Lots of links this week, so let's get to it.
First up, there has been a huge controversy sparked by Harlquin's announcement that they would be forming a self-publishing arm called Harlequin Horizons. Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware wrote a very helpful initial roundup of the plan and controversy, Kristin Nelson wondered if it was exploitation or empowerment, and How Publishing Really Works had similar questions. Following the uproar, the Romance Writers of America took the pretty drastic measure of revoking Harlequin's "recognized publisher" status, and Harlequin announced that they are dropping the Harlequin name from the self-publishing program in order to distinguish the two.
Setting aside this controversy for a moment and the specifics of Harlequin's operation, let me just say that in principle I don't think publishers facilitating self-publishing is necessarily such a bad thing. However, there should be complete transparency, fair pricing, total disambiguation between traditional publishing arms and self-publishing arms, and every good faith attempt made to educate writers about the difference between the two. This industry obviously needs new revenue streams, and provided that the publisher's program is genuinely nonexploitive and transparent I don't see the problem, and I don't see why publishers should continue to cede ground to self-publishing companies when they have every capacity to provide the same service. It just has to be done correctly.
Now then. Other news!
Mike Shatzkin has one of the most brilliant blogs on the future of publishing out there, and this week he had a great post about some conversations he's had with agents about how our role will be changing in the new publishing landscape. He explores a possible change in the way agents earn money, the challenge of facilitating self-publishing, and his opinion (which I share) that "power is moving from 'control of IP to control of eyeballs.'"
In e-book news, the NY Times noticed that quite a few people are reading on their smart phones, and raises the question about whether the future of e-books is with dedicated devices or devices people already have (my guess: a mix of both). And in gadget news, a (satiric?) beta tester of Apple's iTablet spilled the beans to HuffPo/blew my mind, and Engadget released a helpful holiday gift guide for all the different e-readers.
My awesome colleague Sarah LaPolla passed along a really cool ode to the e-book in comic form. And HarperStudio posted a video ode to making a physical book.
Meanwhile, with all of our recent talk about efficiency and self-publishing and e-publishing, Rachelle Gardner had a really interesting post that worries about what will happen if every novel ever written is published.
Over at Upstart Crow, Michael Stearns noticed an interesting thing about the new Stephen King book UNDER THE DOME: it doesn't have any jacket copy. He sees this as a sign that instant word of mouth is quickly becoming paramount, and it's eliminating the browsing process.
As I'm sure you've heard by now, Oprah is ending her daily talk show, which had quite a few book people gasping with panic. C. Max Magee at the Millions has a terrific recap of the history of Oprah and books.
Reader Eric Laing pointed me to this amazing post by Lynn Viehl where she shares her ledger publicly and shows the financial reality of a NY Times bestseller After taxes, commission, and expenses, Lynn made about $24,517.36 on her mass market bestseller TWILIGHT FALL.
Brace yourself for a month of decade retrospectives and best of lists. Quickly out of the gate is the Times UK, which has a list of the top 100 books of the decade, which is, incredibly annoyingly, spread out over 17 pages. Geez louise, Times UK, I don't need to click 16 times to know that Cormac McCarthy won.
The National Book Awards were held, and congrats to the winners! And, your nominee for best sign of the times: Google sponsored the after-party.
For all of you needing help with your last NaNoWriMo push, there's a pretty hilarious widget called Write or Die that punishes you in various forms when you stop typing. (via Neil Vogler)
And finally, as I'm sure you know the second Twilight movie New Moon came out this week. Writing in the Millions, Emily Colette Wilkinson examines the role of wealth aspirations in the TWILIGHT series. io9 has a pretty unreal gallery of the worst/most disturbing TWILIGHT products, and the Daily Beast has a gallery of the best TWILIGHT tattoos, including one of a woman who had an entire paragraph tattooed on her back. Wow. I'd just like to say right now that if anyone gets a tattoo of a corndog I'll send you a signed copy of JACOB WONDERBAR.
Have a great weekend!
