M&D Deep Duck Read (it is supposed to be). The publishing of it and an inside tidbit, maybe, & chance.

[John Bailey]

Great piece of dots-joining, Mark. That sounds like a very possible conclusion.


On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> I was in corporate publishing when Mason & Dixon was published. I
> worked for a sister
> company of Holt mainly (and a little for Holt), the publisher of Mason & Dixon.
>  (There are stories around of the friendship between the Head of Holt,
> Michael Naumann, and Pynchon)
>
>
> Anyway, the book was published hard. A large printing was announced. I
> do not remember what it was but maybe 100,000 copies?
> Mike, Matthew, Bueller, anyone, anyone? (Announced printings  are a
> publishing positional lie, used to show relative commitment to the
> different books, and to signal the 'aggressiveness' of the selling and
> attention--the publisher's commitment to spend marketing money to
> promote the sell-through. So, M & D had that, was very well 'advanced"
> ('advanced' meaning the orders taken before publication) based on
> Pynchon's name and above and shared advertising dollars for featured
> displays (therefore stores needing high quantities to make all those
> displays, etc.). Obviously no tour, but a full court press to all
> reviewing media at the time. (Although, as with Against the Day, most
> of the reviewers'/readers' copies were only sent out a couple-three
> weeks before pub day, the official day before which reviewers were
> asked not to run their reviews. [see Walter Kirn's largely and rare
> negative review in SLATE in which he outlines how little time
> reviewers had, therefore how many reviews had to be just
> 'impressionistic".])
>
>
> Although, surely, the final first printing, unknown to me, was less
> than the 'announced' printing--always is, the book sold well : "Re
> Thomas Pynchon's new novel, Mason & Dixon. He told me how
> "brilliantly" it was selling -- at the time (mid-May), it was the
> fourth-best-selling novel in America behind Mary Higgins Clark, John
> Grisham and Danielle Steele". To be a #4 bestseller in Mid-May is to
> reflect sales from its first week (at most two) on sale [getting to
> that interesting fact]. However, it did not have 'legs' to match its
> advance and sales tailed off noticeably. Many copies of that first
> printing were ultimately returned which is why many First Editions
> have shown up on sale tables and online to the present day.
>
>
> Now, a little known insider story (which is in the Plist archives but
> everything old is new again as that movie has it). 'Big' books, such
> as M & D was, are shipped in a nationally orchestrated way so that all
> bookstores will get the book at around the same time. Because of
> delivery windows, that day is set as a Tuesday of pub week.  Stores
> usually have to agree not to sell actual copies until that Tuesday,
> Publication Day. This is the day advertising and store displays can
> start. (Reviews can start usually the Sunday before, kickstarting the
> demand.) Store displays and advertising are planned months in advance,
> of course, which is what makes what happens next quite interesting.
>
>
> The 'original' publication day for M &D was Tuesday April 15, 1997.
> Stores had already set merchandising plans when, late in the game, as
> late as FEb--March if memory serves, all stores were told that the new
> pub day was Wednesday 30 April 1997 (historical pub. date of Mason &
> Dixon).---
> "Don't you mean the 29th, that Tuesday?"  I asked a Holt colleague.
> "No, the 30th"... Corporate stores were upset, Holt and its sales team
> took flak. Why? was the question asked. Word was the decision came
> right from the Top. But Naumann would surely not change the pub date
> without a reason, surely from Melanie and Tom. I got no answer from
> Holt colleagues when I enquired. Now all major publishers can usually
> meet their long-planned laydown date because they have huge ongoing
> printing contracts and can shuffle the printing orders if necessary.
> Now, given the special paper, binding and size of Mason & Dixon, it is
> possible that this special printing ran into a unique production
> problem not solved by moving it into a standard printing order. If so,
> and it lost two weeks, it should still have had an April 29th, 1997
> pub day.
>
>
> Until I, by happenstance, learned it was, almost surely, a heart-kept
> Pynchon secret homage (as in the secrets in that early M & D table
> metaphor). Richard Farina had died
> on April 30, 1966.
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l