Several thoughtful backchannels and the continuing discussion have
caused me to reflect more on my comments on print-on-demand.
My characteristic publishing experience in the last few years has been
with small
though brilliant (and very respectable Ian) publishers who, more often
than not, were also the designers and printers of the books. My
print-on-demand experience was at the beginning of print-on-demand.
It was something I was not expecting and was a first for the publisher
too. I had been used to the publisher saying yes or no to me. Then I
had to get used to the publisher telling me someone else was saying
yes or no. And I didn't much like that. Also I felt if there were
quality issues, with the paper, blotches, etc, I had no direct
recourse.
If a publisher has an ongoing and good relationship with a pod printer
today, these difficulties would not necessarily arise for the author.
I think, like in so many other things, I was on the cusp, in this case
of desktop publishing and print-on-demand. Also, in some cases the
publisher/print-on-demand relationship is locally-based, either
geographically or through acquaintance, professional or otherwise. In
my case, we were all in different countries.
None of this was a huge big deal, but these are the underpinnings of
my comments and I exhibit them to demonstrate limitations.
My other reservations about print-on-demand included the odd feeling
produced by a combination of the book not really selling yet never
really being done. As I am the principal purchaser of the book, it
would probably suit me better to buy 500 copies to sell at readings
etc. That would account for half of a 1,000 book run. Then in a few
more years I might buy the other 500 if necessary! And it would be
over! With pod I might be more inclined to feel that order 500 copies
would be only encouraging the madness. And if I did manage to sell
them and order my 500 more in a few years then distant or close
relatives might come along every year or two and order one copy more
and the water torture would continue. Mark Weiss has talked to me
backchannel about this experience of
no-end-in-sight and reminded me that the author-publisher contract
should cover size of print run regardless of the printing technology.
Maybe print-on-demand strips illusions I am comfortable with. There
is a lot to think about. Not least the respectability of publishers,
especially very respected academic and literary publishers as Ian has
pointed out.
Mark also identified design rather than printing technology as the key
factor, and I agree with him. I would just love to have a designer
installed in my house.
Do they have grants to help hamstrung poets acquire friendly and
brilliant designers? I work at Rhode Island School of Design so there
is no excuse for me. If such a plan was not illegal, I might hereby
publicly declare my intention to kidnap a designer, faculty or
student I care not. I'd even consider adoption.
Or marriage. Though I would have to think about respectability too,
as Ian has noted so tellingly.
Another thing that arises for me from Bob's original post is the
complementariness of the range of poetry publishing possibilities
available: blogs, e-books, webzines, print journals, print chapbooks,
offset/letterpress books, print-on-demand, vending machines. The
actuality of this economy, which includes much overlap and
cross-fertilisation, calls into question twentieth century practices
such as sending manuscripts out, sending manuscripts to one publisher
at a time, contests, and vetos on simultaneous submissions. The web
in itself has upended the concept—and desirability in my view—of the
one-venue poem, and its exclusivity. At the same time, I really do
value relationships with publishers. I can be—and am—promiscuous in
publishing, but I would adore a monogamous relationship (as long as I
could have flings, and also entertain myself). I know Ian is going to
be up in arms now because I'm suggesting publishers aren't completely
respectable but it's just a metaphor.
Finally: back to the poetry vending machine. Does anyone remember
lucky lumps? I figure if ever there was a listserv on which someone
might remember lucky lumps this is it. Pink. Squarish. Like little
pillows. They were pretty big: you had to wedge them into your mouth.
Of course my mouth was smaller then. Covered in crystally sugar.
Shockingly low-priced and paid for with extremely large pennies (like
dust-bin lids). Dished out matter-of-factly by the large
(unplasticgloved) hands of adults in sweet shops. Anyway: to cut to
the crunch here: sometimes they had money in them! Silver money (not
pennies/too big!). Anyway we had them in Ireland, so there.
Another subject I would like to talk about some time is how people
shrink as they get older. I met a guy the other day, he was very big:
I said "You look like your father but you are bigger." He said, "My
father used to be a big guy. He was a footballer and all." I said,
"What happened: did he shrink or lose weight." He said, "Both." I
said, "Well at least he had the experience of being different sizes."
I then broke off the conversation because it seemed to be going in a
direction I was not comfortable with. But I did think of Cuchulainn
and wondered what all the fuss was about if every Tom, Dick, and
Harry, even an American, could change shape with very little effort.
This has nothing directly to do with poetry but nevertheless
it might be something to chew over sometime.
Apologies to Ian if anything in this post seems insufficiently
respectable. I am not myself.
Mairead
On 10/20/05, ian davidson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> did i say 'respected publishers'. nonsense phrase written in haste. scrub
> that.
>
> avant garde fiesta was a ball. will try to write something when this week
> from hell is over.
>
> now back to the internal audit; when your own institution puts on its latex
> gloves and inspects those bits of your courses that should have been flushed
> away some time back.
