In Praise of Shadows: Final Discussion of Design Specs

Binding and enclosure:
Paper cover with slipcase, slipcase+chemise, clamshell box or paper folder.
OR
Hard cover with or without slipcase.

>2 kermaier: Nice summary.

Photogravure:

One (likely as frontispiece) or two is probably the big question, as it impacts cost.

>4 bungakusha: Adjunct to that: public domain photos or commissioned? If commissioned, who? If public domain, who selects them? Also, photo selection adds time to the project, so there is that to be considered.

>5 consensuspress: I'd strongly push for commissioned as that seems a more exciting prospect to me and makes the book more unique.

I think the whole dynamic of previous discussions was 1 photogravure in hardback or 2/3 in softcover. It seemed quite divisive.

A question came up on another thread: given that there had been discussion of doing two titles simultaneously should the top two be relatively inexpensive, should we consider also publishing the Dunsany?

Griffin responded as follows: “What I suggest is we wait to see whether permission comes through for In Praise of Shadows. If it doesn't, The Fortress Unvanquishable becomes our elected proposal. If it does, Richard could include a question on the ‘honing’ ballot for In Praise of Shadows to ask whether the Members would be interested in pursuing The Fortress Unvanquishable as well.

“I think doing a second project would only work, though, with the stipulation that it is not required for continued membership and that a supermajority of members approve of pursuing it.”

Now that permission for In Praise of Shadows has come in, I thought I’d raise the question again. This is a public domain title. Initial estimate came in at $250+, with a timeframe of perhaps six months.

Thoughts on this? Is there interest in it, apart from my own?

>7 Shotcaller: Apologies for the wall of text – I’m mostly a lurker, and after the selection process have been largely content to leave the design consideration to those more experienced than I am, although I have enjoyed reading those threads and voting in the polls!

I have to admit I'm kind of torn on this - whilst I'd love a CP edition of The Fortress Unvanquishable as well as In Praise of Shadows, and I don't want to prevent the publication of more CP editions, I'd be hesitant about doing two projects at the same time. I may be in the minority here, but as a bibliophile in their twenties even just joining CP and purchasing one book is a pretty significant financial commitment, but because the process takes a while it's manageable despite my relatively low income.

Doing two books at once would result in members with limited means having to choose between them, which would pretty much create an unofficial two-tier membership of CP – those that can afford to buy everything, and those forced to choose. That doesn’t feel quite fair, since I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have the expectation that every member should be able to collect all editions the press produces from the time they joined.

CP is the only private press I’ve been a part of, but what makes it special to me is the shared experience – we’re all following the same project, seeing it develop in real time, discussing choices, voting on them, and ultimately holding the same finished book in our hands. That common journey helps to build a sense of community in CP and means that the CP collections of every member will be a continuous record of the press’ history and of their involvement since they joined, which I think is something really special.

Plus, if CP accepts the idea that it’s ok for some members to be priced out of editions, this mindset could bleed into design considerations for future editions. At the moment I really appreciate that consideration is given to the price of various design choices, with a view to keeping editions affordable. But in the future it could become seen as acceptable for a higher-income majority to consistently out-vote a lower-income minority so that they cannot even afford one edition per round.

>7 Shotcaller: I can see your point of view on this and a facsimile of Fortress would be a very pleasant acquisition but I tend to agree with >8 Xandian97: on this in that it's better to have all hands on deck on one project than two diluted ones and also the potential bifurcation of an already small group of members in two camps not engaging on each other's discussions.

>8 Xandian97: I agree as well. I think doing projects sequentially is the best approach for a whole host of reasons (logistical, attentional, financial, etc.).

I'd be curious about doing a straw poll here to gauge interest. Maybe that will help Richard decide whether to put it in the ballot?

I don't know if this is a huge issue for collation but I'd like to see a poll on doing the book back to front to read like a Japanese text. In English, of course.

The original proposal for "The Fortress Unvanquishable" had a $400 estimate as proposed and maybe down to $300 if some points were removed... is there any way we could get it even lower? I'm sympathetic to not everyone being ready/able to purchase 2 books and would hate to create a "haves and have nots" situation. Maybe if we could simplify things more we could get it to a point where almost everyone that wanted to could do both?

>12 jveezer: That seems a bit of an affectation to me. English doesn't normally go that way, so it would be rather awkward and clumsy to my mind.

>8 Xandian97: Thanks for this really important reminder. I think one element of CP should be to bring new people into supporting private press editions. By making it as much about process, learning and sharing as about the books themselves, I think we can do that. If we create structures that keep new people away, it would be a real shame.

I liken this to theatre audiences. I absolutely love live theatre and have season tickets to a local troupe. However, the average age of the audience has to be over 60. I worry about the future viability of the art form unless we build and support younger audiences. I fear that, should we not keep this in mind, the same trend by impact private press/fine press books.

If we do decide to offer a second title, perhaps we can create a "buy one, give one" opportunity for members to support engaging younger people having the opportunity to be a part of our community.

