09-09-2009, 08:41 AM
I think "Osprey" is just one aspect of a larger problem. Desktop publishing has allowed the rise of many new publishing houses. Competition has increased; anyone can now publish anything. The publishers' response is usually twofold: either they are clustering (and there is a theory that within the near future, only some ten big players will remain worldwide), or you try to cut on the costs. One way to reduce the costs is producing standardized books (e.g., not allowing correction in the reprints); another is to fire the final editor and your scientific/scholarly advisor.
Here in Holland, the situation is pretty hopeless. One ancient historian sort of dominates the market, but he is not above making 250 factuals errors in 300 pages. We used to have a series that wanted to do better (and they did), but their books were way too expensive. Then there are some vulgarizers who use Asterix to propagate stereotypes. I am now reading a nice book by Hans Teitler on Julian the Apostate, and am surprised that here I finally meet a Dutch ancient historian who (a) has his facts right; (b) produces a book at a reasonable price; © is not simplifying scholarship, but taking his readers up to scholarship. But he's the exception.
I think that this also applies to the British market, and to Osprey. Competition is fierce, there is no money for external advisors, and the result is as good as the authors. The Osprey books I own are usually good, although I am happy to own a book that is so unquestionably bad that it has some charms of its own, like Plan Nine from Outer Space.
If we want to improve the situation, we should diminish competition. If the universities would collaborate and create one single publishing house, much could be gained; besides, the profits would not go to the share holders, but to scholarship and science again. (This brilliant idea is actually Jasper's.)
Here in Holland, the situation is pretty hopeless. One ancient historian sort of dominates the market, but he is not above making 250 factuals errors in 300 pages. We used to have a series that wanted to do better (and they did), but their books were way too expensive. Then there are some vulgarizers who use Asterix to propagate stereotypes. I am now reading a nice book by Hans Teitler on Julian the Apostate, and am surprised that here I finally meet a Dutch ancient historian who (a) has his facts right; (b) produces a book at a reasonable price; © is not simplifying scholarship, but taking his readers up to scholarship. But he's the exception.
I think that this also applies to the British market, and to Osprey. Competition is fierce, there is no money for external advisors, and the result is as good as the authors. The Osprey books I own are usually good, although I am happy to own a book that is so unquestionably bad that it has some charms of its own, like Plan Nine from Outer Space.
If we want to improve the situation, we should diminish competition. If the universities would collaborate and create one single publishing house, much could be gained; besides, the profits would not go to the share holders, but to scholarship and science again. (This brilliant idea is actually Jasper's.)
