"E-books outsell print books"

As if that hadn't been predictable since 1982. The forty-year lifespan of mass-market "trade paper" was in the briefs of the corporate executives making the decisions to buy publishers bleeding red ink. It was known the EPA was not going to grant another cleanup extension to pulp mills and the Forest Service wasn't going to renew clear-cut permits. At the time, I was studying Computer Science at the #1 ranked university for CS in the US.

By 1986, the most prestigious publishing entities had succumbed. 'Streamlining' to reduce costs began with experienced editors and proofreaders 'pink-slipped' and replaced with entry-level college graduates. The 'turnover' remains very high, because the wages remain low. Deals were struck to sell sawmills to foreign businesses, which the EPA could not force or fine for cleanup. Clearcut swung into high gear and mowed everything that could be shoved through those mills. Paper got cheap. That ended in 1989 and '90.

Mass-market print publishing is 30% waste. The new executives, from television, implemented plans to expand the market. The average reading level of the population, not readers, was seventh grade. That was instituted as the standard. Shorter books, chapter breaks more frequently, a great deal less expenditure on advertising midlist, were also implemented. Books would be chosen for their "marketability." The Blockbuster Method is described in detail in every Intro to Media Communications text, and a lot of dictionaries. Nothing that was negative to corporate image would be published, of course. (Check Analog magazine for editorials on the subject '90-'91. That's where the term dumbing-down came from.)

We messed up the plan. We said, "$9.99 and up for an e-book is ridiculous," all of us, writers and readers. The limitations of mass-market print publishing are known. The blockbuster method produces very few successes and a whole lot of flops. However, there is a legacy of the period, an entire generation who have known no innovation, no experimentation and no philosophical exploration in fiction.

A high percentage of the reviews of my work state the premise of a book is unique in that person's experience. Their surprise is painful testimony to the limitations of mass-market publishing. There's nothing 'wrong' with it, within its limitations, but the lack of other has been a dearth in our society and cap on the advancement of the art for far too long.