Jonathan Morse wrote:
 
> I think we may be talking past each other here. I wasn't imputing motives
> to anyone in the publishing industry; I was just calling attention to the
> cash register. Scribners has a cash cow in the works of Fitzgerald and
> Hemingway, and it doesn't want to lose that income to other publishers. Of
> course Scribners is in business to make money, and I can't imagine it
> rejecting the manuscript of a potential best-seller, ephemeral though it
> may be. But isn't it interesting that so much of Scribners' enduring
> patrimony -- fundamental work, work that is fundamental because it has
> redefined literature for succeeding generations -- was created in the 1920s?
>
> Interesting and maybe historically significant?
>
> That's all I was trying to say.
 
Okay, now I see what you mean. That's a good point, but there are two questions
I'd ask. First, what percentage of sales do works from before 1970 comprise?
Second, what percentage of that percentage are to high schools and universities?
My sister teaches high school and has probably assigned _Gatsby_ half a dozen
times; I've taught it twice and I don't really like it all that much. So why have
I taught it? It's short, tightly written, has interesting characters and a
compelling narrative. Perfect for an intro class. I'd love to see the sales
figures on Mrs. Dalloway, Their Eyes Were Watching God, The Sound and the Fury,
Heart of Darkness, and the larger Fitzgerald and Hemingway titles. I know there
are some people in publishing out there -- maybe they could comment.
 
I'm raising academia because universities and especially high schools usually
assign texts that have been suitably digested. There are exceptions (Toni Morrison
springs to mind) but contemporary lit, especially of the more adventurous sort,
doesn't get the same attention in survey classes. This, obviously, is nothing new.
 
Bill Freind