Richard Nash is an intelligent dude. There’s no other way of putting it. The guy played a major role in revitalizing Soft Skull Press, which had been “weeks from liquidation” before it merged with Counterpoint. At the time that he decided to resign from his posts and embark upon his own ventures in early 2009, Nash was Editorial Director of Soft Skull Press and Executive Director of Counterpoint. During his tenure, which began in 2001, Nash had witnessed Soft Skull in its days of greatest hardship, as well as in its flourishing times, and surely learned the intricacies and obstacles of the publishing industry in that span.
Since leaving both entities in March 2009, Nash has caused a big stir in publishing. With his creation of Cursor, he’s challenged not only what publishers have known for decades about creating and selling books, but also what publishers are just now adapting to and learning. He’s seen Publishing 1.0 (print) lose its grip, knows that Publishing 2.0 (e-books) isn’t the be-all-end-all, and is already on his way to leading the Publishing 3.0 revolution: tight-knit communities, centered around publishing imprints, where writers and readers can engage in dialogue with one another.
Ask me and I’ll tell you that Nash is on to something. It’s easy for me because I’m not working in the book industry, I’m just writing about it on a blog, so nothing for me is at stake. Like Nash, I’m eager to anticipate what’s coming next, or as he puts it, to forecast “where the puck is going two years from now.” Only I imagine it must be just a tad more difficult for Nash, who is actually trying to bring his ideas to fruition.
It’s clear that Nash has deep ties in publishing; he used to be in theatre, but left the stage for the page because he felt he could be more influential in publishing by “facilitating the spread of ideas” and “lubricating a conversation.” And to that effect he has been very influential, and it doesn’t seem like that will change. But as much as I admire Nash’s enthusiasm and innovative qualities, the businessman in him doesn’t sit well with me.
The publishing industry needs businessmen. It’s always had and will forever have men in suits who keep editors and writers on task, who set goals and talk money and woo investors. To that degree, Nash and those like him are absolutely vital for the survival of literature. What irks me though is that Nash is creating this community that is supposed to change the way we interact with books and each other, and which fosters and encourages dialogue between writers and readers, without truly having been engaged with very much material himself. What I’m referring to is the Publishing Perspectives interview with Chris Kubica, published online yesterday, in which Nash admits that he has not read a book for pleasure in eight years – indeed, it sounds as if he hasn’t read a piece of literature (namely he hasn’t read books; seemingly he’s read articles) outside of that which he received in manuscript form since he began with Soft Skull. When asked how he contributes to conversations about literary trends, Nash said that in those circumstances he acknowledges when he hasn’t read a book, and he simply listens to the conversation. His exposure to influential literature apparently starts and ends with “reading people writing about the books of the times.”
I don’t think editors have an easy job, and perhaps there are thousands of editors who don’t read a word of literature outside of the manuscripts they receive. If I was focusing on the state of today’s publishing industry in this piece, I would have done more homework to see exactly how much downtime editors have to read books published by other houses and imprints, which I imagine is extremely limited. But as I said before, like Nash, I’m concerned here with the future of publishing. Unlike Nash, however, I have difficulty connecting how exactly a businessman, who lacks first-hand exposure to nearly everything that’s been published in the last eight years, plans on creating a genuine community that’s supposed to lead writers and their readers into the next great phase of publishing.
I think that Nash truly does love literature. Few people would go into publishing, especially editorial, if they weren’t eager to read a shitload of manuscripts and to discover great writers. If Nash didn’t have a passion for impacting and improving the publishing world, he would have peaced out when Soft Skull was plummeting. What’s really at the heart of this, I think, can be likened to what John McCain experienced during his campaign in 2008 – he vehemently rallied for what he believed in, and he had what he felt were the best intentions for the country, but ultimately he appeared to voters to be completely disconnected – the media abused the term “out of touch” – with the audience that he was campaigning to serve. Of course, he wasn’t altogether naïve, and neither is Nash, who has been working with writers for years and certainly has their best interest in mind when designing communities like Cursor. But you have to ask yourself, what type of writer does Nash have in mind as he sets out to expand Cursor? What type of reader? Having been exposed to so little for so long, how wide is his scope? How much does he really know about the audience he’s intending to serve?
On the other hand, we readers and writers should be grateful for individuals like Nash, who have the gall to wade into the unknown to try and rescue the medium long before it needs rescuing (really, things aren’t so bad just yet). Innovators like Nash – I’m thinking now of Scott Lindenbaum and Andy Hunter of Electric Literature, and Jürgen Fauth of Fictionaut – will help to continue a long line of literary tradition that begins with storytellers. Opening the lines of communication between authors and their audience will lead to certain collaboration that we’ve yet to see the likes of, and refinement of the model over time will likely produce more and more communities that spark a dialogue around literature. For the preservation of the form, we’ll be thanking Nash and likeminded innovators for years to come.
I’ve barely begun touching upon everything that Nash intends for Cursor to achieve. It’s a large undertaking, which plans to change they way author contracts are composed and encourage readers to become, in a way, investors and curators of the authors they admire and the literature they appreciate. Both are intriguing concepts, each deserving of its own article. But at the heart and soul of Cursor is the community-building aspect. It’s that aspect that needs to be nurtured most, and tweaked at every bump in the road, for Cursor to be a success.
According to Nash, Cursor is set to launch its by-invite-only beta platform in 8-10 weeks. I signed up for their mailing list over a month ago and hope to receive an invite so I can check things out. I don’t think Cursor is a bad thing. In fact, I think it’s extraordinary. I believe it’s a fantastic opportunity for writers to connect with each other and their readers, at least for those who wish to do so, and I’m excited to watch the community develop over time. But I’m curious to see what kind of reception Nash and Cursor receive from both readers and writers. I think if Cursor is to catch on, Nash will need to invest less of himself in the towering concept of Cursor, allowing it to transform over time with its users, and invest himself a lot more in the writers who create the content and the readers who engage with it. User loyalty will be the name of the game for Cursor.