HFQ Spoiler/Snippet Index [In stores now]

BobG wrote:It's a pity that paper still dominates the publishing process. I bet that if they were willing to publish ebooks before the paper ones, they could shave 2 or 3 months off the process. That's a real WAG on my part, but I guess that the mechanical steps of printing, collating, binding, and distributing are an efficient but not that fast pipeline, and tho I am a big DW fan, I doubt he is an important / popular enough writer for them to consider bucking the queue.

Damn.

-- Bob G

The printing of books is quite efficient these days, if the book is edited/set they can churn out a lot of copies in no time at all.

The problem lies in planning when to sell the books, the publisher doesn't want to swamp the market with a lot of different titles at the same time since then you are kind of competing with yourself. Also, there are certain times of the year when it's more beneficial to publish books (ie before x-mas, fathers day etc etc) and the publisher want to promote their "star" writers at those times, so that factors into the schedule and that is also why if a book isn't finished for publishing it will be pushed back a fair amount of time in the schedule.

I've heard that said, but I'm not sure I believe it. Realistically, always assuming they have more than a single editor, how long does it really take to proofread a manuscript? Probably not more than 2 read throughs a couple of days apart (amazing sometimes what one misses the first time through). I sometimes get the advance reader copies (at least from Baen); and if they actually had a feedback queue for each one, I'm sure the "fans" could help them out - I'm fairly sure I spot most of the errors (especially spelling and syntactical ones).

And that's assuming they don't get the manuscripts in electronic format that they can run through a spell checker for most of the spelling errors and then just proof for grammar and contextual ones (like their, they're and there; all of which are spelled correctly but mean very different things).

People are going to buy what they're interested in, and I doubt the various publishers co-ordinate with each other, which is what they'd really need to do to make things go the way you're alluding.

Does it really matter if they make $x million in sales in one month, or over the entire year? I don't think so. In actuality, it might be *better* to make it all in one month near the beginning of the year, and place it in an interest bearing escrow account that they draw on for the rest of the year rather than getting it in in dribbles each month. There are authors that manage to churn out a book in 6-9 months; some even more frequently.

Like most people, I'm going to buy (or not buy) books based on 2 criteria - (1) how much I want to read a particular book vs any others that might be available, and (2) how much money I have available to spend. If (2) isn't enough to cover everything in (1); then some things (in order of my priority) just slip until (2) catches up at some point. So the publishers really don't lose whether they publish as soon as possible once a new book is submitted by the author, or whether they delay. The folks who want to buy it are going to, as soon as they can. The ones that don't, aren't probably going to, at all; or, they'll wait until they find it at a used book store or consignment shop.

One of the biggest problems (as I see it) in books today is that so many have become so expensive. Even some of the eBooks. One *might* be able to justify costs for textbooks, reference manuals, and such - in other words ones that require much more checking to make sure they're accurate; but fiction? Why should a ARC, crammed with errors, cost $25 when the eventual released ebook that has been corrected costs around $7?

I'm not against authors making a fair profit on their labor; but then again I'm not sure that even a fairly decent percentage of the profit actually goes to them.

From a fan's point of view, the worst thing (short of their favorite author dying or deciding to quit writing) is having to wait too long between books. The die hard fans may just gripe, but the ones more or less "sitting on the fence" might well decide to abandon that series or author for another that they like as well, who manages to get new books published on a more timely schedule.

One other thing - if Tor is so slow compared to Baen, then why did RFC decide to go with another publisher?

If a publishing company has RFC, John Ringo, Eric Flint, Williamson, Spoor, Corriea, ... who do you 'bump' for the next big book. When an author signs for a series with another publisher, it gets their name out more. In the 'BIG' picture, sci fi and fantasy (and all the sub-genres) are small change to most big publishing houses. It does help get the books out in a faster manner. Time at the various printers plays a role too. SF is small potatoes.images/smilies/icon_e_sad.gif

Orlando_Native wrote:-snip-

Believe it or not, releasing all you books within a single genre all together at one point in the year would decrease sales for a multitude of reasons.

E-ARCs and ARCs are more expensive because people are willing to pay more for them. It's that simple.

And David Weber went with TOR rather than Baen because TOR offered a significantly better upfront payment. Authors are generally paid by publishers in two different ways - an upfront payment and then out of royalties. Baen normally offers authors a much higher royalty percentage than any other publisher (for unknown/debut authors about 3 times the standard industry rate if i recall correctly) but they also offer a much lower upfront payment. Well known authors like David Weber may get a little room to negotiate specifics but there are very few who can 'write their own cheque'. I have no idea what TOR offered RFC for Safehold, but he has said in the past that it included a significantly better upfront payment.

