Date: July 2001
From: Rob Schneider
To: Frankly Speaking
Subject: Book Size and Paper Quality
Folks,
I love the content in the new version of
Programming Python.
It's a definitive work.
I just wish:
The book weren't quite so thick. Maybe you need two books in a
matched set?
The paper were of sufficient quality to permit highlighting with
standard pens, e.g. Stabilo Boss, without the ink soaking through to the other
side.
Thanks,
rms
Dear Rob,
Thanks for the compliment. I'm glad you like the second edition of
Programming Python. You made two points above. Beware that this
response might get to be the size of Programming Python.
Those of us in O'Reilly Editorial were, well, shocked when we saw the size of
the book. I was not the editor of this edition (Laura Lewin is), but I had a
similar experience when I edited the first edition. I contracted with Mark
Lutz for a 400-page book on Python; what he delivered was twice that size. He
later admitted to me that he was afraid O'Reilly would publish only one Python
book, so he decided to put everything he could think of into the first book.
As you know, we've published a lot of
Python books since the first edition
of Programming Python, so Mark had no excuse for the surprising size of
the second edition. Still, when we got over our shock, we were so pleased with
the wealth of excellent content that we forgave him. It's an embarrassment of
Python riches. The existence of
Learning Python freed
Mark from including much introductory and tutorial material, and when he
started to look at more advanced topics, he found much of interest and much to
write about: GUIs, databases, embedding and extending, and so forth.
Your suggestion that we split up the book into two volumes is a good one. In
fact, our
Japanese office did their translation
of the first edition in two
volumes to reduce the time-to-market and make that edition less unwieldy.
Laura and Mark thought about taking some of the material out of the second
edition and publishing it as "Advanced Python Programming." But I put the
kibosh on that idea: I wanted to get the material into the hands of the reader
as soon as possible after the release of Python 2.0. I also worry about
"advanced" as a topic qualifier. You can probably figure out the essential
first parts of a language for a "Learning" book; but when someone programs
on an advanced level, (s)he is probably working in a specific area in
great depth: Web services programming, for example, or database programming.
Most programmers aren't advanced across the board (Fredrik Lundh and Tim
Peters notwithstanding).
We may indeed prune Programming Python in the third edition, taking
some of the advanced material out and publishing it in one or more targeted
advanced books. But any such change will have to wait until Mark revises the
Python Pocket Reference
and works with David Ascher to revise Learning Python. And when he
writes the third edition, we're going to watch him like a hawk.
Your second question concerns the quality of the paper we used in this book.
I don't think quality is the issue here. It's high-quality paper, acid-free,
and 85% recycled. The difficulty is that the book is over 1,200 pages long, and
to put it in one volume, we had to use thinner, lighter paper. Here's the
algorithm we currently use: If a book is under 500 pages, we use 50#
high-bulking paper. For books between 500 and 1,000 pages, we use 45# paper.
And for definitive tomes over 1,000 pages, like Programming Python, we
have to use 40# paper.
A related issue is the binding. Because of some technological advances at our
main printer and because of the lighter paper, we are now able to use a
lay-flat binding on books as
large as 1,000 pages. You'll note that
Programming Python, tipping the scale at over 1,200 pages, cannot use a
lay-flat binding. This is the one physical characteristic of our books that we
hear about regularly. Readers seem to love the lay-flat binding, and we
endeavor, when we can, to keep our books under 1,000 pages for that reason.
So, for you to be able to mark up your copy with a highlighter, Mark and Laura
will have to cut out some material for the third edition. In the meantime, I
recommend that you give up highlighting your books, using a ballpoint pen or a
pencil to make marginal comments instead. In her book More Learning in Less
Time (Way to Books, March 1999), Dr. Norma B. Kahn, my esteemed former
professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Education, discourages
the use of highlighting or underlining as a memory aid. She believes that you
learn more by gleaning the important message in the text and restating it in
your own words. Also, although Professor Kahn doesn't make this point,
ballpoint and pencil won't bleed through, even at 40#.
There is an advantage to you in our using the lighter paper: You can actually
pick up the book and carry it, say, across the room. We try to make our books
as convenient for the reader as possible, and for big books, that means light
and compact. Many publishers make their books look more substantial (and more
visible on the retail bookshelf) by putting fewer words on a page and using
high-bulking paper. O'Reilly doesn't do that. We use a higher-bulking paper
for the books under 500 pages so they at least show up on the shelves; but for
books above 500 pages, we use lighter paper to make the books slimmer and
easier to carry.
I've
offered this
challenge before: Take two books off the shelf, one from O'Reilly and
another from one of our competitors, with about the same spine width, say, an
inch and a half. See how many pages each has. I will bet serious money that
the O'Reilly book has more pages in the same size book. And if you really want
to get serious, count the number of words on a page. I think you'll find that
you get much more information on a page, and more pages to an inch of spine
width, in an O'Reilly book than in one from our competitors. So a big book
from us, though it might be about the same price as a big book from another
publisher, delivers more information for the price. Their high-bulking
practices soak up more than highlighter ink.
Thanks again for your suggestions,
Frank Willison
Editor-in-Chief
O'Reilly & Associates
Return to: Frankly Speaking
