One of my favorite publishing insider blogs, Editorial Ass, has posed an interesting question. EA is a junior editor and has to decide if a book she's been working on--and really likes--would be better off seeing its first publication in prestigious hardcover or recession-friendly paperback. In part one she weighs the pros and cons of each format. In part two, she reveals which format her boss ultimately chose and why.
It's all a bit wonky, I'll admit, but if you have the interest, it's a fascinating look behind the scenes.--David E
3 comments:
I wish you could have the option of either hardcover or paperback on day one of release. If that wouldn't be profitable then how about shortening the usual year wait for paperback? Like a DVD release only takes about 3-4 months from theatrical now. Books & Bars tries to select our books are soon as paperback release makes it possible. We'd be jumping on a lot of titles sooner if we could.
Yet, I think there may still be a slight stigma attached to a paperback original. Maybe it wasn't good enough to be a hardcover? What do you think? I don't know anyone buying hardcovers anymore.
It's a tough one. Simultaneous hardcover and paperback releases--or at least much less lag time between the two versions--would be good for consumers. But at the same time, it could well eat into the hardcover sales that bankroll the publishers.
I know it's a bitter pill to have to pony up for the hardcover, but that extra cost is an investment in the author and the publisher. If paperbacks alone won't pay the bills, hardcovers may be a necessary evil.
Post a Comment