I can't say I read The Wall Street Journal daily, but when my brother-in-law handed me a copy
of Eric Felten's "Cherish the Book Publishers--You'll Miss Them When They're Gone," I began
to wonder just how many Kindle cliches fit into one mainstream article. The entire article,
while interesting, is anything but thorough or balanced in its treatment of Kindle self-publishing.
Instead, it becomes more about Felten's glib take on the issue than about the facts, even ending
with an attempt at humor in which Felten surely jests about a "series of novels
I've been writing about an elf detective who travels through time to woo Helen of Troy's third
cousin..." Really, Eric Felten, does your condescending, dismissive, though slightly funny quip
take the place of actual research? If so, maybe The Wall Street Journal needs to focus more
on its own gatekeeping and less on that of Kindle self-publishers or New York publishing houses.
I'm not saying that Felten doesn't have a very real concern about the proliferation of less than literate
garbage in the e-book era (some of which, I might add, has the editorial vetting of New York
of Eric Felten's "Cherish the Book Publishers--You'll Miss Them When They're Gone," I began
to wonder just how many Kindle cliches fit into one mainstream article. The entire article,
while interesting, is anything but thorough or balanced in its treatment of Kindle self-publishing.
Instead, it becomes more about Felten's glib take on the issue than about the facts, even ending
with an attempt at humor in which Felten surely jests about a "series of novels
I've been writing about an elf detective who travels through time to woo Helen of Troy's third
cousin..." Really, Eric Felten, does your condescending, dismissive, though slightly funny quip
take the place of actual research? If so, maybe The Wall Street Journal needs to focus more
on its own gatekeeping and less on that of Kindle self-publishers or New York publishing houses.
I'm not saying that Felten doesn't have a very real concern about the proliferation of less than literate
garbage in the e-book era (some of which, I might add, has the editorial vetting of New York
publishing houses behind it). It's just that, the more I read the article, the less I see of balance, as Felten prefers to bemoan the replacement of good old-fashioned editorial gatekeeping with promises
of readers gaining the "pleasure of wading through the slush pile..." instead. It's easy to see why
Felten fears the slush pile if he's not even willing to wade through a few google searches to find a
greater sense of perspective on the issue. In one quick search, I found author David Gaughran's
initial stats on his self-publishing endeavors on Absolutewrite.com. A quick trip to the Kindle
Boards also reveals several authors (of which I am not one) who claim to have made thousands of
sales. While authors like Adam Kiesel celebrate (and why not?) at one-hundred sales, Edward C.
Patterson claims to inching towards 12,000 sales and author M.G. Scarsbrook talks of foreign rights
sales (to a traditional publisher, no less). While only the select few may hurdle 100,000 sales or
more, the success that these self-publishers have achieved cannot simply be ignored and gives a
more thorough accounting than citing the obvious (if exceptional) Amanda Hocking and John Locke
stories. These simple facts may not fit nicely with Felten's account of self-publishers like Erika
Szabo, an alleged poster girl he describes just after noting "orgies of desperate [authorial] back-
scratching that make old-school literary logrolling seem downright genteel." However, that's what
journalistic fairness is about--accuracy--and if one reporter cannot be more balanced, thorough, and informed in his treatment of the issue, even if expressing his opinion, then what does
that say for the supposed literary gatekeepers (of which the conglomerate-owned Journal is one,
at least in the business world) whose discretion on what's quality material is so much more
sacrosanct than our own?
I'm not refuting Felten's thesis entirely. He does raise a valid concern. What of the reader--in the digital age, who is to play the role of editorial gatekeeper barring cyberspace from the deluge of barely literate wannabe writers and spammers who clog the way for those simply seeking a quality book? The reader? Social media? My belief is that the answer is the same as it has been in literature throughout the ages--good old-fashioned literacy on the part of the reader. That was the answer when writers no less diverse than Charles Dickens and Edith Wharton received criticism for compromising their craft by serializing novels in magazines. That was the answer when online journalism supposedly threatened the integrity of the medium (see, for instance, Wendy S. William's "The Online Threat To Independent Journalism"). In all of these technological revolutions, there were battle cries for the supposed audience and for supposed literacy. In all of them, the answer was relatively simple. Reader, judge for thyself. Be literate. Read what you value. It's easier than ever, particularly when the reader has the added benefit of being able to sample work before purchasing it. If the deluge is upon us, the "sample" button provides a useful dam.
