Number Crunching...

Remember last week when I was bitching about the number of books we (by which I mean publishers) continue to produce each year? Well, in next Sunday’s New York Times Book Review, Rachel Donadio tackles the issue (she obvi reads Slunch for her story ideas). Apparently, I was wrong about 300,000 books being published each year. That was in 2006. Last year? 400,000. Yeah, that’s right. 400,000. And while I was talking in relation to book coverage, Rachel tackles an even more disturbing trend – 53% of Americans surveyed last year hadn’t read a single book.

Now, think about this. If the population of the United States in July 2007 was 301,139,947 (according to Google), than only about 140 million something of those people were reading. Which means, we’re publishing 1 book for every 350 people or so – I think. I haven’t taken math since high school, but I’m pretty sure that’s right.

So, that doesn’t sound too bad, until you really start thinking about it. I mean, if you were working on a book, and it only sold 350 copies, I think you’d pretty much consider that a flop. And, yes, I know that many people who read will obviously pick up more than one book a year, but you also have to counter that many of these people are reading the SAME book, i.e. The Da Vinci Code, A New Earth, Eat, Pray, Love, or anything by Michael Connelly/James Patterson/David Baldacci, which all have millions of copies in print. Not to mention the fact that people aren’t confined to reading books published that year – we still have the classics and consistent backlist sellers to contend with. Which explains why, in 2006, 70% of books published ended up in remainder bins and only 1% hit the list.

I could go on, but I’m still on my first (iced – yay summer!) coffee and my head might explode. So, to summarize, the number of books we publish – UP. The number of readers – DOWN. Oh, also, there’s a recession, and despite the theory that books are recession proof, it’s still going to hurt, especially with the shitty dollar. Maybe we should all take a closer look at Jonathan Karp’s business plan before we destroy ourselves and the business.

—Ladytron

Random Musings - brought to you by The New York Times

So, I was flipping through this coming Sunday's New York Times Book Review , and I noticed two things on interest.

One: a ginormous color ad for Nicholas Spark's new book, The Choice (Grand Central Publishing/September). Why is this interesting you may ask? Because I freaking love The Notebook, that's why. Not the book. Fuck that. THE MOVIE . Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams…the scene in the rain…"It wasn't over. It still isn't!"…sigh. Amazing. And I want another movie that I can love and rewatch as much as that. A Walk to Remember sucked - although Shane West was quite the hottie in it. What was the other one? That bottle one with the Princess Bride (aka Sean Penn's wife) and Kevin Costner? I think that was based on a Sparks book. Whatever. It sucked too. So, I will pin my hopes on The Choice. I have no idea what it's about, I haven't read it, I won't read it, but I will cross my little fingers that some wonderful screen writer will be able to transform it into another The Notebook. And if Ryan Gosling could star too, that would help.

Two: the new bestseller format is in effect. I don't know why, but I find the switch fascinating. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea - trade paperbacks are kind of the middle ground between hardcover and mass market (price and kind of quality wise too), and if you're going to separate hardcover and paperback, you might as well separate trade and mass. Fair enough. Good idea, Mr. Tanenhaus. Also, there are more books on the paperback and advice/how-to lists now. Awesome for all those writers who could never quite get up off the extended list (which really doesn't have the same ring). But here's what cracks me up - no one's actually buying that the Times cares about having "a list that corresponds closely to what we review in the section and what we gauge our readers are interested in." Nope, everyone in the biz knows it's about the money. As one insider put it "It's completely ad driven. People want to buy a position next to the list." And, as Crain's points out (you may have noticed that I'm basically stealing their article), people are going to be more likely to buy ads in the New York Times if they can actually say their books are bestsellers. Pure genius. Those book reviewers are so friggin' clever. No wonder they look down on bloggers so much. I mean, no one's scrambling to buy ads here. Hmm, maybe we should start a Slunch Bestseller list. Time for a meeting with my editor...

-Ladytron