Ant, On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI Arlo & Dan: > > "TTAA followed a standard American book design, used by university presses, > down to the choice of font and size of leading. It makes for perfectly > comfortable reading. And while a coated paper would have printed the images > with a greater tonal range, they reproduce perfectly adequately for a book > driven by an argument, rather than by the pictures." > > "What Warr missed was the whole thesis of the book, which is summarised in > the initial note 'To the Reader'. She used the word 'quality' only once, and > that was to refer to the low-quality paper!" > > Best wishes, > > Patrick Doorly
Hello Ant, Thank you for this. I actually ordered Patrick Doorly's book (I know, I know, I said I wasn't going to but after talking with you and Arlo about it I just had to have a look) last night ($25 paperback version from Amazon) and I am greatly excited to soon be to reading it. Should be here around the end of the month. Thanks again, Dan http://www.danglover.com > > (October 24th 2014) > > ---------------------------------------- > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 11:52 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR > <[email protected]> wrote: >> [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). > > [Dan] > Thank you, Arlo.I don't think it should be a point of contention > either which was basically the gist of my reply to Ant. > > [Arlo] >> 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? > > [Dan] > Exactly... but what is the point of Patrick Doorly's book? I thought > it was aimed at anyone with an interest in art and quality and of > course Robert Pirsig fits the bill on both counts. If the book is > indeed aimed at an academic audience that will leave a lot of us out. > >>[Arlo] >> 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] > That makes sense and I appreciate that there are journals and > publishing houses positioned to serve academic authors. But aren't we > going beyond content here just as the reviewer of Doorly's book did? > >> >> [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. > > [Dan] > Correct me if I am mistaken but I thought the Guggenheim came after > the success of ZMM. I'm pretty sure he was teaching full time while > writing ZMM. I seem to recall that he worked out of a flophouse in > Minnesota from 2am to 6am before going to his day job. Too, I read > somewhere (I think it was in the same ZMM interview) that Robert > Pirsig received a $3000 advance for that book and was told by the > publisher not to expect any more royalties from it. > > [Arlo] >>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. > > [Dan] > "Guggenheim Fellowships are grants to selected individuals made for a > minimum of six months and a maximum of twelve months. Since the > purpose of the Guggenheim Fellowship program is to help provide > Fellows with blocks of time in which they can work with as much > creative freedom as possible, grants are made freely. No special > conditions attach to them, and Fellows may spend their grant funds in > any manner they deem necessary to their work. The United States > Internal Revenue Service, however, does require the Foundation to ask > for reports from its Fellows at the end of their Fellowship terms. " > > http://www.gf.org/about-the-foundation/frequently-asked-questions/ > > [Arlo] >> 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. > > [Dan] > I suspect so too. > 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
