The Maw of the Conglomerate

In col­lege I was warned against pur­su­ing an edi­to­r­ial career. The kind of rela­tion­ships Maxwell Perkins enjoyed with his pub­lisher and authors had by the 1990s become an arti­fact of a bygone era. The few remain­ing edi­tors, I was told, clung to jobs at small lit­er­ary presses, and even there made unset­tling com­pro­mises between sales poten­tial and lit­er­ary merit. The cor­po­ra­ti­za­tion of pub­lish­ing sev­ered the per­sonal con­nec­tions between edi­tors and writ­ers that were once a hall­mark of the indus­try. What place, then, for those of us who still keenly felt a con­nec­tion to writ­ers? What, then, of the writ­ers them­selves, left to fight for the ves­tiges of edi­to­r­ial sup­port remain­ing in agents and the copy­ed­i­tors? Pub­lish­ing had changed, and I needed to learn more about the new land­scape.

At Emer­son Col­lege I got the most bru­tal news yet. In a class on book edit­ing, I read an essay by Ger­ald Howard called “Mis­tah Perkins — He Dead,” which con­firmed the worst har­bin­gers of publishing’s demise. He claimed, first in 1985 and again in a 1993 post­script to the arti­cle, that the ideals of the Perkins-inspired edi­tor could find no place in the mod­ern pub­lish­ing industry:

It is impos­si­ble to imag­ine that august fig­ure Max Perkins work­ing hap­pily or even suc­cess­fully in this world, for his values–loyalty, hon­esty, taste, pro­por­tion, Olympian standards–are not always nego­tiable cur­rency these days.… The heart of dark­ness at the cen­ter of today’s pub­lish­ing world is not a jun­gle. Rather, it is a flashy, dis­ori­ent­ing envi­ron­ment, a com­bi­na­tion hall of mir­rors, MTV video, com­modi­ties pit, cock­tail party, soap opera, cir­cus, fun house, and three-card monte game. The mes­sage one emerges with, stunned and shaken by what one has wit­nessed, is: ‘Mis­tah Perkins — he dead.’”

Obit­u­ar­ies for the edi­to­r­ial pro­fes­sion have remained pop­u­lar ever since. They do not mis­state the sit­u­a­tion, and in truth the facts have only got­ten more grim in the inter­ven­ing 15 years. At least when Howard wrote his essay, edi­tors still had text to edit! In 2004 Robert McCrum wrote “The Curse of the Syn­op­sis” for The Guardian. McCrum observes two entan­gled yet con­tra­dic­tory prob­lems in the cur­rent pub­lish­ing world: con­tracts are rewarded to writ­ers on the basis of the briefest sketch of a book before a man­u­script has been writ­ten, and the num­ber of new pub­li­ca­tions con­tin­ues to grow at an unprece­dented rate.

So the indus­try suf­fers from the twin chal­lenges of too many and not enough words. Books are cre­ated in this way thanks to the single-minded focus of once-independent pub­lish­ing houses on the one thing their new cor­po­rate mas­ters crave above all else: profit.

Step into the Light
Creative Commons License photo credit: *saxon*

A best-selling author is only as valu­able as the buzz for his or her next best-seller, and that pub­lic­ity begins to be gen­er­ated the moment the author’s cur­rent book tops the best-seller list. Lit­tle mar­ket­ing empha­sis is placed on the con­tent of these books; we are com­pelled to buy them (whether we read them or not!) on the basis of their prox­im­ity to other works, other authors, ide­ally ones also owned by the same pub­lish­ing empire.

The ever-consolidating nature of the pub­lish­ing indus­try will end only when the whole of it, owned by one cor­po­ra­tion, col­lapses into itself like a star gone super­nova. To fret that the maw of the con­glom­er­ate will suck down with it all of lit­er­a­ture, how­ever, is disingenuous.

1 comment to The Maw of the Conglomerate

  • trishsmith426

    From the per­spec­tive of a reader (one who does not select her read­ing mate­ri­als from the NY Times Best Seller List or from the Oprah Book Club List [shud­der]), I whole­heart­edly agree with you. The result of all this mad­ness is that, in my expe­ri­ence any­way, it becomes harder and harder to find good books. When mar­ket­ing and pub­lish­ing deci­sions are made with­out the guid­ance of edi­tors who care about the qual­ity of the books they are pub­lish­ing, and the deci­sion of what to pub­lish is based upon profit mar­gin, then the only log­i­cal con­clu­sion is that the qual­ity of books being pub­lished today is sig­nif­i­cantly lower. A brief perusal through the local chain book­store will affirm that conclusion.

    One ques­tion that begs to be asked is, who suf­fers from the cur­rent state of affairs? The answer: every­one. The reader, for whom it is harder and harder (though far from impos­si­ble) to find qual­ity mate­r­ial to read; the writ­ers, both new and estab­lished, who find them­selves forced to pro­duce “best-sellers” instead of qual­ity (although the two aren’t nec­es­sar­ily mutu­ally exclu­sive, when qual­ity is not striven for, it tends to dis­ap­pear); and the indus­try itself, which is dri­ving itself to its own well-deserved end. Thank good­ness some books worth read­ing actu­ally do slip past the great maw of the con­glom­er­ate, or else us read­ers might be truly screwed.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>