• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Traditional Publishing vs. Contemporary Literature

Ruggero2007

New Member
Traditional publishing as we know it is indispensable when it comes to REpublishing. No private entrepreneur in his or her right mind would take it upon him/herself to put out hundreds of thousands of copies of classics, textbooks, the Bible, etc, every year while knowing that the big publishing houses are doing it anyway (rather well, too). When it comes to contemporary literature, though, a whole different set of production rules should apply which the majors are physically unable to follow.

Let us remember that major book publishers are corporate entities; with them, it is either the corporate way or the highway (which is ironic, since without corporations, we would not have highways; or bridges, or commercial airplanes, or cheap ballpoint pens, for that matter – and so forth).

The main thing about corporations is they tend to be conservative. And that is a good thing as far as Charles Dickens, Alexandre Dumas, Mark Twain, William Faulkner, et al, are concerned. Really. Corporations resent the idea of creating markets, since new markets invariably call for new standards, while corporate business is perfectly happy with the existing model, thank you very much. Corporations stick with what they already know, and they're pretty good at it. They're efficient. They make things better and cheaper.

When a book-publishing corporation seeks to publish a new book, however, the first thing it will look for in the manuscript is whether it follows corporate standards, i.e. – does it resemble anything the corporation (or its competitors) have published before. (If not, the corporation will just move on. If indeed the book is like something the large publishing house is familiar with, the next step is to look at the earlier book's track record. Did it sell well? Did it flop? And so forth.

Meantime, new literature should feature new approaches, new methods, and new standards. In order to be new, it can't afford seriously to look into anything people have seen before. That is what new means, after all.

The problem is that anything new is nearly always a high-risk, high-reward proposition. Publishers of truly new books have to take their chances.

Corporations favor projects in which the risk factor is kept to the absolute minimum. Private publishers would favor those too if only they could afford it. One cannot beat corporations at their own game.

Today's technologies, however, enable the private publisher to at least alleviate some of the risk. Here are some things I do that no major publishing house would, or could, do (physically); seriously.

1. Select only those manuscripts that are absolutely, positively riveting, and totally, totally original.

I can do this because there are only two “readers” in my company, and I am one of them. Corporate manuscript selection involves a whole bunch of "readers" who are limited by, not just their own personal literary tastes, but also their idea (a bit paranoid, as a rule) of what their superiors want to hear from them. With some exceptions (some of which go on to become national bestsellers), the rule of thumb is if a new book (fiction or non-fiction) has made it all the way to the corporate press after passing through the usual sieve of oft-conflicting individual tastes, ideas, fears, whims, moods, and on and on, it must be worthless. Few good books can actually please ten or twenty people in a row. A dash of originality is certain to get a book shot down by any one of the ten (or fifteen, or twenty) folks assessing its quality (from the agent’s reader (usually a college student who will look through the first twenty pages for a few bucks) to the publisher, with many intermediaries in between) because it is "not like anything I've read before" (and not in a good sense, either), and also because each "reader"'s idea of originality is different from that of the next "reader."

2. Invest very little money in each new project.

My authors do not get an advance, only royalties. I don't have to do any big-time promotion. I simply put a book up on the website and maybe write a couple of articles and/or reviews. Not to mention that, since our authors don't pay us anything either (we are not a vanity press; we are a legitimate publishing company), they don't feel as if they're buying "services" from us; which is why they normally do a pretty good job promoting their books themselves.

3. Do away with the necessity to print a "minimum number" of copies and pay for it.

We are not a "print-on-demand" or "publish-on-demand" publishing company; we are a print-on-order publishing company (go ahead, make fun). When a customer orders a book online, we print one copy of that book and send it to him or her. When a book club orders ten copies, we print ten copies, and not twenty or a hundred. When one of our authors wants a bunch of books for a book-signing event (or whatever), we usually try to discourage it. As a last resort, we ask him or her to show proof that the copies we print for him or her will actually be sold, all of them, at that book-signing event (or whatever). We save a lot of trees in the process, but mostly we spare ourselves a lot of waste motion. Our prices are a bit higher than corporate prices - but then, the neighborhood bistro, too, charges more for a cup of coffee than the "franchise" and the "chain," and, guess what, the quality is actually higher in some cases.

4. Sell on the Web, or at conferences, or at events, without having to deal with distributors and stores, thus avoiding the risk of a thousands of books being sent back after forty days of lukewarm customer interest.

Sometimes, a good book takes a while to get attention.

5. Quick turnaround.

It takes up to three years for a major publishing corporation to put out a book. By the time it's out, some of the ideas it contains might very well be out of date.

That's the scoop. The main point, I suppose, is that major publishing houses are better off putting out books that have been put out before, and leaving the whole new, contemporary literature business to us private entrepreneurs.

Wanna take a look? Be a valued guest.

Our company is called Mighty Niche Books. I'm new here - I'm not allowed to post links yet. Go ahead and Google for it, then.
 
The main point, I suppose, is that major publishing houses are better off putting out books that have been put out before, and leaving the whole new, contemporary literature business to us private entrepreneurs.

Is that why you are selling an edition of Jack London's Star Rover?

But, I could not disagree more and that's probably because of the nonsense in the above post. For example:

...remember that major book publishers are corporate entities;
I don't quite see what the word 'major' is doing there as surely all publishers are corporate entities. Independents are in it to make money too - otherwise what would be the point? They'd fold and the whole notion of bringing new literature passed over by larger houses would be a pointless one if they can't sustain it.