Although he has never explicitly said so (possibly due to contract reasons but just as likely simply being professional) I feel that Weber much prefers Baen as a publisher. Unfortunately sometimes a person just needs the money. And right now, not as some hypothetical future royalties. Occasionally people have accused Weber of 'selling out' on this, but I think the majority of us realise that sometimes, artistic integrity be damned, you have kids to send to college or a mortgage to pay off or medical bills to pay so you have to take the best offer on the table.

JimHacker wrote:

Orlando_Native wrote:-snip-

Believe it or not, releasing all you books within a single genre all together at one point in the year would decrease sales for a multitude of reasons.

E-ARCs and ARCs are more expensive because people are willing to pay more for them. It's that simple.

Heck, that's most of why hardcovers are more expensive, too.

The answer to why TOR has the Safehold series and Baen has the Honor Harrington series is in his recent interview.

The answer so you don't have to listen to the entire interview is ............

Ok here it is. Once upon a time there was this aspiring author. As with all good aspiring authors he had a lot of great ideas. Great ideas in publishing need two things. An author with the great idea and a publisher who agrees it is a great idea or had the same idea and was looking for an author with the same idea. Now fill in the word author with David Weber and the publisher with Jim Baen. And BANG, you get the Honor Harrington Series.

Mr Weber offered Baen both ideas at the start of their relationship.

For a more detailed answer please go to the Honor Forum and use the link to the David Weber interview.

JimHacker wrote:

Orlando_Native wrote:-snip-

Believe it or not, releasing all you books within a single genre all together at one point in the year would decrease sales for a multitude of reasons.

E-ARCs and ARCs are more expensive because people are willing to pay more for them. It's that simple.

And David Weber went with TOR rather than Baen because TOR offered a significantly better upfront payment. Authors are generally paid by publishers in two different ways - an upfront payment and then out of royalties. Baen normally offers authors a much higher royalty percentage than any other publisher (for unknown/debut authors about 3 times the standard industry rate if i recall correctly) but they also offer a much lower upfront payment. Well known authors like David Weber may get a little room to negotiate specifics but there are very few who can 'write their own cheque'. I have no idea what TOR offered RFC for Safehold, but he has said in the past that it included a significantly better upfront payment.

Although he has never explicitly said so (possibly due to contract reasons but just as likely simply being professional) I feel that Weber much prefers Baen as a publisher. Unfortunately sometimes a person just needs the money. And right now, not as some hypothetical future royalties. Occasionally people have accused Weber of 'selling out' on this, but I think the majority of us realise that sometimes, artistic integrity be damned, you have kids to send to college or a mortgage to pay off or medical bills to pay so you have to take the best offer on the table.

Just a heads up. Another author released an unrelated book titled "Hell's Foundations Quiver" in July 2014. DW may have to choose an alternate title to avoid Copyright infringement.

From everything I've heard, titles can't be copyrighted.

I know of two books with the title "This Rough Magic" for example.

ksandgren wrote:Just a heads up. Another author released an unrelated book titled "Hell's Foundations Quiver" in July 2014. DW may have to choose an alternate title to avoid Copyright infringement.

DrakBibliophile wrote:From everything I've heard, titles can't be copyrighted.

I know of two books with the title "This Rough Magic" for example.

ksandgren wrote:Just a heads up. Another author released an unrelated book titled "Hell's Foundations Quiver" in July 2014. DW may have to choose an alternate title to avoid Copyright infringement.

Just for confirmation :

Much like names, slogans and ideas, titles are not protected by U.S. copyright laws (which is why so many books have the same titles). To qualify for copyright protection, a work needs to possess “a significant amount of original expression”—and while “a significant amount of original expression” isn’t fully defined by hard-and-fast rules, the courts have ruled that expressions as short as book titles do not qualify.

This doesn’t mean that you are free to title your next book Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, though. Some titles qualify for trademark protection (specifically, series titles like Chicken Soup for the Soul, Harry Potter, Encyclopedia Brown, etc.). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office states that a trademark protects words, phrases, symbols or designs identifying the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguishing them from those of others. So once a book becomes successful enough to be considered a recognizable brand, it could be eligible for trademark protection.

Can someone weigh in if I have gotten the chronology of the snippets correct?

Snippet #3 is a bit hard to place but it seems to me that it belongs after #4.

Thoughts?