Showing posts with label Publishing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Publishing. Show all posts

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Conservative Media Goes Rogue

Recently I was trapped in traffic in my car, channel surfing for news on the Egyptian revolution, and came across a Fox funny person, Glenn Beck. I should have surfed on by, but was fascinated by his off the wall comments -- which admittedly I am probably taking out of context as I only listened to him for a couple of minutes -- but if I understood the thesis correctly, Obama's secret agenda ( as a "community organizer") is to organize the youth of the world (evidence: Obama appealing to "the youth of Egypt" during the crisis) in an attempt to encourage some sort of a new Industrial Workers of the World? Did I hear that correctly? And what does Beck have against youth?

Between Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh (BP&R), a flood of bizarre assertions have been made about Obama's motivations, and the conservative media is drowning in their spewed sewage. It is one thing to call Obama incompetent, or having the wrong priorities (neither true for the most part, at least in my opinion), but to foster these conspiracy theories is quite another. No American president has been so reviled by conservatives and, frankly, I can't figure out why and how the conservative movement thinks it can benefit from this kind of extremism, other than selling more newspapers, books, and media time.

No doubt, there is a buck to be made by BP&R and conservative leaning media, particularly Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation which now owns Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and the book publisher HarperCollins, just to name a few. This media giant can now create persuasive circular arguments, hiring Sarah Palin as a Fox News Contributor, having HarperCollins publish "her" book, the Wall Street Journal and other media quoting the wacky output of this celebrity politician, and, then have Fox News quote the WSJ. Murdoch began turning the UK's newspaper industry into sensational tabloids at the end of the 1960s (with the kind of blaring headlines as seen here in Piccadilly Circus when we first visited London after we were married) and some of the same methodology seems to be migrating to more recent ventures.

However, to my surprise, I read Michael Medved's opinion column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal discussing this very issue of the demonization of Obama -- and a "fair and balanced" one as well (maybe I'll keep my subscription after all) -- Obama Isn't Trying to 'Weaken America'.


Of course, as a conservative commentator, Medved fears that the BP&R's fixation on Obama as an evil-doer will ultimately be the ruination of Republican chances in the 2012 election. He rightfully points out that while the history of the presidency is fraught with mistakes, essentially the office has been occupied by people of good intentions. I could argue that although Nixon's presidency might have begun there, it ended in the office's worst betrayal, but I agree with Medved that the presidency's history "makes some of the current charges about Barack Obama especially distasteful—and destructive to the conservative cause."

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Why Do This?

When I published my 100th blog entry, less than two years ago, I wrote a piece about why I write this blog and now that I recently posted my 200th entry, I thought it might be interesting to revisit the topic.


Nothing has really changed in terms of why I spend some of my time this way. Clearly, it is for my own benefit and the fact that along the way I've had thousands of visits to my blog, is gratifying but incidental to "the mission." How do they arrive here? Some friends tell me they visit (while others pointedly say they never have as they don't "do" that sort of thing, which is ok with me too). But mainly, people land here from Google searches, some from Google Images as I frequently include photographs with my entries even though they may not be called for by the piece.

Long ago I decided not to activate a comments feature on the blog as it was not my objective to get involved in public discourse. However, there is an email address in my profile and from time to time I receive email about my pieces, particularly the more political and economic ones where I have a viewpoint and recognize that others have their own and I have always responded. My favorite email though was from the adult daughter of a friend of mine I mentioned in a blog, she saying "It's always so eye-opening to see your parents in a different light....I was extremely touched by your piece....[and] thank you for sharing that. It meant a lot to me." Even though I mostly write for myself, it is nice to know that some of what I do in these virtual pages might benefit or interest others.

Barry Ritholtz who has been blogging for more than ten years under the rubric The Big Picture, recently wrote an interesting piece on why people might blog, and I was fascinated by his observation that his own blog would be the same whether 100 people visited it or 100,000 daily. Clearly his visits would be closer to the latter and mine to the former as his blog is financially oriented and he is well-known in his field.

But, we have many of the same reasons (not all) to blog, and here are his:

1. You have something to say
2. You enjoy the craft of writing
3. You want to figure out what you think, and do so in public
4. You want to be part of a larger community of like minded individuals
5. You have a hobby or interest that you are really, really into
6. You want to maintain a presence on the Intertubes
7. You have an expertise and you want to share it
8. You have an eye for content (text, graphics and video) and you enjoy leading other people to them
9. You want to create a permanent online record of what you are reading, looking at or thinking about
10. You like engaging in debate with total strangers

The first three would be among my major reasons for doing this, although the others, except for the last, enter the equation as well. I guess I would have to add family history to the mix too.

In regard to "making an online record," I finally figured out how to get a PDF onto Google Sites so this is a link to a 1984 Publisher's Weekly article during my salad days. It is amusing (to me) to read about my vision of specialized publishing at the time and what the future might hold. It is pre-World Wide Web, so it has to be taken in that context. It was also amusing to share that particular issue with "Mr. T."

So, on to the next hundred, but for a while I am taking a break.
.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

All the News That's Feigned to Print

The Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Rupert Murdoch owned HarperCollins Publishers will sponsor a 10-day book tour by their author, Sara Palin, who is a contributor to the Rupert Murdoch owned Fox News.

The occasion is the publication of her book "America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag," a follow-up to her best-selling "Going Rogue." In addition to those credentials for her inevitable run for the Presidency, Ms. Palin is also the star of her own reality TV show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Her daughter Bristol is indirectly campaigning by her appearance on "Dancing With the Stars," another prime time "reality" media production.

In addition to those qualifications, Ms. Palin has a bachelor's degree in communications, having attended a number of colleges in the pursuit of that degree, was a TV newscaster, and served as a mayor of a town of some five thousand people and for a couple of years as governor of Alaska with a population about the size of El Paso, Texas. She resigned her governorship to pursue her interests in self-promotion.

Besides having Rupert Murdoch's News Corp empire as a backer, she owes her political career to John McCain who brought her to the national stage in a desperate act to carry the 2008 presidential election.

Can this "rogue" politician continue to skillfully manipulate public opinion by charisma alone and a friend in high places? And will she continue to supply News Corp with all the fodder necessary for higher ratings, greater circulation and therefore more advertising and sales? A nice symbiotic partnership? You Betcha'

.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

eBook War of Words

A follow up to Publishers in the Crosshairs, hopefully a more carefully considered one. The eBook wars are far more complicated than imagined. I quoted Mike Shatzkin from the Financial Times piece, but since then I’ve had enough sense to venture into his blog, specifically his expert report, The wild weekend of Amazon and Macmillan, which in turn led me to Tobias Buckell’s Why my books are no longer for sale via Amazon and Charlie Stross’ Amazon, Macmillan: an outsider's guide to the fight. These lengthy pieces, with their fascinating threads of responses, are must reading, something I might have done in the first place.

I should have known that publishers would find ways to make things hopelessly complex. Any industry that can base its selling strategy on first publishing a high-priced edition, overprinting the same in the hope a lower unit cost will justify a lower list price, and then take back the majority of what has been printed as returns, trying then to resell them on the bargain books table for pennies on the dollar, while, at the same time, issuing a lower-priced paper back edition, has to be suspect to begin with. The eBook wars have become enmeshed in legacy marketing practices such as “agency plans” and inconsistent methods of compensating authors on the sale of such editions (percentage based on “list price” or the net selling price, and/or whether the “agency” discount figure into the same). Then, digital rights management further complicates the issue.

