Consensus Press

Hi all. Head's up:

https://www.consensuspress.com/

I've been helping a small group of collectors put this together, and am really quite excited about it. It should be interesting! In short: It's a new fine press whose members will have all editorial and design decision-making power. There has been quite a bit of energy in our community around collector input, especially on this forum, and I think Consensus Press will be a great way of turning that energy into action.

If this interests YOU:

1. Request a membership invitation. Membership is open until the end of August. After that, it may never be open again!

2. Share far and wide. Facebook, other forums, wherever. The more the merrier. The minimum membership for making this work is probably ~50 to 100, so shares are essential.

I can also probably answer questions here if you have any. Otherwise, happy Monday!

A fantastic initiative! Wishing you a successful launch and a far-reading, diverse group of members.

What an exciting concept, and impressive Advisory Board! I especially like: "The price of the edition will be based solely on the cost of labor and materials. We will neither overprice for profit nor underprice to incentivize ordering."

>1 grifgon: Fascinating idea, and what a great advisory board!

I’m looking forward to hearing what titles the press decides on.

As a perpetual kibitzer as to what titles I think a press should pursue, this is heaven-sent for me. Quite excited to be a part of it!

This looks quite interesting!

May I ask the rationale behind "Only members will have the right to order copies"? Wouldn't producing a few extra copies for general sale increase scale and reduce the per-unit cost of the volume for members? I presume the membership is likely to be in the low-mid hundreds at most, so we wouldn't be talking about increasing the limitation beyond reason.

It's a genuine question as I defer to the wealth of industry expertise on the board.

This reminds me of the experiment about 15 years ago when someone crowd-sourced the purchase of a small English football club and the owners voted on lineups, etc. for each game. Did not end well. Good luck to them. 👍

>7 LBShoreBook: I would say that's akin to letting a group of people vote on what ingredients they want to go into a dish. I'd be surprised if it resulted in a success indeed. In the case of Consensus Press, it's more like the members are voting on which already extant dish to prepare, at which time it will be handed over to a experienced kitchen to be realised. I feel more optimistic about a positive outcome there.

I'm curious

>8 Shadekeep: Well put and agreed.

>7 LBShoreBook: >8 Shadekeep: I got the impression that rather than everybody just voting on titles ... and then how they'd be bound & printed ... and then illustrations etc. all seperately, which would be concering, they're looking for more complete visions from the start.

So everybody shares their best ideas, and then one idea that the majority like the sounds of (and that probably wouldn't have otherwise made it to print) gets the backing of an incredible advisory board and is both refined and embellished upon with the input from other collectors to ensure it's executed as well as possible.

Reminds me of various bibliophile societies, such as the Club of Odd Volumes, the Grolier Club, and the Roxburghe Club, but updated for the age of crowd-sourcing.

Often, members were responsible for sponsoring or producing a volume for each member.

In the past, these were clubs for gentlemen, and membership was as such implicitly means-tested and often only available by nominations from existing members. The Grolier Club, which still exists, operates in this way. It will be interesting to see how effective a more open process is at facilitating the creation of volumes of distinction.

>8 Shadekeep: Great analogy.

>6 ubiquitousuk: It seems very much organized around active participation - proposals for the book to be published, voting, and purchasing - otherwise your spot is surrendered. Regardless of the merits of that approach, it seems quite incompatible with producing additional copies for those outside of the group to be able to purchase copies.

>3 AMindForeverVoyaging: Quite an impressive Advisory Board (in fact, this is the most confidence-inspiring part of the pitch).

>8 Shadekeep: If I understand the process correctly, members sign up by September. Members vote on the details of proposed books. Members (and only members) have the right to purchase the chosen edition. Any member who does not purchase forfeits the right for subsequent editions (pasted blurb below). So as a member if my choice does not win, I either purchase the choice that wins or lose future membership opportunities. But non-members won't get my slot to order a copy. I truly hope they succeed but I am close to 100% certain this model will have to evolve for them to succeed over the long term. Time will tell. More interesting to me will be what kinds of books get published through this model that aren't getting published today.

On New Year’s Day, we’ll reveal our prototype and open the edition to orders until the end of the month. Only members will have the right to order copies; any who don’t will forfeit their membership for the purpose of subsequent editions.

>15 LBShoreBook: I guess members are putting their faith into the composition and taste of fellow members, because all but one member will be obligated to purchase a copy of a book they didn’t select themselves.

>16 What_What: >15 LBShoreBook: As someone who has a lot of titles I'd like to see published in fine press editions, but not many big ideas on how I'd like to see them done, my main motivation for joining would be to not miss out if they decide on a title I particularly want.

I think it would be fun to participate in and see how the experiment goes, but if it really takes off I'd be a little leary of having to maintain a membership and buy each book on the chance we'd all decide on any can't-miss titles for me.

