Talk:Baen Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For arguments against merger, see Talk:Baen's Bar. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:10, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising copy

I regret to say that this page reads as no more than advertising copy. I have replaced it with a neutral and factual description of this publisher. I apologise that this is a drastic revision.

David91

[edit] 2 Things.

1. The "Market for SF" section: does that section belong in this article at all?
2. Who was the "liberal author" that switched publishers due to Jim Baen's politics? If that statement's to stay, I believe it should specify who the author was (linking as "liberal [[article about author|author]] would be fine), in addition to having a source cited.

The Literate Engineer 05:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As to your first question, the figures are included to show more precisely the scale of Baen's publishing activities. I think that it is encyclopaedic to say how many books per year the publisher produces and how this compares with others in the genre field in which they specialise. As to the second, I think it is relevant to identify a political bias implicit in the works published. Militaristic material which emphasises a heroic role for the soldier tends to be more right than left wing. Hence, I think it is relevant to say that this editorial preference has led to an author moving to another publisher. However, identifying that author is more problematic. The page is inclusively about the publisher and the authors who are published under that imprint. Actual and potential fans therefore know the common theme running through all that work and can decide whether to make further investigation of the website to read the sample materials provided. To that extent, this and all other comparable pages are a form of advertising. However, identifying a person who prefered not to be published does not fit because:

• the inuendo is that this author publishes left rather than right wing material which may alienate some existing or potential readers. So while not directly defamatory, it may nevertheless be damaging to that person's readership base.

Under the circumstances, I prefer not to name this author to avoid possible legal problems. The information was published in an authoritative, but small circulation, periodical which is, for the most part, read only by interested specialists. Under the circumstances, you may think it appropriate simply to delete the sentence and I will not object. David91 02:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I would leave the sentence, as there is more than one author who has left Baen Books due to Jim Baen's personal political persuasion, mostly from 2004 to early 2006. If anything, I would change the sentence to read "more than one" or "several" and change the noun to the plural. Editrx 03:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge suggestion

Merge, please. There's a big section of the e-book article that expands on Baen's contributions to e-book publishing, which I think would be more appropriate here. I believe it puts way too much focus on one vendor to belong in the e-book entry. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is consider: (Obituary to Jim Baen[1])

This death was news to me (Mostly on wikibreak), but much of what is there is said well briefly by this professional writer. Repeat: e-publishing has been a costly waste of effort for others, which is what that section is all about in contrast to all the cryptocrap of the rest of the industry. But feel free to clean it up. My prose is hardly ever precious! <g> // FrankB 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite Needed, {{Fact}} applied

Unfortunately, at least one author has disagreed with the universally-applied electronic rights policy of Baen, under past contract restrictions, and as such removed backlist and any future books from the publisher.

1. For starters, the Prime Palavar essays in the Baen Free Library directly contradict this statement. So does Drakes eulogy, which notes the influence the Free Library had on sales... which any sane author would love. The problem in the arts is always to be noticed, as is amply documented in Prime Palavar #11, which is by a musician, not Flint.
2. Assuming good faith, or mere misinformation, when such is to be added, the writer ought to be mentioned with a cite or two supporting whether that was what the dispute was about, plus a name. Otherwise it's POV all over again, just like the slimey press.
3. I haven't got the leisure time to run down who you were, so I'll give it a week or so hoping you'll see this.
4. The only writer I know to have left Baen was Leo Frankowski, over an arguement as to whether his Mary-sue's were the quality the Jim Baen expected after a generous advance and republishing some of the Cross-Time Engineer series in expensive hardcover versions, albeit as omnibus editions.

In sum, essentially, Jim fired him, unless he wrote less schtick and more quality into his work. // FrankB 23:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the author in question may be Elizabeth Moon; I was reading her SFFnet newsgroup way back around the time of the original Free Library and Webscriptions coming out, and she was highly critical of the practice of publishing the books without DRM protection; her ebooks come out through eReader now. But this was at the very beginning, before there was time for much of the proof that was covered in the Prime Palavers to be accrued. One other author, Lois McMaster Bujold, is cited in the early New York Times article in the links section as being highly dubious of giving books away for free--but several years later even she jumped on the bandwagon, adding her Mountains of Mourning novella to the Free Library. I do know of at least one other author who left Baen in a huff, but it was for reasons having nothing to do with Webscriptions and she has not pulled her books. --Robotech_Master 14:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can affirm the citation of Elizabeth Moon leaving for reasons of the ebook distribution model. Same for explanation of Leo Frankowski. Though Jim also "fired" John Dalmas, but for no reason cited other than he didn't want any more of his books in the future. (To be fair, this was as Jim was apparently having ministrokes towards the end. He argued with just about everyone in the last 9 months of his life, including Spider Robinson and others.) (from: Baen production manager & prepress producer for Baen, 1989-2005) Editrx 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More refs?

The NYT article is quite interesting, but it is from 2001. Are there any other articles (news or academic), or even books, mentioning Baen's stroy (and how is it doing)? Even some press releases or postings from Baen itself would be useful.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] out of e-books

the above discussion in many ways makes it clear that this is a publisher of specialized interests, albeit in a field where the WP is very strong. (and a field I like, for that matter--I don't think any prejudice is involved) Let the afficionados debate the details of who it was who got hired and fired, and deal with the qy of whether this is advertising. DGG 05:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If no one objects,

I assume consensus for removeal from ebooks. I'll leave a link. This article is more than sufficient. DGG 06:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done the deletion, and left more than a link-- I have excerpted one paragraph & put it in an appropriate place, where people can also add other notable publishers in special fields. Baen will make an excellent prototype for the others.

I hope the knowledgable will change the wording to more appropriately represent the publisher, if I have not got it quite right. They're the experts!. DGG 06:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Founding of Baen Books

Would anyone object if I more accurately edited this to read that Jim started the company "with the collabortion and financial backing" of some friends? The company isn't solely owned: there are three stockholders to this day, which is why it was far more accurate to say that Toni Weisskopf was "appointed" publisher -- it had to be voted on by the stockholders. --Editrx 18:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advance Reader Copy?

Why does the ARC entry redirect here, and is that really appropriate? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for Advance Reader Copy to redirect to Advance copy instead? 65.25.107.20 15:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)