Literary elites v. Amazon: yes, it's class warfare

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Let the market work as it should, and if you are unwilling to do that, at least be consistent and require all manufacturers and products to be sold at a price that is equal to but not higher than that of any of its competitors. After all, a TV is a TV.

Funny you should mention TVs...

For a couple years now, the big japanese and Korean TV makers have tried to limit price competition and discounting on their products. Every year, so far, they get the same result: consumers see high prices on the japanese/korean name brand sets and go buy Vizio or a chinese brand. After all, a TV is a TV.

But they can only do that because Best Buy and Frys and all the local TV retailers carry a full range of brands and don't boycott Vizio or TCL or the Roku TVs. They don't threaten to stop carrying their sets if they don't join the price fixing conspiracy...

As the source material points out, pricing is an issue for readers because pricing is a proxy for accessibility and, in an age where even residents of a small farming town have access to all the same TV brands and models as the residents of the most exclusive gentry community, the only way to separate "proper books" from the "dreck for the proletariat" is to use high prices to gatekeep the readers.

It is an imperfect tool, but it is the only semi-effective tool they have left. Price the "properly vetted" titles at $30 and that will keep them exclusively in affluent hands until the establishment deems it appropriate to do a trade paperback at $15.

The perceived prestige issue he brings up isn't just about authors from the elite, it is also (and primarily) about affluent readers and self-identified literates. As he points out, it used to be you had to be a megacity resident to have acess to all the books, all the "best" news reporting, the "best" sports teams, ballet, symphonic orchestras, etc...
Over time, technology has spread the access and limited the value of the megacity. The disadvantages of the megacities remsin, but the compensating advantages are evaporating.

And now the accessibility barrier is being lifted on books.
Read carefully and you'll see that the issue at stake is control of what people can read, that the prestige thing he alludes to is undercut not by pricing per-se, but by the rise of "New media" publishers (selfpubbers as well as micropresses), most (if not all) are not based in the megacities at all and are not part of the cozy incestuous establishment run by and for the elites.

Readers can and should care about attempts to control and limit what they can read. In the pbook era the establishment had a chokehold on distribution and on what got distributed and when. When they had the ultimate power of "No". Now, not so much...

"You'll never work again in this town!" is a cliched villain line because in an industry used to collusion and blacklisting it was a real, valid threat that ended careers and shut down dissenting voices. The same threat today elicits a shrug or a laugh and a counter of "I never intended to...".

Not much fun being part of the literary establishment when all the power is withering away. When the worth of a book isn't determined by the establishment but by its worth to the readers.
Which, yes, is exactly how it works for TVs.
But then, the TV industry hasn't been found guilty of a price fixing conspiracy. At least not yet. Given half a chance, they no doubt would, but in that industry retailers won't play along. In books, many do. Which is why it is an issue for readers.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I suspect it's a case of whose ox is getting gored along with a certain level of tribalism.

Well, of course.
He clearly says as much.
That is what makes it class warfare and a debate between megacity establishment apologists and... well, everybody else...

The reason my fellow elites hate the people who run Amazon is that they refuse to flatter our pretensions. In my tribe, this is a crime more heinous even than eating one’s salad with one’s dessert fork.

Of course, some of use don't care about dessert forks; our preferred desserts are jello and ice cream cones.

[darryl]

rhadin and pwalker. What the BWM publishers attempted with their price-fixing cartel went well beyond setting their own prices. What they tried to do is eliminate competition by themselves taking control of the retail market. Amongst other reasons they wanted to stop Amazon discounting their books. To reverse your argument, surely Amazon as a wholesaler, having purchased the ownership of the books concerned, is the one entitled to set the price at which they sell their property. What the BWM publishers were trying to do was eliminate competition, having experienced it for the first time in I don't know how long and not finding it much to their liking.

[fjtorres]

BTW, the divide between the literary establishment and the rest of the univrrse is not new nor due to Amazon or ebooks; it has been there for literally ages:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B3M3HT0

Professor John Carey shows how early twentieth-century intellectuals imagined the 'masses' as semi-human swarms, drugged by popular newspapers and cinema, and ripe for extermination. Exposing the revulsion from common humanity in George Bernard Shaw, Ezra Pound, D. H. Lawrence, E. M. Forster, Virginia Woolf, H. G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, W. B. Yeats and other canonized writers, he relates this to the cult of the Nietzschean Superman, which found its ultimate exponent in Hitler.

Carey's assault on the founders of modern culture caused consternation throughout the artistic and academic establishments when it was first published in 1992.

