Hardcover overkill
 

For the book buying segment, in particular those who buy hardcovers of new unknown authors, a question. If you buy a new author in hardcover do you judge the author by a higher standard? Do you assume that because the new author is released in hardcover that their talent hopefully is a bit greater? Their work a bit more interesting and well written? Well thought out? Not that you assume every such author will be good, but does hardcover release grant some greater expectation in your eyes?

For me it does. Not that I don't expect to find gems in ppbk. Or that I consider a work in hardcover to automatically be better because of the format. Quite the reverse usually. But I do see (or rather I did) hardcover as a type of trust and hope from the publisher that they have something of worth to offer the reader. Packaging pays off and hardcover implies certain value just like first class does in travel and accomadations.

Of course too often, these expectations are dashed. The writer and their work turn out to be mediocre or readable at best. Bug smashers and door stoppers at worst. But thinking about Tor and Sara Douglass (see Book news redux), I found myself thinking about authors who I think don't deserve initial hardcover releases. Most were at Tor. Now I am not looking at sales as a whole. Certainly goodkind justifies hardcover release despite the fact that I think his work is an insult to readers everywhere. But that is my opinion and he gives pleasure and enjoyment to other readers and that is what counts in the long run.

But I do think that I am more critical of a hardcover book. Partly because I spent more on it. I want bang for my buck. More buck means I should get more bang. So right there my standards are raised. Also I see hardcover release as a status thing. Hardcover means that the author is seen as haivng quality and longevity. I know that this is also subjective. I believe that goodkind lacks the former and therefore should not have the latter. But he has had the latter which suggest enough people believe he has the former. So the formula still works in his favor (damn him). But once again my hopes are elevated a bit higher seeing a new release in hardcover. Hoob graduated to hardcover. Marco has as well. Graduating (at least in these cases seems well deserved for the growth in fans and fans' assessment). But did Haydon, Farland, Drake, McGarry and Douglass deserve hardcover debuts? Many might say yes. I would say no.
In part because I found all of their work readable to a degree. But all fell a little short of the re-readable rule (a book to be good must make the reader want to re-read it upon completion -- desire to re-read the book does not have to be immediate and most likely is not -- just the knowledge that upon completion -- yes I will want to re-read this book one day).

And I think that if I had read them in paperback, I might have measured them a bit less harshly. Without the hardcover ruler in hand, I might have found each a bit more likeable. Not sure if that all makes sense, but I guess if you go to, say Morton's steakhouse and you end up with a burger, you will end up feeling shortchanged and disappointed. It might be a rather good burger but the standards for what you expect are much higher. You went for steak and really ended up with a burger. Haydon, Farland, Drake, McGarry and Douglass are all burgers to varying degree (some are Harry's burgers some are McYuckies burgers).

Anyhow. Am I alone in this take? Does anyone else have a greater expectation/standard for harcover novels? Do publishers raise greater expectations just to get in the buck? I tend to be cynical and think the publishers fully realize that a segment of the bookbuying population assumes great things due to hardcover debut status and sell the book regardless of the turnoff by disappointing quality. But maybe that is just me.

Problem is Carey's Kushiel's Dart, Ricardo Pinto's The Chosen, Martin's A Game of Thrones, Jane Routley's Mageheart and Kate Elliott's The King's Dragon all more than fufilled my hardcover expectations and only keep me victim of my own making. Hardcover debuts still make me take a second look. Still tempt me regardless of being burnt. The joy of discovering a fabulous new author in a hefty weighty substantial hardback is quite like no other experience.

Well this isn't really addressing your question but I thought I'd say it anyway. (Couldn't let a Sara Douglass mention go without having my say after all http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif)

I am assuming you are American (correct me if I'm wrong), and I'm pretty certain that in the case of Sara Douglass anyway, (who has been out for years in Australia), she didn't make her debut in Hard covers over here. I guess her popularity in Australia and wherever else has been able to get hold of her work, has instigated the elevation to hard cover status.

Hence when you finally get her books in the US, she is seen as a "debut hard cover author" - which is not, in fact, the case (not here anyway). She has fulfilled lots of expectations to get to this stage.

This may be off topic, but I just wanted to weigh in with the fact that I refuse to buy hardcovers. Why would I when I can get three paperbacks for the same amount? Just doesn't make sense to me.

As an aside, what the heck is a Harry burger? http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

Because hardcovers are more fun to read. I'm talking about the physical experience of reading.

