LickTheStar
Sad Flower in the Sand
Just received my HB of Portions and I did notice that there's nothing to indicate "First Edition" or "limited to 1000 copies" but... I'll keep the whining to a minimum! ;)
Thoughts on Editions and Editors
- Thread starter LickTheStar
- Start date
I thought the same. would of been nice. but, ah well. only in a perfect world...
really? I understood that this was a Limited edition with only 1000 printed. and while on the subject, could someone tell me what is the difference in a first edition with multible printings and a second (3rd,4th,ect.) edition?
planahea
RIP
Portions...
Editions have revisions/changes from the previous edition. Printings are the number of times a publisher has gone back to press for more copies of the same edition. Independent publishers tend to do small initial print runs for economic reasons, so when one of their books sells well they could end up doing multiple printings of the first edition. If there are corrections to text or other changes made between any printings that becomes a new edition from the publisher and the number of printings start over for that edition,e.g., second edition and first printing. And so on and on...
If you are Bob Woodward and S&S is publishing your latest book which is due out today, it's first edition may have a first print run of 10,000,000 copies. Just imagine that for yourself! ;)
The down side is that first edition will never become a collectible in our lifetime, but somehow I don't think Woodward cares.
I do think CLB missed an opportunity for a fine limited edition. Perhaps for the next volume, and Garrett Caples said they are doing volume II, they could get John Martin to do an interesting brief introduction or commentary and have him sign a limited edition of the book. Maybe 250 copies or more at a premium list price with a reduced price for prepublication orders paid for in advance. ARE YOU LISTENING GARRETT? :D
Garrett, you do understand I am offering this expert marketing consultation gratis?
Any of those ARCs still available?
Huh?
Editions have revisions/changes from the previous edition. Printings are the number of times a publisher has gone back to press for more copies of the same edition. Independent publishers tend to do small initial print runs for economic reasons, so when one of their books sells well they could end up doing multiple printings of the first edition. If there are corrections to text or other changes made between any printings that becomes a new edition from the publisher and the number of printings start over for that edition,e.g., second edition and first printing. And so on and on...
If you are Bob Woodward and S&S is publishing your latest book which is due out today, it's first edition may have a first print run of 10,000,000 copies. Just imagine that for yourself! ;)
The down side is that first edition will never become a collectible in our lifetime, but somehow I don't think Woodward cares.
I do think CLB missed an opportunity for a fine limited edition. Perhaps for the next volume, and Garrett Caples said they are doing volume II, they could get John Martin to do an interesting brief introduction or commentary and have him sign a limited edition of the book. Maybe 250 copies or more at a premium list price with a reduced price for prepublication orders paid for in advance. ARE YOU LISTENING GARRETT? :D
Garrett, you do understand I am offering this expert marketing consultation gratis?
Any of those ARCs still available?
Huh?
planahea
RIP
I suppose I should have also mentioned revised printings/editions. On one occasion Buk did not like the editorial changes John Martin made in one of his books, so JM changed the text back to what Buk had originally written for the next printing. That changed printing became a revised printing. There is more to the story, but this serves as an example of a revised printing/edition.
Rekrab, I feel so much better now. Thanks for the encouraging tale.
(I wonder if David pulls the wings off flies and then let's 'em go.)
Rekrab, I feel so much better now. Thanks for the encouraging tale.
(I wonder if David pulls the wings off flies and then let's 'em go.)
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Hi,
I have seen sellers call much later printings first editions. While they are technically correct, I guess, a 1st edition, 23rd printing that was 20 years after the original press run is NOT collectable as a first. Still I see people listing them that way.
This question is for Planahea as he is an expert (although anyone can jump in and answer). If the true 1st/1st of BSP editions have a colophon page and the next printing does not, does this qualify as a change to the edition? In other words, if they changed the text by removing the colophon, how can the next printing still be considered a 1st/2nd? It should be a second edition. The same with the color page for the true first. If they change the color of the title page, does this count? What about the "also by Charles Bukowski" page?
