Talk:Small press

Genre Fiction
I'm not completely convinced that the statement about genre fiction should be here. It's not entirely true that small presses concentrate on genre fiction. Because genres are generally defined as geared towards a specific marketing (and marketable) audience, many small presses do not describe themselves in terms of a genre (except for the "literary" distinction). Rather, they would describe themselves as existing to serve a specific subject matter, such as serving various ethnic and/or nationality distinctions in their books. It should be noted that this is normally author-based, and not audience-based as it is with genres. Still 18:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm very much inclined to agree--tho' science fiction has a substantial share of the small press market (in terms of sales), the greater number of publishers are producing poetry and, to a lesser extent, literary fiction. I'm don't really see the further distinction Still makes, in serving ethnicities; examples can certainly be found but it seems to me the much more general conception of "small press" should be kept focused on "literary." funkendub 23:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, and in the stats I have seen, I suspect that non-fiction is a larger part of small press publishing than fiction or poetry.Marion Gropen 17:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Printing and Presses
This article confuses craft printing with small-scale publishing. The arts 'n' crafts movement may be peripheral to literary publishing, but that's all. The Transcendentalist magazine, The Dial, for instance, was never an example of what should be here distinguished as craft printing. Indeed, in the 20th century the majority of small press work was done on the opposite of "craft" equipment: mimeograph machines and photocopiers. funkendub 23:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comix
Then there's the whole issue of indie/small press production of comics. That needs a mention here, and a link.... funkendub 23:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

confusing/incorrect definition/logic right at opening of article...
~Overly complicated comment incoming: (TL;DR: The current second sentence of the entire article and of the opening paragraph, needs a [Clarification needed] tag added to it... a definition is stated that then directly contradicts itself in the same sentence. Perhaps some more info on why 2 definitions even exist in the first place could be incorporated also.~

•The actual problem from article: Article starts right off in the right direction, which I actually think a surprising amount of Wikipedia articles actually do badly or don't do, by immediately and clearly in the first sentence, and if needed, in the next few subsequent sentences but still within the opening paragraph, gives an answer to "what is [article name]" before anything else. Problem here though is that the definition is just illogical, first saying small presses are any publishers who make under $50mil... First sentence/definition Okay. Then goes on to second sentence with a new/alternate/additional definition (why even have or need two definitions or why these two separate ones exist, like stating in the sentence the two sources who have different definitions, whole situation here could perhaps be explained/expanded/clarified), which states: "Small presses are also defined as those that publish an average of fewer than 10 titles per year,[1] though there are a few who manage to do more."... What? Am I the only one who sees the problem here?¶

•Let me write this definition syntax(logic?) error though, metaphorically-extrapolated, as another topic: "Blue bugs is the name for worms that are blue. Blue bugs are also defined as only blue worms, though some blue bugs are are also ants."... Okay perhaps that's not a great or even accurate recreation of this problem, and the first definition is actually irrelevant to this problem anyway.¶

•Look at it this way... "X is defined as Y plus Z, though sometimes Z^2.... So does X = Y + Z or does X = Y + Z^2...???¶

¡Hope this addressed because a small publishing company who stumbled upon this article could be in for quite an identity crisis as the definitions stand now. Cheers! 176.62.39.68 (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)