I requested an invite.
I would like to see this press concentrate on works that have been ignored for too long. Two works I've tried to get other presses to publish, but none have (although there is interest) are

1)The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath
This work so deserves the royal letterpress treatment!

2)The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
This book has been described as the book that moved the world! Yet, there are no fine press copies of Galileo's masterpiece, which while "scientific" (for the time) is written in a funny and witty way. It's one of the most important books in history and sadly has never had a fine press treatment.

>17 NathanOv:

I would like to see a "grace period" rule where you could skip one book without penalty or losing place. Given they are only doing one book a year however, it may be that such a rule could easily lead to a title being insufficiently funded. Hopefully there will be enough members, and indeed enough consensus about the chosen title, that the number of people who opt out wouldn't tank a title.

>18 astropi: The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath

We are of like minds, here. I would also love to see a modern fine press edition of either The King In Yellow or The Boats Of The Glen Carrig.

>3 AMindForeverVoyaging: >4 NathanOv: >14 ChampagneSVP: I'm very grateful to Bradley, David, Mark, Jason, and Megan for their willingness to try this out with me! I actually wonder, though, if an Advisory Board will even be necessary to keep things sane. Several of the most knowledge collectors I know have told me they're joining as members, as well as 5 or 6 private press proprietors who easily lap me in experience. I think this will very much be a community affair, with all the knowledge and expertise that comes with it.

>7 LBShoreBook: There's definitely no guarantee that it'll be a success. My only major contribution to the conceptual basis for Consensus Press is that I insisted no money change hands until *after* the edition was selected. The original idea was to have an upfront cost of membership. Now THAT'S a potential disaster. As it stands, the worst case scenario is that the membership selects an infeasible project and Advisory Board can't work out a way to make it feasible, and the experiment flops. No biggie!

>12 abysswalker: Exactly right. In my experience with these organizations, they have very low participation. Consensus Press is similar in its membership model, but dissimilar in that the emphasis is on participation.

>15 LBShoreBook: "I am close to 100% certain this model will have to evolve for them to succeed over the long term."

I agree. To avoid confusion, the process is definitely set for the first edition. Thereafter, I think it should be open for revision by the membership. Who knows what will go wrong and need revisiting, or what questions will arise. For example, one thing occurred to me this morning. The rules state that "Only members will have the right to order copies," not "Each member will have the right to order a copy." So, can members order multiple copies and resell them? Based on the rules as they stand now, I see no reason why not, but the membership may want to revisit this. Who knows! You're certainly right: the process will have to evolve.

>16 What_What: >17 NathanOv: I'm curious how this will work out as well. I'm pretty optimistic. The process is literally designed to determine the consensus edition, so I would be surprised if, having determined it, tons of members say, "Eh, not for me..." I suspect, actually, that the long-term success will depend on collectors being means-focused rather than ends-focused. That is, ordering the edition which this process produces because they believe in the process itself.

My biggest curiosity, actually, is whether this process encourages original or sterile ideas. You could imagine Consensus Press either plucking a diamond from the rough, or landing on The Great Gatsby #984 or Sherlock Holmes #2,871 or Emily Dickinson #1,782 (guilty as charged on the above). I'd encourage members to reward novelty with their votes. I'm REALLY curious to see how my own proposal does.

>17 NathanOv: Love #2. You've got my vote :-D

And good news: James Freemantle of St. James Park Press is joining the Advisory Board.

>20 grifgon: I think you meant to tag >18 astropi: in your last line, but that’s exactly the type of title I’d vote for as well!

Thanks for all of the replies and added details.

>19 Shadekeep: "I would like to see a "grace period" rule where you could skip one book without penalty or losing place. Given they are only doing one book a year however, it may be that such a rule could easily lead to a title being insufficiently funded. Hopefully there will be enough members, and indeed enough consensus about the chosen title, that the number of people who opt out wouldn't tank a title."

← Very interesting idea. I think I might be in favor of that. I'd hate for Consensus Press to turn into a "rights train" system, where you buy the book for the sake of keeping your spot for the next. Simultaneously, attempting to minimize margin-over-costs while not knowing exactly how many members will actually order the book will be a tricky balance. The good news is that fine presswork (in my experience at least) is a high setup cost / low economies of scale business. (For example, you've got to set type and setup the press no matter how many copies you printing, but mould-made paper doesn't get that much cheaper per unit between, say, 200 and 200,000 sheets.) That's bad for business, but good for predictability. It means that the cost per book will decrease exponentially between, say, 1 and 50 copies, but stagnate thereafter. We'll see what happens!

>22 NathanOv: Nathan I credit you for all good ideas I come across.

>20 grifgon: "My biggest curiosity, actually, is whether this process encourages original or sterile ideas."

Exactly. If it produces sterile ideas, then it will be a failure, imo. This should be the medium for book collectors to support the fine press production of uncommon but worthy titles, like >18 astropi: suggested, or another forum member who seemed set on producing The Life of Merlin, but then disappeared.

