Does publishing have a future?
The March 11, 2010, issue of the New York Review of Books (not yet online) has an article on the future of books and of publishing by Jason Epstein, who knows more than a little about both. He maintains that with the digitizing of books we are witnessing an already irreversible technological shift that is “orders of magnitude greater than the momentous evolution from monkish scriptoria to movable type launched in Gutenberg’s German city of Mainz six centuries ago.” It will, he says, revolutionize what it means to publish a book–and what it means to have one’s book published–and will put many publishers out of business. It holds tremendous promise and tremendous risk.
Epstein himself is one of the developers of what is called the Espresso Book Machine which can supply on demand, on site, and nearly instantly a paperbound copy of a book. You can see a video about it here.
Well, I have written 3 novels, am writing a 4th, and published none so far, due to the absolutely byzantine publishing industry. My hope is that this new medium will give many more writers a chance at getting their books out there and into the hands of readers.
Of course, nothing will ever replace the feel of a book in your hands, and no matter how sophisticated the technology gets, it can never achieve the elegance of an old leather-bound volume.
One also hopes writers and publishers learn to exploit the new technology and extend it beyond the traditional book metaphore.
I use my Kindle for my newspaper subscriptions, but don’t buy books that route yet. I didn’t have a NY Times subscription until Kindle, (too expensive) and now I do, so, in that instance, the e-reader actually generated new business.
I hope it does revolutionize the textbook industry. Those books can be so overpriced and cumbersome. Electronic textbooks could also address some of the issues raised on an earlier thread: the rest of us wouldn’t have to worry so much about what Texas is doing with its curriculum, books could be customized to meet the needs of individual school districts.
Everyone has at least one book in her, and that book deserves to be published. So, PUBLISH IT YOURSELF.
There was a funny little article in the October issue of Esquire telling “The $1000 Man” what to do with an extra grand. The five suggestions: Lend, Give, Gamble, Invest, or PUBLISH.
Here’s a link to an article that tells you how and why to do it:
http://reviews.cnet.com/self-publishing/?tag=mncol
Here’s a link to Amazon’s CreateSpace division:
https://www.createspace.com/
The publishing industry was in deeeeep trouble even before the economy tanked. Publishers only want books that will make money. Just because your book will not make money does not mean it shouldn’t be published.
With print-on-demand, there’s no inventory. A book only gets printed when someone orders one.
Here’s a link to a book I published through Amazon’s BookSurge program: http://www.amazon.com/Convent-Novel-Gerelyn-Hollingsworth/dp/1439246823/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249645765&sr=1-4
Having lived with a pack rat for more than 25 years (not to mention Son of Packrat) I have little sentimentality left for paper books, even the kind with fine leather bindings that you read while holding a snifter of brandy or little cordials of sherry.
They’re dust catchers, they take up a lot of space, they’re heavy to move around, and most of them are full of Raber’s cryptic marginal notes like, “indeed!” and “hmmm.” It has cost me thousands of dollars to pay for shelving with doors (Son of Packrat has asthma that book dust triggers) in an ever-growing number of tomes in a house that wasn’t that big to begin with.
And, as Irene B, noted,books are expensive. (Though I buy from the “used” shelves and trade on Book Mooch, a godsend for anybody who wants to keep the collection managable).
I agree with Thomas J., that the book publishing industry is byzantine. It ertainly it doesn’t work on a meritocracy or Salinger and Updike would have had to get day jobs. But e-publishing is simply going to make it easier for more junk to get published. So I hope our critics are honing their pens (how’s that for an outdated metaphor for the Computer Age), to help us sort through what will be an increasing deluge of e-books.
Work and respect at last for us English majors? Indeed. Hmmm.
I’ve been told that a couple of books I have in my computer won’t be picked up by publishers because they have too many footnotes and long quotations. So I’ve been thinking of turning them into .pdf files and publishing them myself on the web. That way my pack-rat, omnium gatherum, historical methodology won’t have to change!
On this topic I am something of an old fogey standing athwart the Internet yelling “stop!”
