"The book publishing industry has entered a period of long-term decline"

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

And, for that matter, there's probably something to be said for the theory that the popularity of complex 19th century style novels has declined because the 19th century audience for whom it was written - educated, well off, and with large amounts of leisure time - has little in common with the 20th century audience, who tend to be much busier with jobs, etc., and have less time to spend the entire day reading.

I think part of the loss of popularity in some areas for the 19th century novels is the way they were written. Back when Lew Wallace wrote Ben Hur for example he could take the time to describe the setting in great detail before jumping into the story. Today you can't get away with that, and many people don't have the patience for that because where as he had to paint a vivid mental picture of the setting we can turn on the TV and see the area where a given story is set (assuming it's a real world story). We don't need the long descriptions in order to see Paris for example, or the Sistine chapel. Our ancestors didn't have that option so the long descriptions were necessary.

[Richey79]

Sounds like a question of the quality of the writing, to me. There's absolutely no excuse for wasting the reader's time and attention with a dull, functional description of place, weather etc. before the real story can begin. Speaking of the nineteenth century...

'LONDON. Michaelmas Term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln’s Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke lowering down from chimney-pots, making a soft black drizzle, with flakes of soot in it as big as full-grown snow-flakes — gone into mourning, one might imagine, for the death of the sun. Dogs, undistinguishable in mire. Horses, scarcely better; splashed to their very blinkers. Foot passengers, jostling one another’s umbrellas in a general infection of ill-temper, and losing their foot-hold at street-corners, where tens of thousands of other foot passengers have been slipping and sliding since the day broke (if the day ever broke), adding new deposits to the crust upon crust of mud, sticking at those points tenaciously to the pavement, and accumulating at compound interest.'


Not only do you have a description of place that is a spectacular and very concise piece of writing - the setting and weather have a dramatic influence on how the reader interprets the plot. We already have the sense of what it's like to feel crushed under the weight of an interminable court case, and Dickens even manages to sneak words from the lexicon of the debtor surreptitiously into this short opening paragraph: 'deposit' and 'compound interest'.

An awesome tour de force of writing, and a scene-setting description that no one would begrudge taking the time to read. Mind you, Dickens wrote for money and to entertain; probably the best way to ensure your reader will decide that your novel is worth dedicating valuable time to.

[glendalekid]

I remember when television was touted as a "book sales killer." No doubt before that, it was radio. How about movies? Talkies, yet!! Rather than grabbing for the easy excuse, publishers need to find out what their real problem is. I do believe that it has been seriously exacerbated by ever-rising prices that have finally hit the "too high" limit for too many people. I hit the "too high" limit several years ago, and for that reason I am now a non-buyer.

If the current prices were not a problem, there would not be so many threads on here about prices and "how much would you pay". Publishers appear to have forgotten that it's easier to find 5 people who will pay $5.00 than one person who will pay $25.00. But then again, maybe they don't care and would prefer to have that one $25.00 customer rather than five $5.00 customers. If that's the case then they need to stop whining - otherwise they need to make appropriate changes.

I don't know how the rest of you feel, but one thing that really annoys me is when a company or industry believes it has me in a "gotcha" situation. The publishing industry has practiced this with book customers for some time now, and this attitude will surely fuel the piracy sites.

I have downloaded a lot of free books from Gutenberg, Mobileread, and Baen. Thank you for the additional suggestions, and I will check them out, too. I am thoroughly enjoying many of them, especially the books by R. Austin Freeman.

I have signed up for the Singapore Library. In reading the fine print at the Free Library of Phildelphia, I found the notation that Senior citizens 65+ and members of the armed forces are eligible for a free library card from them. So, I sent off an application to them the other day without a check. We will see if I get my free card. For the books currently not in e-book form, especially back-list books, I will continue with the library and Interlibrary Loan.

[ebusinesstutor]

This is happening to many "old" media companies. Newspapers are in trouble as people get all the news they want on the Internet, customized for their own interests and hobbies.

Many people are cutting the cable, and using services like NetFlix and Hulu to watch the TV shows and movies they want on demand.

And now, the "genie" is out of the bottle for book publishing as well. When anyone can publish a book or ebook and reach their audience directly over the Internet, what use are publishers?

The funny thing is that all of these "old" media companies were in the perfect position to make huge amounts of money from the changes had they embraced them. Because they had quality content people wanted, they could have embraced the new channels and offered their content to many more people at a decent price.

But now, they are so far behind that people have learned to access their content in other ways.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I love 19th century novels, personally. One doesn't have to have all day free in order to read them.

Oh, I like them, too; I was thinking of scenes where the characters themselves seem to spend all day reading.

And of course you may have noticed that you are not typical. (I hope I'm not the first one to break this to you).

