Arlo Bensinger stated to Dan Glover, October 23rd 2014:
We can't really deny that there is a symbolic capital to be had with the
publisher imprint. Right or wrong, it has meaning. Many academic authors are
required, for tenure, to publish using certain 'respected' or 'established'
publishing venues. Having your book published by "Oxford University Press" (for
example) establishes symbolic capital for both the author and the argument.
Whether this is wholly good or bad, whether it is something that we should
reject outright or accept, it is a fact for those publishing within their
academic tenure.
Ant McWatt comments:
Thanks Arlo. This is the exact point I was trying to convey to Dan but you
have explained this point about modern academia and its relationship with
publishers a lot better than I did!
Best wishes,
Ant
ORIGINAL POST FROM ARLO TO DAN IN FULL:
[Ant]
Remember that Patrick Doorly (the author of TTAA) was primarily aiming his book
towards an academic audience (I guess fine art critics and philosophers mainly)
so a vanity publisher such as CreateSpace (whose academic credibility is
basically zero) was not an option open to him. It's the finely honed arguments
in Patrick's book which give it, its intellectual quality and its these
arguments that I ask the reader of this post to be primarily concerned with.
[Dan]
In other words (and forgive me if I am translating this wrongly), folk like me
have no reason to be reading Patrick Doorly's book. Only those who are
academically trained in the fine arts and philosophy would have any use for it.
It is a text book.
[Arlo]
I don't think "academic" here should be a point of contention Dan (*I* think
you are highly academic). Sadly, textbooks do tend to be very expensive, even
David Grange's text (which is mostly text) sold for $110 upon publication (I
see the price is down to $69 on Amazon). So authors who publish in this format
may do everything they can to keep costs down. How many 'non-academics' do you
think will shell out $110 for Granger's book? And yet I'd argue its incredibly
important. So $25 for Doorley's book as it is, or $110+ for the book with
high-quality print and hi-res color images? Which do you think will reach more
readers?
And, we can't really deny that there is a symbolic capital to be had with the
publisher imprint. Right or wrong, it has meaning. Many academic authors are
required, for tenure, to publish using certain 'respected' or 'established'
publishing venues. Having your book published by "Oxford University Press" (for
example) establishes symbolic capital for both the author and the argument.
Whether this is wholly good or bad, whether it is something that we should
reject outright or accept, it is a fact for those publishing within their
academic tenure.
[Dan]
CreateSpace is different than a vanity publisher in that no upfront purchase is
necessary.
[Arlo]
Another consideration is that often authors (academic or otherwise) are
provided with some compensation when their manuscript is accepted. Pirsig, for
example, worked off a Guggenheim grant. Now, I'm not sure if that specific
grant conferred certain rights to the publisher (and away from Pirsig), but
often authors need compensation (even in the form of work-release) while they
are writing. I do not know the specifics of Doorly's publishing contract, but
there may have been important and unavoidable reasons (in addition to academic
capital) that he went with a publisher rather than self-publishing.
.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
