Kristin Nelson of The Nelson Agency:
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
To answer this question, one would truly have to define what it means for literature to be “in trouble.” Do you mean that book sales are down for literary fiction? If so, I think the basic problem is that young people don’t approach reading in the same way we did years ago. Twenty years ago, we read books. Today young people read lots of stuff--text messages, email, and the internet. Actually, they read all the time but I’m not sure the love of reading a book is being instilled in the classroom when there is such an emphasis on “no child left behind” by testing them to death. Folks read because they enjoy it. If there is no room for reading as enjoyment than yes, literature might be in trouble.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the novel be considered the prime example of it?
This is a way too wide-open question for me to tackle. Literature can be defined broadly as anything they contains words. Or it can be narrowly defined to what we define as literary fiction in the classic context (as in teaching PRIDE & PREJUDICE or GREAT EXPECTATIONS) or even literary fiction by contemporary writers. Genre fiction can also be defined as literature. See, it's a slippery question and far be it for me to put the parameters on it.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
I don't believe so. In fact the reverse can happen. Winning an award can attract readers to a book they might not have otherwise picked up. People are constantly being bombarded by information. Awards can define the parameters by outlining the criteria and thus giving readers a sense of why certain books are chosen. Subjectively, in terms of taste, a reader might not necessarily agree with the critics but at least they have an inkling of what is generally being lauded as “good” or “important.” They still have the analytical capability to disagree.
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
This is a tough question. When I'm trying to sell a literary novel that I love and editors are passing on it (and not because they didn't enjoy it but because the P&Ls won't let them buy it) then yes, I would say that the “art” side is being pushed out. Either that or I'm taking it personally as an agent when my literary work doesn't sell.
But then again, I'm constantly amazed when a little gem of a book gets published, gains recognition, and good sales and I sigh and say yes, there is still a world of editors in publishing who will do anything to make a worthy book hit the shelves. I feel empowered by the fact that talent can win out in the end.
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
I think writers forget how litigious our society tends to be. Most publishing houses don't accept unsolicited material so they won't be accused of “stealing” an idea or concept. It's just not worth it.
But I think it’s a myth for writers to believe that if they could only just go directly to the publisher, then their work would get noticed—as if agents are mercenary gatekeepers who are deliberately trying to keep the talented out. Most of what we see isn't publishable. And you have to remember, we WANT to take on new writers and sell them.
6. Agents take a lot of heat as the Bad Boys and Girls of the publishing industry: writers quietly grumble about their power and quality of judgment; publishers both rely on them as a first filter but complain about the contractual arrangements they demand; and generally speaking, because the agenting industry is unregulated, emerging writers feel both intimidated by and mistrustful of them.
Taking off your agent's hat for a moment, is the current situation with agents serving as primary filter of the larger publishing houses really a workable one? Does it not put too much responsibility on an agent's shoulders? Or is it a necessity in keeping 21st Century literature alive as a business?
I am an agent. I can’t take that hat off. Any answer I would provide would immediately be biased and suspect.
Now I can say that I don't see the model changing any time soon. Twenty plus years ago, an aspiring writer really had to persevere and be dedicated to make it in the business because it wasn't easy to do revisions on a typewriter etc. But nowadays, just about every person in the world thinks he or she can be a writer—as if one only needs a computer to become one rather than some talent. The amount of folks wanting to be published is truly overwhelming.
7. Does America have too many agents? Or too few?
Well, when I'm vying against five other agents who also want to sign this new client, then I usually say the world has too many agents. Big smile here.
8. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
New technology is empowering but it can take years before it’s embraced by the mainstream population. It's already here but I think the impact won’t be felt for a few years still—until a company makes an eReader that seamlessly creates an ease of reading transition from a print book to an electronic format. Still, I think there will always be a large number of luddites who won’t want change. The print format isn't going to disappear.
9. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
In what way? To sell directly to consumers? Sure. To find new writers? Possibly. There are a lot of great literary eZines etc. out there so editors and agents can grab the opportunity if only there was enough time in the day…
10. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
Librarians are huge champions of the written word—regardless of format. They make sure worthy books are available when all other venues might consider it “out of print.”
They play a huge role. And I have to say it's probably not English Departments that will play as large a role as elementary school teachers. After all, it's there that kids first get exposed to books, reading, and whether any love for it is fostered.
11. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
I have a fabulous literary work that's a modern Confederacy of Dunces but with a female protagonist. The hapless thirty-something main character unwillingly inherits a pet cemetery and is flummoxed when success, despite all the odds, happens. Hilarious dark satire. It's called THREE FEET UNDER.
Bio: Kristin established the Nelson Literary Agency in the chic/hip urban setting of lower Downtown Denver in 2002. In such a short time, she has sold more than 50 books to such publishers as Random House, Hyperion, Harlequin, Simon & Schuster, Hachette/Warner and the Penguin Group. She has landed several film deals and has contracted foreign rights on behalf of her clients in all the major territories, including Germany , Spain , Holland , Japan , and even into Russia and Indonesia . Her authors are RITA-award winners and national bestsellers. Several NLA titles have appeared on the Barnes & Noble and The Denver Post bestseller lists.
She specializes in representing commercial fiction (romance, women’s fiction, science fiction, fantasy, young adult) and high caliber literary fiction. She also considers a few nonfiction projects that tend to be story-based, such as memoir and narrative nonfiction. Kristin is a hands-on agent and strongly believes in taking on clients for their whole career. She provides editorial and marketing guidance as well as aggressive expertise in contract negotiation. Member: AAR , RWA, SFWA. Please visit our website www.nelsonagency.com before submitting.
Conversations in the Book Trade: Books, art, art-books, and ... authorial movies.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
John Daniel -- author, publisher (Daniel and Daniel)
John Daniel of Daniel and Daniel:
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
I think there will always be literature, although it may be presented in different ways. What started as tall tales told around a campfire evolved into the book, and now the book is losing out to new technology that makes my head spin and for the most part turns my stomach. But there will always be campfires, and there will always be books, and there will always be literature, because the art of spinning tales is basic to human nature and human culture.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the traditional novel be considered the prime example of it?
For now, traditional novels and finely crafted short stories are the best we've got. Memoirs are literature too, and creative essays, and the list goes on. And the genres get blurred. But give me a good novel, and I can say for sure: that's literature.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
I disapprove of the prize system. I do watch the Oscars once a year, but I pay no attention to other prizes. I write genre mysteries, an I'm offended by the emphasis on prizes and awards in that game. Okay, okay, the Booker Prize is usually right on. And I do approve of grants and fellowships (I wouldn't say no to a MacArthur myself) But I disapprove of any system that puts an unworthy emphasis on prizes, and I especially dislike any implication that writing is a competitive sport.
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
Perhaps that's so in the big-time, major-league New York Literary Establishment, but I don't think independent presses have lost sight of why we're here. Besides, the "art of the deal" exists at our level, mainly to allow publishers and authors and bookstores to find innovative ways to survive.
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
Certainly at the level of publishing where big money is spent and earned. Very good writers will go unnoticed in New York if they're not agented, and agents are reluctant to look at unpublished authors. So there has to be another way into the tabernacle. through writing conferences? graduate schools? the one I think most highly of is getting published by independent publishers who don't work with agents (or vice versa: since there's little money to be made in small-press circles, agents don't bother to fish in that pond.).
6. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
We smaller publishers have a hard time getting our fair share of review attention. And with the loss of independent bookstores, we have very few outlets to sell our wares.
