yup, it may be an out of date stat now, but in recent years the average sale of "a book" (with an ISBN) was 50; and that goes from JK Rowling at one end to first-time authors at the other.

50

that's insanely small

Dave E

help me raise money for endangered tribes http://www.justgiving.com/shaveDaveshead

---------- Original Message -----------
From: David Mattichak <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:40:05 +1030
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)

> I have had much the same experience of publishers wanting to Potterize my written work on magick too. In the end I took on more of the publishing costs myself in order to retain control over the contents. Publishers are about making a profit- I can understand that. They are also under a lot of pressure from competing forms of publishing now too with lots of indie publishing houses going around the established publishing houses. Major publishers have deals with bookstore chains and the shops want books that will fly off of the shelves. That means that most of the money that publishers spend on material is going to go to celebrities and sportspeople- it is sad but true. I chat to a lot of novellists that despair of ever getting a publishing deal no matter what they write.
>
> Barrett's book is astonishingly good too. I was amazed when I picked up my copy at a book barn style shop too, and for only a few dollars.
>
> DGM
>
>

---

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:56:55 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> indeed, often we have no idea of the commercial pressures behind what appears in some finished products; i have heard form a couple of literary-based magical scholars in past years that publishers have asked them to add to their manuscripts to (paraphrase) "Harry Potter it up a bit, make it sexier"
>
> it may have changed since (this is from 2002) but when i was researching occult books in print the two magical books that had been continually in print the longest were
>
> The Simon Nec (a 'fake' true grimoire, arguably, although it contains a fair bit of 'real' magic, the Sumerian stuff -however one defines 'real magic'- by that in this context i mean materials that have been in historical use in the past, not whether they "work"- another difficult to define area!)
>
> and Anton La Vey's Satanic Bible
>
> which is very interesting.
>
> Barrett's The Magus should also have been a contender, i thought, but there have been gaps in publication of that over the 200 or so years since it was first issued. And a big difference between 'in print' and 'still available to buy' of course, but interesting that some other possible contenders weren't in the list.
>
> 'in print' indicates the probable demand for titles, in the days before print on demand manaufacture, and that Simon has sold a million is quite astonishing
>
> Dave E
>
>
> help me raise money for endangered tribes http://www.justgiving.com/shaveDaveshead
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From: Daniel Harms <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:56:27 -0400
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)
>
> > If it helps to put [WINDOWS-1252?]Davies’ piece into context, the sales of the Lovecraft-inspired Simon Necronomicon alone are pushing one million copies.  I [WINDOWS-1252?]don’t know the sales figures for [WINDOWS-1252?]Crowley’s works, but I think [WINDOWS-1252?]we’re talking about different orders of magnitude.
> >  
> > As another piece of context, Davies had to cut out parts of the book that dealt with some traditions and ideas at Oxford [WINDOWS-1252?]Press’s request, because they wanted him to beef up the U. S. section, thinking perhaps that [WINDOWS-1252?]we’re too shallow over here to buy a book that [WINDOWS-1252?]doesn’t talk about us.   I [WINDOWS-1252?]don’t know if [WINDOWS-1252?]that’s what befell the Crowley material, but [WINDOWS-1252?]he’s explained to me that this is why some sections seem rushed.
> >  
> > Sincerely,
> >  
> >
> > Dan Harms
> > Bibliographer and Instructional Services Librarian
> > SUNY Cortland Memorial Library
> > (607)-753-4042
> >  
> >
> > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of mandrake
> > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 6:18 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)
> >  
> > Caroline
> >
> > Maybe - the issue of authority is complex for pagans -
> > currently many practitioners are boasting their authority in magick on the basis of academic degrees - probably because it has had a distorting effect?
> > Personally I dont mind academic authority as long as it is descriptive rather than proscriptive -
> > practitioners sometimes feel the need to undo the work of academic studies which they feel are wrong -
> > so for example Owen Davies book on grimoires perhaps ignores Crowley
> > but reifies H P Lovecraft (just as an example of an otherwise fine book which is very reasonably priced etc)
> > this will no doubt be played back to me at some later point by the media who will tell me I am a follower of H P Lovecraft -
> > which I'm not.
> >
> > Mogg
> >
> >
> > Hi Mogg,
> >  
> > >>When historians study magick maybe they become the experts - and sometimes lay down the lore - perhaps erroneously?<<
> >  
> > Do you think this is hinting at what a lot of Pagans think about the academic study of Pagan Witchcraft? That [WINDOWS-1252?]“their” - the [WINDOWS-1252?]Pagan’s - subject has been kind of hijacked by someone more eloquent, more prolific, with the ability to get more publishing deals, and [WINDOWS-1252?]even… [WINDOWS-1252?]perhaps… to understand the topic, at least its history, better then the practitioners themselves? And [WINDOWS-1252?]that’s annoying?
> >  
> > ~Caroline.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of mandrake
> > Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2011 6:42 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] FW: [JFRR] Fairy Tales: A New History (Bottigheimer, Ruth B.)
> >  
> >
> > Dear David et al

> >
> > "but when it comes to magic, who is the laity and who are the experts?"

> >
> > Very well put !
> >
> > "Academics dig things up and bury them again" - Terry Duquesne
> >
> > When historians study magick maybe they become the experts -
> > and sometimes lay down the lore - perhaps erroneously?
> >
> > Magick is a very intellectual pursuit.
> >
> > I suppose a clear difference between practitioner and academic perspective is that academic authors often leave out important operational material.
> > Thus Owen Davies' book on grimoires doesn't give any useable examples. Or recently I looked at a very informative book on ancient dream incubation
> > only to find the long discussion was really about whether temples were used in this way before the Greek period (a typical academic obsession)
> > but not so relevant to the practitioner/reconstructionist.
> > I like academic writing that is does both.
> >
> > senebty
> >
> > Mogg Morgan
> >  
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
------- End of Original Message -------