When things become hopelessly complex, simplify. One option is to go to a “net pricing” scheme for eBook editions sold to the retail marketplace through intermediaries and then let the marketplace work; perhaps that price being similar to the eventual paperback list price. Of course, marketing structures and royalty arrangements would have to be engineered with that approach in mind, so there is no short-term silver bullet, and it does not "prevent" Amazon from pricing at less than it is paying the publisher. One has to wonder whether such a publishing practice is even legal or Amazon’s pricing is sustainable. But, I defer to the blogs mentioned above on this subject, following them with great interest, as the eBook wars no doubt escalate. As a society, we can only hope that a negotiated peace does not come at a price too steep for the publishing industry.


.
The Ancient Library of Celsus

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Publishers in the Crosshairs

Maybe it’s because I’ve been on the periphery of the industry for a while, the salad days of my publishing career behind me, but being a firm believer that information, especially vetted information, has value, publishers seem to be having a chicken-little moment at this stage of technology evolution. I can’t help but hark back to the 1960’s when publishers and libraries were fearing that Ultrafiche, a microfiche that holds up to 1,000 pages per 4x6" sheet of film, would make the printed book redundant. So fast-forward to the brave new world of the 21st century.

No doubt today’s technology is a form of creative destruction that Ultrafiche was not. But the operative word here is creative and publishers bring something valuable to the table, gathering and authenticating information at the higher end of the information pyramid and editing, designing, promoting and distributing trade books at the lower end. I’ve always thought of publishing as an information pyramid, the top of which is “must have information” – mostly scientific and professional – and at the bottom, the kind of publishing which is mostly the mass market stuff competing with movies, magazines, and other leisure-time activities. In the information pyramid there are various categories in between, such as educational publishing, serious trade publishing, etc. The higher in the pyramid, the less price sensitive and visa versa. To a great extent, this applies to electronic distribution as well.

Monday’s Financial Times presented an interesting analysis of the publishing industry’s present predicament, eye opening because it made clear that Amazon, to build market share and ward off the rapid encroachment of Apple and Google, was selling their $9.99 eBooks at a loss. Macmillan’s move to delay eBook editions of new titles by six months was to “force” Amazon to charge more, which Amazon capitulated on, not because of one publisher’s demands but because the announcement of Apple’s iPad threw down the gauntlet of real competition for the Kindle. I thought competition was supposed to drive down prices. Otherwise, the whole matter suggests a form of price fixing.

While publishers might find a $9.99 electronic book unsustainable (if that is their own list price) as, after all, the vast majority of the costs are those incurred in creating the first copy (paper, printing, and binding being a minor part of the expense in publishing), Amazon’s selling at that price is another matter. How long can Amazon sustain pricing that is less than publishers’ charge Amazon, particularly as Apple and Google enter the competitive fray? Aren’t publishers playing a dangerous collusion game “forcing” resellers to charge a particular price? Publishers need to set their list prices for printed and electronic editions, establish a sensible discount schedule to resellers (both price and discount dependent on where the book/information stands in the information pyramid), and then let the marketplace work. Their control of copyright allows them to have this power. It’s not a matter of “negotiating” prices with resellers, but, instead, ensuring they (publishers) don’t fall into the same trap as the music industry, taking safeguards with distributors to guard against unlicensed replication of eBook editions.

According to Mike Shatzkin (quoted in the FT article), “Legacy publishers still want bookstores to last as long as possible. Their business model is built on their expertise in navigating that industry.” No doubt that is true; even though that legacy system is fraught with its own economic problems such as allowing “returns” of unsold copies for up to a year, an archaic business practice that bookstores and publishers seem to be addicted to. However, be it legacy publishing, electronic, or forms yet to be discovered, it is the publishing industry’s need to adapt, not to retard progress. Otherwise, “their failure to recognize that their industry’s economics is of no concern to the marketplace [will be] another nail in their coffin.”

Perhaps the trade book publishing industry needs to be led out of the woods by more innovative independent publishers, with important, influential authors seeking those venues, deserting the present publishing oligarchy that imagines it can control how the resellers should price their publications. Instead, control the timeliness, presentation, and relevance and accuracy of content, bringing together the author and the reader, in any form the marketplace needs.

Of course it is a more complicated matter, within an even larger picture if you take into account the desirable survival of the independent bookstore, the strategic deployment of on-demand publishing by publishers, and how authors, particularly the best-selling authors, look at the eBook – is it a subsidiary right of which they require a larger piece of the action, such as they receive from the sale of movie rights, or even hold the right to themselves to negotiate their own deals with Amazon, Apple, etc.?

Independent bookstores could be compensated for eBook downloads in their own Wifi hotspots – provided publishers and electronic distributors cooperate and agree to give up a little of the pie, as sellers do to Google for eyeballs that lead to sales. It is in the best interests of the industry to ensure the independents’ survival and they can have a role.

Publishers could more often deploy on-demand printing, especially for the so-called mid-trade edition, or do shorter edition runs and then opt for on demand subsequent editions if warranted. This strategy would reduce part of the publisher’s risk.

Authors have to realize that having a multiplicity of publishers and distributors is in their best long-term interests. Reserving eBook rights for themselves to negotiate with electronic distributors will have an impact on publishers’ ability to produce and promote printed editions. Are we, as a society, better off without legacy publishing in any form?

One of my friends and mentors, the late Len Shatzkin (Mike Shatzkin’s father) said it best in his book In Cold Type; Overcoming the Book Crisis (published in 1982 – the industry has always been in crisis!): “Any misfortune for book publishing is a misfortune for all Americans. Books are too important to our lives; we cannot be indifferent, or even casual, about what happens to the industry that produces them.”
.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Book Publishing Roulette

Unfortunately this is not the first time that I’ve said something negative about my industry. I am particularly bewildered as to how some giant trade publishers seem content to play Russian Roulette, thinking they can stem the tide of the migration from print to digital by simply going into a hissy-fit and refusing to issue e-book editions until the hard cover edition has had several months in the market without “competition.” Their failure to recognize that their industry’s economics is of no concern to the marketplace is another nail in their coffin. Strong independent publishers have an opportunity to pick the bones of behemoths such as Simon and Schuster and HarperCollins who, along with Hachette Book Group, have announced their intention to delay the publication of e-book editions until their higher-priced hardcover editions have had several months in the marketplace. “Each publisher voiced concern that the popularity of cheap, $9.99 e-book best sellers available simultaneously with new hardcovers endangers the publishing industry's future.”

Instead they should be embracing the policy of “any-time-any-place” publishing – delivering the goods to the consumer whenever he/she wants it and in any form. There may have to be price disparities for different formats. Certainly the more a title is aimed at the consumer (trade), rather than at someone who needs information to do a job (professional), the digital edition price might undercut the hardcover. But do they really think that they can control the digital tsunami? The only thing endangering “the publishing industry’s future” is the misguided policies of trade publishers themselves.


