Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Except for the occasional free sample, such as you'll see from the University of Chicago Press, that wouldn't work. This is because educational books take money to create.
|
I know that. I was trying to make the point that whatever goals a publisher has, making money is one of them.
No publisher, not even university presses, is a purely educational and charitable enterprise. Publishers have responsibilities to their employees too. Commercial publishers have shareholders.
This was left out of the original post, which said, "In order for unique voices to be heard it always required unique publishers with taste who were wiling to raise that author on a platform for all to see no matter the risk. Now its harder to educate people and fight through the noise to see the great."
Nope, money is an important goal for most publishers too. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that publishers work solely to enlighten the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
After a publisher declines to market a title, it is still a choice. The author is free to print on his/her own and/or put it up on a web page.
|
I am well aware of that. I was annoyed at the original post, which said that "Of course Virginia wouldn't exist without Amazon and Bigfoot would never have crawled out of the forest without such support."
That statement makes it sound as if Virginia's work should never be read by anybody else. She clearly has the right to write, a publisher has a right to accept or decline the manuscript, and I have the right not to purchase her book.
As for the whole author/writer distinction...good luck trying to establish a corresponding
board certification.