A pet peeve generates a predictable screed

There's is nothing--NOTHING--I hate more than authors who defend business-as-usual in the American publishing industry. The way books are published is illogical, inefficient, sloppy, arrogant, and massively tilted towards the middlemen (and I include the publisher in that group) at the expense of the person or people who actually create the intellectual property for sale. I'm a traditionalist--small "c" conservative, even--but I love books too much to countenance that bullcrap. Nobody makes as much money as they could be making, and in our bottom-line society, that means that the written word is less prominent than it should be, simply because of the racket that's been established between a few big corporations that print books and the few other big ones that sell 'em.



Is it Stockholm Syndrome or just a certain sclerotic view of media that makes these apologists so content? Whenever somebody papers over the Keystone Publishers with a blithe "'twas ever thus" or some other claptrap asserting that the poverty and degradation of authors is reflective of some natural order, I'm forced into a conspiratorial frame of mind. Are they practicing their courtier routines before lobbing their next proposal to the usual round of cronies? More to the point, are they as forgiving with their investment advisors as they are towards their publishers?



I came across the latest example of this via the literary blog Maud Newton. An essay in the Columbia Journalism Review, "The Education of Stacy Sullivan," chronicling the struggles of a first-time non-fiction author, was rather roundly criticized by bloggers Terry Teachout and Duncan Murrell. The woman's book already tanked, and you're criticizing her for expecting too much? Talk about adding insult to injury!



Murrell gives a lot of inside baseball reasons why the book in question was a tough sell, and they sound valid to me. However, when addressing the industry-wide concerns brought up in the CJR article Murrell writes, "So, what about the weaknesses Beckerman highlights? They're mostly a litany of old accusations..." Well, hell; if authors have been pissed off about these things forever, perhaps there's something to them. And--try to follow me here--since an author's only interest is selling copies of his/her book (as opposed to the myriad internal concerns of any corporation, which only multiply with the size of any corporation), maybe fixing those problems would make more money for EVERYBODY?



No, no, mustn't think that. We must feel grateful to be published at all. After all, that's an achievement in itself...Uh huh. Wake me when the self-loathing is over.



I give props to Teachout for printing an excellent snippet from a reader regarding the benefits of self-publishing. 700,000 copies of Barry Trotter books later, I couldn't have said it better myself. But Teachout's first reaction to the CJR piece was this by-the-numbers defense, under the title "Advice to Young Authors."



Teachout's advice might be best summarized as, "You're going to get screwed, so decide to enjoy it." I know it's an utter waste of time to get so agitated about someone else's blog entry, but since I'm procrastinating I'll scratch the itch by addressing Teachout's main points.



"Publishing is a business."

Only if you're explaining to your four-year-old why Mummy or Daddy has to leave the house every morning. As noted on this blog many times before, the American publishing industry (I specify "American" because the US racket is the only one I know well enough to critique) refuses to solve many of the basic problems facing any business. Among these unsolved problems are:

1) how to get efficient, reliable and effective market research;

2) distribution without legions of middlemen each subtracting from the bottom line;

3) how to promote new titles once published.



If an industry can't predict what the buyer wants, nor let the buyer know about new products, nor get those products to buyers at as low a cost (and high a margin) as possible, that industry is indefensible. Simple as that--book publishing isn't run on business principles.



That's not Teachout's fault, but authors, first-time or not, can be forgiven for expecting that their books will be sold expertly, just like maxi-pads or umbrellas are. "But books are different," publishing people always say, as if a big publishing house weren't indistinguishable from Proctor and Gamble or McDonald's. The only difference is that P&G and McDonald's are GOOD at what they do. Publishing can't claim special dispensations on the one hand, then hide behind corporate necessities on the other--which they inevitably do come contract time.



"In my experience, Maxwell Perkins-style editing is a thing of the past. That's fine with me."

And me, too. But then why have them on staff? Simply to give well-connected Ivy League English majors the next ladder to climb? As we all know, this process of handing off editorial functions to freelancers has been accelerating. And yet authors' royalties haven't increased--any savings has gone right into the publishers' pockets.



"The art departments of major publishing houses are busy with lots of books besides yours. Left to their own devices, they may or may not produce a relevant, attention-getting dust jacket. So roll up your sleeves and involve yourself in the process of designing your book."

In other words, do the job that you're paying the publisher to do. Designers are paid--and more importantly, trained--to produce relevant, attention-getting dust jackets, authors are not. Contractually, the publisher can put any cover it wants on your book, so getting overinvolved in this aspect not only encourages nasty fights with overworked designers, you're also not getting paid for it. It's all the hassle of self-publishing for much less money (and no control). Sounds like very bad advice.



"According to Gal Beckerman, publishers like 'presentable' authors."

This only comes into play with books that are actually promoted. But it's worth mentioning that most of the publishing houses I've encountered seem to be as interested in building celebrities as in selling books. I've no problem with that, except that (once again) they aren't very good at it. The book biz is completely reliant on the visual mass-media to pull this off. Appearing on TV makes you a celebrity, writing a book doesn't; so the needs and prejudices of TV must prevail. Those are usually different from (and occasionally opposed to) what makes a good book. Think Lewis Carroll would've made a good Good Morning America interviewee? "So, Mr. Dodgson, your hobby is taking cheesecake photos of pubescent girls?"



"In-house book publicists are a mixed bag."

So Teachout's advice is to hire your own publicist. Once again: shrinking the publisher's responsibilities without seeing any more royalties. Remind me why I'm in business with these people?



Then, in quick succession:

"Print advertisements don’t sell books. (Neither do fancy book parties.)"..."Don’t worry about the New York Times Book Review."

So what does sell books? Does anybody know? Does anybody else think that maybe it'd be good to find out? Getting on TV helps a lot but once again, that's not something that publishers can make happen on their own. The more I think about it, the more sensible a book contract with a TV network sounds.



Finally, Teachout ends with what he calls the Prime Directive of Writing a Book:

"Anyone who writes a serious book with the expectation of making a lot of money and/or becoming famous is a fool. If you can’t afford to write a book in your spare time for its own sake, you’re in the wrong business."

Ahh, here we get to the essential nubbin. The problem isn't with the publishing business, it's with the author's bank account. If you're not independently wealthy, you've got no business expecting to be a successful author of serious books. Think of what that barrier would do to any business; not quite the proper atmosphere for innovation. Teachout's advice reflects exactly the attitude that made the magazine and book businesses the intellectual wasteland I remember from the 90s, when I prowled those hushed, decaying, desperate halls. (Yes, yes, I know, there's The New Yorker, and FSG, and blah-blah-blah. But if you think a few shrinking islands of brains gives this country the intellectual environment a well-functioning democracy requires, I've got a President to sell you.)



Businesses improve all the time--think FedEx, or cel phones--why not book publishing? How come nobody in the publishing biz thought of Amazon.com? Could it be that the system works for a lot of people, just not the author? And isn't admitting that a lot more honest than saying, "Better think of it as a hobby?" Larry Gelbart told me once, "Everybody is always devaluing the writer's contribution, but we must remember that everything starts in the writer's imagination."



Whew! I'm plumb tuckered out. Is the US publishing industry still standing?...Yes?... Perhaps I'm the one who needs a hobby...