Specifically, let me ask: Has the definition of a book changed? Is it the same as what it used to be about a decade ago?
Until quite recently the technology was such that publishers were obliged to print minimum lots, usually multiples of 500. So, many would-be authors, who were unable to convince the publisher that their book would sell at least 500 copies, remained just that - would-be authors.
More From This Section
But now, the new technology allows the printing of odd lots, like 23 or 97 or 159 copies, depending on the orders. The publisher can now print off 100 copies, sell 50 back to the author to recover his cost, dump the remaining 50 with two or three wholesalers, who then peddle the wretched thing forward.
If, by the end of three months, the publisher has been able to collect some more orders, he then prints those off as well. It is, if you will, like a canteen making samosas or pakoras on order.
The result is that now anyone can become an author, especially if he or she promises to buy back enough copies for the publisher to recover his basic costs. As long as the publisher is not out of pocket, everyone gains, which is a perfect strict-Paretian solution, as no one is worse off.
This is not all. Now, there is the e-book as well, which has made print editions redundant, at least for an author to claim that he or she has published a book.
To add to our joys, a major foreign e-books publisher is planning to enter the Indian market in a big way. This will multiply the publishing opportunities for would-be authors by a factor of 100, if not more.
Gaudeamus igitur as the Romans used to say. Let us rejoice.
More samosas...
In the old days the publisher - or the imprint - mattered as it was an implicit guarantee of quality. Not anymore. No one any longer asks, "Who's your publisher?" before judging your worth as a writer.
Partly, this is because the university presses, who were the universally accepted arbiters of quality, have themselves diluted their standards in the pursuit of volume. Their closest competitors in the quality guarantee game have gleefully followed suit. Or perhaps it was the other way round, it doesn't matter.
With imprint losing its importance, yesterday's printers have become today's publishers. The publishing industry now approximates the text-book definition of a perfectly competitive industry - free entry, free exit and minimum prices.
This doesn't matter as much as it seems to because in the old days a gaggle of young whippersnappers would decide, at least in the first instance, whether or not to pursue a manuscript. Now, all manuscripts can be pursued and the manuscript can take its chances in the market, rather than have its fate decided by a 25-year-old.
I know, because I have been there and done that. The only thing that prevented me from being even more arrogant was the target set for me by the company. I learnt to be practical.
... and pakoras
An interesting side-effect of all this is that while neither the publisher nor the author makes much money, academics are now able to pad their CVs to enable their promotion.
This is important because after academic promotions were made on a time scale, the University Grants Commission made some feeble attempts to ensure at least some merit. One criterion for merit is some minimum amount of publication, which usually means books and papers in refereed journals.
In India, this last bit was made mandatory only a few years ago because some academics started journals a couple of years before their promotion was due, published there, and then quietly shut down the journals after they had been promoted.
But requiring refereeing has been the easy part. How do you certify a publisher? If any printer can start a publishing company and, thanks to the technology that is available now print 100 copies of your 'book', you can put it down against publications.
There is nothing that the university can do. It has to promote you on the basis of points awarded for "publications".
So we must now ask: What is a book?