Untrimmed paperback - a new trend, or just careless?
Jaimie Vandenbergh
although they were clearly just a process error.
But my copy of Valente's _The Orphan's Tales vol 1_ has just arrived
untrimmed along the loose long edge. Is that intentional for this
pressing? I'd assume it was a mistake with almost any other content,
but I think there's a small possibility it could be a marketing thing.
There's only a mm or so variation in width. It's the edition shown on
the right of www.orphanstales.com , a Bantam trade paperback under the
Spectra fantasy banner.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
I was most impressed when I looked up into the London sky and saw
a star through all the light pollution. A few of us checked some
astronomy references to try and identify it, and we're reasonably
confident that it was Sol. -- Peter Corlett, asr
Brian M. Scott
<jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote in
<news:ruml66pru38eg27hl...@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> I've had a couple of untrimmed books pass through my hands
> this year, although they were clearly just a process
> error.
> But my copy of Valente's _The Orphan's Tales vol 1_ has
> just arrived untrimmed along the loose long edge. Is that
> intentional for this pressing?
It appears to be. It's done with the second volume as well.
It does lend a small touch of old-fashioned elegance.
[...]
Brian
Lynn McGuire
> untrimmed along the loose long edge. Is that intentional for this
> pressing? I'd assume it was a mistake with almost any other content,
> but I think there's a small possibility it could be a marketing thing.
> There's only a mm or so variation in width. It's the edition shown on
> the right of www.orphanstales.com , a Bantam trade paperback under the
> Spectra fantasy banner.
That used to be a trademark of the old Science Fiction
Book Club hardbacks back in the early 1970s.
Lynn
Matt Hughes
wrote:
> I've had a couple of untrimmed books pass through my hands this year,
> although they were clearly just a process error.
>
> But my copy of Valente's _The Orphan's Tales vol 1_ has just arrived
> untrimmed along the loose long edge.
In the biz, it's called a rough fore edge. In the old days --say up
to the 1920s -- many hardcover books were bound with the paper folded
accordion-style. First readers woud use a pen knife to slit the edge
of the next page as they came to it. The result, after reading, was
the rough look.
Because old books are often rare and therefore valuable, the rough
fore edge has come to be associated with perceived value of the
product. Marketers who want to add to the sellability of a title --
particularly one that seems overpriced for the number of pages -- have
the book designer add features like a rough fore edge or French flaps
(the sides of the front and back covers are extended so that they can
be folded back in to make room for blurb or author bio copy).
Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
(though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
certainly a marketing decision.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Andrew Plotkin
> I've had a couple of untrimmed books pass through my hands this year,
> although they were clearly just a process error.
>
> But my copy of Valente's _The Orphan's Tales vol 1_ has just arrived
> untrimmed along the loose long edge. Is that intentional for this
> pressing?
Yes; my copy is the same.
> I'd assume it was a mistake with almost any other content,
> but I think there's a small possibility it could be a marketing
> thing.
Yup. It's called "deckle edging". It's more common in hardback
editions, although never *common*.
I'm not a big fan of it.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Andrew Plotkin
>
> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
> certainly a marketing decision.
I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
Chris
Reports say that Gregor Mendel's papers were found in Darwin's
library, but were uncut- meaning he had not read them. Interesting
historical connection.
Chris
PS: In case this is unclear, Darwin had no reasonable mechanism for
HOW traits were inherited. He was notoriously bad at math, and
Mendel's work might well have been beyond him.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, Matt Hughes <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
>> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
>> certainly a marketing decision.
>
>I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
In the former, the publishers think it'll look better. In the latter,
the publishers think that the buying public will buy more copies.
I like the look, but not the way it breaks page turning. And since the
book is a real page-turner...
Cheers - Jaimie
--
BE PURE
BE VIGILANT
BEHAVE
Dimensional Traveler
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:20:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>
>> Here, Matt Hughes<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
>>> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
>>> certainly a marketing decision.
>>
>> I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
>
> In the former, the publishers think it'll look better. In the latter,
> the publishers think that the buying public will buy more copies.