7. Returning to the question of agents -- are they too powerful? If so, in what ways? Or are they a largely beneficial and necessary element of contemporary publishing?
They're not my concern.
8. Does America have too many publishers? Or too few?
I don't think the question's relevant. Those that survive have a right and contribute something; those that don't, well they don't.
9. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
In the long run, books will change. In the short run, for small publishers, I'm happy to say there's still an audience of people who like to read real books by sitting in an armchair.
10. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
It's a good tool, of course, particularly for editing and marketing. It's also a distraction, and I suppose it, like television, competes with book publishing for readers' attention.
11. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
Libraries are a good market, so long as society continues to support them financially. But of course they're in the business of sharing books among many readers, which means fewer sales. But they do a lot for literature. English departments? Well, I don't believe English departments generate as much literature as they're given credit for; scholarship, yes, but real literature begins in real life. However, hear! hear! for english teachers who adopt literature for their classes.
12. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
For the past several years we've been publishing literary mysteries in cooperation with another small press, Perseverance Press. Our mission is to keep good writers published after their New York houses have dropped them. We are happy to sell five thousand copies, which no longer satisfies most larger publishers.
Bio: John M. Daniel is founding editor of Daniel & Daniel Publishers Inc., which has published literature consistently since 1985. He also offers free-lance literary services, including editing, ghostwriting, and mentorship. He is the author of 8 published books, including three mystery novels. He has worked as a bookseller, editor, teacher, writer, and publisher.
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
I think there will always be literature, although it may be presented in different ways. What started as tall tales told around a campfire evolved into the book, and now the book is losing out to new technology that makes my head spin and for the most part turns my stomach. But there will always be campfires, and there will always be books, and there will always be literature, because the art of spinning tales is basic to human nature and human culture.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the traditional novel be considered the prime example of it?
For now, traditional novels and finely crafted short stories are the best we've got. Memoirs are literature too, and creative essays, and the list goes on. And the genres get blurred. But give me a good novel, and I can say for sure: that's literature.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
I disapprove of the prize system. I do watch the Oscars once a year, but I pay no attention to other prizes. I write genre mysteries, an I'm offended by the emphasis on prizes and awards in that game. Okay, okay, the Booker Prize is usually right on. And I do approve of grants and fellowships (I wouldn't say no to a MacArthur myself) But I disapprove of any system that puts an unworthy emphasis on prizes, and I especially dislike any implication that writing is a competitive sport.
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
Perhaps that's so in the big-time, major-league New York Literary Establishment, but I don't think independent presses have lost sight of why we're here. Besides, the "art of the deal" exists at our level, mainly to allow publishers and authors and bookstores to find innovative ways to survive.
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
Certainly at the level of publishing where big money is spent and earned. Very good writers will go unnoticed in New York if they're not agented, and agents are reluctant to look at unpublished authors. So there has to be another way into the tabernacle. through writing conferences? graduate schools? the one I think most highly of is getting published by independent publishers who don't work with agents (or vice versa: since there's little money to be made in small-press circles, agents don't bother to fish in that pond.).
6. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
We smaller publishers have a hard time getting our fair share of review attention. And with the loss of independent bookstores, we have very few outlets to sell our wares.
7. Returning to the question of agents -- are they too powerful? If so, in what ways? Or are they a largely beneficial and necessary element of contemporary publishing?
They're not my concern.
8. Does America have too many publishers? Or too few?
I don't think the question's relevant. Those that survive have a right and contribute something; those that don't, well they don't.
9. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
In the long run, books will change. In the short run, for small publishers, I'm happy to say there's still an audience of people who like to read real books by sitting in an armchair.
10. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
It's a good tool, of course, particularly for editing and marketing. It's also a distraction, and I suppose it, like television, competes with book publishing for readers' attention.
11. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
Libraries are a good market, so long as society continues to support them financially. But of course they're in the business of sharing books among many readers, which means fewer sales. But they do a lot for literature. English departments? Well, I don't believe English departments generate as much literature as they're given credit for; scholarship, yes, but real literature begins in real life. However, hear! hear! for english teachers who adopt literature for their classes.
12. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
For the past several years we've been publishing literary mysteries in cooperation with another small press, Perseverance Press. Our mission is to keep good writers published after their New York houses have dropped them. We are happy to sell five thousand copies, which no longer satisfies most larger publishers.
Bio: John M. Daniel is founding editor of Daniel & Daniel Publishers Inc., which has published literature consistently since 1985. He also offers free-lance literary services, including editing, ghostwriting, and mentorship. He is the author of 8 published books, including three mystery novels. He has worked as a bookseller, editor, teacher, writer, and publisher.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Ted Pelton -- author, publisher (Starcherone Books)
Ted Pelton of Starcherone Books:
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
Lots of economic & cultural reasons gave rise to the novel as a popular form some 300 years ago, and lots of cultural reasons get in the way of it being an easily consumable form of entertainment today, just having to do with amounts of leisure time, different forms of entertainment and entertainment technologies being available, etc. Tough to read while listening to an iPod – and even I just got one for Christmas. Lots of other kinds of entertainment are more passively enjoyed than in Samuel Richardson’s, even Henry James’s, or even James Balwin’s day, and these can fit multi-task life-functioning better, are less demanding.
But I wouldn't go so far as to say the "death of literature." As a rejoinder, look at the enormous & growing number of creative writing programs in the US today. One might be cynical and say that this is symptomatic of our current self-obsessed time -- everyone wants to be writers but no one is reading. I think there's validity to saying that. But I also think that people feel & comprehend the deep inadequacy of being limited to only ephemeral pastimes; they want to be readers and be turned on by books, recognizing the deep satisfaction, pleasure, and wisdom to be found there. It isn't as central a part of our society as it may used to have been, but then there's also a lot more people, and if we had a publishing and establishment that was literature-friendly instead of hell-bent on blockbusters, I think we'd see literature have a bigger profile. Small presses are trying to fill in this gap.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the traditional novel be considered the prime example of it?
Sure, but look also at what's happened to comic books, which have arguably become MORE sophisticated in the age of the Graphic Novel, so that we have Literary comics now as well as the more typical forms, novels, poetry, etc. Definitions are troublesome, because no sooner does one come up with one than someone else comes in and says, "Yeah, but what about 'x'?" But I would say, off the cuff, that literature is an open, expanding art form that contains writing of some sort and is intended to have more value than simply being useful as entertainment; that is, it has artistic ambitions. So while the novel might generally be considered Literature, I'd say many novels published today are not Literature (i.e., they have no artistic ambitions, but simply entertain in formulaic, predictable ways), while some categories of writing that formerly were not thought of as Literature -- like the alternative comic, for instance -- might today be seen as Literature.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
I haven't really thought about the big prizes, which probably do operate in the way Cowley suggests. Then again, a prize that's honorably given for the right aesthetic reasons can be a terrific cultural instrument for good. I think of the recent Nobel Literature Prizes, including the stunningly brave awarding of it to Elfriede Jelinek the year before last. Who in the United States read Jelinek before this? Indeed, to this day, she doesn't even have an American publisher -- her brilliant, savage books, severely critical of Western capitalism and male-domination, are distributed in the US by the British publisher Serpent's Tail.
