Here’s more from my working paper ”Thinking Thru the Future of Publishing” from 50 years ago. Your may want to substitute “email” or the like for “photocopy.”

~*~

As I wrote at the time:

Good Soviet writers, boxed out of publication at home by the official writers’ union, produce Samizdat or “self-published” editions that are hand-copied or mimeographed and passed under the table, sometimes as novels & volumes of poetry that sell for $50 or so a copy & are surreptitiously sold on street corners, often at personal risk from hand to hand.

Cheap photocopying opens an easier means of doing the same thing.

~*~

A turning point: How do we turn these obstacles to our advantage? How do we plan our strategies around the status quo?

~*~

As hinted earlier, the adventurous writer is often boxed out of circulation, as commercial and even university presses contend there is no money for poetry or fiction when they make no deep effort to nurture what they have. There is also a problem that there are generally few bookstores, & that more than 25 percent of all trade books sold in the nation are sold in the NYC area, where about 5 percent of the national population lives. It should also be noted that throughout much of the rest of the country, the bookstores that do exist are generally of a general sort, with very few stores devoted to special interests. Thus, it should be no surprise that San Francisco should be a major center of poetry, since there are a number of bookstores specializing in poetry there & PUBLISHING THEIR OWN SMALL editions.

In political science we face the same problem: It is very difficult to circulate to potential audiences. The high cost of most publication excludes small-circulation working papers, in most situations, altho Workshop is an exception. (And even here, the case is limited.)

To get into the professional journals requires time (delays of six months to a year being not uncommon), often followed by rejection. In addition, there are often the high costs (again) of typing & mailing, & the common need to revise to fit the particular styles & needs of specific journals.

~*~

Unlike many of the little magazines publishing poetry & fiction, which are often a personal thing carried out by an individual editor at his own expense for several issues, until the venture collapses under continued losses, the social science field appears to be frequently supported by professional associations or the prestige of particular schools. (Altho PG informs me this is not always the case; cf, Policy Studies Journal.)

Given the increasing appearance of photocopy “rip-offs,” will subsidy of artists/researchers become increasingly necessary?

In recent years federal money has helped to underwrite a number of little mags. Given the increasing use of photocopy subsidy of artists become increasingly necessary?

~*~

NN has mentioned that in chemistry, at least, a number of highly specialized journals are now being circulated & stored on microfiche. The approximate cost is 25 cents, altho the user must have access to a $200 reader. However, as NN points out, this should not be a problem for scientists willing to pay $600 for a calculator.

While scientists may possibilities of progress such as this, microfiche does have the disadvantage that it must be read at the reader: one cannot curl up in a cozy chair to read it by the fireside.

Also, because of its small size, the ability to steal such units becomes increasingly easy, unless libraries install elaborate request & check-out procedures for its use. (Use of the Lilly Library, with its padded doors, electronic locks, page users cards left in the stacks wherever books are removed, may be a good indication of the type of system necessary to sharply prevent theft.)

~*~

In poetry at least, for those few interested “in the feel of typescript,” one alternative is to issue single poems in broadside form, on large sheets carefully printed, using fine art paper & limited editions. Such versions, suitable for framing signed by the poet, often cost between one and 10 dollars.

Special editions of books can be arranged the same way, as collect items. be enthusiastic over the systems & group can be arranged the same way, as rich collector’s items.

~*~

On another hand, limited experiments have been performed in which groups of poets or novelists have banded together to get works into print. By forming a cooperative, in which a number of participant/patrons each contributes $200 or so to a common kitty, which is used to ensure the publication costs, the underwrite the costs of production until sales have replenished the kitty. A set of common pool rules is established, in which any one member can recoup his share of the fund at the time he decides to withdraw from the effort. A common committee is established to determine which works should be published.

In one case, a group of fiction writers in NYC have operated this way to produce a series of novels that have been distributed by one of the publishing houses (Dial?). So far, all of their volumes have sold out in the first edition, somewhere in the range of 8,000 to 10,000 copies.

