The interview with Nathan Bransford @ Alan Rinzler’s blog has a couple of very fascinating comments. The first is a comment from someone who goes by AE, without a link to a homepage:
The statement about agents becoming the tastemakers is hopeful, at best, and obviously smeared in self interest. No agent wants to accept their demise. What is more likely is that editors will simply band together and form a brand of their own and through this brand the electronic works will be siphoned and accordingly, stamped with approval.
This is inevitable because the publishing houses will disappear as books go electronic and POD replaces standard publishing. Books will go to stores in small batches, Book stores will be more like specialty, luxury shops where the products will be loaded with ’special features’ like DVDs are now.
The likely fate of the agent is similar to the writer: competition will become extreme as their position as gatekeeper will diminish by orders of magnitude until they are really just not required at all. Writer’s will be divided between those that understand how to build a platform and those that don’t. In fact, agents would be wise to transition now into publicity as the world will be swamped with electronic titles and only advertising will cull the crowd of them.
Agenting is openly a game of defense and soon this will be redundant. Electronic book format will create a situation where only the cream rises to the top (market driven) and editors will simply scoop it off. What’s more is that the breakdown of the big houses will leave editors with new opportunities to involve themselves in the culture of books in the way that small presses have attempted to do. But it will work, the editor will emerge as the co-star to the novel in that they brand the book, they determine it’s access to the huge sales streams and their opinions and contributions will become as important, publicly, as the writer. From there, writer/editor teams will replace entirely the agent as the editor will be working for the largest possible profit viz the actual market.
Nathan Bransford responds:
You write, “What is more likely is that editors will simply band together and form a brand of their own and through this brand the electronic works will be siphoned and accordingly, stamped with approval.”
What makes you think editors are going to do this instead of agents, or that this would represent a better deal for writers?
Agents might not be particularly popular among the unagented, but our approval ratings are far, far higher for those who do have agents and who have successfully published. Our interests are aligned with the authors, whereas editors have to answer first to their publishers — it’s not in an editor’s interest to give an author the best deal possible. You need an agent to get the best deal. I don’t doubt that there will be small presses who do precisely what you outline, but authors will always need agents to negotiate on their behalf with whatever companies are distributing content.
Again: we are on the side of the authors. As long as authors are around, agents will be too. If we didn’t earn our commission we simply wouldn’t be around right now. Who is going to submit an author’s work to film studios for a movie adaptaion? Negotiate contracts? Work out distribution deals? Get a better deal for an author when their work takes off? Serve as business/creative managers? Sure, authors can do this on their own, but a) who has that kind of time, and b) you’re not going to do better than someone who has this kind of expertise.
I feel like a lot of times people let their frustrations with agents result in some misguided hopes for our demise. Just remember, we’re on the author’s side. Hoping that we disappear so that authors can face the Amazons and publishers of the future on their own is not particularly constructive.
I just can’t agree with this statement: “Our interests are aligned with the authors, whereas editors have to answer first to their publishers.” Ideally, yes, but too often it seems like agents are aligned with the demands of publishers. I remember sending out my Hollywood novel to an agent early on. He replied, “Oh, a novel just sold about the magazine industry, so that’s what publishers are looking for now.” This is insane – a fanatical devotion to the current market. It’s not uncommon. There may be many good agents out there with their author’s futures at heart, but this marketing-obsessed dynamic is held by agents as much as editors. The reason I’m looking to self-publishing now is to avoid this very maddening system – the idea that the opinions of a handful of people is the full barometer of a book’s worth.
I speak from a position who’s had a number of high-profile agents – I’m not a person who’s been rejected countless times, so now I’m bitter. They’ve had better success selling my stuff overseas (Hachette Litteratures in France, Canongate in the U.K.) But in the States I have seen a lot of evidence of agents being fully culpable in how the industry is driven by marketing. That doesn’t mean that agents are useless, as AE implies. Agents and traditional publishers are great if they’re driven by better instincts.
