It isn't so much that I disagree, because if I look at books as "products" and at readers as "customers" I find that he makes a lot of sense, but I think the original poster completely misses the point of literature and readership.
Publishing companies aren't interested in creating a healthy literary enviorment, but making a quick buck. They aren't looking for the next Ken Kesey, or the next Iris Murdoch, they're looking for the next Dan Brown and/or JK Rowling. They treat readers as "customers" who can be sold anything as long as it's properly marketed and wrapped, instead of (potentially intelligent) readers. Books, above all, are about ideas and spreading these ideas, education, and intellectual discourse. Sure, they can be fun and light, but even then, if nothing else, they contribute to feeding the readers literary passions just like an apple between meals won't satiate your huger, but will be welcome as a treat.
If the original poster is out to make the argument that if we (the readers) stop buying books fewer books will be written, I think he's wrong. Perhaps fewer "bad" books will be written. A "real" writer will write regardless of how much (or little) money s/he makes. And a writer will also write regardless of whether s/he ever gets published during his/her lifetime, or at all (just look at Emily Dickinson). By the by, Tolkien, who made a shitload of money for his publishers (among many other things), wrote for himself. Not for an "audience", "readership", or "customers". Same with Isak Dinesen, who while not making quite that much money for anyone, has been shortlisted for the Nobel prize in literature several times.
Interesting fact: even if all the writers would stop writing as of this moment, and no new books would be published from this day forward, the average reader would still have enough books to keep him/her occupied for the rest of several lifetimes. While it's wonderful to have new authors and new books to read, not having them would not mean the end of civilization as we know it, as long as people still read what has already been written. Actually, it wouldn't even mean the end of publishing: they're still making money off Plato and Shakespeare and they've been dead for centuries, and millennia, respectively.
What I think needs to happen is for everyone to start pushing for people to READ. Not to buy books, but read them. Buy them second-hand, download them, pirate them, get them from the library, friends, steal them. READ! Once people start reading the books, trust me, they'll also start buying them! And they'll probably have enough discernment by that time to buy the good ones, so perhaps we'll stop being flooded by bad books and poor writing hidden behind pretty covers.
PS. It also bears mentioning that the quality of books (as objects) has decreased considerably. I've books that are over 80 years old and are in better shape than what I bought 10 years ago (hardbacks). The paper is horrid, and the binding worse. If I buy books, I buy them because I want to keep them. As they sell them now, that has become more or less impossible.
no subject
Publishing companies aren't interested in creating a healthy literary enviorment, but making a quick buck. They aren't looking for the next Ken Kesey, or the next Iris Murdoch, they're looking for the next Dan Brown and/or JK Rowling. They treat readers as "customers" who can be sold anything as long as it's properly marketed and wrapped, instead of (potentially intelligent) readers. Books, above all, are about ideas and spreading these ideas, education, and intellectual discourse. Sure, they can be fun and light, but even then, if nothing else, they contribute to feeding the readers literary passions just like an apple between meals won't satiate your huger, but will be welcome as a treat.
If the original poster is out to make the argument that if we (the readers) stop buying books fewer books will be written, I think he's wrong. Perhaps fewer "bad" books will be written. A "real" writer will write regardless of how much (or little) money s/he makes. And a writer will also write regardless of whether s/he ever gets published during his/her lifetime, or at all (just look at Emily Dickinson). By the by, Tolkien, who made a shitload of money for his publishers (among many other things), wrote for himself. Not for an "audience", "readership", or "customers". Same with Isak Dinesen, who while not making quite that much money for anyone, has been shortlisted for the Nobel prize in literature several times.
Interesting fact: even if all the writers would stop writing as of this moment, and no new books would be published from this day forward, the average reader would still have enough books to keep him/her occupied for the rest of several lifetimes. While it's wonderful to have new authors and new books to read, not having them would not mean the end of civilization as we know it, as long as people still read what has already been written. Actually, it wouldn't even mean the end of publishing: they're still making money off Plato and Shakespeare and they've been dead for centuries, and millennia, respectively.
What I think needs to happen is for everyone to start pushing for people to READ. Not to buy books, but read them. Buy them second-hand, download them, pirate them, get them from the library, friends, steal them. READ! Once people start reading the books, trust me, they'll also start buying them! And they'll probably have enough discernment by that time to buy the good ones, so perhaps we'll stop being flooded by bad books and poor writing hidden behind pretty covers.
PS. It also bears mentioning that the quality of books (as objects) has decreased considerably. I've books that are over 80 years old and are in better shape than what I bought 10 years ago (hardbacks). The paper is horrid, and the binding worse. If I buy books, I buy them because I want to keep them. As they sell them now, that has become more or less impossible.