In the other case, a group of poets in Minnesota, headed by Robert Bly, a widely respected & published poet, have banded together to issue a series of low-cost Minnesota-area poets, many of whom generally unknown. Because many of these writers do not yet have enough solid material to fill an entire volume on their own, the volumes have often been split between two or more poets. are young & generally unknown.

The circle has found enough of a market, including cultivation of high school libraries in the state, to make ends meet in their project.

~*~

The potential exists for such a method among the Public Choice circles. I do not know what the legal situation concerning such an arrangement would be, but we can discuss that. I would assume that we would have to set up some sorts of arrangements outside of the university structure if we were to operate in this manner. I don’t know.

~*~

Stay tuned for next week to see where this thinking leads.

You can find my works in the digital platform of your choice at Smashwords, the Apple Store, Barnes & Noble’s Nook, Scribd, Sony’s Kobo, and other fine ebook retailers. You can also ask your public library to obtain them.

Returning to my working paper, ”Thinking Thru the Future of Publishing” from 50 years ago, I’ll admit much of the material will be ancient history for many readers, but it does reflect some trends that have been amplifying in the aftermath. And don’t laugh at the prices mentioned. Hey, I was still typing away on my IBM Selectric at work and my Olivetti Editor 2 at home – typewriters of the advanced electric sort, kiddos!

~*~

As I wrote then:

There has been a growing situation in recent years concerning the DISTRIBUTION end of circulating ideas. I have seen this in three major areas, as a kind of illustration:

• Film
• Publishing
• Music

We have read of the problem of film directors who have objected to the mutilations imposed by film distributors. Furthermore, many of the directors have voiced opposition to the distributors’ claim that most films are not profitable (there is, for example, a wide discrepancy between the figures given to the producers & directors of a film & the figures given to Variety and other trade publications concerning the actual box office receipts of a given film). So the producers/directors of a film are faced with two problems: getting their film into theaters outside of NYC & a few other large cities, & getting an honest accounting of the return on their investment (artistic & financial).

In music — especially popular music — the situation is much the same. Fewer & fewer broadcasters are playing recordings that are not on the Top 40 — or, increasingly, the top 20 or 30. This means that new groups have little chance of being heard. If they aren’t heard, it is difficult for their records to sell. If their records don’t sell, it is even harder for them to be heard.

In publishing, what is happening is this: more & more publishing houses are becoming parts of large conglomerates, many of which own two or more of the biggest houses. CBS & ITT, for example, have both bought heavily into the established publishing concerns. Their corporate outlook is rarely literary.

As a case in point, when no one else would buy the rights to LBJ’s memoires, one of CBS’ publishing subsidiaries offered a million and a half though the books produced less than $10,000 net return for the company — it seems that LBJ was a good friend of Wm Paley or Frank Stanton, the CBS chiefs, & they didn’t want their friend to be embarrassed by the low offers on his book. But who really paid for this business mistake? Not CBS. The loss undoubtedly came from those underpaid writers who are constantly told that their books don’t make very much from their publishers & who somehow keep working on, despite modest royalties of $500 or so for their novels or investigations.

What happens, then, is that the publishing field is becoming increasingly congested; the turnover of editors at the large houses is reported to be terrible, because the new owners do not & cannot know what their long-term goals are.

The other thing that happens is that, to “maximize profits.” the willingness of houses to experiment, to publish unknown authors, to publish a wide range of work — or to edit sharply — is diminished. Traditionally, publishing houses reflected the tastes or skills of one or two editors. A few volumes would be published each year, for a range of literate readers.

I’m not sure this is the case anymore, esp. with publishing costs the way they are & THE CORPORATE DEMAND FOR PROFIT.

