In using the phrase “in the same room with”, I was simply trying to point out that the article in question was purposefully written to imply that work on the book was being done, when in fact no work on the actual text was being done — as you note. This kind of tacit, incestuous support of an open fraud was one of the things I was railing against.

In this day and age, location is nothing, involvement is everything. The process of working with editors almost never relies on physical proximity — you send something for comments, you get comments back. I do this mostly in email by preference, and do so even if it’s theoretically possible for me to be physically in the presence of an editor.

Now, if you want to argue that there’s not much to show that Palin was actually substantively involved in the actual wordsmithing or editing process, I’d concede that cheerfully. I just think that “in the same room with” is entirely the wrong metric.

We have problems in many areas of life telling what’s authentic from what’s bogus and counterfeit. When it’s fake drugs it can be a matter of life and death. Likewise for airplane parts, auto parts and the like. The dramatic consequences get our attention but culturally we are increasingly surrounded by an tolerant of dishonesty, which is why it was a pleasant surprise to read recently of the French considering passing a law to make it a requirement to indicate that photos of models had been photoshopped if indeed they were.

I blogged about an American publisher that has come to the UK a while ago which says it is not dealing in dishonesty but whose business practices could lead one to draw different conclusions

http://wombatdiet.net/2007/10/27/business-class-ethics/

As long as there’s a demand and it’s not illegal people will find ways to profit.

I’d love to see a sting like Alan Sokal’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair but I can’t see it happening (I really wonder if Palin has read her own book).

It isn’t just books. The book Flat Earth News by Nick Davies documents in painful and compelling detail falling ethical and professional standards in journalism (background at http://www.flatearthnews.com).

I’ve noted elsewhere that I’m painting with an overly-broad brush. I know that. There are of course wonderful people publishing good (well-made) books, and there always will be.

But it’s not just the books in Walgreens that are falling apart. I’ve had books fall apart on me that I purchased at the major bookstores and at some of the better independent bookstores. Granted, these weren’t lovingly-prepared archival tomes, but still: how hard is it to make a book that won’t fall apart from regular and intended use?

As for Franklin and Hearst, I can’t argue against historical abuses. I do say they are no justification for continued abuses. And given the pressures on publishers these days from both the top (corporate publishing) and the bottom (the internet as revolution) I would think conversations about what’s good for the publishing industry might be broad and far reaching, yet what I usually read is either whining or a call to protectionism.

To you and anyone else who’s putting in the hours and fighting the good fight, I apologize for lumping you in with those who put profits ahead of all else. And I’ll try to do a better job of acknowledging the distinction in the future.

As for getting published yourself, there have never been more opportunities, unless you’re committed to being published by a traditional publisher. If that’s the case, the opportunities are fewer and shrinking fast.

Sure it is. If you do all your book shopping at Walgreens.

Too bad you won’t be out here at Wordstock next week in Portland or BEA in New York or any of ten or fifteen other shows that go on every single year. You would find hundreds, if not thousands of publishers that publish good work, well made, by authors who are respected, and are, when possible published as a solid physical product. There are thousands of us working our asses off here and not just in tiny little independents. Have you looked at the reissues and minis Penguin has been doing in recent years with embossed covers, gorgeous paper, elegant design? Have you seen what is coming out of dozens of university presses? Hell, there are even good textbooks coming out these days.

But you’re right. Authors who aren’t glizty celebrities who are good fronts for ghost writing are nothing these days. Of course you get to explain that to Neil Gaiman or Terry Pratchett or, for that matter, Andrew Sullivan, who much though he bitches, gets plenty of attention and special treatment.

Make no mistake, these are hard times to be a publisher. I’m so overworked that half my line isn’t on my own site. And as somebody who has been in the field since the late eighties and is at least a fourth generation book professional, I will readily admit that there is a lot of bad judgement out there.

But ya know what? The slimy work you see is no worse than what Hearst and his ilk did a hundred years ago. And Ben Franklin published under a dozen names and lied about everything that he felt might annoy him otherwise. It’s stormy these days. But look at small presses and comics publishers and self-publishers and those of us simply setting up to work cheap to we can do it right and you’ll find that it ain’t over yet.