Are Baen books really that bad?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tompe

The problem is the suspicion that sub standard books have been published because they politically agree with the publishers views.

The Guardian itself is often, at least arguably, a good illustration of the above.

It seems to me that all publishers and persons employed by them have political views and personal tastes which has the potential to influence what they choose to publish. Publish too much rubbish and you will not have a publishing business.

And honestly, a suspicion raised by a left-wing newspaper about a publisher who has expressed right-wing views? Still, the best way to deal with a suspicion is to investigate it.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by darryl

Still, the best way to deal with a suspicion is to investigate it.

Exactly this. People blindly accepting anything written by anybody is 90% of what is wrong with the world.

Always verify. If you can't verify by direct experimentation, at least do a search for other opinions on the subject, and do your best to determine the truth of the matter. Be scientific in your thinking...there is no authority anywhere in the world that is infallible.

Shari

[theducks]

OMG Cover wars! Regional tastes do vary.
A publisher that does not pay attention is doomed for failing rule #1: Do whatever SELLS best in the local marketplace.

The nice thing about DRM-free books is you can download alternate covers and fix your copy (or bin the cover completely) to your taste.


Authors do change (not always more mellow with age).
Many of Baens authors have Active Combat Duty experience. That might just color their perceptions a bit .


Readers tastes change over time. I have a lot of some of those Baen authors in dead tree, but no longer care for their newer works and buy from the new stable .


But really! Is this about the Publisher or is it about the fact the the publisher does not editorially muzzle their authors (except, by deciding what to publish )?

[harriska2]

My husband and I are left wing liberal nutters (as opposed to right wing conservative nutters). But we both enjoyed many of the Elizabeth Moon books. Didn't realize she was Baen until I looked it up.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by darryl

The Guardian itself is often, at least arguably, a good illustration of the above.

It seems to me that all publishers and persons employed by them have political views and personal tastes which has the potential to influence what they choose to publish. Publish too much rubbish and you will not have a publishing business.

And honestly, a suspicion raised by a left-wing newspaper about a publisher who has expressed right-wing views? Still, the best way to deal with a suspicion is to investigate it.

Or just avoid books that has the same political opinion as the publisher. That works for me. The Baen book I read are of this kind.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'll agree that some of Ringo's and all of Kratman's books are overly preachy and on the right-wing of American politics. I try to avoid those.

But you'll miss a lot of really enjoyable stories if you don't look at Baen books. I can only think that the article writer has missed the wonderful books by Bujold, Lee and Miller, Flint, Spencer, Lambshead, Moon, Hoyt, ... so many great authors who aren't shoving political opinions down your neck within their books.

I think that occasionally Ringo likes to spoof himself. Some of his stuff, I really liked, others I thought was ok, still others I simply couldn't get into.

I agree with the earlier poster that Baen saw a market niche and filled it. He also has a wide range of author types from hard right gun porn types to new age types.

[Rps]

Originally Posted by darryl

Whilst it may be a radical idea to some, it is quite possible to enjoy a book even when you don't agree with a single thing it contains. The exposure to different points of view is something we should all relish, for obvious reasons. However, if you can't do this, don't read the book. Baen has plenty of titles where even the most extreme leftist would have trouble finding something to take offence at.
.

I thoroughly agree here. But, and forgive if this appears to be a derail here, I have noticed over the past decade or so the positioning of militaristic glorification in virtually all media. Two things bother me about this ... 1- It was this type of saturation labelled as patriotism that allowed the "old boy network" to engage in its last empire land grab that we affectionately called WW1 ..... In some respects I see a lot of our geopolitical situation as a mirror of 1908 pre beginnings of that conflict, which was reflected in the writings of authors. 2- Gramsci said it best hegemony.

But entertainment is entertainment that is why we have Danielle Steele and Tom Clancey and, it appears Baen.

[CRussel]

Ridiculous. Yes, Baen has some right-wing authors. And at least one of them (Kratman) is at least as right-wing as another of their (far more prolific) authors (Flint) is left-wing. If I look at their output overall, I'd say that it's probably a bit more MilSF than absolutely necessary, and I'd certainly like to read a few more books from my favourites of their authors. But that is, in most cases, not the fault of the editor or the publishing house, but the authors. Real Life Intrudes.

And covers? Well, some are simply auwful, and some are quite good. But few are "restrained", I'll admit.