Note the publishing date: pre-Amazon, pre-internet bubble.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
This scathing critique argues that modernist literature and art arose as a reaction against popular culture and the mass reading public created by late 19th-century educational reforms. Oxford Enlgish professor Carey shows how intellectuals like D. H. Lawrence, Ezra Pound, W. B. Yeats, Knut Hamsun, George Gissing and Wyndham Lewis scorned "the masses" as vulgar and trivial while exalting the artist as a natural aristocrat and transmitter of timeless values. T. S. Eliot predicted that the spread of education would lead to barbarism. Charles Baudelaire condemned photography as a distraction for the "vile multitude," while other intellectuals expressed contempt for newspapers and popular entertainments. H. G. Wells proposed measures to restrict parenthood as a means to curb the "black and brown races" whom he considered inferior to whites. Carey's razor-sharp analysis is an antidote to snobbery and class prejudice in all forms.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal
Carey (English, Oxford Univ.) contends that the modernist literature of some prominent English authors writing from the 1880s through 1939 was a hostile reaction to the newly educated mass reading public and its popular culture. These writings were in styles designed to exclude semiliterate readers and buttress the self-esteem of literary intellectuals as part of a natural aristocracy. After World War II, confronted by television and other popular media, intellectuals were driven to create other literary modes to shield high culture from the reach of the majority. Separate chapters on George Gissing, H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, and Wyndham Lewis reinforce Carey's general thesis. Published last year in England, this is a closely reasoned and stimulating discussion. Recommended for academic libraries and large public libraries.
- Harry Frumerman, formerly with Hunter Coll., CUNY
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Kirkus Reviews
The obscurities of modern art and literature, according to Carey (English/Oxford; John Donne, 1981), were devised by the intelligentsia to exclude the new reading public for whom they had contempt--a thesis that Carey applies here to, among others, George Gissing, H.G. Wells, Arnold Bennett, and Wyndham Lewis. Nietzsche, Yeats, Shaw, Flaubert, Ibsen, Ortega y Gasset, E.M. Forster, Virginia Woolf, James Joyce--indeed the entire modernist movement, says Carey, depicted the ``masses'' and the popular culture they generated with disdain. These writers, the author contends, worshiped the lofty, isolated, high-minded artist who produced an alienating art without human or narrative content to which the masses could relate. Followers of Freud, the intelligentsia feared crowds and condemned their suburban refuges as culturally impoverished ecological disasters. Gissing concluded that the masses were ineducable, while Wells considered them manifestations of a ``biological catastrophe.'' Meanwhile, Bennett, the ``hero'' of Carey's study, believed that the people could be redeemed through the study of literature, although Wyndham Lewis- -whom Carey compares to Hitler--felt that the democracy they believed in was effeminate. The author attempts to demonstrate how Mein Kampf was firmly rooted in the intelligentsia's orthodoxy--and how the incineration of Jews was an extension of it. Members of The intelligentsia, he says, believed that they formed a natural aristocracy united by an esoteric body of knowledge that protected them from the herd. Concluding with a chilling analogy, Carey suggests that the influence and style of the turn-of-the-century intelligentsia survives in the obfuscations of contemporary criticism. Provocative, courageous, certainly stimulating--and reflecting a profound understanding of the often invisible yet potentially insidious relationship between aesthetics and politics, as well as of how art can be used to camouflage the most repugnant ideas. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

About the Author
John Carey is Merton Professor of English at Oxford University. A distinguished critic and broadcaster, he is the author of four previous books on history and literature, and the editor of The Faber Book of Science. He lives in England

[fjtorres]

Here's one for the establishment fans:

http://dodecahedronbooks.blogspot.ca...alysis-of.html

When looking at individual publishers, there was no clear pattern, though it was interesting that Hachette skewed towards fairly highly educated writers. Does this imply that the Hachette/Amazon dispute has overtones of social class antagonism? It seems possible to me.

· Overall, Indies had somewhat lower levels of educational attainment than Trads, though the difference was not large. However, if we exclude “unknowns”, Trads were bimodal (many had no degree and many had an advanced degree) compared to Indies (mostly bachelor’s degrees).

