Blog

In December of last year, Simon & Schuster, one of the large traditional publishing houses known in the industry as the “Big Five” ( formerly Six, announced the upcoming publication of “Dangerous, an autobiography by “alt-right leader” “professional agitator” whatever, you know who he is Milo Yiannopoulos. The publishing world immediately proceeded to lose its damn mind. From preachy virtue signaling from literary review magazines to preachy virtue signaling from bestselling authors to preachy virtue signaling from Simon & Schuster’s own U.K. division, the last two months in the Publishing World have been nonstop outrage, boycotts, Twitter rants, and general hysteria.

Undoubtedly, the bigwigs at Simon & Schuster were very relieved when they were given an easy out for severing ties with Milo after The Pederasty Incident. But now that his book deal has been canceled, the question is: Where will Milo go? And what does his choice mean for the publishing industry?

It’s entirely possible that he will decide to just shelve Dangerous. But if he decides he wants to continue to pursue publication, he has two choices—try to court another traditional publisher, or self-publish his book. And which route he takes could have long-term effects on the industry as a whole.

To better understand the implications of what direction Dangerous takes to publication, it’s important to understand the nature of the modern-day publishing industry. Until about ten years ago, publication via a traditional publishing house was considered the only legitimate means of publishing a book. Though the stigma of self-publishing has lessened slightly with the explosion of ebooks and hugely successful self-published authors like Andy Weir and Hugh Howey, for the most part, traditional publishing is still considered by the elites to be the only “true” form of publication. The Big Five have a stranglehold on brick-and-mortar bookstores, on libraries, on literary awards*, and even on bestseller lists (which by no means reflect a straightforward measure of sales). Everything about the industry is designed to give legacy publishers an advantage over digital imprints and independent authors who try to skirt the gatekeepers.

Not unlike the Fourth Estate, publishing is suffering from the changes in consumer expectations brought on by the digital age. However, market analysis shows that despite predictions to the contrary, the digital age hasn’t killed traditional publishing just yet. But ebooks aren’t its only threat. An arguably bigger problem that may ultimately hasten the traditional houses’ demise is the disproportionate influence on the industry held by the progressive factions of what is colloquially known as “Book Twitter.”

“Book Twitter” is an extremely vocal faction of readers, authors, editors, agents, small publishing houses,
and others involved in the publishing industry that skew overwhelmingly left. They exist in an echo chamber, where each reverberating talking point bounces back and gets louder and louder. One refrain that became deafening over the last year is that all writing is inherently political, and as True Artists we have a Sacred Duty to preach Rightthink in any and every aspect of our lives. Thus, previously non-political, bestselling authors have been chiming in almost incessantly, contributing to the industry’s pronounced and rapid shift leftward.

So what does this mean for Dangerous? It means that, regardless of the fact that the book hit #1 on Amazon’s bestseller list twice while still in preorder—despite the fact that there may (and undoubtedly will) be a huge consumer demand for his book— Dangerous is likely going to be a very tough sell for other traditional publishers, particularly any of the remaining four major houses. They saw what happened to Simon & Schuster over the last two months, and my prediction is that their desire to avoid controversy and save face with the insiders of their industry will outweigh any concerns for freedom of speech, and likely even the prospect of the monetary gain that could come from publishing his book.**

Which leaves self-publishing.

If Milo chooses to self-publish Dangerous, it could be the first sign of a changing tide. The backlash that Simon & Schuster experienced over signing a deal with Milo is likely to continue with future book deals with other authors. Despite their exclamations to the contrary, considering their track record, it is almost certain that the rage machine will continue to work its way down the list of authors who are conservative, libertarian, or anywhere to the political right of Karl Marx (or at least Bernie Sanders), targeting them as proponents of hate speech who must be silenced for the good of society. And as long as the echo chamber continues to consist of prominent members of the traditional publishing industry, the Big Five will continue to be puppets to their whims.

This means that as the traditional publishing industry grows increasingly leftist in nature, it seems likely that conservative and libertarian voices may start to shift towards an independent/self-publishing model. The implications this could have for the industry are multifold. First, it would likely mean that the slight increase in legitimacy that self-publishing has gained over the last few years will abruptly decrease, at least for the purposes of the gatekeepers (the aforementioned professional reviewers, brick-and-mortar bookstores/libraries and, of course, lists and awards). But additionally, as in the case of the declining legacy media, it would likely lead to a simultaneous increase in the market share of self-published books—particularly in nonfiction, a genre previously dominated by the Big Five. And as their sales dwindle, no amount of Rightthink will be able to keep them afloat. It will be Trump’s election all over again.

The rage brigade of “Book Twitter” think they are saving traditional publishing by silencing voices they don’t agree with. But more than likely, they are hastening its decline.

———

* I won’t go into the Rabid/Sad Puppies vs. Hugos drama, as that would be enough for another article entirely, and it’s already been covered in other places.

** The exception to this would be if there is an independent/small press that caters to a specifically conservative or right-wing audience that doesn’t mind the blowback from Pedophilia-gate. Which there may well be. I’ll be interested to see what comes out of the woodwork over the next few months.