Opening Statement by

 

 

                                              Herbert A. Johnson

 

                                                             on

 

                               The Future of the Legal History Book

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         At a Roundtable held at the annual  meeting of the

 

                                    American Society for Legal History

 

 

 

 

 

                                               Baltimore, Maryland

 

                                               November 18^th, 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          Let me begin with the observation that some of my best friends are book publishers, BUT. . .I have been known to have strong differences with publishers, as a historical editor, as an officer of this Society, as an author, and as a series editor.  In retrospect I can appreciate that this is partially due to our divergent attitude toward the publication process.   It is also the result of severe economic functions in the book selling business, and the rapid turnover of personnel in management positions.  Finally, because of vigorous competition, both in commercial publishing and in the university press community, we have seen a succession of mergers, acquisitions, and  divestitures. 

 

            The moral of this story is that one must pick a publisher with care.  My personal experience is that you will be correct at most 50% of the time, but then I have always been unlucky at gambling.

 

            I begin with a success story lest you all become depressed at the outset. Back in the early 1970s the American Society for Legal History entered into a publishing arrangement with Harvard University Press, and published about seven monographs with Harvard in the Studies in Legal History series.   In 1972 or 1973 Harvard University Press informed us that they would expect a substantial subsidy for ever subsequent Series title they published.  Furthermore, they would no longer rely upon the decisions of our editorial committee, but that the Syndics of the Press would review every title to determine its scholarly merit.  As far as the subsidy was concerned, that was easily dealt with–we simply didn’t have that kind of money.  In regard to the Syndics of the Press overruling our distinguished editorial board, that was something we could not in good conscience accept.

 

            You all know the result of that confrontation.  The Series moved to the University of North Carolina Press, and that partnership has survived for more than thirty years.  As a learned Society we have been very much blessed by such a long-standing and mutually supportive relationship with the UNC Press.  It has enhanced our reputation in the academic world, and has permitted us to fulfill our obligation to provide meaningful assistance to all of our members, whether they are would-be authors or readers of titles in the Series.  My impression is that even books rejected for inclusion in the Series receive several careful and constructive readings.  This is an essential role in any publication venture, and particularly so in the case of a learned society in a growing and vibrant discipline. 

 

            There is one additional thing to be mentioned--our recent success in establishing an endowment fund for the Society.  This will serve a number of purposes, not the least of which will be the ability to respond positively when and if the Press asks for assistance in funding a meritorious volume that will not otherwise be profitable. .

 

            Our newer members may be unaware of the growth and diversification of our discipline over the fifty year history of the Society.  A natural development has been the entry of several additional presses into the publication of legal and constitutional history as we broadly define it.  In my opinion the most prominent is the University Press of Kansas, always in evidence at our annual meetings and always in the forefront in issuing distinguished titles.  More recently we have welcomed the arrival of Ohio State University Press, New York University Press, Northern Illinois University Press, Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press.  Undoubtedly there are others which could be mentioned.  The point is that we have begun to enjoy a moderately large number of university press outlets.  How does an author make a selection among them?

 

            Since legal history is both cross-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary in its focus, the marketing process can be complicated.  This makes it critical for scholars to select those presses which already specialize in their book’s field and sub-fields.  To get the most exposure for the advertising buck, a university press will use those marketing tools that emphasize its most profitable lines.  Absent an established line in legal history, the likelihood is that a press will decline to publish a legal history title, or certainly fail to market it to advantage.  Mark well who sends press representatives to the ASLH meeting; these are the publishers who know us well, treat our authors with care, and have both a financial and intellectual stake in the growth of our discipline.

 

            What is the future of the legal history book?  I think that it is better than the outlook for other liberal arts subject areas.  In 2003 the American Council of Learned Societies held a symposium at its annual meeting dealing with the situation of scholarly publishing–mainly book publication and marketing.[1]  The speakers touched upon the difficult and highly competitive nature of scholarly book publication in the United States, arising from falling library markets, inflationary pressures on materials, the cost of labor, and a burgeoning number of scholars struggling to publish in book form before they perish.  Some variants on printed book publication were considered, apparently with mixed reactions.  The dissenting voices stressed the long-standing tradition of book publication as a requirement for tenure or promotion. University subsidy of faculty first books was mooted, as was  the proposal that perhaps two or more articles might substitute a single book, and qualify the author for tenure.  Those of us who have straddled the law school world and that of the historian or political scientist, already know that your tenure-granting division will ultimately dictate whether or not you must publish a book, and what form that book must take.  One of my historian colleagues refused to vote for tenure even though a manuscript was in press; his motto was, “Unless it is between two covers, it isn’t a book, and the candidate does not get tenure.”  To me it always seemed overly nice to make a career decision based not on merit but on a publisher’s timetable.

 

            My personal opinion is that promotion and tenure in our liberal arts disciplines will continue to depend upon the publication of book length manuscripts.  However, I do believe that the economics of publishing may require some adjustment in our publishing formats, and in the media we use.

 

            While most of my comments will involve publication economies, it is vital that all of us recognize that we must balance those concerns with the ethical demand that we maintain scholarly value and merit in what reaches the public and our disciplinary colleagues.  e are talking about economics and scholarly value and merit.  Let me quickly “bullet” some random thoughts that might make life a little easier for publishers, and thus for authors.:

$          Do we really need to publish footnotes? As you may know, Tom Cox and I are involved in writing a volume in the Landmark Cases Series, edited by Peter Hoffer and published by the University Press of Kansas.  Now the final volume will appear without footnotes or endnotes, but in writing, we are inserting footnotes.  That is for our own reference, but it is also to force us to provide proof for what appears in the text.  If a reader desires that proof, can the publisher make it available in non-book form–a microform, a diskette or a CD-Rom, that would be available on request perhaps for a modest handling fee?

 

$          Can the same procedures be used for graphs, tables, and appendices?

 

$          We are already using electronic editions of printed books; can that system be adapted to the publication of machine-readable publications of books that otherwise could not be published (too small a readership; too short or too long for book publication, etc.).

 

$          Can readers’ fees be minimized by issuing monographs in a series, edited by an editorial board which would provide one or more critical readings?

 

$          Might series editors be asked to work more closely with authors in shortening,  expanding, or modifying the size or presentation of the monograph? This is both a matter of economies in production, and an important factor in book-pricing and marketing. Cutting a text is like permitting your arm to be amputated, (trust me, Lew Bateman once told me to cut a text by 25%–he got a more saleable book, and I got a more readable volume ) but when the book sells more copies both the publisher and the author are happy.  The publisher avoids a loss, and the author gets his work before a readers and libraries that will buy a volume for $30.00, but will balk at paying $50.00.

 

             In this regard, book prices are important, both to publishers and authors.  They are 

            a significant factor in marketing books, and therefore in disseminating scholarship

            and ideas.  Both authors and publishers benefit from shorter (but not too short!)

            published volumes.

 

                                                           ____________________

 

            I will stop at this point, because I am interested in your reactions to these

            suggestions, and  also to hear from each one of you concerning book publication in

            legal history.

 

                                                                        Tha