Guardian: Publishers respond to "who needs a publisher?" article

[J. Strnad]

Luckily I wasn't drinking anything when I read Ms. Mackenzie's comment, "[Publishers] invest time and money in authors, often publishing their early books as loss leaders in the belief that, with consistent marketing and publicity, the author will build a following." If I had, it would have been spewed all over my desk in the classic "spit take."

Yeah, and this is 1940 and Bennett Cerf runs Random House!

Kids, this sort of support for authors disappeared sometime in the 1970s, maybe around the time RCA purchased Random House and ushered in the age of corporate-owned "media companies." Support of backlist and midlist authors began to erode around then, too, as publishing conglomerates concentrated their efforts on chasing after contemporary blockbusters, the instant bestsellers, the business model of today.

Publishers today want a ready-to-go manuscript that will sell itself.

[mdmorrissey]

Most interesting thread. On the "benefits" of editing, most of the novels I try to read are so bad I don't get past page 10, and that goes for stuff that is considered highbrow as well as lowbrow (I'm not choosy). On the other hand, there is so much stuff around that you need some sort of guidance about what to read next. Do publishers help there? I don't think so. Despite bestseller lists and literary prizes, I am not convinced they help. On the other hand, even reading the first couple of pages of "everything" is quite impossible, so some way or other there has to be a way of finding things you are going to like. Whether that process has to be part of the "publishing" process is another question. I don't think so. Just consider this. What would happen if money were taken completely out of the picture, if people just wrote and read because they wanted to, and for no other reason? What would be written, and what would be read? Things would look a lot different.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I think in-house proof readers were the first to be made redundant when times got hard.

I think they were made redundant when times were still good.

[meromana]

Originally Posted by mdmorrissey

On the other hand, even reading the first couple of pages of "everything" is quite impossible, so some way or other there has to be a way of finding things you are going to like. Whether that process has to be part of the "publishing" process is another question.

So true. This is the problem I've found with searching both Amazon and Smashwords. There's so-o-o-o much to choose from, it's really hard to narrow down not just what's any good, but what I'm going to like, and reading reviews and samples takes a lot of time. It can be quite frustrating.

Being published by a big-name house, I have found, is no indicator of either quality or personal taste. I prefer to check specific reviewers or book bloggers who have earned my trust for recommendations of what to read. I see independent book reviewers/bloggers as the literary gatekeepers of the future.

--Maria

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by meromana

Being published by a big-name house, I have found, is no indicator of either quality or personal taste. I prefer to check specific reviewers or book bloggers who have earned my trust for recommendations of what to read. I see independent book reviewers/bloggers as the literary gatekeepers of the future.

--Maria

Is there such a thing? All the ones I have seen have Amazon referral codes in the links. I think peer recommendations on sites/forums like this are going to be the real indicators of what is worth looking at a sample of.

[K-Thom]

This Ursula Mackenzie ist a nice lady. Don't know which reality she comes from, but it sure isn't ours.

If publishers would indeed act the way she describes they might have a future. Possibly.

[mdmorrissey]

Originally Posted by meromana

So true. This is the problem I've found with searching both Amazon and Smashwords. There's so-o-o-o much to choose from, it's really hard to narrow down not just what's any good, but what I'm going to like, and reading reviews and samples takes a lot of time. It can be quite frustrating.

Being published by a big-name house, I have found, is no indicator of either quality or personal taste. I prefer to check specific reviewers or book bloggers who have earned my trust for recommendations of what to read. I see independent book reviewers/bloggers as the literary gatekeepers of the future.

--Maria

I agree. I don't know any reviewers that I can rely on, but what you suggest would replace publishers by guiding readers to things they will really like to read and at the same time encourage and reward authors by finding readers for them. Taking money out of the process would open up a whole new universe. The publishing industry would go the way of the nuclear power industry. We do not need either one. The only reason they are still squeezing us is greed.

[meromana]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Is there such a thing? All the ones I have seen have Amazon referral codes in the links. I think peer recommendations on sites/forums like this are going to be the real indicators of what is worth looking at a sample of.

Not that I disagree that this forum and others are also good places for book reviews, but having referral links to Amazon doesn't automatically make a reviewer biased, IMHO. That's how a lot of them make the money to support their sites. There are millions of books on Amazon that they can review and offer links to, but it's in their best interest to give honest reviews and only recommend books they genuinely believe in, because they want their readers to keep coming back to them for more referrals. If they give falsely positive reviews just to make sales, they won't ever become popular as book bloggers, and that defeats the whole purpose. You have to sell a lot of Amazon books to even cover the cost of hosting a website for a month.

[Richard Herley]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Bennett Cerf

... was not so saintly!

See Jessica Mitford's exposé of the Famous Writers' School.

My experience of publishers in London and, especially, New York has been overwhelmingly negative. If any industry needs a good clean-out, Augean Stables style, it's publishing. And it looks like one is heading its way.

[charleski]

Ray Connolly's article, to which this is a reaction, is the standard 'Self-publishing is the new gold-rush!' fare, but I had to laugh at the following:

Perhaps the Arctic Monkeys, Lily Allen and other rock acts, who reputedly made their first records privately, even in their bedrooms, are showing the way forward for writers.

Yeah, right, they built a niche following of fans on MySpace, then used that to convince a record label to sign them so they could make some real money. Arctic Monkeys and Lily Allen did the exact opposite of what Connolly (and others) propose - they used self-publishing merely as a step up to the big-time of a mainstream contract.

[mr ploppy]

Arctic Monkeys and Lily Allen? Bands were making their own records 35 years ago, long before any of those people were even born. A whole distribution system built up around it, every large town in the world has at least one person selling records (now CDs) through the post out of a spare room.

[J. Strnad]

<<What would happen if money were taken completely out of the picture?>>

You'd pretty much have my career!

[Dave Berk]

Another side of the debate.

[mdmorrissey]

@meromana et al.: Just how does one go about finding reviewers/bloggers that suit one's taste?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by mdmorrissey

@meromana et al.: Just how does one go about finding reviewers/bloggers that suit one's taste?

Look for ones that like the same sub-genre as you and see if you agree on books you have both read.