· More highly educated writers tended to sell at higher prince points than less educated writers. Again, undertones of social class distinctions seem to be present.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

BTW, the divide between the literary establishment and the rest of the univrrse is not new nor due to Amazon or ebooks; it has been there for literally ages:

Very true. Unfortunately groups of self-declared intellectuals with a usually totally unjustified superiority complex and a thinly veiled contempt for the masses have for a long time enjoyed a far greater influence than they deserve on our society. The so-called literary establishment is generally no exception.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by darryl

Very true. Unfortunately groups of self-declared intellectuals with a usually totally unjustified superiority complex and a thinly veiled contempt for the masses have for a long time enjoyed a far greater influence than they deserve on our society. The so-called literary establishment is generally no exception.

Don't get me started on politicians.

The modern literary establishment reminds me a lot of the Kardashians, people whose primary claim to fame is... being famous.

Somebody looking to make a quick buck props them up on a table somewhere and suddenly they're "famous" and we're supposed to take their word as pronouncements from olympus.

Edit: Note how that applies equally well to Paris Hilton, Preston, and Franzen.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I wonder why there is such angst here on MR about some publishers and authors wanting to charge more than other publishers and authors? Seems to me the answer is not Amazon's way but the marketplace way: don't buy a book that costs more than you want to pay. If enough people refuse to pay the price, the price will be lowered. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.

But if you feel you have to bring everything down to the lowest common denominator as determined by Amazon, then why not apply this across the board? Why not start agitating that all automobiles be sold for $25,000 or less. After all, a Rolls Royce will get you from point A to point B just like a Yugo. And let's insist that Apple not sell any of its products for more than the price of the least expensive computer or smartphone. After all, there is nothing special about how Apple crunches numbers or places a telephone call -- it uses the same networks as non-Apple products.

Bottom line is that I find these diatribes against the BPHs and the prices they want to charge as ill-conceived. There is nothing god-like about Amazon's price capping and no reason why any publisher should adhere to it. Similarly, there is nothing god-like about the books the BPHs publish and no reason why Amazon should sell them.

Let the market work as it should, and if you are unwilling to do that, at least be consistent and require all manufacturers and products to be sold at a price that is equal to but not higher than that of any of its competitors. After all, a TV is a TV.

Well, unrestrained capitalism allows pricing fixing conspiracies, which has anticompetitive affects that tend to drive up prices. So despite being able to charge whatever price you like in most capitalist markets, there are controls (e.g., laws against price-fixing conspiracies) that try and prevent anticompetitive behaviour. It's not enough to simply not buy a book where there's price fixing rigging the game.

I think the following quote from the author addresses the argument in your first paragraph:

The weaker reading of Coll’s statement — there’s always something to read for free, so no whining if you have to wait a year to get hold of Piketty’s “Capital” or Strayed’s “Wild”— is an odd underestimation of the importance of reading from someone who cares about writing. Reading is especially important when a book comes along and synchronizes public conversation; the publishers’ preferred pricing model—wait a year for the cheap copy—means that people who can only afford the paperback can’t be part of that conversation.

The middle paragraphs in your post are more strawman than anything. I don't think anyone is saying that all things should be cheap, and it's certainly not the argument of the article that's the subject of this thread. Complaining that people should let the market just work also seems strange when that would seem to be an argument for Amazon to sell books for whatever price they like and negotiate whatever price they like with their suppliers (i.e., the publishers in the case of books).

One of the more interesting points of the article was that most people attacking Amazon aren't spending much time defending the big publishers because the big publishers are hard to defend. That certainly seems to be the case for your post.

[CommonReader]

"improving the availability of books"....


... don't I just love it when multi-billionaires, whose companies have stashed away tens of billions of EUR/USD in tax havens, try to present themselves as fighting for the common man against those dastardly elitists.

The whole parasitical business model of Amazon & Co. is based on the creation of a tiny group of obscenely rich people supported by a huge group of working poor (warehouse workers, delivery truck drivers etc.).
The traditional middle classes - those people who are supposed to be happy about those cheap books - are then kindly requested to subsidize essential services for the working poor with their taxes.

Currently we are being fed the same lie with "uber". Supposedly little, plucky underdog "uber" is fighting against the nasty establishment of the taxi companies. Who is behind "uber"? Little underdogs like Google, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, who claim that their shady outfit is worth 17 billion USD. So in the future, instead of getting a decent, regulated taxi, you're supposed to make do with some rust bucket and a driver with a record. But, hey, while the investors made a killing with their IPO, you've saved 50 Cents on the ride. Aren't you feeling lucky?

We can thank traditional publishers not only for many great works of literature - because they commissioned those books or cajoled authored into writing them - but also for many books as beautiful physical objects. Perhaps Amazon should prove equally useful before they can claim that publishers are superfluous.

