Uncategorized
The next ten years, according to the NBCC
Here, you’ll find a panel discussion with some NBCC people on the “next ten years” of book publishing. Whereas the title of the panel misleads (you’d think the panelists would talk about book publishing but they end up talking more about being book reviewers/critics), it ends up being a fairly provocative discussion, one that both excited and angered me.
Some highlights:
1. Mark Athitakis begins the panel quoting DFW’s new book. The web is a seemingly egalitarian space. It offers “everyone” a chance to publish and review. This model engenders a “grassroots” or bottom-up opportunity, for the “people” to decide what is “good” and ought to be read, as opposed to our top-down model now, with a handful of publishers dictating what gets mass distribution. DFW argues, however, that the web ultimately will offer us too many opportunities, and that before long, we’ll be asking for “gate-keepers” to tell us what is good and where to find it.
2. Colette Bancroft, books editor of the St. Petersburg Times, extends the DFW conversation by arguing that the web enables EVERYONE to be a critic and the heyday of the gate-keeper is slowly going away. I like this idea, though I’m not sure I buy it.
3. Scott McLemee of Inside Higher Ed gives a shout out to the “youngins.” Apparently, he knows some young people who read, unlike most of the other panelists there. In particular, he mentions The New Inquiry and Rumpus, which I don’t need to link because everyone here probably reads it.
What I liked:
1. A smart discussion about the split between book reviews and Amazon/BN reviews. The panelists agreed that professional critics are becoming more obsolete because of the explosion of consumer reviews, but Athitakis smartly reminds the audience that reviews serve to enhance conversations about particular texts and they are, by no means, a way of actually dictating sales. Also, art is subjective.
2. Athitakis (I liked him & what he had to say. A lot more than the other panelists.) makes the argument that critics used to develop a relationship with their readers, such that readers could rely on certain critics based on mutual taste, but because newspapers & journals have slashed space for reviews (with some exceptions, of course), this is no longer a possibility. Instead, we have blogs and websites. I’d agree. I look more to what reviewers say here on HTML Giant & some other websites much more than book reviews in say, the Chicago Tribune.
3. An audience member made a flippant point about young people today not reading anything but vampire novels. McLemee offered a clever anecdote about a teenager he knew reading 2666 in two days.
What I didn’t like:
1. Elizabeth Taylor. I disagreed with almost everything she said. At one point, she made it a point to disclose her opinion that even people who aren’t critics might have interesting things to say. This smacks of self-importance. This smacks of a desire to maintain her role as gate-keeper. I could go on, but I’ll stop myself.
2. On more thing on Elizabeth Taylor: in her opening remarks, she said her readers (of the Chicago Tribune) are not the same people who read NBCC books. Am I to assume, then, that people in Chicago (and anyone else who reads the Tribune, which I used to, by the way) don’t read “literature”? Hmm. Problematic.
3. Whereas I respect and appreciate what these critics say, many of them seem out of touch with how much conversation about literature and art is actually happening outside of their newspapers & the NBCC. Furthermore, their roles in the engagement of conversation seem dated, moving towards being obsolete.
Final words: The panel didn’t really address where they think book publishing is going in the next ten years. So let’s make the conversation where it didn’t exist before: Where do you think book publishing is headed? & where does the critic fit in?
Tags: 2666, chicago tribune, mark athitakis, NBCC
there are gatekeepers only those gatekeepers are bloggers who are given the designation via democratic heft. whereas book reviewers and old newspaper jockeys want to talk about the good ol’ days where you had to work your way up through the newsroom, the people are now more in control of who the gatekeepers are. sure, everyone can have a blog but that doesn’t mean everyone will read your blog. if people feel you are talking out of your ass, no one will read you. or you will get flamed by some 4Chan kid living in his parent’s poolhouse in Sarasota. sure sometimes the glut can seem overwhelming but the quality, or what you deem quality, will, hopefully, gather momentum due to pageviews, blog talk, digital slang in the fiber ether.
there are gatekeepers only those gatekeepers are bloggers who are given the designation via democratic heft. whereas book reviewers and old newspaper jockeys want to talk about the good ol’ days where you had to work your way up through the newsroom, the people are now more in control of who the gatekeepers are. sure, everyone can have a blog but that doesn’t mean everyone will read your blog. if people feel you are talking out of your ass, no one will read you. or you will get flamed by some 4Chan kid living in his parent’s poolhouse in Sarasota. sure sometimes the glut can seem overwhelming but the quality, or what you deem quality, will, hopefully, gather momentum due to pageviews, blog talk, digital slang in the fiber ether.
In my experience, most newspaper book reviewers don’t come from the ranks of journalists. Most are free-lancers who are authors or teachers in their day jobs. Quite a few of them have never been inside a newsroom — their reviews came via snail mail in olden times and via those newfangled Interwebs today.
In my experience, most newspaper book reviewers don’t come from the ranks of journalists. Most are free-lancers who are authors or teachers in their day jobs. Quite a few of them have never been inside a newsroom — their reviews came via snail mail in olden times and via those newfangled Interwebs today.
i meant book editors in that second sentence.
i meant book editors in that second sentence.