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Efficiency Wins in the End
I'm completely obsessed with efficiency. I try to be as ruthlessly efficient as I possibly can, simply because I want to get as much done as possible. If there's a new system that saves me time, whether it's accepting e-queries, embracing Google docs so I can work anywhere, getting an e-reader so I can read anywhere, you name it, I'll do it.
But I'm also obsessed with efficiency in a broader sense as well, because I think it is something critically important to society and history and technology. We humans, whether we're conscious of it or not, are all obsessed with efficiency.
Nearly every single thing that has ever been invented and achieved mass adoption has one thing in common: it's an improvement in efficiency.
Whether it's speech, writing, the postal service, telephone, or e-mails, we have been moving closer and closer to efficient, instantaneous communication across vast distances.
Whether it's domesticated animals, chariots, railroads, cars, planes, we have been moving closer and closer to efficient travel across vast distances.
Whether it's fire, windmills, steam engines, or the internal combustion engine, we have been moving closer and closer to the most efficient energy production possible.
And as we decide whether to adopt or dismiss a new inventions, nearly every consideration other than efficiency (usually) dwindles in importance.
Cars aren't as safe as railroad travel or walking (or at least walking where there are no cars), but we're willing to make that sacrifice because cars are efficient. Every energy technology seems to pollute more than the last, but we make the tradeoff because the other technologies are less efficient. Nothing can compare to the experience of listening to live music or, barring that, vinyl records, but we'd much rather listen to music on mp3 players because we can listen to music whenever we want.
Human beings are always scurrying around trying to find more efficient ways of doing things and freeing up time for the things we'd rather be doing. Efficiency allows us to be more productive and relax more and spend time creating still more efficiency.
And this is why I believe e-books are going to win in the end, and probably sooner than we think. It's simply vastly more efficient to download any book you could possibly want instantaneously and read a book on a screen (even better if it's a screen you already have, hello smartphone) than to cut down a tree, make paper, print ink on it, bind it, ship it across the country in a plane or a truck or both, and make someone walk or drive to a physical store (who may or may not have the book they want) every time they want to read a book.
I think we'll look back on the print era and marvel about all those people who were responsible for delivering all these individual printed objects, kind of like how there used to be a fleet of milk men in every city rather than one guy driving a truck to a couple of supermarkets.
To be sure, no technology disappears completely - people still ride horses, go to plays, type on typewriters, listen to record players, and send handwritten letters. And printed books aren't going to disappear either. All of these technologies have advantages and an associated nostalgia that people will always want to preserve and experience. There will still be printed books and physical bookstores, even if there are far fewer of them.
But things tend to move in one direction: toward greater efficiency and productivity. There's always a delay as people adapt to the new technology, but prices come down, the technology gets better, and the efficiency spreads.
Printed books have their advantages, but they don't win where it counts. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but human nature abhors a bottleneck.
But I'm also obsessed with efficiency in a broader sense as well, because I think it is something critically important to society and history and technology. We humans, whether we're conscious of it or not, are all obsessed with efficiency.
Nearly every single thing that has ever been invented and achieved mass adoption has one thing in common: it's an improvement in efficiency.
Whether it's speech, writing, the postal service, telephone, or e-mails, we have been moving closer and closer to efficient, instantaneous communication across vast distances.
Whether it's domesticated animals, chariots, railroads, cars, planes, we have been moving closer and closer to efficient travel across vast distances.
Whether it's fire, windmills, steam engines, or the internal combustion engine, we have been moving closer and closer to the most efficient energy production possible.
And as we decide whether to adopt or dismiss a new inventions, nearly every consideration other than efficiency (usually) dwindles in importance.
Cars aren't as safe as railroad travel or walking (or at least walking where there are no cars), but we're willing to make that sacrifice because cars are efficient. Every energy technology seems to pollute more than the last, but we make the tradeoff because the other technologies are less efficient. Nothing can compare to the experience of listening to live music or, barring that, vinyl records, but we'd much rather listen to music on mp3 players because we can listen to music whenever we want.
