Chekhov's Mistress
You Can’t be too Thin, too Rich, or Have too Many Books
I find myself consistently disappointed with the New York Times Book Review these days (although I agree with the 7/18 Leonard piece that I won’t mention anymore than in passing). The latest bit of specious writing comes from Laura Miller in her piece “How Many Books are too Many?”
The ostensible impetus behind the article was the recent Bookwire report trooping out the imposing statistic that 175,000 new books, including new editions, were published in 2003. That same report states that general adult fiction titles, numbering 17,021 were down almost 2%, the first decline in 13 years. This decline, the report seems to say, could be due to the wave of interest in non-fiction titles since 9/11.
Miller’s true motivation for the article, I imagine, is the widely lamented decline of the literary fiction segment of the publishing industry in favor of the same “20 books” that everyone reads. That’s a valid complaint, if indeed that is what she’s trying to say, but it’s hard to tell.
She states the problem by posing a question:
“As more and more books are offered to the same number of readers, the question hardly anyone dares to ask is: how many books are too many?”
Yes, there are the same or fewer readers, but who determines how many books are too many? Surely people are buying these books; publishers sold 2.5 billion books in the year 2000, according to the NEA.
Finally, after discussing the rotating “wall” of books at the chains that seems to overwhelm consumers, thus leading to the before-mentioned homogenization of successful books, she comes to what I think is her real point. She concludes by posing this question:
It sometimes seems everyone wants to take up writing, is (incorrectly) confident of success and plans to get to it any day now. But what good is a hammer in a world without nails? If everyone is writing and publishing books, who will find time to read them?
This absurd conclusion, is I suppose intentionally hyperbolic to make a point, but what that is, I’m not sure. Should we not write and all become passive readers? (The two activities are inextricably linked.) No, that can’t be right; the Christina Nehring’s Times article says we shouldn’t do that. And, according, once again, to the NEA report, only 1% of American adults took a creative writing class in the year surveyed. So it would appear that not everyone is a writer then.
So what if there are lot of books published every year? Is that the source of the demise of the mid-list author, or serious literature or book reviews? Doubtful. And if it were, her article did little to make that point.
I believe that Ms. Miller’s intentions are in the right place, despite using a new statistic to rehash the same complaint without adding anything. But as one of those writers whom she seems to think should give it up, I found her piece mere snobbery. Perhaps the reason nobody dares to ask the question she so boldly poses is simply this: it’s not relevant.
p.s. For an interesting commentary on Nehring’s “incoherent” essay, see The Reading Experience.
comments
Bud,
Regarding Miller’s article, “How Many Books are Too Many?”, good points on the market deciding how many is “too many” and also on her absurd conclusion that the book surplus is caused by everyone and their mother wanting to write and be published, not to mention those same people therefore not having enough time to read.
One point that you touched upon and that Miller didn’t really get into is that perhaps what she means by “too many books” is that the publishing industry is extremely mass-market-driven, not only in the actual publishing, but the writing and creating as well. Add on top of that the large number of publishers in this country as well its longevity (the industry has been around at least since Ben Franklin) and you have dozens upon dozens of titles released about the same idea. An original thought creates a bandwagon effect which gives us 50 books released on the same topic at about the same time. In retrospect, instead of lamenting the volume of works published, maybe she should be advising us on how to find that ‘diamond in the rough’?
– David (07/19 at 03:02 PM)
“discussing the rotating “wall” of books at the chains that seems to overwhelm consumers"… I just started reading Steve Tomasula’s novel “In and OZ” this morning. It’s a science fiction novel. Early on a bookstore is described… so many books are published that the bookstore is set up as a very long building with a conveyor belt. Books come from the press zoom by on the belt, where waiting customers can grab the ones that fancy them, and then go off the other side to be recycled into something “useful”. It seems so apropos.
– derik (07/20 at 03:41 PM)
Page 1 of 1 pages of comments
Creative Commons License Deed Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
You are free:
- to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
-
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
-
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
- For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.
- Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
- Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.
This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license):
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/legalcode
This site employs rank-denial and other anti-spam measures.
Your link here will do nothing for your rankings or traffic. Off-topic comments will be deleted.
Previous entry: Book Lottery Numbers
About this Post
- Posted by: Bud Parr
- Date: July 17, 2004
- Filed Under:
Wise Men Fish Here: Literature
- Comments:2
- Links to this Post: Technorati