It really bugs me when I see a copy of Burning in Water (1974) that is a 2000 HB printing referred to as a first edition. 26 years and 20 printings does not seem to make a first edition. Some sellers will say 1st edition/20th printing, which I think is silly. Others will just call it a first edition.
Thanks,
Bill
p.s. Sorry, but I may have taken us off-topic.
I have seen sellers call much later printings first editions. While they are technically correct, I guess, a 1st edition, 23rd printing that was 20 years after the original press run is NOT collectable as a first. Still I see people listing them that way.
This question is for Planahea as he is an expert (although anyone can jump in and answer). If the true 1st/1st of BSP editions have a colophon page and the next printing does not, does this qualify as a change to the edition? In other words, if they changed the text by removing the colophon, how can the next printing still be considered a 1st/2nd? It should be a second edition. The same with the color page for the true first. If they change the color of the title page, does this count? What about the "also by Charles Bukowski" page?
It really bugs me when I see a copy of Burning in Water (1974) that is a 2000 HB printing referred to as a first edition. 26 years and 20 printings does not seem to make a first edition. Some sellers will say 1st edition/20th printing, which I think is silly. Others will just call it a first edition.
Thanks,
Bill
p.s. Sorry, but I may have taken us off-topic.
planahea
RIP
Hi Bill,
Yes, it is technically correct to refer to a 20th printing as a first edition if the original edition has not been altered in any consequential manner and the original publisher is releasing that printing. Otherwise, it's a reprint if another publisher releases it. I would personally never consider any such modern book as a collectible item, but I'm picky. If you noticed on my book collection inventory, I have both edition and printing noted for all hardcover and paperback trade books. I hated it when I had to acknowledge on the inventory that a particular trade paperback was an 8th printing and I still may just give it away to someone. Second printings and beyond, like too much salt, spoil the soup. Virtually all true limited editions speak for themselves as to edition with a limitation or colophon page or at least they should. As a publisher, you already know there is no codifying of the edition/printing practices. It is mostly based on tradition and a supposed convention. It would be nice if there were only one standard that all publishers followed. I still chuckle to this day over an old limited edition I have that is noted as a "Salesmans' Specimen Copy" instead of "Presentation Copy." Do you think the sales copy is worth more? ;)
The color title pages of BSP books are entirely idiosyncratic with John Martin and do not effect the textual content of the edition any more than changing a sepia tone photograph to monochrome, as some publishers do to save money, changes the edition. Again, as there is no agreed upon standard in the industry, I suppose there are some old curmudgeons who might argue otherwise. Those colored title pages sure make it easier on we collectors. So I'm grateful to JM for that bit of imaginative book making.
Now for that tricky question re BSP colophon pages. (Watch out for slippery obfuscation here!) :p Does the colophon page constitute a component part of the book just as a dust jacket does? If the answer is yes, then the edition has been changed. If the answer is no, the edition is unchanged and the above rationale re colored title pages and photographs applies. Please recall that JM removed his editorial changes to a Buk book, thereby restoring Buks original words, but the copyright page of that edition or printing, your choice, now merely states "revised printing" not 2nd printing or 2nd edition. So we are back to that lack of accepted industry standards problem once again. My personal opinion is that a colophon page is a component part of the book and when it is removed it changes the edition. When my turn comes to remake the world, I will make that a publishing law. Until then, don't you just love the wide spread confusion and strong individuality expressed in our industry, even when it pisses you off?
As to what really bugs you re Burning in Water, the answer is in the opening sentence of your post. It is technically correct.
What really bugs me is when David R. Godine, Publisher "reprints" an old BSP title and because the text is unchanged it is referred to as a 1st edition. That damn lack of standards once again biting the posterior.
Whew, that's it for now. If you didn't produce such beautiful books I would not have taken this much time. American publishing needs more like you!
