Allyn Gibson wrote:
Let it be said that I don't, in any way, shape, or form, blame Marco or the other Pocket editors for the inaccurate text.
At the same time, I don't believe that I was "deliberate[ly] mischaracterizing" the situation; what I have to work with is what Pocket's Sales department sends me.
Just to be clear, I'm not in any way as pissed off about this as I've evidently come across. I called your post into question because I couldn't understand why you'd think that anybody at Pocket would want
less than accurate info disseminated, since you already knew the unfavorable circumstances surrounding the creation of that material.
I really wasn't angry about the post or put off by what you called its "harshness." I was just genuinely confused by your interpretation. So if you took it any other way, I apologize.
That said, at least Pocket provides something. Other publishers aren't so considerate.
I sympathize. Before I was hired to be an editor for Pocket, I wrote the catalog for DC Comics. Often I had to go to press with only tentative information for many of the titles we were soliciting, and the final product sometimes bore little resemblence to the catalog descriptions. It was frustrating, yes. But I know from that experience that the situation with Star Trek
solicitation copy is hardly unique, but rather represents a systemic problem in certain aspects of publishing.