Submitted by Litwit, Mar 8, 2008 09:29

People have such weird ideas about how publishing works. The many books that don't work commercially, are supported by those that do. Harry Potter underwrites a whole lot of failure, but even books that succeed less dramatically, cover the losses--though historically, at a profit percentage that is well under 10%. Trade publishing has always been a difficult business, and nearly everyone I've met who does it, does it because they love books and the book business, not because they are making vast profits. Which is why many a corporate owner has ended up wanting to unload the publishing division. And which is why Kit Prate's paranoid aspersions about devious publishers selling rights behind authors' backs just doesn't ring true to me. I worked for one really bad publisher once, but its misbehavior (delays in payments, minuscule advances, publishing books badly, not listening to what authors wanted by way of title or jacket) was related to its publisher's stupidity and its own cash flow problems, and it went out of business a decade ago. As to 'never seeing a royalty statement' or unauthorized foreign editions: If a writer has a contract, not ever seeing a royalty statement is a breach of contract and the writer should go to the author's guild and find representation if he or she does not have a literary agent. You see royalty statements, even if they show no royalties due. The existence of pirated foreign editions is commonplace and frustrating. But reputable publishers don't secretly sell foreign rights. They money they make from foreign rights is in most cases, not enough to support the staff necessary to sell those rights unless the company is big enough, such that illegally exploiting its authors en masse, would be a self-destructive and quickly detected business practice.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.