There’s no better way to get a book into the hands of readers than having mainstream distribution. Though I wrote that sales don’t matter, traditional publishing is – for the most part – preferable to hustling to sell a book yourself. Yes, there are people who argue that profits are better with self-publishing, but by and large, you don’t make a great profit if you’re selling 200 books. However, as a fallback plan, self-publishing makes perfect sense, which is why I take issue with anyone who says you shouldn’t do it, or agents who say it’s a deathnail. No, the old system is the deathnail of self-expression – and really does seem to be spoken by people who cling to being the gatekeepers.
About the Author: Henry Baum
I’m the author of The American Book of the Dead. The novel won Best Fiction at the DIY Book Festival and the Gold IPPY Award for Visionary Fiction. Largehearted Boy says it's "reminiscent of Philip K. Dick and Haruki Murakami, a book that boldly explores the future and defies genre." I'm also the author of North of Sunset, winner of the Hollywood Book Festival Grand Prize, and The Golden Calf - first published by Soft Skull Press, with editions in the U.K. (Rebel Inc.) and France (Hachette Littératures). Visit henrybaum.com for more information. I’m the editor of Self-Publishing Review.
Jim Duncan said on March 24, 2009
It does seem we’ve burned this discussion out, going in circles now as it were. I will say this. There are probably some ways agents act as ‘servants’ so to speak. Their role goes beyond this however. They aren’t ‘tastemakers’ in my opinion. It’s their job to know what publishers are looking for. They aren’t fonts of wisdom, though they are professionals who generally know the ins and outs of the industry, and it’s their job to pass that information along to the writer. They generally work within a limited range of genres. Their connections are made and information gleaned within this range. Good ones will tell you they have to love your work in order to represent it, which is certainly a subjective opinion to some degree. They pass on stuff they know is publishable all the time because they know there are other agents out there who will feel more passion for the author’s work. There’s too much stuff coming through the pipeline all of the time for them to do otherwise. The suggest changes to the author’s writing not because they think they can write better than the author (though many have a very good grasp on what makes a good story and know when they fall short in certain ways) but because they know what editors are looking for and what their tastes are and what the market wants. They don’t dictate any of this, they just understand it and it’s their job to make sure the writer does too. It’s up to the writer what to do with it. Sure there are agents out there who think they know more than they do or try to exercise more control than they should or don’t have the authors best interests at heart, but again, those are the exceptions rather than the rule. Most agents don’t get wealthy off of this job. They do it because they really love books and love trying to get them into print. You are making them out to be far more mercenery than they really are, Francis. It’s been an interesting conversation here. The debate between traditional versus the new ways of publishing will continue no doubt. Technology is rapidly and irrevocably changing that. It’s going to be an interesting next few years in the publishing world.
Shaun Hutchinson said on March 24, 2009
Also, I forgot to make the point that the comparison of the Literary Agent to the Real Estate Agent fails of so many levels. For starters, unless your job is to build houses for your RE Agent to sell, then there’s simply no comparison. A Lit. Agent is usually not there just to sell the one book you wrote. Why not? Because for most writers, that first book isn’t going to be it. Most writers take many books to build a fan base, thus a good agent is going to want to be with them for the long haul. So you’re right, a RE Agent isn’t going to want to be as involved. They’re not going to care who buys your house, only that it sells for the most money, or what kind of house that you buy next, because even if you sell it in five or ten years, they haven’t got a stake in it.
However, even a RE Agent is going to come into the home you want to sell and make suggestions. They’ll suggest that you might need a fresh coat of paint, maybe some new cabinets and appliances. They’re going to tell you, based on their knowledge of the market, what fair value is, whether there’s even a market FOR it. Just because you have a house to sell, even a great house, if there’s no market for it, it’s not a guaranteed sale. Because a RE Agent works on straight commission, it’s their responsibility to themselves and to their client to make suggestions that will make the house more attractive to buyers. As the seller, you can certainly decide against following the RE Agent’s advice, but why would you? Thinking you know better than your RE Agent is hubris, plain and simple. They know the market, they’re working in the market, and the reason they get straight commission is because what’s good for them IS good for you. A Literary Agent’s job is much more complicated, but whether you push the analogy or not, it still fails.
