Disillusioned

I rarely disagree with the Literary Saloon, but in this case I think I do. I am, in fact, somewhat startled that the Saloon would so readily concede to the assumptions of the "book-buying world," the very assumptions it normally dissects quite trenchantly, but that it appears to accept in this post.

I'm as little "in the know" about publishing practices as the Saloon confesses itself to be, except that I do know what mainstream publishing actually makes available to readers, and what it does offer, what it pines to offer even more reliably, is for the most part utter, 100% pure, laboratory-tested garbage. Agents play their duly-appointed part in this farcical process, although the agent subjected to the Saloon's criticism in this current post seems somewhat more conscientious about his own contribution to the "book industry," which is why I find the post rather curious.

This agent, Andrew Wylie, is particularly ridiculed for saying of Grace Metalious, the author of Peyton Place, that " Her name is now barely known. She wrote a book called Peyton Place, which is badly written, out of style, out of date, out of print, valueless. Her publisher has disappeared. The publishers of Calvino, Fitzgerald, Hemingway and Faulkner abide. Who made the better investment?" The Saloon takes Wylie to task for the misstated "facts" here, noting that the book is still in print, her name still known, at least as the author of this book, etc. It even provides Amazon ranking numbers to show that Peyton Place still outsells Faulkner's The Town and Calvino's The Baron in the Trees (both from roughly the same era).

We'll put aside the fact that less than fifty years have passed since the publication of PP, not nearly enough time to measure success in the literary "long term." We'll also just mention that sales of Peyton Place have long been propped up by the existence of the movie adapted from it (and its sequel), as well as the television show. Finally, we'll not dwell either on the fact that no other book by Metalious will ever again be read by anyone, while the body of work by both Faulkner and Calvino (especially Faulkner) surely reaches greatly more readers than Peyton Place, and in the true long term will only outdistance Metalious by even greater numbers.

What surprises me most about the Literary Saloon's ruminations on this subject, however, is this disturbing claim: "Yes, we like Calvino's The Baron in the Trees better than Peyton Place, and think it's far superior, but even we would recommend a publisher publish (or re-publish) the Metalious-title before they tackle the Calvino. There's no contest: printing Peyton Place was -- and probably still is -- like printing money."

So even the Literary Saloon accepts the proposition that finally book publishing is all about the opportunity to "print money"? Perhaps this only ratifies the judgment that I am completely out of sync with the publishing times, am so marginal in my view about this that I can be safely disregarded, but frankly the last thing I would ever do is advice someone to publish the likes of Peyton Place, especially if Calvino could get published instead. To favor Metalious over Calvino is so alien to me I can't understand why serious people could even consider it, her potential as cash flow notwithstanding. It is tantamount to admitting that finally publishing books is just a species of commerce, and that literature only gets in the way.

I am by no means an ideological anti-capitalist. Capitalism is good for many things, but some endeavors ought not be cut to fit capitalism's trim. Health care is one of these. In my opinion book publishing is another. I understand that books like Peyton Place keep the "book industry" afloat, but that in itself is a profoundly sad commentary, and eventually this practice isn't going to work anymore. When the ability to read is finally so coarsened that even Peyton Place is too much for the "general" reader, the "book industry" will of course collapse. Book publishers might instead (but won't) concentrate now, before it's too late, on cultivating those readers who still take books and reading seriously. These are the readers who will continue to read Falukner and Calvino in the long run, and eventually might be the only readers left for new fiction at all. If Andrew Wylie wants to try and cater to these readers, please let him.

Comments

[the Literary Saloon]

I'm a bit uncomfortable that this particular post at the Literary Saloon has gotten so much attention -- the focus really was meant to be on the fact that Wylie's piece misstates certain facts, which suggest he doesn't have a sound sense of the book business. (In fact, other things he states -- particulaly about his manipulation of publishers (and their allowing themselves to be manipulated) into paying huge advances, which then mean they have to publicize the books, etc. -- are also disturbing, but it was the "Peyton Place" discussion that was the most obviously wrong.)

"Peyton Place" is a bad example because it was/is such a phenomenon -- sure, it's trash, but it sold better than almost any book ever published. Hence our recommendation that any publisher choose it over any other work. We don't think: "book publishing is all about the opportunity to "print money"" -- but when an opportunity such as this presents itself (and "Peyton Place" was a once-in-a-decade opportunity) any publisher would be foolish not to take advantage of it -- even if only to use the profits to publish 'less commercial' literature (or do whatever else they wanted with it). We were only favoring Metalious over Calvino insofar as her's was the obvious title to print first (our words were "publish (or re-publish) the Metalious-title before they tackle the Calvino" -- emphasis on 'before' (not 'instead of')). The Metalious success could have bankrolled not only the publication of all of Calvino, but many authors besides (not that that happened ...) And again: it's an unfortuante example, because there are literally only a handful of titles ("The Da Vinci Code" is the most recent) about which we would say the same thing -- blockbusters so big that the money comes pouring in like this.

Part of the problem -- one of the biggest parts -- of contemporary publishing is that most books touted as such blockbusters don't even come close to "Peyton Place" success -- and with the huge advances paid out nowadays publishers lose tons of money on big-name and supposedly popular (in all senses of the word) authors who don't quite meet expectations (much more money than they lose on so-called "literary" works, which they don't invest much in in the first place.) Unfortunately, Wylie (and others) have also driven up advances for so-called literary authors to stratospheric levels, some of whom deserve them (insofar as they sell enough copies to cover the advances), but many of whom don't. The concentration on a few names (recall Martin Amis' endless publicity tour in the US for his most recent flop in the US, "Yellow Dog") detracts from the true quality literature that is out there.

There's no question that over the literary long term Calvino and Faulkner will prevail over Metalious -- but in the literary long term we're all dead, and fifty years certainly seems long enough to make a preliminary assessment (and Wylie's point was which publishers made the right decision -- a point that's irrelevant over the true long term (who cares who Dickens' publisher was ?).) (That said, I do suspect "Peyton Place" will always outsell Faulkner's "The Town" -- another unfortunate example Wylie chose. Like certain 19th century penny-dreadfuls that keep getting reprinted, "Peyton Place" will always at least be a curiosity, while most readers would likely have to make their way through half a dozen Faulkner titles before they would bother with "The Town".)

I do take issue with your suggestion that book publishing is not "cut to fit capitalism's trim" -- though that would require a much longer discussion to fully explore. But the success publishers can and do have -- with everything from "Peyton Place" to real literature -- suggests it can function as a business. I think one of the reasons it doesn't so often is because publishers are very foolish in their policies of what they publish, how they publish it, and most of all what they pay upfront to publish it.

I don't think: "that books like Peyton Place keep the "book industry" afloat" -- by inflating advances for copy-cat titles they probably do more to sink it. (Again: "Peyton Place" is a very bad example because it is almost unique in its success.)

And I don't believe that there will be a time: "When the ability to read is finally so coarsened that even Peyton Place is too much for the "general" reader" Bad books are not harbingers of the apocalypse (though bad publishing practices may very well be). I don't subscribe to the idea that reading is per se good, but neither do I think that because people read bad books their reading-habits are being coarsened to the extent that they can't appreciate the good. And I don't think one terrible book's success cannibalizes sales (and readers) from good books. But Wylie getting advances for his (admittedly often very good and "literary") authors which then aren't earned back certainly is bad for book culture -- taking resources away from more deserving titles (and putting publishers off making 'literary' gambles)

M.A.Orthofer, for the Literary Saloon