While all this is going on, I have Bloomberg on the downstairs TV and I'm wearing the headphones, one earpiece on, one off, so I don't lose track of what's going on with A. Reid Hoffman is being interviewed, which is very mildly interesting, but he keeps repeating something that just does not sound right to me: academics write books for an audience of 50-60. _I_ read a couple dozen monographs a year, and I'm just a dilettante trying to keep the boredom at bay.
When I had the chance to do a little googling, I found some stuff from the second half of the 1990s about print runs of monographs, and just what precisely constituted a monograph. The print runs were a lot smaller than I had realized: 600, with the assumption that half would be bought by academic libraries and half by individuals. These would be books with no undergraduate audience. There was also an interesting article about whether academic books published by university presses differ from academic books published by commercial presses in terms of circulation in academic libraries. Given how I've felt about several recent commercial press published "academic" books, I'm a little scandalized at the idea that university presses should just let the commercial folk have the field. Not that anyone is seriously proposing that. I don't think. Yikes.
Anyway. One of the articles was at this online journal, which really felt like striking gold when I went to check out what the current postings were:
[ETA: Volume 13 Issue 2 Fall 2010 issue, in case you read this at some time in the far flung future and it isn't completely obvious.]
Yum. Yum. Yum.
Let the Wild Geekitude Begin! Er. Ahem.