There now, I think this dead horse has been beaten.
Francis Hamit said on March 24, 2009
(Sigh). Let me reiterated here. I’m not against agents per se. They can be useful. But, while many of them are former editors and publishing people, they are not writers and they are not automatically the people you want to collaborate with, if you want to collaborate at all. That’s like getting married on a first date. You can do it, but generally it’s not a great idea.
We have a situation here where agents rule. They control the flow of future product to the publishers and they sell this position as a convenience for the publishers, who are their customers, not their clients. Their clients are the authors the represent. They are the people they are working for and selling for, not the publishers. If they don’t believe that they can intelligently represent those authors, for whatever reason, I agree they shouldn’t do it. And I would never advise anyone to try and sell anything that they don’t believe in. That’s simply soul-destroying and cynical.
There are all kinds of people who want to be published authors, and most of them have not done the heavy lifting that will get them there. Agents who presume to tell authors what they should write and how they should write go the head of that list. Yeah, there’s a lot of material out there. I get requests myself all the time to look at other people’s work for publication and/or collaboration. I refuse them all because I can’t find time enough to get all of my own material into satisfactory shape. There is a logjam of material everywhere, powered by people’s desires rather than their abilities and part of the impact is to generate short-cut thinking. We won’t look at anything with a Western theme, for instance, because no one is buying Westerns. Well, if you have a good story, and write well, people will read it regardless of genre. What an agent provides is access. They are sales people and speaking as one myself, you don’t really want to delegate the future of literature to them.
Agents who want to exert control on or through the authors they represent are part of the problem, not the solution. They create a lot of noise and misinformation that becomes accepted as “truth”. I have seen some ridiculous ideas put forth as received wisdom and writers conferences’ assertions on the required length of a first novel, for instance, that are ot supported by either facts or experience. At best, it’s a guess and and an attempt to formulate things which cannot be formulated or predicted.
This is ego and an unseemly desire for power rather effective representation. IMO an agent with another agenda, such as being one who defines the culture, is doing all agents everywhere a disservice and not providing the kind of representation that authors everywhere need.
Publishers have made a grave mistake in using agents as a a filter on new material because the conflicts of interest here are so obvious. No one can ethically represent both sides of the same deal and assure fair treatment for everyone. If an agent sees himself or herself as working for the publisher and not for the author, why should the author trust anything said about the whether or not these are the best terms attainable? If the agent needs the publisher’s goodwill to make a living, how can they even pretend to work for the author’s best interests; which they are required by law to do. There are agencies, usually big ones, which do represent their clients properly. They use auctions and other techniques to get a better price. They also return phone calls and answer questions.
In nature, if you create a barrier, nature will find means to surmount it. Self-publishing is just such a means. It may fail. It probably will fail, but at least the attempt has been made.
Nathan Bransford said on March 24, 2009
“Agents who want to exert control on or through the authors they represent are part of the problem, not the solution.”
It’s called feedback, and most authors want it. You apparently think you can write your book without it, which is fine, but you sure have a twisted idea of what it entails.
I also love this idea that agents are banding together and collectively shielding publishers from a large, presumably undiscovered slice of the unpublished book world. It takes a lot of time to maintain such a vast conspiracy, but hey, we’re diabolical like that!
If there’s any reason to look forward to a world where everyone can self-publish it’s so authors will finally disabuse themselves of the idea that it’s agents, collectively, who are holding them back. They’ll miss us when they can’t kick us around anymore!
Francis Hamit said on March 24, 2009
Here is a quote from the Wikepedia article on agency:
Duties
The Agent’s primary fiduciary duty is to be loyal to the Principal. This involves duties:
* not to accept any new obligations that are inconsistent with the duties owed to the Principal. Agents can represent the interests of more than one Principal, conflicting or potentially conflicting, only on the basis of full and timely disclosure or where the different agencies are based on a limited form of authority to prevent a situation where the Agent’s loyalty to any one of the multiple Principals is compromised. For this purpose, express clauses in the agreement signed by each Principal with the Agent may identify specific types or categories of activities that will not breach the duty of loyalty and so long as these exceptions are not unreasonable, they will bind the Principals.
