来源：《卫报》
原文刊登日期：2022年11月4日
本文适合2024考生
Despite a rise in self-publishing, commercial publishers are still the main gatekeepers of what arrives on our bookshelves. As such, they have great cultural and – if a book takes off – economic power. A case decided in a US court this week provided an insight into just how much of that power is now concentrated in a small handful of multinational companies.
尽管个人出版越来越多，但商业出版商仍然是我们书架上书籍的主要把关人。因此，它们拥有强大的文化力量和经济力量(如果一本书能获得成功的话)。美国一家法院本周判决的一宗案件，让我们看到了这种权力现在有多少集中在少数几家跨国公司手中。
At issue was a planned merger of Simon & Schuster with Penguin Random House (PRH) – two of the so-called big five, which between them control 90% of the US publishing market, a fact not always obvious to the casual observer, as books usually carry on their spines the names of imprints, or subdivisions, of the parent company. PRH, itself the result of a mega-merger in 2013, runs about 300 imprints. Given the reach of these companies – PRH is active in more than 20 countries – the Department of Justice’s successful argument that the planned $2.2bn deal would “exert outsized influence over which books are published in the United States and how much authors are paid for their work” applies globally.
争论的焦点是西蒙与舒斯特出版社与企鹅兰登书屋的合并计划。它们是所谓的五大出版社中的两家，这两家出版商控制着美国90%的出版市场，这一事实对于疏忽的旁观者来说并不总是显而易见的，因为书籍的书脊上通常印的是子出版商或子公司的名字。PRH本身就是2013年一次大型合并的结果，经营着大约300家子出版商。考虑到这些公司的影响力——PRH在20多个国家都很活跃——美国司法部的成功论点是，计划中的22亿合并美元交易将“对美国出版的书籍以及作者的作品报酬产生巨大影响”，这个论点全球适用。
There was relief from many in the industry, from agents to author societies to the small independent publishers who already struggle to compete. There was also a cautious satisfaction that the arguments had focused on author earnings rather than solely on consumer choice. The big five insist there is genuine competition between imprints. That may be true up to a point, but as Stephen King told the court: “You might as well say you’re going to have a husband and wife bidding against each other for the same house. It’s kind of ridiculous.” In Britain and the Commonwealth there is further concern about how many of the big five are run from the US. There is a growing sense that local taste and writers must be protected.
从代理商到作者协会，再到已经在竞争中苦苦挣扎的小型独立出版商，业内许多人都松了一口气。还有一种谨慎的满意，即争论的焦点是作者的收入，而不仅仅是消费者的选择。五大出版商坚称，子出版商之间存在真正的竞争。在某种程度上，这或许是对的，但正如斯蒂芬•金在法庭上所说：“你还不如说，你将看到一对夫妻为同一栋房子竞价。这有点荒谬。”在英国和英联邦国家，人们更担心的是，五大出版商中有多少来自美国。越来越多的人意识到，必须保护本地的品味和作家。
But there are dissenting voices, and undeniable complexities. Book publishing cannot these days be considered without Amazon; its huge sales mean it dictates terms often deleterious to both writers and publishers. PRH is dwarfed by Bezos’s behemoth but – having just reported nine-month revenues of £12.5bn, the highest in its history – it is better placed to push back than a smaller firm.
但也有不同的声音，以及不可否认的复杂性。如今，谈及图书出版避不开亚马逊；它的巨大销量意味着它的条款往往对作者和出版商都是有害的。与贝佐斯的巨头相比，PRH相形见绌，但它刚刚公布了今年前9个月125亿英镑的营收，创下历史新高，规模大的公司比规模小的公司更有能力抵制亚马逊。
Consolidation also means that the practical requirements of publishing – including printing, distribution and publicity – can be rationalised in a world of battered supply chains and paper shortages. It may help to address the increasing difficulty of building interest in new books. While the argument is often made that the multinationals are too aware of their bottom lines to publish more unexpected, not obviously commercial books, it can also be argued that deep pockets mean the big five can take risks that smaller publishers cannot, for fear of going under.
合并还意味着，在供应链受损和纸张短缺的情况下，出版的实际需求——包括印刷、发行和宣传——可以更有经济效率。它可能有助于解决培养人们对新书有兴趣越来越困难的问题。尽管人们常常认为，跨国公司太注重自己的利润，不会出版更多出人意料的、不明显商业化的书籍，但也有人认为，财力雄厚的五大出版商可以承担较小出版商因担心破产而无法承担的风险。
There is truth in all these arguments. But a multidimensional, confident publishing industry is central to a healthy society; the more multidimensional, the more healthy it can be. In that context, this week’s decision is welcome.
所有这些论点都有道理。但一个多层面、自信的出版业是健康社会的核心；越多维，健康就越健康。就这一点而言，本周的判决是值得欢迎的。