 |  |  |  |  |
Publishers and booksellers have noted that teen
fiction is a rapidly expanding category in an
otherwise flat market, but the NEA's director of
research, Sunil Iyengar, wondered how much of that
growth has been caused by the "Harry Potter" books,
the last of which came out in July.
"It's great that millions of kids are reading these long,
intricate novels, but reading one such book every 18
months doesn't make up for daily reading," Gioia
said.
Doug Whiteman, president of the Penguin Young
Readers Group, a division of Penguin Group (USA),
said sales of teen books were the strongest part of
his business. But he added that a couple of factors
could explain why scores were dropping: Adults are
also buying the "Potter" books, thus making the teen
market seem bigger on paper, and some sales are for
non-English language books.
"There are so many nuances," Whiteman said.
"Reading scores don't necessarily have any
relevance to today's sales."
The head of Simon & Schuster's children's
publishing division, Rick Richter, saw another
reason why sales could rise even as scores go down:
A growing gap between those who read and those
who don't. Richter considers it "very possible" that
the market is driven by a relatively small number of
young people who buy large numbers of books.
Test scores, meanwhile, are lowered by the larger
population of teens who don't read.
"A divide like that is really a cause for concern,"
Richter said.
The report emphasizes the social benefits of reading:
"Literary readers" are more likely to exercise, visit art
museums, keep up with current events, vote in
presidential elections and perform volunteer work.
"This should explode the notion that reading is
somehow a passive activity," Gioia said. "Reading
creates people who are more active by any measure.
... People who don't read, who spend more of their
time watching TV or on the Internet, playing video
games, seem to be significantly more passive."
Gioia called the decline in reading "perhaps the most
important socio-economic issue in the United
States," and called for changes "in the way we're
educating kids, especially in high school and college.
We need to reconnect reading with pleasure and
enlightenment."
"'To Read or Not to Read' suggests we are losing the
majority of the new generation," Gioia said. "The
majority of young Americans will not realize their
individual, economic or social potential."
fiction is a rapidly expanding category in an
otherwise flat market, but the NEA's director of
research, Sunil Iyengar, wondered how much of that
growth has been caused by the "Harry Potter" books,
the last of which came out in July.
"It's great that millions of kids are reading these long,
intricate novels, but reading one such book every 18
months doesn't make up for daily reading," Gioia
said.
Doug Whiteman, president of the Penguin Young
Readers Group, a division of Penguin Group (USA),
said sales of teen books were the strongest part of
his business. But he added that a couple of factors
could explain why scores were dropping: Adults are
also buying the "Potter" books, thus making the teen
market seem bigger on paper, and some sales are for
non-English language books.
"There are so many nuances," Whiteman said.
"Reading scores don't necessarily have any
relevance to today's sales."
The head of Simon & Schuster's children's
publishing division, Rick Richter, saw another
reason why sales could rise even as scores go down:
A growing gap between those who read and those
who don't. Richter considers it "very possible" that
the market is driven by a relatively small number of
young people who buy large numbers of books.
Test scores, meanwhile, are lowered by the larger
population of teens who don't read.
"A divide like that is really a cause for concern,"
Richter said.
The report emphasizes the social benefits of reading:
"Literary readers" are more likely to exercise, visit art
museums, keep up with current events, vote in
presidential elections and perform volunteer work.
"This should explode the notion that reading is
somehow a passive activity," Gioia said. "Reading
creates people who are more active by any measure.
... People who don't read, who spend more of their
time watching TV or on the Internet, playing video
games, seem to be significantly more passive."
Gioia called the decline in reading "perhaps the most
important socio-economic issue in the United
States," and called for changes "in the way we're
educating kids, especially in high school and college.
We need to reconnect reading with pleasure and
enlightenment."
"'To Read or Not to Read' suggests we are losing the
majority of the new generation," Gioia said. "The
majority of young Americans will not realize their
individual, economic or social potential."