>
of making the book look "better" would be to get more people to buy copies.
--
"There's something that doesn't make sense. Let's go and poke it with a
stick."
Bill Snyder
<dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 8/17/2010 5:56 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:20:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
>> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here, Matt Hughes<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
>>>> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
>>>> certainly a marketing decision.
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
>>
>> In the former, the publishers think it'll look better. In the latter,
>> the publishers think that the buying public will buy more copies.
>>
>Which sounds like a difference that makes no difference, since the point
>of making the book look "better" would be to get more people to buy copies.
Not if he's talking about an aesthetic vs a commercial decision,
which I took to be the case.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 8/17/2010 5:56 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:20:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
>> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here, Matt Hughes<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
>>>> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
>>>> certainly a marketing decision.
>>>
>>> I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
>>
>> In the former, the publishers think it'll look better. In the latter,
>> the publishers think that the buying public will buy more copies.
>>
> Which sounds like a difference that makes no difference, since the point
> of making the book look "better" would be to get more people to buy copies.
>
Oh, not at all.
For example, I know of a couple of RPG products wherein some of the
"image" decisions were based around trying to make the products look
more "respectable" or higher-class, avoiding the flashy and exploitative
look.
This was a choice based on aesthetics and was, in fact, counter to
actually selling more of the product in question since the flashy stuff
drew the eye and much of the potential customer base didn't have the ...
more refined sensibilities of the makers.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Mike Ash
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 8/17/2010 5:56 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:20:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
> > <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Here, Matt Hughes<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
> >>> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
> >>> certainly a marketing decision.
> >>
> >> I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
> >
> > In the former, the publishers think it'll look better. In the latter,
> > the publishers think that the buying public will buy more copies.
> >
> Which sounds like a difference that makes no difference, since the point
> of making the book look "better" would be to get more people to buy copies.
The former is, "I want the book to look better purely for aesthetic
reasons, so I will make this change."
The latter is, "I want the book to sell more copies, which I can do by
making it look better, so I will make this change."
Basically, idealism vs. cynicism.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Andrew Plotkin
> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> > On 8/17/2010 5:56 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:20:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
> >> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Here, Matt Hughes<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
> >>>> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
> >>>> certainly a marketing decision.
> >>>
> >>> I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
> >>
> >> In the former, the publishers think it'll look better. In the latter,
> >> the publishers think that the buying public will buy more copies.
> >>
> > Which sounds like a difference that makes no difference, since the point
> > of making the book look "better" would be to get more people to buy copies.
>
> Oh, not at all.
>
> For example, I know of a couple of RPG products wherein some of the
> "image" decisions were based around trying to make the products look
> more "respectable" or higher-class, avoiding the flashy and exploitative
> look.
Which is a commercial decision, albeit not a simplistic one. You pick
your audience. It's marketing.
And it's aesthetic, because one of the factors any marketing person
makes (who isn't a complete robot) is what kind of product they want
to be working with. And what kind of company they want to work for.
The nice thing about small presses (or small companies in general) is
that you can deal with both questions at the same time. You make a
product you love so that the sort of people you're producing for will
love it, and buy more copies. Right?
Shorter rephrase: I see no distinction here.
Mike Schilling
"Matt Hughes" <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:d777ea36-5de4-41eb...@h17g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 18, 5:09 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
> wrote:
>> I've had a couple of untrimmed books pass through my hands this year,
>> although they were clearly just a process error.
>>
>> But my copy of Valente's _The Orphan's Tales vol 1_ has just arrived
>> untrimmed along the loose long edge.
>
> In the biz, it's called a rough fore edge. In the old days --say up
> to the 1920s -- many hardcover books were bound with the paper folded
> accordion-style. First readers woud use a pen knife to slit the edge
> of the next page as they came to it. The result, after reading, was
> the rough look.
This was sometimes done all the way back in ancient Rome, hence Mark
Antony's famous complaint "This is the most uncuttest kind of all".