Let me also give you another view of the prize issue. The press I direct, Starcherone Books, does an annual blind-judged contest, now going into its fifth year. We do our best to make certain the contest is run completely on the up-&-up, including publishing a strict set of ethical guidelines on our website. Over the past 4 years, we have 4 times discovered debut authors as winners, whose work was terrific, couldn't get published elsewhere, and makes us proud to be in this business. A contest was the vehicle by which this occurred. So I'd at least complicate Cowley's view of the role of prizes to suggest that they are actually a means by which authors who are less privileged can compete and get into print.
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
Oh, most definitely. But that's what makes a press like Starcherone -- or FC2, or Chaismus, or Other Voices, or 3rd Bed, or Calamari, etc. -- so important and valuable. Major publishers today are more than ever divisions of entertainment conglomerates with business concerns involved in the editorial decisions: how predictable a market does this book give us, who's going to buy it, how do we target its appeal in a marketing blitz, etc. These are not concerns of Literature.
Big houses want to run their book divisions like movies are distributed -- get them out to venues, give people a short time to "consume" them, then clear the venues for the new products. Again, this is where small presses are more in line with how literature actually works: we keep books available longer than that 3-6 month window. I'm always quoting Emerson that "one shouldn't read a book until it's at least a year old." I find that I read that way -- the books I'm reading at any one time have generally been out 1-3 years, and are still new; I wait until several people have told me to read a book, etc. That's antithetical to how the book business is set up – the celebrity deal culture. But it coincides with how small presses work, keeping their books in print indefinitely; and now, with internet venues (as well as the indy bookstores that have stayed afloat) allowing for "long tail" retailing -- extending customer choices by having many more products available, instead of making everybody consume this month's Harry Potter or Johnny Depp product -- the mainstream publishers are in trouble. Their way of doing business doesn't make sense (either economically or for readers) and needing as they do huge profits in order to stay healthy in the weird way corporate economics works these day, they are covering up their panic in glitzy press releases. That's my read, anyway.
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
Of course it isn't a sound policy for finding the best new literary voices, but commercial publishing isn't about that. And it certainly isn't interested in good writing. Commercial publishing is about finding the best new literary PRODUCTS -- works that fit in already understood niches, are marketable in predictable, pre-established patterns, etc.
Accepting agented-only manuscripts is part of streamlining the corporate process -- outsourcing the work of finding talent. And agents present at least 2 problems, it seems to me, as arbiters of Literature: 1) they will always (except in very rare circumstances) favor books that are more commercial in orientation; 2) agents largely draw from a rather pre-selected pool, which I think is pretty much class-based: those who go to the top schools, who meet at the top clubs & prep schools, who already know the top dealmakers, etc. Literature has always been the rich person's game, but I think it's likely worse than it's ever been, in the state of affairs you describe. No wonder we have such boring, pedestrian mainstream literature these days.
6. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
The deck is stacked against small presses in major ways. Follow this scenario: A major publisher has a new book. It sends out its galleys 4-6 months ahead to the major reviewers, complete with descriptions of the national publicity campaigns planned. The major review venues (Publisher's Weekly, NYT Book Review, etc.) then write the reviews of the major publishers' books, coinciding with the week the books come out in retail chains around the country.
It's a beautiful, multi-million dollar industrial ballet, with advertising, reviewing and distribution synched up all across our nation of 300 million people, via the major newspapers and book chains positioned all across the country to serve those people. Of course the small presses can't compete with that. The mainstream reviews don't review our books, because they know we're not corporate players (again, the decision to review or not review has little or nothing to do with the quality of the book); the distribution systems that ship tens of thousands of books only to see most of them returned unsold and get remaindered and pulped, within the year -- these are well-beyond the finances of small presses to compete with.
But what I've come to realize is that small presses don't have to operate in direct competition with this model. We make our books' marketing period not the three months after it comes out, but the lifetime of the book -- that is, always keeping our books in print, available, and continuously marketed. And by not competing with this corporate model, we not only help even the playing field, spreading the news by longer-extended, word-of-mouth means, author tours, ads for backlist titles, localized approaches, etc., but we also adopt a practice that's more in keeping with the way literature actually works. As a small press fiction publisher, I look at how poetry has been sold for years, with virtually no visibility in the cultural mainstream, yet selling steadily, as it were, through underground channels.
7. Returning to the question of agents -- are they too powerful? If so, in what ways? Or are they a largely beneficial and necessary element of contemporary publishing?
I have had little direct involvement with agents. I think I operate in a different world. Generally, I think agents can help distort what literature really is. I have from time to time met agents who seem like nice people, with their hearts in the right place. But by fundamentally judging writing by the expectations of its sales potential, which it seems to me they MUST do, by the very nature of their jobs, I think they help pre-select a largely predictable, culturally received type of literature.
8. Does America have too many publishers? Or too few?
Too many publishers! Well, the mainstream book world certainly thinks so, and the corporate review establishment basically tows this line. It's always, inherently, "Are there too many small press publishers?"
Starcherone Books publishes really great books. We do an annual contest that finds terrific debut authors (not that we limit it to that, it's just how it's gone) every year. So, no, there aren't too many publishers -- there are as many publishers as there need to be, because no one is going to go through the hard work of selling in a marketplace where the odds are stacked against you, unless there's a real need. And rarely does a week go by that I don't hear about a new press starting. Maybe there really are too few... Maybe a better way to think about it might be this -- when some kids start a rock band, they don’t think so much about "are there too many rock bands," they think "I want to be in a rock band, I have some friends who'll come see us," etc. So, too, presses. Why should there be a category of "too many"?
9. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
I really don't know. This has been argued about for a while -- but the changeover to electronic books has seemed very slow in actually happening, perhaps because people really like books, their tangible feel, etc. It's happened much more slowly, for instance, than technology has affected how we listen to music, for instance.
One thing that is definitely happening, and happening for the better, concerns the literary magazine world. It used to be that people would get published in these, but you'd rarely see them; they were very localized, and obscure in other parts of the country. But now, web magazines are all over the place and there's much more of a sampling of everybody's works out there -- at least among avant-garde/experimental/innovative writers.
10. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
As I started to say above, now you have the opportunity to see just about anyone's writing you're interested in (short of the very established writers, whose work is everywhere already anyway), immediately, for free. Book publishers, I think, are less affected, because internet reading isn't really given to book length works. Or at least it doesn't seem yet to be. But the literary magazine has been transformed forever. Now people have magazine blogs, as well as new mags forming all the time, and linking to one another. It's actually quite exciting, if you give up the idea of making a living at it!
My friend Geoffrey Gatza has a press called BlazeVox that may also be a sign of things to come. He's done a terrific amount of work in sponsoring new literature through the internet, with virtually no money expenditure. He "publishes" books as pdf's, then if you want to get the book in tangible form, you order it online and it's assembled per order -- pure print-on-demand, through amazon.com's BookSurge, and the book quality is superb! He has the authors doing their own proofreading, and by farming out such tasks he's able to publish dozens of books. My novella, Bhang, is available through BlazeVox Books. The titles include books by some of my favorite alternative authors, Kent Johnson, Daniel Nester, Kazim Ali, etc. This is one guy, with no cash expenditure, working out of his home office, who has published about 3 dozen books! The authors themselves are then responsible for marketing, etc., besides website and email marketing.
Starcherone Books is more traditional -- we do print-runs and publish a more manageable 4 titles a year. But we started with nothing in 2000 except the name, taken from "start your own." It would have been impossible to do what we have done without the net -- we advertise there, do a lot of direct sales, communicate with our authors, other publishers, printers, etc., and otherwise make up the ground between us and the big publishers.
11. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
English departments can spend more time studying the economics of the book industry, as this very much affects what Literature indeed is, as I've been arguing. But the more radical kinds of theoretical discourses, that should theoretically lead English departments toward buying and supporting indy lit, assigning it to classes, etc., runs up against the continued corporatization of the universities. Universities themselves get into the book business, agree to have Barnes & Nobles on campus, or outsource the campus bookstore to an online dealer -- all of which works against anything that isn't routine. Big booksellers profit big publishers, and on it goes.
Libraries generally do their parts when they have funding and they're informed about the small presses. But small press literature is somewhat akin to organic grocers -- it takes an effort and thus requires education of its customers. Lots of cities have "If everyone read the same book" programs -- when libraries and other community organizations get involved with these kinds of events, it can really raise the profile of literature. But people also have to want to do this. Maybe we are seeing Literature become a more selective pastime. I don't think this means that it will die out -- but the people who believe in it have to work to keep it a healthy part of our culture.
12. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
We're always working, bringing out new books. We have new books by Harold Jaffe and soon another from Raymond Federman -- authors with world-wide reputations (particularly Federman) who can't get mainstream publishers in the US because they are viewed as too "difficult," or simply now not young and glib enough for the pre-conceived American marketplace.
We've also discovered some great new writers -- Nina Shope, Aimee Parkison, Sara Greenslit, and just coming out, Joshua Harmon. People interested in finding out about our authors at http://www.starcherone.com/ .
And of course I also write. I've got three books, the most recent a novel, Malcolm & Jack, about the American underground in the 1940s. See more about me at http://www.tedpelton.com/ .
Friday, January 26, 2007
Che Elias -- author, publisher (Six Gallery Press)
Che Elias of Six Gallery Press:
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
I think a lot of things change people don't read much anymore Because of television and video games i think and just the fact that attention spands have decreased And From people raised on things Like Video Games People can't Sit still for long enough or focus A certain syntax is So engrained in them That a Lot of bad literature which is published And Being forced to read books that One doesn't want to read I think if different books could be used Other than the standards ones that all schools use Then People would be more into reading Since they Dont like what they "HAVE" to read they don't choose to read beyond that point.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the traditional novel be considered the prime example of it?
Literature is a lot of Things i think __ There are so many different examples i think one of the problems is that people only think of the traditional novel as a way To View Literature __ When the novel has been reborn so many times Books Like finnegans wake and mason and dixon should set an example and open people to the fact that literature Can Be a Lot of Things
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion. Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
Yes Most certainly and a Lot of Bad Books get awarded People read a book or see a film because it won an award Which is meaningless Many times since it was based from favortism i think People should read books hopefully for some kind of Enlightentment And Enjoyment and relationship with language
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
Pushed Out Yes but pushed in also with more Bad books being produced by major presses You see more and more small presses Such as Soft Skull and Fugue State Taking chances and doing books that they wouldnt Be doing otherwise so i think there's balance still between art and business
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
Yes Definitely All Presses would hopefully accept unsolicited stuff But i have had the experience even with a small press That We receive So Many Books which don't match our criteria So i figure a major presses just gets so many That they have to weed them out and it gets to the point where There needs to be a middle man IE agent unfortunately that's just how it is
6. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
it can be very hard to get a book out there if you went with a small press Sometimes Bookstores won't carry and reviewers won't look at it like they would if it Were a Done by a major press But there is a hands on approach which requires a lot of grunt work and A Do it yourself approach which is great and works for us but won't work for everyone else so yes The Major presses definitely dominate
7. Returning to the question of agents -- are they too powerful? If so, in what ways? Or are they a largely beneficial and necessary element of contemporary publishing?
i think if you want to go with a major press in most cases you need an agent, although i can Say as small press author myself i was able to find success without one but it was a lot of hard work Really hard work for that matter i Would advise most people to Acquire an agent if just for the Fact of getting discouraged when you have to do EVERYTHING And i mean everything yourself
8. Does America have too many publishers? Or too few?
it has too few that Want to avant garde or Groundbreaking works We need more Presses focused primarily on Books for artistic merits not just money But When money is factored in it becomes difficutl to take chanches Printing on Demand helps you have less of a risk to take But i would like to see more Small presses doing challenging work
9. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
I Think They Affect if for some people especially audio books it's obviously easier for some people to have a book read to them because of their schedule or whatnot And i think it's great but you can't beat holding the real book in your hands and actually reading i think push come to shove that The BoundCopy(book) of the text will be what prevails
10. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
Yes definitely there is an endless string of connections to make on the internet I Would not be where i am with them due to blogs and myspace and just the information available all at once to everyone everywhere most people would not be able to publish with out --it is a revolution and always will stand as one
11. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
I think The Library is great i dont know about the english department Still most people would probably rather buy the book i think most people go into libraries to use the Internet services if anything I Think people will want to buy the book maybe if they get if from a library and decide that they like it they'll buy it i guess that would help
12. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
I'm working on a nine part series titled Goal B it's a mysterious Project in a sense but plain obvious too I have been working on it a long it Deals with Family Relations/ abuse and general nihilism and albeit bearing on the esoteric
Bio: Che Elias Was born in 1980 in Glendale West Virginia He is currently the Editor Of Six Gallery Press, he has published Six Books --Most Recently his novel "The Abacus" he lives in Pittsburgh PA _________________________________________________
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
I think a lot of things change people don't read much anymore Because of television and video games i think and just the fact that attention spands have decreased And From people raised on things Like Video Games People can't Sit still for long enough or focus A certain syntax is So engrained in them That a Lot of bad literature which is published And Being forced to read books that One doesn't want to read I think if different books could be used Other than the standards ones that all schools use Then People would be more into reading Since they Dont like what they "HAVE" to read they don't choose to read beyond that point.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the traditional novel be considered the prime example of it?
Literature is a lot of Things i think __ There are so many different examples i think one of the problems is that people only think of the traditional novel as a way To View Literature __ When the novel has been reborn so many times Books Like finnegans wake and mason and dixon should set an example and open people to the fact that literature Can Be a Lot of Things
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion. Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
Yes Most certainly and a Lot of Bad Books get awarded People read a book or see a film because it won an award Which is meaningless Many times since it was based from favortism i think People should read books hopefully for some kind of Enlightentment And Enjoyment and relationship with language
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
Pushed Out Yes but pushed in also with more Bad books being produced by major presses You see more and more small presses Such as Soft Skull and Fugue State Taking chances and doing books that they wouldnt Be doing otherwise so i think there's balance still between art and business
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
Yes Definitely All Presses would hopefully accept unsolicited stuff But i have had the experience even with a small press That We receive So Many Books which don't match our criteria So i figure a major presses just gets so many That they have to weed them out and it gets to the point where There needs to be a middle man IE agent unfortunately that's just how it is
6. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
it can be very hard to get a book out there if you went with a small press Sometimes Bookstores won't carry and reviewers won't look at it like they would if it Were a Done by a major press But there is a hands on approach which requires a lot of grunt work and A Do it yourself approach which is great and works for us but won't work for everyone else so yes The Major presses definitely dominate
7. Returning to the question of agents -- are they too powerful? If so, in what ways? Or are they a largely beneficial and necessary element of contemporary publishing?
i think if you want to go with a major press in most cases you need an agent, although i can Say as small press author myself i was able to find success without one but it was a lot of hard work Really hard work for that matter i Would advise most people to Acquire an agent if just for the Fact of getting discouraged when you have to do EVERYTHING And i mean everything yourself
8. Does America have too many publishers? Or too few?
it has too few that Want to avant garde or Groundbreaking works We need more Presses focused primarily on Books for artistic merits not just money But When money is factored in it becomes difficutl to take chanches Printing on Demand helps you have less of a risk to take But i would like to see more Small presses doing challenging work
9. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
I Think They Affect if for some people especially audio books it's obviously easier for some people to have a book read to them because of their schedule or whatnot And i think it's great but you can't beat holding the real book in your hands and actually reading i think push come to shove that The BoundCopy(book) of the text will be what prevails
10. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
Yes definitely there is an endless string of connections to make on the internet I Would not be where i am with them due to blogs and myspace and just the information available all at once to everyone everywhere most people would not be able to publish with out --it is a revolution and always will stand as one
11. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
I think The Library is great i dont know about the english department Still most people would probably rather buy the book i think most people go into libraries to use the Internet services if anything I Think people will want to buy the book maybe if they get if from a library and decide that they like it they'll buy it i guess that would help
12. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
I'm working on a nine part series titled Goal B it's a mysterious Project in a sense but plain obvious too I have been working on it a long it Deals with Family Relations/ abuse and general nihilism and albeit bearing on the esoteric
Bio: Che Elias Was born in 1980 in Glendale West Virginia He is currently the Editor Of Six Gallery Press, he has published Six Books --Most Recently his novel "The Abacus" he lives in Pittsburgh PA _________________________________________________
Thursday, January 18, 2007
James Chapman -- author, publisher (Fugue State Press)
James Chapman of Fugue State Press:
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
Anybody who enjoys doing so can still take a piece of paper (or a website) and write two words next to each other. So literature is OK. We’re writers, and our press has operated for fifteen years on this basis: that good work will take care of itself. If it doesn’t sell right away, OK, but with us it stays in print. For decades--nothing goes out of print. That way, if you wrote the book well enough, it will be gradually found and read by the people who really need it. Meanwhile writers should do their work, and not distract themselves with questions about business trends.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the novel be considered the prime example of it?
Literature is writing that’s art, and is not debased. Which form is the “prime” form...this isn’t something writers need to think about as they work. Novels have no status above blogs or haiku, because forms don’t carry a status; any form can be done at a high pitch of beauty and emotionality. Also any form can be (and will always be) debased into a convention. A writer should work in whatever form attracts his temperament. I personally publish (and write) novels because they interest me more than anything else literary. Good novels expand. Whether they’re saleable lately is not as important as whether or not they’re wonderful.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
Literature is not a competition in any way. So prizes are always goofy, unless they’re cash awards given to writers who are actually going hungry. And for some reason that’s rare. Sartre turned down the Nobel to prevent himself from becoming an oppressive brand name. He didn’t want his private voice reinforced by the institutional authority of The Prize. He had a good idea there. But readers are free. They’re free to be attracted by prizes if that’s how they feel about it. They’re even free to think in ways that British critic Jason Cowley would not consider “critically complex.”
Folks’ve been giving out prizes to writers since Aeschylus, and some readers love hearing about it, and others are skeptics who can see right through the scam. But you can always cheer up a morose writer by giving him a prize. So prizes are good for that. There’s an old trick where literary society people serve as judges on these prize panels, and award the book prizes to their own society-writer friends. Lately some of these tricksters have been caught and gotten a little bit (not enough) of bad publicity. But the fashionable-society side of literature is a closed system, and the folks who run it have no shame, so the practice won’t change I guess.
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
Art and commerce can’t be “married.” What you get is shite. It’s not even good commerce. It’s like the marriage of lasagna and tar.
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
We’ve never gotten a good book through an agent. We don’t actually have a policy that states “We do not accept agented work,” but maybe we should. Agented submissions are always in some sense commercial writing--vetted and often messed-with by the agent--and never contain very much of what we consider beautiful or interesting.
6. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
People who want to read something deeply interesting are going to seek it out, even if it takes a couple of Google searches. A person like that isn’t going to read a book just because some marketer shoves the book in front of his face. People who don’t want to read something deeply interesting, those aren’t our readers; they will pick from the regular menu.
A corporate literary book marketer tries to scare the reader into thinking that he absolutely must read such-and-such a book by Jonathan Foer or whoever it is this month, and if he doesn’t read it, he runs the risk of falling behind, of not being cool. That’s the way deodorant is sold too, with fear. But a good deodorant that works well is going to keep on selling for year after year, even if you stop advertising it. Fashionable, defective book products will not, no matter how much you try to bully the readers.
7. Returning to the question of agents -- are they too powerful? If so, in what ways? Or are they a largely beneficial and necessary element of contemporary publishing?
Agents (like editors) are businesspeople who for some reason are allowed to tell authors to make major changes in their books. I’m not talking about good copy-editing or proofreading--we do a scrupulous job of that. I’m talking about a guy, who read some Amy Tan novels in college, telling a serious author to eliminate one character, combine two others, and get rid of this weird section that doesn’t contribute to the arc. For now, authors seem to be accepting this treatment, even (scared bunnies that they are) embracing it, because all the power is with the gatekeepers. Nobody wants to lose a book deal by offending an editor or an agent, by saying No, I know more about this book than you do, and let me explain to you why it’s more interesting, more unusual, more beautiful the way I wrote it.
But as more good independent books get produced, books that were never homogenized by businessmen, books that have the nerve and the ear to be interestingly incorrect, the readers will notice the difference. Indie rock and indie film were founded on that difference. Of course the book business is much more conservative, and has successfully mocked and marginalized real indie publishing so far. But it will happen. Authors will start to insist on their actual words being published, a thing that hasn’t happened in a hundred years. Books will gain texture and unexpected life. That’s the “formula” for saving literature: make the books better. Stop smoothing them out!
8. Does America have too many publishers? Or too few?
Way too few interesting publishers. There are half-a-dozen.
9. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
If ebooks ever converge with audiobooks, so that you’re reading along with the author as he talks, and it’s somehow on a big bright screen on your little tiny cell phone (so you don’t have to carry some other device), then maybe. Maybe e-books should think of themselves as the DVD version of the printed book--there could be extra material like author interviews or commentary included. But even that doesn’t sound interesting; more like a distraction. The more you think about this stuff, the more technologically brilliant the paperback book seems.
10. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
Ultimately the Internet is a good opportunity for book publishers to go out of business, in favor of free non-book-oriented reading. The readers I know do lots of their reading on the Internet, where for free you can get everything from the best translations of the Sumerians (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk) to amazingly well-written and heartbreaking personal blog entries from three minutes ago. This is not a “narcotic subculture,” it is the culture. It’s literature. But right now, Fugue State Press makes most of its connections to readers through the Internet, not in bookstores. People see reviews online and in blogs. They go read the excerpts online. They jump to Amazon and buy the book. It’s easier for everybody.
11. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
In English teaching, it would help if the emotional content of a book were emphasized, rather than the easier-to-teach forms or historical contexts. Don’t treat emotions as tacit or understood, or too unsophisticated a topic: talk about them out loud, treat them as the primary purpose of the book...which they are. Then kids will see there’s a point to these things. Of course it’d also be dreamy for us if every college had a course in advanced/experimental fiction, and sought out new work every year. But that would probably alienate kids even worse than they are now.
12. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
Right now publishing a sort of hand-made novella in the graphic form of an oratorio libretto. Later on (if the author says yes) I hope to be doing a beautiful three-volume epic poem (with footnotes) about a spiritually-seeking Irishman in Savannah during the Civil War.
Bio: James Chapman is the author of six novels to date, most recently Stet [2006] . He also operates Fugue State Press, a publisher of advanced and experimental fiction which has published work by Andre Malraux, Noah Cicero, Randie Lipkin, Prakash Kona, Eckhard Gerdes, Tim Miller, Joshua Cohen and others.
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
Anybody who enjoys doing so can still take a piece of paper (or a website) and write two words next to each other. So literature is OK. We’re writers, and our press has operated for fifteen years on this basis: that good work will take care of itself. If it doesn’t sell right away, OK, but with us it stays in print. For decades--nothing goes out of print. That way, if you wrote the book well enough, it will be gradually found and read by the people who really need it. Meanwhile writers should do their work, and not distract themselves with questions about business trends.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the novel be considered the prime example of it?
Literature is writing that’s art, and is not debased. Which form is the “prime” form...this isn’t something writers need to think about as they work. Novels have no status above blogs or haiku, because forms don’t carry a status; any form can be done at a high pitch of beauty and emotionality. Also any form can be (and will always be) debased into a convention. A writer should work in whatever form attracts his temperament. I personally publish (and write) novels because they interest me more than anything else literary. Good novels expand. Whether they’re saleable lately is not as important as whether or not they’re wonderful.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
Literature is not a competition in any way. So prizes are always goofy, unless they’re cash awards given to writers who are actually going hungry. And for some reason that’s rare. Sartre turned down the Nobel to prevent himself from becoming an oppressive brand name. He didn’t want his private voice reinforced by the institutional authority of The Prize. He had a good idea there. But readers are free. They’re free to be attracted by prizes if that’s how they feel about it. They’re even free to think in ways that British critic Jason Cowley would not consider “critically complex.”
Folks’ve been giving out prizes to writers since Aeschylus, and some readers love hearing about it, and others are skeptics who can see right through the scam. But you can always cheer up a morose writer by giving him a prize. So prizes are good for that. There’s an old trick where literary society people serve as judges on these prize panels, and award the book prizes to their own society-writer friends. Lately some of these tricksters have been caught and gotten a little bit (not enough) of bad publicity. But the fashionable-society side of literature is a closed system, and the folks who run it have no shame, so the practice won’t change I guess.
4. Literary publishing has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
Art and commerce can’t be “married.” What you get is shite. It’s not even good commerce. It’s like the marriage of lasagna and tar.
5. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
We’ve never gotten a good book through an agent. We don’t actually have a policy that states “We do not accept agented work,” but maybe we should. Agented submissions are always in some sense commercial writing--vetted and often messed-with by the agent--and never contain very much of what we consider beautiful or interesting.
6. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
People who want to read something deeply interesting are going to seek it out, even if it takes a couple of Google searches. A person like that isn’t going to read a book just because some marketer shoves the book in front of his face. People who don’t want to read something deeply interesting, those aren’t our readers; they will pick from the regular menu.
A corporate literary book marketer tries to scare the reader into thinking that he absolutely must read such-and-such a book by Jonathan Foer or whoever it is this month, and if he doesn’t read it, he runs the risk of falling behind, of not being cool. That’s the way deodorant is sold too, with fear. But a good deodorant that works well is going to keep on selling for year after year, even if you stop advertising it. Fashionable, defective book products will not, no matter how much you try to bully the readers.
7. Returning to the question of agents -- are they too powerful? If so, in what ways? Or are they a largely beneficial and necessary element of contemporary publishing?
Agents (like editors) are businesspeople who for some reason are allowed to tell authors to make major changes in their books. I’m not talking about good copy-editing or proofreading--we do a scrupulous job of that. I’m talking about a guy, who read some Amy Tan novels in college, telling a serious author to eliminate one character, combine two others, and get rid of this weird section that doesn’t contribute to the arc. For now, authors seem to be accepting this treatment, even (scared bunnies that they are) embracing it, because all the power is with the gatekeepers. Nobody wants to lose a book deal by offending an editor or an agent, by saying No, I know more about this book than you do, and let me explain to you why it’s more interesting, more unusual, more beautiful the way I wrote it.
But as more good independent books get produced, books that were never homogenized by businessmen, books that have the nerve and the ear to be interestingly incorrect, the readers will notice the difference. Indie rock and indie film were founded on that difference. Of course the book business is much more conservative, and has successfully mocked and marginalized real indie publishing so far. But it will happen. Authors will start to insist on their actual words being published, a thing that hasn’t happened in a hundred years. Books will gain texture and unexpected life. That’s the “formula” for saving literature: make the books better. Stop smoothing them out!
8. Does America have too many publishers? Or too few?
Way too few interesting publishers. There are half-a-dozen.
9. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
If ebooks ever converge with audiobooks, so that you’re reading along with the author as he talks, and it’s somehow on a big bright screen on your little tiny cell phone (so you don’t have to carry some other device), then maybe. Maybe e-books should think of themselves as the DVD version of the printed book--there could be extra material like author interviews or commentary included. But even that doesn’t sound interesting; more like a distraction. The more you think about this stuff, the more technologically brilliant the paperback book seems.
10. Putting aside the hype, does the Internet provide a real opportunity to publishers? If so, how?
Ultimately the Internet is a good opportunity for book publishers to go out of business, in favor of free non-book-oriented reading. The readers I know do lots of their reading on the Internet, where for free you can get everything from the best translations of the Sumerians (http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk) to amazingly well-written and heartbreaking personal blog entries from three minutes ago. This is not a “narcotic subculture,” it is the culture. It’s literature. But right now, Fugue State Press makes most of its connections to readers through the Internet, not in bookstores. People see reviews online and in blogs. They go read the excerpts online. They jump to Amazon and buy the book. It’s easier for everybody.
11. And what role can traditional, venerable institutions such as libraries and English Departments play in reversing the decline in sales of literary fiction?
In English teaching, it would help if the emotional content of a book were emphasized, rather than the easier-to-teach forms or historical contexts. Don’t treat emotions as tacit or understood, or too unsophisticated a topic: talk about them out loud, treat them as the primary purpose of the book...which they are. Then kids will see there’s a point to these things. Of course it’d also be dreamy for us if every college had a course in advanced/experimental fiction, and sought out new work every year. But that would probably alienate kids even worse than they are now.
12. What projects are you working on now that you are excited about?
Right now publishing a sort of hand-made novella in the graphic form of an oratorio libretto. Later on (if the author says yes) I hope to be doing a beautiful three-volume epic poem (with footnotes) about a spiritually-seeking Irishman in Savannah during the Civil War.
Bio: James Chapman is the author of six novels to date, most recently Stet [2006] . He also operates Fugue State Press, a publisher of advanced and experimental fiction which has published work by Andre Malraux, Noah Cicero, Randie Lipkin, Prakash Kona, Eckhard Gerdes, Tim Miller, Joshua Cohen and others.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Michael Allen -- author, publisher (Kingsfield Publications)
Michael Allen of Grumpy Old Bookman and Kingsfield Publications:
[Note: this interview first appeared in August, 2006]
1. You've said the novel may end up being a very marginal form, like poetry. Why is this? Because of mass media? Or is it because of some characteristic common to many contemporary novels?