[piperclassique]

Sheesh. Who cares who the publisher is, and what their political views are?
I normally choose by the author. Or recommendation from trusted sources.
I have bought a fair few books from Baen, some of which I could get elsewhere. Why? Because they treat their authors fairly and the books have no DRM that requires stripping when I should be reading, and their monthly bundles are excellent value for money, even if I only want two of the books. I'll usually look at the others in case I want to read them as well, and have found some new (to me) authors. I have also found books I didn't want to read. Not a problem, I simply don't finish them.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that occasionally Ringo likes to spoof himself. .

Don't have to go much further than Into the Looking Glass or the first story in Ghost.
(The latter he openly admits was a writing exercise in how far he could go and still find readers. Turned out he hadn't gone far enough. So he went further until he saw he'd gone too far and dialed it back from there. Sort of a literary reconnaissance in force to see where the borders lie. Reflects interesting thinking.)

Whatever you may think of his politics, he has an interesting (and appropriate) resume for what he does:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ringo

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Rps

I thoroughly agree here. But, and forgive if this appears to be a derail here, I have noticed over the past decade or so the positioning of militaristic glorification in virtually all media. Two things bother me about this ... 1- It was this type of saturation labelled as patriotism that allowed the "old boy network" to engage in its last empire land grab that we affectionately called WW1 ..... In some respects I see a lot of our geopolitical situation as a mirror of 1908 pre beginnings of that conflict, which was reflected in the writings of authors. 2- Gramsci said it best hegemony.

But entertainment is entertainment that is why we have Danielle Steele and Tom Clancey and, it appears Baen.

Try this drill:

There are 3 million ebooks on Kindle.
Of those, 78,000 are Science Fiction.
Of those, 5,790 are military SF:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_...rnid=158591011

BAEN? 687 titles. Of all genres.
Quite the threat to civilization.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=...ks-Submit.y=15

Also, minor quibble:

Steele is about romance, Clancy is about tecno-thrillers (and shoot-em up video games), Baen is *not* about Military SF--that is the whole point of the thread, the mistaken belief that Baen is solely, or even primarily about military "right wing" SF.
They aren't.

Some of their authors are known for their military SF but even those don't limit themselves solely to it.

Fantasies and techno-thrillers are not SF, and just because a story features armies and warriors does make it military. Military SF is a very specific subgenre and distinct from exploration adventures and outright space opera or SF drama that happens to involve a 4ft 10in military-crazy teenager with brittle bones.

If anything, BAEN publishes way more fantasy and alternate history than military SF. The 163x series is so popular Flint has resorted (heh) to self-publishing to get all the material out because BAEN can't handle the demand. Just stop by their website and see what they really publish.

[Difflugia]

The only problem that I have with Baen is actually a problem with me and, reading between the lines, it might be the same problem that the Guardian author has.

I don't really enjoy mil-SF, but I do enjoy many of the Baen books that don't fall into that category. My problem is that whenever I start browsing through lists of Baen books, I begin to resent all of the mil-SF because it gets in the way of finding the genres that I like.

I'm certainly not about to tell a person that likes (or a publisher that publishes) a genre that I don't prefer that they're wrong, though.

[fjtorres]

Nothing like finding out for yourself:

From Baen's ebookstore, 400+ fantasy titles:

http://www.baenebooks.com/c-5-fantasy.aspx
Not all are from Baen itself but most are.

Their equivalent listing for all types of SF, including alternate history, space opera, adventure, etc...

http://www.baenebooks.com/c-4-science-fiction.aspx

Overgeneralization helps no one.
There's lots of good reads there.

[fjtorres]

Question: there's tons of folks who have "issues" with Orson Scott Card and his politics yet I don't see anybody going after S&S or MacMillan or whoever else sells his stuff. Plenty of other crontroversial authors stir up rabble every other week but nobody bothers their BPH publishers.

So why go after BAEN?
Is it because they're small? Maybe small enough to be bullied into dropping the authors?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Question: there's tons of folks who have "issues" with Orson Scott Card and his politics yet I don't see anybody going after S&S or MacMillan or whoever else sells his stuff. Plenty of other crontroversial authors stir up rabble every other week but nobody bothers their BPH publishers.

So why go after BAEN?
Is it because they're small? Maybe small enough to be bullied into dropping the authors?

But MacMilllan do not have a political opinions. The problem is not the author's opinions.