>5 consensuspress: consensuspress: Thanks for the additional needed context on the photogravures, totally agree.

Another possible topic - washi - do we want to try to go for traditional fibers or is a cellulose-based washi acceptable?

>16 bungakusha: Well, some decisions should be left to the designer, and I rather think that is one of them. And the printer should have some input as to the paper used since they are the one that will have to deal with said paper's characteristics. Others may not agree with me on this, but that's my 2 bits.

Other questions to be resolved on the ballot per my recollection of the individual discussions include trim/proportions, single or double sided printing (and implications for paper weight, or vice versa), and potential inclusion of essay titles or decorative elements in another color (red, gold, etc)

*Edited to correct typo*

I would caution us to leave room for the designer to design and not put him in a straight jacket. Give him some general specifications. Might be hard to get a designer if our specifications are too detailed. We'll get the best out of our designer if we let him do his thing w/o being cramped.

>19 Glacierman: I'm picking up what you're putting down.
I guess I hadn't understood how specific the proposal had to be.
And please excuse my ignorance but is the designer the same as the printer...? Or is the designer a separate professional?

>20 ns21: Two different functions, BUT a designer can also be -- and often is -- a printer. With CP's first book, the designer was Mark Askam (England) and the printer was Max Koch (Texas). In fact, with most small fine/private presses, the press proprietor fulfills both functions (Chad Oness/Sutton Hoo Press, Jason Dewinetz/Greenboathouse Press, et alia).

Another vote for not doing the Dunsany, for multiple reasons. I was completely fine with it being the backup in case the rights negotiations for the winner went south. But given we got the permission to print In Praise of Shadows, I just don't see the point of adding more to our plate and pursuing two projects at the same time. We now know we can do the Tanizaki, there are no delays, and it's not a massive multi-year project. I know it's all exciting stuff, but let's learn to crawl confidently before we start sprinting. I just don't see a good reason to introduce multiple additional risks to our venture, and doing two projects in parallel does introduce various risks:
- Richard isn't full-time at CP. Adding more to his plate might actually stretch timelines
- Griffin isn't full-time either. I'd prefer our key figures' attention to focus on one project. Also, as Griffin is our guarantor, adding an additional project will introduce extra financial burden and risks on him, therefore raising the risk profile of the CP enterprise as a whole

Also, the $250 price is wishful thinking to say the least. Firstly, we have to start with $400 as the baseline, as that was the second-round estimate. Griffin did state that it could potentially be trimmed to about $300. But those estimates are based on the assumption that the majority of the membership place their mandatory orders. If this becomes an optional second book, I expect the demand to drop significantly which, in turn, will significantly increase the per-copy price. An edition of 100 copies and the same edition of 50 copies will be priced very differently. It will be a much more expensive book.

And I do expect the demand to drop significantly - regardless of the price. We can already see majority voting against it in the straw poll. Many people simply didn't plan for the extra expense, and it's not just the younger members with lower incomes. Even people in the top 1% might have plenty of reasons to reject the offer to spend a few extra hundred bucks unexpectedly.

Personally, I would have paid for The Fortress had it won, because I'm interested in the CP endeavor. But as an optional add-on, I'm out regardless of the price. Outside of the stuff I enjoyed as a kid/teenager, I'm just not into fantasy. I also think there are plenty of current publishers who'd do a work like that, and I'd prefer CP to focus on works unlikely to be published elsewhere.

On the other hand, there will be members like >8 Xandian97: interested in the book but not able to commit financially, and I'm not sure this is in the spirit of this venture.

What I think we might entertain in the future, once we learn to crawl smoothly, is a staggered approach: select a book, finance and start working on it; once the design is done and we move to production, we can start selecting the next book. That way payments will be spaced out sufficiently while we increase output by working on two projects at the same time, but at completely different stages.

>19 Glacierman: I totally understand your point, but then... what's the point for the honing stage if after all the discussions and polls and more discussions we just... let the designer do what he wants? There are still plenty of points left up to the designer, I don't see how giving direction on the type of paper - not even precise paper product - would be an issue.

Regarding washi made of traditional fibers - I think the first question to answer is if it's financially feasible. Are there any such products that would fit within Grifin's price estimate? That's why I asked this question here. If yes, I don't see why we can't pose the question to the membership and vote on it.

>23 elladan0891: I would also take a maximalist view of what this honing ballot should address.

Ultimately, the craftspeople will be able have their say along the way. Giving them guidance on what the Members would ideally want is more useful than it is constraining.

The more on this ballot, the better!

>23 elladan0891: Well, we certainly need to have design specs to hand to the designer to give them a framework within which to work. I'm just leery of being TOO specific, that's all.

>25 Glacierman: I think you are right to not want to be too specific. Designers generally get contracted to work on a book because they have a very particular skill set that they know inside out. They know what they are doing; it is their profession. To have the input of many non-professionals telling them what to do is almost an insult to them. Plus, design by committee can be a truly terrible thing. That said, some designers can happily turn off and just do what is asked, even if it goes against the grain or is something they feel really isn’t in the best interest of the book.