~*~

Returning to the threesome of music, film, & publishing, the big bottleneck appeared to be in the distribution end. Either the artist makes it big, or he doesn’t make it at all. Regional markets in all three have evaporated, altho I have reason to believe that they latently remain.

VO’s books were rejected by big houses because the publishers didn’t think the books would pass the 5,000-circulation point.

~*~

The biggest mark-up in a work of art comes at the circulation level. For books, one-quarter to one-third often goes to the retailer. I’m not sure of what the wholesaler gets, but I do know that the author’s royalty is one of the smallest cuts in the entire cost pie.

~*~

In finally publishing the Intellectual Crisis, VO found that the actual cost of publication was less than one dollar a copy, paperback. However, it should be noted that the volume was put out by a university publisher & may have been done at a cost much lower than by going commercial rate. (IU Publications, by the way, charges about half what any commercial printer would demand.)

~*~

Having thought thru this far, I came upon the editor’s comments recent copy of New Letters in the IU periodicals room. He was discussing J.D. Salinger’s recent protest of the republication of a number of his early short stories, which he did not want to see in general circulation & for which he was receiving no compensation: it was purely the publisher’s profit.

The editor noted that University Microfilms, a Xerox subsidiary, has been illicitly selling microfilms of his own magazine. In fact, he was unable to sell mint sets of early editions of his magazine, because many libraries preferred the microfilm version.

The editor was also republishing some of the writings from the early editions of his magazine, when he received a notice from one large publishing house that he had violated their copyright, even though his magazine had on the work & had published it first. On the other hand, the editor noted that attempts on his part to protect copyrights held by his journal went unheeded by the large corporations.

He noted the frequent plagiarism of small magazines & publishers by the large corporations without any compensation to the little workers who feed them.

~*~

The editor also commented on receiving photocopies of MS from submitters. He lamented the passing of the “personal relationship” between editors & writers, as they used to read the precious typed copies.

But he neglected to mention the high rate of rejection slips sent to writers, who usually submitted at their own cost, with their own self-addressed stamped envelopes, and their own precious time repaid in two or three “free” copies of the journal if successful. All in the name of “building a name.”

At 60 cents a page for typists — or the difficulty of constantly retyping pages for resubmission — the “cost” to the author becomes prohibitive. (The U.S. Postal Service has a magnificent way of mangling MSS in the mail, so that they are returned thoroughly mangled.) Because the odds are so heavily against the writer in terms of acceptance & cost, it pays him to invest five or ten cents for a photocopy, mail that, & keep the master form in case he needs to make additional copies for later submission.

The tradeoff? Technology that hurts royalties can also save labor.

~*~

But the editor complained about the smell of photocopies vs. the good feel of typescript & paper. Ah! The literary life!

~*~

Some editors refuse to read the Xerox copies (or, worse yet, the rubbery, ammoniated imitations), altho more & more writers are submitting Xeroxes. But some writers, knowing the long time lags & heavy rejection rate inherent in the academic/artsy publishing world, use the photocopies as a means of submitting simultaneously to many journals. Hence, the editors are leery of photocopies since they may get stuck setting a piece only to have the author pull the entry in favor of a better offer from another journal. (One way to overcome this is in the proper wording in a decent cover letter, perhaps. Or maybe actual compensation of a competitive nature.)

~*~

New technologies cut two ways: they can increase means to circulate material (a people’s access), but they can also reduce ways to govern compensation to the creators. Especially when we get to the ease of pirate tape recordings, videotape films, or Xerox copies of published work.

~*~

Wow, this does take me back in time. See how it develops in next week’s installment.

You can find my works in the digital platform of your choice at Smashwords, the Apple Store, Barnes & Noble’s Nook, Scribd, Sony’s Kobo, and other fine ebook retailers. You can also ask your public library to obtain them.

Rifling through my remaining files, I recently came across an informal working paper I had drafted 50 years ago while working for the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University in Bloomington. At the time, I was employed as a social sciences editor but beginning to get really hooked on being a poet on the side, along with the entire small-press literary scene. This came in a break in my newspaper journalism career, which also figures into the considerations.  

