On Demand Publishing

The Atlantic recently reported that Penguin Group, the second largest publisher in the world, with over 40 imprints in the United States, acquired the self-publisher Author Solutions for $116 million.  With profits of more than $100 million annually, this seems like a pretty good deal for Penguin, and it marks a shift in the marketplace, as publishers finally get it through their head that on-demand is a good thing.  But the article goes on to cite the difficulty of finding an audience through on-demand venues.  The odds, apparently, are pretty bad.  Something like winning the lottery, or becoming the next Brad Pitt.  But let's keep the hope alive, and let people invest themselves in telling stories they hope will sell.

On the one hand, I'm excited by this move.  It means that traditional publishers have decided the time is right to make a move toward profit again.  With brick-and-mortar bookstores on the decline, publishers have been scrambling to figure out where the next big thing would be.  E-books have made extraordinary strides, and as the recent success of Fifty Shades of Mediocre have shown, people are less interested in quality than they are in shallow characterizations and ludicrous plots.  The move on Penguin's part demonstrates that maybe books can still be profitable.  Indeed, the move to a more mobile inventory arguably means that publishers can slash overhead costs such as warehousing and shipping, while still providing quality (such as it is) content to consumers. 

On the other hand, democracy has rarely encouraged excellence.  Athenian democracy more often than not led to massacre and war, and mob pressures have, more often than not, led to things like Revolutions and anarchy.  Art requires a gatekeeper.  Literature requires a moderating influence that editors and publishers have tended to exert. 

While one can make the argument that market forces will moderate production, in this case producing works that people enjoy, one assumes that what people want in inherently good, or even good for them.  People addicted to nicotine seem to enjoy cigarettes, but people realize they're inherently bad for them.  Food, in general, is a good thing, but people like to eat and we've been counseled in moderation.  A treat is nice; eating chicken nuggets for breakfast, lunch and dinner will wind up killing you. 

Editors, those ivory-towered saints, and agents, serve the function of gatekeeper and treasure-hunter.  Sifting through the dross, they often find gold.  Scouring the pebbles, they often find diamonds.

So maybe there is a paradox involved in self- or on-demand publishing, but I think the author of The Atlantic pieces is missing the point.  Inasmuch as authors will probably fail to find a readership, that's sad.  But tragic is the bevy of less-than-worthwhile books that are found.