>21 grifgon: That is good news, indeed.

I applied. Already know my first proposed title - the Thebiad.

Sounds like a wonderful idea, applied. A few thoughts:
1) Proposals that are voted on should be anonymous. Certain names in the fine press world carry weight and I'd hate to see folks vote for an idea simply because it came from Griffin (no offense, just using an example).
2) If this goes through, we should think about having a separate group for Consensus press. It's too early now, of course, but I imagine there will be quite a bit of discussion about administrative/day-to-day type of things that won't be of interest to the Fine Press forum and I'd hate to spam this group with such threads.

Overall, I'm really interested to see what comes out. Just have to think about my proposal now...

>25 ultrarightist: We'll only know once we see it in action, but I'm optimistic on this front. The polls of collectors I've seen usually show that well-trodden ground is not particularly popular. I know I'll basically be voting against any proposal which has already been published in a fine press edition.

I actually brought "The Life of Merlin" up in the first meeting of the management team last month! Clearly, there was a ton of enthusiasm around that idea here, but no structure to make it happen.

>26 kdweber: Love it – I struggled through this in Latin for a class. Could be very nicely illustrated.

>27 filox: 1. I see nothing in the process about whether names will be attached to proposals, so I assume they'll be anonymous. Perhaps something for the membership to decide later on. I agree with you, though, especially seeing as there are quite a few fine press proprietors involved as members. 2. Yeah, I don't think there are any plans to set up a discussion forum, but once proposals are out and voting begins I think it would be really useful.

>18 astropi: #1 gets my vote!

>19 Shadekeep: But your two alternatives are equally attractive!

Easy drop-out for me if the vote goes the way of a horror title. I'm rather curious who the five "founding members" are though.

>26 kdweber: In Latin? Has it ever been translated into English?

>31 Glacierman:. I have a trade hardback from John Hopkins University Press (2004) translated into English by Charles Stanley Ross. I know of no fine press editions.

>32 kdweber: Ah. Thank you.

>1 grifgon: Great initiative. Invite requested 😊

I have to think a bit regarding proposals, but so far, Life of Merlin and The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems would get my votes.

>32 kdweber: I'll back pretty much any edition of classical Greek texts (wouldn't mind the Anabasis of Xenophon or The Seven Against Thebes either). Is there a public domain translation of the text in English, or will Consensus be considering works that require author/translator payments? I assume they'll be paying illustrators, should those be part of the package.

>35 Shadekeep: as written, it sounds like copyright status, choice of translation, illustration, etc., should all be specified in the proposal.

My biggest worry about a project like this is that optimism will rule the proposals and pessimism will rule the ultimate purchase decisions. It is very easy to specify the perfect edition of some highly desired somewhat obscure text but much harder to pay the $2k USD or whatever will be required per book to satisfy the economic fundamentals of an ambitious proposal.

As such, for the first title at least I would recommend voting against anything that reeks at all of scope creep. Wait for a couple successful iterations at minimum before attempting a magnum opus.

>36 abysswalker: On "scope creep," it sounds like that's built into the process as any ideas from members, apart from the one who made the proposal, seem to get introduced after the title is agreed upon.

I don't see an issue there as long as the Advisory Board is able to give realistic cost estimates for each feature or decision that's being voted on.

It also sounds like only the prototype is produced prior ordering, so there oughtn't be any $2k books sitting around unpurchased if the winning edition ended up that extravagant - which I doubt would be the case anyways.

"The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" would definitely float my boat.

This is a fun idea, and potentially a useful source of intel for presses (popular titles could represent good ideas for their own upcoming editions).

If it's a ~$2k edition I think it would probably need to be a pretty popular (and large) book, maybe something like The Brothers Karamazov (just an example that I'd actually pay $2k for). Would be pretty ambitious though for the first one though!

Could a member submit more than one proposal?

>39 booksforreading: I'd like to see members restricted to one suggestion initially, but possibly having three votes for ranked-choice voting. That way each member would have to really think about what title they most want to suggest, but can spread their interest over all those submitted.

>40 Shadekeep: Are you saying you’d like to be able to mark three proposals as “first” on your ranked choice list, or to submit three separate rankings?

I think that would probably wreak havoc in the vote counting and would almost inevitably lead to ties.

>41 NathanOv: Three rankings - first choice, second choice, third choice. Same way that ranked-choice voting is used in some electoral systems. https://www.rcvresources.org/how-it-works

This is more likely to generate a title desirable to many than first-past-the-post voting.

>42 Shadekeep: Ah, I thought you were talking about the second round of voting which the website already descibes as ranked choice - I'd assume from 1-10.

Hopefully Griffin can clarify, but it sounds like the first round of voting will simply be giving a "yay" or "nay" to each of the proposals, and the 10 with the most yays go on to the ranked choice ballot.

>43 NathanOv: My apology, I should have re-read the website. I had forgotten it covered some details of voting already. More fool me! ^_^

>36 abysswalker: This is my concern as well - every book will be a magnum opus, but that's not related to scope creep, just scope.

>37 NathanOv: The cost of the winning edition is dependent on how many people participate, I imagine. The costs of prototyping, printing and illustration immediately come to mind as fixed costs, as well as the fees paid to the Advisory Board (if any) and owner/operator of the press. If there are lots of dropouts when it's time to purchase, those left remaining could end up with a pretty big bill.

>45 What_What: I guess I just assume most members would be more likely to vote to keep it within their means, than to push for exorbitant spending and get cold feet later.

Most fine press collectors in my experience tend to be fairly pragmatic.

EDIT: I would also hope that if more than a few collectors were being priced out that the advisory board might step in, so we don’t have a situation where 60% of members vote for an edition that 40% simply can’t afford. I think that would be a more true “consensus” than a small majority decision, and I hope most of the votes shoot for widespread agreement rather than simple majority.

>43 NathanOv: This is correct.

Round one: "Yay" or "Nay" with the ten top going to round two.

Round two: Ranked choice of top ten.

In essence, round one is sort of a "gut feeling" election and round two will bear a little more thoughtful consideration. For example, proposers can expand upon their proposal (up to 1,000 words!) in round two, and each proposal will have a short commentary from the Advisory Board, including a cost estimate.

>45 What_What: The thing I like about this process is that, if enough members share your concern about "scope," the problem is regulated against. Especially in the second round, with the cost estimates given, I'd be surprised if members actively vote for proposals which they know they won't be able to afford.

>37 NathanOv: >45 What_What: Regarding cost, it all comes down to fine press fundamentals about fixed-costs and economies of scale.

"The cost of the winning edition is dependent on how many people participate, I imagine."

Up to a certain extent, yes. But beyond the point where fixed costs are covered, no. Fine presswork is primarily a fixed-cost business.

For example: Let's make a broadside. A good letterpress printer will quote $120 per lock-up, a $60 inking fee, and $0.50 per impression. St. Armand handmade paper scales from $9.45 for 1 sheet to $7.65 per sheet for 100 sheets, with no bulk discount thereafter (i.e. 100 is the same cost per unit as 100,000). So, if I wanted to print a two-color broadside on St. Armand, the per unit cost would be:

1 Broadside: $370.45 each
5 Broadsides: $82.45 each
10 Broadsides: $46.00 each
50 Broadsides: $16.30 each
100 Broadsides: $12.25 each
500 Broadsides: $9.37 each
1,000 Broadsides: $9.01 each
5,000 Broadsides $8.72 each
10,000 Broadsides: $8.69 each

So, if we wanted to sell our broadside at a reasonable price to collectors, we'd really need 50 collectors on board to make it happen. 50 is a few dollars more expensive than 100, but still reasonable.

The books work the same way. *No matter what Consensus Press produces* there will be a point at which economies of scale become effectively irrelevant. That's where the book will be priced. In my experience with fine presswork, that point is usually between 50 and 100 copies (as in the example above). *No matter what Consensus Press produces*, it will need somewhere between 50 and 100 members to order it to be viable.

So, back to the very important comment:

"The cost of the winning edition is dependent on how many people participate, I imagine."

I actually think it's a bit more binary than that. If the edition doesn't reach its minimum (like 50, in the broadside example above) the costs per collector are just ridiculous and thus the experiment fails. If the edition does reach its minimum, then the cost per collector won't change much and the experiment succeeds.

>48 grifgon: That’s illuminating, thank you for taking the time to explain it.

>48 grifgon: "it will need somewhere between 50 and 100 members to order it to be viable."

50 as a floor and 100 as a ceiling? Or a floor between 50 and 100, with no ceiling?

>50 ultrarightist: Ah, poorly worded. "It will need somewhere between 50 and 100 members to order it to *become* viable." No ceiling.

I received a report yesterday about the number of invite requests. Clearly, there's a lot of interest. Now, I'm curious: Is there a certain point where members have *too many* proposals to vote on, and participation becomes untenable? Would you happily vote up/down on 100 proposals? 200? 300? At what point does it become an undue burden?

Personally, I think anything past 200 starts to get a little ridiculous.

If each proposal takes 1 minute contemplation and understanding, would I be willing to give up 5 hours of time to decide round 1? No! Absolutely not. I am assuming that I won’t know half the suggestions and will have to do some research so the average time of 1 minute could be a significant under-estimate

Edited to add: If there are 300 members could we be allocated to 10 different groups. Each group of 30 votes on the 30 proposals from each member in their group, and the winner (or tied winners) from these groups go into round 2 where everyone gets to vote together?

>54 DMulvee: Bingo!

>52 grifgon: Easy enough; the advisory board picks out their top 10.

I would just have each member vote on as many as they want, presented in a random order. Easy to do with most survey platforms. (I could set such a survey up in less than an hour.)