One of my challenges at the workshop involved getting our field research findings out to a diverse audience of researchers, public officials, and politicians. Traditional publishing avenues were becoming prohibitively expensive for our enterprise.

What I saw as the challenges in a changing publishing world at the time seems truly prescient now as well as often naïve. The paper, “Thinking Thru the Future of the Realm of Publishing,” has been greatly eclipsed by the Internet, which wasn’t even on the horizon, as far as we knew.

Some of the problems, such as lack of compensation for intellectual property and vulnerability to piracy, seem larger than ever.

And there are still the challenges of establishing a readership and the related costs.

~*~

As I wrote:

There seems to be, at least as far as newspapers are concerned, a kind of decreasing level of literacy. This seems to be reflected in the declining reading scores reported over the ‘60s & early ‘70s in the SAT exams & other measures of reading abilities.

Perhaps this is nothing new, but in practical terms, as a measure the American adult illiterate — that is, incapable of reading the comics or Ann Landers with any degree of understanding or skill – it remains a challenge. Perhaps insurmountable.

On the other hand, the knowledge explosion is leading increasingly to the phenomenon Ortega y Gasset dubbed “the learned ignoramus” — the situation where individuals may be very deeply & narrowly trained in a field of technical specialization, but may also be very ignorant of other disciplines.

As an example of this phenomenon at work today, we can consider this: That two decades ago, a broadly-trained baccalaureate degree could be the threshold of the generalist — the PhD, the mark of the specialist. Today, the PhD is the threshold of the specialist, & the realm of research may lie far beyond his vision or understanding. In other words, perhaps, the minuteness of scholarly research today is so diverse & specialized that little of it fits into broad, theoretical concepts.

Are we at a point in which our investigations resemble a plant that has been given too much light, too much water, & too much food? Such a plant becomes weak & spindly, & collapses.

While that comparison may seem too strong, consider the problems of trying to keep abreast in one’s own field. There are far more journals in the social sciences, or in even political science or economics, than any researcher or scholar could possibly keep abreast of. How many journals are there on administration, urban problems, and police, that would affect even our own area of investigation?

I raise these two points because they do interact: the broadly- based, literate range of media would appear to be shrinking:

1. a) The range of specialized knowledge gets further & further away from their abilities to report;
2. b) The time required of specialists to keep abreast of their own specialties would decrease the time they have to spend with the more generalized, & hence more interdisciplinary, range of publications;
3. c) The increasing costs of publication & distribution would weed out the more marginal, but still significant, publications in this range. (The real money in periodicals publication in the last decade has specialized mags, focusing, for example, on skiing or coin collecting — areas with a potentially specialized market for advertisers.)

~*~

The costs, especially of labor & paper, have escalated sharply in recent years, resulting in outrageously expensive book costs (at least in the traditionally published & distributed volumes): journal costs for libraries & institutions are something that a number of Workshop personnel have commented upon. The situation of hard-bound volumes & high-priced journals facing libraries is one of “rip off.”

[As for individuals?]

~*~

Simultaneously, libraries have been forced to install photo-copying machines as a means to prevent the mutilation of their collections by users with razors & other means of lifting pages for home use.

The entire library system is based upon user cooperation & consideration, which appears to be breaking down in many situations. In other words, if the theft rate & volume loss rate of some collections continues unabated, the library as a source of photocopy material may be in danger.

~*~

On the other hand, the existence of photocopying equipment introduces a threat to authors, editors, & publishers. Authors have faced readers who proudly proclaim that they have the writer’s work – in Xerox form. The author, of course, receives no royalty from these readers, despite the reader’s praise.

~*~

My, those photocopiers seem so benign compared to so much of the Internet!

Stay tuned for next week’s continuation.

