Old Site


Bookninja 2.0:



.

Hearsay:

March 4, 2009

Tonic to previous post

So yes, we know people can make boneheaded mistakes in publishing, and there’s nothing I like better than kicking a little back of house ass, but we all know that us authors would be just scribblers without people at the house. Despite a new emphasis on the role of the author in promoting and guiding his/her own work, there’s much to be said for the staff and consultants at a good publishing house. So here’s a piece on what a sales force can do for you that the internet never can.

The best definition I’ve heard of “publishing” comes from my editor, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who says, “publishing is making a work public.” That is, identifying a work and an audience, and taking whatever steps are necessary to get the two together (you’ll note that by this definition, Google is a fantastic publisher). Publishing is not printing, or marketing, or editorial, or copy-editing, or typesetting. It may comprise some or all of these things, but you could have the world’s best-edited, most beautiful, well-bound book in the world, and without a strategy for getting it into the hands of readers, all it’s good for is insulating the attic. (This is the unfortunate discovery made by many customers of vanity publishers.)

Today, many of the key functions that we think of as publishing are actually done by outsource firms, consultants, and freelancers. It’s a rare publisher that runs its own printing presses. “Consulting editors” (freelancers) outnumber salaried staff at some houses, and every house has a few kicking around. Many copyeditors and typesetters have long worked on a freelance basis, flitting from publisher to publisher, getting paid by the page. PR departments are not adverse to hiring specialist consultants or to tapping into a nationwide network of local freelance media reps who act as shepherds and crying shoulders for touring authors. Art departments commission paintings from freelancers, art students, promising designers, and all manner of creatives, expanding the aesthetic range of the house beyond a few in-house illustrators.

So, if big publishers can hire all these people to work for them, can’t writers, co-ops, and scrappy indies?

Share the 'Ninja with your 2.0 friends:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • RSS
  • Print
  • email

1 comment on “Tonic to previous post”

  1. Lilian Nattel says:

    Presumably yes. Remember how United Artists got started?

Discuss

Latest comments:
George on
News catchup
Monica on
News catchup
Andrew S on
News catchup
Shelley on
On the dangers of writing about the past
Steven W. Beattie on
Get out there, nerds!
Sean Dixon on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Sean Dixon on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Franklin Carter on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Steven Jensen on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Rob Payne on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Rob Payne on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Brian Busby on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Blake on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Aaron on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Aaron on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Bart King on
How to be a good loser
A.G. Pasquella on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Fred on
Facebook claims it owns the word "book"
Zachariah Wells on
Under-rated Canadian writers
Steven W. Beattie on
Under-rated Canadian writers


Search blog:
Archives:
Old site archive:

January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003

Feeds: