What's Wrong with Publishing? #1

So, as I indicated a little while ago, I’m going to post some blog entries on the publishing biz — where it is, what’s wrong with it, what’s right with it, where it’s going, and where I think it should go.

This endeavor is fraught with peril for me. It’s a touchy subject and people have strong feelings about it; often, those feelings take the form of blog comments and blog responses that say things like, “Barry Lyga is a moron. Does he really believe blah blah blah?”

For this reason, I want to say upfront that these entries are not manifestoes, no matter how strongly I may word something. They’re just...ruminations. They’re me spitballing. Because sometimes we don’t know what we’re really thinking until we type it or say it out loud. This blog is my opportunity to do that.

Please do chime in — I’d love to turn this into a thoughtful, polite discussion. Even if I am a moron. :)

I want to start with a story. It’s a story about a book, and I heard it last week at Book Expo America (BEA). In the interests of full disclosure: This is not one of my books. This is not a book published by anyone who publishes me, nor is it written by anyone I know. It’s a story I heard, and it’s true:

The book in question was published by a house that really, truly believed in it, as we like to think all books are. The folks who published it loved the book dearly and wanted to see it succeed. But, sadly, when the book launched, it did not do well. It faded and sank, like so many books do.

The people who published it were displeased by this turn of events. They got together to talk about what they could do and they decided they should re-launch the book to give it another chance. Which they did.

Sadly, the book once again did not take wing and fly.

As you can imagine, everyone at the publishing house was pretty frustrated by now. (Since this story came down to me via an editor, I can’t say how the author felt, though I imagine he/she wasn’t too happy, either…) So, they called another meeting and they all got together and they all realized that they still believed in this book a lot. So they decided to re-launch it yet again. A third launch.

This time, it took. The book went wild. The author ended up on national television. Huzzah!

A happy story. I like happy stories. But this one makes me sad. Why?

Here’s why: Because it makes me think of all the deserving books that never got a second much less a third chance.

In publishing, you generally get one bite at the apple. Your book comes out and everyone holds their breath and crosses their fingers. When the paperback hits (a year or more later, usually), you have a potential second bite at the apple, but honestly, there’s usually very little fanfare for the paperback. Unless you’re already a big shot.

So what about the little guy? The new author with a great book who gets thrown out into the wilds of the bookshelves? That guy gets his one shot and he sinks or he swims, and no one is there with a life preserver.

I don’t want this to sound like a rant against publishing or against the people who work at publishing houses. I personally love publishing and I have yet to meet anyone in the business who is not unfailingly enthusiastic, devoted, and passionate about their authors and their books. This is not about the people in publishing.

It’s about the simple facts of publishing.

The industry is changing, whether we want it to or not. In coming blog posts, I’m going to talk about the ways in which the business is changing and the ways in which I think it should change. But right now I just want to talk about what's wrong. I'm not trying to be negative, but the first step in any process is diagnosing potential problems.

I think it's terrible that books get one shot. That you get one bite at the apple. If you're lucky enough to win an award a year after publication, you get a second chance, but how many awards are there?

I have a friend who -- several years ago -- wrote a wonderful debut novel. Barnes & Noble wouldn't touch it. It had very low sales. Then, months after publication, it won a very prestigious award. Suddenly, everyone was talking about it and reading it. B&N changed its mind and threw a lot of support behind it. And now he's had a great, thriving career, giving some amazing books to the world.

What if he'd never won that award? What if he'd never had that second chance?

Oh, BTW: That book I spoke about before, the one that hit the ball out of the park on the third at-bat? That book was from a very small house that mustered its meager resources three times in order to make that book big. It's possible. It can happen. It does happen. It needs to happen more often.

I know publishers are overworked, underappreciated, overanxious, underfunded, and just generally exhausted. But I think (and I guess this is where I generate some controversy...) that maybe too many books are being published. We're throwing scores of books at the market, just to see what catches fire, when what we should be doing is cherrypicking the stuff we love the most and giving it every possible chance to succeed. As the example I cited at the beginning of this piece indicates, it is possible. Publishers publish a lot of books because they don't know which ones will succeed, so they have to take a shotgun approach. But the people at the publishing house above didn't do that. They knew that their book was terrific, that it deserved a huge audience, and moreover that it could have a huge audience. And they plugged away at it until it happened.

I'd like to see more of that. In the coming entries, I'm going to talk about how I think the changing market is an opportunity to make smaller books into bigger books, to give new authors a better shot at the brass ring, and generally to make everyone in publishing -- writers, readers, and everyone between -- happier.

And then I'll bring peace to the Middle East. ;)

RSS | ShareThis

Write a comment

• All fields are required.

Name:
Email [will not be published]:
Subject:
Comment:

Security Code:
 

1

Well said
By: Marc Tyler Nobleman on Tue June 01, 2010, 21:48:37

Barry - we need more posts like these. What it comes down to (now more than ever, I suspect) is that an author who gets behind his book stands the best of all chances. I think of it as a "sole proprietor partnership" - the publisher will do something for the first few months but then it's mostly up to me (and I don't mind that). Hence Parnell Hall will hopefully win over some new fans from his You Tube song whether or not any of his books win awards.