~*~

That said, you can find my works in the digital platform of your choice at Smashwords, the Apple Store, Barnes & Noble’s Nook, Scribd, Sony’s Kobo, and other fine ebook retailers. You can also ask your public library to obtain them.

The role of a writers’ group will elicit a range of responses.

Some find value in having a core circle that intensely critiques each participant’s ongoing work, while others – I’ll include myself – see that as limiting if the others are clueless about your style and vision. It’s the unpublished version of blind leading the blind.

Still, I have been greatly assisted by opportunities for weekly or monthly open reading sessions, starting with the Stoney Lonesome poets in Bloomington, Indiana, and picking up with the Café Eclipse evenings in Concord, New Hampshire; young poets who met at Barnes & Nobel in Manchester, New Hampshire; Isabel van Merlin’s Merrimack Mic coffeehouse nights in Newburyport, Massachusetts. Somehow, I didn’t feel that kinship in the Poetry Society of New Hampshire.  Later, a monthly group known as Writers’ Night Out in Portsmouth, introduced a wide range of writers, both beginning amateurs and seasoned professionals, spanning fiction, non-fiction, poetry, advertising and public relations, script writing, and playwrighting. We never knew exactly what the mix would be, but it was always stimulating and we never felt a sense of competition, as far as I could tell. The tips and insights we shared could be quite useful. That’s where I first heard of Smashwords, for instance.

There were other stints where I was truly solo. I was never part of the Iron Pig group in the Mahoning Valley, for instance, though my artist then-wife had her gallery groups.

Baltimore had a large writers’ group that never quite jelled for me, though we did have a marvelous evening with Tom Clancy just before the release of his first movie. His honesty did offend some of those present, though I found it refreshing.

More recently, it’s come in the monthly open mics at the Eastport Arts Center, where spoken word usually alternates with music.

~*~

The arts center does offer inspiration on other fronts, too, including the Sunday afternoon presentations through winter, plus concerts, plays, the film society, and even contradancing.

The arts center is one reason our community stands apart from many others. We had nothing like it in Dover, nearly 30 times the size.

My original expectation of dilettantes and artist wannabes was quickly dispelled. A key post-Covid Stage East production, for instance, was two one-act plays – Beckett and Cocteau. And some of the best chamber music and jazz I’ve heard anywhere has been here. So we get a good dose of deep work.

But lately I’ve been hearing stories of some of its founders, some of whom have died since my arrival. One, for instance, had worked closely with theater great Tyron Guthrie. You get the picture.

The full history still needs to be written. Not that I’m stepping forward.

It was a science fiction writer who suggested this as something the public gets nosy about. Like there’s something magical in where an author works.

Well, it can be personalized, including what’s on the wall or playing as music in the background.

Somehow, many people imagine that having an inspiring view helps, but Annie Dillard argues otherwise. In the newsrooms where I’ve worked, the executives had the windows. The workers had a sweat shop, rows of keyboards on cluttered desks, maybe even with cigarettes back in the day.

My own spaces have varied from a coffee table where I sat cross-legged at the typewriter to the upstairs bedroom I dedicated to the work when I lived at Yuppieville on the Hill before I remarried. There, I did have a commanding view over the parking lot and the water tower beyond as well as some fine sunsets. Usually, the arrangements were more of a make-do nature over the years, often in a second bedroom.

Once I remarried, I envisioned turning the top of the Red Barn into a year-round writing space, something that never materialized. Instead, it wound up being the north end of the attic, as you’ll find in many of the earlier posts here.

Now, as I’ve mentioned in reflecting on shifting from paper to digital, I’m able to work from a corner of my bedroom, where I do have a compact view of the ocean. Just enough.

~*~

Now, for a few related thoughts and reminders.

Note there’s a difference between an office and where you write.

An office may have a phone, filing cabinets, tabletops, checkbooks, mailing supplies, and so on. It’s probably where you pay your bills, too.

The writing space, as mine is at the moment, may be quite compact.