.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Homer & Langley

Ever since I first dealt with Amazon.com as a Publisher, sometime in the mid 1990’s, I also became their customer. Back then we were receiving regular faxed orders, usually for a few copies (with a photocopy of Jeff Bezos’ personal credit card!). I might have spoken to Bezos at the time, or one of his colleagues. Customer service, they explained, is their credo and they will build their business on that. We began to ship on open credit. The rest is history.

I buy most of my books from Amazon, frequently from their partners which costs nearly nothing, except shipping. It is sort of ironic as this can undermine prices on their Kindle, but given my interest in the physical book itself, the Kindle is not for me. I’m not a Luddite, but there is nothing like handling a printed book.

When we were recently in Asheville, we made our regular visit to Malaprop’s, one of the great remaining independent bookstores. They usually have a good selection of autographed copies and a couple of years ago I bought Russo’s Bridge of Sighs there. I was looking for Russo’s new novel That Old Cape Magic. Disappointed they didn’t have one this time, I sought out the next on my list, E.L Doctorow’s Homer & Langley. It is the best Doctorow novel I’ve read since Ragtime and the World’s Fair.

Reading an autographed copy has its drawbacks. No turning back corners to be able to find favorite passages. No reading on the beach. Handle with care. After reading, it belongs under glass like a museum piece.

The book itself is beautiful, printed on antique eggshell paper with a deckle edge, set in the Caslon type face, an old style face in the same family as Garamond, the classic crispness of which almost cries out to the reader to savor every word. And Doctorow’s writing is of museum quality too in its stark clarity and beauty. There are four main characters in the book, the brothers Homer and Langley Collyer, New York City, and Time (or the passage of the same).

Homer is blind but he is the one who can see truths as the book’s narrator and in various parts of the book is the one who leads the sighted. “People my age are supposed to remember times long past though they can’t recall what happened yesterday. My memories of our long-dead parents are considerably dimmed, as if having fallen further and further back in time has made them smaller, with less visible detail as if time has become space, become distance, and figures from the past, even your father and mother, are too far away to be recognized. They are fixed in their own time, which has rolled down behind the planetary horizon. They and their times and all its concerns have gone down together.”

A “Theory of Replacements” obsesses Langley, his older brother. “Everything in life gets replaced. We are our parents’ replacements just as they were replacements of the previous generation. All these herds of bison they are slaughtering out west, you would think that was the end of them, but they won’t all be slaughtered and the herds will fill back in with replacements that will be indistinguishable from the ones slaughtered.” Consequently, Langley lives his life collecting newspapers, categorizing stories, preparing what would be a “perpetual newspaper.” “He wanted to fix American life finally in one edition, what he called Collyer’s eternally current dateless newspaper, the only newspaper anyone would ever need. For five cents, Langley said, the reader will have a portrait in newsprint of our life on earth. The stories will not have overly particular details as you find in ordinary daily rags, because the real news here is of the Universal Forms of which any particular detail would only be an example. The reader will always be up to date, and au courant with what is going on. He will be assured that he reads of indisputable truths of the day including that of his own impending death, which will be dutifully recorded as a number in the blank box of the last page under the heading Obituaries.” Langley devolves into an antisocial eccentric, hoarding everything he finds, including his newspapers.

Doctorow’s story is somewhat based on the real life of the Collyer brothers who lived in New York City but it only serves as a loose sketch for the canvas of this tour de force. An odyssey of people, representative of time’s passing, drift in and out of their home, inherited from their parents, people from the depression, to WW II, to the Vietnam era, and the flower generation. While the brothers wage war with New York, the utility companies, and their neighbors, their home slowly degrades as time has its way and they withdraw from life itself.

Homer is a gifted pianist, the artist in the work, clearly Doctorow’s voice and sensibility. Homer has had one true love in his life, Mary Elizabeth Riordan, who, like everyone else in the novel, transits through the Collyer home never to return. She was his “prompter” in a silent movie theatre, whispering the changing scenes on the screen in his ear so he could play the appropriate music, his only job when he was younger. Then, she becomes his piano student and finally she leaves, becoming a Sister and a missionary in far away places, Homer occasionally receiving a letter. She is apparently murdered in Central America. Homer laments, “I am not a religious person. I prayed to be forgiven for having been jealous of her calling, for having longed for her, for having despoiled her in my dreams. But in truth I have to admit that I was numbed enough by this awful fate of the sister to be not quite able to connect it with my piano student Mary Elizabeth Riorden. Even now, I have the clean scent of her as we sit together on the piano bench. I can summon that up at will. She speaks softly in my ear as, night after night, the moving pictures roll by: Here it’s a funny chase with people hanging out of cars…here the hero is riding a horse at a gallop…here firemen are sliding down a pole…and here (I feel her hand on my shoulder) the lovers embrace, they’re looking into each other’s eyes, and now the card says…’I love you.’ ”

And as at the end of a silent movie the lens slowly closes and Homer cannot “see to see.”
.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Richard Yates’ Revolutionary Road

A while ago I was “tagged” by a fellow blogger to name twenty-five writers who “influenced” my life, and although I began my reply by naming Updike, Roth and Dreiser, Richard Yates could have easily been the first on my list.

He is certainly the only writer where I may have had some small reciprocal impact. Why? Because for almost ten years the only edition of his classic Revolutionary Road in print was the one I republished in 1971. Astonished to find it out of print at the time, we snapped up the rights from Yates’ literary agent, the International Famous Agency. In fact, the Wikipedia entry for the novel incorrectly cites Greenwood Press as the publisher instead of its original publisher, Little, Brown, and Company (1961). No doubt the article’s author was holding the Greenwood hardcover edition.

When our edition was published it was my intention to reread it, but career demands, other literary works, including all of Yates’ later novels and short stories, encroached on my reading time, so on various bookshelves in the homes we’ve lived, this edition nestled in waiting. The catalyst for recently rereading Revolutionary Road was the film of it, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. Reportedly, the book was “discovered” as a major American literary work by Kate Winslet and her husband, the film’s director, Sam Mendes. The film seemed faithful to the novel so I finally read the reprint edition to see for myself. In the process I was reminded why I was so taken with Yates’ work in the first place.

Since I am an “old” production guy, I have to describe the edition, republished without a jacket but in a library binding, 88 point binder’s boards, Arrestox "C" weight cloth with gold foil stamping on the spine, 5–1 /2 x 8–1/2 trim size, headbands and footbands, printed on acid free, cream colored high-opacity 50 lb paper. It was probably printed in Ann Arbor, Michigan where we printed the majority of our books. It looked as new as the day it was republished. So, I have come full circle with the book, reading it soon after it was first published, reprinting it when it went out of print, seeing the movie, and now finally rereading my reprint edition of the novel, with more than 40 years intervening.

As I said I thought the movie closely followed the book but after rereading Revolutionary Road, I am struck by its extreme faithfulness. Maybe this is because Yates’ elegantly developed plot moves chronologically and with an inevitability that drives the novel to its conclusion, making it so adaptable to the screen. But mostly, it is Yates’ living dialogue and although I do not have the screenplay to compare, I am certain much of it was wisely lifted from the novel itself.