Human beings are always scurrying around trying to find more efficient ways of doing things and freeing up time for the things we'd rather be doing. Efficiency allows us to be more productive and relax more and spend time creating still more efficiency.
And this is why I believe e-books are going to win in the end, and probably sooner than we think. It's simply vastly more efficient to download any book you could possibly want instantaneously and read a book on a screen (even better if it's a screen you already have, hello smartphone) than to cut down a tree, make paper, print ink on it, bind it, ship it across the country in a plane or a truck or both, and make someone walk or drive to a physical store (who may or may not have the book they want) every time they want to read a book.
I think we'll look back on the print era and marvel about all those people who were responsible for delivering all these individual printed objects, kind of like how there used to be a fleet of milk men in every city rather than one guy driving a truck to a couple of supermarkets.
To be sure, no technology disappears completely - people still ride horses, go to plays, type on typewriters, listen to record players, and send handwritten letters. And printed books aren't going to disappear either. All of these technologies have advantages and an associated nostalgia that people will always want to preserve and experience. There will still be printed books and physical bookstores, even if there are far fewer of them.
But things tend to move in one direction: toward greater efficiency and productivity. There's always a delay as people adapt to the new technology, but prices come down, the technology gets better, and the efficiency spreads.
Printed books have their advantages, but they don't win where it counts. Nature may abhor a vacuum, but human nature abhors a bottleneck.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
You Tell Me: Why Are So Many People Writing Books These Days?
I don't keep precise statistics on how many queries I receive each year, but it sure seems like there are more of them every week. I'm at 16,600+ e-mails sent this year, and the vast majority of those are responses to queries. Just about every stranger I meet who finds out what I do for a living has a book they want to talk about. Writers are filling chat rooms and discussion boards, discussing their work and trying to get a leg up.
Is it just me or are there more writers out there than ever before?
And if you agree with the premise that there are more people writing (me = guilty as well).... why do you suppose that is? What's behind it? I mean, it sure doesn't seem like there are vastly more people reading books than before, and it's never been more difficult to find a traditional publisher.
Is it the meteoric success of prominent authors hitting pay dirt? Is it the economy? Is it a cultural moment, kind of how everyone learned how to Swing dance in the 90s? Is it the Internet and computers and the new transparency of the publishing industry, where it's easy to figure out who to query and who publishes what? Is it the self-publishing boom?
Very curious to see the responses.
Is it just me or are there more writers out there than ever before?
And if you agree with the premise that there are more people writing (me = guilty as well).... why do you suppose that is? What's behind it? I mean, it sure doesn't seem like there are vastly more people reading books than before, and it's never been more difficult to find a traditional publisher.
Is it the meteoric success of prominent authors hitting pay dirt? Is it the economy? Is it a cultural moment, kind of how everyone learned how to Swing dance in the 90s? Is it the Internet and computers and the new transparency of the publishing industry, where it's easy to figure out who to query and who publishes what? Is it the self-publishing boom?
Very curious to see the responses.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Waiting is the Worst Part
When JACOB WONDERBAR went out to editors I really thought I was going to be completely cool about the submission process. I'm an agent! I've seen this before! I've sold projects that were out on submission for six months and even a year! How hard could it be?
So. Being a Big Bad Experienced Agent, how long did it take me to crack?
A week and a half.
A WEEK AND A HALF.
That's how long it took before I woke up in the middle of the night to check my e-mail, woke up my poor wife and said, "It's not going to sell! It's not going to sell. I can't believe it, it's not going to sell."
Now, bear in mind that I know that even when books sell they almost never sell in a week and a half. I know that!! A book selling in a week and a half is almost unheard of. But for some reason everything I knew went out the window. It's like I turned into a doctor who's afraid of needles.
Luckily I was able to keep my panic within the walls of my apartment, but all the same: the experience gave me a huge new respect for just how hard it is to be waiting to hear about your manuscript.
Writing is hard. It's hard, it's time-consuming, it's solitary... it's hard. But at least it's within your control. You can change things, you can work harder and revise more, and it's all within your reach. Writing is the fun part.