What of those too lazy to be literate? Contrary to what the headline of Felten's article suggests, it's not like legacy publishing is dying tomorrow. As the industry shifts, and new models arise, there is no shortage of marketing, promotion, and editorial vetting on the part of publishers--and some of this for truly excellent books. Simply look for the publisher of a novel if you don't trust your own literary instincts, and you'll find plenty of e-publishers, conglomerate and independent, who will be happy to do your thinking for you. As noted earlier in this post, you may also find your fair share of crap under a publisher's umbrella too, but finding a publisher you respect is an obvious first step for those fearing the invasion of the unpublishable. Additionally, sites like librarything.com and goodreads.com do exist for those who don't trust reader reviews on retail sites.
Like any new medium, electronic self-publishing is full of opportunity--for writers, for readers, for scammers. Part of knowing and respecting your audience, however, is learning to trust your audience. The movie, music, and television industries have already come to this awareness (the popularity of sites as diverse as Hulu.com and Youtube.com attests to this). Many of the conglomerate owners of the movie, music, and TV industries also have a stake in publishing. They're already learning the same lesson as the multi-media industries before them. That's why I believe, in the end, readers as well as writers will benefit from the added selection. To invoke a cliche of my own, it's all about trusting the reader or just maybe about the reader trusting him or herself.
I'm not refuting Felten's thesis entirely. He does raise a valid concern. What of the reader--in the digital age, who is to play the role of editorial gatekeeper barring cyberspace from the deluge of barely literate wannabe writers and spammers who clog the way for those simply seeking a quality book? The reader? Social media? My belief is that the answer is the same as it has been in literature throughout the ages--good old-fashioned literacy on the part of the reader. That was the answer when writers no less diverse than Charles Dickens and Edith Wharton received criticism for compromising their craft by serializing novels in magazines. That was the answer when online journalism supposedly threatened the integrity of the medium (see, for instance, Wendy S. William's "The Online Threat To Independent Journalism"). In all of these technological revolutions, there were battle cries for the supposed audience and for supposed literacy. In all of them, the answer was relatively simple. Reader, judge for thyself. Be literate. Read what you value. It's easier than ever, particularly when the reader has the added benefit of being able to sample work before purchasing it. If the deluge is upon us, the "sample" button provides a useful dam.
What of those too lazy to be literate? Contrary to what the headline of Felten's article suggests, it's not like legacy publishing is dying tomorrow. As the industry shifts, and new models arise, there is no shortage of marketing, promotion, and editorial vetting on the part of publishers--and some of this for truly excellent books. Simply look for the publisher of a novel if you don't trust your own literary instincts, and you'll find plenty of e-publishers, conglomerate and independent, who will be happy to do your thinking for you. As noted earlier in this post, you may also find your fair share of crap under a publisher's umbrella too, but finding a publisher you respect is an obvious first step for those fearing the invasion of the unpublishable. Additionally, sites like librarything.com and goodreads.com do exist for those who don't trust reader reviews on retail sites.
Like any new medium, electronic self-publishing is full of opportunity--for writers, for readers, for scammers. Part of knowing and respecting your audience, however, is learning to trust your audience. The movie, music, and television industries have already come to this awareness (the popularity of sites as diverse as Hulu.com and Youtube.com attests to this). Many of the conglomerate owners of the movie, music, and TV industries also have a stake in publishing. They're already learning the same lesson as the multi-media industries before them. That's why I believe, in the end, readers as well as writers will benefit from the added selection. To invoke a cliche of my own, it's all about trusting the reader or just maybe about the reader trusting him or herself.
No comments:
Post a Comment