Troubles in publishing? It’s not just the Web’s fault
So I just finished speaking at Chicago’s Printers Row Lit Fest, an excellent two-day book festival. Despite the threat of rain at this mostly outdoor event, there was a good-sized crowd, maybe reaching 125,000 booklovers. There were fathers pushing strollers; women wearing “Have a Spine” shirts; people peddling socialism, pet adoption, and, of course, books–and noted authors Dave Eggers and Elmore Leonard, among many others, talking about their work. If you are a bookish type, large literary festivals are the equivalent of Coachella for music aficionados.
Chicago is one of our most literary of cities and so the event is a celebrated weekend each June. Printers Row has been going on for 25 years. Unfortunately, I doubt the festival will go on another 25 years. And that dire prediction goes for other major book fairs held in Miami, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles.
It is common to blame technology and readers for problems in the book business, but I think changing reading habits are only part of the issue. There is hope that Amazon’s Kindle book reader will save book publishing, but Steve Jobs is dead on about the Kindle: “It doesn’t matter how good or bad the product is, the fact is that people don’t read anymore. Forty percent of the people in the U.S. read one book or less last year. The whole conception is flawed at the top because people don’t read anymore.”
Jobs told this to the New York Times last year. When I read his quote, I was mildly outraged, but then I started talking with my friends, most of which are well educated. I came out with a book late last year. It was published by Houghton Mifflin, a storied imprint. I told my friends that Houghton publishes Philip Roth and here was the shocker: most of my friends would respond with a blank stare. Philip who? Hello, Philip Roth, arguably the best novelist of the last 25 years. And then as I started my book tour, I noticed how independent bookstores were folding almost daily, and publishing houses were struggling, too. It is easy to blame readers, or the Internet, but after I talked to numerous authors and booksellers the blame was directed at publishers. There are great works being published, but many of them are “lost” because so many mediocre books clog the bookstores. It is well-known within publishing circles that editors don’t edit much anymore because they are wrapped up in acquiring and marketing books. They are pulled in many directions and not concentrating on the books themselves. Authors always complain about marketing and editing, of course, but it really has become a problem in the industry. Book publishers don’t practice quality control, a fatal decision in any business.
The Web has changed the game, sure. I happen to love books, but I also love the new mediums for writing, and expressing oneself. Because of the breakdown in traditional publishing we are experiencing a gaggle of voices, but that will probably subside over time and the most articulate/funny/controversial/accurate voices will eventually emerge. While newspapers have thrown away their future, book publishers still have a chance to save themselves. They need to change the circa 1875 business model, stop flooding the market with poorly edited books, and learn modern marketing techniques. Whether they are printed or read on a Kindle, books are a vital resource in developing a culture, and publishers need to be willing to change age-old practices. They are whistling as the coffin goes by.
Long narratives, from the Bible to Philip Roth’s novels, have always helped us decipher our world. I don’t want to see books fade into obscurity, yet another writing form vanishing before us. (I have spent the last two years watching the newspaper industry die.) As the late novelist David Foster Wallace said, “Fiction’s about what it is to be a fucking human being.”
Good post about the publishing industry. Sadly, you are too correct about the publishing industry’s archaic business model and the new emphasis on sell, sell, sell. New authors are rarely getting a big break and an even slimmer percentage are getting publicity and money thrown behind a book. What’s even worse is that lately publishers have decided that offering huge advances to celebrities or politicians for their biographies is the best way to become profitable. This practice drives me crazy. Donald Rumsfeld does not need a multi-million dollar book deal.
Nick, I agree. I hate to hope for a knight on a white horse, but it would be interesting to see if someone outside of publishing could come up with a plan that makes books more viable. Just imagine what would have happened in the music industry if Apple hadn’t come along with the iPod. The music biz isn’t exactly healthy but it could be worse.
In response to another comment. See in context »Without a massive research study, it’s hard to say if books are becoming mediocre for lack of editing. Even still – assuming this is true – I doubt it’s at the heart of the upheaval in book publishing.
Also, even if 40% of people haven’t read a book in the last year – that actually sounds about like how it’s always been – and still leaves a ton of readers out there.
Yet clearly things are changing – and as far as I can see, it’s about the same scenario that’s recently transpired with recorded music. Once upon a time everyone wanted an expensive stereo to play their library of CDs. All the talk was about perfect sound reproduction and thunderous bass. Yet, except for home theater DVDs, in just a few years – for the sake of convenience – people with iPods have completely abandoned the notion of big-sounding systems and libraries of physical disks. Inferior to CDs, mp3 files are nonetheless far more portable for personal listening, and when it comes to perfect sound, almost nobody cares anymore.
