I`m reading a WW1 book (on a topic which produces strong pro & anti views) at the moment. I`ve read on forum that there was some difficulty in getting it produced and it made me wonder why. It could simply be that it was thought there wasn`t a market for another book like this. Or maybe the potential producers had had it reviewed, received negative feedback and been put off. If the prevailing orthodoxy on a topic favours a certain approach to a WW1 subject, does that make it any less likely to be produced? Or would the fact that it is an unorthodox view make no difference?

What's the book?

Des

Phil, I think that the sole criterion of whether a book is published will be commercial. Will it make a profit for the publisher? Since many controversial books on all subjects are published, that does not seem to be a drawback to profitability. Quite the reverse.

ly really concerned with the marketability of books -- which may relate to many things .. quality of research being only one ... pseudo-histories sell far more copies than orthodox academic histories .. and doubtless a WWI book which involved an 'unsolved mystery', a 'conspiracy' of some form .. the Holy Grail, Templars and a few pyramids would doubtless have no probem in geting published and probably sell quite well ... as we see on some topics on this Forum, there are plenty of mythical tales from WWI (from angel of Mons to disappearing battallions at gallipoli [spirited away by aliens.?].) which are resilient and will get published.. again and again..

Getting books published has never been easier I would suspect (far more are published every year than before).. publishing serious research which necessarily relates to a niche market (and limited sales..) is rather more problematic ... but much depends on an authors expectations .. and awareness of the merits of their own work (of course claiming to tell a story that was ''too hot too handle' or which 'traditional scholarship conspired to suppress by making sure it didnt get published' is always a good marketing ploy .). I would suggest that there are of course no 'prevailing orthodoxies', to the extent that they can police themselves... or suppress other views..

would also be interested also to know what the book as.. not having read anything really controversial for years ..



I`m reading a WW1 book (on a topic which produces strong pro & anti views) at the moment. I`ve read on forum that there was some difficulty in getting it produced and it made me wonder why. It could simply be that it was thought there wasn`t a market for another book like this. Or maybe the potential producers had had it reviewed, received negative feedback and been put off. If the prevailing orthodoxy on a topic favours a certain approach to a WW1 subject, does that make it any less likely to be produced? Or would the fact that it is an unorthodox view make no difference?
[/quote]

see guidelines - 'as a convention etc...'
but what else can you expect from brass hats

Ken

Phil,

Is it the recent Haig biography?

Regards,
AGWR

You may think that AGWR - I couldn`t possibly comment.
I don`t wish to re-raise discussion on any book that has caused forum disquiet in the past, so I`d like to keep it general. Could a strong "WW1 Establishment" view on a topic make an opposing book more difficult to get produced or might its controversial aspects actually help?

Is there a strong WW1 Establishment? If so, does it have a single view? We have only to look at the wide variety of Haig biographies to see that publishers are willing to risk the disapproval of this hypothetical group and its view.

Either The Times or The Sunday Times had an article about a year ago bemoaning the state of British biography. It claimed that, after the success of The Duchess by Amanda Foreman, publishers were looking for more biographies of glamorous women written by glamorous women. Amanda Foreman wrote a PhD on the Duchess of Devonshire, which she then converted into a commercial biography but some publishers apparently attributed the success of the book to her good looks being used to help sell it and to her subject's lifestyle rather than to the quality of Dr Foreman's research,

The article mentioned a number of biographies that had been cancelled or were struggling to find a publisher, one of which was about Haig. I assume that this is the J.P. Harris work and that any problems that he had in getting it published were the results of publishers' marketing strategies.

In general, how might "marketing strategies" apply to WW1 books? Would it be simply "Will it sell?", in which case, would they canvass opinions of reviewers? If so, the reviewers` feedback, coloured by their own views, becomes a main determinant.

I'm not a reviewer but I don't think it is meant to work that way. This was covered not long ago in another thread. Ideally, a reviewer would comment on the book's strengths and weaknesses and declare his own prejudice if necessary. The whole point of the exercise is to help the publisher decide whether to publish and if so, how. The reviews will decide the strategy.

A company's marketing strategy should be to produce products that they think that customers will buy. In the case of a publisher, this seems to be to publish books that are similar to ones that have sold well recently, thus the newspaper comment that I repeated about The Duchess. In the specific case of Haig, I'd have thought that it would be much easier to get a publisher for a book on him than for one on Robertson or French but much harder than for one about Churchill, Hitler or Henry VIII.