Does every book count?

Edward Russell-Walling writes in Publishers Weekly, in a story called Every book counts that while '... the giants slug it out, huge tracts of territory are won or lost ... nipping between the tanks and the shell-bursts are nimble squads of guerrillas, partisans and secessionists -- the independents.' He is, of course, writing about the publishing industry, not the retail end. The latter is another story. (There too, the independents who after being clobbered for decades by the 800-pound gorillas are now resurgent in a small way. The fact is, the 'war of the worlds' scenario between the King Kongs is also taking its toll: Borders might be looking for a buyer and Barnes and Noble has been mentioned as the possible one -- though it lost money last quarter. Be ready on Ebay when the bidding starts. In the same breath, Waterstone's continues to reduce in size. What's going to happen to book retail in Malaysia? You guess.)

There are reports of bloodshed on the publishing front as well -- the 5.6% drop in sales and earnings of Random House last year -- but the story is not about that.

The story says that in UK the independents are those not one of the 'Big Four (Hachette, Random House, HarperCollins and Penguin) or the Not-Quite-So-Big Three (Pan Macmillan, Bloomsbury and Simon & Schuster).' The Independent Publishers' Guild in the UK is said to have 460 members and a GBP 500 million turnover with the numbers increasing, with the cost of entry getting lower and lower. (Theoretically, anyone with a computer can become an independent publisher.)

The wonderful thing about being independent is that you can choose to publish anything you want -- they can be as exclusive and precious to the max, or as leze faire as they want and publish anything that will sell.

"The bigger you are, the more you're affected by the market. If you're small, you make your own success," Tim Hely Hutchinson, CEO of UK Hachette Livre UK is quoted as saying.

Big publishers have to spread there risks across the whole spectrum of the market. Ironically, in that process they avoid risks and stick to safe territory, publishing books on tried and tested subjects and authors. While independents can almost live, if not on fresh air and sunshine, on very low profits while they wait for one big-one to lift them out, large players need to be constantly on their toes, seeking to maximise profits not only for shareholders' returns but also to pay massive staff costs and other overheads. Not surprisingly, independents also have more fun.

Atlantic Books managing director Toby Mundy says: "It irritates (the big publishers) that most of the best publishing people are outside the conglomerate sector ..."

So are the more interesting books published by independents? Every year during the Booker silly season, commentators will take pains to point out the number of independents on the shortlist. Perhaps, there will come a time when we will be more surprised when major publishers get on the list.

Does it make a difference to the book buyer? The answer to this type of questions is always an irritating 'yes and no'. If, as a normal book buyer, I am looking for a particular author, or title, the answer is no. I would not care who the publisher is -- though the quality of production, cover design and price could decide which imprint I choose. Most book buyers will fall into this category. This is the 'sugared water' end of the industry which the big boys operate in. (And many independents, too.)

However, if as a book lover, I want to try something new, I would allow an imprint to influence me somewhat (unless something comes highly recommended.) These are some of my personal prejudices and knee-jerk reactions (possibly misinformed): Faber: hmmm ... I wonder what this is like ... sounds interesting. I will risk it. Ditto Cannongate, Harvill, Serpent’s Tail, Saki Books, and several others. Vintage and Picador ... mmm ... maybe. Harper Collins: rice and sugar merchants, not worth the bother unless it is for a specific author I am looking for. Penguin: good for classics, otherwise 'boring'. And so on. So, as a book lover, imprints do make a difference, though quite small.

How about as a bookstore owner? As a book buyer for Silverfish Books, all the prejudices above do apply. My buying is about 70% based on imprints and 30% on authors and titles. (For those who are not familiar with us, we don't stock best-sellers, self-help and management. So there.)

I have often wondered how much an author thinks of which imprint he (or she) would like to be published by. But I suspect that these are merely short-lived fantasies. I mean you might think how wonderful it would be to be published by Faber (for example). But reality has a way of putting an end to those type of dreams pretty quickly for most new writers. (The established authors, naturally, will have more choices.) You grab the one that makes you the best (or any) offer although, logically, an independent publisher specialising in a specific genre would be your best bet, for not only will they know how to present and develop you, they will give you a longer shelf life. The big boys will give you three months, if that, and if you don't make it in that period, you die. You're remaindered.

(I do not mention any of the Malaysian imprints for obvious reasons: self-preservation.)