After requesting an invite I never heard back.

>58 astropi: Me neither, but after requesting the page said that invitations would be sent on September 1st so I imagine I will be invited.

>59 realto: Makes sense, thank you :)

>60 astropi: >59 realto: >58 astropi: Can confirm. Invitations are going out on September 1. I don't think there is any communication planned before then as the team is still setting up the communication method / workflow.

>57 abysswalker: This raises the question about abstention or whether an up/down vote is required on every proposal. The rules don't specify........

>54 DMulvee: Interesting! That's a good solution if the number of proposals is ridiculous. And it doesn't contradict the rules, as far as I can tell.

>61 grifgon: >54 DMulvee: I’m generally against artificially capping limitations, but this does sound logistically quite time consuming - so I would not be opposed to the randomly assigned groups of 30 (or whatever 10% ends up being) idea if necessary.

I do wonder though how much a larger limitation would limit the printer / binder options or affect material availability.

So if there's 300 members and 300 submissions, won't a lot of those votes go towards their own submissions, leaving a very patchy first round? It seems like an initial cull by the board might be useful, to weed out submissions which are inappropriate due to length, content, copyright restrictions, or other concerns. I don't mind voting on 300, but also think a curated selection of 100 could be just as workable.

I'm leery of splitting people into groups to vote on a subset, because you might get a small group that doesn't vote through a book that the larger community would very much want.

On possible way of pre-screening is to set up a forum thread where you post the full candidate list and see which ones get the most chatter from members. An informal way of filtering them down to a manageable vote size.

Would it also be feasible to let members abstain from putting forth a submission? I admittedly have more fine press on my shelves that has been curated for me than which I've actively sought after. Maybe I'm a bit lazy too.

>63 Shadekeep: I don't think it's fair to put all the burden on the advisory board and require them to sift through 300 submissions because we don't want to. It also has the same problem that you mention later, i.e., that they might omit something that the larger community would vote in favor for.

>52 grifgon:
It is difficult to answer your specific question ("Is there a certain point where members have *too many* proposals to vote on, and participation becomes untenable?") without knowing more specific details about the process of voting and time allocated for voting considerations. All of rules are currently in the "ideas" stage.

It seems you are asking about the upper limit on the number of participants of the press. You have already given the minimum number of 50, and now you see more interest than you have anticipated and wondering about what would be the reasonable maximum number.

Discussion about this could be very long and not always productive, and my opinion is that you and the advisory board will have to make this decision. You have the experience and expertise of planning editions and working with subscribers and your board members have either similar experience or are experts in related fields.
Good luck!

>66 booksforreading: I appreciate the sentiment that "the Advisory Board knows best," but I don't know if it's true! This is a new experiment for all. Further, the rules are set. I've made some suggestions for tweaks to the rules, as have others, but the consensus (ha!) of the group is that the rules as outlined on the Consensus Press page are ironclad. I guess it's only fair to prospective members that they know from the get-go what they've signed up for. I think there's some wiggle room in the rules, as not *everything* is outlined, but things are pretty clear (including the things you mention – the process of voting and time allocated for voting considerations). In my query on >52 grifgon: I was more curious about whether some especially high number of proposals would dissuade people from participating. If so, I guess the problem sort of self-corrects, as members who aren't really committed will drop out.

I think this will be fun. We'll see what goes right and what goes wrong. By the end of the process, there will be X number of members who remain and things will proceed from there. At that point, I think the rules will be open to revision by the membership. The big question to me is whether X turns out to be a sustainable "Goldilocks" number of not.

>64 Objectr: The rules say that every member must put in a proposal. At 110 words max, I don't think it's a heavy lift. Plus, I imagine quite a few good ideas could arise from making people think about what they'd want to see published with fine press pizzaz.

Another suggestion I had. Right now the rules state that: every member must (1) submit a proposal and (2) vote in at least one of the two rounds of voting.

I wonder if this would be better: every member must do two of the following — (1) submit a proposal, (2) vote in round one (up or down), (3) vote in round two (ranked choice).

>68 grifgon: Sorry, I haven't been paying any attention to the prior posts in this thread but did apply. Were we supposed to submit the proposals for suggested publications during the application process or after we are accepted?

>70 punkzip: All the info you need is on the website!

https://www.consensuspress.com/

Invitations are going out on September 1, and proposals will be submitted throughout the month of September. I assume that the September 1 invitation notification will include instructions about how to submit your proposal.

>65 filox: My primary intention was for the advisory board to weed out the impractical proposals, rather than make a judgement call on each submission. I do agree that asking them to make further distinctions does risk weeding out books that might otherwise prove popular, so that kind of second-tier arbitration might be better left out. It really depends on how many proposals end up being submitted. I think the first round of this process is going to be roughly formed and eye-opening no matter how much we pre-guess how it may play out.

Love the initiative and just applied.

Hi everybody!

Just a friendly reminder that open membership ends in one week. If you would like to join Consensus Press, please request an invitation.

