Bad Business

I am halfway through Jason Epstein's Book Business. I have to say that if this weren't required reading for class, I probably would have tossed it aside by now. Why? There are several reasons.

First of all, Epstein's predictions about the future technology of the publishing industry seem to be poorly contrived. Book ATMs? A novel idea (excuse the pun), but logistically problematic. Book bindings, even in paperback, are not as easily stored as cash, since they are inherently thicker stock. And, most people, when going to an ATM, withdraw no more than six bills in one transaction. Imagine, then, your typical bookstore crowd lining up at one of these machines, purchasing books that are hundreds of pages each. An entire warehouse would be needed for each ATM! Perhaps I have misunderstood Epstein's concept, but this is what I imagine when he describes the idea on pages xviii-xix and on pages 28-29.

Next, I found Epstein's narration to be grating and self-indulgent, to say the least. This could be because I was not expecting a partial memoir when I began this book. However, for the portion I have read so far, I have found several unnecessary usages of lofty vocabulary or references to obscure texts. On page 41, Epstein writes "Clara Claussen, the outspoken Doubleday cookbook editor, who befriended me during my first weeks on the job, warned that the company I had just joined was so badly run that if it were not making so much money it would go out of business tomorrow. Despite her ellipsis I would soon discover that she was right." The word ellipsis in this sentence puzzled me because I thought the word only referred to the "..." we are all familiar with. Turning to the OED, I found out that ellipsis could also mean "The omission of one or more words in a sentence, which would be needed to complete the grammatical construction or fully to express the sense; concr. an instance of such omission." I don't think that the sentence on page 41 has either of these. If someone knows another definition of ellipsis or another interpretation of this sentence that could illuminate the author's meaning, please let me know. Why go through the trouble of looking up one strange word usage? I looked this up because I was very frustrated with Epstein's style - it just seems pretentious. I like it when writers use esoteric vocabulary, but it must be done artfully - not just to show one's literary or editorial pedigree, as Epstein is obviously doing. The same goes with allusion. If done moderately and tastefully, referencing other books and authors is great. Yet, with Book Business, we get an epic catalogue on page 52. Most of these authors are recognizable, and most of the titles Epstein lists are as well, but then he starts dropping the likes of The Eighteenth Brumaire, Bend Sinister, and Loving, among others. Okay, we get it - you're intelligent. As for his arrogant claim to playing a major role in the paperback revolution with his fancy new idea in Anchor Books, Allen Lane (whom Epstein mentions briefly later on) had already put much of Epstein's ideas into practice in the 1930s with Penguin. Furthermore, I was annoyed when Epstein tells the story of Jean Strouse's biography of J.P. Morgan (p.39) and begins by saying the work is "monumental," attaching a little asterisk to the end of the sentence. In the footnote, next to a corresponding asterisk, is written "I was the editor." Is he trying to be funny? It seems like blatant arrogance to me, especially since we are treated with a detailed description of the book's positive critical reception. Talk about blowing your own trumpet!

Lastly, it is hard to believe that Epstein is an editor. This book is littered, and I mean littered, with comma splices and run-on sentences. I may be making it painfully clear that I am an English major, but these sins would be forgivable by anyone else except the very person who should know better! This man knows how to weigh down and drag out a sentence, too. Even Charles Dickens and the Bronte sisters would be shocked by these train wrecks: "I admired Nabokov's earlier novels published by New Directions and preferred their cold precision to the plummy and it seemed to me [<-- comma splice] rather cruel, if also very funny, Lolita, in which Nabokov seemed to be congratulating himself on his jokes" (p. 75) and "What combination of genes and infantile misadventures attracted me in my late adolescence to Pater's aestheticism I have no idea, but the potentiality must have existed when I arrived from the provinces and entered Columbia in 1945, an auspicious time in the illustrious history of that great college" (p.55). Then, on pages 84-85, Epstein obliviously repeats the exact same lengthy sentence structure three times in a row. And I don't know how many times he uses the word ephemera when several others would do - but I guess the word's synonyms don't sound intellectual enough. I am reminded of the anecdote about the pulp author's repeated use of the word "zestful" in On Writing.

Again, if Epstein were not an editor, I would be inclined to let these things slide. I will admit, too, that I became a much severer reader when Epstein's arrogance and pretentiousness got on my nerves.

This book is not entirely without merit, though. Epstein does do a good job of showing how the publishing industry has changed over the years, and his insider's view is enlightening once the things I mentioned above have been filtered out. I knew that a few major companies own the big American publishing houses, but I didn't know that two of those companies are German. And in spite of the technological shortsightedness of Epstein's vision for the future, his faith that the cottage industry days of yore are returning gives me hope.

I am only half way through this book, so there is space yet to win me over. If my feelings change, you lot will be the first to know.