For the first book, I had just three constraints; use Golden Cockerel, use a second colour, and work to a specific page size. The finer points of design and typographic approach were then left down to me — to do what I do best (and professionally believe to be for the betterment of the book). I think otherwise the job is a ‘paint by numbers’.

While I may well be in the minority with this viewpoint, I think it important to stress that professional designers with decades of experience will have a better grasp of what may be best in the design a book. Do we really think that commissioning an exceptional book designer such as Andrew Steeves, Jason Dewinetz or Michael Russem, then basically telling them ‘do what we say’ is the best option for the book? I think this very much worth considering, and in turn where the membership are best drawing a line on how prescriptive they make the production.

>26 ChestnutPress: Great perspective. I find this very convincing. I’d agree that our direction to the designer should be minimal.

>27 Shotcaller: Mark, are you advocating for giving the designer NO guidance? In other words, let the designer choose the paper, the format, the typeface, completely without input of the members?

If so, that's certainly something for the members to consider!

>28 grifgon: Not at all. I’m just making a case for not over-prescribing everything. One of the core principles of CP is that thought out proposals rather than just ‘let’s do this book’ are put forward, with some rounds of input from the membership throughout. I don’t think that should change. I am just wary of too many decisions being in the hands of the membership instead of those that truly know how best to put together a beautiful book.

So it seems that we need to reach some sort of happy medium between over-prescriptiveness and completely stepping back. The first couple of suggestions were about binding/enclosure and about the number and nature of the photogravures. I'm definitely not one of the professionals, so find it hard to say where the line ought to be drawn.

Perhaps it would be useful, Richard, to include "Leave it to the craftspeople" as an option on each ballot question?

So, for example, for paper:

A. Iyo Glazed
B. Awagami Shiramine
C. Any traditional washi – i.e. from gampi or mulberry
D. Any washi – i.e. Japanese paper
E. Leave it to the designer and printer

>26 ChestnutPress: I think so far we have even less constraints than Sinuhe did - we don't even have an exact type requirement! As a matter of fact, Sinuhe had quite a few precise binding requirements we don't have. We'll just be specifying the type of binding/enclosure and the number of photogravures all tied together in a combo:
hardcover + slipcase + 1 photogravure
or
softcover + slipcase + chemise + 1 photogravure
or
softcover + chemise + 2-3 photogravures

At this point, even if we specify that we want washi made of traditional fibers (given it's financially possible and the membership votes for it), we'd still be far less specific and restrictive than we were with Sinuhe. I fail to see how indicating a desired type of paper and approximate page size/format would be off-putting to anyone. If, designing a Western book, we'd say that we want, say, smooth mould-made, or laid, or textured hand-made, nobody would blink an eye.

If anything, my personal impression is that this particular proposal was one of the looser ones, basically screaming for more honing and detailing. Just checked Griffin's comments on the website, and I think he had a similar take.

At this point we don't have almost any specifications/requirements!

>31 grifgon: Your example is right in line with my thinking, including option (E): specific or more general. Members decide.

>32 elladan0891: I had a design concept in mind when I proposed Sinuhe, but tried to leave some lee way for the craftspeople; my "specs" being meant as a general guide as to what I was looking for; eventually changes were made for one valid reason or another.

This time, that isn't the case and so the members are providing the general specs for the book. i think the binding specs could be pretty specific. For the type to be used, well, we can throw out some of the ideas that have been discussed to show what we're looking for in general, or leave the ultimate decision to the designer's discretion. Overall design, well, let the designer figure that out, including red lines or other things (decorations, etc,)

One thing to consider: if the printer has to cut the sheets of whatever paper is chosen, we need to specify whether we want any deckle left and be adamant about it. Which to my mind, with washi, that goes without saying, but it would be best to specify that.

There. That's my two bits. I will now recede into the shadows on this topic. Cheers!

It's been fun discussing ideas for IPOS. I really appreciated the members who got stuck in and were brave enough to put forward ideas. It would be utterly boring for me otherwise and I probably wouldn't come back here again without that side of things. In fact I don't think there has been enough discussion and input from most members. Handing over the cash and having zero input is something I do anyway normally when buying fine press books. So it does leave me asking the question: what actually is CP? Propose a title, hand over the cash then sit back in your comfy chair? There's something very passive about that and it leaves me thinking what's the point. I don't think I'd come back next year.

But even with all the above said, I do agree with >26 ChestnutPress: and design by numbers would result in a mess.. It's a tough one where you draw the line with input to make it engaging enough.

>32 elladan0891: While it is true that there are almost no design requirements at this point, there has certainly been plenty of discussion on design matters so far (use of kanji, red borders, decoration, and typeface are a few that come to mind). My concern is not with your present discussion on paper, which is actually a very good subject to address. I am simply raising my concerns on possible general over-prescription now the process properly starts.