When I first read the novel I was going through a divorce, having been married at the end of my junior year in college. My ex-wife and I were two kids, not unlike Frank and April in Revolutionary Road. I take literature very personally and the novel spoke directly to me as my own marriage was disintegrating and I was looking for answers.

The relationship of Yates’ men and women can be summed up by the titles of Yates’ two terrific short story collections: Eleven Kinds of Loneliness and Liars in Love. I was struck by these two themes, loneliness and self deception, as depicted in Revolutionary Road, relating those to my own experience, not only in my first marriage but the failed marriage of my parents (although they continued the pretense of a marriage to their deaths). Yates’ characters are perpetually struggling with one another, the men unsure of their masculinity, having to prove it in their work, their “need” to be loved by their wives, and to dominate women outside their marriages, while the women are highly neurotic and dependent but oddly headstrong and impulsive at the same time.

Towards the novel’s dénouement, April, exhausted from her struggles with her husband Frank, determined to follow through on aborting their third child, sends Frank off to work with a little kiss. Frank is confused, astounded, but grateful as he goes off to catch his train. April thinks it was “…a perfectly fair, friendly kiss, a kiss for a boy you’d just met at a party. The only real mistake, the only wrong and dishonest thing, was ever to have seen him as anything more than that. Oh, for a month or two, just for fun, it might be all right to play a game like that with a boy; but all these years! And all because, in a sentimentally lonely time long ago, she had found it easy and agreeable to believe whatever this one particular boy felt like saying, and to repay him for that pleasure by telling easy, agreeable lies of her own, until each was saying what the other most wanted to hear – until he was saying ‘I love you’ and she was saying ‘really, I mean it; you’re the most interesting person I’ve ever met.’” Indeed, liars in love. It perfectly described my own experience and I’ve been hooked on Yates ever since.

Yates characters wear different personas, playacting their way through their lives, with a natural capacity for self deception and disingenuousness. The book begins with a play in which April acts in a community theatre production. For a month after April finds she is pregnant with this third child, she and Frank go through their own elaborate play, she wanting an abortion (supposedly for Frank’s sake) and Frank wanting the child (supposedly for moral reasons). Subliminally he realizes that the pregnancy will put to rest April’s impetuous desire to move to Paris and thus leave them with a “comfortable” suburban life: “And so the way was clear for the quiet, controlled, dead serious debate with which they began to fill one after another of the calendar’s days, a debate that kept them both in a finely drawn state of nerves that was not at all unpleasant. It was very like a courtship….His main tactical problem, in this initial phase of the campaign, was to find ways of making his position attractive, as well as commendable. The visits to town and country restaurants were helpful in this connection; she had only to glance around her in such places to discover a world of handsome, graceful, unquestionably worthwhile men and women, who had somehow managed to transcend their environment – people who had turned dull jobs to their own advantage, who had exploited the system without knuckling under it, who would certainly tend, if they knew the facts of the Wheelers’ case, to agree with him.”

Yates tackles the suburban landscape, reminiscent of Cheever and Updike, something that did not resonate particularly with me when I first read the book, but after having lived in the Westport, Connecticut area for some thirty years, now has a special meaning. Yates’ portrayal is more scathing, depicting a desolate place where desperate people, lonely and unsure of themselves, toiling away in an era of placidity on the surface with deep anxiety running beneath. He describes the neighborhood as “invincibly cheerful, a toyland of white and pastel houses whose bright, uncurtained windows winked blandly through a dappling of green and yellow leaves.” The women raise the kids in their manicured homes and the men do battle in the city, snaking their way on the commuter railroad with their hats and their newspapers. Yates describes Frank, “…riding to work, one of the youngest and healthiest passengers on the train, he sat with the look of a man condemned to a very slow, painless death. He felt middle-aged.” This is as sad a depiction of the American dream’s corruption as could have been conjured up by Fitzgerald.

Frank works at his father’s old firm, a veneration of cynicism on his part. He gets a job in the Sales Promotion Department at Knox Business Machines, deciding “it would be more fun not to mention his father in the interview at all.” “The sales what? [April inquired]….What does that mean you’re supposed to do?” “Who the hell knows? They explained it to me for half an hour and I still don’t know, and I don’t think they do either. No, but it’s pretty funny, isn’t it? Old Knox Business Machines. Wait’ll I tell the old man. Wait’ll he hears I didn’t even use his name.” “And so it started as a kind of joke. Others might fail to see the humor of it, but it filled Frank Wheeler with a secret, astringent delight as he discharged his lazy duties, walking around the office in a way that had lately become almost habitual with him, if not quite truly characteristic, since having been described by his wife as ‘terrifically sexy’ -- a slow catlike stride, proudly muscular but expressing a sleepy disdain of tension or hurry.” Work too, is nothing more than a performance, something without intrinsic meaning, like other aspects of their lives.

Paradoxically, the one character in the novel who does not suffer from self deception, is their real estate agent’s son, John, who is an inmate in a mental institution, one who occasionally visits the Wheelers when he is released to his parents. When he learns that the Wheelers are not going to move to France and that April is pregnant, he says to them, first referring to Frank, “Big man you got here, April…Big family man, solid citizen. I feel sorry for you. Still, maybe you deserve each other. Matter of fact, the way you look right now, I’m beginning to feel sorry for him too. I mean come to think of it, you must give him a pretty bad time, if making babies is the only way he can prove he’s got a pair of balls….Hey, I’m glad of one thing, though? You know what I’m glad of? I’m glad I’m not gonna be that kid.”

Yates wrote six novels after Revolutionary Road. Among my favorites was Easter Parade, but Revolutionary Road stands on its own. He also had his short stories published in the two collections mentioned earlier, and, finally, he became more widely recognized with the publication of the Collected Stories of Richard Yates a few years ago. The wonderful introduction to this edition was written by Richard Russo who is yet another contemporary author influenced by Yates.

A must read article on Yates “The Lost World of Richard Yates; How the great writer of the Age of Anxiety disappeared from print” was published in the October/November 1999 issue of the Boston Review by Stewart O’Nan. He thoroughly covers Yates’ history and writing, but I was disappointed O’Nan failed to mention the edition of Revolutionary Road we kept in print for those ten years. Nonetheless, I would like to think our edition did its small part in keeping Yates’ extraordinary novel alive.
.

Friday, July 10, 2009

You Get What You Pay For

Malcolm Gladwell’s “Priced to Sell; Is Free the Future?” in the recent issue of the New Yorker brings up fascinating issues, ones I dealt with my entire career – should “information” be “free.” Part of his article is a critique of Chris Anderson’s new book, Free: The Future of a Radical Price,”which argues that given the inexorable downward price pressure in technology, there is an inevitability that the content itself will become free. Anderson suggests that musicians learn to make their money “through touring, [and] merchandise sales” and newspaper writer retool to become coaches to unpaid writers who will work “for non-monetary rewards.” Fame, crumbs?

No doubt the newspaper industry is under siege, and is probably the most threatened during this Great Recession. But Gladwell’s scathing dissection of the YouTube “business model” points the way to the inevitability of two universes, a subscription model such as the successful Wall Street Journal, one that offers a level of professionalism or specialization people are willing to pay for and then the free one like YouTube, a commodity aimed at a mass market, supported either by advertising or by the provider being satisfied by cornering market share/eyeballs (Google in the case of YouTube).