It must be 20 or 30 years since Gore Vidal (among others)started to point out that, by and large, young people do not read books. They watch television and movies, and nowadays they have iPods and videos on the internet.
Certainly here in England there are figures published occasionally which show that only about 50% of the population reads books. If all that is true, and I believe that it is, then one has to remember that any future decline (or increase) in interest in novels starts from a modest base. Reading novels is not a universal habit, whereas watching television is something done by (at a guess) 95% of the population.
My reasons for thinking that interest in the novel is likely to decline are twofold.
First, there is so much competition. Consider the situation in the late nineteenth century. Nearly all the population could read (at least in England), and there were books and newspapers. But there was no radio, no recorded music, no TV, no movies. Outside the big cities, even theatres were rare. So the novel had little competition. Today, every passing year brings new advances in technology in the entertainment business. Ever more sophisticated devices are created, and it is not too far-fetched to suggest that, within a few years, we will have virtual forms of entertainment which include the viewer/audience as a participant. Against such sophistication, the novel begins to look pretty dull as a source of emotion. (Just as poetry now seems dull to most of us.)
Second, people who write and publish novels often seem oblivious to the medium's strengths (such as they are), and produce novels which even today few people actually want to read. This trend will continue for as long as people go on believing the kind of nonsense which is taught on Eng. Lit. and MFA courses.
2. You've also said that generally speaking novels would do well to be shorter. Why do you think this?
Can I refer you to my four-part essay on The Problem of Length, published in December 2004. Here are the links:
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-1.html
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-2.html
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-3.html
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-4.html
3. Is part of the problem with novels that they are overpriced? That is, when they are compared to, for example, the price of a movie DVD, buyers simply don't feel they're "getting their money's worth" with a book?
I don't think novels are overpriced -- not remotely -- provided they deliver what the reader wants. Consider the queues forming at midnight for the latest Harry Potter -- a book which the UK booktrade sold at a discount! No one in the queue would have minded paying the full whack, but, courtesy of clueless marketing, they didn't have to.
4. And if price is a factor, what can publishers and writers do to change this? In other words, what can they do to offer book-buyers "more"?
It's not a question of 'more', it's a question of better. The whole point of the novel is that it tells a story. The right story, told in the right way for a particular audience (e.g. Harry Potter again) exerts a powerful grip on the mind of the reader. And at the end of the book, the reader is conscious of having undergone a powerful (and ultimately pleasurable) emotional experience.
All that writers and publishers have to do is produce the right kind of books for the various audiences which we know to exist. It's not an impossible task, but it does require intelligence, hard work, and PRACTICE. No one can do the job straight out of the box. After that, it's all down to circumstance, fate, karma, randomness, chance.
See my essay On the Survival of Rats in the Slush Pile:
http://www.kingsfieldpublications.co.uk/rats.html
The problem with many novels at the moment is that they are not written for readers so much as to glorify the author. And, unsurprisingly, not many people want to read a book which says 'Look at me! Aren't I clever!'
Bio: Michael Allen is both an author and publisher. As an author, he blogs at Grumpy Old Bookman. He is also a novelist. His latest is How and Why Lisa's Dad got to be Famous. It can be purchased through Amazon or at his blog.
[Note: this interview first appeared in August, 2006]
1. You've said the novel may end up being a very marginal form, like poetry. Why is this? Because of mass media? Or is it because of some characteristic common to many contemporary novels?
It must be 20 or 30 years since Gore Vidal (among others)started to point out that, by and large, young people do not read books. They watch television and movies, and nowadays they have iPods and videos on the internet.
Certainly here in England there are figures published occasionally which show that only about 50% of the population reads books. If all that is true, and I believe that it is, then one has to remember that any future decline (or increase) in interest in novels starts from a modest base. Reading novels is not a universal habit, whereas watching television is something done by (at a guess) 95% of the population.
My reasons for thinking that interest in the novel is likely to decline are twofold.
First, there is so much competition. Consider the situation in the late nineteenth century. Nearly all the population could read (at least in England), and there were books and newspapers. But there was no radio, no recorded music, no TV, no movies. Outside the big cities, even theatres were rare. So the novel had little competition. Today, every passing year brings new advances in technology in the entertainment business. Ever more sophisticated devices are created, and it is not too far-fetched to suggest that, within a few years, we will have virtual forms of entertainment which include the viewer/audience as a participant. Against such sophistication, the novel begins to look pretty dull as a source of emotion. (Just as poetry now seems dull to most of us.)
Second, people who write and publish novels often seem oblivious to the medium's strengths (such as they are), and produce novels which even today few people actually want to read. This trend will continue for as long as people go on believing the kind of nonsense which is taught on Eng. Lit. and MFA courses.
2. You've also said that generally speaking novels would do well to be shorter. Why do you think this?
Can I refer you to my four-part essay on The Problem of Length, published in December 2004. Here are the links:
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-1.html
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-2.html
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-3.html
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/2004/12/problem-of-length-part-4.html
3. Is part of the problem with novels that they are overpriced? That is, when they are compared to, for example, the price of a movie DVD, buyers simply don't feel they're "getting their money's worth" with a book?
I don't think novels are overpriced -- not remotely -- provided they deliver what the reader wants. Consider the queues forming at midnight for the latest Harry Potter -- a book which the UK booktrade sold at a discount! No one in the queue would have minded paying the full whack, but, courtesy of clueless marketing, they didn't have to.
4. And if price is a factor, what can publishers and writers do to change this? In other words, what can they do to offer book-buyers "more"?
It's not a question of 'more', it's a question of better. The whole point of the novel is that it tells a story. The right story, told in the right way for a particular audience (e.g. Harry Potter again) exerts a powerful grip on the mind of the reader. And at the end of the book, the reader is conscious of having undergone a powerful (and ultimately pleasurable) emotional experience.
All that writers and publishers have to do is produce the right kind of books for the various audiences which we know to exist. It's not an impossible task, but it does require intelligence, hard work, and PRACTICE. No one can do the job straight out of the box. After that, it's all down to circumstance, fate, karma, randomness, chance.
See my essay On the Survival of Rats in the Slush Pile:
http://www.kingsfieldpublications.co.uk/rats.html
The problem with many novels at the moment is that they are not written for readers so much as to glorify the author. And, unsurprisingly, not many people want to read a book which says 'Look at me! Aren't I clever!'
Bio: Michael Allen is both an author and publisher. As an author, he blogs at Grumpy Old Bookman. He is also a novelist. His latest is How and Why Lisa's Dad got to be Famous. It can be purchased through Amazon or at his blog.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Jon Paul Fiorentino -- poet, editor (Matrix Magazine), publisher (Snare Books)
Jon Paul Fiorentino of the lit-blog Asthmatronic, the literary magazine Matrix, and the small-press publisher Snare Books:
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
I think it's exaggerated to a certain extent. It's pointless to blame other media. I live in a world where people buy books, read books, talk about books. The literary press world I am involved in has its challenges for sure, but I see positive outcomes ahead.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the novel be considered the prime example of it?
Literature is the result of an artful use of language. I think. I don't know if the novel is always the best example. There are non-literary novels out there, like the Da Vinci Code or the novels of William Shatner.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
It's a tricky question. Remuneration is important for literary artists because they often get so little for their hard work. I think people are smarter than to lose their critical abilities simply because of award culture. I think that prizes can bring an important work to a larger audience. I feel sorry for those whose reading lists consist only of award winners, but you can't blame award culture for that. People should know better and for the most part, I think they do.