>
> ian
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: mairead byrne <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: mairead byrne <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: thoughts on "print on demand"
> >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:28:55 -0400
> >
> >Hello Ian -- my comments were based only on my experience of the one
> >print-and-demand book I have. How did the avantgarde festival go?
> >Mairead
> >
> >On 10/19/05, ian davidson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > print on demand shouldn't necessarily be equated with anonymous internet
> > > companies. it is used by a braod range of very respected academic and
> > > literary publishers to get over the problem of print runs, storage etc,
> > > allowing them to operate in a just in time economy.
> > >
> > > i'm beginning to think (but not that sure i care much) that it's more
> > > important than the internet in terms of making lots of poetry available
> >to
> > > lots of people and enabling publishers to develop extensive lists, some
> >of
> > > which might not sell many in the short term.
> > >
> > > ian
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Robert Heffernan <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >Reply-To: Robert Heffernan <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > > >Subject: Re: thoughts on "print on demand"
> > > >Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:26:08 +0100
> > > >
> > > >On 10/19/05, mairead byrne <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > > > I don't like print-on-demand. I have been engaging in quite a few
> > > > > conversations about the economy of poetry recently. That economy,
> >for
> > > > > me, is warm. Print-on-demand is a broken link: stone cold. If you
> > > > > can deal with a pod company you know, where you have contacts, can
> > > > > call etc, it would be different. My experience has been no human
> > > > > contact and I didn't like it. Opinions vary widely on this topic.
> > > >
> > > >I hadn't thought of that. Interesting...
> > > >
> > > > > I publish a lot online. It's indispensable to me. I love it.
> >Having
> > > > > a blog surprisingly does not replace books, however. I need those
> > > > > little demons. They are the handshakes of poetry, to say the least.
> >I
> > > > > put them in people's hands and they put their books in mine. We all
> > > > > lose out (financially!).
> > > > > There's nothing to beat a book designed and printed by someone you
> > > > > know or will meet, I think. My best readers in the world are my
> > > > > publishers. I learn most from them. Also because of the investment
> >I
> > > > > know they are making, even more in time than money. I am asking
> >them
> > > > > to take time to move a letter one space left and they do. It
> > > > > strengthens my relationship with and understanding of poetry.
> > > > > Opinions on this vary of course.
> > > >
> > > >I feel the same way about books. I love the book as an object. I
> > > >have books of poetry that I hate that I would never throw away because
> > > >they're old and I like the binding. I also love the spatial relations
> > > >that the page enforces on a piece of poetry that are, to a large
> > > >extent, missing from a piece of work on the web. When it comes to the
> > > >web, no matter how hard you work, you can never get something to look
> > > >the same for everybody (well, except if you distribute your work as a
> > > >pdf or as an image, but this goes against the philosophy of the web
> > > >somewhat).
> > > >
> > > >I have often watched a scene in a movie where there is a bookcase in
> > > >the background and found myself looking at the books rather than at
> > > >the actors.
> > > >
> > > > > The idea with paper is to make the poem worth it somehow.
> > > >
> > > >I think this is the thing that print on demand demolishes. This stuff
> > > >is now so cheap that you don't really have to take such things into
> > > >consideration if you don't want to.
> > > >
> > > > > I have taken to enclosing short poems like dollar bills in envelopes
> >I
> > > >send.
> > > >
> > > >:)
> > > >Much more of a handshake than a book can ever be.
> > > >
> > > > > The web and print complement each other madly. They are a crazy
> > > > > couple. Who would have thought it would work out.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not sure that they are, which is why I brought the topic up in the
> > > >first place. I have the feeling that a lot of people who publish on
> > > >the web want to "graduate" to being published on paper. This is not
> > > >to say that everybody thinks this way, of course.
> > > >
> > > > > RE vanity: have you ever heard that recoding of Pound in his last
> >days
> > > > > reciting "Pull down your vanity ... This is not vanity ... Pull down
> > > > > your vanity..."
> > > > > Oh spooky scary chilling fractured sad.
> > > >
> > > >No, but if you had a link I would love to. In fact, if anybody has
> > > >links to any recordings of Pound I would be delighted to get a hold of
> > > >them.
> > > >
> > > > > I would so totally love to have "a nice website." All I have is a
> > > > > primitive blog and the couches of friends. I'm an oldster and print
> > > > > is in my bones. Time, money, opportunity: these are the criteria
> >when
> > > > > it comes to a choice between books and web. There's no need to set
> >up
> > > > > a false choice.
> > > > > Many people have a truly excellent both. And more. But of course
> > > > > there's a wide variety of opinion on this.
> > > >
> > > >I should use this opportunity to say that I enjoy your blog very much.
> > > > The advantage of a service like blogger is that what you describe as
> > > >a "primitive blog" is much, much, much better than the sort of thing a
> > > >lot of people might cobble together by themselves. This way you only
> > > >need worry about the content, and I need not worry about having to
> > > >wade through terrible ugly web design to get to the content.
> > > >
> > > >bob
> > >
>
|