* not to make a private profit or unjustly enrich himself from the agency relationship.
In return, the Principal must make a full disclosure of all information relevant to the transactions so that the Agent is able to negotiate effectively and pay the Agent either the commission or fee as agreed, or a reasonable fee if none was agreed. If the Agent reasonably incurs expenses, he or she is also entitled to reimbursement.
Okay, Nathan, let’s go over this again. Feedback is something I regularly seek and accept, but , in the end, it’s just an opinion and since I get multiple inputs I have to process it all and make final decisions myself. In the end I am responsible for the quality of my product. I admit that I like self-publishing because I have final say.
And the current situation is not the result of any conscious conspiracy but some well-embedded memes. Like the idea that self-publishing one book will ruin your career for all time. Not if you produce a product which can compete in the marketplace. Nothing succeeds like success, eh?
That paragraph above is about loyalty. Who are you working for when you make a deal? Would you, for instance defend an author of a non-fiction book who was threatened with a lawsuit from someone mentioned in the book. The lawsuit is without merit since truth, in the absence of malice, is always a defense against a charge of libel. Would you stand with your client or advise him to keep the publisher happy by deleting that chapter, even though it damaged the overall narrative and made the book, well, less than it should be for the reader? Would you tell your client to alter the book so you could get your commission? Where would your loyalty lie?
Most writers need and benefit from having an agent, is of the agent is actually working for them. The current state of the industry places that in doubt. No one can serve two masters. There;s an old Comedia del arte play about that. The protagonist gets beaten up by both of them. Repeatedly.
In one case, he is beaten by one for letting the other one beat him because his principle says that only he has the right to beat him. And this is a comedy, remember. The error here is his trying to work for both of them at the same time. (I’ve avoided using the word “servant” here because it seems to be such a hot button.)
It’s very simple Nathan. You want to represent people and do good in the world, then pick a side and stick to it.
As for publishers missing out, just read the reviews here and elsewhere of self-published books and ask yourself if you could have sold that to a publisher. They all get good reviews and have an audience. Call me naive, but I always thought the publishing industry was about selling books.
I’d really rather not do this myself, and of it, because it really, really cuts into my writing time. But it’s this or nothing. So, I’ll just have to do the best I can.
So far, so good.
Shaun Hutchinson said on March 24, 2009
Hello, Dead Horse, my old friend. I’ve come to beat you again.
Seriously though: Wikipedia?
Okay, here’s the best I can do. I wrote a book. My agent agreed to rep it. He was really excited. He gave me some tweaks that he thought would help. I used some, tossed some. He never pressured me either way. We put the book out there. The response was good. They loved my writing but there was just something missing. This went on until an editor asked if I’d be willing to make major revisions. I was resistant. I took the meeting and heard what the changes were. It took me a while to make my decision. Now, on the one had, making the changes would have most likely brought us a deal. Not making the changes would have caused that editor to walk away. Our choices by that time were limited. There were still some small houses to consider, but nothing that was going to be really great financially. While I was making the decision, my agent helped me weigh the pros and cons. At no time did he pressure me to make the changes. He told me that if I felt that the changes weren’t for the best, that we should walk. He made sure I knew that if I decided not to make changes, that he would stand behind me 100 percent.
I did make those revisions, and they made my book 1000 times better. At no time was my agent serving two masters. My agent gave me good council. I know now that he wanted me to make the changes because he really felt like the editor and I would be a good fit, and we are, but he kept those feelings to himself until I had made a decision. I have no question where my agent’s loyalty is. Neither, I would wager, does anyone who has a good agent.
Francis Hamit said on March 24, 2009
Shaun:
He did this to help you make a better product? Not because a publisher promised him a sale if he did? Fine. He’s working for you, then.
