This Corpse is Starting to Stink Pt. 2

Published March 24th, 2009 |

“So, Mad Editor, what is the solution?” — Patricia

With regards to the future of publishing, Patricia’s question is the one on everyone’s mind. Everyone from the NY literary agent to the pimply-faced kid grinding out that vampire-dragon epic in his basement. And it’s a question that deserves more than a quick comment in response. I don’t necessarily have an answer for it — at least not THE answer, but I do have some thoughts on the matter:

1. Less synergy, Better Niche-fulfillment

Here’s the thing about publishing — it’s no longer just about books anymore. All the major publishing houses are wholly owned subsidiaries of media conglomerates. That means that Publisher A is a relatively small fiefdom within the borders of Media empire B, a company that also owns, film company C, television company F, newspaper publisher Z, music company T, radio broadcasting company U, interactive gaming company J and probably behemoth entertainment agency R which represents several creative artists and entertainers. So if you are celebrity actor X who’s represented by agency R, doing a movie for film company C, you can license your name to publisher A for a children’s book written by a ghostwriter-for-hire employed by publisher A and also represented by agency R, have that book promoted by companies F, Z and U so that it becomes a bestseller and is made into an animated film by company F who hires voice actors (including actor X) who are represented by R, to star in the production. The movie is then promoted by F,Z and U and subsequently adapted into a game produced by J and a soundtrack by T. This is what we call “synergy.” This kind of corporate hegemony probably made sense to the Rupert Murdocks of the world 20-30 years ago, but what does it mean for the future? It breeds mediocrity for one thing. It disenfranchises most of the writers and other creative artists who live outside the walls of that empire for another. In the first decade of the 21st century, it has created a whole media counterculture of writers, artists, musicians and filmmakers existing on the Web. The Web is the new frontier. By moving away from brand-building, remaining independent, and filling under-served niches, we can reinvent publishing.

2. The Rebirth of Authorship

Back in the day, the golden age of publishing, before the mega-media conglomerates got into the game, it was all independent. And it was competitive, sure, but it was a friendly competition. Editors cared about the authors and their books much more than the bottom-line. The authors were given space to develop. Editors had the authority to develop authors. And that was what it was about. Writers were important. You could have a Faulkner or a Hemingway or a Dorothy Parker or a Steinbeck. If those writers were alive and starting out today, does anyone really believe they’d make it? It’s feast or famine. Think about it. Does anyone believe that if J.K. Rowling’s first Harry Potter book hadn’t accidentally caught fire, her publisher would have stuck with her until she found an audience? She is a bestseller first and an author second. She’s a brand now. Think about what happens to brand-name authors. Robert Ludlum has been dead for years, yet his name still appears on the covers of newly published books he couldn’t possibly have written. And he’s not the only one. Great literature is inextricably tied to the authors who created those masterpieces. They are as individual and unique as snowflakes and if you turn them into a corporate brand you make it impossible for a writer to even come close to creating a masterpiece. All you have left are books that don’t matter, a hackneyed product that a chimp could write with his own feces and that reads as if it was. Instead of building brands, publishers should get back into the business of building author’s careers and that means making long-term investments in new and interesting writers who haven’t yet found an audience.

3. Think small

We not only need to move away from the business model of big media, we need to get away from the entire physical structure and hierarchy of the major publishing world. Smaller organizations and more of them. Big publishing is collapsing under it’s own weight? I say let it. Let them all fail. Let the book publishers fold and we’ll dance on their graves, let the newspapers stop the presses. Fuck them. I say, more small, independent, free-thinking, creative small, micro and boutique publishers. Let the meek inherit the earth and may they become lions so long as they don’t repeat the mistakes of their predecessors.

