The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by David M Gordon:

Jane & Rachel,

You preach to the choir; I agree 100%. Moreover, I like how eloquently you state your case.

Charlie Brown, in the August 2004 issue of LOCUS (page 75; main story, page 11), notes the state of publishing and general readership: an increasing number of books published, a decreasing number of readers... and that readership is aging. Fast. Consult a demographic chart of any first world, Western country to see how its citizens grey. We (Italy, Germany, Japan, US, etc) reproduce at a less than replacement rate; and have for years, for decades. This augurs poorly for pension schemes, etc. Leave alone sheer numbers of readers with disposable time rather than monies. None of these figures are a surprise, nor should they be, as they have been mooted for years.

Name a business or industry that can withstand, profit, even thrive in an environment of increasing supply (of its main product) and decreasing demand. The first change that typically occurs is falling prices (of that product) in an attempt to rekindle the buyer's interest. (Law of Supply & Demand) Unfortunately for the publishing industry, they might do (only) then what instead they could have done now; i.e., act now, and perhaps retain 'control' of the situation rather than do nothing, and probably have the situation control them.

My contention thus remains the same: the publishing industry should (must) do something to increase readership, not merely rearrange deck chairs. (That is, increase the total size of the pie, not attempt merely to reapportion a dwindling pie, to take market share.) If they do nothing, then its primary (sole?) product is in financial peril, having the potential to be the equivalent of buggy whips. I feel confident the publishers both acknowledge and discuss this 'problem' among themselves. Frequently. Then again, perhaps not.

One possible suggestion is to price childrens' books as loss leaders in the attempt to gain a future base of readers (or consumers of its product). At least try it. If it fails, you (the publishers) lose some money for a finite period. If it works, you (the publishers) make more money from increasing volumes (yes, I guess pun intended) for an infinite period.

Please recall, I argue as a reader, albeit one particulary impassioned. I enjoy everything about reading, and want to see it -- writers writing, publishers publishing, and readers reading -- continue. Current trends, however, do not bode well for that future.

Best wishes,
David

Lis,

I apologize for the tardiness of my reply; life intervened. (As it has a tendency to do.)

I also apologize for not recalling the title or author of the book I so specifically referenced ("$45 for 25 unpaginated pages"). A casual looksee at the bookstore did not reveal the book. (Of course, this does not render as false either the book or my memory.)

The bookstore visit did, however, reveal other expensive titles. Straying away from specialty items (art books, etc), I offer the following as a sample (each unpaginated; so the page count for each is an approximation):

MRS WATSON WANTS YOUR TEETH -- $16 30 pages
LITTLE RABBIT GOES TO SCHOOL -- $16 30 pages
WHOSE GARDEN IS IT? -- $17 30 pages
VERY HUNGRY CATERPILLAR -- $20 30 pages

Apart from the books listed above (and others of its ilk), I must admit I also found many other books whose prices ranged from $5 to $10. So my earlier comment is wrong. At least, in essence.

You see, PAT THE BUNNY, considered a classic, will be one of the first books new parents (and other gift-givers) will reach for, and buy. The $10 charge for its 10 pages is, to me, a poor value. When compared to the $25 or $30 for an adult book, its cost might be less, but its value (cost/page) also is far less.

I believe Jane and Joe Sixpack would agree with this notion as well. Faced with limited amounts of disposable income, their $10 or $20 might have more 'life' as a Pat the Bunny stuffed animal rather than the book. You and I could disagree, but if parents and other gift-givers do not buy the book, then the child is that much poorer. This returns me to my original comment, sans the provocative example.

But I do not want to be like Ruskin and dis Turner, so I acknowledge my error and concede the argument.

Best wishes,
David

Oops, I should have known someone would request precision, Lis!

The charge for books is what it is. Mine is not a complaint; in fact, the charge could be more. When there exists book I want (forget need!) I buy it, hesitating nary a moment. Hey, I believe writers engage in one of life's noble professions.

But there is a marked price difference for the adult and YA markets vs. those for children. Allow me a day or two, and I will respond with a specific title -- or ten. It has been too many years since I had homework! ;-)

Best wishes,
David

"So what, specifically, do you think is wrong with the publishing systems? Do you think books cost too much? Are they too hard to find? Are good books not being published? Do you feel you're not hearing about enough good books?"

Mitch,

Excellent questions, but I must antecede my 'answers' with the caveat (and reminder) that I am not involved with publishing. I am nothing other than an impassioned reader...