As previously stated, no objection here to good agents. Those who are part of the author’s team. Lots of objections who want changes because they think (but don’t really know) that it will make for an easier sale because that’s what has been bought before. Large objections to agents who have a wonderful idea they want you to write for them. On spec.
By the way, did the book sell?
Shaun Hutchinson said on March 24, 2009
Francis: Both my agent and I were unsure whether the revisions would make my book better. It took me actually sitting down and writing a few chapters and then really digging into an outline to realize that the editor’s suggestions actually did make the book better. If my agent had just been out for the money or out for himself, he would have advised I make the changes and moved on, but he didn’t. Me had cases for both making the changes and not making the changes and left the decision up to me.
And now I think we can come all the way back to the concept that started this whole discussion. I think that agents should make suggestions simply because they do see what’s selling and they do know what the trends are. For example, I gave my agent a suggestion about a book I was considering working on. He told me that recently the market had been flooded with books of a similar idea. He said if I felt strongly enough about it, to write it, but let me know it would be a tough sell. I have more ideas then I know what to do with, so I moved on. And I don’t think agents are trying to influence what sells above and beyond just trying to sell books they feel strongly about. Every agent blog I read (Jennifer Jackson, Kristen Nelson, etc) has at least one story of a client they took on who wrote a book they absolutely adore that just wouldn’t sell or took one, two, or even three years to sell. I think that, yes, agents want to take on things that will sell…they have families to feed. And what’s selling is dictated by the market and by luck. But, and this is important, almost every agent I’ve spoken to, read about, who is thought highly of, will tell you that loving a project is most important of all.
And, yes, the book did sell.
Cinda Williams Chima said on March 24, 2009
My experience has been similar to yours, Shaun. From a financial standpoint, my agent’s interests and mine coincide. He doesn’t make money until i make money. If he makes a suggestion, it’s not a power play, and I don’t view it as such. I don’t take every suggestion made by my agent or editor, but you can bet that I review them very, very carefully. i know we all have the same goal: to produce a book that will sell. If I say no, i articulate why, and they are okay with that.
Agents did not pressure or coerce publishers into agent-only submissions policy. The publishers made that decision themselves, in order to reduce their slush piles. Someone (anyone know who?) likened being an editor or agent to trying to drink out of a fire hose. You have to drink, because you need water to survive. But the volume is incredible and constantly increasing. Computers and email make it easy to spam editors and agents, to submit widely without doing the homework that would target submissions properly. Publishers use agents to screen out the totally inappropriate submissions. Now agents are drinking from the fire hose and looking for ways to cut back their volume as well.
It’s hard to take criticism and feedback. Did I want to do the major rewrite on my last novel that my editor asked for? No. But I did it, and the book was much better for it. Those who don’t want feedback from editors and agents, rest easy. They will be more than happy to leave you be. They have more than enough to do as it is.
Kristen said on March 24, 2009
“If there’s any reason to look forward to a world where everyone can self-publish it’s so authors will finally disabuse themselves of the idea that it’s agents, collectively, who are holding them back.”
Nathan,
I would have to agree that some self-published authors probably do want someone to blame for their lack of publishing success and that agents are an easy target, but how would you explain, with the experience you have, a book that repeatedly gets exceptional reviews by independent literary critics, is called “difficult to put down” by most readers, and has yet to be accepted by an agent? If readers and reviewers love it, if it is timely and unique, if it is relevant – if it is all of these things, and called those things not by the author but by critics and readers – what more does an agent need?
Thanks,
Kristen
Nathan Bransford said on March 24, 2009
Kristen-
There’s no way for me to answer that without knowing about the specific work in question. But there are lots and lots of reasons why that may be:
- It might be a niche book that would be loved by a specific audience but might not have a broad enough reach for an agent to take it on (niche books tend to get $1,000 advances at best, and agents aren’t making a living off of $150 for the hours of work it takes to sell one of these projects).
- It might be experimental or hyper-literary, thus having a niche audience
- The “independent literary critics” might be wrong
- It might just not have found the right agent match yet
- It might have fallen into the self-publishing semi-success conundrum: it’s done well enough that an agent/editor might feel that it’s reached and saturated it’s natural audience, but not so well that they feel it would catch fire with broader distribution
- The agents are wrong.