The frustrating thing about submitting to agents and editors is that there's nothing. you. can. do. about. it. Once you hit send you're at their mercy. The stress of always wondering if today is the day you're going to receive good or bad news, of always sneaking peeks at your e-mail, and trying to be cool and composed in front of the people who are invested in your work, and hearing all those nos before you get your yeses.... it's a steady stress that wears you down.
Everyone has their breaking point. Turns out mine is embarrassingly short.
Now that I've gone through this myself, I really really try as much as I can to avoid keeping people waiting. I try so hard to keep waiting to a minimum. At the same time, a certain amount of time is just built into the process simply because it takes a long time to read a lot of different projects.
How do you cope with the waiting?
So. Being a Big Bad Experienced Agent, how long did it take me to crack?
A week and a half.
A WEEK AND A HALF.
That's how long it took before I woke up in the middle of the night to check my e-mail, woke up my poor wife and said, "It's not going to sell! It's not going to sell. I can't believe it, it's not going to sell."
Now, bear in mind that I know that even when books sell they almost never sell in a week and a half. I know that!! A book selling in a week and a half is almost unheard of. But for some reason everything I knew went out the window. It's like I turned into a doctor who's afraid of needles.
Luckily I was able to keep my panic within the walls of my apartment, but all the same: the experience gave me a huge new respect for just how hard it is to be waiting to hear about your manuscript.
Writing is hard. It's hard, it's time-consuming, it's solitary... it's hard. But at least it's within your control. You can change things, you can work harder and revise more, and it's all within your reach. Writing is the fun part.
The frustrating thing about submitting to agents and editors is that there's nothing. you. can. do. about. it. Once you hit send you're at their mercy. The stress of always wondering if today is the day you're going to receive good or bad news, of always sneaking peeks at your e-mail, and trying to be cool and composed in front of the people who are invested in your work, and hearing all those nos before you get your yeses.... it's a steady stress that wears you down.
Everyone has their breaking point. Turns out mine is embarrassingly short.
Now that I've gone through this myself, I really really try as much as I can to avoid keeping people waiting. I try so hard to keep waiting to a minimum. At the same time, a certain amount of time is just built into the process simply because it takes a long time to read a lot of different projects.
How do you cope with the waiting?
Monday, November 16, 2009
What I Learned About Writing While Watching Reality Television
As longtime blog readers know, I have a bit of a reality TV habit. I still watch Survivor (I know), I was a habitual The Hills watcher before our messy breakup, and I would very much like to be friends with Phil Keoghan from the Amazing Race, who seems like the type of person who would tell great stories at a cocktail party and then somehow convince everyone to join a contest to eat the most pretzels.
You might mistake this for idle time! No no no. I wasn't frying my brain and/or wasting my time watching these shows. Not. At. All. I was learning precious writing techniques. I was studying. Learning!
Behold: The things I learned about writing while watching reality television...
1. Overconfidence is your greatest adversary
How do you know when someone is about to get themselves kicked off a reality TV show? When they stare into the camera with a smirk and talk about how they have it in the bag. Then they inevitably end up getting voted off Tribal Counsel faster than you can say "Jeff Probst."
Overconfidence causes authors to just send out queries with a few dashed off words of explanation, trusting that the genius of their manuscript will shine through. Overconfidence blinds authors to the changes they need to make to their manuscript, and makes them deaf to good suggestions.
When overconfidence enters the picture authors can turn into their own worst enemies. It didn't work for the Four Horsemen of Survivor Fiji, who entrusted their plans with someone who called himself Dreamz. By choice. It doesn't work for writers either.
2. Don't mess with the host.
Did it pay for Kenley to antagonize poor Tim Gunn on Project Runway? No, it did not.
Did it pay for Chima to antagonize the producers of Big Brother? No, it did not.
Did it pay for Tiffany to talk back to Tyra on America's Next Top Model? No, it most definitely did not.
