Who will fill the gap if B&N collapses

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

I don't think there is any cause to worry about non-fiction. Academia provides a constant stream of titles on many subjects, and also much of the research.

I read some of the university press books and find it broadly true generalization that well-reviewed university press books, on the same topic, are just less interesting.

As for funding of research by university presses, my strong impression is that their advances against book proposals are lower than those of commercial publishers.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

There are non-fiction books that have had an impact. Silent Spring for instance.

I agree.

I can't find complete information on the funding of Silent Spring, but I question whether either the indie or university press model works for such. From Wikipedia's Silent Spring article:

By 1958, Carson had arranged a book deal, with plans to co-write with Newsweek science journalist Edwin Diamond. However, when The New Yorker commissioned a long and well-paid article on the topic from Carson, she began considering writing more than the introduction and conclusion as planned; soon it became a solo project. . . .

. . .

Most of the research and writing was done by the fall of 1960, except for a discussion of recent research on biological controls and investigations of some new pesticides. However, further health troubles delayed the final revisions in 1961 and early 1962.

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Alas, it turned out that Silent Spring was fiction rather than non fiction, at least from the standpoint of the scientific evidence of the effect of DDT on bird eggs.

It's been so long since I read the book that I'm not going to argue for or against its conclusions. But I don't believe it would have been better if she did less research because of only receiving after-the-fact royalties, most of which, I think, came after she died.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I agree.

I can't find complete information on the funding of Silent Spring, but I question whether either the indie or university press model works for such. From Wikipedia's Silent Spring article:





It's been so long since I read the book that I'm not going to argue for or against its conclusions. But I don't believe it would have been better if she did less research because of only receiving after-the-fact royalties, most of which, I think, came after she died.

My mom says it reads more like a report than a book.

[darryl]

As pwalker8 pointed out, Silent Spring turned out to be wanting scientific and classifies it as a work of advocacy, of which there are many around these days.

As I indicated previously, whilst I am sure there is a rare exception, most non-fiction books are published well after whatever truth involved has come out and been dealt with. And so far I can't think of an example of even one of these rare books.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I read some of the university press books and find it broadly true generalization that well-reviewed university press books, on the same topic, are just less interesting.

As for funding of research by university presses, my strong impression is that their advances against book proposals are lower than those of commercial publishers.

Steve. I do not equate academic authors and experts in a field purely with university presses. They have the same access to self-publishing as everyone else. If they are an expert in a field and choose to write for a popular audience they too can reap more of the rewards.

For a worthwhile project various new funding models are available on the internet, which do not involve an author effectively surrendering all of their rights. I suggest to you that this view of Large Publishers as philanthropists through giving commercial advances has rarely if ever been true. Personally I don't think we will miss this. It is certainly not a good argument for preserving the archaic and exploitative system we once had. Large publishers of academic journals and textbooks are now feeling the pinch and fighting desperately to preserve their relevance and businesses in a world that has left them behind. Personally I will not miss them.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

As pwalker8 pointed out, Silent Spring turned out to be wanting scientific and classifies it as a work of advocacy, of which there are many around these days.

As I indicated previously, whilst I am sure there is a rare exception, most non-fiction books are published well after whatever truth involved has come out and been dealt with. And so far I can't think of an example of even one of these rare books.

It all depends on what field of study we are talking about. In many fields of study, it's not truth but rather our understanding of what is true, i.e. theories. Many of the more popular science titles tend to discuss the current theories. Titles such as Sagan's Cosmo were tremendously popular at the time, but our understanding of the subject has changed quite a bit since that book came out.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

Steve. I do not equate academic authors and experts in a field purely with university presses. They have the same access to self-publishing as everyone else. If they are an expert in a field and choose to write for a popular audience they too can reap more of the rewards.

For a worthwhile project various new funding models are available on the internet, which do not involve an author effectively surrendering all of their rights. I suggest to you that this view of Large Publishers as philanthropists through giving commercial advances has rarely if ever been true. Personally I don't think we will miss this. It is certainly not a good argument for preserving the archaic and exploitative system we once had. Large publishers of academic journals and textbooks are now feeling the pinch and fighting desperately to preserve their relevance and businesses in a world that has left them behind. Personally I will not miss them.

The nature of publishing has changed quite a bit over the last 30 or so years as publishers consolidated under mega corporations. In general, people don't get into publishing for the money, they get into the field because they love books. I think you greatly underestimate how many publishers carried authors who never sold well, but whom they thought wrote worthwhile books. Back then the bean counters were not in charge. Now, the bean counters are in charge and I suspect that the practice is much less common.

In my particular field of interest, history, there are quite a few non academic writers who produce what is considered popular histories. There is a huge difference in the writing style one sees in those books verse the writing style in the academic press. I do think you greatly under estimate the value that advances have for non academic writers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It all depends on what field of study we are talking about. In many fields of study, it's not truth but rather our understanding of what is true, i.e. theories. Many of the more popular science titles tend to discuss the current theories. Titles such as Sagan's Cosmo were tremendously popular at the time, but our understanding of the subject has changed quite a bit since that book came out.

Sagan's field of expertise was planetary science - a field in which he could write knowledgeably and well. He fell down badly, though, when he expanded his literary endeavours into fields that he was not an expert in, such as biology.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The nature of publishing has changed quite a bit over the last 30 or so years as publishers consolidated under mega corporations. In general, people don't get into publishing for the money, they get into the field because they love books. I think you greatly underestimate how many publishers carried authors who never sold well, but whom they thought wrote worthwhile books. Back then the bean counters were not in charge. Now, the bean counters are in charge and I suspect that the practice is much less common.