| Government study: Americans reading less By HILLEL ITALIE, AP National Writer Mon Nov 19, (2007) 12:31 AM ET Sent by: Jamie Asae FitzGerald Poets & Writers, Program Associate jfitzgerald@ pw.org NEW YORK - The latest National Endowment for the Arts report draws on a variety of sources, public and private, and essentially reaches one conclusion: Americans are reading less. The 99-page study, "To Read or Not to Read," is being released Monday as a follow-up to a 2004 NEA survey, "Reading at Risk," that found an increasing number of adult Americans were not even reading one book a year. "To Read or Not to Read" gathers an array of government, academic and foundation data on everything from how many 9-year-olds read every day for "fun" (54 percent) to the percentage of high school graduates deemed by employers as "deficient" in writing in English (72 percent). "I've done a lot of work in statistics in my career, and I've never seen a situation where so much data was pulled from so many places and absolutely everything is so consistent," NEA chairman Dana Gioia said. Among the findings: In 2002, only 52 percent of Americans ages 18 to 24, the college years, read a book voluntarily, down from 59 percent in 1992. Money spent on books, adjusted for inflation, dropped 14 percent from 1985 to 2005 and has fallen dramatically since the mid-1990s. The number of adults with bachelor's degrees and "proficient in reading prose" dropped from 40 percent in 1992 to 31 percent in 2003. Some news is good, notably among 9-year-olds, whose reading comprehension scores have soared since the early 1990s. But at the same time, the number of 17-year-olds who "never or hardly ever" read for pleasure has doubled, to 19 percent, and their comprehension scores have fallen. "I think there's been an enormous investment in teaching kids to read in elementary school," Gioia said. "Kids are doing better at 9, and at 11. At 13, they're doing no worse, but then you see this catastrophic falloff. ... If kids are put into this electronic culture without any counterbalancing efforts, they will stop reading." Americans reading less continue top of page |
Posted on CLMP's indiepress yahoogroups and Poets & Writer's
valleylitlist
Posted by: "John Peterson" poeticmatrix@yahoo.com
Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:04 am (PST)
I like all you find the prejudice against POD to be offensive. I am a
literary press that utilizes Lightning Source as a print and distribution
media. I have used offset and may well use offset in the future. This is a
publishers choice, as is letter-press or any other method of
reproduction. We are at a new point in the long history of
communication whether verbal, hieroglyphs, the development of
alphabets, illuminated copies, Gutenburg press, movable type, radio,
TV, computers, Internet, POD. The task, if it is art that we aspire to, is to
create the most perfect mix of the author¢s work, fully vetted editing
and proofing, book design, production, promotion and distribution, all
within a financial frame work that recognizes what it takes to get the
work out to a public that will appreciate what has been done. For a
large publishing house with a major, well known author 20,50,100,000
copies using offset might indeed be realistic and cost effective. For a
small poetry press that looks for new, unique works to showcase, where a
print run of 1000 is a lot, this new POD technology is remarkable. The
salient point is that the work must indeed reach for that elusive realm of
art where ultimately only time is the determiner. We know that vanity
press can leave much to be desired. We know that there is a difference
between offset and POD, as there is between hard bound and paper
back. When paper back first came on the scene they received the same
disparaging reception that POD is receiving now. Times do change.
Author assisted financing is again a red herring. We all know that Walt
Whitman produced Leaves of Grass, Anise Nin published her own work,
the list is long. In theater and film multiple funding sources is common,
as is funding by the film maker. Visual artists fund their won work. At our
press we are developing an Author Assisted Financing method, Kvasir
Books, that seeks funding from author friends and associates and
pre-sells books to raise money for the initial production costs. The books
will be fully vetted, only books that meet our standards will be taken on
and we will produce books that are of a quality that any bookstore or
library will carry. The funding is a joint venture between the publisher
and the author and the reading public. We will use POD as we do for
most of our Poetic Matrix Press titles. These are not vanity or self
published books but books that seek alternative funding to produce.
It is time that we who are using and developing this technology do not
accept the distinction made by some book awards but insist that the
criteria be one of quality, innovation and art. We may at some point
need to develop our own awards to recognize this.
valleylitlist
Posted by: "John Peterson" poeticmatrix@yahoo.com
Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:04 am (PST)
I like all you find the prejudice against POD to be offensive. I am a
literary press that utilizes Lightning Source as a print and distribution
media. I have used offset and may well use offset in the future. This is a
publishers choice, as is letter-press or any other method of
reproduction. We are at a new point in the long history of
communication whether verbal, hieroglyphs, the development of
alphabets, illuminated copies, Gutenburg press, movable type, radio,
TV, computers, Internet, POD. The task, if it is art that we aspire to, is to
create the most perfect mix of the author¢s work, fully vetted editing
and proofing, book design, production, promotion and distribution, all
within a financial frame work that recognizes what it takes to get the
work out to a public that will appreciate what has been done. For a
large publishing house with a major, well known author 20,50,100,000
copies using offset might indeed be realistic and cost effective. For a
small poetry press that looks for new, unique works to showcase, where a
print run of 1000 is a lot, this new POD technology is remarkable. The
salient point is that the work must indeed reach for that elusive realm of
art where ultimately only time is the determiner. We know that vanity
press can leave much to be desired. We know that there is a difference
between offset and POD, as there is between hard bound and paper
back. When paper back first came on the scene they received the same
disparaging reception that POD is receiving now. Times do change.
