Branding: Does the publisher matter to you?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I voted No.

Black Lizard has for the past decade or more obtained the rights to publish old hard-boiled things that I would like to read, but they were best sellers before Black Lizard came into the picture. Still, if these stories were good enough for Black Lizard to purchase, that's something of a credible endorsement.

And Black Lizard is an imprint of a larger company. Who that company is I would have to look up.

Black Lizard is an imprint of Random House.

[xg4bx]

it really doesn't matter to me but if a book is put out by permuted, angry robot or abaddon its fairly likely to be something i'd enjoy. its not guaranteed but far more likely than with other pubs.

[carpetmojo]

...No.

[Fozzybear]

In terms of novels, I couldn't care less which publisher and would be hard-pushed to name that many. For some non-fiction it does have an influence if I know a particular publisher's series is well-respected (like the Collins New Naturalist series).

[Rob Lister]

Perhaps it is the editor that needs to advertise; or perhaps the publisher need to advertise the editor.

If you read a sloppy work, be it historical, scientific or even political, who do you blame? *Feel free to define sloppy for yourself here.*

You surely blame the author; how can you not?

Shouldn't you also blame the editor? You probably don't know who it is but isn't the editor really at fault? If that publisher doesn't have or use active editors, then the blame should fall on the house.

If books listed credits the way movies do, and we knew who edited every book we read, I bet we'd quickly find a close correlation between books we really enjoyed and the editors thereof. Maybe even a closer correlation than that of the author.

Maybe I'd lose that bet because I don't know how editors are assigned work; is it random or do they get to pick and choose? Are they part of the wheat/chaff selection process?

[theducks]

The Imprint (house mark) does matter somewhat in that certain Imprints publish stories to my tastes and others do not.
Even if they are owned by the same publisher.

Authors sell works to different Imprints because their work is not always a 'best fit' to their normal imprint.

So I start my browsing by imprint, and glance at the neighbors... Sometimes I find something new

[pendragginp]

With the on-going war with the Big Six it absolutely matters to me. I will not buy from them if I can possibly help it, given their despicable price-fixing stupidity.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Perhaps it is the editor that needs to advertise; or perhaps the publisher need to advertise the editor.

If you read a sloppy work, be it historical, scientific or even political, who do you blame? *Feel free to define sloppy for yourself here.*

You surely blame the author; how can you not?

Shouldn't you also blame the editor? You probably don't know who it is but isn't the editor really at fault?

You are giving the editor way too much power and credit. I can't tell you the number of times, but it has been many, in my 28+ years as a professional editor that I have received the instruction to only correct misspellings, no other changes or suggestions are to be made to a manuscript per the author.

Similarly, numerous times over the years where suggestions have been made, they have been rejected by the author, often out of hand.

My point is that the final product you read, even if supposedly professionally edited, may not reflect at all the editor's work. Authors always reserve the right to reject editor suggestions and some authors always reject such suggestions.

Can you blame the publisher? I think that is a better bet because it is the publisher that gives the author the power to reject the editor's suggestions out of hand.

But the real responsibility lies with the author.

[elemenoP]

rhadin, are you a copy editor, an acquisitions editor, or a development editor? I am guessing that you are a copy editor. This is not the same thing as the editor who decides to buy a book for the publisher, and then shephards that book through the publishing process. This type of editor can have a LOT (or a little) impact on the final product. They can even make suggestions/changes about the plot and ending. A copy editor is only supposed to fix errors.

eP

[elemenoP]

I worked in publishing about 15 years ago so my "feelings" about the various publishers were formed then and haven't been updated since then. At the time, FSG and Knopf were considered the most "serious" or literary publishers and I would give a book by these publishers stronger consideration than others. I still do this today, even though I don't know if those are still the "best" publishers or not. I am definitely still more biased toward the big publishers than the indies. This is not to say I won't read indies, but it would take more (good reviews, for example) to get me to read one. I just feel that the books by the big publishers have already been through a vetting process and deemed worthy of publishing. Of course that's not to say that all books by big publishers are *good* but I take it into account.

eP

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

rhadin, are you a copy editor, an acquisitions editor, or a development editor? I am guessing that you are a copy editor. This is not the same thing as the editor who decides to buy a book for the publisher, and then shephards that book through the publishing process. This type of editor can have a LOT (or a little) impact on the final product. They can even make suggestions/changes about the plot and ending. A copy editor is only supposed to fix errors.
eP

Errors--which run the gamut from plot holes to continuity problems to factual inaccuracies to internal inconsistencies to grammatical mistakes to misspellings.

And when the author rejects the corrections? Whose fault is it?

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Errors--which run the gamut from plot holes to continuity problems to factual inaccuracies to internal inconsistencies to grammatical mistakes to misspellings.

And when the author rejects the corrections? Whose fault is it?

I would blame the author for first three, and blame the publisher for the last two.

eP

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

rhadin, are you a copy editor, an acquisitions editor, or a development editor? I am guessing that you are a copy editor. This is not the same thing as the editor who decides to buy a book for the publisher, and then shephards that book through the publishing process. This type of editor can have a LOT (or a little) impact on the final product. They can even make suggestions/changes about the plot and ending. A copy editor is only supposed to fix errors.

eP

I have worked as an acquisitons editor and a developmental editor when I worked inhouse for major publishers like S&S. Since being on my own, I have worked as a developmental editor and a copyeditor. I am quite familiar with all of the editorial functions.

Unfortunately, in today's publishing world, the acquisiton and developmental editors no longer wield the kind of power that they once did, in the days, say, of Bennet Cerf's Random House or when Jackie Kennedy Onassis worked in editorial.

Editors today need to cajole not dictate and they often fail at cajoling. If a book is not well done, it is the author's primary responsibility, not the editor's.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by elemenoP

A copy editor is only supposed to fix errors.

This is a broad statement that isn't quite accurate. A copyeditor is supposed to fix errors of grammar and spelling and make sure that grammar and spelling and style are consistent. The copyeditor does not fix other types of errors such as plot holes. They may point them out, but they do not fix them. They are not coauthors and are not paid to fulfill the role of the developmental editor.

[elemenoP]

Originally Posted by rhadin

If a book is not well done, it is the author's primary responsibility, not the editor's.

I, personally, think this is true regardless of how broad or narrow the editor's role is.

eP