Derek Lyons
>On Aug 18, 5:09 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
>wrote:
>> I've had a couple of untrimmed books pass through my hands this year,
>> although they were clearly just a process error.
>>
>> But my copy of Valente's _The Orphan's Tales vol 1_ has just arrived
>> untrimmed along the loose long edge.
>
>In the biz, it's called a rough fore edge. In the old days --say up
>to the 1920s -- many hardcover books were bound with the paper folded
>accordion-style. First readers woud use a pen knife to slit the edge
>of the next page as they came to it. The result, after reading, was
>the rough look.
That's one, rare, cause. (As accordion folded books are very
uncommon.)
Another, far more common, was then the signature was folded in the
usual fashion but not trimmed at the bindery or by the binder and cut
open roughly by the reader.
Another, midway between the two, is the rough edge is actually the
deckle edge of the paper.
>Because old books are often rare and therefore valuable, the rough
>fore edge has come to be associated with perceived value of the
>product. Marketers who want to add to the sellability of a title --
>particularly one that seems overpriced for the number of pages -- have
>the book designer add features like a rough fore edge or French flaps
>(the sides of the front and back covers are extended so that they can
>be folded back in to make room for blurb or author bio copy).
>
>Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
>(though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
>certainly a marketing decision.
In small presses it's also done to simulate the deckle edge in order
to give the book a 'handmade' look.
As to large houses, I've seen it done on bookclubs, on cheap fiction,
on faux 'fine' editions, etc... etc...
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
Then you're working on an incomplete analysis, missing out valuable
information.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"While preceding your entrance with a grenade is a good tactic in
Quake, it can lead to problems if attempted at work."
-- Chris Hacking, asr
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Here, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2010 5:56 PM, Jaimie Vandenbergh wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:20:27 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Plotkin
>>>> <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here, Matt Hughes<arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Sometimes, in small presses, it's done to make a more beautiful book
>>>>>> (though tastes differ). If it's come from a large house, it's almost
>>>>>> certainly a marketing decision.
>>>>> I cannot imagine what the distinction you're trying to convey.
>>>> In the former, the publishers think it'll look better. In the latter,
>>>> the publishers think that the buying public will buy more copies.
>>>>
>>> Which sounds like a difference that makes no difference, since the point
>>> of making the book look "better" would be to get more people to buy copies.
>> Oh, not at all.
>>
>> For example, I know of a couple of RPG products wherein some of the
>> "image" decisions were based around trying to make the products look
>> more "respectable" or higher-class, avoiding the flashy and exploitative
>> look.
>
> Which is a commercial decision, albeit not a simplistic one. You pick
> your audience. It's marketing.
No, it was purely aesthetic. The flashy and exploitative look bothered
the people in charge, so they changed it. There was little-to-no
consideration, as far as I know, of whether this would be a commercially
wise choice (and in fact if there HAD been serious disussion on it they
would probably have known better than to do it).
Andrew Plotkin
Yeah, that happens sometimes. (More precisely: all the time.)
I'll take Sea Wasp's incident report as written. But in general, I
will continue to assume that most people in the book world think of
their aesthetic decisions as somewhat in the service of sales, and
their commercial decisions as somewhat in the service of art.
Recursively.
Evelyn Leeper
> On Aug 18, 5:09 am, Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org>
> wrote:
>> I've had a couple of untrimmed books pass through my hands this year,
>> although they were clearly just a process error.
>>
>> But my copy of Valente's _The Orphan's Tales vol 1_ has just arrived
>> untrimmed along the loose long edge.
>
> In the biz, it's called a rough fore edge. In the old days --say up
> to the 1920s -- many hardcover books were bound with the paper folded
> accordion-style. First readers woud use a pen knife to slit the edge
> of the next page as they came to it. The result, after reading, was
> the rough look.
Actually, this was true of foreign books at least into the late
1960s--one of my jobs while I was working in the UMass Library in 1969
was slitting the pages of acquisitions from overseas before they were
shelved.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
To bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.
