[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Jun 22 2005, 07:47 PM\']From every conceivable indication, "rushed it to print" is not a phrase that anyone directly involved in this project is ever going to use. Everything I've heard (including a little bit of inside stuff) is that the publisher is just this side of incompetent. I don't think they're nearly as clever as you suggest, and it wouldn't surprise me if there is no second printing once they start to see the limited sales they're going to get out of the first one.
[snapback]89782[/snapback]
[/quote]
I've never heard of Volt Press, and I've been in the manufacturing end of the publishing industry nearly 20 years. I've heard of Bonus Books (their parent company), but they're not a mainstay in the field. (Not that my present publishing house is the biggest name out there, but we're well respected, and have done damn well considering very few publishers work out of suburban Illinois.)
I haven't seen the book, so I can't comment on how badly it was printed. But if it's the publisher's fault (and not the printer's), it's entirely possible the expense of reprinting the book outweighs the cost benefits. If it's the printer's fault, it's more likely to be reissued. (Again, I'd have to see the book to comment more specifically.)
Also, going back to the first entry, it can't just be the first 1,000 books off the press that are the problem. Books are printed from offset plates (except books printed digitally, but I doubt the first printing would have been done that way) - they don't change magically partway through the run. Either they're all correct or they're all wrong.