Finally, as to the availability of books. My public library has a very substantial collection of ebooks, most of them current titles by major publishers. I can put ten books on the waiting list and I can borrow up to 99 books at a time. This service costs me 10 EUR/yr. No one requires Amazon to "add value" to such existing services.

[darryl]

Nice political rant, CommonReader. Do you now have anything to contribute that is actually more than marginally relevant to the topic?

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

"improving the availability of books"....


... don't I just love it when multi-billionaires, whose companies have stashed away tens of billions of EUR/USD in tax havens, try to present themselves as fighting for the common man against those dastardly elitists.

The whole parasitical business model of Amazon & Co. is based on the creation of a tiny group of obscenely rich people supported by a huge group of working poor (warehouse workers, delivery truck drivers etc.).
The traditional middle classes - those people who are supposed to be happy about those cheap books - are then kindly requested to subsidize essential services for the working poor with their taxes.

Currently we are being fed the same lie with "uber". Supposedly little, plucky underdog "uber" is fighting against the nasty establishment of the taxi companies. Who is behind "uber"? Little underdogs like Google, BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, who claim that their shady outfit is worth 17 billion USD. So in the future, instead of getting a decent, regulated taxi, you're supposed to make do with some rust bucket and a driver with a record. But, hey, while the investors made a killing with their IPO, you've saved 50 Cents on the ride. Aren't you feeling lucky?

We can thank traditional publishers not only for many great works of literature - because they commissioned those books or cajoled authored into writing them - but also for many books as beautiful physical objects. Perhaps Amazon should prove equally useful before they can claim that publishers are superfluous.

Finally, as to the availability of books. My public library has a very substantial collection of ebooks, most of them current titles by major publishers. I can put ten books on the waiting list and I can borrow up to 99 books at a time. This service costs me 10 EUR/yr. No one requires Amazon to "add value" to such existing services.

This post has it all. Railing against a retailer for being just a way for billionaires to make money, praise for traditional publishers (that are presumably making money for a more agreeable set of billionaires), the argument that there are enough books anyway, and then a totally unrelated dig against Uber.

All that, and spiced up with just a few subtle hints of conspiracy make this a post with a truly delightful bouquet.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

This post has it all. Railing against a retailer for being just a way for billionaires to make money, praise for traditional publishers (that are presumably making money for a more agreeable set of billionaires), the argument that there are enough books anyway, and then a totally unrelated dig against Uber.

All that, and spiced up with just a few subtle hints of conspiracy make this a post with a truly delightful bouquet.

Oh, what a delightfully blatant attempt to misrepresent what I said. I suppose that misrepresenting other peoples' statements is what puts bread on your table when you are acting in a professional capacity (hopefully done more skillful in exchange for clients' money), but we should be able to do without that in this forum.

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by darryl

Nice political rant, CommonReader. Do you now have anything to contribute that is actually more than marginally relevant to the topic?

Companies like Amazon and the way they operate are a political issue. If you want to claim otherwise then you should look at the UK, where companies like Starbucks and Amazon are facing a political backlash even from traditionally business friendly, conservative parties, for the way they conduct their business.
Amazon itself is under investigation by the EU commission for receiving illegal subsidies from the nice tax arrangement they have with Luxembourg.
These are political issues that have to be addressed in political terms.

It's also obvious that Amazon's PR tries to portray publishers as greedy. It is legitimate to point out that Amazon operates on the basis that financial advantages to the consumers shall be financed by their suppliers, not by Amazon itself.

Finally, the basis for this thread is a piece by an author who rants about class and elites. It is ironic that you accuse my contribution of being a "political rant" when the very basis for this thread is exactly such a "rant" as well.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

It is legitimate to point out that Amazon operates on the basis that financial advantages to the consumers shall be financed by their suppliers, not by Amazon itself.

Certainly. It's just not legitimate to suggest that that basis of operation was invented by Amazon, is remotely unique, or is inherently parasitic.

Amazon itself is under investigation by the EU commission for receiving illegal subsidies from the nice tax arrangement they have with Luxembourg.

Well, if we're forming our opinions of wrongdoing on the basis of governments investigating companies for illegal activity ...

[fjtorres]

And here we go again...
Looking to sidetrack the discussion from the subject to get the thread closed.

Who cares what European politicians or bureaucrats do? The subject is american literary elitism, yay or nay.so far all I see on the nays is hand waving and smokescreens.

The world is changing, whether you like it or not dudes...

I'm outta here...