Intermission: A rather big, side-argument

A week is a long time in publishing. I had a blog entry prepared as a counter argument for traditional print publishing (see my previous blog entry) but was unable to publish it without spending a little while editing the thing together. I spent last week on the lovely island of Rhodes for my sister’s wedding and as this was the first time my young family had travelled abroad, it took an inordinate amount of time to prepare one two year old and a five month pregnant wife for the journey and the heat; a lot of packing and preparation for just one week, granted, but like writing you can’t always rush these things.

It meant having to delay the blog entry, and last week three notable pieces subsequently appeared in the Press about just the very subject, rendering some of my own arguments repetitive. The first, and most notable, was a piece in the Guardian, which more than alluded to the point I’ve been making about traditional publishing and ostriches, that is denying the inevitable. It’s a good piece and the most realistic vision of where publishing is going and why, something some traditional publishers are not accepting which will be to their dire consequence, I fear. The other two pieces are in last Sunday’s Times’ Culture Magazine (an interesting view on where publishing is going and how it will be revolutionised, which while not completely new to most readers, is certainly a good summary) and a piece in this month’s SFX.
Of these two latter pieces, the SFX one is perhaps the most interesting given that it’s the most honest reply to the ereading phenomena by publishers (Julie Crisp, Tor, Jo Fletcher) and agents (John Jarrold). John particularly, as it is one of John’s previous clients, Ian Hocking, who is finding success doing precisely what publishers fear, going solo and doing rather well out of it with his books Déjà Vu and the recent sequel, Flashback. To paraphrase, despite the danger of doing so with something so political, there is no denial that the landscape is changing and John makes a valid point that it isn’t publishers who will decide the future now, it’s the reader, wishing to chose between a 70p book and a £7.99 book.
Though I think really traditional publishing has this in their own hands, as their reluctance to embrace ebooks with ridiculous pricing and availability, is driving readers to mid-list authors who have turned up their noses to miserly and almost criminal royalties on digital editions. As the Guardian says explicitly, traditional publishing’s reaction to ebooks has been to treat it at best as an elephant in the room and at worst a pariah, despite creating the beast in the first place.
Julie Crisp is honest in that while these are interesting times for publishing, they are also precarious. She revels in the technology but is probably aware that the freedom for writers and self-publishing can only damage traditional publishing given that Tor and Macmillan still average their ebooks at hardback and paperback prices, something I had to complain about during my time with them, though to be fair I suspect this had little editorial decision about it (and I know for sure this wasn't down to their digital division either during my conversations with them) but more the publisher’s bean counters who have an alarming lack of business sense. Harsh? Perhaps, but harsh words are needed for traditional publishing to survive.

The fact is, and this is mentioned widely now in the Press and in forums and blogs, is that traditional publishing is cutting off its own feet. It’s alienating its authors and its readers, and doing both will only destroy what traditional publishing is. True, ebooks won’t replace printed books completely, but the digital revolution will help fund how printed books find their way to readers too. As I see it there are only two obstacles for ebooks to get an ascendency, the first is proper editorial input. The second is a credible blog or website dedicated to reviewing self-published e-books, one with a good reputation and as credible as any literary journalism found in mainstream press. The first obstacle can be handled by just hiring a good copy-editor, and the second will be come along any day now. When this happens, it will change things - it will introduce quality control removing the final counter-argument from traditional publishing.
Publishers should beware, I think.

Still coming up: the other argument for ebooks…