on Abraham
Lincoln. The teaching book contract got me almost twice as
much as the Lincoln book. So yes, I understand the publishing
business' connection of "quality" with "sellability,"
thanks.
And by the way, I'm NOT shilling for my book, and that has
*nothing* to do with this conversation. I only mention it to
trump your assertion that these sorts of publishing world
details are germaine to an email list such as this one. In my
opinion, they're not.
> Charles is to be credited with trying to establish
a
> business model in which "good" doesn't just refer
to
> popularity, but to quality, and with defending
his
> choices is a classy way that allows for the
validity
> of opinions that disagree with his.
Of course he is, but in this case, "popularity" is precisely
what he referred to, and it's why I said something. This is
the Rara Avis list, not the Editor and Publisher list.
All the Best-
Brian Thornton
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 24 Jul 2005 EDT