Maybe you have enough money to buy hardcovers for the physical enjoyment of it but I don't think im alone in saying most people don't. The only time I ever buy hardcovers is if they are in the bargain books section at walden's or someone gives them to me as a gift. I never thought of your question before but now that you bring it up, I did just get a hardcover for about 1.29 and I wasn't expecting much. Hard to be disappointed when you aren't expecting much to begin with but I almost was. It was the Shadows of Ararat by someone I can't remember and it was actually published by Tor. The authors debut book I believe. Really really terrible. But to get back to the main topic I wouldn't buy a new author I hadn't read before in hardback even if I did have the money for it because it just seems like publishing companies aren't very picky about what they put in hardcover.

I read mass market paperbacks alot faster than hardcovers. So I buy mostly paperbacks. New authors I try to get only paperbacks but sometimes my will is weak.

Well, if I actually bought books I might would feel the way you do JohnH, but since I cant afform em for the time being, I get everything from the library. As a result, I judge every book on equal grounds (And if I'm completely honest, I can't say that I've ever even considered the quality difference in the two). But since you mention it, and since your mind set does have a certain amount of logic, I can see where your coming from. But as was said, it's subjective to what the publishers think. And I don't really think that the publishers put so much in a good story as they do in a good money maker. You'd think that the two would go hand in hand, but, as we've all seen at some point in time, this isn't always the case.

Just for the record, I want to clarify that I know abou Douglass. I have the Battleaxe trilogy and the Wayfarer Redemption trilogy.

And while Douglass is proven somewhat, she is not the first Commonwealth author with a large non-US fan base to debut in the US. However she is one of the first to debut in hardcover. And you must understand that to the average US fantasy reader she is a complete unknown. The fact that thousands already love her work really does not prove much since US publishers have a very strong notion that fantasy is perceived in much different terms outside the US than within.

Witness the whole Erikson debate. Witness Ian Irvine, Rebecca Bradley and even David Gemmell. None debuted in the US in hardcover despite all being very popular. Gemmell in particular. Now he is published in hardcover, but initially here in the US he was not -- and this despite the fact that he was primarily published here in US after his name kept popping up in cross data bases. Much like Harry Potter caused the simultaneous publishing in US and UK for the first time.

So from my point of view, I guess I am saying that Douglass still belongs in the grouping that I placed her in. I do realize that she has an existing fan base even here in the US (not a fan but a ... hmm need to create a word that falls somewhere below fan but above loathing.) but by debuting her in hardcover here in the US she still falls in the raised expectations category. Certainly it raises my expectations when she makes it and Ian Irvine doe not, nor Rebecca Bradley. Of course maybe it Tor's predilection of huge series that made them do it. With six books already out and room for a Wayfarer three taking it to nine... Of course that then raises the question as to why Erikson is still unpublished here in the US.

Well JohnH - all I can say to those comments is that I guess publishers always go with what they think will make the majority happy.

These books may have been a disappointment to you, but from views expressed in other posts on this forum, it seems that they (the Douglass ones anyway), get a generally favourable opinion.

The decision about what you find to be worthy of a hardcover, is never going to have a unanimous answer. The publishers can only make their decisions based on what they feel will keep most people contented.

Such is life! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

I mostly don't buy hardcover unless it's on sale, and I only buy hardcover (retail price) if I really really really like the book. Plus, the books I really like are hard to come by in hardcover over here.

In general, a lot of crappy books debut as hardcovers, so that hasn't really elevated my opinion of hardcovers. I agree that most publishers are just trying to make the most money. If they think they can market it so that people will buy it, they will, even if it's total crap.

Another reason I prefer paperbacks, aside from being less expensive, is mobility. I read everywhere - at home, waiting in line, waiting for a flight, while eating, waiting for a date, waiting for friends (hmm.. I just realized I do a lot of waiting!). It's not very practical lugging around a hardcover.

"I just realized I do a lot of waiting..."

That's because in the grand old city of Manila, the bloody traffic sooks! http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Back to topic: I normally get hardcovers if I can't wait for the paperbacks of certain authors with series. I normally don't experiment with new authors or certified ones. However, I'm been tempted several times by half-priced hardbound books and succumbed happily. (One was 'The Golden Key' collaboration by Rawn, Elliot, and one other I forget at the moment.) So I guess I agree with JohnH that I have higher expectations with hardbounds.

Best line on publishers' hardcover overkill: "If they think they can market it so that people will buy it, they will, even if it's total crap."