We will also be setting up a group on LibraryThing for discussion so as not to spam other spaces.

All the relevant information will be sent to members on September 1st.

https://www.consensuspress.com/

I joined, curious to see how thus goes, and agree with past comments that it will be a success if what the "consensus" produces is something new and interesting.

Today is the last day to request an invitation to join!

https://www.consensuspress.com/

Around midnight EST invitations will start going out.

I signed up and will put my proposal in later today. It would have been nice to have parameters on what the press is willing to publish and what they are looking for. Through anecdotal viewership on this forum and others on Librarything I have much different literary tastes than many members. Say if I put Independent People as my selection. Would the press and then subscribers really entertain an international 500+ page dense novel although in my opinion it's one of the best novels in the 20th century? Probably not. Correct me if I'm wrong but with the ten selections for the ranked choice voting isn't it obvious that the most popular and therefore generic title will always win? Why not just do Lyra's model and do Dickens and Wilde. Or maybe Orwell... again? Or another Wind in the Willows or Alice In Wonderland. Or anything Neil Gaiman! I hope I'm proven wrong but I'm a little doubtful and what's the point of putting my proposal in when I know it will never be selected?

>77 Joshbooks1: Personally speaking I really want this to be for books that aren’t available elsewhere so wouldn’t vote for any of the ‘popular’ suggestions you made.

However as much as I like international novels, I found ‘Independent People’ to be average (I preferred ‘Lucky Per’ by Pontoppidan and both were published by Everyman Library about a year apart) so wouldn’t vote for your suggestion

ETA: Sorry I just looked up the page count for ‘Lucky Per’, it’s a fair bit longer, so not a practical suggestion

>77 Joshbooks1:

Would the press and then subscribers really entertain an international 500+ page dense novel?"

Probably not. Only the Arion Press and Thornwillow Press can realistically letterpress print and publish a novel of this length and the literary merits of 'Independent People' become subsidiary to its practicality.

>78 DMulvee: I am excited for the press and don't mean to criticize a new and exciting idea - I just don't want something that's already been done before. For making a proposal I'm just at a loss for what to propose. In not knowing what direction the Press wants or will go in terms of titles, It's difficult, if not near impossible, to propose a title. Are we focusing on 20th century literature? Science fiction? Poetry? Novellas? More English speaking? Length? Or I'm just making things much more difficulty for myself than they need to be which is a very strong possibility!

I was really surprised how much I enjoyed Lucky Per but I had trouble finishing the last hundred pages or so. If Pontoppidan wasn't Scandinavian would he have won the noble prize? Eh. I am happy to see that Everyman's Library is publishing more eclectic titles as of late more in line with NYRB. Also if you liked Lucky Per have you read Havoc by Tom Kristensen? Another Scandinavian title, published by NYRB, and absolutely brilliant. As good if not better than Lucky Per.

>80 Joshbooks1: Personally I'm not proposing what I think members will like — I'm putting forward a book which I want to see done nicely. If others are on board with my idea, cool.

>77 Joshbooks1: I agree that some basic guidelines would be useful on the scope of the proposals. If we all plumped for 'The Count of Monte Cristo' would they just roll with a letterpress edition? As for isn't it obvious that the most popular and therefore generic title will always win?, I suppose 'most popular' is really what 'consensus' means - whether the title is generic remains to be seen. I've no doubt there will be a more than a few miffed members after the first rounds of voting, whatever happens, but that's all part of the experiment.

What I also note is the frankly astonishing timescale they're proposing:
After selecting the title (which will no doubt take some time...) The remainder of 2022 will be dedicated to the pre-production work that goes into a fine press edition – e.g. finding and signing contracts with collaborators, ensuring the availability of materials, typographic design work, and prototyping. Artists may be commissioned, printers and binders and typesetters must be hired, supply chains need nailing down – this sort of thing.
Then:
On New Year’s Day, we’ll reveal our prototype and open the edition to orders until the end of the month.
And
The first half of 2023 will be dedicated to producing the edition, with monthly updates to the membership.

To me this timeframe seems almost like 'tomorrow' in terms of fine press production. What if copyright needs to be negotiated (and would not even be guaranteed) and art commissioned? This sort of thing can take years. To me it seems like the timescale is pointing to out of copyright titles with minimal illustration. Nothing necessarily wrong with that but perhaps something along those lines should be stated.

Anyway, it will no doubt be fascinating to follow the experiment and fingers crossed that something worthwhile comes out of it.

I'm going to have to ruminate seriously on this one for a while. But I recently came across the poem Astrophel and Stella by Sir Philip Sidney and am thinking that might be an option. As unlikely as it is for me to suggest poetry, or at least poetry that isn't ancient epic verse.

Speaking of, I'd still very much like to see Not Waving but Drowning as a broadside from NRP too. Though this might require getting the rights to do it, as it's comparably recent. This has long been one of my favorite poems and has enjoyed something of a resurgence lately.