For all its faults, the traditional publishing industry and process can be useful in filtering out the dreck and shaping decent material into something good or great. The idea that all thoughts or manuscripts are worthy of publishing in the sacred form of a book is too akin to what the Reformation became, and what 21st century American religion has become — every belief is as good as another, so why attend to form at al?
I like priesthoods and professionals and standards — which can be violated, often to great effect — but without some process and format all writings are equal and we have no way of filtering the worthless from the worthwhile, or the trangressive from the merely showy. Yes, the new era of publishing and self-publishing can allow a number of works that would not otherwise have seen the light of day to make it. But are there enough trustworthy critics?
And what of the economic model? If traditional publishing, like newspapers, dies, then who will be able to write? Talented academics with tenure? Trust fund grads from the Iowa Writers Workshop? Dedicated aritste/baristas in their shared BillyBurg loft? Writing has only been a paying profession for a couple of centuries, at best, I suspect. It would be nice if it could continue, if only to develop the idea of writing as a craft and a trade.
Otherwise we are left with blogs and self-published memoirs.
That is not to say that your books should not be published, Joe K., or that your husband, Jean, shouldn’t get real and start donating a bunch of books. I purge once in a while, and rarely regret it. And libraries are wonderful things.
So there’s my Rant for the Day.
I’ve been told that a couple of books I have in my computer won’t be picked up by publishers because they have too many footnotes and long quotations.
Fr. Komonchak,
A possible problem is that if the long quotations are from copyrighted sources, you will need to get permission to reprint them. That is a problem you would have if you published the books in regular print format. But to publish them in PDF format you would need to get electronic rights. Some publishers are very reluctant to grant electronic rights. My company publishes a great many of its books in both print and electronic formats, and sometimes we just have to cut items from the electronic versions. Photos are a particular problem.
Hi, David:
The publishing industry as it has come to be in the last five to ten years is not “traditional” at all. For one thing, they don’t read unsolicited manuscripts, only those submitted by agents, and agents only submit manuscripts with commercial potential.
As to “who will be able to write?” Anyone, everyone. Why not?
In the area of convent books, to give one example, few are published by the giant conglomerates that control publishing today.
If you take a look at “History of Women Religious News and Notes”, the newsletter of the Conference on History of Women Religious, you’ll see that many (most / nearly all) scholarly works on religious congregations are self-published or published by the congregations. (That includes recent books by the editor and the book review editor of the newsletter.)
Many (most / nearly all) of the books are the result of years of research and are of enormous interest to readers interested in women’s history in general and the history of women religious in particular. It would be a shame if they went unpublished.
As to not “enough trustworthy critics”? Just as everyone is entitled to write and publish books, everyone is entitled to read and criticize books. Notice on Amazon, e.g., at the bottom of the pages for the MANY self-published convent books, the delightful readers’ reviews.
(My post was meant for David Gibson.)
I will be happy as long as the machine produces a physical book since my collection of bookmarks will still be useful.
If the Kindle or iPad dominate the market fine bookmarks will be as scarce as ashtrays, though I may be able to read more since I won’t have to spend so much time searching for interesting bookmarks.
Davod Nichol: Most of the long quotations are from archival materials. I’m thinking of my chapters on John Courtney Murray which make use of a lot of such materials that no one else has searched out. One of the reasons for the lengthy quotes is precisely that they are not commonly available.
Davod Gibson: I tend to agree with Gerelyn. For most publishers, it seems, the bottom line is more important a criterion than the value of the work, and one understands why. But it’s not as if their editorial boards are acting solely, or mainly, out of the noble goal of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.
I hope it does revolutionize the textbook industry. Those books can be so overpriced and cumbersome.
Irene,
Check out the CourseSmart site. Many major college textbook publishers (including the one I work for) are making their textbooks available as on-line electronic books. The Kindle is very limited and not suitable for most textbooks, but the iPad will work with CourseSmart. A CourseSmart version is roughly half the price of a printed textbook. I don’t know what CourseSmart sales are, but previous electronic textbooks have been a bust. Students have just not wanted them.