I suppose the top of my wish list would be more publicity for authors. Heck, they (the publishers) take a real gamble when publishing an unknown. Why then do they simply thrust them out there sans the star making machinery?

With the advent and growth of Amazon.com, books no longer are difficult to find (and purchase). And more good books are published each day. (This includes everything, not solely SF and F.) But therein lies the rub: there are increasing numbers of books published each year. Unfortunately, it seems that each book is only so much 'product' -- published to meet an available slot. It is the triumph of quantity over quality. No one reader can ever keep up with all these books. I suspect the same applies of editors and publishers.

So it seems (and as Patrick notes) that publishers publish, sell to bookstores and other middle markets, and then leave it to the bookstores to discover methods to alert us, the final (and I contend true) consumer. Thus, each book lies prone on its metaphoric back on bookstore shelves, awaiting a catalyst to spark it into life; a catalyst that rarely occurs, especially to the deserving. This is where a publisher’s efforts could tell the (marketing) tale.

Books cost what they cost; I do not begrudge that charge. I do believe, however, that publishers miss the gravy train when they charge extortionate amounts for childrens' books; e.g., $45 for 25 unpaginated pages. They have an opportunity to create their audience of tomorrow but think only of today. Is it any wonder that their readers grey?

Publicity should occur to get the wares from writer’s mind to reader’s hands, not merely publisher to bookstore. Perhaps a change might be effected here...? For example, a publisher could offer direct sales to its readers (perhaps as Ballantine did in the late-60s and into the 70s). Or tie in with Amazon (or whomever) for a blue plate special: Take a chance on this unknown author and his or her book, and we will pass on the reduced marketing costs as a lesser price to you. That I am not involved with publishing likely means my remarks are innocent of reality; of course, my thinking just as likely could be out of the box.

It gladdens me that Susanna Clarke's publishers make a concerted effort to birth her novel. These pre-publication efforts succeeded in bringing her novel to my attention. I expect that one month from now it will reside on my reading platter.

But that brings us full circle to the beginning, where we started this conversation. Susanna Clarke’s novel and a publisher’s marketing efforts to support its writers.

Best wishes,
David

"I might also go on to observe that either publishers are wicked because they never devote promotional efforts to unknown authors, or they're wicked because they do promote unknown authors thus subjecting those authors to the dreadful risk of being perceived as "overhyped." Bottom line: publishers, wicked, no good can come of it. Best to stay home and watch TV."


Patrick,

There exist several items wrong with publishing today, but your comments are of the straw man sort. Publishing could be considered akin to Hollywood, but with more transparent accounting. The reliable big sellers (King, et alii) help pave the way (grease the skids) for the unknowns, the gambles. But it is the gambles that have the greatest leverage... In addition, I would suggest that publishers have (too easily) forgotten who comprise their true customer. Hint: it is not the Ingrams of the world, nor is it Amazon, B&N, or Borders. (BTW, my goal is not to bust your chops; I think you do a damned fine job -- the little I know and understand of your position. And I admit I am not involved in publishing.)

I enjoy attending the Con panels at which publishers showcase their wares. Although they are, without fail, bullish on every (forthcoming) title, this effort creates excitement, at least for me. I disagree that Clarke's writing career could be stillborn should this novel fail; there are many ways she might try again. (A bold publisher, a nom de plume, etc.) I like the fact that I recently was able to purchase a little known (not SF) novel originally published ~5 years ago. I suppose a publisher would term this book 'catalogue', and only begrudgingly keep it in print. (I would bet it is a steady, albeit not a big, seller.) I only knew about it due to the linkages that occur in life, and read it as soon as it arrived. These 'finds' are equally as enjoyable as awaiting the next blockbuster, hyped or not. Thus, I contend, it is the distribution to your readers that is critical; i.e., for you to get word out that this novel is available, or soon will be.

You guys do a fine job. Yes, I have read some bad novels and wondered "How ever did this get published?" But I then recall the amount of chaff you must sort through to find the wheat. Why should my reading experience be any different? And, of course, not all your publication decisions are based on artistic merit. Business is business, after all.

Sorry about the lengthy riff on the state of publishing as one reader views it. But your comments did encourage me... :-)

David

PS: Perhaps you can do something about the kooky cover art for SF and F novels. Is it solely me that notes the cover art traverses phases: angels one year, characters with levitating light orbs the next.

Comment statistics for David M Gordon on the Electrolite blog

Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.