4. The publishing industry has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
The world I live in is the world of the Canadian literary press. So the cult of the deal is not a huge issue. Presses like Coach House Books (who I publish with) and Snare Books (which I operate) make decisions based on the artistic vision of the editors. I look at sales figures in order to see how to improve what I'm doing for my authors but not to determine what to acquire.
5. As well, should the Canadian cultural nationalism of the 1970s make a comeback? Do we need a "National Culture Policy" that will put more Canadian books front and center in bookstores?
I don't think a policy that attempts to celebrate Canadian books equates to nationalism. I think Canadians should read contemporary Canadian literature. But of course, they don't have to.
6. Last summer, Douglas Coupland published an article in the New York Times criticizing Canadian literature for having too many books set in rural rather than urban settings. Is he right?
He's right. Mostly right. I mean, most of us live in urban centres. The anachronistic tendency of Canadian fiction and poetry is something to be concerned about.
7. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
No, it's not a sound policy. It's a very dangerous policy.
8. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
I don't believe in bitching and moaning about fairness. But there is some work to be done to ensure that corporations, both retail and publishing, are acting ethically. They don't always. And they must be held accountable. But being a small press author does have its advantages. You can be insistent, even aggressive about your own work without being 'corporate'.
9. Does Canada have too many publishers? Or too few?
Too few.
10. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
I don't know. I do most of my work on-screen. But like most writers and editors, I am a fetishist. Book lovers will always love books.
11. You're the author of "The Theory of the Loser Class" and blog at Asthmatronic -- a site devoted to all things loser. In the past, CanLit has produced two of my favourite loser novels: "Sad Paradise" by Britt Hagarty and "1978" by Daniel Jones. Jones' work is still remembered. Hagarty's seems to have slipped into oblivion. Does Canada do too little to keep the flame alive of lesser known writers? Is Canada a bad country for an artistically spirited loser?
No. It's simply that we were born to lose. So it shouldn't come as a surprise when that happens.
11. Editors of small presses and literary journals tend to be taken for granted. Yet there is a strong argument for saying they stand out as real heroes of contemporary literature; they actually read work by unknowns -- a habit the major publishers and agents have, generally speaken, fallen out of. Do editors of small presses and small magazines deserve higher status within the cosmology of literature? Are they currently under-appreciated?
In my personal cosmology, they hold the highest status possible. And since I'm never wrong, I think they deserve a higher status in the universe.
Bio: Jon Paul Fiorentino is a Montreal-based poet whose most recent is THE THEORY OF THE LOSER CLASS (Coach House), as well as an editor and publisher. He co-edits Matrix Magazine and publishes Snare Books.
1. Literature is in trouble -- that is, more trouble than usual. Why do you think this is? The increasing prevalence of TV? The distractions of increasingly narcotic subcultures such as video games? Sept. 11? Or is talk of the "death of literature" simple exaggeration?
I think it's exaggerated to a certain extent. It's pointless to blame other media. I live in a world where people buy books, read books, talk about books. The literary press world I am involved in has its challenges for sure, but I see positive outcomes ahead.
2. And what is literature, anyway? Should the novel be considered the prime example of it?
Literature is the result of an artful use of language. I think. I don't know if the novel is always the best example. There are non-literary novels out there, like the Da Vinci Code or the novels of William Shatner.
3. Prizes and awards are playing an increasing role in determining an author's career-trajectory. In short, winning a major literary prize can win a writer a large audience overnight (not to mention, considerable fame and financial remuneration). But, as British critic Jason Cowley has observed, what is lost is the the ability for readers to think in a critically complex fashion.
Are literary prizes dangerous in this regard? Do they convey to the public the message that "this book is worth reading and all these others aren't"?
It's a tricky question. Remuneration is important for literary artists because they often get so little for their hard work. I think people are smarter than to lose their critical abilities simply because of award culture. I think that prizes can bring an important work to a larger audience. I feel sorry for those whose reading lists consist only of award winners, but you can't blame award culture for that. People should know better and for the most part, I think they do.
4. The publishing industry has always been a marriage of art and commerce. But in recent years, the Cult of the Deal has become more influential, with agents demanding larger advances and marketing people paying especially close attention to sales figures. Is the "art" side of the business being pushed out?
The world I live in is the world of the Canadian literary press. So the cult of the deal is not a huge issue. Presses like Coach House Books (who I publish with) and Snare Books (which I operate) make decisions based on the artistic vision of the editors. I look at sales figures in order to see how to improve what I'm doing for my authors but not to determine what to acquire.
5. As well, should the Canadian cultural nationalism of the 1970s make a comeback? Do we need a "National Culture Policy" that will put more Canadian books front and center in bookstores?
I don't think a policy that attempts to celebrate Canadian books equates to nationalism. I think Canadians should read contemporary Canadian literature. But of course, they don't have to.
6. Last summer, Douglas Coupland published an article in the New York Times criticizing Canadian literature for having too many books set in rural rather than urban settings. Is he right?
He's right. Mostly right. I mean, most of us live in urban centres. The anachronistic tendency of Canadian fiction and poetry is something to be concerned about.
7. Many major publishers now refuse to accept "unsolicited" work; that is, they will not even consider work unless it is agented. Is this a sound policy from point of view of finding the best new literary voices? Isn't there a chance good writing will be squeezed out?
No, it's not a sound policy. It's a very dangerous policy.
8. Alternatively, for small presses that do accept unsolicited work, is the problem that the majors are squeezing the small houses at the distribution/retail marketing end? In other words, even when good writers get published by small houses, do they have a fair chance of winning an audience? Or are the major houses introducing an overly corporate, overly aggressive mentality to the book trade?
I don't believe in bitching and moaning about fairness. But there is some work to be done to ensure that corporations, both retail and publishing, are acting ethically. They don't always. And they must be held accountable. But being a small press author does have its advantages. You can be insistent, even aggressive about your own work without being 'corporate'.
9. Does Canada have too many publishers? Or too few?
Too few.
10. In your opinion, how will new technologies such as the e-book or audio books affect the "form" of the book?
I don't know. I do most of my work on-screen. But like most writers and editors, I am a fetishist. Book lovers will always love books.
11. You're the author of "The Theory of the Loser Class" and blog at Asthmatronic -- a site devoted to all things loser. In the past, CanLit has produced two of my favourite loser novels: "Sad Paradise" by Britt Hagarty and "1978" by Daniel Jones. Jones' work is still remembered. Hagarty's seems to have slipped into oblivion. Does Canada do too little to keep the flame alive of lesser known writers? Is Canada a bad country for an artistically spirited loser?
No. It's simply that we were born to lose. So it shouldn't come as a surprise when that happens.
11. Editors of small presses and literary journals tend to be taken for granted. Yet there is a strong argument for saying they stand out as real heroes of contemporary literature; they actually read work by unknowns -- a habit the major publishers and agents have, generally speaken, fallen out of. Do editors of small presses and small magazines deserve higher status within the cosmology of literature? Are they currently under-appreciated?
In my personal cosmology, they hold the highest status possible. And since I'm never wrong, I think they deserve a higher status in the universe.
Bio: Jon Paul Fiorentino is a Montreal-based poet whose most recent is THE THEORY OF THE LOSER CLASS (Coach House), as well as an editor and publisher. He co-edits Matrix Magazine and publishes Snare Books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)