[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff S

since you asked, Julie,

I won't dispute that McF publishes many good things, and further, that McF publishes scholarly books on many very specialized subjects that wouldn't get published otherwise. I'd imagine that's also the case in McF's other divisions.

But, largely because McF publishes so much, and because the target market is so small (largely libraries), each book gets very little editorial time and attention. In the McF books where the author has been extremely careful, there are quite a few errors and typos. In the McF books where the author has been sloppy, it can verge on embarrassment.

With non-fiction, one can be a little forgiving -- we don't always expect brilliant, finely-honed prose from non-fiction writers (though it is welcome). And for me, anyway, one of the more valuable parts of a scholarly non-fiction book is the bibliography, and even bad books have those most of the time.

On the other hand, I don't have the same patience for a poorly written (and/or edited) historical novel. I suspect you would agree, Julie, that many--if not most--novels are just not very good. While I may miss out on a good book now and then, or have to wait until somebody recommends it to me, I don't bother taking chances with novels from a press that isn't very selective and doesn't do a whole lot to improve upon the submissions it receives.

Just to repeat, though, I do value McFarland's contribution to the world's baseball library. I just don't take note of the fiction they publish.

Jeff
(afraid that the speed at which he accumulates friends is slowing...)