Talk:Library of America

List order

In a list of 168 books, are we sure we want them in date order? This makes a specific volume difficult to find. --Blainster 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but the publisher itself uses this order and numbering—right down to 37A and 37B for the now-split Franklin books—in each volume. And the chronological ordering allows a reader to see how the series has developed. The ideal solution might be to give both a chronological ordering and an ordering by author. But that would make an already long article a lot longer. Casey Abell 01:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I converted the list to a sortable table, which allows both. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Typeface

I was reading a Philip K. Dick compilation published by Library of America, and the last line on the last (printed) page says "Designed by Bruce Campbell.", but what that refers to is unclear in context. The only thing I've been able to find out is that multiple Library of America volumes say that. I don't think it's referring to THE Bruce Campbell, but I don't know how to find out. Roastsnail (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Campbell was the book designer--type, layout, materials, endpapers, etc. He also designed the slipcaes used in the Time-Life distributed series. He was/is a book designer based outside Princeton NJ. The black jackets were designed by R.D. Scudellari. (I was the production manager in the 1980s.) Proyster (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

He chose the Galliard typeface for the series design; the typeface was designed by Matthew Carter. Proyster (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Library of America as a Penguin Group imprint

The present article reads like advertising copy. It also fails to show that Library of America is currently imprint of Penguin Group.

For evidence of the imprint, please see, http://us.penguingroup.com/static/html/services-library/termssale.html, which states

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. Terms of Sale to Schools, Libraries, and Institutions

...

These imprints combine for order minimums: ... (PENGUIN GROUP) ... Library of America

The relationship is less clear from the LAO web site. For example, a contact page states "The Library of America is distributed to the trade by Penguin Group (USA), Inc."

I believe LAO started out as an independent publisher that was later acquired by the Penguin Group. For example, This New York Times article titled "Publication of Classics Series Begins" (Published: April 22, 1982) states

Set Up by Two Grants

Literary Classics is a nonprofit organization set up by a $1.2 million grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities and $600,000 from the Ford Foundation. The hope is that the project will eventually pay its own way through the sale of its uniform volumes, which will cost $25 each in bookstores and $19.95 through subscription from Time-Life Books.

The article "What's New in Book Distribution", The New York Times (July 26, 1987) states "Several small publishers are tackling the problem by having large publishing houses distribute their books. Library of America is distributed by Viking Penguin, ..." implying LOA was an independent publisher at the time though used Penguin for manufacturing.

The article "The Media Business; A Hard Sell, Inspired by The Classics", The New York Times (May 20, 1991) has "Vintage Books, an imprint of Random House, has begun publishing trade paperback editions of the Library of America, a series of classic works by American writers." (this was announced in at February 28, 1990 article.)

I was unable to locate an announcement of a merger/acquisition. Using Cengage I'd searched for articles with "Library of America" in the subject or title and "Penguin" in the body. It's possible this was not covered by a standalone article and so I e-mailed the LOA for the date as there's a lot of noise if I do a general search. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I received an e-mail reply from LOA Customer Service that says "The Library of America has never been an imprint of the Penguin Group; we are an independent non-profit publisher. Penguin Group does our bookstore distribution on our behalf; that is all." In re-reading the Penguin terms-of-sale page I see that most of the imprints they list are for brands that Penguin owns. I had not realized they would mix imprints for which they do the manufacturing and distribution into the list though that makes sense. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

reads like an advertisement

I've made an edit (I'm clueless and so I'm certian I've flubbed it up entirely) to alert that the page reads like an advertisement sorry that I'm so incompetent, I hope an experienced wikipedian can come by and fix my errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.137.73 (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The page still reads like an advertisement -- though there's no flag visible on it to that effect -- and it lacks citations wrt the celestial qualities of the books. Wegesrand (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Library of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080504132654/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/06.07/03-honorands.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2007/06.07/03-honorands.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a charity. Article is advertisement and should be taken down.

Looked to see percent that went to executive compensation.

No charity listing organization I could find returned any results whatsoever to a search for "Library of America."

It's reasonable to conclude it's not a public charity. Lots of "non-profit" companies don't benefit the public, but the members, and don't bother to register as 501(c)(3) because they provide no or negligable public benefit.

All info. I found is consistent with an organization privately controlled by "donor/executives" that profits from subscription sales of up-market luxury books and distributes those profits in the form of generous executive salaries, bonuses, benefits, retirement plans, etc.

As such, it's doubtful that "Library of America" is Wikipedia-worthy -- little of public importance to merit an encyclopedia article. The article seems to be basically an advertisement hawking its books.

In reply to the unsigned statements above:

1. LOA is non-profit, and does not claim to be a charity. The fact that other non-profits (unnamed) may or may not provide negligable public benefit (or that others may or may not be saving hundreds of thousands of lives) is not the least bit relevant to LOA.
2. LOA is unquestionably notable, at the very least because of the sources cited.ch (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

LoA is published by a 501(c)(3) organization called "Literary Classics of the United States." Official papers are filed with New York State and the IRS under that name. (Former CFO) Proyster (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Restoring removed material

Without any discussion on the talk page, an editor removed almost all the material in this article. The rationale was supposedly "advertising" comments. I've restored the material in objective and neutral terminology. In the future please discuss major changes in the article on the talk page so other editors can react. Thank you.--72.180.14.198 (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to lessen the charges of "advertising" I've begun a "Criticism" section with a number of references to unfavorable and/or satirical comments about the LOA. The series has hardly been free from controversy over its history.--72.180.14.198 (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Having included a number of outside references and removed the "advertising" language, I have taken down the tag at the top of the article. Other editors can discuss whether tagging is still necessary.--72.180.14.198 (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)