Author assisted financing is again a red herring. We all know that Walt
Whitman produced Leaves of Grass, Anise Nin published her own work,
the list is long. In theater and film multiple funding sources is common,
as is funding by the film maker. Visual artists fund their won work. At our
press we are developing an Author Assisted Financing method, Kvasir
Books, that seeks funding from author friends and associates and
pre-sells books to raise money for the initial production costs. The books
will be fully vetted, only books that meet our standards will be taken on
and we will produce books that are of a quality that any bookstore or
library will carry. The funding is a joint venture between the publisher
and the author and the reading public. We will use POD as we do for
most of our Poetic Matrix Press titles. These are not vanity or self
published books but books that seek alternative funding to produce.
It is time that we who are using and developing this technology do not
accept the distinction made by some book awards but insist that the
criteria be one of quality, innovation and art. We may at some point
need to develop our own awards to recognize this.
Posted on valleylitist
John,
Thanks for posting your comments on POD. It's truly exciting to see a
local publisher exploring new technology and options--especially with
poetry, which is notoriously a low sales figure pursuit. The discussion
made me think of a quote from Chris Anderson's "The Long Tail." He
cites these book sales figures for 2004:
Total titles sold: 1.2 million. Of those, the number of titles that sold:
1) 99 copies or less: 948,005 titles
2) 100-999 copies sold: 202,938 titles
3) 1,000-4,999 copies sold: 67,008 titles
4) 5,000-49,999 copies sold: 23,047 titles
5) 50,000-99,999 copies sold: 767 titles
6) 100,000-249, 999 copies sold: 324 titles
7) 250,000-499, 999 copies sold: 64 titles
8) 500,000-999, 999 copies sold: 22 titles
9) 1 million or more copies sold: 10 titles
That means approximately 79% of all books published in 2004 sold 99
copies or less. Only 10 books in the 1.2 million published sold 1
million or more copies. That's not even a fraction of 1%.
Of course we all know that the numbers are even more dismal today as
book sales are in rapid decline as fewer and fewer people buy and
read books. And poetry is notorious difficult to sell. To sell a 1000
copies would be a huge success. It seems to me most poetry titles sell
200-300 copies if they're lucky.
So for me, I think poetry publishers have to explore things like
print-on-demand technology. Your adoption of POD makes me
wonder how the Espresso POD Machine is doing these days. Do you
know? I know one local independent bookseller who was thinking of
being a strictly POD bookstore.
Your Kvasir Books project sounds intriguing. Of course, any type of
subsidy publishing is a much more controversial issue. I'm curious. Are
you a nonprofit press? If so, why not seek funding via donations to the
nonprofit? As for finding funding sources, there seems to be some
buzz in the industry to include advertising in books whereby book
buyers could either purchase a book without any ads at a higher price
or opt to buy the same book at a much lower price, but which would
include ads. Kinda an intriguing concept.
At any rate, it's unrealistic to ask poetry publishers to go into debt
in order to publish a book. The reality is that some type of financing
model needs to be secured. As long as the books are well vetted, and
the process doesn't veer into self-publishing (something I just can't
recommend to writers), then I certainly support your efforts and would
buy your books
Cindy Wathen
Poets & Writers
John,
Thanks for posting your comments on POD. It's truly exciting to see a
local publisher exploring new technology and options--especially with
poetry, which is notoriously a low sales figure pursuit. The discussion
made me think of a quote from Chris Anderson's "The Long Tail." He
cites these book sales figures for 2004:
Total titles sold: 1.2 million. Of those, the number of titles that sold:
1) 99 copies or less: 948,005 titles
2) 100-999 copies sold: 202,938 titles
3) 1,000-4,999 copies sold: 67,008 titles
4) 5,000-49,999 copies sold: 23,047 titles
5) 50,000-99,999 copies sold: 767 titles
6) 100,000-249, 999 copies sold: 324 titles
7) 250,000-499, 999 copies sold: 64 titles
8) 500,000-999, 999 copies sold: 22 titles
9) 1 million or more copies sold: 10 titles
That means approximately 79% of all books published in 2004 sold 99
copies or less. Only 10 books in the 1.2 million published sold 1
million or more copies. That's not even a fraction of 1%.
