No, it's not Nessie, but a creature once likewise thought to be imaginary. Image via Angie Outlaw.
Today is a solemn anniversary, the anniversary of a previously unimaginable event that, itself, has been therefore labeled a black swan. But I can't compete or even know what to express, so, having had my moments of hard-swallowing silence, I'd like to highlight another anniversary of sorts, not 6 years ago, but 20.
I think most of us might agree that Big-Imprint genre publishing is broken, or at least bent. Aside from worrying for our own careers, fledgling though they may be, we see authors we love to buy and read getting dropped by publishers while the most craptastic shinola is pimped like it's the next Sherlock. For myself, I believe this has created not only dire circumstances, but more importantly, opportunities for those editorially consistent and selective small presses who are pleased to make money on steadily performing midlist titles rather than always hunting the elusive blockbuster.
[Additional Background if you like: Regarding one-in-a-million blockbusters, those hard-to-predict occurrences of high impact also philosophically named black swans, I've enjoyed reading a free online book titled On the Survival of Rats in the Slush Pile. Author Michael Allen, who's also known as the Grumpy Old Bookman, has written a monograph of sorts to explain why conglomerate publishing has proven so hapless at manufacturing (or even recognizing) blockbusters and how their nevertheless unflagging obsession has hurt them.]
It was with those thoughts simmering that I read Jim Huang's recent post on the state of mystery publishing, written after his 20 years in the mystery bookselling business. I know some other, bigger blogs have batted this one around, but we haven't yet here, and I think it deserves the attention and consideration, especially from writers like us just now trying to plant our flags in this shifting soil. The essay brings up a few, immediate questions for me, and I'd love to know how your answers tally with Jim's findings and my own opinions (in italics).
1) Are series worth loving what you seek as a reader?
Often, but not exclusively. I do always seek out authors I've previously enjoyed.
2) Would you cultivate loyalty to an imprint and/or store that was conspicuously dedicated to meeting that need?
I have local booksellers I do trust for recommendations, though I'll miss Bonnie and Joe- sniff. I'd also love to be able to trust a publisher's name on the spine enough to feel good about experimenting with their new authors. I think Hard Case Crime and Soho Crime exemplify the kind of tight focus on certain flavors of books that allow readers to take those kinds of chances with confidence. I want to know when I do love a new series that I won't get dumped or delayed after a single book, and I want better marketing clarity in explaining the type of experience I'm buying, so I can competently choose what suits my mood. I think all that is as great for new talent as it is for readers.
3) Do you think the perpetuation of the bread-and-butter midlist and the "hit factories" are essential opposition?
Yep, even moreso as some of the big houses' specialized sub-imprints with tighter aesthetics got dismantled and reabsorbed into the motherships.
What's your vote and your prognosis?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Black Swans and Rats: Mystery's Future is Now
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Clare,
This is an extremely thought provoking post. And the links are fabulous. I shall answer your questions as best I can.
1. I do like the repetition of familiar characters, like visiting old friends, but a great stand alone (think Michael Connelly's Lincoln Lawyer) is always welcome.
2.The Delray Beach branch of the Palm Beach County Library has the largest mystery section I've ever seen in a library or a chain book store and I can spot the ones for me (mostly cosy) by the spine, so I would say that brand loyalty just comes naturally.
3. Ah, the opposition question. Hmmmm. I think that there is room for everyone. (I am a natural Pollyanna when it comes to reading and writing.) Will everyone be allowed to survive is, I think, your real question. Sadly, the answer is probably no.
Still, we keep writing because it's what we love to do.
Terrie
I, too, think there's ultimately room for every kind of thing on the shelves, but I'm not sure firms succeed for themselves or their authors while harboring schizophrenia about their own purposes. I think publishers need to know their own aims and the nature of the readers they're trying to serve (as they always demand we writers do) rather than continuing to pretend they're expertly providing everything to simply everyone. Aren't they always telling writers that we can't do too many different things if we want to build a reputation and career?
I love series that show the effects of life on a character. One of my students once told me that she spent so much time reading, and being with the characters, that she hated to see the end of the book nearing. I'm with her on that one.
Secondly, I don't like Amazon telling me about other books I might like, but they have lead me to good books. I like real human contact, like the people who live within the pages... I'd be a loyal supporter of any real live human who supported my addiction to reading.
Third, I think publishers are trying to stay alive despite horrendous odds. What I think they should do versus what will keep them in business are two oppositional options. They're beaten to death with the reality of returnable unsold books. The unpredictable phenomenon called the internet is throwing monkey wrenches at publishers and the entire recording industry, etc.
I think it's bloody out there and I'm still willing to step into the fray, hoping that if enough of us committed, hard working writers survive, the whole industry will survive on a better level than is the case now.
Whew! Didn't realize I needed to get that off my chest!
Write On!
Nan
Despite all, I'm still willing to be on the front lines and in the trenches, too, Nan!
Your comments inspired some other rants on remaindering and discounting policies, that I'll (mostly) try to stifle for some other day and post. However, it's getting hard to argue that the book business at-large is trying its best to keep afloat when they just took their sure millions-selling moneymaker (Harry Potter 7) and, in some cases, priced it below cost- Huh?
People weren't going to want it anymore if they charged enough to print and distribute it? And they couldn't have used actual profits to offset smaller-selling, quality books and nascent careers that need the bolstering? After the costumed launch parties, did they really think the kids would hang around the shop to buy expensive Lincoln biographies and coffee table books, perhaps scones at the cafe, versus grabbing the pulp and racing home to learn Voldemort's secrets?
Whew- I guess I've still got some angst pent up in my sternum, but only because I think the essential formula of good stories attracting readers hasn't changed, and so much of this current falderol distorts that workable truth into practices that start feeling like lose-lose rather than the reverse.
Wow.
1) Series?
It's not really a series character I return to. It's more likely to be an author. But when someone I trust recommends a series and I fall in love...it's a thrill to anticipate more great reads ahead.
2) Loyalty to imprints/stores that provide delicious reads?
I'm hungry. It gets harder and harder these days to sift through the flotsam. So yes.
3) Midlist vs. High-Concept? Doomed to an increasing divide?
Seems so. I'm probably talking through my hat, here...as a brand new fledgling, I'm struggling to learn about the industry. But I'm pretty certain technology will win the even larger battle, and 'hit factories' (Clare you have such a way with words!) may well meet their doom. I'm guessing authors may survive it better than they fear. I do think it's smarter to embrace and plan for the inevitable, rather than cower in paralyzed fear of it.
Post a Comment