Kindest regards,
Bill
P.S. Now I will take an afternoon nap after my overlong answer to your off
off topic question.
How many members do you think we bored? :rolleyes:
Yes, it is technically correct to refer to a 20th printing as a first edition if the original edition has not been altered in any consequential manner and the original publisher is releasing that printing. Otherwise, it's a reprint if another publisher releases it. I would personally never consider any such modern book as a collectible item, but I'm picky. If you noticed on my book collection inventory, I have both edition and printing noted for all hardcover and paperback trade books. I hated it when I had to acknowledge on the inventory that a particular trade paperback was an 8th printing and I still may just give it away to someone. Second printings and beyond, like too much salt, spoil the soup. Virtually all true limited editions speak for themselves as to edition with a limitation or colophon page or at least they should. As a publisher, you already know there is no codifying of the edition/printing practices. It is mostly based on tradition and a supposed convention. It would be nice if there were only one standard that all publishers followed. I still chuckle to this day over an old limited edition I have that is noted as a "Salesmans' Specimen Copy" instead of "Presentation Copy." Do you think the sales copy is worth more? ;)
The color title pages of BSP books are entirely idiosyncratic with John Martin and do not effect the textual content of the edition any more than changing a sepia tone photograph to monochrome, as some publishers do to save money, changes the edition. Again, as there is no agreed upon standard in the industry, I suppose there are some old curmudgeons who might argue otherwise. Those colored title pages sure make it easier on we collectors. So I'm grateful to JM for that bit of imaginative book making.
Now for that tricky question re BSP colophon pages. (Watch out for slippery obfuscation here!) :p Does the colophon page constitute a component part of the book just as a dust jacket does? If the answer is yes, then the edition has been changed. If the answer is no, the edition is unchanged and the above rationale re colored title pages and photographs applies. Please recall that JM removed his editorial changes to a Buk book, thereby restoring Buks original words, but the copyright page of that edition or printing, your choice, now merely states "revised printing" not 2nd printing or 2nd edition. So we are back to that lack of accepted industry standards problem once again. My personal opinion is that a colophon page is a component part of the book and when it is removed it changes the edition. When my turn comes to remake the world, I will make that a publishing law. Until then, don't you just love the wide spread confusion and strong individuality expressed in our industry, even when it pisses you off?
As to what really bugs you re Burning in Water, the answer is in the opening sentence of your post. It is technically correct.
What really bugs me is when David R. Godine, Publisher "reprints" an old BSP title and because the text is unchanged it is referred to as a 1st edition. That damn lack of standards once again biting the posterior.
Whew, that's it for now. If you didn't produce such beautiful books I would not have taken this much time. American publishing needs more like you!
Kindest regards,
Bill
P.S. Now I will take an afternoon nap after my overlong answer to your off
off topic question.
How many members do you think we bored? :rolleyes:
mjp
Founding member
Well, you are referring to Women, of course, and we have noted a lot of the changes in other threads here. But if there is "more to the story" than we know, I am going to have to twist your arm to come out with it!
Rekrab
Usually wrong.
I wouldn't call removing a colophon a new edition -- only a significant textual change or the addition / deletion of an intro -- that sort of thing. A colophon is, to me anyway, like a dj blurb or the stuff on the copyright page -- minor details of publication that aren't a part of the author's text. The same text from a new publisher I would call a new edition. But that's just my thinking.
mjp
Founding member
If it's criticism of Martin, you're too late. ;)
https://bukowskiforum.com/index.php?threads/women.1968/
mjp
Founding member
I guess it depends on how you define "editing."
I am the most vocal critic of Martin's heavy hand around here, and unapologetically so. His changes to Women were ham-fisted creative writing 101 bullshit. As I read the first edition after having read Bukowski's version a few times, Martin's changes stood out like dozens of sore thumbs. You don't have to go to Krumhansl to get the page numbers of the changes, you can smell them (besides, AK missed some in his list).