The New York Times had attempted a subscription model for its Op-Ed Columnists, miscalculating that this is the unique value of the Times. That value, though, as with the Washington Post, is its gestalt and by charging for a part of the paper and not all is to devalue the sum total of its parts. Pay per view is not feasible but dedicated followers will pay for access to such well established icons.

Similarly, newspapers that do not have a national standing, have an opportunity to expand their coverage of local issues – to create the specialization needed to buttress their own brands. Of course, content is not the only issue, it is the subscription model itself. Giving print subscribers nearly free access to the on line version is one approach, particularly as technology such as the iPad become ubiquitous. The pricing of an online version (only) is the more critical issue for these publications, and that will be dependent on their own distinctive market position. The devil is in the details, but Gladwell’s article is a good reading.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Do We Cry for the Sloth?

Coffee House Press, the innovative US Publisher of Firmin, saw my blog piece on their book and asked if I would like to review the author’s forthcoming novel, The Cry of the Sloth (To be published Sept. 1). Sure, I said, thinking that I might be graduating from reading about a lovable rat to an equally lovable sloth, and sloths are much cuter to begin with, sort of an upside down koala bear. The advance copy arrived as we were getting ready to leave for the summer so I looked forward to kicking off the summer reading season with Sam Savage’s new book. Not only did I love Firmin, I was more than curious about the author as he is about my age and it brings hope to us old guys; who knows, there might be a first book in each of us still.


The Cry of the Sloth is an epistolary novel, set in a Midwestern town during the 1970’s, quite a departure from Firmin written in the first person by a very literary rat. It is the first such novel I’ve read since 84 Charing Cross Road, which is actually not fiction but an exchange of letters between a New York book buyer and an antiquarian bookseller in London. The one thing all three books have in common is that they are about the literary world, although the “Sloth’s” world is faux literary.


The “action” mainly unfolds by following our protagonist, Andrew Whittaker, over a four month period, through his letters and other miscellaneous writings, including his interpretations of his correspondents’ replies (in the rare cases when he received one), as well as just about everything else he writes, including fragments of a novel (“meant to be comic [but] it has acquired an overlay of desperation”), notices to his tenants of apartments he inherited (“Do Not Throw Cigarette Butts in Flower Pots”), apartment ads (“Enjoy a Family Lifestyle!”), grocery lists (“t.p”. – toilet paper being prominent on each), fragments of ideas for stories, and notes to himself.


Mainly, his letters are to the contributing writers of his failing literary magazine, Soap, A Journal of the Arts, of which he is the Editor, his ex-wife, Jolie, to whom he owes alimony and on whom he was obviously entirely dependent for keeping his life organized when Soap began, Vikki, a contributor and perhaps Soap’s only donor, creditors who hound him for money, the Rapid Falls Current, the small town newspaper with which he is at war, and successful novelists, some old friends who obviously do not answer his pleas to participate in a spring literary festival. He obsesses on the festival as his salvation, much as Gogol’s Akaky Akakievich saw his Overcoat.


It is a lonely, solitary journey, kaleidoscopic in nature so we, the reader, see only parts of the mosaic and always through the eyes of the 43 year old Andrew Whittaker. But through that prism we witness his slow slide, progressing through various states of mind, with his ranting and ravings, paranoia, even writing letters under pseudonyms to the local newspaper praising “That Andy is a quiet, dignified, private man,” and then responding to his pseudonym under still another one.


His obsessive compulsive behavior leads him to perform all tasks, explain all his actions in minutiae and repetitively, sometimes hilariously but always to the point of sadness. He becomes fixated on why there are no photographs of him between the ages of seven and fifteen in the family album, pursuing an answer from his sister, from whom he is estranged (what else), and from his dying mother who is in a nursing home. “If everything we do not remember did not exist, where would we be?”


While packing up his books he finds an encyclopedia of mammals and it is there he comes across the “ai,” a variety of a three-toed sloth which he sees as having a head too small for its body, “something I have thought about myself” obsessing to the point of having his head measured. But, he happily reports to his friend, Harold, that he moves his “…bowels once every day with clockwork regularity. I mention this because the ai shits and pisses only once a week.”


His wife has run off with an old novelist friend on a motorcycle who he remembers saying “she would never marry anybody as ambiguous as I am.” And there is an amorphous quality to Andrew and the novel itself, leaving the reader with more questions than answers, part of Savage’s intent.


Towards the end of the novel, he writes to Vikki “I have sunk back into all my old vices – slovenliness, sloth, and gargantuan pettiness,” perhaps his most insightful introspective epiphany. In the Christian moral tradition “sloth” is also one of the seven deadly sins, characterized by wasting away and entropy, the essence of Andrew Whittaker. The punishment in hell for such a sin is to be thrown into snake pits and, interestingly, he finds a pair of snakeskin boots in his basement, ones someone had accused him of stealing.


Savage’s writing is precise and engaging, weaving satire and pathos. He portrays an inexorable path for our protagonist, a fascinating, tragicomic portrait of isolation and personal failure, in the tradition of Gogol and Kafka. “All around me things are in decay, or in revolt. If only I could walk out of myself the way one walks out of a house.”


As Andy says at the end of one very long letter: “Imagine a man in a room talking about himself, perhaps in a very boring way, while looking down at the floor. And while he goes on with his monologue, which as I said is of interest only to himself, one by one the other people in the room tiptoe away until he is all alone, the last one shutting the door silently behind him. Finally, the man looks up and sees what has happened, and of course he is overcome by feelings of ridicule and shame. Maybe this letter is now at the bottom of your wastepaper basket, a tiny trivial voice in the depths of a tin well, rattling on and on.”


Are we still in the room listening to Andy? Yes, or no, Savage has established himself, with Cry of the Sloth, and Firmin, as an important “new” literary voice at the age of 67.


.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

How’s My Driving?

When I posted my penultimate entry, the blogger “dashboard” indicated that it was my one-hundredth one. This made me ask: where had my blogger journey taken me? So, I did a cursory review of the entries, beginning with the first posted on Wednesday, November 14, 2007. Little did I know at the time we were only at the beginning of an historic political and economic era.

The latter was showing only the tip of a sub-prime mortgage iceberg. In fact, the market report for that day was as follows: “Stocks soared on Wall Street last night as investors returned to the bombed-out financial sector following positive comments from investment banks Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan about the impact of the ongoing sub-prime mortgage crisis. The Nasdaq tech stock index, meanwhile, recorded its biggest gain in more than four years closing up 89.52 points or 3.46% at 2,673.65, while the Dow Jones closed up 319.54 points or 2.46% at 13,307.09.” These now seem like Halcyon levels for both indices.

The ensuing “Great Recession” as it has euphemistically been called, along with Obama’s historic rise to the Presidency, have been the two most significant events of this period. As one of my intensions has been to give a personalized view and account of my times, a fair number of my blog entries during the last 535 days relate to these topics, perhaps more than I had originally envisioned.

