Publishing Standards for Cryptozoology Books?

A recent posting to another blog site suggested that the recently published Big Bird!, by Ken Gerhard through CFZ Press, is indicative of lowered standards in cryptozoology publishing (e.g., a thin, quick-print job with little to contribute and just looking for a fast buck). Well, that particular posting was soon withdrawn (thus no need to cite it here), though whether from offline flack or recognition that clear misstatements were made, I'm not certain. I'm not concerned with subjective reviews of cryptozoology books, anyone can like or dislike a book as they choose, but when objections are raised in the name of "higher standards," they can't (or shouldn't) be merely waved away or buried under the pretense they never were made. Otherwise, they come back, again and again, perhaps in different forms or insinuations, but they do reappear.
I am not an expert in cryptozoology or publishing (I don't think one can even be an expert in CZ), but I have enough experience with both (and a stake in the ongoing development of cryptozoological books), to make some observations without being entirely from left field.

First, let me take a look at Gerhard's book. I should note that I've never met Gerhard, and I don't recall ever having communicated with him via email. Off the top of my head, I don't know if he is on any of the email lists I moderate, though some of the CFZ folk are. The first I heard about this book was when I first noted it here on this blog, at which time I ordered a copy.
From a technical standpoint, it does look like a short book. Part of this is an artifact of the book's layout—the font and leading are smaller than normal, the page size is a little larger than the standard 6 x 9 inches we usually see for print-on-demand books, and the gutter (spine-side inside margin) is very small. The page count could have been expanded, giving the text more breathing room. I'm guessing CFZ wanted to keep the page count low to keep the retail price low, but that's just a guess. (Page count has a direct effect on pricing issues with POD books.)
Images in the book are either a) Gerhard's investigation photos, or b) artistic contributions by Bill Rebsamen. Because CFZ put this on a slightly larger than 6 x 9 page, the printer uses a very white page, which does show these images better than I'd normally expect to see with a POD book, but no one should expect offset quality imagery. That is just unrealistic. In this case, the photos are OK, but Bill's artwork looks better. (In the case of page 52, it stands out perfectly—it's a great image.)
Regarding the text, it starts off with three chapters of investigating Texas "flying creature" reports, including some historical recaps. Gerhard interviews witnesses, visits locations of interest, and gives us a look into his thought process as he investigates the "Big Bird." He follows this up with a chapter briefly noting flying cryptids from around the world, a chapter focusing on other flying cryptids from North America, and a final chapter noting the various theories that have been considered to explain the primary sightings. Gerhard also includes within the appendices a descriptive paleontological scenario on pterosaurs (by Leland Hale, not sure who that is) and a chronology of the Texas Big Bird sightings. Yes, it appears that Gerhard included Wikipedia in his sourcenotes (bad author! baaaad author!), but he also cites other investigators and sources. None of the chapters are long, but then they aren't fluffed up with pretentious over-speculation, either. Guess which one I think is worse?
So, is Big Bird! a cryptozoological classic? No. I can count on one hand the number of "classics" published in cryptozoology in the last five years—make that one finger (Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science is the only true recent classic to come to mind). But is it interesting? Yes. I found the first three chapters on Gerhard's personal experiences interesting. I like to see the methodology taking place, as can often be found in early cryptozoology texts: Izzard's Hunt for the Buru; The Spotted Lion; The Blue Tiger, etc. Is there new information in it? Yeah, while there are numerous accounts in the summary chapters that will be well-known to the average cryptozoology enthusiast, there are also reports new to print, or at least I haven't run across them previously. One problem with the non-Texas chapters does arise—they aren't always properly sourced; I don't know where Gerhard got several of the reports from (personal interview, website, or another investigator). I recognize the witness of the 2001 Smith Mills, KY, sighting, but see no indication as to where Gerhard collected the story. Even when protecting anonymity, other details of provenance should be noted. Take the stories for what they are—potential starting points for future investigation.
My personal opinions on the book: 1) I wish the author had spent a little more time on the "umbrella" nature of cryptids as ethnozoological catch-all's. We've seen that in numerous cryptid studies: Chorvinsky, most notably, in his examination of Chessie sightings. 2) I suspect that Texas and Mexico should be the primary focus of further "pterosaur" hunts, rather than PNG or Africa. (And, I know that there is at least one investigation in northern Mexico now, for "pterosaur"-like creatures.) Nick Sucik's investigations into southwestern cryptids suggests that that region has a great deal to offer for zoological discovery. This book only scratches the surface. I've seen other flying creature reports from the southwest, have a few I'll eventually get around to publishing. 3) I don't see any indication that this was anything less than a book the author wanted to write, or that it was a quick-money publishing scheme. Certainly not for the price this book is going for. I can calculate the print cost and wholesale discount; easy enough to guess the rest. Gerhard is not going to get rich off this book, and I don't believe that was his intent. It is clear that Gerhard is an experienced investigator, and it is great to see that he is willing to share his data and thoughts in this fashion. (Unlike some investigators, who might well be caching their reports in a safe-deposit box, never to see the light of day again.)

So, what for cryptozoological publishing? First, let me state, Enough with the crying for a magnum opus! Heuvelmans, Oudemans, and Sanderson are long gone. Frankly, I don't know any current writer who could accomplish what they were able to do. Nor is it necessary. The idea that anything less than a 400-page monograph on a global cryptozoological phenomenon (mostly speculation, of course) is "diluting" the literature, is absurd. This perspective is skewed. Think of cryptozoological literature as a continuum. There must be books that are primarily for popularization—these should (accurately, scientifically) engage the beginning reader, introducing the reader to new concepts and a basic understanding of what cryptozoology is about, and the mystery animals with which it is concerned. As a reader becomes an enthusiast, more information (greater depth) will be required. The foundational books for cryptozoology serve well here (Heuvelmans & Sanderson, the historical texts, the science-oriented cz books, etc.). Investigators may require something even more detailed, which leads to a bit of incongruity: the broad scope of cryptozoological encyclopedias, or the tightened interest of a very specific investigation. Without this range, a continuum doesn't survive, which has an effect on cryptozoology as a whole. Maybe one day, we'll see another cryptozoological magnum opus—but until then, those who feel called to write should continue to publish.
Should there be standards? Officially? No—certainly not set by any one writer. I do believe that any writer or publisher (or writer/publisher) can always do better—and that includes those who publish "real" books. (Please.) I certainly wouldn't want to see word count confused as "quality." There are a few inherent difficulties in publishing cryptozoological topics, I won't go into them right now, but for basic quality issues, I'm sure that most of us with some experience in self-publishing or POD publishing are willing to discuss and debate ways to make a book useful, interesting, and worth a spot on the bookshelf. If you are looking for a place to talk about cryptozoology publishing, feel free to join this Yahoo Group.