TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Ask The Tropers

Go To

Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help. It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread for ongoing cleanup projects.

Ask the Tropers:

Trope Related Question:

Make Private (For security bugs or stuff only for moderators)

crazysamaritan MOD Since: Apr, 2010
2018-10-17 17:40:02

I agree with the comparison between studios, record labels, book publishers, etc.. I also don't understand why we have these for some mediums and not others.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
StardustSoldier Since: Aug, 2017
2018-10-17 17:45:50

@jamespolk: Why not? I don't see a problem with it personally.

FranksGirl Since: Feb, 2014
2018-10-17 18:33:54

Book publishers aren't as identified with their books as movies and video games are — over the years, books can be printed and reprinted under various publishers. Book publishers are not as intimately bound up with their properties & have little-to-no say in the writing of them. They're not creators at all; the authors are the creators & hold most of the rights to their work.

Movie studios & video games ARE bound up in the creation of their works and have a huge say in their production. For example, if you hear "Beauty & the Beast" or ""Snow White" or "Mulan", you think "Disney"; "Shrek" is Dreamworks, "Toy Story" is Pixar, etc etc.

In contrast, think "Harry Potter" (books) and its creator is JK Rowling, not whatever book publisher she's currently using. "Dark Tower" is Stephen King. "Twilight" is Stephenie Meyer, the Narnia stories are CS Lewis. Most folks don't know/care who the publishing house is; the publisher had no say in those stories' creation. Once the rights run out with their current publishing houses, the authors can choose to reprint with another; if a work's in public domain, multiple publishers can reprint it, yet the author's name on the cover remains the same.

So, no. Publishers shouldn't get creator pages. They aren't creators.

Edited by FranksGirl
StardustSoldier Since: Aug, 2017
2018-10-17 18:44:04

Oh, okay. That makes sense.

What namespace would a book publisher go under then? Or are they even allowed to have pages at all?

Edited by StardustSoldier
crazysamaritan MOD Since: Apr, 2010
2018-10-17 19:17:24

You're showing a lot of bias there, ~Franks Girl. Book publishers sign contracts with the authors Gnome Press link. The publishing companies can be very involved with the process, often employing in-house editors to revise the original author's work into something else, or even commissioning the book in the first place. A House Pseudonym is a "creator" who is actually a series of random authors writing stories for a publishing house.

Publishing companies can hold more rights than the author, if authors sign a contract stating so, Scholastic owns perpetual rights. They have Clifford the Big Red Dog, and is ignoring Author Existence Failure to publish more books as well as adaptations. They have even taken the doggie as their publication mascot/icon.

Book publishers can be rather hands-off, but that's the same thing with Disney. There's the Disney animation studio and the Disney publishing studio, which are two different enterprises. Disney the publishing studio is often the one creating English translations for Hayao Miyazaki, much like Diskotek Media who is usually just republishing works that used to be published by other publishing studios.

In fact, we have All Animation Is Disney for several reasons, most of which relate to the fact that people don't care about whatever studio the director/creator is actually using. Pulp Fiction is Disney, yet I'm fairly certain you didn't think of that.


In conclusion, people/audiences care about the book publishers about as much as they care about movie publishers and record labels. Some people get really invested in them, and most people don't realize who is actually responsible for what in each work.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
nombretomado (Season 1)
2018-10-17 19:42:45

Theoretically, a book publisher is just as worthy of having a Creator page as a movie studio, or a TV production company.

sneakyspook Since: Aug, 2018
2018-10-17 20:21:50

@crazysamaritan Disney hasn't owned Pulp Fiction since 2011, as they sold the whole Miramax film catalogue.

Adding onto my topic, comic book and a few sci-fi publishers have their own pages.

Edited by sneakyspook
FranksGirl Since: Feb, 2014
2018-10-18 02:22:55

Stardust: bias? No, just stating fact. For House Pseudonyms, it's still the ghostwriter who does the work. It's still the "author" name that gets the attention — for example, with a ghostwritten series like the Hardy Boys, people will still say it's by "Franklin Dixon", not whatever publishing co currently holds the rights.

In-house editors don't have much control or creative input. They corrrect mistakes in grammar/continuity/science/etc and suggest cuts and revisions. But editors do NOT do any needed rewriting. They pass it back to the author to make the changes or veto the suggestions. Most authors hold the right to veto the editor suggestions. The author is the one who does the creating & the writing. The author is the one who gets the publicity. The author is the one who holds the overall rights to the book. Yes, there are exceptions (such as longrunning kids series), but overall, the "creator" of most books is the person whose name is on the cover.

Publishing companies are not "creators". The creator is the writer, not the people doing the marketing.

Film studios have tons more creative input on a film than a publishing co has on a book; a movie is very much a group creative effort, from the actors to the directors to the film editors to the score composers etc. Tarantino, Lucas, & Spielburg could not & did not create their films all on their own. A book is very much a one-person creative work.

Edited by FranksGirl
StardustSoldier Since: Aug, 2017
2018-10-18 03:54:12

^It wasn't me who said that. You're responding to crazysamaritan.

crazysamaritan MOD Since: Apr, 2010
2018-10-18 05:47:55

Stardust: bias? No, just stating fact.
A Hem
For House Pseudonym, it's still the ghostwriter who does the work.
I was using that trope to show one of several ways that authors didn't own "most of the rights" to their work, as well as demonstrating that the publishing house had executive control over what went into the work. The ghostwriter may have done the work, but they don't get the money or the credit.
Most authors hold the right to veto the editor suggestions.
Sure, and the same applies to directors. Executives can and have overruled authors/directors without permission. Take a look at magazine editor John W. Campbell; he was a giant in his field, but also a nightmare of an acquiring editor. It was his Creator Thumbprint that formed much of the basis for the Golden Age of Science Fiction. He would also unilaterally add and remove parts of author's works that appeared in his magazines. He was a great editor but not always one who followed good editing practice. While rare, some publishing houses still engage in bad practices, like Harlequin, where it isn't uncommon for the publisher's name to be given more prominence than the author.
Yes, there are exceptions
You made the sweeping claim that publishing studios were creators and publishing houses were not. I'm citing evidence for why publishing studios have a spectrum of effects on the works just like publishing houses do. The exceptions go both ways. Your claim is that Disney had more say over Pulp Fiction than Harlequin had on Afraid to Love, that the Disney label affected sales of that film more than the Harlequin label affected sales of that novel.
Film studios have tons more creative input on a film than a publishing co has on a book;
No, a publishing house (usually) gets final say on what gets published, not the author. Protection from Editors is when the author is prominent enough that the balance of power shifts and the director/author/creator isn't given oversight (read the Quotes subpage; some great lines about this and very few Novelists, despite the description).
A book is very much a one-person creative work.
Myth. There's a reason why Dedications tend to list names, and certain authors, like Piers Anthony, describe how other people helped influence the story.

Edited by crazysamaritan Link to TRS threads in project mode here.
GnomeTitan Since: Aug, 2013
2018-10-18 07:18:49

It seems reasonable that at least some publishers merit creator pages. Harlequin seems like a good example.

LordGro (Old as dirt)
2018-10-18 08:34:30

Book publishers also are creators in regard to how books are marketed and physically designed. Book covers are absolutely tropable. So are blurbs, press releases, advertisements.

I guess the value of a Creator/ page for a publisher depends on whether it actually tropes things that are in the responsibility of the publisher (as opposed to that of the authors). A page that contains nothing but a list of books published by a certain publisher would indeed be redundant.

Top