I had to laugh, when browsing your site, at the authors section, which had the following to say:

Mighty Niche Publishing is a niche enterprise specializing in books that major companies are unable to publish right now.
Ah, books that major companies are unable to publish right now! Do they actually say that? I don't think so. Or do the authors eventually tire of rejection slips and come running to your door?

I had a read of The Kept Woman Of New Orleans by the mono-monickered Ricardo. Perhaps it's only because there was an extract and not the whole novel, but I can't quite see how that prose with its soup of lazy dialogue tags is anywhere approaching the extraordinary you claim to publish.

Either way, good luck with your venture. I do like small presses (my favourite is Pushkin Press) and it's always good to see them do well, a recent example being Myrmidon Books who, in only their first year of existence, have a novel longlisted for the Man Booker Prize.
 
Is that why you are selling an edition of Jack London's Star Rover?

In a way, yes. The last time a decent edition of this book came out was in 1967. Among my well-read friends, very few have ever even heard of the novel. A collection of Alexandre Dumas' plays (including "The Tower of Nelle" and "The Youth of Louis XIV" is in our plans. Hell, if no one puts out a decent collection of Damon Runyan's stories, we'll do it soon. That's a promise.

Independents are in it to make money too - otherwise what would be the point? They'd fold and the whole notion of bringing new literature passed over by larger houses would be a pointless one if they can't sustain it.

No! ... Really, you think? ... Of course we're in it to make money. Goodness. We do emphasize individual quality over quantity, though.

Ah, books that major companies are unable to publish right now! Do they actually say that?

You're kidding, right? Do folks at Microsoft actually say that there's something they cannot do, but Apple can? It's the competition's (or the well-wisher's) job to say what a company cannot do. Would I actually go ahead and post a list of Mighty Niche's limitations and drawbacks? That's YOUR job. And you're doing it - admirably so far. And as a matter of fact, I quite like you. Your concerns seem to be those of a fairly decent fellow. So why not give me the benefit of the doubt?

Perhaps it's only because there was an extract and not the whole novel,

Yes ... sort of. It's actually more complicated than that. The owner of the mono-monicker's style is that of a natural storyteller. As a reader, you have to tune in, and you can't fully accomplish that unless you ... well ...

1. Keep an open mind
2. Start with the first chapter
3. Uh ... (I hate saying this) ... Read the printed version.

I may have made the wrong choice (pulling a chapter from the middle of the novel and offering it as an excerpt), but ... but ... The first chapter of that book (the prologue, actually) could give readers the wrong idea about the relevance of the book's title. The original title was "L'Erotique: the Great American Sonata." Upon my suggestion, Ricardo changed it to avoid confusion (you know: the title of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 ("La Pathetique") does not really mean "pathetic"; in case of Ricardo's novel, "L'Erotique" does not mean "porn"; but folks just go ahead and make assumptions, alas). Anyway, in the book, the rich white bitch is actually a term of endearment; the opening chapter contains a large passage parodying the triteness of certain popular mystery novels of today; it works in the book; unfortunately, it doesn't as a sales pitch.

Right now, I'm busy editing and formating Anthony Anchor's new novel, "Hatutu!", an historical extravaganza, whose only problem is it's 650 pages long. I hate using thin paper, I loathe small print, whereas the idea of publishing a book in two volumes in today's book marketing climate is all but unthinkable. The author flatly refuses to make cuts, and I sort of see his point, which doesn't make my job any easier. Goodness.
 
I'm aware of that. And Convent Garden did "Lakme" a few seasons ago, and Hadrian's wall still stands. And I know that if I walk into a Barnes & Noble branch here in New York, I'll be able to order "Guys and Dolls," and a week or so later it will arrive, and I'll drop by and pick it up. But the average reader does not know any of that. Not to mention that I very, very strongly object to "ranges," "series," etc. In a wild attempt to get our intellectuals interested in the Harry Potter thing, they recently put out a "series" of classics, i.e. Dickens, Dostoyevski, Mark Twain, H.G. Wells, et al, and Miss Rowling. That's corporate mentality for you. It's humiliating and absurd at the same time. As a reader, when I want to read a classic, I'll get a classic, and when I want to be awed by the sheer storytelling genius of Miss Rowling, I'll go to the nearest pharmacy: they have piles of her writings, discounted and readily available. But when the industry tries to induce me to purchase the latter by insinuating (cynically; I'm well aware that they don't believe it themselves) that it belongs in the exact same category as the former, I feel sorry for them, for myself, and for our civilization. To be willing to print (to be discarded later) twenty thousand copies of "Great Expectations" (hard cover, no less) just to get some readers to buy a few copies of "Harry Potter," and call the method "commercial" and claim that the forty copies gathering dust over at my local "Dwaine Reade" pharmacy is a bestseller would prompt a less patient person than myself to repeat the famous "those silly people don't know their own silly business" - but I know better. They DO know their business, only contemporary literature is NOT their business, not really. As soon as they realize that, I won't have to order "Guys and Dolls" from the U.K. - I'll just walk over to the appropriate shelf at the local bookstore.

Here's a sales pitch (frowned upon here, I know):

If we put out a new, very adequate translation of Alexandre Pushkin's "Stone Guest," will you buy it?

And a personal question:

Do you like opera? I'm just curious.
 
Back
Top