Books are like home theater systems playing DVDs and recorded HD content in large chunks of time – still the best way to enjoy the material at its greatest depth. But most people are perfectly happy with slightly lesser writing quality for the sake of other factors appealing to them.
For news, it’s timeliness. For lifestyle pieces, many are satisfied with blogs. For general information, people refer to Wikipedia – constantly updated and current.
It isn’t the publishers, editors, internet writers or any other sort content delivery problems killing off books — instead it’s the reading behavior of content consumers in age where people are simply more accepting of lesser quality and alternative media outlets.
Today more than ever, people are making and sharing their own content – subscribing to obscure blogs – following edgy web comics – tweeting and instant-messaging – entertaining and communicating with each other all at the same time.
Books? Oh that’s what you buy when a novel is published alongside a popular video game.
Books won’t die, but the preeminence of the printed word as a means for communicating any sort of written content is already long gone.
Ken Ramsley
Hi Ken,
Yes, you’re probably correct when it comes to my comment about mediocrity in books. I am making a conclusion over books that I read and from other anecdotal evidence. Over the last year, I have had the quality discussion with author friends. While my book publishing experience has been quite good, I am the exception among author friends. In some cases, books were never really edited, and authors ask friends, their agent, and sometimes even hire their own editor to help make the book better. You make some other great points. Thanks for reading.
In response to another comment. See in context »Unfortunately, you are quite correct about the publishing industry, but this is not a new phenomenon. I’ve worked in publishing for nearly 25 years, about half of that in commercial book publishing with one of the major houses. Editing of books and nurturing of authors started being phased out in the mid-90s, by quite specific design. Editors were essentially told not to edit, but to acquire the next bestseller. I actually had one manager ask me why I needed to edit a manuscript: if the author were any good we should just be able to print it. (This same person also questioned the need to proofread, since the compositors should know what they’re doing.) Not coincidentally, this head-of-imprint came not from an editorial background, but a marketing background.
When I first started out in the business, it was common for editors to actively work with authors over several books to build an audience, with the expectation that the author’s sales would gradually increase until a breakout point (mostly this was for novelists). But the business mentality changed over the years to pump out more books and see what worked. If an author didn’t breakout with the first or second book, too bad, on to the next author.
The one thing going for book publishers is that, no matter what advances in technology, printed books aren’t going to go out of style anytime soon. The number of “readers” in this country has stayed pretty stable and frankly has never been all that big. While this may change in the future, printed books will still endure.
But you’re correct that the likely solution to a failing publishing business is not to continue to pump out volume, but to cut back and publish quality. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening any time soon.
I just learned that an independent house where I was an editor years ago just entered chapter 11
http://blogs.wsj.com/bankruptcy/2009/06/08/prominent-publishing-house-enters-chapter-11/
That is a shame. I worry about other publishing houses reaching a similar fate.
In response to another comment. See in context »Change is both hard and inevitable – though it rarely affects what we value and hold most dear. Art won’t end. Literature will remain. News will continue to spread. Jokes will still be told. Words will remain important.
Only -how- these words are transmitted from writer to audience has fallen between the stones, pulverizing everything -except- what matters most to us – our human spirit, our creative nature, our desire to be heard and known.
As writers, the only road ahead is to search out new avenues for ‘publication’ – matter how these are labeled and formed.
Ken Ramsley
I think we can all agree on the backwardness and insularity of the publishing industry. The more interesting point for discussion is whether or not 40 percent of the country is indeed functionally illiterate. It may well be – if anyone knows of any recent research on this point from Pew or whoever, please do tell – but my feeling is that it has long been that way. Some 20 years ago, at my college’s literary festival, it was argued that perhaps as few as 100,000 of us are regular readers of serious literature. And this was well before Mosaic and Netscape.
I would disagree with your contention that book fairs are headed for the ash heap of history. The hoary lot of us who dig into bookshelves, thumb through used hardbacks and revel in finding a diamond in the rough may not hold up against the legion of empty-headed gamers, but there are enough of us to keep the flame alive.
As a young person, I can say, books are a dying breed. Textbooks? Heavy, breakable, expensive. Novels=TV without the pretty pictures. Non-fiction? Just listen to the interview, and read what someone else has to say about it, and you got the best parts, without the boring.
I’m an old-schooler, and I get labeled for that, and heckled. I dunno where they get the creative language though, cause it sure isn’t coming out of a book.
[...] Troubles in publishing? It’s not just the Web’s fault Gary Poole debates the changes he has recently seen in the publishing industry. Are people no longer reading or are they reading alternatives to novels? [...]
[...] idea: the problem is quality control. As an editor, this appeals–job security if the rest of the world buys in at [...]