In my particular field of interest, history, there are quite a few non academic writers who produce what is considered popular histories. There is a huge difference in the writing style one sees in those books verse the writing style in the academic press. I do think you greatly under estimate the value that advances have for non academic writers.

I can't speak as to what publishing used to be like. The fact is that the bean counters have now been in charge for a long time. I have little difficulty accepting that many in publishing loved books, Unfortunately, this has had disadvantages as such people have to some extent acted to mask the true character of their masters. So many authors loved working with their teams at the large publishers, which did have many very good dedicated people. But these good dedicated people were not in control, and had to implement the bean counter's decisions. Some of the same decisions which later lead to many of them being let go. I wonder if there are many people who truly love books left at the large publishers.

You could be correct that I greatly underestimate the value of advances for some of the category of authors you name. I really don't know, no specific examples have been given and it is probably not realistic to expect examples or evidence. It doesn't really matter anyway. Groups do suffer because of changes, and if there is disadvantage to this and some other groups of authors it is not going to stop the changes, nor should it. We can only hope that such authors can either find alternate sources of funding or are able to write their books without the need for such funding.

If the large publishers were in fact once philanthropists, they are certainly not now.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sagan's field of expertise was planetary science - a field in which he could write knowledgeably and well. He fell down badly, though, when he expanded his literary endeavours into fields that he was not an expert in, such as biology.

True enough. Cosmo was a unique book which inspired a lot of people when both it and the PBS series it spawned came out. Of course, back then there were a lot of people in the US who were space crazy from the Apollo program. His other books were not all that great.

One can also point to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time as a similar sort of book, i.e. an extremely popular science book discussing theory. In a different area, I'm fond of Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn. Both are books that discuss what were the popular theories of the time, which is my point. They discuss theory rather than decided fact.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

True enough. Cosmo was a unique book which inspired a lot of people when both it and the PBS series it spawned came out. Of course, back then there were a lot of people in the US who were space crazy from the Apollo program. His other books were not all that great.

The title is "Cosmos". I thought it was a typo when you wrote it the first time, but not the second .

One can also point to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time as a similar sort of book, i.e. an extremely popular science book discussing theory. In a different area, I'm fond of Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn. Both are books that discuss what were the popular theories of the time, which is my point. They discuss theory rather than decided fact.

Sadly - and I don't know if it's the same in the US - many people in Britain would proudly boast how little of "A Brief History of Time" they'd managed to get through, as though stupidity were a badge of honour .

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The title is "Cosmos". I thought it was a typo when you wrote it the first time, but not the second .

Probably thinking of Cosmo Kramer! That OTHER great thinker of the 20th century.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sadly - and I don't know if it's the same in the US - many people in Britain would proudly boast how little of "A Brief History of Time" they'd managed to get through, as though stupidity were a badge of honour .

Most people in the USA never really talked about it, I don't think. I suspect most of us who read it, figured no one else was interested.

Maybe we were selling our friends and family short. As I age, I have begun to learn that old people aren't nearly as shallow and stupid as I thought, nor are young people nearly as brilliant as I once thought!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

Most people in the USA never really talked about it, I don't think. I suspect most of us who read it, figured no one else was interested.

When it came out in the late 1980s, there was a fad in Britain to have it as a "coffee table book" that your friends would notice and comment on, and you'd then proudly say how little of it you'd understood.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I can't speak as to what publishing used to be like. The fact is that the bean counters have now been in charge for a long time. I have little difficulty accepting that many in publishing loved books, Unfortunately, this has had disadvantages as such people have to some extent acted to mask the true character of their masters. So many authors loved working with their teams at the large publishers, which did have many very good dedicated people. But these good dedicated people were not in control, and had to implement the bean counter's decisions. Some of the same decisions which later lead to many of them being let go. I wonder if there are many people who truly love books left at the large publishers.

You could be correct that I greatly underestimate the value of advances for some of the category of authors you name. I really don't know, no specific examples have been given and it is probably not realistic to expect examples or evidence. It doesn't really matter anyway. Groups do suffer because of changes, and if there is disadvantage to this and some other groups of authors it is not going to stop the changes, nor should it. We can only hope that such authors can either find alternate sources of funding or are able to write their books without the need for such funding.

If the large publishers were in fact once philanthropists, they are certainly not now.

I do not expect the practice of advances to go away in the near future. It may be more limited, but it exists for a good business reason and that reason hasn't gone away.

Ultimately, I think there is a certain amount of tribalism involved with discussing business models of publishers. A lot of the indie fan club seems to see publishers as the enemy for some reason. As I've said before, I expect the publishing industry to follow the music industry's path, i.e. a lot of small publishing companies popping up, though the major companies will still be out there. Some artists preferring to strike out on their own rather than go with a label. Others preferring to stick with a label. There is no one paradigm that is a best fit for everyone.

We are already seeing this to a small extent. I also expect to eventually see significant competition in the area of ebook stores, I just don't know who or how.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The title is "Cosmos". I thought it was a typo when you wrote it the first time, but not the second .



Sadly - and I don't know if it's the same in the US - many people in Britain would proudly boast how little of "A Brief History of Time" they'd managed to get through, as though stupidity were a badge of honour .

Argh. My oldest cat's name is Cosmo (as in Cosmo Topper), so that's what my fingers typed.

I think that it was more talked about back when it first came out. Of course, I'm a programmer and there are a lot of science nerds in that profession. I've never heard anyone brag about how little they understood of it. It's really not all that hard. Sure the underlying science and mathematics is difficult for a non scientist to understand, but I thought that Hawking did a good job of making the general theory understandable.