LeBaron R. Barker of Doubleday…felt that original paperback could “undermine the whole structure of publishing.“  The “spirited debate” grew even more acrimonious. Donald MacCampbell, a literary agent, wrote in a letter to Publisher’s Weekly that one publisher “threatened to boycott my agency if it continued to negotiate contracts with original 25-cent firms.

Bill Crider, talking about the dawn of the paperback original, 1971

“They’re training their customers away from brand name authors and are instead creating visibility for self-published titles,” one senior publishing executive who asked not to be identified, says of Amazon.

Jeffrey Trachtenberg, reporting on cheap self-published e-books, the Wall Street Journal, April 2011

Plus ca change, of course. And the comparison between the birth of cheap paperback originals that sold in gigantic numbers and 99 cent e-books selling in gigantic numbers (John Locke being the most famous example right this second) is hardly new. But it’s worth noting because this is so much hysteria, so much either/or about whether to stick with a “traditional” house or go out on one’s own. Clearly, the market has room for a hybrid trade market, especially genre fiction, just as they did sixty-plus years ago with “traditional” hardcover/paperback reprint programs and “unorthodox” paperback original programs.

It’s also worth noting because the PBO boom generated a ton of crap that sold extraordinarily well at the time with slivers of good stuff that is still being read today. It’s way too early to tell which of the e-publishing pioneers has a legitimate shelf life, or if backlist e-publishing really means an author stands a better chance at sustaining a readership while living (let alone after death.) In other words, is e-publishing’s Jim Thompson - popular for a while, reputation in tatters at death, glorified in posterity - making a good living nor or about to start his or her march through this thorny thicket? 

So much of e-publishing’s explosion is about taking advantage of what’s being offered now. And that’s fine. But I think about the long game, and who ultimately is best equipped to ensure an author’s place in some canon or another. Would an entirely e-published version of the Modern Library work the same way as a Modern Library or Library of America or NYRB Classics, backed by an independent publishing entity or a conglomerate? Are writers too dazzled by royalty dollar signs that they will be blindsided if that attractive royalty disappears, should Amazon or B&N or the other major e-publishing players realize they can make gargantuan profits even greater by slowly whittling at what they give to the authors? And is money enough to compensate for other tangible benefits a publishing house offers - especially one buttressed by healthy e-book sales?

Things are moving fast, but there’s nothing wrong in taking some deep breaths and seeing past the end of one’s nose, so to speak. Sixty years ago big publishers freaked out at being undercut and figured out how to adjust. They will again, just as the e-publishing market will adjust.