Of course we all know that the numbers are even more dismal today as
book sales are in rapid decline as fewer and fewer people buy and
read books. And poetry is notorious difficult to sell. To sell a 1000
copies would be a huge success. It seems to me most poetry titles sell
200-300 copies if they're lucky.
So for me, I think poetry publishers have to explore things like
print-on-demand technology. Your adoption of POD makes me
wonder how the Espresso POD Machine is doing these days. Do you
know? I know one local independent bookseller who was thinking of
being a strictly POD bookstore.
Your Kvasir Books project sounds intriguing. Of course, any type of
subsidy publishing is a much more controversial issue. I'm curious. Are
you a nonprofit press? If so, why not seek funding via donations to the
nonprofit? As for finding funding sources, there seems to be some
buzz in the industry to include advertising in books whereby book
buyers could either purchase a book without any ads at a higher price
or opt to buy the same book at a much lower price, but which would
include ads. Kinda an intriguing concept.
At any rate, it's unrealistic to ask poetry publishers to go into debt
in order to publish a book. The reality is that some type of financing
model needs to be secured. As long as the books are well vetted, and
the process doesn't veer into self-publishing (something I just can't
recommend to writers), then I certainly support your efforts and would
buy your books
Cindy Wathen
Poets & Writers
Posted on CLMP's indiepress yahoogroups
Re: Facing the Bias Against POD books
Posted by: "Janaka Stucky" janaka@blackocean.org janaka_stucky
Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:11 pm (PST)
"Yet are all writers actually producing publishable work? Of course not.
Who, then, is to be a judge of that? Well, that's a complicated question.
But I think one good answer is: someone other than the actual author!"
Gina, Larry and others,
Larry and all,
I think that it might be interesting to take this a step further...I' m all
for co-op systems, and self-publishing as well. I wonder what qualifies
us, the editors, to also be the gatekeepers to literary validation? If, as
we often say, it's all subjective then shouldn't the reader ultimately be
the judge? I would argue that as editors we're just as capable of
publishing bad work. Terrible work in fact, from what I've seen. I don't
think that anything we do at this point will curtail the surfeit of bland,
unreadable work being published each year--by vanity, indie and corporate
publishers alike.
Although when I served as editor for others I admittedly saw myself in the
gatekeeper capacity to some degree, when I struck out to create my own
publishing company I did so out of a desire to advance the work that
excited me. Consequently, I now see publishing as an inclusive process (of
what I want to put out) rather than an exclusive process (of what doesn't
interest me).
So, to somewhat echo Larry, what difference does subsidization of any form
make on the merit of the work? I'm sure most of you are aware of the
history of self-published poets, from Milton to Ferlinghetti. It's only
been since the rise of the corporate publishing houses in the 20th century
that saw "vanity press" emerge as a stigma. Even up until the 1970s, we
had highly regarded poets putting out their own work without
disparagement. The list goes on (Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, Benjamin
Franklin, Rudyard Kipling, D.H. Lawrence, Thomas Paine, Edgar Allan Poe,
Ezra Pound, Carl Sandburg, George Bernard Shaw, Gertrude Stein, Henry
David Thoreau and Mark Twain, to name a few), and I'm sure many had
confidantes and colleagues to consult with, but they did not rely on the
outside-editorial stamp of approval.
All that said, as a publisher who doesn't self-publish (yet?), I'm also
not convinced that self-published or author-subsidized works should be
considered on the same playing field for contests and awards with certain
criteria. While there shouldn't be an arbitrary division, or an automatic
assumption as to quality, I think it's nonetheless fair to make
distinctions. There are different financial risks involved, different
markets, etc.
In fact, picking up the ball from Larry, I would say that for-profit indie
publishers are running at a greater financial risk than grant-subsidized
non-profit presses, and therefore maybe even a special consideration
should be made there as well. Discuss?
Janaka Stucky
Black Ocean ~ Boston
www.blackocean. org
Re: Facing the Bias Against POD books
Posted by: "Janaka Stucky" janaka@blackocean.org janaka_stucky
Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:11 pm (PST)
"Yet are all writers actually producing publishable work? Of course not.
Who, then, is to be a judge of that? Well, that's a complicated question.
But I think one good answer is: someone other than the actual author!"
