Again, each publisher can decide what to publish, or not. Many great books were once turned down by numerous publishers. Reputation is plenty slippery under any circumstances. The topic is too complicated and I suppose many issues were at stake in the decision against the nazi book. I can imagine some people saying , "Why take the risk of all the ill-will just for this book, or why another book on this topic now, or what unanswered questions does the ms answer, or can we sell it, or is it an engaging read, etc., etc.?" Lots of things never see the light of day until someone decides to risk all. Reputation is as much about prudence as it is about daring. So why don't you publish the book? Take a risk. WC
--- On Wed, 12/31/08, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Reputations of publishers > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 1:23 PM > Yes, William -- freedom of the press -- everybody gets to > publish anything -- > but the issue here is reputation. > > > I would think that the reputation of a publisher rises or > falls on the quality > of what gets published -- and the reasons attached to the > relevant decisions. > > The book that St Martins dumped was the first -- and to > date appears to be the > only -- biography on a major historical figure that was > written after his > extensive diary was made public in 1992. So ... if it were > factual, > articulate, and not outrageously reasoned -- it might be > considered an > important book for those interested in 20th C. history -- > regardless of its > "tone" and "insinuations". > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here to find a massage therapy school near you. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc0q9QrfGzPJdPzFI0etiP178X > QKHNYF8JiTgZd1gn9QWaibC/
