Popular authors re-releasing older books

[Michelle]

From another thread:

I have read a lot of Jodi Picoult, and always enjoy her books very much.

 

I have just finished Picture Perfect and, although I did enjoy it, half way through I realised I had forgotten it was by Jodi Picoult and was thinking of it as a book by Danielle Steele. Danielle Steele is one of my guilty pleasures when I need an easy to read, unchallenging book, so I didn't mind as much as I could have, but as a Jodi Picoult book it was disappointing.

 

I see it was first published in 1995, and wish I had noticed that before I bought it, as authors re-releasing their earlier and less accomplished work once they have become popular and well-established is one of my pet hates.

 

Having just read this, it's something I'd like to pick up on, as I've also noticed it with Tess Gerritsen. All of her earlier books have been re-released, with similar covers to her recent ones. On her website they're separated out, but it must be confusing for those buying.

 

I would imagine that this is something to do with the publishers rather than the authors, but I think it can be confusing and annoying. Does anyone else feel this way, and are there other authors re-releasing old books?

[pickle]

I noticed that with Tess Gerritssen too and read some of her earlier books they were ok but not a patch on the Isles Rizzoli series in fact did come across one stinker in the lot too, can't remember which one it was but did comment on it in a post once.

 

the other who appears to be re-releasing is Erica Spindler I only noticed because Charm was saying how she has read a couple of her books and I remember reading them years and years ago in fact found they were published in the mid 90's. still a good read though.

[Mac]

Funnily enough, my firm favourite Harlan Coben released one of his first novels...erm...Play Dead, or something(?) straight to paperback last month or so and so I bought it immediately, as is my wont. I couldn't get through the first bunch of chapters, full of clichés, poorly constructed paragraphs, clunky, pointless sexploits - so I gave it away. Totally unlike me. And it's spoilt my respect a little for Mr Coben - but what can you do?

 

I'll still buy his next one...

[megustaleer]

Books today are heavily hyped by publishers, highly praised by the other authors in a publishers 'stable' and the authors become the darlings of certain reviewers. Just because a writer's previously published work dates from before these days of back-scratching book-cover quotes it doesn't necessarily mean that they are of lesser quality.

 

But I think Michelle is right, and it is the publisher who is trying to cash in on previous work, and it is a bit sneaky not to mention that it is from the writer's back-catalogue - especially if they splash "By the Author of X Y Z (latest blockbuster)"

The writer would probably like to dig a big hole and bury any less developed work, rather than have unfavourable comparisons made.

 

edit: Had to dash out, so posted this in a hurry - have now altered a couple of words, and added punctuation!

 

Why is the clock an hour slow?

Edited August 17, 2010 by megustaleer

[Kell]

Back in the early-mid 90s, I bought a re-released copy of The Carpet People by Terry Pratchett. He'd written it when he was younger and had it published, then re-worked it and re-released it when he was older and wiser. I thought it was wonderful. It was my first experience of Terry Pratchett. My next was Reaper Man (my first experience of Discworld). I've adored his novels from the very start.

[Michelle]

Ah, but there's a difference between something which has been reworked by the author, and an earlier book which is simply given a new cover and re-released.

[AbielleRose]

When I saw this thread I thought immediately of how the Twilight franchise is re-releasing the popular classics such as Pride and Prejudice and Wurthering Heights with 'Twilightesque' coveres to tie them into the hype. Something like that absolutely disgusts me because classics stand on their own, regardless of cover- that was proved 100 years ago when covers were mostly plain with the name being the selling point.

 

Having worked at Barnes and Noble, part of our training involved why and when books go from hardcover to paperback to (potential) movie cover- it's all about marketing.

 

Do a lot of authors actually go back and rework something after it's been released? Guess I never really thought of that as even being something some practiced because releasing a book prior to it being ready doesn't seem like a risk that a lot of publishers would be willing to make being how hard it is just get a manuscript looked at.

 

 

 

[Kell]

The Southern Vampires series by Charlaine Harris have had a couple of revamps. (Excuse the pun!)

 

They started out with cartoony covers (which I hated). Then they got re-released with the blond-girl-with-red-lippy covers. Now we're getting covers that show the cast members of True Blood, which is actually inappropriate, because on the latest book, the cover shows a character who dies long ago in the books, and another character who does not exist in the books.

[smilerbabeuk]

I have just read the first two of Elizabeth Chadwick's books, which were out of print for some time and re-released when she got popular. She has reworked both, and says that she wouldn't have done it if they hadn't let her work on them.

I agree, its rarely good to go backwards in an authors catalogue, as most tend to get better as they go. It's a bit cheeky to simply release old material with a new cover if the book has not been reworked at all. Feels like they are trying to trick you.

[ian]

Mac - with reference to your comment about Harlen Coben. My mother-in-law saw an interview with him recently. Apparantly, he's deeply embarrassed that this book has been re-released. He acknowledges himself that it's a load of rubbish!

 

Ian

[Raven]

Having just read this, it's something I'd like to pick up on, as I've also noticed it with Tess Gerritsen. All of her earlier books have been re-released, with similar covers to her recent ones. On her website they're separated out, but it must be confusing for those buying.

 

I would imagine that this is something to do with the publishers rather than the authors, but I think it can be confusing and annoying. Does anyone else feel this way, and are there other authors re-releasing old books?

 

I would imagine that it is almost certainly done at the wishes of the publisher rather than the author.

 

I've been buying Iain M. Banks books since the early nineties, and they have had two overhauls since the cover designs I originally purchased. Part of me (my OCD part!) is annoyed that my book shelf doesn't look consistent, but past that I don't generally have a problem with it (and I have to admit some of the newer covers do look jolly good!).

 

The only time it annoys me, particularly when I come to a new author, is when they don't make it clear what order books were published in (this doesn't have to be on the cover of the book, but something inside to give an idea of the publication/reading order is very helpful. I'm often surprised by the number of series - particularly in science fiction and fantasy, where sagas aren't uncommon - that don't do this).