Publishing just can't win this week

From today's L.A. Times:

Sara Nelson, editor in chief of Publishers Weekly, believes that the reading public "feels stuff not worthy of them is being shoved down their throats." The difficult part, she says, is that the audience for "serious books . . . really doesn't want to be marketed to. But if you don't market to them, they don't know what to read."

As someone who has worked on a number of books that were considered "literary" but got less coverage than any celebrity memoir or Harlan Coben book, I feel that. The industry has become so focused on what will sell rather than what is good, that, at times, it feels as though we are destroying ourselves from within.

The article looks at reprints, with the basic argument seeming to be that people are becoming dissatisfied with the fiction being offered to them, so they are turning to older books that are now being reintroduced to the market. And that the big houses are in danger of losing the trust of readers by tainting their once respected name.

It's an interesting theory, but I would like to argue that there are plenty of good books still being published. The focus just isn't being given to them. And in order to publish the "good" books, it seems that publishers have to balance it out with the "commercial" ones that will bring in the money. Publishers hedge their bets on a couple sure blockbusters in order to keep them afloat so they can try out other books.

But doesn't it seem that maybe if we shrunk the scale, we could solve all the problems at once? Why do we have to have massive lists? Can't we throw all of our energy into books we believe in, rather than just try to market them in between fielding calls about Stephanie Meyer or Curtis Sittenfeld? And, it's not just publishers that are to blame. The media covering the industry doesn't seem to be interested in discovering a new writer...they seem to just want to talk about the author everyone else already is.

--Ladytron

Woohoo, more books on NPR (dot org)

NPR.org is adding more book coverage to the site with reviews from Jessa Crispin (who never returns my emails for Bookslut, so god knows what will happen now), John Freeman (who I saw speak once and was wearing a purple shirt, so I think I like him), and Laurel Maury (who I know nothing about). Perhaps a reaction to Yen Cheong's NPR Book Watch?

According to senior supervising producer Joe Matazzoni, NPR.org "can’t cover the book industry like PW or the New York Times. We’re here to try and point our audience to good books. Our audience identifies with our sensibility and looks to us for judgment and taste. We’re a filter.”

Hmm, filter? Are you trying to say that the reviewers at PW and the NYT don't have good "sensibility" or any "judgement and taste"? It seems like the purpose of any book review section is to be just that. To review books so you know what you're getting into before you buy it. And while, yes, PW reviews a lot of books, it's not as thought the Times just throws out book reviews willy-nilly. I'm pretty sure that there is a fairly lengthy consideration process. Plus, no offense, Joe - it is NPR DOT ORG - as in not the radio. I wonder if our bosses will be as excited about a listing on the website as they would be about an Alan Cheuse review or an interview with Terry Gross? Somehow, I doubt it.

--Ladytron

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

An open letter to PW

Dear PW:

What the hell! First your email bounces back and then you just ignore me - do I not send you tons of books each year? Are they not good enough? Sure I know some of them weren't the best - but they have feelings too ya know!

WTF PW!

Hugs,
Babytron