No doubt there will be more as momentous political and economic winds continue to blow. Government had to step in to become the “spender of last resort” in this perfect economic storm, but we will inevitably face the unintended consequences of fighting a credit bubble with a new credit bubble. President Obama’s choices (who I supported in these pages from his primary battles to his election campaign) were between worse or worst and I get the sense we are winging it on a daily basis, hoping the economic implosion can be morphed to an explosion as the latter will be necessary to raise the revenue to retire the debt being created. A society cannot borrow itself into prosperity and a common thread in my postings has been the observation that borrowers and lenders, Ponzi schemers and investors in those schemes, are all complicit in this crisis. Government cannot protect people from themselves but we need regulations that make predatory lending and investing practices more difficult, all fodder for future postings.

I have been asked what I meant by the title of the blog. In my first entry, I credited a publisher I admired at McGraw Hill, Curtis Benjamin. To quote from that entry, “Benjamin labeled increasing specialization ‘the twigging phenomenon’ – the tree of knowledge constantly developing new limbs as scholarship and scientific discoveries blaze forward. I wonder how Curtis Benjamin would see the Internet world, the ultimate in customized, personalized, specialized publishing. No doubt he would see it as an opportunity. Hence, an opportunity for me to use the medium to muse about my life, interests and experiences over time.”

So, the blog was intended as musings about la·cu·nae (-n) or la·cu·nas: An empty space or a missing part; a gap. And they are solitary musings of a microscopic nature. I like to think of it as dealing with the irregular numbers between zero and one, of which there are more than whole numbers. The whole numbers from one to infinity are left to mass media and those blogs and web sites positioned for large readership.

Consequently, it also leaves me free to address my own personal interests so other entries have dealt with my life as a publisher, friends and family history, travels and boating, photography, and my interest in music and literature. To some extent I feel the gravitas of the economy and politics have encroached upon writing more on those other topics.

As I said to I said to a blogger friend, Emily, “I’ve always thought of myself as a jack-of-all-trades, master of none…. My on-and-off-again blog reflects my disparate interests and …so, I’m afraid your readers may be disappointed by the content. You have a central passion and your blog reflects that focus so well.”

I make that observation as my blog has been “picked up” by some others, all with a “central passion.” So, if you arrive here through another blog site, I might be dealing with an altogether different subject at the time. I’ve also been asked why I haven’t activated the “comments” feature. Perhaps I haven’t wanted to get into a public debate on my views. They are what they are. But, in the profile part of the blog I have provided an email contact for those who want to communicate.

I’ve averaged a posting almost every five days for one and one half years. Sometimes it feels more like a responsibility than fun and that’s when I back off and post laconic entries, maybe more suitable for Twitterdom than a blog. But I never intend to Twitter as can’t imagine anyone wanting to follow my daily minutiae.

Concluding this summary of my “first hundred entries,” I reiterate an inspirational passage that cuts to the heart of the matter. Just reading the words again makes me more sanguine about the next hundred. This is from the 70-year old classic by Brenda Ueland, If You Want to Write; A Book about Art, Independence and Spirit: “At last I understood that writing was about this: an impulse to share with other people a feeling of truth that I myself had. Not to preach to them, but to give it to them if they cared to hear it. If they did not – fine. They did not need to listen. That was all right too…. You should work from now on until you die, with real love and imagination and intelligence, at your writing or whatever work it is that you care about. If you do that, out of the mountains that you write some mole hills will be published…. But if nothing is ever published at all and you never make a cent, just the same it will be good that you have worked.”

.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Publishers Gone Wild

HarperCollins Puts Its Money on New ‘It Books’ Imprint
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/books/05harper.html.
“Tapping into the zeitgeist” with the “It Books” imprint? “The collected works of Twitterdom”? Please pass the barf bag.

Instead of recognizing that the publishing industry needs to set itself apart from the fierce competition of other media, doing what only it can do well – like discovering and publishing new fiction and meaningful non-fiction -- they run like a moth to the flame. They want people to turn from TV, movies and the Internet to books by publishing the very kind of content best suited for their competition, content aimed at those who are addicted to the competing media? “Escapism, fun, and style” in book form -- lots of luck with that kind of strategic thinking. Might as well send those titles directly to the remainder tables.

Makes publishing nothing sound like a more attractive strategy. http://lacunaemusing.blogspot.com/2009/02/plastics-and-publishing.html
.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Plastics and Publishing

The commoditization of publishing due to the convergence of trade publishing and other forms of entertainment in a digital age is just but one nail in the coffin of the industry. Even non-trade segments of the industry, such as professional and educational publishing, are struggling with issues of digital delivery, and they have also been caught up in the same financial contagion sweeping Wall Street. These publishers have reacted by cutting their lists, reducing staff, and delaying the signing of new contracts and product development, the same kind of short-term thinking prevalent in American business.

The publishing industry seems to be at an inflection point, with the “trade” part shrinking, fighting all other forms of entertainment proliferating on line, via the Ipod, even the cell phone, cable TV, Netflix, etc. and, now, the emergence of Amazon as a publisher in its own right via its Kindle e-book reader, and educational publishing changing slower than it needs to in order to make the Web more of an opportunity than a threat. Somewhere between the space of the large media publishing organization and the small on demand publisher there would seem to be an opportunity for the strong independent publisher.

Here a just some of the recent developments to consider:

▪ HarperCollins, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Penguin Group, Random House and Simon & Schuster have all announced salary freezes or layoffs, or both.

▪ As of October book sales fell 7 percent compared with the same period the previous year.

▪ Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has put a freeze on acquiring most new titles for its trade division while HarperCollins has closed its nonfiction division.

▪ Even the venerable Oxford University Press, the largest university press, laid off 60 people from its US operation, almost a tenth of its staff.

▪ Amazon has ramped up the manufacturing of a new version of its Kindle reader and acquired a new work by Stephen King that will be published exclusively (initially at least) on the Kindle.

The last event is particularly significant. Amazon’s first version is estimated to have sold 500,000 copies. Kindle 2.0 is sleeker, easier to use and even will read the text aloud, still another issue for publishers. While intellectual content is now routinely delivered on the Web, mass-market fiction to date has been the exclusive stronghold of the printed book and therefore the publishing industry. Now best-selling authors can bypass the publisher.

But many publishers are also exposed to the subrogation of internal financing to private equity and the leveraged buyout. By 2006 private equity firms were flocking to the industry:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/08/10/private_equity_eyeing_book_publisher_bids_sources/

A former colleague of mine wrote me: “I’ve always been jealous of those of you who were in publishing during the days when it was different from other corporations. I've become quite disillusioned with the business as a whole, basically because it seems every other day you hear that some great long-time member of the publishing community is being pushed out, and someone who was the CEO of a deodorant company or something is coming in to run things. Next thing you know, that company goes under.”

But mergers and acquisitions and the pursuit of the holy grail of synergy are not new. I was involved in several during my career. The most ludicrous one was early in my publishing days. A small publicly owned conglomerate owned the company I worked for at the time. This firm also had a consumer plastics company. The accountants discovered the "process" of making consumer plastic products was similar to books as you make a master (camera ready copy for photo offset or a mold for plastic products) and from the master you make duplicates. Perfect accounting synergy as you capitalize the cost of the master and write it off during the lifespan of the product. So, we became part of the "Plastics and Publishing" division and in their 1971 annual report our books were displayed along side plastic hangers, dishes, and jewelry cases!