4. All physical book publishing should be on-demand

However, POD has to become as cheap on the front-end as it is on the back-end. As it is, any savings from not having to maintain a physical inventory is pretty much canceled-out by up-front costs of printing and distribution. Those costs make it more difficult to sell titles. We need better publishers producing better books more cheaply. Same goes for ebooks. There is no excuse for an ebook costing the same thing as a physical hardcopy book. Lower prices with a faster more efficient means of production and distribution will lead to a growth in the market. And maybe the technology is not quite there yet to fully realize this goal, but that’s where we should be aiming our arrows.

5. End the Book Auction System

Don’t me wrong, I have nothing against a writer earning millions of dollars if the writer’s book definitely has a market worthy of those numbers, but what about all those big book deals for nothing? Garbage books that never earn-out but went for a king’s ransom in a book auction? Good for the writer, you say (and certainly good for the agent), but what about all those other writers with books who get screwed because of that deal? Authors who might have gotten published or who are scheduled to be published whose books will be dumped on and end-up in the bargain bin because the publisher didn’t support it. That’s money that could go toward publishing and supporting other work by other writers. And what about that writer who gets the big deal and doesn’t earn? What happens to his next book in that profit-generated system? One good score does not a career make. The literary book auction system does more harm than good in my humble opinion. And don’t even get me started on those celebrity book deals, that nonsense. It’s speculative. It drives up costs. If a book is sold for 7-figures (or even 8 in some cases), but doesn’t earn-out, the publisher eats the costs which affects the bottom-line, which affects the list for the calender year and the overall budget for marketing and PR. Publishers should neither low-ball writers, nor pay them excessive and unwarranted advances. Rather, offer what’s fair — No more than 2-years annual average living salary for a mid-level manager. That’s maybe low- to- mid six figures. Good money, but not a really really big score — just enough to live on and keep’em hungry enough to get busy on the next book. If the book turns out to be a runaway bestseller, the writer still gets his royalties.

6. Improved Digital Rights Management

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is currently illogical and inconsistent. If we think of digital publishing broadly to include not only ebooks, but music downloads, movies and games, then DRM basically comes in two extremes: draconian anti-piracy software that doesn’t really deter or prevent criminal abuse or theft of intellectual property but is woefully unfriendly to consumers or something like Creative Commons at the other end of the spectrum which operates on the honors system and has no legal authority or enforceable standard. Government response has been inadequate as our leaders represent special interests with conflicting agendas — none of which protect creators or media consumers.

7. A Better Filter

One of the things that came out of the “New Think” panel at the SXSW Festival was this idea that publishers should serve as a filter. I couldn’t agree more. Where I disagree is with the notion that the publishing establishment provides the best filter possible. I found myself chuckling a bit when the establishment guy answered the Web guy’s question about his role in publishing with, “We provide a filter . . .” The implication being that the establishment provides not only the best filter for judging the value of creative thought and information, but the only filter. The problem with the Internet and digital publishing isn’t that there is no filter or altogether a bad one, but that there are too many filters doing the job inconsistently. Let’s take Amazon.com system for user book reviews as one example. Joe Schmo self-publishes a — I don’t know, say a horror novel. Maybe it’s the greatest thing since Stephen King got his first boner, maybe it’s not. What you get, though, is rarely a fair assessment of the book’s value. What you do get is a bunch of the author’s friends and haters alternatively singing his praises and slinging around insults with maybe one or two reasonable reviews thrown into the mix. The same goes for most unmmoderrated discussion forums and many blogs. It becomes a question of trust. How do you trust that an opinion is both valid and informed? How do you trust the selection process of a publisher? The truth is, a small, independent publisher isn’t necessarily less trustworthy than an established NY publisher. I think this one comes down to the judgment snd intelligence of the audience. And with more and more of the filtering being done in the digital arena, there’s more to have to pass judgment on. I think this is where the community comes to bear. Intelligent, thoughtful individuals, bloggers, etc. making recomendations and sharing information. This is how literary ezines grew in number and reputation in the ’90s and how blogs grew and it’s how books and ebooks that haven’t gone through the old filter of the establishment will find their way as well.