An engaged author is a happy author

I've had a fair few books published by a fair few publishers (not because I'm fickle, but because different books suit different publishers). In that time I've experienced a whole spectrum of ways that publishers interact with authors, from the awful to the brilliant.

At the awful end are those publishers that expect the only interaction to be a contract, a manuscript, proof checking and royalty statements. As far as they are concerned, the author is like a chicken that lays an egg. Why should they consult the chicken on omelette recipes?

At the other extreme, thankfully occupied by my current publishers, are companies that realize two things. First that the author has a lot to offer besides writing the book. And second that keeping an author informed makes them happy bunnies. So, for example, I am often involved in writing the blurb to go on the back and in publicity campaigns. I'm kept up to date on sales and where foreign rights deals have been struck.

Another example of that involvement is with covers. My next book for my US publisher, St Martin's Press, due out in December, is called How to Build a Time Machine. They sent me a suggestion for the cover which looked very nice, but I pointed out that a lot of my covers are based on a black background (see above), and the only problem is that these covers really don't stand out on the shelf. The emphasis on black makes them disappear when they are face-on.

Before you can say 'Subtle hint to the designer,' they had come back with the cover on a blue background, which still works well as far as contrast, but will have a lot more 'Look at me!' impact on the shelf.

Similarly, at the moment, I am in the middle of discussions on covers for the paperback version of Inflight Science and another proposed title. The publisher, Icon Books hasn't just stormed in with a design, they are asking me for input. Even if they take no notice of this, it makes me feel involved. Knowing what's going on and having some input is essential to a good business relationship.

It is increasingly recognized that authors are a key part of the marketing structure for a book. You can't leave it to the publicist and marketing person alone, however good they are. If authors feels they are involved in the whole process, they are going to contribute a lot more. As long as publishers can change their mindset from seeing this as being interfering or not an author's business to being a useful partnership they can surely only benefit.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog