When I fell in love with books, there were only two kinds: hardcover and paperback. No trade paperbacks, no e-books. Just paper and ink and words to suck me in and hold me fast until the last page. When I began to dream of seeing a book of mine publishing, that was still true. When my first book was published in 2000, that was still mostly true. Trade paperbacks had begun to nudge in between hardcover and mass market paperbacks, and e-publishing had its embryonic beginnings. But most writers fixed their eyes on getting a “real” book in their hands — and onto the bookstore shelves. My second YA, The Salem Witch Tryouts came out in trade paperback in 2006. I was delighted in the step up from mass market paperback to trade paperback (transparent to readers is the fact that these books cannot be stripped and returned by booksellers — which matters only to authors).

Fast forward to the beginning of 2010, when three of my five YA novels are available in e-book format as well as paperback. And publishers are trying to figure out what to do with e-rights (if they hold them, which for some older books they do not).

Publishers, for some reason, have been blindsided by the sudden rise in demand for e-books (despite predictions that this would be the case as soon as a viable e-reading device was invented). And now they are fighting back with all the ennui of a sleeping giant who cannot rally fast enough to catch Jack fleeing down the beanstalk with the golden goose.

Kassia Krozser over at Booksquare talks about a New York Times op-ed piece by Jonathan Galassi, President of Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. She asks, better than I, why are publishers feeling betrayed when authors (or heirs) take their e-rights elsewhere? Isn’t that just good business? Do publishers truly expect authors to leave e-rights in the hands of the publishers who don’t seem to know what to do with them yet?

Wouldn’t it make more sense for publishers to rapidly and aggressively put together a sales/marketing strategy that would convince their authors to keep the rights with the same publisher who printed them? Obviously so, to those of us who are not publishers. Krozser uses the right phrase for Galassi’s chagrin: droit de seigneur. Historically minded folks know that the is the medieval term for giving up the plum goodies to the lord of the manor. These goods could be your best produce or your prettiest virgin daughter. Whatever. If the lord of the manor wanted it, you were supposed to give it up, because you owed him for letting you live on his land and work your fingers to the bone to produce goods for him to profit from.

As you may expect, we modern folk have a wee problem with this thinking. Unless we are inhabiting the lord of the manor position enjoyed by modern superstars, sports legends, and deep pocket corporations.

I have no idea where this battle is headed. Random House is still trying to claim control of e-rights (based on the non-compete clause,which is very clever of their lawyers, I must say). And now Galassi is trying the ‘creative partnership’ lament. After all, editors help authors craft the word, publishers choose the font and typsize and layout.

I’m still waiting for the traditional publisher who stakes a claim to rival Amazon’s — offering good money and good marketshare to authors, for the e-version of the book. In other words, the publisher who recognizes that we left feudalism behind for good reason.

Please don’t make me hold my breath. I have asthma.

Kelly