I think the gatekeeper thing is sorting itself out along the lines suggested by Gene. There are a few sites I read regularly to consider talk about books and literature: The Guardian, NY Times, New Yorker, NY Review of Books, Emerging Writers Network, The Rumpus. There are others I also read around in sometimes: Bookslut, Ed Champion, Sarah Weinman, John Fox, etc. Plus the links people I admire (like Matt Bell, Laura van den Berg) post on Facebook. I don’t think the future of book reviewing is an either/or thing. I think it’s more a blended thing. I’ll be sad if we lose the big places that commission the big reviews, even if I don’t always like them or think they’re smart. Sometimes they are, and with the better reviewers, like James Wood, even when I think he’s full of it, I’m edified for spending some time in his head.
I think the gatekeeper thing is sorting itself out along the lines suggested by Gene. There are a few sites I read regularly to consider talk about books and literature: The Guardian, NY Times, New Yorker, NY Review of Books, Emerging Writers Network, The Rumpus. There are others I also read around in sometimes: Bookslut, Ed Champion, Sarah Weinman, John Fox, etc. Plus the links people I admire (like Matt Bell, Laura van den Berg) post on Facebook. I don’t think the future of book reviewing is an either/or thing. I think it’s more a blended thing. I’ll be sad if we lose the big places that commission the big reviews, even if I don’t always like them or think they’re smart. Sometimes they are, and with the better reviewers, like James Wood, even when I think he’s full of it, I’m edified for spending some time in his head.
Great post.
So many professors and panels that I’ve been to are seriously out of touch. Recently had a panel where I’m getting my MFA and nobody mentioned or seemed to know about Duotrope.com and instead, insisted on only suggesting the often out of date the minute it prints Writer’s Digest. They have no respect for publishing on the internet and/or any other method than a solid large press.
I think so many things will change in 10 years, but one thing that won’t is the desire to HOLD a book in your hands. All of the tech is great, and there will be migration and overlap, but I don’t expect the book to go away.
More publishers will stop selling on places like Amazon that refuse to care about small presses, or presses of any kind. We will buy more of our books directly from presses like Dzanc, ChiZine, Featherproof, Akashic, etc. allowing these publishers to keep more of the profits.
There will be more POD business models to back up small print runs, so that publishers don’t eat the costs of printing that doesn’t sell, the painful realities of returns, and warehousing costs.
There will be more shopping online and less in standard brick and mortar, as publishers, especially small one, will find out that putting three copies of a book in every B&N doesn’t lead to success.
Great post.
So many professors and panels that I’ve been to are seriously out of touch. Recently had a panel where I’m getting my MFA and nobody mentioned or seemed to know about Duotrope.com and instead, insisted on only suggesting the often out of date the minute it prints Writer’s Digest. They have no respect for publishing on the internet and/or any other method than a solid large press.
I think so many things will change in 10 years, but one thing that won’t is the desire to HOLD a book in your hands. All of the tech is great, and there will be migration and overlap, but I don’t expect the book to go away.
More publishers will stop selling on places like Amazon that refuse to care about small presses, or presses of any kind. We will buy more of our books directly from presses like Dzanc, ChiZine, Featherproof, Akashic, etc. allowing these publishers to keep more of the profits.
There will be more POD business models to back up small print runs, so that publishers don’t eat the costs of printing that doesn’t sell, the painful realities of returns, and warehousing costs.
There will be more shopping online and less in standard brick and mortar, as publishers, especially small one, will find out that putting three copies of a book in every B&N doesn’t lead to success.
An increasing appreciation of ‘book-as-object? I think that it’s been happening for a while but I think it will become trendier and more popular.
I think at some point, if it hasn’t already, a book will be published that gives advice to people on how to be a cooler reader that will really catch on and people will seek out new and exciting good books because it is cool and continue because they enjoy it. This book on how to be a cool reader would tell people where to buy books that is better for the authors, like when people buy cds from the record label or at a show.
An increasing appreciation of ‘book-as-object? I think that it’s been happening for a while but I think it will become trendier and more popular.
I think at some point, if it hasn’t already, a book will be published that gives advice to people on how to be a cooler reader that will really catch on and people will seek out new and exciting good books because it is cool and continue because they enjoy it. This book on how to be a cool reader would tell people where to buy books that is better for the authors, like when people buy cds from the record label or at a show.
Man, that’s sad, considering your program brought Matt Bell, Aaron Burch and some other guy down less than two years ago to tout damn near the exact opposite approach to publishing.
Man, that’s sad, considering your program brought Matt Bell, Aaron Burch and some other guy down less than two years ago to tout damn near the exact opposite approach to publishing.
[…] years means for book reviewers. Video of that panel is now up; I can’t bear to watch, though HTMLGiant’s summary suggests my points got over well enough. What the video probably doesn’t capture is the sight […]