Need we say more? http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

A few years back, when I discovered Anne Rice, I refused to read her works in anything but hardcover. I'd just purchased Interview with the Vampire, and had become engrossed by her books and thusly purchased The Vampire Lestat in hardcover and obtained a friend's hardcover copy of Queen of the Damned. I have Tales of the Body Thief in hardcover, but I've never gotten around to finishing it.

How does this relate? Well at the time I thought rather highly of Rice. I do admit to still finding Interview to be a high quality novel, perhaps even worth literary merit. But I refused to read her books in paperback. It felt like it might be a betrayal, or unworthy of the quality of the writing. Of course, I know better now, but such was my mindset at 16 years of age.

In bookstores such as Barnes and Nobles, the majority of the books in the fantasy section tend to be mass market editions. (ie: the small $7 semi-pocket sized novels). There are few to no hardcovers in the fantasy; a few new releases will be in hardcover, and perhaps some special version of Lord of the Rings (such as my centennial edition), and a few miscellaneous novels.

As I walked through the fiction section, I noted that many of the books tended to be trade paperbacks. Noting this down in my mind, I continued walking around the bookstore. The section with the largest number of hardcovers that I could find was the history section.

I have no real way to explain this. Whether or not being printed soley in hardcover denotes a certain level of quality I don't yet know. Does this them mean that fantasy isn't taken as seriously as fiction? It's certainly arguable, given that mass market editions are inferior in quality when compared to trade paperbacks.

And of course, this can be both a blessing and a curse. It reduces the level of notability that fantasy novels can receive, but it also allows for more tripe to be published without much fanfare. On the other hand, it allows for addicts of fantasy literature to purchase more at a reduced price. The level of quality is questionable, but that's besides the point.

I've love to ask a publishing house representative about this some day. It's something worth investigating.

The mystery section also is rife with paperbacks. I think the reason for the number of hardbacks in history is that the people buying history books are not buying them in the sheer numbers that people buy fantasy, SF, or mystery. Therefore, they will spend more money for a one-off history purchase than they would on the latest Ellis Peters, etc.

I've noticed lately that trade paperbacks are creeping into the fantasy/SF section. Some authors are going from hardback to trade and then finally to mass market. This does annoy me slightly. More waiting until it's cheaper. Charles de Lint and Neil Gaiman are two that seem to have lots of trade paperbacks. DeLint especially.

Susan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A book to be good must make the reader want to re-read it upon completion -- desire to re-read the book does not have to be immediate and most likely is not
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

== Amen ==


Hardcover debut??.
Holy publishers.., I think the hardcover should be made by the readers, not by the publishers who are biased to the buck in their bones deeply.

Listen to me please... ...,

I have a big news !!

Do you know that?? Do you really know that??

know the fact that...

that...

that...

that we have an amazing transportation tool...

we...

have...

"The Internet"

quite a news...

If there is an author, an author who wants to impact something that can be good to be called "value" in the reader's mind, or the human mind, he would not go to the buck seeker for the contact with the readers right after putting down his/her last period.
I think he/she would try to use this precious new transportation tool if he/she lives in this era.
I don't mean the series type of unfinished works which are abundant in the internet already. I mean sufficient amount of release from his/her work, enough to taste the quality well before purchase. The standard of this sufficiency?, IMO, almost a volume.

Yes. he may face the horror of being penniless.

But if he/she may well have the hardcover as a new author, I think he/she is already the very one who would dare to consider this kind of method for the sake of the reader.

Anyway, I hope someday you will get the real joyful experience what you want.
A steak!!! no burger!!.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The joy of discovering a fabulous new author in a hefty weighty substantial hardback is quite like no other experience
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can agree with you for the most part JohnH (except about Farland, whose work I really enjoy). I am not as willing to buy an un-tried author in hardcover. I usually wait until paperback.

However, if I am asking for a gift a la the amazon.com wish list, I will readily ask for hardcover, for example Cecilia Dart-Thornton. Normally I wouldn't buy this in hardcover, but hell it was going to be for a Christmas present, why not?

I don't know if I am more critical about reading a hardcover, but I would be more disappointed if I didn't like the book. Well, I guess this does amount to critical then. http://www.sffworld.com/ubb/smile.gif

But I do have a system even for authors I have consistently returned to. Some authors are "A" authors and I immediatly buy them in hardcover (Tad Williams, Stephen King, Robin Hobb, GRRM, John Marco) and others I will wait for paperback (Thomas Harlan for example).

As for Marco, one of the main reasons he switched to DAW from Bantam was that DAW would publish him in hardcover.