Originally Posted by crich70

I think part of the loss of popularity in some areas for the 19th century novels is the way they were written. Back when Lew Wallace wrote Ben Hur for example he could take the time to describe the setting in great detail before jumping into the story. Today you can't get away with that, and many people don't have the patience for that because where as he had to paint a vivid mental picture of the setting we can turn on the TV and see the area where a given story is set (assuming it's a real world story). We don't need the long descriptions in order to see Paris for example, or the Sistine chapel. Our ancestors didn't have that option so the long descriptions were necessary.

By this logic, why read at all when we can just watch TV or read books? There were pictures (photos even) of the Sistene chapel at that time, for example.

I agree that some people don't have the patience for longer form reading, including these kinds of descriptions. But I strongly disagree that they are now superfluous because we have television.

[crich70]

I wasn't trying to say they were outmoded due to television, just that the author had more time to get to the actual story back then because he/she had to set the scene in depth compared to a book written in the present day. Photography was very expensive back when it 1st came out and it's likely that few could afford a book of photos back then. They did have the stereoscope which used two pictures to create a sense of depth (a precursor to the viewmaster) but I wager even that was beyond the financial limits of some. Birth and death records were kept in the family Bible back then because getting round was no doubt difficult and a large expense too. We live in a lot faster paced world than people did in the 19th century. I think a lot of the doom and gloom of the publishers is a bugaboo as well as bad judgment on their parts. People don't like having to change how they do business but change happens anyway.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Oh, I like them, too; I was thinking of scenes where the characters themselves seem to spend all day reading.

And of course you may have noticed that you are not typical. (I hope I'm not the first one to break this to you).



By this logic, why read at all when we can just watch TV or read books? There were pictures (photos even) of the Sistene chapel at that time, for example.

I agree that some people don't have the patience for longer form reading, including these kinds of descriptions. But I strongly disagree that they are now superfluous because we have television.

[cfrizz]

It's not just 19th century books, I have read a couple of Anne Rice's books and while they were good, I remember losing my train of thought from one chapter to the next because she would spend 20 pages going on and on and on about the look, sights, smells and history about some damn street in New Orleans.

I'm reading the book because I'm into the characters, If I want to know all about New Orleans, I'll fly down there & take a tour of myself, or buy a book about it!

[BooksForABuck]

While I anticipate that eBook sales will continue to rise, I agree that it's likely that total book sales will fall. First, many eBooks will be sold at very low prices (when I started in the business, my $3.99 price got me hate mail from other publishers. Now, a lot of self-publishers are testing the $0.99 point). Second, many books are in the public domain and can be read for nothing (which is cool but doesn't help revenue volumes). Third, we have ever-increasing demands on our time, and ever-increasing entertainment alternatives. Sure, I can read on my Color Nook, but now I can watch video on it, too. I certainly hope that this forecast is wrong (in fact, I'm in this business because I believe books provide a great value), but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. We on this forum mostly love books... not everyone in the world shares this feeling.

Rob Preece
www.BooksForABuck.com

[GA Russell]

I can believe that the typical college graduate of a bygone era read more and better than today's. But weren't a lot of people semi-illiterate in those golden days? I can't believe that they did much reading.

It seems to me that often the proletariat of today is being compared to the upper classes of yesterday. Naturally it is going to appear that people read less.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BooksForABuck

While I anticipate that eBook sales will continue to rise, I agree that it's likely that total book sales will fall. First, many eBooks will be sold at very low prices (when I started in the business, my $3.99 price got me hate mail from other publishers. Now, a lot of self-publishers are testing the $0.99 point). Second, many books are in the public domain and can be read for nothing (which is cool but doesn't help revenue volumes). Third, we have ever-increasing demands on our time, and ever-increasing entertainment alternatives. Sure, I can read on my Color Nook, but now I can watch video on it, too. I certainly hope that this forecast is wrong (in fact, I'm in this business because I believe books provide a great value), but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand. We on this forum mostly love books... not everyone in the world shares this feeling.

Rob Preece
www.BooksForABuck.com

All true, but ebooks bring a few more things to the table that just lower production costs and lower retail pricing.
Digital distribution makes books accessible to people who otherwise wouldn't get to them.
Reader apps on cellphones and the portability of the smaller readers let people read more often at times and in places they otherwise couldn't.
The same applies to TTS.
There is mounting evidence that ebook readers read more than they did off print, which combined with a modest conversion of casual readers to avid readers might be enough to offset the competition from the PD and other narrative forms.

A lot of the doom and gloom FUD we see around ebooks is just the angst of people vested in the status quo ante facing the prospect of having to adapt to new rules. Doesn't mean they're wrong to worry but it doesn't mean their fears are destined to come true, either. All it means is they have to actually do something to adapt if they want to survive; the comfy old rules are no more. Power has shifted towards creators and consumers; the middlemen won't run the show much longer unless they learn to sing for their supper.

Its early in the game and most players should be able to ride out the transition as long as they don't try to hold back the tide. In the end there'll be plenty of money for the smart publishers.