As for desktop maneuvers / chaos busters (by Jennifer Weisel, maybe from Elle, I have no idea how long ago):

The average person spends over four hours per week looking for misplaced papers, according to an Accountemps survey. Gloria Schaaf, a Manhattan-based organization consultant, offers advice on how to conquer chaos:

Make your desk command central (30 x 60 inches is the minimum size; large enough to spread out on.)

Add a “filing” folder to the front of each file drawer.

Avoid piles: Act on every piece of mail when you get to it and you won’t have to look back through mounds of paper later.

Use one planning tool for both personal and professional commitments (meetings, phone calls, errands, television programs …)

Leave time for a half-hour “recovery period” at the end of each day to organize your desk; it will be much more approachable the next morning.

TRAPS: the floor (that’s where piles begin), bulletin boards (if you must hang papers, use a one-inch cork strip, “Miscellaneous” folders, “To File” boxes.

Are you sensing how much this reflects the paper era? Like the size of that desk! Or wondering how to adapt the advice to today? The clutter hasn’t gone away, unless you left it on your last computer before the disk was wiped.

~*~

TOUCHSTONES: those items and reminders of what’s essential, the way home, the way ahead: emotional and spiritual energy points.

Does this mean I put up the cow skull I found on Rattlesnake Ridge in the Yakima Valley 45 years ago?

~*~

As for a routine that keeps you doing the work, as the artist Red Grooms insists, “It’s very bad for an artist to lay off. You get out of shape.” (Catherine Barnett interview, May 1991 on page 62 of a glossy mag. In the interim, I’ve lost the tearsheet. Maybe during one of those purges?)

~*~

So what kind of workspace do you have or aspire to for your own creative endeavors? Include the right kitchen, if you wish. A studio doesn’t have to be a private space, does it?

I would have said alert but she’d counter twitchy.

I would have said observant but she’d counter oblivious.

I would have said free-thinking but she’d counter too serious.

I would have said independent but she’d counter aloof.

I would have said sensitive but she’d counter nervous.

I would have said inquisitive but she’d say I rarely ask questions.

I would have said accepting but she’d counter indecisive.

I would have said nurturing but she’d counter cold.

I would have said serious but she’d counter silent.

I would have said playful but she’d counter negative.

I would have said witty but she’d counter legalistic.

I would have said intelligent but she’d counter uptight.

I would have said slightly bent but she’d counter insecure.

I would have said self-sufficient but she’d counter evasive.

I would have said caring but she’d counter mean.

I would have said spiritual but she’d ask how that makes me a better person.

I would have said spirited but she’d counter lazy.

I would have said somewhat reserved but she’d counter socially deficient.

I would have said somewhat shy but she’d counter loner.

I would have said elitist in quest of excellence and quality but she’d counter self-centered.

I would have said egalitarian in opportunity and expectation but she’d counter workaholic.

I would have said outdoorsy but she’d counter escapist.

I would have said rainbow chaser but she’d counter impractical.

I would have said aging but she’d agree.

I would have said youthful but she’d counter bald.

I would have said honest, direct but she’d counter defensive.

I would have said exploring but she’d counter unemotional.

I would have said hedonist but she’d counter fiscally irresponsible.

I would have said ascetic but she’d counter dull.

I would have said a bit gallant but she’d counter straight-laced.

I would have said organized but she’d notice I rarely dust.

I would have said self-starter but she’d counter with a list of projects.

I would have said visionary but she’d counter icy.

I would have said original but she’d counter quirky.

I would have said inventive but she’d counter weird.

I would have said creative but she’d counter unrealistic.

I would have said hopeful but she’d counter inexpressive.

I would have said responsive but she’d counter boring.

I would have said kind, gentle but she’d counter too serious.

I would have said frugal but she’d counter tight-fisted.

I would have said financially marginal but she would have countered too willing to pay full price.

~*~

Mirror, mirror, on the wall?