<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Book Publishers Stupider Than Anyone Imagined</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grokdotcom.com/index.php/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/</link>
	<description>Marketing blog focused on marketing optimization, improving website conversion rates, search engine marketing, web analytics, word of mouth, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:38:51 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/comment-page-1/#comment-114230</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/#comment-114230</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s another possibility, here:

In his 2006 book The Knowledge Deficit, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., points out that reading ability is dominantly influenced by the background knowledge of the reader on the subject being read. 

(Hirsch&#039;s The Knowledge Deficit is, by the way, a far shorter version of his bestselling Cultural Literacy [1987, 2002]. Hirsch founded the Core Knowledge Foundation to try to help America&#039;s education system to standardize its curricula and pass on the American cultural legacy that a literate person needs to be familiar with to converse intelligently through the broad range discussions in America.)

It&#039;s just possible that the low-level editors and assistants going through the &quot;sort pile&quot; simply weren&#039;t aware of Jane Austen&#039;s work. And, of course, it goes without saying that NOT being conversant with Jane Austen&#039;s work -- even though it&#039;s British, not American, literature -- is something no one in the book industry would dare to admit, if they could help it.

Not all editors are as literate as they may pose as being, though that may seem practically sacreligious where Jane Austen&#039;s work is concerned....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s another possibility, here:</p>
<p>In his 2006 book The Knowledge Deficit, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., points out that reading ability is dominantly influenced by the background knowledge of the reader on the subject being read. </p>
<p>(Hirsch&#8217;s The Knowledge Deficit is, by the way, a far shorter version of his bestselling Cultural Literacy [1987, 2002]. Hirsch founded the Core Knowledge Foundation to try to help America&#8217;s education system to standardize its curricula and pass on the American cultural legacy that a literate person needs to be familiar with to converse intelligently through the broad range discussions in America.)</p>
<p>It&#8217;s just possible that the low-level editors and assistants going through the &#8220;sort pile&#8221; simply weren&#8217;t aware of Jane Austen&#8217;s work. And, of course, it goes without saying that NOT being conversant with Jane Austen&#8217;s work &#8212; even though it&#8217;s British, not American, literature &#8212; is something no one in the book industry would dare to admit, if they could help it.</p>
<p>Not all editors are as literate as they may pose as being, though that may seem practically sacreligious where Jane Austen&#8217;s work is concerned&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Drew</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/comment-page-1/#comment-114223</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Drew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/#comment-114223</guid>
		<description>What most authors don&#039;t realize is how little time publishers actually spend looking at manuscripts.

Last year, according to R.K. Bowker, 291,920 new book titles were published.

Most publishers I have worked with or interviewed have informed me that they receive about 100 manuscripts for every one book they publish.

If even 50% of the 291,920 books published last year were not self-published, but were traditionally published, and publishers are correct that they receive 100 manuscripts for every one book they publish, this means that roughly 14,000,000 manuscripts were sent to publishers last year.

There simply isn&#039;t enough time for publisher to look at and review every manuscript that they are sent. 

Q. What made David Lassman&#039;s book proposal so different that publishers paid more attention to it than to other proposals? 

A. My guess?  Nothing.  David was just lucky to even receive the form letters he did get back.

My experience tells me that most publishers had low-level editors and assistants sorting through the manuscript submissions. They didn&#039;t read most or any of the manuscript and therefore didn&#039;t notice it was plagiarized.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What most authors don&#8217;t realize is how little time publishers actually spend looking at manuscripts.</p>
<p>Last year, according to R.K. Bowker, 291,920 new book titles were published.</p>
<p>Most publishers I have worked with or interviewed have informed me that they receive about 100 manuscripts for every one book they publish.</p>
<p>If even 50% of the 291,920 books published last year were not self-published, but were traditionally published, and publishers are correct that they receive 100 manuscripts for every one book they publish, this means that roughly 14,000,000 manuscripts were sent to publishers last year.</p>
<p>There simply isn&#8217;t enough time for publisher to look at and review every manuscript that they are sent. </p>
<p>Q. What made David Lassman&#8217;s book proposal so different that publishers paid more attention to it than to other proposals? </p>
<p>A. My guess?  Nothing.  David was just lucky to even receive the form letters he did get back.</p>
<p>My experience tells me that most publishers had low-level editors and assistants sorting through the manuscript submissions. They didn&#8217;t read most or any of the manuscript and therefore didn&#8217;t notice it was plagiarized.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffrey Eisenberg</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/comment-page-1/#comment-114125</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey Eisenberg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/#comment-114125</guid>
		<description>Loki, You&#039;re right about the headline.

Rick, I suspect you&#039;re correct about the saleability.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Loki, You&#8217;re right about the headline.</p>
<p>Rick, I suspect you&#8217;re correct about the saleability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rick gregory</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/comment-page-1/#comment-114044</link>
		<dc:creator>rick gregory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 17:21:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/#comment-114044</guid>
		<description>Well, there&#039;s the issue of whether or not they spotted it as Austen&#039;s work... and then there&#039;s the issue of saleability. Would an original novel written in a 19th century style with a 19th century mindset and embodying 19th century mores and settings sell?  My guess is no. Says nothing about Austen as literature, but everything about style. Some things are almost immortal. Others are not</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, there&#8217;s the issue of whether or not they spotted it as Austen&#8217;s work&#8230; and then there&#8217;s the issue of saleability. Would an original novel written in a 19th century style with a 19th century mindset and embodying 19th century mores and settings sell?  My guess is no. Says nothing about Austen as literature, but everything about style. Some things are almost immortal. Others are not</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: loki</title>
		<link>http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/comment-page-1/#comment-113944</link>
		<dc:creator>loki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:57:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grokdotcom.com/2007/07/23/book-publishers-stupider-than-anyone-imagined/#comment-113944</guid>
		<description>i think you&#039;ll find a response along the lines of &#039;most publishers prefer to avoid the accusation of plagiarism so will reply to this sort of thing with a polite &quot;not for us&quot; note and leave it at that.

but then that wouldn&#039;t make you much of a headline, would it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i think you&#8217;ll find a response along the lines of &#8216;most publishers prefer to avoid the accusation of plagiarism so will reply to this sort of thing with a polite &#8220;not for us&#8221; note and leave it at that.</p>
<p>but then that wouldn&#8217;t make you much of a headline, would it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