[crich70]

Part of that I think was due to lack of materials with which to learn as well. Paper was a luxury that many didn't have much of. Schools had the students use slates and chalk when learning because it would have been too expensive to provide paper just for practice writing and doing math back then. That's assuming that there was a school in the area of course and that the kids weren't busy helping out on the family farm since most areas were agriculture based. Of course books were very cheaply priced around the turn of the 20th century too. I've seen ads in a replica of the old Sears catalog from around 1910 where a book cost 5 or 10 cents.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I can believe that the typical college graduate of a bygone era read more and better than today's. But weren't a lot of people semi-illiterate in those golden days? I can't believe that they did much reading.

It seems to me that often the proletariat of today is being compared to the upper classes of yesterday. Naturally it is going to appear that people read less.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

When we don't teach them and then we fail to follow through by teaching our children the value and joy of fine literature, we are creating the situational laziness of today, I think.

I will assert that the biggest factor in the growth of overall laziness has been the notion that work at an early age is somehow abusive or adverse to acquiring an education.

An educated sloth might just as well have stopped learning after he or she learned to count well enough to gather change, and speak well enough to enunciate "Would you like fries with that?" properly.

[emalvick]

On my post back a week ago and many pages ago, I was mentioning the Penguin Classics and Classics in general not because they aren't valuable, but because Penguin thinks it's a good idea to charge $4.99 for one book and $14.99 for the ebook version. How is that valuable or a good thing?

As for classics being free, I am well aware of what this site has to offer, but unfortunately, my favorite authors tend to be those 20th century classics that are not in the public domain. There are a lot out there that aren't available. I love John Steinbeck, yet his book the Moon is Down is one of those one can get for around $7 in print form yet it's $12 in ebook form.

As for music, the most profitable publishers of recent have been the independent companies. The company that produces Arcade Fire is doing extremely well as are others because they are embracing the digital, internet age as a marketing tool. The bigger companies are doing so, and of course there are the artists out there who the big companies are promoting like the Lady Gaga's etc., but let's face it, those companies have shot themselves in the foot more than they've helped themselves. The book industry has decided to do the same thing.

Last, I really think it is difficult to blame other aspects of the media for the decline in reading if there is a decline. I'm not sure anyone could really prove a corollary of such. Statistics can be manipulated fairly easily, so one would need more than that to really make a strong argument.

The advent of the ebook and ereaders may actually be a way that technology is increasing reading. The internet surely makes the discovery of authors and books easier than ever. Without a site like Amazon my discovery of authors and books would certainly have been much slower than it is now. Does that mean more or less people are reading? No.

Do TV's, Movies, or Music hurt reading. I doubt it. They've been around for a while. Heck Music has been around for centuries. Video Games? perhaps, then again, I tend to think gamers are the type who were probably watching TV to begin with. Before them or TV... well I tend to believe that our world is more literate than it was 100+ years ago, so while many people may not be reading due to these things, there were many people who probably couldn't read in the past.

But... I'm really just speculating. As others have pointed out there really are plenty of free choices out there. It just pains me to see companies gouging the consumers of ebooks when those consumers could be there only chance of survival.

[Steven Lake]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

I think they should concentrate on encouraging more people to read for enjoyment, rather than anti-piracy measures that end up frustrating paying customers.

Ya know what? That's the absolute #1 thing they should do, but because the bean counters are in charge, it's the absolute LAST thing they will do. To you and I, and probably a lot of others, it's simple common sense. To the big houses, who lack any semblance of common sense, this is ludicrous. Why encourage them to read more when you can simply milk to death the fewer and fewer readers who are left. Or at least that's their mentality.

And of course, this all falls back on the "$50 glass of lemonade" mentality. They're out to cure the symptoms, rather than the disease, and as we've seen with every other company that's done that, it ultimately backfires. But they don't even get that either. Their greatest plans could blow up massively in their face, and they'll still blame everyone else to their final dying breath.

Another fine example of why I went small house press. At least the little guys get it. Well, most of them anyways.

[mldavis2]

Big publishers are in trouble and they know it, yet few are able to adjust. There are some typical problems when corporations become so large that they resist change and demonstrate a lack of flexibility.

Big publishing companies are riddled with institutional impediments to innovation. There are too many interest groups vying for features, too many bean-counters asking for things that benefit them but not the user, too many committees making compromise decisions, and too many people fearful of promising things without being completely certain that they can deliver. Development teams exaggerate the difficulty of implementing anything that is suggested. Newly hired employees reinforce current company strengths instead of addressing weaknesses. The culture becomes one of safety; speculative development is effectively discouraged. And, in this horrible economic climate, underlings are afraid to make too many waves lest they end up on the next layoff list.

It takes smaller, self-administered publishers to react and innovate, people still trying to make a legitimate name for themselves, still competing for product quality and evolving consumer demands rather than trying to buy up competitors for control to maintain the status quo. Eventually the status quo will fail and innovation will lead into the next round, and the cycle, no doubt will repeat as successful entrepreneurs sell out at a healthy profit and the big guys seek to rule again by the rule of quantity.