Most of the cost of producing a major textbook are incurred well before printing, binding, warehousing, and distribution. I think people would be surprised at how small a proportion of the cost of a textbook those things are. So an electronic textbook is not going to be all that much cheaper than a print textbook.
People seem to think that textbook publishers are ripping off students, but actually textbooks are very expensive to produce, and the textbook business is not all that profitable. My company is doing well at the moment, but we would be doing a lot better if we produced pharmaceuticals instead of college textbooks.
I use sporting and theatre event ticket stubs as bookmarks.
I must admit I’ve never bene moved to scrawl anything in a margin. What is it that compels someone to do that?
This list of the “22 most unbelievable sentences from Game Change” is proof that our gatekeepers often fail us.
“They liked him and they didn’t like her, and there would be no changing that—her negatives were just too deeply cooked into the casserole. (156)”
“For all its faults, the traditional publishing industry and process can be useful in filtering out the dreck and shaping decent material into something good or great.”
I would agree with your thoughtful rant, David G., that there’s more e-dreck than paper dreck, (and judging from my offline correspondence, legions would say my posts here are a prime example of the former).
And I take your point about the value of paper-publishing editors, especially in smaller publishing houses dedicated to good writing.
However, I would say that the publishing industry in general (though there are many individual exceptions) is either a good gatekeeper or critic. Too many gravitate to authors who write mediocre books but are good “personalities” on the flogging tours (Annie LaMott).
A priesthood by all means, but of disinterested and acerbic critics outside the industry. Where are our H.L. Menckens and Dorothy Parkers to provide those checks and balances and stop things like “Twilight”?
OK, I’m running off the original track here, so off to dust those damn books.
that’s is “NEITHER a good gatekeeper …”
“I must admit I’ve never bene moved to scrawl anything in a margin. What is it that compels someone to do that?”
I have my theories, but these are uncharitable, and it’s Lent. Certain People also have no compunction about dog-earing pages.
Certain People can’t dog-ear or write marginalia in an e-book. Neither can they commit these perversions if Other People simply don’t let them touch their paper books without express promises to purchase a new one if they desecrate it.
I must run off to write about Tiger Woods and Buddhism, of course — a task which may undermine my argument more than support it.
Yes, the publishing industry is not what it was, and I completely agree about the problems with getting good things published, and the problem of good editing. But I think Commonweal, for example, would be worse off if it were just a blog or a self-published magazine. And I think the fact that the publishing industry is worse than it was in days of yore is not an argument for making it worse still, or non-existent.
The H.L. Menckens and Dorothy Parkers are all well and good, but they would not have existed without the publishing industry. (And, I would add, there were plenty of “Twilights” back then that they could not stop, alas!)
I just think there’s no substitute for good writing and good editing and the effort of learning both trades, and then purveying the product to the public — and the public is the broken link in this chain, as the audience is not there, whether published traditionally or self-published. If we all self-publish and every book has an audience of one (plus my Mom), isn’t that a tree falling in a digital forest?
Oh, that koan reminds me…
Where are our H.L. Menckens and Dorothy Parkers to provide those checks and balances and stop things like “Twilight”?
I don’t think the world would be a better place without the Twilight Saga. When something is as immensely popular as those novels and movies, there must be some value, if only pure escapism and entertainment. And the publisher, Little, Brown and Company, is pretty distinguished.
Fr. K,
An idea: what about getting some institution/university to maintain a website, where your transcriptions of JC Murray’s writings could be put up? They could call it the Electronic John Courtney Murray! Maybe even the university where his papers are stored would be interested in doing this. Then, future scholars would have easy access and they could add whatever they transcribed from the archive.
Perhaps then you could take all those out of your MS and get it published.
If I can’t spray a digital book with something that will give it that new book smell, I don’t want anything to do with it.
This week’st Becker-Posner blog lconsiders the economics of the e-book.
