Book reviews and ad revenues

I know. I know. I know. I'm despicable. A bad person. Horrid. Morally bankrupt. Worthy only of scorn, ridicule, rage, finger-wagging, hand-wringing, blog heebejeebies, hatred, and letters on etiquette.

Beyond that...

(The one thing I'm not is Your Fellow Traveler).

Beyond that...

I note that whenever there's an article published like this one, well-written, thoughtful, and sincere, it misses one point that I would argue goes to an issue that is at the heart of this conflict but only rarely gets articulated.

Two words: Corporate Culture.

The tension and the struggle that exists between Corporate Culture and the World of Books has the World of Books constantly limping along with its panties in a knot about "what happened."

What happened is that the paradigm of Corporate Culture is so institutionalized it simply doesn't know what you're talking about when you're suggesting a shift in paradigm struucture in order to keep the World of Books alive and well and living in Manhattan and not all that far from Wall Street thusly the WSJ does get involved here. As it should.

In the old days, the suggestion that the money get put over here, or get shifted over there used to be something the people in the world of books used to comprehend because there was an editorial connection or a bridge between the making and the buying of books.

Corporate Culture bought the thing like it would any other gas station.

Today, the people who sell the books. whether they're publishers or publicists, understand the rituals, hierarchies, temples, rules, and regulations of Corporate Culture. They're quite successful at it and can fit into any lunch at Tavern on the Green. They, too, find the numbers game in publishing to be worrisome. But when it comes to the editorial dynamics of what makes books sell, they're treading water like everyone else. What makes a book well-written remains an exotic animal they'd like to tend to, but that animal's sensibilities are so prone to changing its spots, they're not on familiar ground.

Corporate Culture is what demands their attention and Corporate Culture gets tended to not the World of Books that understands the economic shell game that must be played in order to survive in the World of Books. Corporate Culture's economic paradigm is very tediously strict in terms of where and how Capital is invested.

I would suggest that there is an enigmatic connection between a book that has a voice that speaks to a critic who has a voice as well. Both are rare and need to be treated with everything from respect to renumeration. This is rare as well. It does happen but in the World of Books it is the exception, not the rule.

Today, the publishers are employees. They do not usually OWN publishing houses and certainly not multiple publishing houses that are a part of international conglomerates with stockholders with solid credentials on Wall Street, Boards of Directors with the Real Money (Real Money that is subjected to shell games FAR more convoluted than anything publishing could comprehend), and investiture in MEDIA.

Hence someone like Rupert Murdoch is quite capable of approving what Judith Regen does on one hand and firing her on the other.

When the spots change color in Corporate Culture, the things That Happen will see events like a new (female) talking head at CBS. That is a Dog and Pony Show they can fathom as they stand back to count those numbers coming in.

Supporting good writers who are critics covering good writers who are simply being good writers within the context of Corporate Culture demands numbers publishing simply doesn't have to bring to the table to negotiate and Corporate Culture knows it. Numbers are what they do and what they tend to. Not critics and not writers. Often, not publishing houses.

This paradigm translates to the World of Books in visceral ways.

They would say: In order for us to justify a management structure that facilitates newspaper focus on books, prove to us that critics sell books. There are two realities here. Critics hate this. They really do because from their perspective (isolated) they have authority and gravitas. But the extent to which they actually SELL numbers of books that Corporate Culture understands is questionable and no paradigm exists for anyone in the World of Books to come to the Corporate Media Table with charts and graphs that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that critics sell books thusly a change in focus is necessary.

Those numbers are elusive. They may, in fact, be there, but they're only there to such varying degrees it would be quite impossible to convince Corporate Culture that it needs to shift its focus to make money AND produce good books. For one thing, they CARE about mass markets not good books. And Corporate Culture is offended when Outsiders (they may look the part but publishing insiders are minor, minor plays in Corporate Culture, and most of them need to make appointments to see Rupert because he's busy with serious matters) assume they know how to make the money and can dictate those terms to the Media Grand Pubahs who understand (in spite of appearances) their tenures are tenuous.

Of course, everything suggested in your focus and thrust of argument makes sense to anyone in the World of Books. But not enough sense (or numbers) to translate into reason or motivation for Corporate Culture to change a paradigm that supports them. The rise in the price of stock is what supports them and anything that doesn't directly attend to that is seen as fundamentally ephemeral if not, indeed, frivolous. These values may be culturally shallow to the point of absurdity but most culures have serious investments in human absurdity whether they are aware of it or not which is why there are critics and writers to point that out to them.

Not that it matters one whit. They have the Real Money and Everyone Else does not.

Mr. Weeks,

I looked you up on the Internet today, because I heard your critique of Larry McMurtry's new book this morning on KERA. It reminded me how much I miss reading your book reviews and weekly column in the incredibly shrinking DMN. One of the first things that popped up was your Bookdaddy blog of January something where you talked about the cuts in the arts & reviewing staff being justified by the lack of advertising support for the pages.

I did really like Guide LIve when it first came out and had lots of reviews & critiques in it. And I was surprised that I liked it, because I dreaded the latest "redesign" of the DMN. It was so obvious that the paper was floundering about, trying to find a market.

So it was kind of freaky to open up my WSJ this morning and see the story about publishers not supporting book review sections. I've always been an avid book review reader, even when I know I'll never read the book. I read reviews of books (and to a lesser extent plays and movies) because they're interesting and I learn something and am entertained. I've often clipped reviews in the past, filed them away, come across them again, and tracked down the book.

I'm not a McMurtry fan, so I listened to your review this morning knowing that I wouldn't read his latest (and it doesn't surprise me that he's so obviously running out of steam. I'm just not impressed by McMurtry worship. I know it's heresy, but I don't think he's that great a writer. His writing is too flat for me; it's all there on the page, one-dimensional. And I rarely care about the characters.).

But I enjoyed your review, and it wasn't entirely because I agreed with your opinion about his writing.

What's kind of funny about this whole advertising/book review thing to me, is that my husband and I probably spend several thousand dollars a year on books. We spend more money on books than on clothes or just about anything else. Frequently those are books that I know from reviews. If I don't read or hear reviews, how do I have a clue that I want to read a particular book? I don't want to just buy books I've seen at Barnes & Noble.

And I don't even know how to express how disappointed/angry/frustrated I am by the current DMN. I've taken it for almost 30 years, starting in Dallas in the late 1970s and continuing through moves to Midland and Tyler. But I'm very close to giving up on it. It's such a shadow of its former self. The science and religion sections were also favorites of mine, and they are gone now, too. It's sad on Sunday to see how thin the paper is after the classified ads and inserts are removed.

Anyway, I enjoyed hearing your review, and I'll now make a point of checking out this blog. I really do miss reading your reviews. I hope you have gone on to bigger and better things. You're an excellent writer and reviewer.