as expected, the publisher that i emailed responded with a curt reply: "sorry, but we don't work with self-published books."

to be honest, i'm half hoping the wave of the future will be self-publishing. it would be a repetition of what's happening in the recording industry, or even with television, or journalism. certainly, there's a kind of comfort in having "someone" be an arbiter and judge of "good taste," who will repackage and promote material to the greater public. it makes it much easier for the average consumer to get a pulse on what's "popular" (i.e, top sellers, whatever). but then again, publishers really haven't the patience to look at anything new or unique; they're too busy watching the bottom line. and oftentimes, as in much popular media (music, movies) that means reproducing something formulaic, something that has a proven track record. for example, i can't tell you how many comic book characters or fantasy books have been translated to the big screen; it's as though the movie making machine is mechanically churning out every possible tangent to previous "success."

when i emailed a message over to this publisher, i was asked to mention who my market was, and any other books that were similar to my own. again, it's all about what will sell. the first query is concerned with the size of the appeal pool, and the second, with demonstrated public interest...

i can't blame publishers. i have a feeling, though, that it will only get harder for them to survive. "taste" is splintering, as is society, in a certain sense...

***

interestingly enough, i heard a related story on npr. no, it wasn't about the publishing industry. but it was about how the eye and ear of society was no longer focused upon general shared social experiences. for example, no single show really captures the popular attention any more. in the earlier part of the decade, seinfeld might have served this role, and the day after the airing of any episode, everyone (who's not under a rock) would be talking about "yadayadayada" or "no soup for you" or whatever. it was a shared cultural experience. nowadays, even american idol only commands 16% of popular audience attention, so you're excused for not knowing who's the next favorite or whatever (i certainly don't).

television is no longer a small set of channels; it has exploded to, at the minimum, 60 channels. and it competes with the internet. people are finding their niches, and sticking to them.

there's a concern over this, particularly with regards to news. people who lean to the right will watch fox news, and stick around in that echo chamber, cultivating their own perspective on "reality," while generally left leaning individuals might listen more to npr or the daily show... more choices in the media results in a fragmented (or, to put it positively, prismatic) social consciousness.

blogging, self-publishing, etc. leads to a democratization in the "printed" media. this can be a good thing, in that it allows for more voices. on the flip side, publishers and other arbiters of "taste" (those who propose and establish literary canons, for example) will complain of the cacophany of "letting anyone and everyone into the party."

i don't really take sides on this. to me, it's a general historical trend, and as far as i can see, an irreversible one. i self-publish. whether i'm just adding to the cacophany, or i have a relevant and important thing to say, well, that's for someone else to decide.

most publishers (like the one i just submitted to) have already made up their minds.

as for me, what the hell. i never imagined writing was a meal ticket. and i wasn't precisely writing for a "popular audience" anyway. i write for me, and the projected and idealized (perhaps nonexistent) reader within me. i say, as long as i stay true to that, without straying into self-delusion or solipsism, then... what the hell.