Sender: Rare Books and Special Collections Forum <EXLIBRIS@RUTVM1.BITNET>
> I also think that this "code" (or whatever) is indeed the printer's
> responsibility rather than the publisher's. The latter may be intellectually
> responsible for it, but the former is the one who actually effects the change
> in the physic(al) sense. It's not the publisher who changes 123456789 to
> 23456789; it's the printer.
This seem utterly nonsensical -- by that logic, the printer is
responsible for everything about the book (or maybe the typesetter
plus printer, if they are two different entities). What does
"responsible" mean if not intellectually responsible? If the
publisher tells the binder to bind half the edition in paper and half
in cloth, does that make the binder responsible for the division of
the edition into two issues? And if not, why should a publisher's
instruction to erase the digits referring to the previous printing
therefore make the printer responsible for the code?
It is the publisher, not the printer, who determines that these two
printings are designated as connected -- and of course in some cases,
the publisher treats two successive printings as unconnected (e.g.,
the first printing is issued in hard covers, the second in paper --
with or without a code line, and if with, sometimes indicating second
printing, sometimes starting over as the first printing of a new
marketing line, e.g. a paperback series).
And it's not at all clear that the printer always effects the
change, even physically -- if I as publisher have the repros from
which the book was first printed in my possession, and send them in
for a second printing, I may well be the one who erases the digits
referring to the previous printing.
John Lancaster, Amherst College
(jlancaster@amherst.edu)