2

Re: What's Wrong with Publishing? #1
By: Barry on Tue June 01, 2010, 21:58:20

Hey, Marc! Thanks for chiming in.

I agree that there are cool and important things authors can and should do. But I also think that there's a lot of re-thinking of conventional wisdom that can and should be done as well. I don't claim to have any definite answers, but I sure plan to ask a lot of questions. :)

3

i think they should publish more books
By: Joe, the Dancing Mule on Tue June 01, 2010, 23:03:11

I'm afraid I must disagree with your prescription, Mr. Lyga.

The scattershot approach at least gives more openings to authors - a tentpole strategy similar to the one you advocate leads to a very conservative mindset, in my opinion. If the publishing house has to make its bones on fewer releases, then there is more pressure to hit the ball out of the park every time. As such, like in movies, television, music, etc, there will be big pushes around the same set of proven stars/themes/products, over and over again. This leads to more superhero movies*, more comedies with guys getting bodily fluids on themselves and getting whacked in the balls, more Dick Wolf shows, and more manufactured pop pablum**.

I think the answer is to go the other way - more opportunities for more authors, and more profits realized to authors.

I am not a writer, but it seems to me that the writer has fewer opportunities for ancillary income based on his talents than others. Bands who get screwed by their record label deals can always go on tour (and be screwed by their tour management, but much more gently), actors and directors and such can make commercials and straight-to-dvd schlock, even athletes can make publicity appearances, endorsements and autograph sessions. While I'm sure book signings are wonderful things, they don't seem to drive much cashola to the author (unless I'm seriously mistaken).

Of course, the plan is simple: (mumble) (mumble) internet (mumble) electronic readers (mumble) profit!

so, anyway, thoughts:

1 - the truly big authors should consider using their power to make the relationship between publishing house and author more equitable. (or like recent experiements by trent reznor and radiohead, cut out the middleman altogether.) the little guys have no power, and so a sort of benevolent cadre of big fish looking out for the little fish is probably the only way the little guy is gonna get a fair(ish) shake.

2 - writers are creative people - they should find ways to use new technologies and such for story-telling. I'd like to think the days of the linear reading/text-only experience are coming to an end. Video and audio and non-linear storytelling are the new hotness, IMO. People who can trailblaze this area can fundamentally alter the relationship between reader and writer and show others the way.

3 - Internet supernerditry, part deux. Authors (like Barry Lyga and barrylyga.com) must continue to push the interactivity between writer and reader.*** This not only bonds the fan to the author, it allows the author to consider alternate methods to reach the fan base.

4 - self-publishing. sure, it's much-maligned, and given the state of the self-publishing industry of the past, deservedly so. but in the click-to-print era, i think a talented and charismatic author could control a significant portion of the delivery (and monetization) of his work.

anyway, those are my two rubles.

Joe

* - which I enjoy, but it's still a larger problem overall. the mass death of the truly indie movie house in the last 20 years has been breathtaking and sad.

** - who or what is a Bieber?

*** - and I have to tell you, on a philosophical level, there's something difficult for me to contemplate in the democritization of fandom to writership, but this is the world we live in. even a misanthrope such as myself understands this.

4

Re: What's Wrong with Publishing? #1
By: Barry on Tue June 01, 2010, 23:08:58

Joe, for a dancing mule, you've hit some really important points, and you've predicted a lot of the topics I'll be discussing going forward, so I'm not going to respond point-by-point right now...

...except to say that I probably should have been a bit clearer when I said that too many books were being published today. I'm not talking about a drastic scaling back the likes of which you seem to envision, but more along the lines of cutting back enough so that a tentpole isn't necessary. One of the open secrets of publishing right now is that the Big Books support all the little ones, mainly because the little ones never break out enough to support themselves. With more effort spent on each book, we could come closer to that beautiful world in which each book supports itself...or at least nears that goal.

Anyway, like I said: Good stuff, and I'm going to talk about a lot of it going forward. Thanks for jumping in, and please stick around!

5

well, i look forward to this blog series, then.
By: Joe, the Dancing Mule on Wed June 02, 2010, 18:50:38

i'll be interested in seeing your thoughts on how the publishers will decide what books could be self-supporting (and possibly even author-supporting) with more "push" and which will never make that goal.

but that is small beer - i really want see your thoughts on all that other stuff!

6

Re: What's Wrong with Publishing? #1
By: Barry on Wed June 02, 2010, 21:17:47

@Joe: You keep asking good questions. I should have you take over the blog!

Ideally, it won't matter. Publishers already do an excellent job, I think, of picking books with potential. (Not that this means all of the books are good or deserving of success, but that most of them have the potential for it.) It's just a matter of focusing resources to exploit that potential.