Publisher's Weekly

Let there be paper

Randy Alfred writes in the Wired News that it was this week one thousand nine hundred and three years ago, that is on the 11 of March, 105 CE, that the eunuch Tsai Lun (Cai Lun) showed his 'invention' of paper to the Han emperor Ho Ti (or He Di) of China. And with that the emperor's court became no longer paperless. The rest is history, like they say. Tsai Lun, of course, lied because archaeological evidence show that people in northwest China were making paper two centuries before Tsai Lun introduced it to the court. But on paper, Tsai Lun invented paper. Still credit must be given to Tsai Lun for improving, standardizing and refining the process, using new materials and establishing a Chinese paper industry.

Most people probably know that the word 'paper' comes from 'papyrus', a plant found in Egypt along the Nile River. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians would use 'sheets' of papyrus made by harvesting, peeling and slicing the plant into strips, and then layered, pounded and smoothed to make a flat, uniform sheet. For 3000 years there were no major changes in writing material until the Chinese started using paper. (Now we have the computer.)

Before paper, the Chinese used bamboo and silk to write on, the former was heavy and the latter expensive.

The first Chinese paper was made from sodden hemp waste, beaten to a pulp with a wooden tool and stretched over a coarsely woven cloth sieve on a bamboo frame. Instead of hemp, Tsai used pulp from bamboo and the inner bark of the mulberry. He also experimented with the bark of other trees, as well as linen rags and fishnets.

The invention of paper was crucial in the development of the Chinese civilization since it facilitated its spread much faster through widespread use of literature and literacy. (Tell that to the ignoramuses who run Malaysia.) Future Chinese emperors would make paper a tool for imperial administration and the diffusion of knowledge. The Chinese further advanced paper-making process including the invention of a quick-release mould for more production speed, and the use of starch as a filler.The official biography of Tsai Lun, written in China, says: In ancient times writings and inscriptions were generally made on tablets of bamboo or on pieces of silk called chih. But silk being costly and bamboo heavy, they were not convenient to use. Tsai Lun [Cai Lun] then initiated the idea of making paper from the bark of trees, remnants of hemp, rags of cloth, and fishing nets. He submitted the process to the emperor in the first year of Yuan-Hsing and received praise for his ability. From this time, paper has been in use everywhere and is universally called 'the paper of Marquis Tsai'.

The emperor Ho Ti (or He Di) was so pleased with Tsai Lun that he promoted him and granted the eunuch an aristocratic title and great wealth.

Tsai Lun was born in Ch'en-chou during the Eastern Han Dynasty around 50 CE. He stared serving as a court eunuch in 75 CE, and in 89 CE he was promoted by Emperor Ho Ti with the title of Shang Fang Si (officer in charge of manufacturing instruments and weapons). In 105 CE, Tsai Lun (with help of imperial consort, Deng) invented the composition for paper along with the paper-making process. In 114 CE, following his invention, Tsai Lun was given the title of Marquis. It was later that he became involved in intrigue, as a supporter of Empress Dou, and became involved in the death of her romantic rival, Consort Song. In 121 CE, after Consort Song's grandson Emperor An assumed power after Empress Deng's death, and Tsai was ordered to report to prison. But before that, he committed suicide by drinking poison, apparently, after taking a bath and dressing in fine robes. (All of which has nothing to do with paper, but I am intrigued by the enormous power of these guys wielded -- and they didn't even have nuts.)

Paper-making remained a closely guarded secret until it spread to Korea in the sixth century, and to Japan in the seventh. The technology then spread westwards to Tibet and Central Asia. In 751 CE Arabs captured some Chinese paper-makers after Tang troops were defeated in the Battle of Talas River between Arab Abbasid Caliphate and the Chinese Tang Dynasty, and paper started being produced in Samarkand. In the year 794 CE, a paper mill was built in Baghdad. Paper-making continued westward, and the first paper mill was built in Europe in 1150 CE. (Another significance of The Battle of River Talas, as told by Russian historian Vasily Bartold was, "... undoubtedly of great importance in the history of (Western) Turkestan as it determined the question which of the two civilizations, the Chinese or the Muslim, should predominate in the land (of Turkestan)." In other words it caused the decline of Tang influence in Central Asia and switched authority to the Abbasids, Tibetans, or Uighurs and the introduction of Islam among the Turkic peoples. Other historians give it much less significance, apart from the paper making thing.)

Then in 1448 CE, Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press.

Wired News