There's More to Publishing Than in Jonathan Galassi's Op-Ed
In a New York Times opinion piece, There’s More to Publishing Than Meets the Screen, (1/3/10), Jonathan Galassi — President of Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, writes of the decision by the heirs of William Stryon’s estate to put out e-book versions of the author’s work. Galassi wonders whether e-books are “a new frontier in publishing” or “simply the latest edition of the books produced by publishers like Random House.”
He points to the contributions made by traditional publishers in creating the finished product that goes to the public. In addition to marketing, design and layout, Galassi speaks of the role of editors in making sure that the final version of a book is the best that it can be.
Galassi does not discuss the other important role of traditional publishers. They have been the gatekeepers, not only ensuring that no book would bare their imprint before it was ready, but that any book with their stamp would be one worth reading. Publishers could be depended upon to bring us new and interesting authors, and beyond that to expand the very foundations of literature.
But the publishing industry abandoned these tasks long before e-books came on to the scene.
Any visit to a bookstore will show that nowadays it’s only name brand best selling authors and celebrity writers getting onto store shelves. If William Styron were starting out today, an editor would never have taken a chance on a book like Lie Down in Darkness (unless perhaps Styron added vampires or zombies) and Styron himself might have been forced to publish only as an e-book if for no other reason than to prove to potential agents or publishers that he could gain a following and his books would sell.
While books may still need “the care and dedication” of a good editor, publishing houses are not going to provide that to any novels they don’t believe are marketable and most of the books they believe will sell, no amount of editing will help.
The result of this is that sales are down and the publishing industry is in trouble. If only it would occur to those involved to look inward, they might find that the problem is not competition from e-book distributors. Perhaps what they need to do is look for books that have literary merit to begin with. Maybe they should be using that marketing acumen to make serious reading “sexy” again, or to find out what kinds of books would compel readers who aren’t buying theirs. Of course they need to make other changes as well. Changes might include a different type of distribution, the realization that e-book and print pricing can’t be the same, a rethinking of how royalties are set, and new ways of incorporating digital marketing. As in any industry, new technologies require new approaches.
Galassi makes a valid a point. The publishing industry plays an important role in the production of books. If they are going to continue to play an important role in the production of important books — both print and electronic, they need to change.


Salon.com
Comments
That said, this op ed read mostly like an argument for why publishers should retain copyright for eternity. It's a desperate argument, but writers lucky enough to be published by FS&G should probably go over the new contracts with a very tough lawyer.
The confluence of the printing press with the rise of a relatively leisurely middle class and its gradual literacy boom in 18th century Europe created "the novel." When that art form first manifested, it was considered trash.
It is only fitting and predictable that an art form created by the market place should continue to be effected by it. Great art eventually flourished in that genre, but maybe it's time for great art to move on to some other form. When that new oeuvre first manifests itself, once again it will be considered to be trash. Maybe it's here with us already. Maybe it's the video game.
people need to remember that digital just means easier and faster, not better (or worse). Like there have always been independent film makers, there have been self-published books. The proliferation of video cameras and the ease of YouTube have made almost everyone filmmakers - in good ways and bad. One need only try to take in the vastness of the "blogosphere" to see the merits - and detriments - of e-publishing.
Also remember that too many (now-) critically-acclaimed authors weren't so much at the time, and were commercial failures.
Today's editors and publishers do NOT take the care they used to take in the creation of their product. It is extremely unusual to find a book that has been thoroughly proofed, let alone edited, before it goes to press.
Traditional print publishing is still an option. It just isn't as good as its defenders claim, and many of its current practices are shoddy. Electronically spellchecking a manuscript is not the same as proofreading it--but many publishers can't be bothered any more.
I'm not sure many of those editors you talk about even have the capacity any longer to judge a book on it's merits as a piece of writing rather than a "marketable product." (I am actually convinced of this as a result of a lifetime of experience.)
Agents are worse since their cut is even less they have less of an interest in whether the book is actually any good or another piece of shit that is Guaranteed to reach the best seller list.
of course, Galassi is feathering his nest because he fancies FSG is among the last houses that know or at least pretend to know what literature is, but I'm not even convinced of that any longer. I don't trust any of them.
Like Plato said, the question is,
Who guards the guardians?
good piece.
Another is the deplorable state of education in this country - people BUY the junk, remember; they buy it because they like it. Their literary taste has never developed beyond the 8th grade. Slightly irrelevant but maybe not: I recently met a college student who doesn't know how to write longhand. She prints everything because she was never taught to write. She's in COLLEGE, folks.
Also, I think many publishers are still thinking too small or as if epublishing possibilities are just a fad. I'm convinced multimedia is the future-now and the "sexiness," per Ms. Stein's marketing statement, can be found there. We need to consider the audience (formerly known as readers) for our stories and give these individuals what they want however they want it, which means choices: print, yes, but also audiobook, eBook, accompanying soundtracks, videos, photo essays, blog interactivity, etc.
Stories come to us in many different forms today. Writers who fail to keep up -- i.e., expand their definition of narrative -- will likely never be "read."
Sorry. It's a business.
The good news is, anyone with a computer and a printer (and now you don't even need a printer) is a publisher.