Notes on supply, demand and the possible benefits of a curator
The Sunday Times book review ran an article on the growing print-on-demand industry. (iUniverse, one of the companies profiled, also has a hella classy full-page ad towards the back of the section.) The phrase "farm team" is used to describe print-on-demand publishers, which got me thinking...
A couple of years ago, Warren Ellis argued that people don't generally look at the publisher when making purchases. He was referring to comics, but the same thing applies to literary fiction, books on history, or music criticism: I can't think that people walk into their local bookstore saying, "I need the latest novel that HarperCollins released!"
That said, it does seem as though more indie publishers have cultivated an image closer to indie record labels than large publishing houses. Akashic specializes in books on politics and crime fiction; McSweeney's and TNI are more eclectic in their catalogs, but those catalogs nonetheless have the same sort of generally shared aesthetic that one gleans when looking through a catalog from Merge or Touch & Go.
The bottom line, for me, is that it seems that it's easier and easier to get published these days -- and there's clearly an audience for books being printed on demand. (Which means their authors are reaching people, which means they're doing something right, and I can't argue with that.) All of which boils down to this: there's going to be a lot more to read out there in the coming years. And I sometimes wonder if the curatorial model -- i.e. that popularized by smaller presses, where you can make an educated guess that if you liked the last release you'll dig as upcoming one as well -- won't grow in popularity in the coming years.
A couple of years ago, Warren Ellis argued that people don't generally look at the publisher when making purchases. He was referring to comics, but the same thing applies to literary fiction, books on history, or music criticism: I can't think that people walk into their local bookstore saying, "I need the latest novel that HarperCollins released!"
That said, it does seem as though more indie publishers have cultivated an image closer to indie record labels than large publishing houses. Akashic specializes in books on politics and crime fiction; McSweeney's and TNI are more eclectic in their catalogs, but those catalogs nonetheless have the same sort of generally shared aesthetic that one gleans when looking through a catalog from Merge or Touch & Go.
The bottom line, for me, is that it seems that it's easier and easier to get published these days -- and there's clearly an audience for books being printed on demand. (Which means their authors are reaching people, which means they're doing something right, and I can't argue with that.) All of which boils down to this: there's going to be a lot more to read out there in the coming years. And I sometimes wonder if the curatorial model -- i.e. that popularized by smaller presses, where you can make an educated guess that if you liked the last release you'll dig as upcoming one as well -- won't grow in popularity in the coming years.
1 Comments:
Speaking from the Publishing side of things, I for one, am very excited by the possibility of Print On Demand books (P.O.D.s) for a number of reasons. The key one being that books can conceivably stay in print as long as there are folks willing to buy them. It's a shame to see a piece of Fiction go out of print just because it's no longer deemed "profitable" by a publishing house. P.O.D.s can put the kibosh on such ideas because the overhead is so small. Granted, P.O.D. books can be pricey, but I'm willing to pay a little more instead of scouring eBay for some "rare" paperback and paying through the nose. Plus, the authors still get their royalties, which is always a good thing. So yeah, go P.O.D.s, go!
Post a Comment
<< Home