[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Maybe because authors switching publishers isn't the sole indicator of predatory practices . . .

How long are the fiction writers whose books you enjoy and admire currently under contract for?

I don't know. Do you? In absence of this knowledge, it sounds like a multi-book deal, generally speaking, would transfer risk from the author to the publisher, and thus be the opposite of predatory. If your definition of predatory is different, we could discuss.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

How much would they have to sacrifice to get out of their contract early?

I'm guess that this depends on the contract terms. To be able to break a multi-book deal, I'm thinking the author would have had to, back when making the deal, trade relative financial security for upside benefit in the unlikely event a title sells better than expected, or has a long backlist life. Given that being a writer is, financially, a supremely risky occupation, it seems nice that at a few of them can trade away the upside to reduce risk. Of course, even with a multi-book deal, they still are in a risky publish or perish environment. Just less risky that if they were without a deal including advances.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Would the fiction writers whose books you enjoy and admire do things the same way if they had it to do all over?

Since they don't generally write acknowledgements explaining their publisher's editorial contributions, as non-fiction authors I read tend to, I don't know. If you have specific inside information (even with author's name having to be withheld), please consider sharing it here.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why do people quite often stay in abusive relationships (even when they're not idiots)?

Are you claiming abuse in an artistic sense, with editors ruining the books?* Or are you talking about financial abuse where the publisher assumes no risk should the book fail? Or something else?

And is the abuse general, or the case with authors I mentioned? Regarding the latter, I recall either reading, or hearing at a public appearance, Archer Mayor expressing satisfaction that he is one of the few who can, decade after decade, make a living being an author. So if his relationship with Macmillan is abusive, I guess that explains it. A living wage. But, then, it also sounded like they don't damage him from an artistic standpoint, since Mayor said that, as he became more experienced**, they started accepting what he sent them with few changes.

I'm confident that Faye Kellerman is paid a lot more than Mayor, so that should be the answer there too. She makes too much money for the abuse narrative to make sense.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not saying I agree that trad pub IS, in fact, predatory.

OK, you aren't saying it, but you were suggesting it earlier in your post. I'm responding to the suggestion.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm saying that a lack of authors (whose work I luvs and adores) bolting is not at all a smoking gun that they're NOT predatory. It merely implies that they're very good at keeping their stable of authors under contract.

In the short run, I agree. But, before long, new, less predatory, publishers, willing to assume more risk and/or improve the books from an artistic standpoint, would supplant the big five. Where are they?

____________
* By the way, I do think they damage a lot of book titles. I have read too many books with the phrase "that changed America" in the title, and don't blame authors.

** Mayor said he, over time, developed a group of friends who read his books, telling him the slow spots. He then fixes problems before sending the manuscript for professional editing.