In the publishing game, agents and editors and publishers are your hosts. You may not like the rules of the game, but you won't get anywhere making enemies with the people running the show.
3. Pay your taxes.
Don't let this happen to you.
Read Kristin Nelson's essential post on the things you should do when your book sells. Remember, your advance will come to you as untaxed income, just like winnings on Survivor. Get a good accountant, pay your taxes immediately, and invest your windfall wisely.
4. Be a student of the game.
The best contestants on reality TV shows are often the ones who have lived and breathed a show for its entire existence. This season, the otherwise contemptible Russell from Survivor Samoa knew enough about the show to keep hunting for hidden immunity idols even though he didn't have any clues, simply because he knew that the show often places hidden immunity idols around camp. Sure enough, it worked! And anyone who has watched America's Next Top Model knows that when in a tough spot the best strategy is to break down in tears and plead for Tyra's mercy.
Study the publishing game. Learn it. Breathe it. There may not be any hidden immunity idols (at least, not until I'm in charge), but the name of the game is survival, and it pays to know everything you possibly can find out.
5. Play nice.
On reality television, a contestant will inevitably show up and wag their finger and shout, "I'm not here to make friends!"
And that person never wins.
You might mistake this for idle time! No no no. I wasn't frying my brain and/or wasting my time watching these shows. Not. At. All. I was learning precious writing techniques. I was studying. Learning!
Behold: The things I learned about writing while watching reality television...
1. Overconfidence is your greatest adversary
How do you know when someone is about to get themselves kicked off a reality TV show? When they stare into the camera with a smirk and talk about how they have it in the bag. Then they inevitably end up getting voted off Tribal Counsel faster than you can say "Jeff Probst."
Overconfidence causes authors to just send out queries with a few dashed off words of explanation, trusting that the genius of their manuscript will shine through. Overconfidence blinds authors to the changes they need to make to their manuscript, and makes them deaf to good suggestions.
When overconfidence enters the picture authors can turn into their own worst enemies. It didn't work for the Four Horsemen of Survivor Fiji, who entrusted their plans with someone who called himself Dreamz. By choice. It doesn't work for writers either.
2. Don't mess with the host.
Did it pay for Kenley to antagonize poor Tim Gunn on Project Runway? No, it did not.
Did it pay for Chima to antagonize the producers of Big Brother? No, it did not.
Did it pay for Tiffany to talk back to Tyra on America's Next Top Model? No, it most definitely did not.
In the publishing game, agents and editors and publishers are your hosts. You may not like the rules of the game, but you won't get anywhere making enemies with the people running the show.
3. Pay your taxes.
Don't let this happen to you.
Read Kristin Nelson's essential post on the things you should do when your book sells. Remember, your advance will come to you as untaxed income, just like winnings on Survivor. Get a good accountant, pay your taxes immediately, and invest your windfall wisely.
4. Be a student of the game.
The best contestants on reality TV shows are often the ones who have lived and breathed a show for its entire existence. This season, the otherwise contemptible Russell from Survivor Samoa knew enough about the show to keep hunting for hidden immunity idols even though he didn't have any clues, simply because he knew that the show often places hidden immunity idols around camp. Sure enough, it worked! And anyone who has watched America's Next Top Model knows that when in a tough spot the best strategy is to break down in tears and plead for Tyra's mercy.
Study the publishing game. Learn it. Breathe it. There may not be any hidden immunity idols (at least, not until I'm in charge), but the name of the game is survival, and it pays to know everything you possibly can find out.
5. Play nice.
On reality television, a contestant will inevitably show up and wag their finger and shout, "I'm not here to make friends!"
And that person never wins.
Friday, November 13, 2009
This Week In Publishing
Would you believe that there wasn't any earth-shattering publishing news this week in publishing? WalMart didn't slash the price of hardcovers to 99 cents, a new e-reader didn't debut, and we're all still here. Thank goodness there are still links:
GalleyCat asked the provocative question Do Authors Really Need Agents? For the most part the answer was, "Um... yes. They do."
