- Allgemein (209)
- dies&das (15)
- Hintergrund (182)
- 2.9.2010: Furcht statt Vision
- 27.8.2010: Mehr für weniger
- 25.8.2010: Dampf auf der digitalen Schiene
- 24.8.2010: »Durch das Internet kenne ich meine Leser«
- 23.8.2010: Kunden erreichen, die der Buchhandel nicht kennt
- 20.8.2010: The Web Is Dead? A Debate
- 20.8.2010: The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet
- 19.8.2010: U.S. neighborhood bookstores thrive in digital age
- 12.8.2010: Ende der Privatsphäre?
- 11.8.2010: Droemer Knaur vertreibt eBook Reader
Blogroll
Hintergrund
- September 2010
- August 2010
- Juli 2010
- Juni 2010
- Mai 2010
- April 2010
- März 2010
- Februar 2010
- Januar 2010
- Dezember 2009
- November 2009
- Oktober 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- Juli 2009
- Juni 2009
- Mai 2009
- April 2009
- März 2009
- Februar 2009
- Januar 2009
- Dezember 2008
- November 2008
- Oktober 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- Juli 2008
- Juni 2008
- Mai 2008
- April 2008
- März 2008
- Februar 2008
- Januar 2008
Books Unbound
»Here’s a literary parable for the 21st century. Lisa Genova, 38, was a health-care-industry consultant in Belmont, Mass., who wanted to be a novelist, but she couldn’t get her book published for love or money. She had a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Harvard, but she couldn’t get an agent. “I did what you’re supposed to do,” she says. “I queried literary agents. I went to writers’ conferences and tried to network. I e-mailed editors. Nobody wanted it.” So Genova paid $450 to a company called iUniverse and published her book, Still Alice, herself.
That was in 2007. By 2008 people were reading Still Alice. Not a lot of people, but a few, and those few were liking it. Genova wound up getting an agent after all–and an offer from Simon & Schuster of just over half a million dollars. Borders and Target chose it for their book clubs. Barnes & Noble made it a Discover pick. On Jan. 25, Still Alice will make its debut on the New York Times best-seller list at No. 5. “So this is extreme to extreme, right?” Genova says. “This time last year, I was selling the book out of the trunk of my car.”
Something has changed, and it’s not just the contents of Lisa Genova’s trunk. We think of the novel as a transcendent, timeless thing, but it was shaped by the forces of money and technology just as much as by creative genius. Passing over a few classical and Far Eastern entries, the novel in its modern form really got rolling only in the early 18th century. This wasn’t an accident, and it didn’t happen because a bunch of writers like Defoe and Richardson and Fielding suddenly decided we should be reading long books about imaginary people. It happened as a result of an unprecedented configuration of financial and technological circumstances. New industrial printing techniques meant you could print lots of books cheaply; a modern capitalist marketplace had evolved in which you could sell them; and for the first time there was a large, increasingly literate, relatively well-off urban middle class to buy and read them. Once those conditions were in place, writers like Defoe and Richardson showed up to take advantage of them.
Fast-forward to the early 21st century: the publishing industry is in distress. Publishing houses–among them Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, HarperCollins, Doubleday and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt–are laying off staff left and right. Random House is in the midst of a drastic reorganization. Salaries are frozen across the industry. Whispers of bankruptcy are fluttering around Borders; Barnes & Noble just cut 100 jobs at its headquarters, a measure unprecedented in the company’s history. Publishers Weekly (PW) predicts that 2009 will be “the worst year for publishing in decades.”
A lot of headlines and blogs to the contrary, publishing isn’t dying. But it is evolving, and so radically that we may hardly recognize it when it’s done. Literature interprets the world, but it’s also shaped by that world, and we’re living through one of the greatest economic and technological transformations since–well, since the early 18th century. The novel won’t stay the same: it has always been exquisitely sensitive to newness, hence the name. It’s about to renew itself again, into something cheaper, wilder, trashier, more democratic and more deliriously fertile than ever.
…«
read more @ TIME.com !
Antwort schreiben
Sie müssen als angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar schreiben zu können.