Why We're Paying

I didn't realize that the LATBR is actually scheduled to be killed, I just thought it was about to lose a whole bunch more space, but four previous editors of the LATBR are publicly protesting plans to eliminate it, so I guess it's on its way out:

As former editors of the Los Angeles Times Book Review (1975 through 2005), we are dismayed and troubled at the decision by Sam Zell and his managers to cease publishing the paper's Sunday Book Review. . . .

The dismantling of the Sunday Book Review section and the migration of a few surviving reviews to the Sunday Calendar section represents a historic retreat from the large ambitions which accompanied the birth of the section.

Forgive me as I pause for a moment to wipe the stupefaction off my face. The LATBR is going to go away?! Yes, I knew there have long been plans to rob the LA Times's book section of as much dignity and review space as possible, but I never realized that the Los Angeles Times, quite possibly the nation's second leading newspaper, had decided that a book review was a trifle it need not bother itself with.

This is truly a moment that I think I will remember.

This more than anything else drives home to me the reality that newspapers just don't care about seriously covering books any longer. Yes, I'm sure many of them will continue to publish some kind of vestigial review section, and maybe even underperforming-but-not-likely-to-be-killed book pages like those in the New York Times and SF Chronicle can eventually be salvaged, but by and large I have simply ceased to believe in American newspaper book sections as places that are dedicated to quality book criticism for a popular audience.

This conclusion, which I reach with no absolutely satisfaction whatsoever, makes me glad that we went ahead and started paying people for contributions to The Quarterly Conversation.

No, my math isn't as bad as you may think. Honestly, I wish we could pay more than we do, and I hope to one day make that happen, but for now I realize that our rates are far below what the LAT pays writers lucky enough to get one of the few remaining slots. Still, our rates are more than zero, which is what a lot of people who used to write for the Times will now receive, and we do give our reviewers an opportunity to discuss a wide variety of challenging, interesting fictions at length, which I don't think the Times has offered for a while.

I hope that some of the other online book reviews that have built themselves up over the past few years--you know who they are--will consider starting to offer their writers something, anything, by way of payment, because I have now reached the conclusion that--barring drastic changes in the way the conglomerates that own newspapers think--newspaper book reviews are going away and something, perhaps online book reviews, will have to take their place.

I am regularly amazed and given great hope by the fact that so many brilliant people want to write excellent reviews and essays for me absolutely free, but this doesn't mean that I don't think they should be paid. For one thing, payment is one way for us to tell contributors that we respect their work. (So is close editing and maintaining good communication, which I hope is something our writers feel they're getting from us.) For another thing, although $25 isn't going to change anyone's life, the more places that offer payment, the more viable will be the online/independent community for burgeoning writers (and, unfortunate but true, the more seriously it will be taken).

I think there's a corollary to this, and it's that just as periodicals have certain responsibilities to their contributors, so do readers have responsibilities to their periodicals. That is to say: I'd like to strongly encourage everyone who reads online book reviews, literary journals (and here I'm grouping in print publications like Rain Taxi that continue to support good criticism), literary blogs, and whatever else out there is fighting to keep intelligent literary discourse alive, to support the publications they read. I'm not just talking money here, although I've never met someone who didn't appreciate a little cash; I'm also talking buying a subscription when you could read it for free on the Web, offering in-kind support and/or volunteering, offering submissions and contributions to places you like. Even something as simple as buying through a site's Amazon links adds up in the long run.

I'm dedicated to keeping The Quarterly Conversation free simply because I believe it should be free, but that doesn't mean it's free of costs, or even a break-even proposition. To not mince words: we've always taken money out of our own pockets to make TQC happen, and now that we're paying we're taking even more. I think I speak for the contributing editors when I say that we don't mind doing this--I certainly don't--but at the same time it would be nice to take less.

I doubt many of the other review sources I've implicated above--and many of the publishers doing very important work--break even either. (Heck, even an established magazine like Harper's is kept afloat with grants.) I think it's a wonderful thing that the people behind these ventures are willing to reach into their own wallets (not to mention give heaps of their time) to help sustain literary culture, but I also think that all of us, the people who enjoy the fruits of their work, should give something back. Not only to make their finances a little easier to handle but also to let them know that we respect them enough to put our own time and money on the line.

And while it's true that many excellent websites, journals, and publishers are nonprofits--and thus have access to grant money--it's also true that: a) grant money isn't enough; and b) grant money and nonprofit status come with their own hurdles, rules, and costs that detract from time that could be put toward the books themselves. So even places that break even as a nonprofit could probably use your help.

In sum and in conclusion, what I'm saying is that if you really love this stuff, and if you want to see this edifice that continues to exist and expand survive, take some time to think about your responsibilities to keeping it that way.

Comments

[Nigel Beale]

Scott: Wanted to thank you for all the time, money and effort you put into what you do. It is appreciated.

[ed]

Well said, Scott. The upshot is that all of us here in the blogosphere must now make some serious decisions about how serious we are. And this means figuring out some revenue model that permits those still in the literary game to stay in it.

[Mrinal Bose]

Thank you very much, Scott. I appreciate your attitude and effort.