PVish said:
...
If that idea doesn't work, how about submitting "11,000 Happy Authors." That would be easy. Just 10,800 blank pages....
It seems to me (speculating, here, and still from a relative newbie perspective), that of those 11,000 (a moving target, but let's take that number for discussion), some significant number are probably people who have (or had) exactly one book in them and are ok with what PA has done with it. Some or many may be old enough that they will not be producing another book, ever, and they and their families were happy to see some printed and bound copies (sales being irrelevant for them). Some number, perhaps well into the thousands, may or may not have another book, but are likewise ok with the deal (like a fellow I know slightly who seems content to buy at the PA author's discount and sell directly). Some, of course (hundreds? many hundreds?), are outraged, most likely because they had aspirations for the book, look to a future writing more books, and were blindsided by the problems with PA or surprised and dismayed to learn that the company is quite unselective in what it prints, so the "publishing" was not what they thought. And the remainder are perhaps in transition on the spectrum or too busy with family, work, or other activities to think much about their PA books. (Those in transition might well join the outraged in due time.)
For the one-off/good enough folks and for those others who find that the PA system is ok for their purposes (no aspirations of bookstore placement, etc.), well, it ain't broken. Even if objectively it appears that they got short shrift or could have done better, for them, that is not important. And for some folks (maybe many?), the PA deal might have been the best of all feasible worlds
for their purposes and circumstances.
That leaves the outraged, those whose objections are dismissed as "taking that tone" and who are subjected to bullying and contempt. So (still musing here) the question seems to be how to see that those folks get their due (in most cases, unconditional release from contract) without damaging those who are satisfied with their arrangements with PA. It also leaves the problem of preventing the future exploitation of other folks unknowingly headed into the outraged camp while not interfering with those for whom the PA system is satisfactory. In short, putting PA out of business would involve doing good and just things for some folks, at the cost of ending a suitable option for possibly a much larger number of folks now and in the future.
It seems that the key is education (abundantly done here and on related sites) to steer away the folks who would be damaged by dealing with PA and to caution the others about what to be careful about (editing, mostly, or lack of same?) while allowing those for whom PA is that "best of all feasible choices" to make that choice.
Seems to me, then, that ideally, a solution would involve (1) unfettered release from the contract for those who have learned too late that it was a bait and switch or that PA is not holding up its end of the bargain AND (2) clear and effective "informed consent" requirements for any future PA author in advance of signing a contract--that is, full disclosure in plain English, along with a clear, deception-free contract. That might be the win-win, as there may well be plenty of folks for whom the PA deal is ok (as long as little problems like crummy editing are fixed), perhaps enough to allow the company to go forward dealing only with those who can legitimately be satisfied while not ensnaring those for whom it cannot be a satisfactory arrangement. All that would be left are those who feel they can game the system to their advantage and on whom the informed consent process is lost. They will be on their own.
So ... is it possible to bring about reform without destruction ...
--Ken