And since we're on the subject, I think he ought to be horse whipped for his changes to The Crunch (I don't care how old he is), and who knows how many other hundreds of Bukowski poems he "improved" by ripping the balls off of them and substituting his tea-party sappiness.
Anyway, I changed my mind. I don't need to hear any "inside" story regarding Women, unless it came from Bukowski. Martin has had many years to hone and justify his asinine changes, and I'm sure he comes out smelling like a rose if he ever has to discuss it (which I'm equally sure he avoids whenever possible).
Not that I have a strong opinion on it or anything...
I don't diminish Martin's accomplishments. I believe I have praised him just as much as I have taken issue with him. But I will not be standing in line to bestow sainthood on him.
I am the most vocal critic of Martin's heavy hand around here, and unapologetically so. His changes to Women were ham-fisted creative writing 101 bullshit. As I read the first edition after having read Bukowski's version a few times, Martin's changes stood out like dozens of sore thumbs. You don't have to go to Krumhansl to get the page numbers of the changes, you can smell them (besides, AK missed some in his list).
And since we're on the subject, I think he ought to be horse whipped for his changes to The Crunch (I don't care how old he is), and who knows how many other hundreds of Bukowski poems he "improved" by ripping the balls off of them and substituting his tea-party sappiness.
Anyway, I changed my mind. I don't need to hear any "inside" story regarding Women, unless it came from Bukowski. Martin has had many years to hone and justify his asinine changes, and I'm sure he comes out smelling like a rose if he ever has to discuss it (which I'm equally sure he avoids whenever possible).
Not that I have a strong opinion on it or anything...
I don't diminish Martin's accomplishments. I believe I have praised him just as much as I have taken issue with him. But I will not be standing in line to bestow sainthood on him.
cirerita
Founding member
We all know that Martin edited B's fiction for the worse, but no one knows for sure who made the changes to B's poetry. As I said in some other thread, B. complained about Martin changes re. his fiction, but I've never read a single complaint about Martin changing his poems, and that should tell us something.
mjp
Founding member
I unexpectedly received a copy of the trade softcover of Portions today (thanks again Garrett), and ironically, packed in a mere padded envelope, it arrived in pristine condition.
The hardcover I paid for on the other hand, arrived in a bag the size of a football, most of the packing being bubble wrap. But for some inexplicable reason the bubble wrap was only sealed on three sides, so the book, naturally, partially slipped out during shipping. The end that slipped out did not fare well.
But what the hell. It didn't ruin my day, but it was areal head-scratcher. One more piece of tape folks.
The hardcover I paid for on the other hand, arrived in a bag the size of a football, most of the packing being bubble wrap. But for some inexplicable reason the bubble wrap was only sealed on three sides, so the book, naturally, partially slipped out during shipping. The end that slipped out did not fare well.
But what the hell. It didn't ruin my day, but it was areal head-scratcher. One more piece of tape folks.
Here's one: Compare the three versions of the crunch. Tell me if you honestly believe that Bukowski is responsible for all of the language in the last one.
billy flannery. he was magnificent. got a bit on his shoes, but he didn't care. pissed into a beer bottle at 50 yards. jesus, it was beautiful.
died in a port-a-potty a few years ago on a job site. it was hit by a wrecking ball.
how's that for irony.
cirerita
Founding member
mjp said:
I'm not sure, it could be B. having fun, who knows?
When I said that I haven't read a single complaint about Martin changing his poems, I obviously meant by Bukowski, not by us readers. I've read hundreds and hundreds of unpublished Bukowski letters, and Bukowski never complains about Martin changes when it comes to his poetry, while he does complain a lot about the changes made to his fiction.
mjp
Founding member
Yeah, me.
