Talk:Trade paperback

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Disambiguation

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Untitled[edit]

Too much stuff about comics here. The TPB was already in use many years before comic books hijacked the term with the wrong usage. --Pc13 11:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This whole conglomeration is suspect[edit]

re:

Trade paperbacks were once used primarily for special editions, but for many literary titles trade paperbacks have now replaced regular paperbacks as the format for a book's subsequent release once its hardcover edition has been discontinued. Generally, regular pocket-sized paperbacks are now used only for popular and genre fiction titles. For new writers publishing their first works, a trade paperback may even be the sole format of a book's release.

This looks more applicable to mass market paperbacks than TPB's.
'New' authors are more likely to only appear in Mpb
TPB take over from hardcover almost never happens, unless is an extraordinary bestseller like the Harry Potter books. Even Tom Clancy hardly ever has a TPB printing (if ever).
TPB's are usually limited editions by specialty publishers. Or so 51-8 years as a bilophile tell me. Best regards, // FrankB 05:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

==

FrankB, I think you are missing the point here. Yes, mass Market paperbacks *are* still in use for genre (or "pulp") fiction like Sci-fi, Mystery, and Military/Spy thrillers (as your Clancy example shows), but the point is that they simply are no longer in use for literary fiction, even if the publisher is large like Random House. Try getting Updike or Marquez in Mass Market Paperbacks these days. This wasn't always the case, of course: as late as the 1970s even literary authors were published in pocket paperbacks. And it *is* quite common for new "literary" authors to be published in (trade) paperback originals -- a recent example was Alice Greenway's "White Ghost Girls". // Jonathan

Even in genre, some books go from hardback to trade paperback and may not have a mass-market paperback edition for a long while if ever. Most of Gene Wolfe's recent novels and collections, for instance (arguably an overlap of sf with "literary" fiction). The Tor Orb imprint consists of sf novels and collections in trade paperback which may or may not go to mass market paperback later on depending on sales, and Tor isn't the only publisher do do this kind of thing with sf titles. --Jim Henry 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Returns policies[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, another important difference between mass market paperbacks and trade paperbacks is the returns policy. MPBs can be stripped and the covers returned to the publisher for credit (as evidence that the book was unsold and destroyed). It used to be this saved the publisher money in shipping costs. But as printing costs have gone up, the number of copies a book has to sell to make MPB return policy cost-effective has also gone up, and more midlist titles are appearing only in TPB, which have to be returned whole by the bookseller if they remain unsold. Trade paperbacks are more likely to be remaindered like hardbacks, whereas MPBs are more likely to be stripped and destroyed. --Jim Henry 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

OK, I've cleaned up the page and updated the image. I removed the cleanup tags because I'm satisfied that the article is now OK and not in need of cleanup. I hope this was OK? Any comments/suggestions warmly welcome, or just edit away! Cheers. --HughL ^[talk?]/_[contribs] • 10:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]