And, publishers managed during other dire economic times. There were serious downturns in the mid 1970’s when the prime rate rose for the first time to double digits, in the early 1980s when Paul Volker ratcheted interest rates to unprecedented levels in response to the CPI reaching almost 15 percent, and a recession in 1991 that resembled the present one (although not as severe) as it was a liquidity crisis. At that time the excesses of the 1980s were in the process of self-correcting. Individuals and state and local governments who leveraged their finances found they were without the funds to even carry on day-to-day operations. Many of these loans were underwritten by real estate values that had simply disappeared.

Today’s debt has now been magnified by a huge multiple thanks to exotic financial instruments, resulting in an even more serious liquidity crisis. My mantra was a publisher should be able to operate “out of a tent,” making the investment in talented people and buying services rather than investing capital in plant and equipment, or, even worse, in unrealistic print runs and pricing, everything to keep financing costs to the minimum. Leveraged finance and publishing are a bad mix.

Long-term thinking is needed in the industry. Or, as another colleague of mine noted: “These publishers are like a group in the desert that decides to camp in place and stop expending energy so their limited water will keep them alive longer. By this strategy they will live a little longer but die they surely will.” This is the time for stronger independent publishers to expand their lists while leveraged corporate behemoths are contracting, if necessary practicing attrition rather than layoffs, seeking new authors while competitors caught in the financial mess are not publishing them. By swimming against the tide, rethinking their role in a digital world, independent publishers can help bring the publishing industry back from stagnation. “Camping in place” is not an option.
.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Copyright in the Internet Era

It is remarkable to witness the revolutionary changes in information dissemination, just during my working lifetime as a publisher, from the Gutenberg era to the Internet era over the course of only a few decades. I remember attending a conference at the New York Public Library in 1965 about the urgent need to use permanent durable, acid-free paper in all new publications. The NYPL’s collection was rapidly deteriorating, particularly those books and periodicals that were printed on groundwood pulp paper, the same as used in newspapers, and the library was beginning to spend as much on preservation as it was on acquisitions. Microfilm and microfiche (particularly “ultrafiche”) as well as mainframe computers, were being cited as possible solutions to preserving information. At the same time photocopying was becoming ubiquitous and libraries looked upon that as a possible method of disseminating information through library systems.

Today’s ambitious projects – basically Google’s objective to digitize just about everything (more than 7 million books scanned thus far) – makes the related copyright issues I was concerned with at the time, particularly The Williams and Wilkins Supreme Court decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_&_Wilkins_Co._v._United_States) look like a trivial warm-up act. I wrote an essay for a special 1974 issue of Confrontation – The Great Copyright Debate on that case (below). Focused on the then relatively “new” technology of photocopying, it seems antiquated, but the fundamental issues of fair use and the extent to which the rights of individuals or corporate authors, the creators of the information, can be usurped by the informational needs of the majority are even more alive in today’s Internet world. One only needs to check out Google’s ambitious project to understand the far-reaching impact the digital world is having on how we access information as well as who “owns” the information. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/new-chapter-for-google-book-search.html.


Copyright
A Publisher's Viewpoint

By Robert Hagelstein

Nothing stirs the emotions of the educational and publishing communities more today then the copyright issue. For decades a tacit agreement between librarians and publishers (the "Gentlemen's Agreement" of 1939) had successfully governed photocopying by libraries of copyrighted materials. But that agreement was established before the advent of widespread use of relatively inexpensive electrostatic copying equipment and audio-visual duplicating equipment. It also preceded exponential information growth, increasingly expensive research materials, and higher education for the masses.

These factors have resulted in the large-scale copying of copyrighted audio visual and printed works by libraries, with the approval of the courts to the dismay and general disapproval of publishers and authors. Congress will ultimately decide whether such copying will continue.

On February 16, 1972, the United States Court of Claims found that the federal government was liable for infringement of copyrights held by Williams and Wilkins, a medical publisher. For years the National Library of Medicine had systematically copied, upon the request of researchers connected with those institutions, parts of periodicals (in some cases, complete articles) published by Williams and Wilkins.

On November 27, 1973, the Court of Claims reversed its historic opinion. The Williams and Wilkins Company appealed the reversal to the Supreme Court. Recently, the Supreme Court decided to review the case.

The Supreme Court's decision will undoubtedly influence the copyright revision bill, which for years has been under consideration by Congress. As the Court of Claims stated in its reversal decision, "the truth is that this is now preeminently a problem for Congress: to decide the extent photocopying should be allowed, the questions of a compulsory license and the payments (if any) to the copyright owners, the system for collecting those payments (lump-sum, clearinghouse, etc.), the special status (if any) of scientific and educational needs."

The issue has divided publishers and librarians, creating an adversary position where traditionally there has been one of cooperation. Publishers feel that the Williams and Wilkins reversal demands that they oppose almost any kind of library photocopying, while librarians are reportedly considering the decision as a green light to proceed with wholesale copying.

Robert Wedgeworth, Executive Director of the American Library Association, referred in the May 1974 issue of American Libraries to the Williams and Wilkins reversal as one "of our most impressive triumphs of the century." A letter from a librarian to Library Journal (February 15, 1973) states that "publishers and librarians are in adversary positions ... No amount of discussion will bridge that gap ... If you think you are on the winning side, why offer to compromise?" Publishers have been equally vocal and adamant concerning their position.

Though rights have been aired, there has been little discussion of the need to find a compromise solution-such as a rule for the use of copying equipment, and a means of compensating authors and publishers.

The rhetoric has also obscured recognition of the dissemination of knowledge as a common goal shared by all serious publishers and librarians. This recognition cannot be achieved without understanding of each group's respective roles, and the implications of what the lack of a compromise solution means.

The librarian's role is fairly clear. However, the inside workings of a library-acquisition, cataloging, and circulation of library materials-are complex. One can fully appreciate why--especially in a large academic library-the idea of keeping track of photocopies for the purpose of paying royalties is abhorrent.

Publishers of materials normally acquired by academic libraries must have highly specialized knowledge and formidable financial resources. Making information available in a structured manner so that it can be easily used is not a simple task. To ensure the participation of private industry in such an endeavor, the potential for a reasonable profit must be evident.

The burgeoning costs of research materials may prompt some to question why private industry is needed to publish information and to produce information systems. The Government Printing Office in Washington is capable of handling this responsibility, and libraries, as protectors and purveyors of information, can also be publishers.

The preservation of a truly free society, however, requires a diversity of information sources and opinions. Uncontrolled copying of information without proper compensation to authors and publishers would ultimately reduce the sources of information. Conceivably, more and more publishing would, out of necessity, be taken over by the federal government. Hence, the Government Printing Office, already one of the world's largest publishers, would be encouraged to support and control all kinds of research and writing. Government control of the dissemination of information is not in the best interest of librarians, publishers, authors, or of the public.

To prevent such a trend, a copyright law is needed which protects the rights of authors and publishers as well as librarians, providing for a method of compensation for photocopying copyrighted materials.

