Alamosa Writes . . . on Publishing

The world is fast hastening to a time when books are relatively cheap to produce. For all but a few specialty markets, e-books will make publishing books a simple matter of spending a few dollars and a few minutes to list an electronic file with Amazon or Apple. With that the case, why would authors give up rights and proceeds to publishers? Why shouldn't producing a book be left to its originator?

Why are publishers necessary?

Today, publishers are primarily responsible for determining what deserves to be published. Publishers are almost solely responsible for marketing books released to the public. Publishers are the most efficient distribution intermediary between printers and retail outlets. Finally, publishers serve as the only long-term warehousing for older (but still in-print) titles.

Putting aside the first task, which of these roles will remain? Warehousing will not be a problem except for the most prolific of writers. And even so, storage disks are small and cheap. Printing and distribution will become synonymous and will be reduced to a few mouse clicks and presumably a draw on the bank account. A publisher's role in the production of a book will be reduced to marketing.

Most authors don't like marketing. One can only imagine how little Dickens or Steinbeck would have written if they were forced to spend much time and energy promoting their own works. Imagine Salinger or Goethe trying to come up with a marketing plan! Dahl or Tolstoy designing a pleasing book package?

No, marketing is typically not in an author's skill set. However, when marketing is reduced to design of a thumbnail image and web-list placement, maybe that won't be a concern. Or maybe there will be author groups that will band together to pay for marketing services. Certainly, a flat fee marketing adviser will cost an author less of a given book's proceeds than publishers do, though I suspect an adviser — who is not invested in the book's sales — will not be as effective as publishers are. Still, we are talking thumbnails and lines on a list in this electronic future. How effective does that have to be?

So maybe publishers won't have a necessary function in the production of a book. However, there still is that first task — deciding what books get to be produced. Publishers, today, are the first and most restrictive step in deciding what works deserve to be published. In other words they are quality control. Physical bookstores also serve in that capacity because they have to limit inventory to what will sell. However, physical bookstores won't be selling e-books. Web stores will be. Correction, web stores with popular e-readers will be. Which, today, means Amazon and Apple.

Amazon could not care less about the quality of products it sells as long as returns are not expensive. I can't say if there is quality control in Apple land, but I rather think not. E-books that do not sell are not much of a liability. Just a few Megabytes of server space. So e-book purveyors have little impetus to be selective. Furthermore, in a world where self-publishing authors will pay to have their books turned into e-books, a web store will make money off of all the authors it lists (unlike publishers which only make money off the authors that write books that sell and can lose substantially if a book is a flop). Not only will it not hurt web stores to take all comers, they will make more money that way. No, quality control will not be a concern of self-published e-book purveyors.

Today in the world of self-publishing, what gets published is mostly limited by who has the time and money to publish it. Today, those costs are substantially higher than they will be in the electronic future. However, writing will always take time. Time that will not go to earning money at another job. So publishing will always be limited to some extant to those who have money.

But book quality?

There are many self-critical authors who would not foist sub-standard work on the world — if for no other reason than shame. But there are many more authors who lack the discernment or impartiality to judge good and bad writing. Many are highly gifted story-tellers but bad editors or bad at the mechanics of writing. Many are unable to distance themselves from their own work sufficiently to even see error. And then there are not a few who simply believe themselves more talented than they actually are.

Self-publishing today seems to be limited not by book quality but by financial resources. They call self-publishing printers "vanity presses" for a very good reason. Authors who utilize them are not interested in making money, nor do they particularly care about losing it to a certain degree. They pay to see their work in print regardless of whether the work in question will sell or even deserves to be printed merely because they want their work to be in print.

So when writers become their own publishers who tells them that they need to improve their work? Maybe a kind aunt. Or a writing critique group. Maybe. But anyone can plainly see that quality will slide while quantity will vastly increase.

That's why we need publishers. And will need publishers. Publishers may become something more like editing services, but hopefully editing services with teeth —editing services with some control over quality.

Because the future without them is very bleak. An immense pool of electronic grack to wade through to find something worthwhile. And no guarantee that there will be anything worthwhile. Who will read?

Yes, that's why we need publishers!