>83 Levin40: I think the proposal is supposed to specify details such as the approach to illustration, binding complexity, etc. So timeline might also partly be determined... by consensus!

Also, I share a wariness about tendency toward middle of the road, but "popular" will depend on the population sampled. I don't think we will get something like Alice in Wonderland, or any other title well served to date in fine press offerings. My submission certainly won't be of that character, nor will I vote for such options.

>85 abysswalker: Sure, but why get tied down at this stage with something as specific as On New Year’s Day, we’ll reveal our prototype?

>86 Levin40: yeah I agree that might be a misstep, part of the experiment's growing pains. It does seem unwarrantedly ambitious.

>86 Levin40: >87 abysswalker: A fine press edition can easily go from idea to prototype in two months. That's not a crunch at all. A prototype is not by any means a finished book — it's usually a mix of dummy binding and digital rendering.

The "production in the first half of 2023" *could be* ambitious depending on what the members select. That said, the Advisory Board is planning on including such comments in the second round of voting. If a proposal will significantly change the timeline, we'll mention it.

>85 abysswalker: >83 Levin40: >77 Joshbooks1: So far I've heard loads of comments about how members don't want Consensus Press to come up with "Yet another X, Y, or Z," but nobody actually suggesting that it should do another "X, Y, or Z". This makes me think that the proposals will be interesting. As you said abysswalker, "My submission certainly won't be of that character, nor will I vote for such options."

>83 Levin40: "If we all plumped for 'The Count of Monte Cristo' would they just roll with a letterpress edition?"

Why not?

Probably would need to update the timeline though!

Maybe it's just me, but I see a lot of over-thinking here. Just pick a work you'd like to see done and submit your proposal. That's what I did. It will either be selected or it won't. The probability is for the latter, but .....

>90 Glacierman: "The probability is for the latter"

Odds are roughly 175 in 176. ^_^

>80 Joshbooks1: Or I'm just making things much more difficulty for myself

To a certain degree, I think. We're definitely not focusing on anything in particular, and we know nothing yet about how tastes and interests spread within the group. Prose, poetry, nonfiction - anything goes. However, I would be conscious of the length, particularly if you don't have unlimited budget. I'd be happy to throw something like Strabo's Geographica as a suggestion, but even if Griffin thinks it would be a feasible project, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable ponying up for it.

Which leads me to the question I think wasn't really discussed much - expected price range for the press. I'm not sure about the "let's throw suggestions and vote on them first, price them later" approach. I don't think the press is going with the "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" model - I'd hope that would have been indicated upfront - but otherwise I'd think there would be quite a difference in the number of people ready to pay say, $400, $1400, or $4000. The LEC was able to charge the same flat rate for every book they released to their members while producing a very varied and creative output of different length and materials. I think not setting at least an approximate target price range might result in an attrition wave in the membership, at least initially.

Anyway, I guess it's better to discuss all this on the new forum:
https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/23779/Consensus-Press

>92 elladan0891: Per the process as outlined on the website:

"All proposals will be given a simple up or down vote. ... The ten proposals with the highest approval percentage will go to a second round. Their proposers will have the opportunity to expand upon the long descriptions (max. 1,000 words) and our Advisory Board will weigh in with a short commentary on each regarding cost estimates , craft methods, a judgement on feasibility, etc."

This way, as the members vote in the second round, they will have a price estimate from the Advisory Board to take into consideration. I assume members will vote against proposals which they couldn't afford, or wouldn't be interested in at the price. Better this, I think, than the arbitrary setting of a price from the beginning and asking members to conform their proposals to it.

(My proposal, by the way, could be done at $100. A friend of mine is proposing something that would run about, oooh, $20,000.)

>93 grifgon: ".....A friend of mine is proposing something that would run about, oooh, $20,000." I have to laugh. Last I looked, my last name isn't Gates. Wouldn't you think that folks would make a proposal that was a tad more realistic? Unless one is indulging in a bit of daydreaming. Yow.

Or pulling our collective leg.

>88 grifgon: Ok, if by prototype you mean just a mock-up binding and a page or two of text then perhaps two months is ok for that. But there are are a fair few other tasks mentioned in >83 Levin40: which seem highly ambitious for two months. Just the rights issue alone, if it arises, could surely delay the project for many months and there wouldn't be much point in ploughing on with the rest of the work until it's resolved. To make my point in a slightly different way, is anyone aware of any real world examples of fine press projects - particularly involving rights acquisition and original art production - which have gone from conception to finished product in eight months? Anyway, not to labour the point. It will of course be ready when it's ready.

Speaking of art production, it'll be interesting to see how much input members could have. Will we be able to propose concepts, approve drafts etc? Could be fun, though not sure what the artist would make of it, haha.

As >92 elladan0891: said, these discussions should now be made on the Consensus Press LT forum and not on view for everyone.