- You might just be unlucky.
Francis Hamit said on March 24, 2009
Uh. Parts of “The Shenandoah Spy” went through 15 drafts as the research continued and I came up with better ways to enhance character and plot without becoming a prisoner to my research. So lack of effort was not the problem. The problem was all the agents who refused to even read the book because it was Civil War, or about a young woman they though was a myth (she wasn’t) or because they didn’t think any of the people in publishing they talked to would buy it. The research started in 1998 and the serious writing in 2002. The final version was published in 2008. This is a typical development path for a serious literary novel, which this is.
I just got tired of waiting, is all. I’m 64. I’ve been a professional writer since I was 21. I don’t need the permission or approval of others to get a book out. And I have the money needed to do it right. Self publishing looked like a better investment than the stock market. And it was.
I look at it this way; if agents wants to try and sell rights for me now that it is a done deal with multiple positive reviews, well they know where to find the book and where to reach me. As long as it is clear they are working for me and me alone. I pay for results. That’s just good business.
And it works. Jana Oliver didn’t even try and submit to agents. She published her first three books herself and let them come to her. Doing this is not hard. Certainly not as hard as writing a good novel in the first place. Selling is easy. Writing is hard.
Editor said on March 24, 2009
The main issue I have with your comments, F.H., is that you seem to imply that the process will be the same for everyone as it has been for you. Like saying, “Selling is easy. Writing is hard.” Some people might have the exact opposite experience, and if this is the case, they should hold out until they’re traditionally published. They’ll still have to market, but won’t have to take 100% of the weight. You have more of a salesman’s mind, having worked as one – for some it might feel like learning the language of another planet.
Kristen said on March 24, 2009
Thanks, Nathan. Appreciate it.
Francis Hamit said on March 25, 2009
Henry:
You might be right. Most writers have never done a sales job, and some have been taught to despise sales people as inherently dishonest individuals. But, end of the day, everybody sells, even those who think they don’t. Here’s the thing: I don’t much like the process myself and do marketing instead. There has to be a need. That helps focus my efforts.
Sales is not a language, but a sub culture. As self-publishers we have to understand how it works to succeed. This whole thing started about agents and my objection to most is that they fail to sell for their clients and tailor their efforts to satisfying what they imagine the publishers will easily buy. That kills innovation. It begets too many “me too” stories in the market and that crowds out a lot of very worthy books. If these guys are going to appoint themselves gatekeepers and cultural mavens, then they should at least be open to new material.
Jim Duncan said on March 25, 2009
Francis, I don’t understand why you think agents are out there ‘imagining’ what publishers want to buy. There is no imagining involved. They actually communicate and discuss what’s selling, not selling, developing trends, etc. all of the time. Part of an agent’s job is to keep on top of this. They spend a fair amount of itme and money making sure they have a solid feel for what the publishers they sell to want. They also spend time trying to sell ‘new voices’ as it were, whom they find personally passionate about and think the market will support. If there’s any imagining going on, it is likely here, when they come across a writer who is doing something they find exciting. Of course, a lot of writers are going to get frustrated because they aren’t being chosen as this ‘exciting’ writer, because they believe they have a kick butt, marketable book. Problem of course, way too many writers for the shelf space. So, of course people take the alternative routes, but agents aren’t the problem. They aren’t lording over the gates to publishingland based on their imaginings. It’s based on fact, research, and continual communication with the publishers. Most actually do a pretty good job of it too. Fact is though, the route to publishing is very difficult no matter what road you travel, and being a good writer is only the first step. You know this as well as any I’m sure, but I think your problems with the agenting profession are misguided by unfortunately poor experiences with them. Most I’ve come across are smart, savvy people who love books and love nothing more than seeing people get published.
Editor said on March 25, 2009
Jim, you say: “They aren’t lording over the gates to publishingland based on their imaginings. It’s based on fact, research, and continual communication with the publishers.”
