Democracy and Independent Publishing

"Sadly, now, publishing is almost entirely a matter of profitability, meaning that if you want to publish something that is immediately profitable, it’s very rare that it will turn out to be predicated on strong ideas, or dissident ideas.”

“That’s a big problem. It has considerably reduced the amount of good books published”.

… “without a free publishing industry, there can be no democracy.”

“Books today have become mere adjuncts to the world of mass media, offering light entertainment and reassurances that all is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds … The resulting control on the spread of ideas is stricter than anyone would have thought possible in a free society.”

Sources:

http://www.thewhitereview.org/interviews/interview-with-andre-schiffrin/

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/books-must-stop-beingasideshowtomassmedia.html

A eulogy for a bookstore

"There's something about a bookstore, hard to put your finger on. You stroll into one with nothing particular in mind, and before you know it half the day's gone. What have you done in all that time? Nothing — simply read a paragraph of this book, skimmed a chapter of that, made the acquaintance of a stray thought or two, and you leave at last feeling slightly disoriented; the familiar everyday world, for that final moment or two before the spell fades, seems a little transformed. Nowadays of course you can search for and buy any book you need online, but there is a peculiar state of bibliophilic reverie that only a bookstore can induce."

Source: Japantimes.co.jp June 5, 2001

Death of book publishing conglomerates must not mean the end copyright

"Digitization has transformed both the work of the writer and the distribution of the book. Technological changes have called into question the principle of copyright: digital content is expected to be free for all, without compensation or remuneration. In the world of printed books and printed information, few would expect to obtain a work for free. In the information society, however, access to information, the arts and culture is sometimes referred to as the citizen's fundamental right, the right to get this information for free. It would seem that a new technological imperative has emerged: if it is possible to copy files for one¹s personal use and to distribute them, it must also be permissible and legal – and without charge. 

Even though digitization does transform the world there are still various reasons for the maintenance of copyright:"

Continue: http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2011-07-26-hiidenmaa-en.html

Editors, the redundant species

"I am compelled to express my observation that over the past decades, the editorial role has been profoundly devalued. As corporate structures have gulped down and digested independent publishing houses and imprints, their corporate agendas have brought about a slow steady erosion of reliance on the editor's skill and intuitive vision. In order to release the magnificent sculpture that such an editor may perceive in a stone, the work of editing takes time, focus, sometimes isolation, silence, deep cogitation, and some eureka moments when the objective eye finally perceives the solution to a thorny dilemma. Few editors today are granted the luxury of so much quality time. As a result, most are on a search for near-perfect manuscripts that they can present to their editorial boards, where sales and marketing can immediately perceive the potential for a successful publication. Needless to say, the less editors are encouraged to flex their editorial muscles effectively, the more atrophied those muscles become, and the safer it seems to reject than to commit." MORE

The author of the above tries to justify the existence of literary agents, nevertheless the piece poses and interesting question: are editors needed at all? As Alberto Manguel wonders in his excellent book... Why are writers the only creators whose works "need" to be edited? Why is it that painters present their creation directly to their audience, but writers "must" be polished?

Readers rock publishing industry

Some time ago my novel was rejected on the basis that it contained a message, something that is, apparently, abhorrent to American readers.

Literary agent:

I think I had best say no thank you to reading The Fifth Internationale. From my experience in agenting political thrillers, especially those with a message, I find the American market extremely difficult. American publishers, unlke the Europeans, only want thrillers to entertain their readers. They don't care if a novel has a message.

[...] it is exceedingly difficult to take on a new novelist writing out of a desire to explore political problems and world events in this genre. If you want to discuss and investigate the burning issues of the day, you had best do this in non-fiction.

It is proving to be a contributing factor in the troubles faced by big publishing houses. Readers are not as dumb as publishers think or want them to be. A message in literature, whether serious works or commercial, seems as important now as it ever was (but was overlooked but those who think it is their role to tell what we must read).

PublishingPerspectives:

Contrary to death knell hyperbole of many pundits, we are entering a publishing epoch. Cause publishing, a vital trend being set by the independents, holds the future of the printed word. But in order to reinvent its influence on society, the big houses must follow the lead of the independent scene. Now is the time to take risks, and the investment necessary to take these risks isn’t just about money; its about making a personal connection with readers. From raising proceeds to raising awareness, literary activism is fast-becoming the new arbiter of cool.

Cause. It's the message, and it aims at engaging the reader. Not at dumbing him down, as some want to.

Simplicity is key: focus on community and there is no telling the ripple effect that you could have. And its worth noting that none of this is new news:  with or without the big publishing houses support, we will always be here, NFP and individuals alike dedicated to enriching our culture and community through books. But if cause publishing is to sustain itself, it is time the big houses take notice: invest in us.

Future of book publishing

It's not a new debate, and the news isn't new anymore. Editors loose their jobs daily, hop from one publishing house to another, or from a house to a literary agency, and then back to editing. Publishing world is a mill that constantly churns up the same water, while occasional rain brings fresh drops.

From time to time we hear questions about the need for editors, to say nothing of literary agents. Ask any writer and you'll get a handful of opinions on the subject.