In e-book news, Amazon announced that they created a PC Kindle app (link via Greg Peisert), so you can now read your Kindle books on Kindles, iPhones, and your computer. I'm told you can also still read books on paper, but I haven't been able to confirm that rumor.
Editorial Anonymous has a great response to a reader who wonders if editors (and presumably agents) know they are dream crushers. EA makes a crucial distinction: we hold your work in our hands, not your dreams. No one should be able to crush your dreams with a rejection. She writes, "dreams are achieved through your hard work, and not through the miraculous intervention of others." Word.
A former vice-presidential candidate has a new book out, and the Associated Press got their hands on an early leaked copy (Palin reportedly is none too happy about the leak and the review). Sarah Weinman, writing for Daily Finance, took a look at the economics of the book advance and calculates that Harper would have to sell around 400,000 copies in hardcover to break even. Is that a safe bet? The Millions' guess (and mine as well): you betcha.
In The Rejectionist news, Le R. announced the winners of her form rejection contest, which had such hysterical entries I don't know how she even picked winners. She also took note of this week's query trend: angels. Particularly angels tempting girls with their "smoking hot bods and snowy snowy wings." Wow. Heaven help us all. (get it??? get it???)
@lilliamr noted a PW article about a new query service making the rounds that would pre-screen queries for agents to make sure that they conform to their guidelines and genres of interest before the agent sees them. Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware sums up the mixed history of these types of ventures. I won't be signing up, but all you have to do is take a look at Jessica Faust's rapturous post about her query holiday to get a sense of how much of a strain it is these days to keep up with the query pile. Yes, aspiring authors are busy too and all that, but the time it takes to read them all (let alone respond) may be approaching a point of unsustainability.
Twitter lists are fast becoming the hot new thing in the Twittersphere, and thanks very much to GalleyCat for including me in their Best Agent Twitter feeds list. I've created some nascent lists of my own that will continue to grow, including my clients, editors, writers, publishers, agents, and other non-editor publishing types.
In self-publishing news, Andrew Sullivan announced that he is working with Blurb.com to create a self-published coffee table book version of his View From Your Window posts, and is crowd-sourcing an estimate of what the initial print run should be. An interesting experiment indeed.
HTMLGIANT notes a Cormac McCarthy interview wherein he suggests that the days of the 700 page MOBY DICK-style literary doorstopper are completely over: "Nobody will read it. I don’t care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different."
And finally, can I get a NaNoWriMo status update? How are all the Word Marathoners doing out there?
Have a great weekend!
GalleyCat asked the provocative question Do Authors Really Need Agents? For the most part the answer was, "Um... yes. They do."
In e-book news, Amazon announced that they created a PC Kindle app (link via Greg Peisert), so you can now read your Kindle books on Kindles, iPhones, and your computer. I'm told you can also still read books on paper, but I haven't been able to confirm that rumor.
Editorial Anonymous has a great response to a reader who wonders if editors (and presumably agents) know they are dream crushers. EA makes a crucial distinction: we hold your work in our hands, not your dreams. No one should be able to crush your dreams with a rejection. She writes, "dreams are achieved through your hard work, and not through the miraculous intervention of others." Word.
A former vice-presidential candidate has a new book out, and the Associated Press got their hands on an early leaked copy (Palin reportedly is none too happy about the leak and the review). Sarah Weinman, writing for Daily Finance, took a look at the economics of the book advance and calculates that Harper would have to sell around 400,000 copies in hardcover to break even. Is that a safe bet? The Millions' guess (and mine as well): you betcha.
In The Rejectionist news, Le R. announced the winners of her form rejection contest, which had such hysterical entries I don't know how she even picked winners. She also took note of this week's query trend: angels. Particularly angels tempting girls with their "smoking hot bods and snowy snowy wings." Wow. Heaven help us all. (get it??? get it???)
