Thanks for the eye-opener. I did not know that many of the errors one finds in technical books are introduced in the editorial process. Nor did I know that the publishers are not strong on things like diagrams and cover art. It sounds like I might do better working out the kinks in my Visio diagrams imported into Word, than relying on a publisher to be able to do a better job. I was thinking of using one of my nice-looking Visio diagrams as cover art, perhaps jazzing that one up with color.
I don't care about getting an advance up front. If my book of CCIE lab advice and scenarios with detailed explanations (like Hutnik and Saterlee CCIE Lab Practice Kit) is of high quality, it will sell pretty well. The key, for me, is to make sure that it is of high quality. A few errors on crucial points can render an otherwise great technical book untrustworthy. I have caught some errors in my first three scenarios, and will probably find some in the next draft, too. The key to good writing is rewriting, I have been told. The only reason left for submitting a book to a big name publisher is to be able to say "I have a book published by Big Publisher, Inc." For someone without an established name or reputation, that is still something, but your post changes the whole cost/benefit analysis. I will have my hands full correcting my own mistakes, without having to fix the mistakes of editors. Thanks, Tom Larus, CCIE #10,014 Oppenheimer"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Black Jack wrote: > > > > That is very interesting. Can you give us a little more > > background about how your relationship with your publisher went > > so badly wrong? > > Sounds like I exaggerated a bit. :-) It didn't go that wrong. The publisher > says that the problems are all related to the economic downturn. I have my > doubts, though. > > Cisco Press is still doing well. Of course, they have that vendor name on > their books which helps I'm sure. > > People aren't buying books, supposedly. Are you? :-) Just wondering... > > > I for one know very little about how > > publisher-author deals work and would like to hear more, it > > it's not too painful to relate! > > I can't tell you about my specific deal, but I can explain the process a > little bit. > > A writer works with an acquisitions editor. An acquisitions editor is a > sales person with extremely good negotiation skills. He or she sells the > author on the idea of working with the publisher. He or she also works with > the publisher's legal department to produce a contract that has everything > in the pusblisher's favor: > > * No actual promises with regards to publishing, marketing or distributing > the book > > * Exclusive rights which means that even if they do an awful job, the author > can't use the content for anything else > > * Requirement that you give your next book to them too (I refuse to sign > that one, though) > > * Royalties that range a lot from publisher to publisher, anywhere from 8% > to 19% of the sale on each book, based on the price that the publisher gives > to the book reseller, which is much lower than the price that the reader pays > > * Gazillions of exceptions to the royalties, with a lower rate for > internatainal sales, online sales, etc. etc. > > * An advance on the royalties, ranging from $1000 to $15,000 for a really > good publisher (this is one of the good things they do :-) > > Of course, as with everything, the author gets what he or she negotiates, > but a lot of us aren't very good negotiators. That's why many authors work > with an agent. > > Oh, and did I mention that you shouldn't expect the publisher to do a good > job with the things that you think of when you think "publisher" including > editing, figure drawing (they insist on redrawing the figures), copy for the > back of the book, copy for Amazon and other marketing materials. Many of > them do an awful job with these tasks. Look at all the mistakes in the > books. In most cases they weren't introduced by the author. The author is > supposed to catch them with the "page proofs" but that's much harder than it > sounds, and sometimes the errors get introduced after the page proofs. > > Just the other day I was reading a really good book about voice. The author > said something about the DSPs in Cisco routers that do the analog-to-digital > conversion and other tasks. DSP was spelled out as "domain specific part." > An editor at work. > > I had an editor who tried to change "powers of two" to "groups of two?" An > editor working in the computer industry didn't understand the powers of > two!? And that is par for the course. > > Now, I do have to say that the editors of Top-Down Network Design did a > great job. The only mistakes that really drive me nuts are in the index, > which they didn't have me proof. I hate the fact that they spelled on LFN as > long filename in the index, when the page that uses the acronym uses it to > refer to Long Fat Networks. And they put "top-down network" in the index > with lots of references. What the heck is a top-down network? > > With Troubleshooting Campus Networks, a lot of the mistakes were because I > didn't page proof well enough, I have to admit. I assumed they had done a > good job, which they hadn't. But they did a great index, on the other hand. > > So there you have way more info than you probably wanted! :-) > > Priscilla > > > > > > > > Obviously I made a big mistake in choice of publisher, but who > > > could have known? They are one of the most prestigious > > > publishers. But their motto is: > > > > > > "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear > > it, > > > it doesn't matter. At least the other forests didn't get the > > > tree." > > > > > > Am I bitter? You bet. I was swindled. > > > > > > Priscilla Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71596&t=71462 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
