Three days ago, I took it upon myself to dispute the conclusions of Michael Levin writing in the Forbes blog and prophesying the end of the book. Not just the end of the paper book, or the end of the book as we know it, but the end of the book, period.
He seemed to believe it was at least in part suicide, with the publishers choosing to publish a lot of things that no one really wanted to buy, and – as it were – metaphorically standing at the end of the abyss saying “stop me before I jump.” In this scenario, Amazon came along and gave the final shove.
Perhaps because economics is my hobby, I tend to look at the same scenario – and I’ll admit Michael is right – grosso modo – about the scenario – and see the free market at work. Or perhaps more accurately, the iron law of economics at work: if there is a market that’s being badly served and someone else comes up with a way to serve it better, the model will chance and the old way of doing things die out. Or in other words (sorry, writing this late at night after a day spent packing for two weeks abroad) if you build a better mousetrap the manufacturers of inferior mousetraps will go out of business.
So far so good. What I disagreed – and disagree – with is the disappearance of the book as such. Michael, who, it turns out, is a good sport and didn’t even get upset at my calling him Mark – Okay, didn’t get VERY upset – (It’s something I do to Michaels. My friend Michael Kabongo has been for some time “Tony” to our circle of friends. No, he doesn’t like it, so I wouldn’t advise trying it.) but his comment in the “about” section of my blog clarified his argument.
Dear Sarah,
Many thanks for reading and responding so passionately to my piece about publishing in Forbes. The reality is that there are more of them than there are of you and me, in that you and I pay for content and others don’t, or won’t in the future. Maybe I’m as wrong as you say. But my first name is Michael, not Mark, so perhaps we both have a right to be wrong! I enjoyed your piece and am glad that you saw fit to write about it. Warmly, Mark no wait Michael
(I think by “passionately” he means that I’m excitable. That’s fine. I am. My husband says so, and he knows me quite well.)
His next statement however raises eyebrows. For more on this, look at the Baen Free Library. Also, note that Baen has long run its ebook section on low prices and no DRM and far from having a loss continues to thrive.
For yet more corroboration that piracy alone won’t kill an industry, look at music. Yes, it’s completely different from before going electronic, but again, provided the price is reasonable and there’s no DRM you’ve eliminated two reasons to pirate: costs, and because it’s a challenge. Music for money still exists and it still supports artists.
The caveat here is that Michael works, mostly, in non fiction. I’m not sure of the mechanics for non-fiction. I know in fiction, most people have an instinctive understanding that only this writer could produce this work, and if the writer starves in his lonely little attic, you won’t have any more… Honor, or Athena, or Captain Vimes, or…
I’m not sure the same understanding applies to non fiction. It’s entirely possible that people just assume there’s no intrinsic virtue to how-to or non-fic, that the info was there, if anyone else had collected. Non-fic might fall under the misguided aprehension that “data wants to be free.”
Also, because some non fic, at least (school books) is unlikely to crawl out from under the thumb of the big houses any time soon, it will probably be overpriced and DRMed to the gills.
So Michael might be right. It might be the end of a TYPE of book. I don’t think so, but I’ll concede the point that on THAT I have no other proof than a gut feeling that once people realize the stuff you can get for free is worth what you pay for it, they will realize non-fic writers need to live also.
However, as I told Michael Levin, in my answer to his comment, the future is notoriously hard to make predictions about, particularly when it hasn’t happened, yet. I will admit for non-fic he might very well be right, which means the market will transmute to another media. I’m going to guess specialized how-to and non-fic blogs, probably supported by contributions.
(I’m going to be en-route for the next thirty six hours or so, and after that my access to the net will also be erratic for about two weeks. I intend to keep up my daily posting, but the hours – particularly given my tendency to calculate time zones backwards – might become very interesting.)
According To Hoyt 
A simple mnemonic I use — and this applies both to this discussion and to your (well-done) post at PJs, today — is that the market exists for the benefit of the buyer. Both “capitalists” and Marxists seem to forget that on a regular basis — almost like clockwork.
M
“Capitalists” in quotes because the term is a canard, applied by Marx to people who operate in a free market. Free market: natural, spontaneous commerce among and between individuals. Call yourself a capitalist and you’ve half-surrendered to the enemy already.
LikeLike
Sarah, I think your distinction between fiction and non-fiction is exceptionally insightful.
I’ve long maintained that I both buy and create “stories”, not “books”. To my mind, the technology involved in the delivery process is almost incidental. I don’t see myself as being all *that* different from an itinerant medieval entertainer, juggling and telling stories for his supper and a pallet by the fire. (Except that HE kept far more of the gross, and could make a living without a “day job” … but Dave covered that a couple days ago.)
Notice the recent proliferation of “think tanks”, organizations such as the Cato Institute, Pew Research, etc. I think this is the non-fiction market already in motion in response to Michael’s fundamental premise. If my only non-fiction *need*, at the moment, is to learn how to install a new toilet without creating leaks, or how to replace a section of fence with reasonable confidence that it will withstand the next wind-storm, then I’m seeking knowledge which has been part of the human experience long enough that “this data wants/deserves to be free”. The only reason we pay for books on such subjects is the pedigree of the source, because they’ve saved us the effort of gathering the information ourselves. Thoughtful *processing* of the information, on the other hand, such as think tanks produce, is still worth the odd shekel to the people who will find their conclusions useful.
It’s been more than fifty years since Heinlein, Doc Smith, and their peers first prophesied the demise of the printed book. But Heinlein predicted something else more than half-a-century ago, too: the emergence of the need for “synthesists”. I saw a study recently that projected that we will be producing in excess of an *exabyte* of “new” Internet content per year sometime within the next five years. *Someone* has to wade through that “whelming flood” and sort out the bits we actually need, or we’ll be paralyzed. We won’t be paying for the information, we’ll be paying for being pointed at *this* or *that* information.
LikeLike
I dunno about non-Fiction being so very different, although I believe it may depend on your definition of non-Fiction. There is ample evidence that “popular” History remains remarkably vigorous, e.g., David McCullough’s John Adams, the many works on the Founders by Joseph Ellis, or (ignore his politics) the number of books sold via Glenn Beck’s touting of them – a single endorsement by Beck can make a book fly off the shelves. So there is clearly a demand, a market for some non-Fiction.
Maybe the question is for Crafts books, another subgenre of non-F, one happily pursued by my Beloved Spouse and our daughter. There’s no reason to think the demand for knitting patterns is affected, although these may become bought by the pattern via the ‘net rather than collected in a single volume which may well have ten undesirable patterns for each that interests — so perhaps elimination of those books isn’t a bad thing (unless you’re an editor looking to dump sludge by packaging it with a couple gems.)
I think the argument can be made for pretty much all non-F — the problem is less with the market than with the marketing. Sure, allowing the market to choose what versions of History they want has potential problems, but allowing the gatekeepers control has produced bad history aplenty cough*Michael A. Bellesiles’ “Arming America”*cough as well. And having an “official” history is a little characteristic of despotic states, nicht wahr?
LikeLike