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/02/are-e-readers-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-books-becker.html
Posner raises a disturbing prospect that reminds me of the unhappy fate of the so-called paperless office: “In the case of many books—since each form of publication has both advantages and disadvantages—the reader will want to have the book in both print and digital form.”
Posner concludes: “Probably what underlies the fear of the effect of the e-book on the book-publishing industry is a broader concern with the competitive impact of the Internet and the Web on the demand for books. Books compete with other forms of intellectual property…”
http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/beckerposner/2010/02/will-printed-books-soon-be-obsolete-posner.html
I believe the contributors to a similar thread on this web site (http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2557) were effusive in their praise of the new technology.
Patrick, thanks for the link.
One of my concerns is the rapidity with which hardware changes and how well your computer (from whence all downloads) supports them. My kid got an iPod Nano last year for Christmas, but it didn’t work with our old computer, so he had to wait 11 months until we got the new computer to use it.
I’m guessing the Nano was about $150, but it took a $600 computer upgrade to use it. Then figure in the cost of each download, and you’re starting to talk a lot of $$.
Jim P. –
One reason some preople write in books is that they view the reading of a book more like a conversation and less like listening to a sermon. Another reason is that sometimes some people return to a book and find it useful to have cross-referenced it in ways the author has not done. And reading a book and noting the contradictictioms from page to page and chapter to chapter (and in some cases even from paragraph to paragraph sharpens one’s critical reading of the book. And sometimes there are just interesting things one wants to be reminded of on re-reading.
No, I would not mark up s book that is finely made. But hpw many of those are these days? Books are for people mot people for books. And unless a book is being read, it isn’t even really a book.
As an old librarian I hereby give you permission, nay, encourage you to read critically where appropriate and mark up your junky books wheneber the Sporit moves you :-)
(Didn’t you know that the librarian who scowled at you and ranted at you for leaving a tiny finger-print on a copy of “Where the Wilf Things Are” was herself a tyrant? ALL librarians are tyrants.)
Make of this what you will: l Friday’s WSJ reported that Microsot claims that Google’s acquisition of that mountain of books will make 174 million of them available only through Google.Hmm. If true. Is this really an improvement?
David Nickol: Thanks for the link. I didn’t mean to imply that textbook publishers were ripping off students, but I do think these books are very costly whatever the reason. I think e-versions could evolve into major cost savings one day. I just took a series of financial planning courses; the required texts were each over $100 and most are obsolete within a couple of years. I’m sitting here looking at a very large book on my shelf called Federal Taxation 2007; this book became useless as a text just six months after I bought it. (I need to throw it away, but I paid so much for it…) I understand the need to do annual revisions on these subjects, but I would think if those revisions were made via e-versions, the costs would be much lower all around.
Hopefully, we will someday get to the point where we can just electronically “lease” for a semester the content from books like my Federal Taxation 2007.
I do think these books are very costly whatever the reason. I think e-versions could evolve into major cost savings one day. I just took a series of financial planning courses; the required texts were each over $100 and most are obsolete within a couple of years.
Those prices will give new meaning to the term “booklegger”, from “A Canticle for Leibowitz”.
Here’s what the Jason Epstein’s Espresso Book Machine allows EVERY WRITER to do:
http://www.fglaysher.com/order_books.html
Now think about it. Why are the New York publishers, et al., needed?
See also my
Publishing in the Post-Gutenberg Age
http://www.fglaysher.com/Post_Gutenberg_Publishing.html
Frederick Glaysher
http://www.fglaysher.com
The idea that there should be gatekeepers to keep “junk” from being published reveals a lack of understanding of how publishing was done even in the good old days. The first reader of a manuscript was likely to be an intern (a “trust fund grad”) who read the first page, if that, before returning the manuscript with a rejection slip.
Now, publishers don’t even bother with that.
And hoping to be protected from bad books by critics? Many (most, nearly all) newspapers have cut waaaay back on their book reviews.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june01/book_6-20.html
In my opinion, everyone should write and publish. There’s nothing magical about it.