In the last week or two word got out to the press that negotiations
aren’t going well. Then Amazon disabled the pre-order buttons for some or all
books being published by Hachette. Thus, if some author that you like to read is
published by Hachette or its imprints and has a book that will be out soon, you
can’t pre-order it. That’s the story as I understand it. No doubt what I’ve
heard in the press and on the publishing part of the Blogosphere is a
simplistic view.
Various publishing professionals and authors published by Hachette
have weighed in, almost universally siding with Hachette. One of these was James
Patterson, the most successful author of the last two decades,
multi-millionaire, chief of a writing team that puts out his books. He wrote
about it here,
on his Facebook page. Those four paragraphs have been taken apart and put in an
appropriate, sun-less place by people more knowledgeable than me.
For this blog post, I want to concentrate on the last
paragraph, and one particular Patterson statement:
If the world of books is going to change to ebooks, so be it. But I think it’s essential that someone steps up and takes responsibility for the future of American literature and the part it plays in our culture. Right now, bookstores, libraries, authors, and books themselves are caught in the cross fire of an economic war. If this is the new American way, then maybe it has to be changed—by law, if necessary—immediately, if not sooner.
Look closely at what Patterson is saying. American literature is at stake in the Amazon-Hachette negotiations. As he stated a year or so ago, libraries are endangered, bookstores are endangered, authors are endangered. His solution? A new law is needed, immediately if not sooner. Translation: I have a problem. I don’t like the way my world is changing. Government, step in please with a law to keep my world exactly as it was, or at least don’t let it change any more.
It seems to me that what Patterson is really upset about is
that all the changes in publishing are most likely to result in him losing
market share. He wants the government to guarantee him an audience. Others have
said essentially the same thing, also cloaked in rhetoric. Dan Rather wanted
some kind of law to protect the audience of the mainstream media because people
*gasp* were getting their news from Fox News Channel and *double gasp* the
Blogosphere. Shame!
Patterson believes that libraries are going down the tubes
because of e-books. And who was the party mainly responsible for the rise of
affordable e-books? Amazon. He believes bookstores are going down the tubes
because people find it more convenient and cheaper to buy books on line. And
who was the party mainly responsible for the rise of e-commerce concerning
books? Amazon. He thinks authors are going down the tubes, though doesn’t state
why. I would guess it’s actually trade-published authors he’s referring to, and that
they are going down the tubes because they now have competition for market
share from a growing list of self-published authors and books. And who is
responsible for creating a popular and easy-to-use publishing platform so that
those who don’t make it past the trade-publisher gatekeeper system can get
their books out to an audience without forking over to a vanity publisher the
money they could have spent on a used car or a vacation? Amazon, or course.
Amazon is at fault for a trifecta of problems.
So we need laws to protect libraries and bookstores and
perhaps authors. Not all authors, though: only those published by the likes of
Hachette. Because those published in other ways are destroying American
literature and, by extension, American culture.
What utter rubbish. Many people have forever screamed for a
government solution to their problems, rather than changing trades or business
models. One famous case in antiquity was British boot buckle workers, who asked
for a government solution in the 1790s when the Prince of Wales started wearing
laced shoes, a nation full of royalty groupies followed suit, and buckle
manufacturers and workers fell on hard times because of the buckle-less shoes. And as one famous radio talk show
host has said, no doubt a century later the buggy whip manufacturers wanted a
government solution when the horseless carriage started to become popular.
Now, a century after that, elements of the publishing
industry want a government solution because technology has made possible the
paper-less book, which in turn has made more possible the publisher-less
author.
I may not fully understand the true and complete purpose of
government, but I know it’s not to guarantee wealthy people such as Patterson and
Rather an audience.
It seems to me that publishers are doing just fine. It’s
bookstores that have been hurt by changes in the industry resulting from
technology. But Amazon isn’t to blame. Consumers are. They are buying in a way
that’s cheaper and more convenient. Libraries are perhaps hurting, though many
are making technology-based changes to serve their “customers,” and are doing
well. What about authors? If you look at the complete subset of trade-published
authors (A list and midlist and one-timers), I suspect as a group they are
being squeezed by their publishers, and have done better in the past. Not being
part of that subset I don’t know for sure. But if you look at the full set of
authors in this nation, technology-based changes have made things much better
for them. They have more books out, sell more copies, don’t care if they sell
an e-book or a paperback or a hard cover. They connect with fans. And they are
making more money as a complete set than they ever would in the trade
publishing world.
The only ways publishers will be hurt by the new world of
publishing are: if they fail to embrace and take full advantage of distribution
channels that weren’t there two decades ago; or if authors published with them realize
they don’t need those publishers and desert them en masse. I don’t see that
happening in the next decade. Ten years is more than enough time to adjust your
business model without needing a government solution, don’t you think?
As for this demise of American culture, that will have to
wait for another post.