The Song not the Singer

The following is credited to Charlie Redmayne, HarperCollins UK chief executive in The Guardian:

Take storytelling back from digital rivals: "Publishers have historically been the most innovative and creative of organisations," he said. "But I think that when it came to the digital revolution we came to a point where we stopped innovating and creating. We thought, we've done an ebook and that is what it is." "Have others stolen a march on us? Yes, absolutely. There are now people competing with us who five or 10 years ago were not on our radars."

It would have been laughable, were it not so sad. Let's examine this statement line by line.

"Publishers have historically been the most innovative and creative of organisations." Really?

From what I know, the oldest form of storytelling was through song. And many have survived till today. In some parts of India, the Ramayana sung millenniums ago still survives. Even today, the song is still a powerful form of storytelling. Billions don't read, but they sing and listen to music.

Then came drama -- the modern incarnations of which are the television and the cinema, which are often panned by the snobs for their lowest common denominator appeal. Sure, there are plenty of trashy shows, just as there are trashy books (which millions like). But there are also artful movies, although some of them can bore you to tears, just like some 'literary novels' that have won major prizes. (Watch the video attached, and decide which part of digital you don't like. It's an ad by Google India, and try to watch it without the English transcripts. Language is optional in good storytelling.)

Storytelling through writing is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately. For one thing, writing started long after the song and the theatre. Besides, it would have been a little inconvenient to lug around stone tablets, and reproducing them buy hand was a little tiring. (Can you imagine their carpel-tunnel-syndromes!) So, writing took off in earnest only about 600 years ago. But it was quite a spectacular début, well deserving of a fireworks display. Then everything went crazy in the 1990s.

"But I think that when it came to the digital revolution we came to a point where we stopped innovating and creating." Again. Really?

The sad truth is that the book industry became a greedy eyed monster that lost the plot. That's when it stopped innovating. First it became a major industry in the 90s and attracted all sorts of riff-raff who wanted to make quick money. (Remember Borders?) It became no longer about the love of books or knowledge. It was about the money. It was run by CEOs who openly and proudly admitted that they did not read. It was probably the only major industry in the world that is run by such a large number of people -- manufacturers, distributors and retailers -- with absolutely zero product and customer knowledge, while rest of us, who love and understand books, were trampled upon and left to eat dirt.

Let's get this right. It is not print versus the digital. It is about print and digital. Just like the coexistence of fast- and slow-food restaurants catering for different palates, and the radio, the CD, and digital downloads living in the same music universe, so does print and digital. It's called evolution. But, digital is where Silicon Valley was in the 80s. And, we ain't seen nothing yet!

In a recent conference in the UK called Futurebooks organised by The Bookseller recently, there were two (seemingly opposing) view: Jamie Bing, Managing Director at Canongate – a Scottish indie publisher, told attendees that Canongate had reduced its output from 78 to 40 titles per year and that he would like to reduce it further to 20 titles per year, so that every book would get twice the attention and be twice as good. That is, publish fewer but but better books. I can understand that perfectly, and I salute Jamie Bing for saying it aloud.

I read a report not too long ago that our of 150,000 (or so) new titles in the UK, only 3000 made it to Waterstones -- where they were given 6 months to perform, or else. What happened to the rest, no one knows. Now, they have an alternative. Go direct-to-digit. Won't be worse. At least, save some trees.

The other argument is that books need to be published faster, that it can take up to 12 months for a title to to reach the public. To me, these are not opposing arguments. The are part of the same. If you publish less, you can get the important one's out more quickly.

Live and let live.

Another interesting story in Wired.com recently said that Amazon is now letting indie bookstores sell its Kindle tablets, in a best of both worlds deal: customers get Kindles, and the stores get a 10 per cent cut when customers use the tablet to buy books. WTF! You kidding me? Of course, the indie publishers are sneering at you. Okay, now make that 35%, and let's talk. And maybe, Amazon, you should drop your live-and-let-die business model, or is that too much to ask?

Redmayne also asked: Have others stolen a march on us? Yes, absolutely. There are now people competing with us who five or 10 years ago were not on our radars.

It would be wonderful to have all your competitors on your radar, wouldn't it? It would be wonderful if anyone who wants to get into the industry should be approved and suitably qualified (like in Germany) or at least well read. Incredibly, that was the way it was for 600 years, that is, until less than 20 years ago! Mr Redmayne, you should know what happened in 1995. A herd of elephants spotted a rich sugar-cane plantation, started stampeding towards it, trampling over and killing thousands of dedicated workers, and are now complaining about another herd that has come to feed, too. Wonders of democracy!

By the way, Mr Redmayne, do you read?