Mucked with attributions--Steve didn't make the "black necromancy"
crack, I did.
On Jun 5, Thomas Yan said:
> On Jun 5, Rachael said:
>> >At 10:05 PM 6/4/2002 -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
>> >
>> >>One word: Remaindering. A pernicious practice that is one of the things
>> >>killing the paperback industry.
>> >
>> >Well, remaindering *is* pretty silly, but it's been going on for a lot
>> >longer than the paperback crunch.
>>
>> It's still black necromancy.
>
>Was the description of remaindering correct?
No, you're absolutely right. Sorry. I wasn't thinking, I was just
agreeing with whatever anyone said....
>I thought remaindering was when the publisher decided to stop taking
>returned books --and maybe gave some credit for unsold books-- and thus
>booksellers just sold it at whatever price they could. In fact,
>sometimes, for odd reasons some booksellers 'self-remainder': they just
>try to dump their stock instead of returning the books. Plus, can't (at
>least in theory) hardcover and trade paperback books be remaindered?
Now that I think of it, yes.
I get hardcover/trades remaindered fairly often, as it's the only way
I'll pay for them.
>(And when the publisher decides to remainder books, it seems like they
>often give the author the opportunity to buy some or all of their unsold
>stock.)
It's a contract thing; usually they're supposed to. It doesn't always
happen, which is why some HTF books are so HTF.
>Whereas stripping was what was described: In the U.S., to make
>'returning' unsold mass market paperbacks cheaper, the covers were
>stripped and returned, and the contents (supposedly) destroyed. (Note
>that hardcovers and trade paperbacks, when returned, are returned whole
>-- not stripped. And I'm not sure if stripping is done anywhere else
>but the U.S.)
_That's_ what I meant by "black necromancy." I was going with the
description.
>-snip-
>> >No, Rachel explained what has caused the real crunch.
>>
>> I wish my parents could spell.
>
>I just noticed (from watching "She's All That") that the actor Rachael
>Leigh Cook spells it the same way.
She's wrong, too.
>Tangent: Another thing to get angry about is that (paraphrase from
>memory) acid-free paper doesn't cost more than non-acid-free paper in
>terms of cost per area. (For example, I believe if you look at 8.5"x11"
>paper, you'll find similar or identical prices.)
Letter and A4 sizes might not be the best places to look; I'd want to
see an average over several trim sizes. But I see no reason to
disbelieve this.
>Naturally, this leads to the question: why aren't mmpbs printed on
>acid-free paper? The answer is that acid-free paper is not produced in
>that trim size, so you have a chicken and egg problem. Publisher's
>don't have the option of using cheap acid-free paper because it isn't
>made. It isn't made because there isn't enough demand to make it cost
>effective to produce. Grr.
Grrr, indeed. (There's still no excuse for Baen's ink, though.)
>Corrections on the above again very welcome. Note that it is based on
>my memory of posts made by Lis Carey on RASFW many years ago.
Memory is the first to go. Next is Komarr....
Rachael
--
Rachael From the Dilbert Newsletter:
Lininger "You should talk to her.
rachael@ She is a minefield of information."
daedala.net