Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 1, No. 4, September, 1850Various
History
Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 1, No. 4, September, 1850
Various
American literature -- Periodicals; Civilization -- Periodicals; Culture -- Periodicals
It is a common complaint that the publishers make large fortunes and
leave the authors to starve--that they are, in fact, a kind of moral
vampire, sucking the best blood of genius, and destroying others to
support themselves. A great deal of very unhealthy, one-sided cant has
been written upon this subject. Doubtless, there is much to be said on
both sides. That publishers look at a manuscript very much as a
corn-dealer looks at sample of wheat, with an eye to its selling
qualities, is not to be denied. If books are not written only to be
sold, they are printed only to be sold. Publishers must pay their
printers and their paper-merchants; and they can not compel the public
to purchase their printed paper. When benevolent printers shall be found
eager to print gratuitously works of unsalable genius, and benevolent
paper-merchants to supply paper for the same, publishers may afford to
think less of a manuscript as an article of sale--may reject with less
freedom unlikely manuscripts, and haggle less savagely about the price
of likely ones. An obvious common-place this, and said a thousand times
before, but not yet recognized by the world of writers at large.
Publishing is a trade, and, like all other trades, undertaken with the
one object of making money by it. The profits are not ordinarily large;
they are, indeed, very uncertain--so uncertain that a large proportion
of those who embark in the publishing business some time or other find
their way into the Gazette. When a publishing firm is ruined by printing
unsalable books, authors seldom or never have any sympathy with a
member of it. They have, on the other hand, an idea that he is justly
punished for his offenses; and so perhaps he is, but not in the sense
understood by the majority of those who contemplate his downfall as a
retributive dispensation. The fact is, that reckless publishing is more
injurious to the literary profession than any thing in the world beside.
The cautious publisher is the author's best friend. If a house publish
at their own risk a number of works which they can not sell, they must
either go into the Gazette at last, or make large sums of money by works
which they _can_ sell. When a publisher loses money by a work, an injury
is inflicted upon the literary profession. The more money he can make by
publishing, the more he can afford to pay for authorship. It is often
said that the authors of successful works are inadequately rewarded in
proportion to their success; that publishers make their thousands, while
authors only make their hundreds. But it is forgotten that the profits
of the one successful work are often only a set-off to the losses
incurred by the publication of half a dozen unsuccessful ones. If a
publisher purchase a manuscript for £500, and the work prove to be a
"palpable hit" worth £5000, it may seem hard that the publisher does not
share his gains more equitably with the author. With regard to this it
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account