English is such a marvelously flexible language, and yet you've stretched it beyond common understanding still.
> For what paper scarcity is concerned...
> For what text amount... is concerned...
I don't think this construction works as well as you think it does.
If I can try to translate what you meant, I'd guess:
As far as paper scarcity goes, the foremost US publishers have already been publishing only "pulp fiction" for a long time, especially in contrast to publishers in other countries.
As far as text size goes, that's only an issue in some segments of the market. In some countries it's called "literature for evasion." For that matter, the biggest slice of the market in the USA is coloring books, but that stretches the definition of "books."
I don't even think I agree with most of what you said, but it wasn't until I tried to translate it into readable English that I knew that.
I am not sure I would fully recognize what I intended in your rephrasing. The first point was about how often those publications feel like "pulp paper" - they are very cheap. In some territories, that happened with publishers that faced some financial crisis, while with one of the most known publishers in English language it is the typical experience.
In the second point, I noted that the amount of text (character count) seems to have a critical relation to the burden set by inflation primarily with that literature that seems to be inflating the number of pages as part of its virtual "key performance indicators". Which seemed to me an odd focus in the article, since "many things are a book" (it seems to some data, as I mentioned, that the largest part of books sold in the USA are colouring books), but for Books (especially when we are talking about a context of crisis), I think of James Joyce and Umberto Eco, not of those produced with the purpose of "I really need to think to something different than the daily hassles, for the longest possible time".
By the way: you used 'as far as x goes' in your translations: I have not had much time to think about it and verify it, but for example I would avoid that expression, for the "relation" I rendered though 'for what x is concerned': because I do not see the metaphor of "covering some distance" proper for the purpose (I may be wrong, I would need a bit of time for concentration).
I would avoid it just like I would try to avoid in French the expression 'tout le monde' for "everyone", because "it is not the whole of the world: it is just this room", or in Spanish the term 'Argelia' because, "really, you inverted them sounds".
That is how I write: vetting the expressions like a judge. I do not know if you do the same.
> For what paper scarcity is concerned...
> For what text amount... is concerned...
I don't think this construction works as well as you think it does.
If I can try to translate what you meant, I'd guess:
As far as paper scarcity goes, the foremost US publishers have already been publishing only "pulp fiction" for a long time, especially in contrast to publishers in other countries.
As far as text size goes, that's only an issue in some segments of the market. In some countries it's called "literature for evasion." For that matter, the biggest slice of the market in the USA is coloring books, but that stretches the definition of "books."
I don't even think I agree with most of what you said, but it wasn't until I tried to translate it into readable English that I knew that.