Jim wrote:
>> Why defend your business model/publication
choices
>> on a literary discussion list?
>
> Because Jeff, who opened the ball on this
subject,
> specifically suggested that it was wrong for HCC
to
> publish the two Nolan novels under the HCC
logo.
Actually I believe he engaged in something we could use more
of here: candor. We seldom hear negative remarks about books
that don't work for us on this list (at least in relation to
the glowing reports about the books that do). He said it
didn't work for him and his aside to Charles was politeness,
as far as I was concerned. I see no reason for a publisher to
use this venue to defend his business decisions from
individual personal tastes.
> Regardless of Al Collins's literary talent, and
apart
> from the historical interest his early work might
have
> for afficianados of HB, he's a popular writer,
so
> publishing work, even work that isn't on a par
with
> his best stuff, makes sense from a business
viewpoint.
Again, this is irrelevant.
> Charles, therefore, had a right to defend his
choice,
> and did so without trashing Jeff's
opinions
Why? Jeff's opinion is valid, but it's only one opinion. As
is yours. As is mine. I wouldn't expect the publisher of THE
DAVINCI CODE to justify his reasons for publishing that work
of startling genius if I voiced reservations about it. I
would expect that he had his reasons and wouldn't expect the
wide world to agree with me.
>> Great, so over the EMWA list, where they
discuss
>> stuff like that, it would
>> be more appropriate, no?
>
> That may be, but the topic came up. Charles
didn't
> bring it up. Once it came up, he had a right
to
> defend his editorial choice. And the popularity
of
> the TWO FOR THE MONEY ominibus makes it clear that
it
> was a good business decision.
Poppycock. The extent to which Jeff brought it up was to say,
"Sorry Charles," because he knows Charles is on this list. I
don't recall him saying anything that called for Charles to
justify his publishing decisions. That's for him to do with
his stockholders/board/accountants.
>> 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."
>
> Actually, if you search the archives, I think
you'll
> find that relative popularity and other
business-type
> discussions do come up, and I think it's
legitimate
> that they do.
That depends entirely upon the context of the discussion. In
this case, I just don't think it's relevant or appropriate
here. Is Charles going to justify his acquisitions every
single time that someone mentions reservations about them
here? How many people are going to feel comfortable honestly
critiquing something put out by Hard Case Crime with the idea
in the back of their head that their comments might be taken
up by the publisher in what might be construed as an attempt
to minimize the "damage" that such a negative review might
cause his sales?
THAT kind of occurence potentially changes the nature of this
list. THAT is what most concerned me about this exchange and
THAT is why I'm sticking to my guns on that point. Why not
just leave this sort of commentary alone?
> Many of the people on this list are not just fans
of
> HB/noir, they're practitioners. This includes, by
the
> way, both of us. Rara-Avis, therefore, serves
the
> function of providing a forum where professionals
in
> the HB/noir sub-genre of mystery fiction can
discuss
> their craft, or business aspects of their trade,
and
> that's come up from time to time.
I don't recall it coming up in such starkly direct terms
before, with the exception of months when guest authors are
here to discuss their work, which is a different context.
That's why I said something.
> I don't say it should predominate, and discussion
of
> the works, rather than the business of getting
them
> published, is, and should continue, the main focus
of
> this list.
It starts with one post, Jim.
> But when a business decision, a successful
business
> decision, of Charles is questioned, he has a right
to
> defend his decision, and he did so with class
and
> courtesy.
Questioned? The guy wrote that he didn't like the book, that
he found the writing nearly unreadable.
I find that statement to be appropriate to this list. I don't
find Charles' response about a "cast of thousands who are
just off-camera, take my word for it" (hyperbole employed in
the interest of illustrating my point) to be so. And I said
something, and I stand by that statement. Let's just leave
that sort of thing off this list and discuss the books.
>> . . . "popularity" is
>> precisely what [Charles]
>> referred to, and it's why I said something. This
is
>> the Rara Avis list, not
>> the Editor and Publisher list.
>
> Popularity is what he referred to because his
decision
> to publish the two novels was questioned in the
post
> that started this thread.
His decision is a marketplace decision. Let him defend it
there. It doesn't apply here.
To defend the quality would
> be to sound like he's doing precisely what you
rail
> against, shilling for his own work, so he defended
his
> decision in a neutral way, by pointing to the
book's
> popularity, which proved the soundness of the
business
> decision without necessarily questioning
Jeff's
> opinions about the quality.
I believe the appropriate response would have been to say,
"That's ok, Jeff. You have a right to your opinion, and
thanks for voicing it," or to say nothing at all. It was a
statement which required no defense on his part,
period.
> To me it seemed a graceful way of dealing with
the
> issue. And, despite your misgivings, I still think
he
> had every right to defend that decision.
The most graceful way would have been to let the comment pass
undefended.
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