If the Court of Claims reversal were upheld and backed by Congress, not all publications and publishers would be equally affected. It is important to make a distinction here between trade publishing and information publishing. Trade publishing is the publication of books intended for a general market of readers, usually reached through bookstore distribution. The product of information publishing, however, is highly specialized and is destined for a relatively limited audience, especially libraries. Included in this category are scholarly and professional journals, information banks on microfilm or computer tape, scientific, technical, professional, and scholarly monographs, and proceedings and symposiums.

Since information materials are exclusively published for educational or research uses, commercial information publishers depend mostly on the education market for financial support. Trade publishers generally derive much of their income from other sources such as the sale of book club, paperback or movie rights. Therefore, any attempt to justify unlimited library photocopying as "fair use" because it is for "educational purposes only" would deprive the information publisher of its sole potential income source.

Although some forms of trade publications may be subjected to photocopying, it is unlikely, even if photocopying were condoned, that a novel or a general historical work would be systematically photocopied. Most libraries want to buy original editions for their collections, anticipating heavy use. Bound printed copies generally last longer than photocopies, bound or unbound. Because trade works are printed in much larger quantities for broader audiences, an original copy would probably be far less expensive than a photocopy. Furthermore, this kind of book is meant to be read in its entirety and does not lend itself to being photocopied in part only.

The converse is true of the information publication, which is especially structured so that it can be used in part. Because the audience for such a product is comparatively limited, unit costs and retail prices are higher; a photocopy, therefore, may indeed be far less expensive than an original copy.

Although the journal that you are reading is not an "information" publication per se, it can be grouped here because it is intended for a limited literary audience. Any kind of publication has certain fixed costs such as typesetting and overhead which are unaffected by the number of copies printed and sold. Confrontation may have cost $10 per page to typeset, yet you or your library may have paid only a few cents per page for it. If Confrontation were to become a casualty of uncontrolled photocopying with a resulting fifty percent circulation drop, that $10 per page would have to be absorbed by half the number of copies. Hence, the price would have to be raised. Photocopies would become less expensive in relationship to the escalating retail price. One can see why certain kinds of publications could become obsolete or prohibitively expensive.

An upholding of the Williams and Wilkins reversal by the Supreme Court and Congress could also indirectly encourage the growth of the cooperative library movement and photocopying of interlibrary loan material. The cooperative library system is a necessary means of dealing with information growth, and interlibrary loans by mail give wider access to little used materials. With photocopying equipment, however, one library could become a duplicator or a "publisher" of materials for another. Cooperative libraries could become publishing centers.

In 1949 ten universities formed a cooperative, which has grown to include seventy-eight institutions in a nationwide system called Center for Research Libraries. Two years ago the Center for Research Libraries received a $450,000 five-year grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York to develop a national lending library of journals. If copying without restriction is allowed to persist, it is not impossible to imagine that someday the Center could be handling the publisher's traditional printing and distribution functions, purchasing the only copy of each journal issued by each publisher. Of course, the cost of each single copy to the Center would be the publisher's typesetting and overhead costs with a fair royalty for the author, plus a profit margin for the commercial publisher.

Another major cooperative was announced by the Research Libraries Group, which includes the New York Public Library, Columbia University, Yale University, and Harvard University. Joseph Rosenthal, who did the feasibility study on the group, although stating that he thought that publisher's sales loss would be "insignificant," did admit that publications that are "marginally economic will die out," and that those remaining would be more expensive should uncontrolled photocopying be allowed. The April 15, 1974 issue of Publishers Weekly states that "it has been widely reported that the consortium is taking the Court of Claims decision in that photocopying case as a go-ahead signal for wholesale copying."

Obviously, that is not to argue against cooperative library systems. They perform valuable services for smaller institutions, which would otherwise be deprived of access to library collections that only the largest universities can afford. However, by photocopying original materials instead of acquiring them, a library cooperative could compete with a private publisher, reprinting that publisher's materials. To discourage such activity and to compensate the creator of the information, publishers and authors should be in a position to grant reproduction rights and to collect royalties.

There is no simple solution to the problem; the endless discussion on copyright revision in Congress during these past few years attests to that fact. One criteria has frequently been applied to photocopying and possible copyright infringement: if photocopying saves the researcher the trouble of transcribing by hand, there should be no need for him to seek the copyright owner's permission (if such copying is not done for publication purposes). Copying should be prohibited, however, if it is done to enable the user to avoid purchasing the work. The former is an example of "fair use," the latter is not.

In 1968 the National Library of Medicine made 120,000 copies of journal articles, which amounted to about 1,200,000 pages. In 1970 the National Institute of Health made 86,000 copies from medical and scientific journals totaling 930,000 pages. This is what the United States Court of Claims had condoned.

Chief Judge Cowen stated in his dissenting opinion in the Williams and Wilkins reversal that "what we have before us is a case of wholesale, machine copying and distribution of copyrighted material by defendant's libraries on a scale so vast that it dwarfs the output of many small publishing companies… [the] defendant's photocopying ... meets none of the criteria for 'fair use…' While the library may look at the giving of a photocopy as a substitute for a loan, the user and would-be purchaser gets an exact copy of the original article which is a substitute for a purchased copy ... [they] are intended to be substitutes for, and serve the same purpose as the original articles; and serve to diminish plaintiffs potential market for the original articles ... "

A problem which has blocked a compromise solution --- one that has partially vindicated the libraries' position --- is the complex logistics of seeking permissions and processing payments for copying. It would be an overwhelming burden for each library to attempt to deal with each publisher's rights and permissions department. Also, keeping track of the exact number of copies and specific pages is a nearly impossible administrative task, especially when copying is done on a large scale.

It has been suggested that a central clearinghouse be established for processing permissions and payments for photocopying activities. This still could leave a complex bookkeeping function for libraries. Perhaps a more viable solution would be the establishment of an escalating pricing structure. There would be two prices for an order of the same book; the choice of price would be determined by the purchaser's option of photocopy rights. A lower price would be set for libraries and individuals who do not wish the right to photoduplicate the purchased book; a higher price would obtain for libraries which want the right to photocopy the work in whole or in part for their potential users. This latter price would be derived from a formula based on the number of potential users multiplied by the regular list price. (The number of potential users can be arrived at by using student enrollment if an academic library; library cardholders if a public library; or even the size of the library budget.) A cooperative library system would have to consider the multiple institutions it serves.

Representatives of the major library and publishing associations should be able to work out a fair and equitable formula. There is some precedent for such a system. One publisher has sold indexes to certain periodicals, basing the price on the number of periodicals held in the purchaser's collection, or on the library's periodicals budget.

Publishers and libraries must seek compromise solutions and make appropriate recommendations to Congress. If inflationary pressures continue to mount and orders for materials being copied remain static or begin to wane, the retail prices of these publications will undoubtedly rise. Those which are marginal will come under even greater pressure as prices rise. Even a slight loss of orders could condemn a host of journals, symposiums, and technical and reference works to extinction. As these information sources are smothered, pressures for government intercession would mount. Education would lose more than it gained.

The information explosion is indeed a reality. Modern techniques of storing and disseminating this information --- computers, microfilm, and photocopying equipment --- are necessary. Suitable copyright protection and appropriate licensing arrangements would ensure an adequate supply of information for a free society with growing information needs.