Gina, Larry and others,
Larry and all,
I think that it might be interesting to take this a step further...I' m all
for co-op systems, and self-publishing as well. I wonder what qualifies
us, the editors, to also be the gatekeepers to literary validation? If, as
we often say, it's all subjective then shouldn't the reader ultimately be
the judge? I would argue that as editors we're just as capable of
publishing bad work. Terrible work in fact, from what I've seen. I don't
think that anything we do at this point will curtail the surfeit of bland,
unreadable work being published each year--by vanity, indie and corporate
publishers alike.
Although when I served as editor for others I admittedly saw myself in the
gatekeeper capacity to some degree, when I struck out to create my own
publishing company I did so out of a desire to advance the work that
excited me. Consequently, I now see publishing as an inclusive process (of
what I want to put out) rather than an exclusive process (of what doesn't
interest me).
So, to somewhat echo Larry, what difference does subsidization of any form
make on the merit of the work? I'm sure most of you are aware of the
history of self-published poets, from Milton to Ferlinghetti. It's only
been since the rise of the corporate publishing houses in the 20th century
that saw "vanity press" emerge as a stigma. Even up until the 1970s, we
had highly regarded poets putting out their own work without
disparagement. The list goes on (Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, Benjamin
Franklin, Rudyard Kipling, D.H. Lawrence, Thomas Paine, Edgar Allan Poe,
Ezra Pound, Carl Sandburg, George Bernard Shaw, Gertrude Stein, Henry
David Thoreau and Mark Twain, to name a few), and I'm sure many had
confidantes and colleagues to consult with, but they did not rely on the
outside-editorial stamp of approval.
All that said, as a publisher who doesn't self-publish (yet?), I'm also
not convinced that self-published or author-subsidized works should be
considered on the same playing field for contests and awards with certain
criteria. While there shouldn't be an arbitrary division, or an automatic
assumption as to quality, I think it's nonetheless fair to make
distinctions. There are different financial risks involved, different
markets, etc.
In fact, picking up the ball from Larry, I would say that for-profit indie
publishers are running at a greater financial risk than grant-subsidized
non-profit presses, and therefore maybe even a special consideration
should be made there as well. Discuss?
Janaka Stucky
Black Ocean ~ Boston
www.blackocean. org
Posted on CLMP's indiepress yahoogroups
Re: Facing the Bias Against POD books.../ Reply
Posted by: "Gina Frangello" gfrangello@yahoo.com
Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:03 pm (PST)
Hi all--
This is a very interesting discussion. But I don't
think that one can really compare grants as "subsidy"
with authors paying part of their own print run.
Believe me, I'm not saying that cooperative publishing
is somehow wrong or invalid, because I think any indie
publisher knows that money is desperately hard to come
by, and I think we all realize here that literary
value and aesthetics are always, to some degree,
subjective, and that our role as "gatekeepers" is an
arbitrary one. But what I think the issue is
regarding authors paying publishing costs is that
editors are at least gatekeepers of SOMEONE ELSE'S
WORK, about which it is possible to be objective
within the confines of the unavoidable subjectivity of
taste and individuality. No one is capable of being
objective about his or her OWN work. We all want our
work published, as writers, etc. And most writers
must feel worthy of publication if they are sending
their work out FOR publication. Yet are all writers
actually producing publishable work? Of course not.
Who, then, is to be a judge of that? Well, that's a
complicated question. But I think one good answer is:
someone other than the actual author!
The issue, then, is one of editorial decisions being
made by those other than the authors themselves.
Cooperative publishing does not necessarily mean that
the author "pays to be published"-- the author may only
have the privilege of paying IF an independent Board
has selected his or her work. However, once it gets
out there that an author is paying part of his or her
own printing costs, it gives an APPEARANCE of the
author paying to be published. I am not arguing that
this is correct or that this is a good thing. But I
think this is what makes it hard to get such books
reviewed or taken seriously in awards competitions.
People are wary that if the author forks up the money,
the book will be published. The issue for presses in
such situations is to somehow get the PR out there of
how their selection process works. For example, what
percentage of authors who submit are offered a
contract? At some subsidy presses, the answer is 100%
or close to it. At some it may be 50%. At presses
without subsidy, the answer may be closer to 1%. And
at some subsidy presses, the answer may be the same
for all we know! But if people don't know this, they
are afraid the author is buying publication.
(Not that exclusivity is the hallmark of good
publishing, but competition is, I think, viewed as one
way of finding the best work available, at least
according to a given press' standards.)