So what you’re saying is “They’re lording over the gates…based on continual communication with publishers.” No, it’s not an abstract process, but this is why I feel agents are fully culpable in the industry’s marketing obsession. “They also spend time trying to sell ‘new voices’ as it were, whom they…think the market will support.” You know how narrow that is? New voices tend to write things that are more challenging to market. What should happen is publishers create a brand around a particular writer – so people buy books by the writer, whatever he/she writes, not because one book is particularly marketable. That’s how it is for a writer like Philip Roth, or a new writer like John Wray. But that can only happen if publishers take greater chances on writers who may not be overwhelmingly marketable in the short term, but have a long-term future.
Cinda Williams Chima said on March 25, 2009
I think we can all agree that it is a frustrating process for all parties. It took me four years to find an agent. I sent out many targeted queries to agents that I knew represented the kind of project I was shopping. Most declined to read. At the same time, I was shopping my project myself to publishers who would accept direct submissions and constantly revising my work as i received feedback and learned more and more about craft.
On my last round, I sent out 25 agent queries (again, targeted, always targeted), received two positive responses, and signed with one.
Do I think that many worthy books never get published? Absolutely. But I think most people in publishing are people of good will. Agents? If we paid them up front to rep our work it would be different. They could take a chance on something and still pay the mortgage. But they have to take on projects they think they can sell. Editors know this, which is why even open houses are quicker to read something from an agent. Even so, agents can put a tremendous amount of work into something that never sells. Editors and agents are not the bad guys (with a few exceptions, as in any business).
Depending on the book and the author, self-publishing can be a way to go, especially if the author has a platform or access to a niche market and knows exactly what he/she is getting into. Otherwise, we have to deal with traditional publishing, heartbreaking as it is.
Nathan Bransford said on March 25, 2009
Henry-
What you are calling books that are “marketable” boils down to simply books that an agent can place with a publisher. Of course we focus on books that are marketable. It’s our job. How am I going to make a living trying to represent books I don’t think I can sell or that won’t sell when it hits bookstores?
Now, I think what you mean is that authors and publishers should take a chance on writers they believe in and hope the public gradually catches on over the course of many books. I agree with that, and sometimes this works out. But you can blame (in part) bookstore chains for this disappearance. With few exceptions they base their orders strictly on what the last book sold. It’s incredibly hard to get them to stock and promote an author whose first book didn’t sell. They never seem to consider that a third book could be the ones to take off.
We’re all doing the best we can. But there are too many books out there and not enough readers.
Editor said on March 25, 2009
Nathan, I agree with what you say – and I don’t begrudge anyone trying to make a living. Regarding chain bookstores – great point to add to the discussion, they’re part of the problem. Corporate bookstores killed the little bookstore and many writers’ chances. They deserve to fail, like AIG. And perhaps we’ve reached the end of an era where these corporations have so much power, and money trumps sustainability. It’s really no different than investing – you invest in some sure-footed stocks and some riskier stocks that may take longer to make money – you diversify. If we’re going to narrow this down to profit motive, the current system is actually a bad investment strategy. But we’re coming out of a time with the worst investment strategies in human history. So, hopefully, we’re going to move on now and things will change.
The more bookselling goes online the better. A book looks the same on Amazon (generally) if it’s released by Random House or Lulu. It levels the playing field and ensures equal access for every book. For those who say bookstores are great – I agree but bookstores kind of don’t make sense when there are so many more books than can fit on the shelves. It creates this marketing dynamic – even among indies that are struggling to sell books even more than the corporate chains.
Nathan Bransford said on March 25, 2009
And to take it full full circle, we need better readers. Celebrity books don’t just land on the bestseller lists themselves. There are people buying them. The margins of the publishing industry barely keeps up with inflation and population growth. In some sense, when you take a full picture of the industry, the only way the industry will grow is if people read more books. All of the angst about which books are published misses the essential problem that people just don’t read enough.
Editor said on March 25, 2009
Yeah, I kind of didn’t want to go there – but did in an email I wrote about this thread. Readers may be the worst tastemakers of all.