“The social quality of literature is still visible in the popularity of bestsellers. . . people need bestsellers. It is a social need . . . Books are social vectors, but publishers have been slow to see it. They barely even noticed book clubs until Oprah goosed them.” LeGuin accuses publishing industry leaders of being devoted to growth in an industry that can’t grow. Is growth necessary for the industry to thrive?
“Reading is not ‘interactive’ with a set of rules or options, as games are; reading is active collaboration with the writer’s mind.” Do you feel reading books is more immersive than an interactive game or a good film?
LeGuin argues for the “durability” of books and suggests that the insistence on quick profits is ultimately harming profitability of the book business, that publishers would drop the not-lucrative publishing of literature, but to do so, they would lose power and control. What do you think of this argument? Why do publishers continue to publish books that are not guaranteed best-sellers?
Elberse challenges the notion that online distribution of books (and other goods) allows for more choice, and that by offering lots of choice to niche markets can be profitable. In fact, Elberse finds that the digital environment leads to more people knowing about and wanting to read a smaller number of books and suggests that publishers should spend more money publishing fewer popular books that will be read by a larger number of consumers. Do you see any holes in her argument, or do you think it would make sense for publishers to concentrate their resources on potential big hits?