Some will say that editors are a necessary middle step before a book reaches readers, whereas others may opine: I'm going straight to self publishing. The times are ideal for those who want to skip the headache of going through the old process of submitting manuscripts, proliferation of self publishing venues allows for unprecedented freedom. It has not gone amiss on the publishing industry (see the eBook debate), where more and more high profile authors choose to publish directly to eBook format.

What do editors think about it?

"The people who tend to the words are the most endangered contributors to the publishing process [...]" Writes one.

Alberto Manguel has his own view of things, and suggests that editors are dinosaurs slated for extinction, the sooner the better. In his books The City of Words, he asks the rhetorical question: Are writers the only creators who are considered dumb, and thus must require editors? After all a painter's work is not edited. Neither is a composer's. So, what is it about the publishing industry that makes a job of an editor indispensable?

He writes:

"This literature [saleable, easy reads] exists in every genre, from sentimental fiction to the bloodthirsty thriller, from the historical romance to mystical claptrap, from true confessions to the realistic drama. It confines "saleable" literature firmly to the realm of entertainment, of relaxation, of pastime, and therefore of that which is socially superfluous and ultimately unessential. It infantilizes both writers and readers by making the former believe that their creations must be licked into shape by someone who knows better, and by convincing the latter that they are not clever enough to read more intelligent and complex narrations. In the book industry today, the larger the targeted audience, the more obediently the writer is expected to follow the instructions of editors and booksellers (and lately of literary agents as well), allowing them to decree not only practical copyediting changes of fact and grammar, but also of plot, character, setting, and title. [...] The controller in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel Brave New World explains these tactics succinctly: "that's the price we have to pay for stability. You've got to choose between happiness and what people used to call high art. We've sacrificed the high art."

As an author I have to agree with Manguel. If I want to be published I have to wag my tail every time an editor or an agent graces me with her attention, and accept whatever she demands of my books.

However, I am an optimist, and I believe that ultimately the reader  decides. Manguel argues that the reader has no choice, must consume only what an editor chews and spits out, and at last this model is begining to bite back, hence the troubles facing the industry.

One can hope that the debate on the future of publishing looks, and with humility, to those that it should always keep in the foreground: the readers.

Alberto Manguel Podcast

Why are we deprived of World Literature

The book market is heating up. I do no mean the constant dire predictions of doom for the industry, which seem to dominate the news. This time I would like to steer your attention to good news: books translated into English language are making headlines.

I lamented countless times about the scandalous practice, or as Manguel puts it simply: the Anglo-American book publishing model, which overlooks nearly all foreign writers and publishes almost exclusively those who write in English. Recently we can witness some debate on the topic, and hear from organizations that are determined to break the 3% barrier (the overly-optimistic estimates of a whopping 3% of books available in the US being books translated from foreign languages).

Why are English speakers deprived of World Literature? Author of a series of articles takes on the subject:

"Why is it so hard for foreign authors to get published in the US?  It’s clear to anyone working in international rights that the sophisticated marketplace involving scouts, rights sellers and foreign publishers that exists to get American books out into the world does not exist to the same degree in the other direction.

It is well known that placing a foreign book with a US editor can be devilishly difficult. First, there are the unforgiving economic calculations that publishers face in taking a translation to market."

Alberto Manguel argues, among other things, and quite eloquently, that the Anglo-American book publishing model, centered on commercial books, is dumbing down the reader.

But, are financial considerations that only obstacle? After all in other countries they translate books that do not guarantee commercial success.

"Apart from economics, the often cited reason for the difficult of placing translations with American publishers is the limited number of US editors who speak a foreign language.  This is indeed an obstacle.  Rachel Kahan, a senior editor at the Putnam, says, “There doesn’t seem to me to be as concerted an effort to bring [foreign language] authors to the US as there is to bring UK authors to the US, but I think a lot of that is just the language barrier.

One can only ask: Why is there no language barrier for, say, European editors who purchase books from all over the world, and not just from the English language? Is English language and its dominance the primary obstacle for US Editors? Will language courses or hiring of editors who speak more than one language change anything?

Apparently, and sadly, not. The reason, argues the author of the article, is diversity. There simply is too much available in World Literature for American editors to keep track of, to be able to asses what may be suitable to American readers.

If this depressing explanation isn't a blow to readers, then the Literary Agent institution is the proverbial last nail in the coffin. One can browse any industry publication to find articles whose authors blame Literary Agents and their seemingly primary goal of driving up advances on all the woes in American book publishing industry.

"Rachel Kahan, a Senior Editor at Putnam who reads fluently in Spanish, admits, “If they [foreign writers] don’t have a US agent and they aren’t being conspicuously packaged for the US sale, which is the case a lot of the time, I tend to luck into things.”

Are we, the readers going to have access to foreign authors, or are we doomed to remain locked up behind a huge wall that was raised by the industry? I think that some changes are coming, and the recent debates are a positive sign, but, I am sad to conclude that in order to read World Literature our best bet is and will be to learn foreign languages.

Publishing industry to implode

"Publishers, stop spending your millions on this tripe," she implored the book trade's movers and shakers at The Specsavers Crime Thriller Awards, at the Grosvenor House Hotel, in Mayfair, where she was inducted into the Hall of Fame.

"The publishing industry is going to implode. They can't pay the millions to these celebrities. If we don't cut through the dross, this trite tripe… these reality TV writers who are here for their 15 minutes of fame."

That's why they're pushing to eliminate advances and cut royalties for writers like you and I.