I don't think other editors are the enemy here (though
there's a bit of animosity floating around with this
strain of discussion, so one posts half-fearing
raising someone's ire.) It's hard to get this kind of
PR out there and to make one's selection process
transparent. I don't know that the issue is either
POD (though that has its own issues, having once
guest-edited an anthology put out that way--I think
how well that works depends on the press and the
printer) or even cooperative publishing in practice,
but making sure that "subsidy" from the author is
known not to be paying to be in print.
How can this distinction best be made, and be made
public? That's a good question, and even though OV
Books doesn't make authors pay printing costs or any
other costs (except some of the travel for book
touring, which is more optional since we do provide a
limited book tour on our dime), I'm still curious
about how this could best be done. If there were a
way to make a good distinction, more start-up indies
would have a better chance of survival financially.
Gina
OV Books
Re: Facing the Bias Against POD books.../ Reply
Posted by: "Gina Frangello" gfrangello@yahoo.com
Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:03 pm (PST)
Hi all--
This is a very interesting discussion. But I don't
think that one can really compare grants as "subsidy"
with authors paying part of their own print run.
Believe me, I'm not saying that cooperative publishing
is somehow wrong or invalid, because I think any indie
publisher knows that money is desperately hard to come
by, and I think we all realize here that literary
value and aesthetics are always, to some degree,
subjective, and that our role as "gatekeepers" is an
arbitrary one. But what I think the issue is
regarding authors paying publishing costs is that
editors are at least gatekeepers of SOMEONE ELSE'S
WORK, about which it is possible to be objective
within the confines of the unavoidable subjectivity of
taste and individuality. No one is capable of being
objective about his or her OWN work. We all want our
work published, as writers, etc. And most writers
must feel worthy of publication if they are sending
their work out FOR publication. Yet are all writers
actually producing publishable work? Of course not.
Who, then, is to be a judge of that? Well, that's a
complicated question. But I think one good answer is:
someone other than the actual author!
The issue, then, is one of editorial decisions being
made by those other than the authors themselves.
Cooperative publishing does not necessarily mean that
the author "pays to be published"-- the author may only
have the privilege of paying IF an independent Board
has selected his or her work. However, once it gets
out there that an author is paying part of his or her
own printing costs, it gives an APPEARANCE of the
author paying to be published. I am not arguing that
this is correct or that this is a good thing. But I
think this is what makes it hard to get such books
reviewed or taken seriously in awards competitions.
People are wary that if the author forks up the money,
the book will be published. The issue for presses in
such situations is to somehow get the PR out there of
how their selection process works. For example, what
percentage of authors who submit are offered a
contract? At some subsidy presses, the answer is 100%
or close to it. At some it may be 50%. At presses
without subsidy, the answer may be closer to 1%. And
at some subsidy presses, the answer may be the same
for all we know! But if people don't know this, they
are afraid the author is buying publication.
(Not that exclusivity is the hallmark of good
publishing, but competition is, I think, viewed as one
way of finding the best work available, at least
according to a given press' standards.)
I don't think other editors are the enemy here (though
there's a bit of animosity floating around with this
strain of discussion, so one posts half-fearing
raising someone's ire.) It's hard to get this kind of
PR out there and to make one's selection process
transparent. I don't know that the issue is either
POD (though that has its own issues, having once
guest-edited an anthology put out that way--I think
how well that works depends on the press and the
printer) or even cooperative publishing in practice,
but making sure that "subsidy" from the author is
known not to be paying to be in print.
How can this distinction best be made, and be made
public? That's a good question, and even though OV
Books doesn't make authors pay printing costs or any
other costs (except some of the travel for book
touring, which is more optional since we do provide a
limited book tour on our dime), I'm still curious
about how this could best be done. If there were a
way to make a good distinction, more start-up indies
would have a better chance of survival financially.
Gina
OV Books
Below is an article, Government study: Americans reading less, that shows the difficulty we have as small
press publishers getting our books out to the public and the difficulty authors have, whether seasoned or
emerging, getting their work out into the literary community.
Also, there are some notes from two discussion groups, CLMP's yahoogroup and Poets & Writers valleylitlist,
on the condition of small press publishing, POD, short run digital printing, subsidized printing.
We're working to overcome all of these limitations.
press publishers getting our books out to the public and the difficulty authors have, whether seasoned or
emerging, getting their work out into the literary community.
Also, there are some notes from two discussion groups, CLMP's yahoogroup and Poets & Writers valleylitlist,
on the condition of small press publishing, POD, short run digital printing, subsidized printing.
We're working to overcome all of these limitations.
| PM Books & Kavsir Books Literary and Intellectual Publishing Partnership |
 |  |