But it looks ugly on my bookshelf, different size Trek books
Whereas I think a shelf where all the books are the same size is a bit boring to look at.
But it looks ugly on my bookshelf, different size Trek books
So size does matter?!
But it looks ugly on my bookshelf, different size Trek books
Whereas I think a shelf where all the books are the same size is a bit boring to look at.
I once visited a mass-market distribution plant and witnessed a sight no author or editor or book-lover should ever see: a vast assembly line in which unsold paperbacks were stripped of their covers before being pulped.
It was the abattoir of author's dreams . . . .
I guess as an author you probably wanted to cryor throw up
or maybe both.
.
As the author of a few "unbudgeable turkeys," I find that this poem by Clive James always hits me where I live:I once visited a mass-market distribution plant and witnessed a sight no author or editor or book-lover should ever see: a vast assembly line in which unsold paperbacks were stripped of their covers before being pulped.
It was the abattoir of author's dreams . . . .
I get reasoning for it. It just seems so wasteful doing that to TPBs.
The reason for trade paperbacks is so the price can be raised to a much more expensive price.
TPBs do have one advantage over MMPBs: they're usually printed on acid-free paper so they'll last longer.The reason for trade paperbacks is so the price can be raised to a much more expensive price. There is no advantage to the consumer vs. MMPB.
Not many titles were available in both MMPB and TPB, though. It doesn't seem like publishers were actually able to base that decision on any data.The reason MMPBs have become unprofitable is because e-books have replaced them as readers' preferred format for inexpensive or "disposable" books.
Not many titles were available in both MMPB and TPB, though. It doesn't seem like publishers were actually able to base that decision on any data.
Those are all good, valid reasons for publishers to change to TPBs. But that doesn't seem to say anything about whether "readers' preferred format for inexpensive or 'disposable' books" changing. You can show that readers' interest in digital over print is happening; but not whether readers prefer to buy their disposable books as TPBs instead of MMPBs.Does it matter what the specific titles were? What matters is that MMPBs overall have gotten less profitable compared to e-books and less desirable for vendors because of the price point and the whole remaindering thing. Individual titles aren't the issue -- it's the performance of the medium as a whole that's the issue.
So, what's the current lineup for upcoming Trek novels?
Those are all good, valid reasons for publishers to change to TPBs. But that doesn't seem to say anything about whether "readers' preferred format for inexpensive or 'disposable' books" changing. You can show that readers' interest in digital over print is happening; but not whether readers prefer to buy their disposable books as TPBs instead of MMPBs.
I was talking to someone who worked in publishing once and she thought I was a writer because of all the jargon and insider perspective I'd picked up from threads like this on the TrekBBS.I'm getting nostalgic for the years I spent as a bookseller
Star Trek is just one tiny fraction of the publishing industry, and its choices can be limited by what's going on in the larger publishing world. If MMPBs are dying overall, then the preferences of readers of one small, niche line of books are not going to be able to change that.
A bit of history: mass-market paperbacks are basically the descendants of the cheap, pocket-sized books produced for American G.I.s during World War II. They've had a good, long run, but their future is in doubt.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.