--George Washington
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>I'll take Sea Wasp's incident report as written. But in general, I
>will continue to assume that most people in the book world think of
>their aesthetic decisions as somewhat in the service of sales, and
>their commercial decisions as somewhat in the service of art.
>Recursively.
They really don't.
I heard Lester del Rey say, in so many words, that he bought one
bestselling novel even though he knew it was crap because he also knew
it would sell like crazy.
I know that Del Rey hired Darrell Sweet to do most of their fantasy
covers in the '80s even though they thought he was a lousy artist
because his covers sold books.
I know David Hartwell consciously bought some books because they were
good, and others because they would sell, and the categories didn't
overlap much. (He asked me to blurb the ones he thought would sell.
I refused.)
I've heard similar things from dozens of editors, agents, and art
directors.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm serializing novels at http://www.ethshar.com/TheFinalCalling01.html
and http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight1.html
Brian M. Scott
<l...@sff.net> wrote in
<news:p1no665f1cjfppcoi...@news.eternal-september.org>
in rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> I know that Del Rey hired Darrell Sweet to do most of
> their fantasy covers in the '80s even though they thought
> he was a lousy artist because his covers sold books.
Thank you: I always wondered.
[...]
Brian
Matt Hughes
>But in general, I
> will continue to assume that most people in the book world think of
> their aesthetic decisions as somewhat in the service of sales, and
> their commercial decisions as somewhat in the service of art.
> Recursively.
Not to make this ad hominem, but I believe you're founding that
assumption on another assumption, viz. that the way you think is the
way other people think. But other people's decision-making criteria
can be different from yours.
I'm sure there are people who go into the small press publishing
business thinking, "It's all about the sales." But there are others
who don't. I've met quite a few of them whose primary motivation is,
"I want to publish cool books."
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
William December Starr
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
> I heard Lester del Rey say, in so many words, that he bought one
> bestselling novel even though he knew it was crap because he also
> knew it would sell like crazy.
Did it have a title that rhymes with "Bishsong of Bannara"?
-- wds
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Starr) wrote:
Nope.
He said a few things about _Sword of Shannara_ that implied he wasn't
terribly impressed with it and had bought it entirely for its sales
potential rather than any literary excellence, but he never said flat
out that it was crap, and I don't remember him saying anything at all
about the sequels.
Dorothy J Heydt
My failing eyes read that as "The Bishop of Banana." I can't
*quite* see a story in that, but there's gotta be one.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Wishsong was the third in the already bestselling Shannara series;
Sword was the first, Elfstones the second.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
David DeLaney
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
>>> I heard Lester del Rey say, in so many words, that he bought one
>>> bestselling novel even though he knew it was crap because he also
>>> knew it would sell like crazy.
>>
>> Did it have a title that rhymes with "Bishsong of Bannara"?
>
> Wishsong was the third in the already bestselling Shannara series;
>Sword was the first, Elfstones the second.
And Wishsong was where I stopped reading after.
Dave "this far along, that's probably a good thing" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
>>>> I heard Lester del Rey say, in so many words, that he bought one
>>>> bestselling novel even though he knew it was crap because he also
>>>> knew it would sell like crazy.
>>> Did it have a title that rhymes with "Bishsong of Bannara"?
>> Wishsong was the third in the already bestselling Shannara series;
>> Sword was the first, Elfstones the second.
>
> And Wishsong was where I stopped reading after.
>
> Dave "this far along, that's probably a good thing" DeLaney
I enjoyed the second sequence of books. I wasn't interested in his
backing up to the past. I'm curious about some of the later material
where he's tying in the Knight of the Word universe (which always had
something of the same vibe, especially in the descripion of demonic forces).
William December Starr
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
>>
>>> I heard Lester del Rey say, in so many words, that he bought one
>>> bestselling novel even though he knew it was crap because he
>>> also knew it would sell like crazy.
>>
>> Did it have a title that rhymes with "Bishsong of Bannara"?
>
> Wishsong was the third in the already bestselling Shannara series;
> Sword was the first, Elfstones the second.
Yeah, my oops.
-- wds