Actually, it's a funny story -- I could sense that I was about to lose the contest, I could just feel it, you know? So with my free hand I reached back and pulled an Italian switchblade out of my pocket, hit the button and stabbed the other fucker hard in the small of the back. I was aiming for a kidney but I think I was too close to the spine so all I got was maybe a corner of the pancreas at best. It was enough though, because he quit right there on the spot (you couldn't really blame him).
So there. Now you can say you know someone who won a pissing contest.
Sure.
Maybe just for fun he used a lot of completely uncharacteristic language to alter many of his decades old, established, heartfelt works.
Then he marked the new manuscripts with big gold stars and set them aside in a shoebox in the attic and said, "I had nothing better to do, so I spent the last few months really improving these! But don't publish them until I've been buried for several years!"
Yep, that's probably what happened. How stupid of me to think otherwise.
cirerita
Founding member
Well, what can I say? If you think Martin is responsible for the changes in poetry as well, that's certainly up to you. I'm just saying that I wouldn't be so sure, and I'm also saying that Bukowski never complained about Martin changing his poetry. Maybe that's not important in your equation, but it is in mine.
Bukowski made fun of his own style (and style in general) in many poems, though I don't think he was actually having fun in "The Crunch (2)". It reads to me like an early or discarded draft or something.
Yes, an early draft. Bukowski did revise. He didn't spend a lifetime over a ten liner, but he did revise much more than what's commonly held. If you ever take a look at the old MSS, you'll see what I mean.
But maybe it's not a discarded draft, and someone did change the original poem as it appeared in The Second Coming to make it, huh, sappier. And that is indeed stupid.
In any case, I think it's quite obvious that B. revised this poem more than once. What about the version which appears in Love Is a Dog from Hell, with the "new" hopeful ending? Was that also Martin's hand? In my opinion, Bukowski wrote the 3 versions (or a single version with several changes), and Martin could have changed a word here and there in the TWO book versions.
Bukowski made fun of his own style (and style in general) in many poems, though I don't think he was actually having fun in "The Crunch (2)". It reads to me like an early or discarded draft or something.
Yes, an early draft. Bukowski did revise. He didn't spend a lifetime over a ten liner, but he did revise much more than what's commonly held. If you ever take a look at the old MSS, you'll see what I mean.
But maybe it's not a discarded draft, and someone did change the original poem as it appeared in The Second Coming to make it, huh, sappier. And that is indeed stupid.
In any case, I think it's quite obvious that B. revised this poem more than once. What about the version which appears in Love Is a Dog from Hell, with the "new" hopeful ending? Was that also Martin's hand? In my opinion, Bukowski wrote the 3 versions (or a single version with several changes), and Martin could have changed a word here and there in the TWO book versions.
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
and I love a good smart ass, a real good one like Mr planahea.;)
I have to admit that I have had a shit-eaten grin on my face for most of the evening; having read this interchange from some of Buk.net's finest. Keep it up. We love the dialogue.
Gerard K H Love
Appreciate your friends
Please don't eat shit and please don't smile when you eat it.
Someone needs to make a smilies (to the right) to be a shit eating grin.
Someone needs to make a smilies (to the right) to be a shit eating grin.
cirerita
Founding member
Well, I guess you've noticed there are some opinionated characters on this board, haven't you?
planahea
RIP
In My Humble Opinion
cirerita, I too was once arrogant and abrasive in my opinions, but I have since risen far above that character defect. :rolleyes:
(psst, hey Gerard, is the above smart ass comment enough for you? Or should I try even harder? ;) )
(Purple Stickpin, you are right this is far too much fun to let it go. Join in!)
cirerita, I too was once arrogant and abrasive in my opinions, but I have since risen far above that character defect. :rolleyes:
(psst, hey Gerard, is the above smart ass comment enough for you? Or should I try even harder? ;) )
(Purple Stickpin, you are right this is far too much fun to let it go. Join in!)
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
anyone notice me staying out of the fray?
i'm just sayin....
i'm just sayin....