Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Because you're secretly in love with... Michael York?
Who isn't?
What Jolisa said! Especially in Cabaret.
-
You never know when a pilot might happen to misinterpret Kant.
That is a very good point. :-)
-
"Well, you are a doctor, aren't you?".
An ex-flight-attendant friend of mine tells me that if there is a call for "Any doctors on board to come forward, please," to tend a sick traveller, there are always a few PhDs who volunteer. Quite how they think they can help, she doesn't know.
-
The abject failure of so many author-published books is testimony to the fact that their talents are overestimated by themselves, rather than underestimated by publishers.
To me, talent can't be judged by sales alone! Or the writers for Woman's Day would be winning Pulitzers....
According to Haywood's scenario, the author gets $2.50 (actually it's sometimes less, sometimes more), and that leaves the publisher with $2.36 which could be called profit.
Wait: the author doesn't also have costs involved in writing a book? Their labour, for instance?! I don't think you could call the author's $2.50 profit.
-
I have heard from several editors I've talked to that if you think what gets published is sometimes problematic, you should see the rejection pile. There's the odd Denniston Rose. There are a lot more than are just awful.
It needn't be open entry, though. I think for it to work there'd need to be a gatekeeping system, but there's no need for that to be done by traditional publishing houses, necessarily. This would be a new paradigm :-)
As Mike says,
For a sneak preview, see the music industry.
-
I get the impression that PA Books does quite well, in spite of being outside of all the the traditional systems. David? Emma? Graham? Care to comment?
-
I imagine it's easier to get the publisher to do it and have them take care of editing, marketing, etc - i.e. all the things publishers do well.
That is certainly the traditional model. But think publishers/editors are fallible. Did I read somewhere that it took Jenny Pattrick 10 years to find a publisher for The Denniston Rose? (or maybe it was 10 publishers before one accepted it?) And some of the titles I've read from reputable publishers I have wondered how on earth the book made it through without being rejected/having major revisions.
I have an (academic) author friend whose editor/publisher introduced the only errors into the book, including misspelling her name in the cataloging information!
Digital media give the opportunity for collaborative filtering at several stages: perhaps there might be a group of people who would approve a new author's work onto the site; and then titles on the site could be ranked by readers so that the highest-ranked would be displayed most prominently.
As far as general editing goes, one can hire a freelance editor, or send the MS round friends or colleagues (for whom you'll likely reciprocate the favour).
-
But it'd be more successful if you also included NZ musicians, artists and other creative types as well.
I disagree! (just look at The Big Idea!) I think a sharp, narrowly-focussed site with unique content is the way to go. So many startups fall into the trap of trying to do too many things and end up being both dull and disorganised.
-
David, I know nothing much about the book trade, but I think your idea totally rocks, synergy or no synergy! :-)
And if it was successful, I can imagine that established authors might self-publish new titles and have control over the whole process. (or is that a daft idea?) They could offer exclusive editions, only available online, with special features such as their own introduction, or background notes on the book.
I like to read NZ books because there is so much in them that is familiar. Some I end up liking and some not, but even the ones I don't enjoy often give me a lot to think about.
-
Hey, there have been princes and princesses consort over the years.
I like the sound of 'consort' not to mention 'consorting'! It goes well with 'consenting' and 'cavorting'.
But historically it denotes lesser status. A prince/princess consort gets that title as the consolation prize for not being King or Queen alongside their Queen/King spouse.
girlfriend/partner/consort/ladyfriend
I've always rather liked 'main squeeze', partly because it suggests that you might also have lesser squeezes.