@lilliamr noted a PW article about a new query service making the rounds that would pre-screen queries for agents to make sure that they conform to their guidelines and genres of interest before the agent sees them. Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware sums up the mixed history of these types of ventures. I won't be signing up, but all you have to do is take a look at Jessica Faust's rapturous post about her query holiday to get a sense of how much of a strain it is these days to keep up with the query pile. Yes, aspiring authors are busy too and all that, but the time it takes to read them all (let alone respond) may be approaching a point of unsustainability.
Twitter lists are fast becoming the hot new thing in the Twittersphere, and thanks very much to GalleyCat for including me in their Best Agent Twitter feeds list. I've created some nascent lists of my own that will continue to grow, including my clients, editors, writers, publishers, agents, and other non-editor publishing types.
In self-publishing news, Andrew Sullivan announced that he is working with Blurb.com to create a self-published coffee table book version of his View From Your Window posts, and is crowd-sourcing an estimate of what the initial print run should be. An interesting experiment indeed.
HTMLGIANT notes a Cormac McCarthy interview wherein he suggests that the days of the 700 page MOBY DICK-style literary doorstopper are completely over: "Nobody will read it. I don’t care how good it is, or how smart the readers are. Their intentions, their brains are different."
And finally, can I get a NaNoWriMo status update? How are all the Word Marathoners doing out there?
Have a great weekend!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Moving the Needle
Hi everyone, this was originally posted yesterday in the Huffington Post, where I will be blogging from time to time. I thought I'd re-post it here.
During my meetings with editors, agents, sales assistants, marketers, and other assorted publishing types in New York this past week, there was a common theme that kept cropping up again and again:
Moving the needle.
(That's "making an impact" for those of us not fluent in Corporatese.)
Editors want to take authors to the next level or make a splash with a debut. Publishers want to gain traction with new electronic formats. Sales and marketing teams want to make a splash. Everyone is desperate for a hit.
At the same time, along with this overwhelming drive to move the needle came an almost equally universal feeling of uneasiness: it's harder to move the needle than ever before.
One of the big recent surprises in the industry, according to a few different people I met with, is a newfound difficulty making a splash even with adult nonfiction. Now, to get an idea of what a huge problem/challenge/earthquake this is, bear in mind that for many years adult nonfiction was the bread and butter workhorse of the industry. Fiction, except for very very established authors, has always been regarded as something of a crapshoot. Nonfiction, on the other hand, was a source of relative stability, and publishers had gotten reasonably good at guessing at the size of the market for a project, giving authors a reasonably appropriate advance, and bringing in healthy margins.
Not so much anymore. Everything is difficult to break out.
What's happening?
Yes, book sales are down, but it's not as if they've fallen off a cliff. And there are still books that are wildly, hugely successful. But why is it that certain books are taking off seemingly out of the blue where other seemingly sure bets aren't doing so well?
One guess: the industry has gone from pushing the needle to being pushed by the needle.
Before the Internet, the publishing industry was one of a few powerful forces that helped shape the cultural zeitgeist - their choices of what to publish and what to market had a reasonably solid effect on what we consumed as a culture. Up until the Internet era, zeitgeist-shaping was much more of a top-down phenomenon. There simply wasn't much of an alternative to the books/movies/music/TV shows that major publishers/studios/labels/networks decided you would like. Your choice in zeitgeist was prescribed and proscribed in advance. Want to read something other than what the publishing industry decided to put in the bookstore? Good luck, pardner!
Not to get all Y2K on you, but the Internet has changed all that. Now we are positively besieged by an infinite number of stories and videos and Tweets and blogs and Gosselins and quizzes competing for our atten... OMG did you see that kitten video?
And holy cow almost all of it is free. People are deciding what media they want to consume out of a bewildering array of choices, and the ground is constantly shifting.
The competition for eyeballs is fierce, and the traditional tools at publishers' disposal aren't as effective as they used to be: Review space has all but completely disappeared, bookstores are closing and taking with them the precious hit-making front-store real estate (which publishers pay dearly for), advertising is costly and sporadically effective, and some (but not all) publishers have been slow to adapt to the potential of the Internet and especially social networking. In other words: their ability to move the needle has flown out the digital door.
