The basic message: the present state of books and how we got
here is complicated, but it’s essentially about control (and somewhat less
about resistance to that control) by capitalist structures seeking to move all
surplus away from the consumer. Striphas
argues that book publishing was on the forefront of large-scale rationalization
and standardization in mass production.
Among other things, printers were among the first to adopt standard
hourly wages, and books were mass-marketed Christmas presents when
commercialized Christmas was new; publishers were among the first to adopt
universal product codes in the form of the ISBN.
Along the way, booksellers touted physical accumulation of
books as a class marker, which meant a proliferation of copies that latterly
has come to be seen as “hindering the task of expanding capitalist
accumulation” as compared to licensing.
Even in the 1930s, publishers didn’t like that people could lend or give
away books, and PR specialist Edward Bernays searched for a pejorative term for
“the book borrower, the wretch who raised hell with book sales and deprived
authors of earned royalties” (in the words of Bernays’ institute). I particularly liked “greader,” though the
winner was “book sneak.” This was even
less successful than the more recent defining down of “piracy,” but e-books now
appear to offer publishers their dreamed-of state of complete control, at least
if no one violates the DMCA.
Modern ideologies of writing and reading both require and
conflict with mass-marketization: “Many publishers and booksellers have
persisted in the belief that books ought to sell primarily on the basis of the
qualities particular to individual titles, and that relying on exogenous
factors to move them somehow diminishes the worth of these goods. Yet the rapid
growth and extraordinary success of superstores reveal just how much built
environments and other factors related yet extrinsic to specific titles can
make or break the selling of books and bookselling.…” Superstores then led to labor force
downsizing behind the scenes, before Amazon even entered the field with its
even greater speedups and pressure on labor.
Striphas also considers the way in which at least one
television program promoted book culture: Oprah’s book club. Functioning as a brand, the book club
designation acted as an assurance of fitness for purpose that convinced
otherwise reluctant customers that Oprah’s books were likely to reward the
investment in finding the book and carving out time to read—material barriers
that many intellectuals, used to reading constantly, downplay. In language that Landes and Posner would
recognize, Striphas contends that “Branding permits publishing firms partially
to sidestep the time-consuming, costly, and often haphazard work of identifying
or creating a unique audience for each and every title in their catalogs.” Oprah also explicitly gave suggestions to
women about how to fit in reading time; here Striphas references Janice
Radway’s work on how romance reading served as an assertion of the self in
otherwise other-directed lives. The
content of Oprah’s books is therefore strongly linked to their functions within
readers’ lives: a book is “valuable to the extent that it demonstrates a clear
connection with life, or that it resonates with their everyday interests,
personal experiences, and concerns.”
Thus Jonathan Franzen’s initial rejection of his selection, because he
was a snob, didn’t pose an existential threat to the book club, whereas James
Frey’s dissimulations did.
As to Franzen, Striphas argues that his dispute with Oprah
was really about attribution and branding: His publisher put the book back in
print when it was selected, with a new edition featuring Oprah’s insignia
prominently on the cover. Franzen felt
that this was a violation of the tradition that hardcover fiction was free of
advertising, and that the logo implied “corporate ownership” of his work. As Striphas notes, though, the fact that
Franzen’s publisher was a giant media company didn’t seem to bother him—one
example of the way in which authorial preferences/incentives are a lot more
complicated than the usual rhetoric surrounding moral rights allows.
Striphas then turns to Harry Potter as global phenomenon,
focusing on the extensive, technologically enabled precautions the publishers
took to release the later books simultaneously worldwide and their struggles
against unauthorized versions in various countries. While simultaneous release seems like an
artifact of globalization, Striphas points out that the purpose of the release
was precisely to avoid people in one country from getting their copies from
another country; the endeavor was aimed at maintaining territorial distinctions
so that each publisher could profit to the maximum within its contractually
guaranteed footprint. The massive scale of the simultaneous release, and its inevitable failures,
brought IP and even security and logistics to the forefront of the Harry Potter
phenomenon, such that newspapers were reporting on the embargo (since they
didn’t have review copies to review).
Fans were recruited to go along with the ideology of
control: “Those who obtained and
subsequently returned early Potter book releases have tended to do so in good
faith, believing that their principled acts uphold egalitarian conditions of
access to stories that have enthralled millions of readers.” He doesn’t think that’s wrong, even though
they serve the publishers’ own purposes, “laboring to produce the very
conditions of scarcity that, from an economic standpoint, might well be
contrary to their own interests.”
Striphas only considers, however, commercial appropriations such as
purported Chinese sequels and Tanya Grotter; he doesn’t discuss transformative
fandom except to mention a German translation group that attempted to get the
books translated into German faster than the commercial publishers could. When it comes to commercial, cross-cultural
reworkings, he argues,
Bricolage, indigenization, parody,
and other forms of appropriation are frequently perceived by Western
journalists, intellectual property rights holders, and others to be
insufficiently or inappropriately transfigurative acts. This perception, in
turn, places those who have assumed the task of development in an impossible
position. On the one hand, they’re charged with repeating foreign values,
styles, and culture, while, on the other, they are condemned for having done so
under existing economic and infrastructural conditions. Despite their
complaints, Western authorities tend not to admit their part—our part—in both
creating and sustaining the conditions leading to book piracy and other forms
of intellectual property piracy on the world scene.
All these examples lead Striphas to conclude that books are
one site of struggle over a transition to “controlled consumption” in which
large producers have the power to dictate what consumers can do and what they
must pay, diminishing their control from the earlier “consumers’ republic”
despite a continued rhetoric of choice.
This transition is contested, but in my view it sure looks pretty good
for the producers right now. Striphas
sometimes overgeneralizes—does the experience of one Barnes & Noble in
Durham really tell us a lot about the relationship between big box bookstores
and larger urban/racial equity issues?—and sometimes just leaves things at
“it’s complicated,” but on the microlevel there is much to appreciate about the
way the book connects various threads that together bind up books.
No comments:
Post a Comment