>92 elladan0891: >96 wcarter: Agreed! One final comment from me here and thereafter, basta.

>95 Levin40: The timeline could be ambitious, depending on the edition. But remember, this will be a single-state edition of *at most* ~150 copies (and likely far less than that), and the production work will be contracted, and therefore can overlap. Copyright permissions for editions of this size are often as easy as a few clicks on a form. Ultimately, it will all be up to the members. (As for real world examples, when I worked at Thornwillow ~8 months was roughly the expected timeline from conception to shipping, and those were much larger multi-state editions, produced by a single team.)

While I understand the logic of moving the discussion to the CP forum, I can't be the only outsider who would be curious to see the titles suggested and the ultimate selection. In any event, I hope you all enjoy the process and, of course, the end product.

>98 Redshirt: Hi! The Consensus Press LibraryThing forum is visible to all; just only members can post.

I have submitted my proposal and I'm curious what the group will think of it. The book is The Dwarf, a novel by Par Lagerkvist. It's short and not at all sweet -- and has not been given the fine press treatment. It is truly a remarkable book.

>100 silentio7:
That certainly gives me reason to rethink my intended proposal of Lagerkvist short stories!

>100 silentio7: great suggestion.

>101 GusLogan:
Indeed, Lagerkvist's short story The Eternal Smile is one of my all-time favorites too.

>100 silentio7: This is a great suggestion!

For all interested, the Consensus Press group is publicly visible (whether you are a member or not) and so far twenty-or-so members have shared their proposals ahead of the voting. It's a pretty remarkable assortment of ideas, which will allay any apprehension that the Consensus Press process would necessarily lead to something bland or middle-of-the-road.

Take a look:

https://www.librarything.com/ngroups/23779/Consensus-Press

Reminder to any members who haven't joined the group: The password is in your "Welcome" email.

>1 grifgon:

The ballot with 126 entries for Round One of the Consensus Press is not downloading properly, whether one uses the link provided in today's e-mail or goes directly to the Consensus Press home page and logs in. Each time I attempt to cast votes, a variable and different number of the 126 suggestions appears. Please correct this flaw so that all 126 entries appear and can be voted on.

>105 dlphcoracl: I don't oversee the website or balloting, so this is something you should contact the press for.

press@consensuspress.com

I just took a look at the ballot and it appears fine to me.

>105 dlphcoracl: If you click through at the very top of the ballot where it says "Sign in to Google to save your progress," it will take you through to the full ballot.

>107 jordanxn:

Thank you!

Hi, is it possible to see the advisory board comments on the proposals somewhere (for non-members)?

>109 Lukas1990: Well, I don't mind sharing the summary of the board comments re: my proposal.

ADVISORY BOARD:

Cost: ~$300 to ~$600 per book

This proposal is straightforward and perfectly feasible.

Whether the Oxford introduction, notes, and preferred translation can be obtained is a big unknown, and account for most of the upper range in the cost estimate.

The selection of materials is economical, and the text is the shortest proposal (by far, at only ~5,000 words). The hand-sewn headbands might limit the binderies which could be commissioned. Further, the book simply may not be long enough to justify headbands (or a rounded spine, for that matter). Without hand-sewn headbands, this proposals leaves Management with many options of printers and binderies that can be hired. But for a few minor elements, this proposal is likely a safe bet.

Please note that I am perfectly happy to ditch the endbands completely and accept a flat spine rather that a rounded one, as it is a rather slim volume and a flat spine would not be a structural issue. Both of these concessions would reduce the cost.

Likewise, the board's comments on mine:

ADVISORY BOARD:

Cost: ~$400 to ~$800 per book

This proposal is feasible, but we are a bit wary of the proposal's heavy-handedness.

It is highly specific, which demonstrates a clear vision but also leaves little room for the craftspeople working on the edition to do what they think would be best. The text is short, but certain elements – such as wooden boards, providing an illustration for each island, mandating that each chapter (however short) begin on a new page, and printing chapter titles in a second color (which effectively means that the entire book will be two-color, doubling the printing) – might balloon the costs. There is a little skepticism about the use of sailcloth for bookbinding, but the proposal wisely provides for an alternative.

The proposal is certainly a spectacle, and the board is split on whether this spectacle is exciting or over-the-top.

I responded to this elsewhere here saying that I am quite willing to be flexible on the two-color process and the illustration of every island, as well as the one-chapter-per-page. Upon review I think the proposed design could actually be a bit monotonous, and now believe that the best approach is illustrating the most remarkable islands and flowing the rest of the text normally.

>110 Glacierman:, >111 Shadekeep: Thank you and good luck!

New post up on Consensus forum.

>113 Glacierman: No news is, well, no news! 😆

update in CP forum

Short update in CP forum.

>116 Glacierman: What a great feeling it must be!

New sitrep in Consensus Press forum.

Progress is being made. Check the CP thread for an update from Max.

short update just posted