To be sure, there are publishers who are still able to consistently generate hits, whether it's Penguin's remarkable run of trade paperback bestsellers or Hachette's stable of suspense writers, among others. And there are still hits happening, even if they seem to be increasingly starting modestly and then taking off through rabid word of mouth.
But if publishers feel unable to "make" a book and increasingly depend on word of mouth and the new bottom-up zeitgeist it will surely complicate a publishing business model that makes massive bets on progressively fewer books in the hopes that those books reach the "phenomenon" status that pads margins and launches careers. Will publishers continue to pay a premium for the privilege of taking an increasingly uncertain risk? Will authors be depended upon to bring their own celebrity/platform/253,078 Twitter followers to bear in order to make a hit for the publisher?
Unless the industry finds a better way to minimize their massive risk-taking or find new tools to move the needle, publishing will continue to bow before the increasingly fickle whims of the zeitgeist and the Internet hive. And the only thing worse than failing to push the needle is accidentally sitting on it.
During my meetings with editors, agents, sales assistants, marketers, and other assorted publishing types in New York this past week, there was a common theme that kept cropping up again and again:
Moving the needle.
(That's "making an impact" for those of us not fluent in Corporatese.)
Editors want to take authors to the next level or make a splash with a debut. Publishers want to gain traction with new electronic formats. Sales and marketing teams want to make a splash. Everyone is desperate for a hit.
At the same time, along with this overwhelming drive to move the needle came an almost equally universal feeling of uneasiness: it's harder to move the needle than ever before.
One of the big recent surprises in the industry, according to a few different people I met with, is a newfound difficulty making a splash even with adult nonfiction. Now, to get an idea of what a huge problem/challenge/earthquake this is, bear in mind that for many years adult nonfiction was the bread and butter workhorse of the industry. Fiction, except for very very established authors, has always been regarded as something of a crapshoot. Nonfiction, on the other hand, was a source of relative stability, and publishers had gotten reasonably good at guessing at the size of the market for a project, giving authors a reasonably appropriate advance, and bringing in healthy margins.
Not so much anymore. Everything is difficult to break out.
What's happening?
Yes, book sales are down, but it's not as if they've fallen off a cliff. And there are still books that are wildly, hugely successful. But why is it that certain books are taking off seemingly out of the blue where other seemingly sure bets aren't doing so well?
One guess: the industry has gone from pushing the needle to being pushed by the needle.
Before the Internet, the publishing industry was one of a few powerful forces that helped shape the cultural zeitgeist - their choices of what to publish and what to market had a reasonably solid effect on what we consumed as a culture. Up until the Internet era, zeitgeist-shaping was much more of a top-down phenomenon. There simply wasn't much of an alternative to the books/movies/music/TV shows that major publishers/studios/labels/networks decided you would like. Your choice in zeitgeist was prescribed and proscribed in advance. Want to read something other than what the publishing industry decided to put in the bookstore? Good luck, pardner!
Not to get all Y2K on you, but the Internet has changed all that. Now we are positively besieged by an infinite number of stories and videos and Tweets and blogs and Gosselins and quizzes competing for our atten... OMG did you see that kitten video?
And holy cow almost all of it is free. People are deciding what media they want to consume out of a bewildering array of choices, and the ground is constantly shifting.
The competition for eyeballs is fierce, and the traditional tools at publishers' disposal aren't as effective as they used to be: Review space has all but completely disappeared, bookstores are closing and taking with them the precious hit-making front-store real estate (which publishers pay dearly for), advertising is costly and sporadically effective, and some (but not all) publishers have been slow to adapt to the potential of the Internet and especially social networking. In other words: their ability to move the needle has flown out the digital door.
To be sure, there are publishers who are still able to consistently generate hits, whether it's Penguin's remarkable run of trade paperback bestsellers or Hachette's stable of suspense writers, among others. And there are still hits happening, even if they seem to be increasingly starting modestly and then taking off through rabid word of mouth.
But if publishers feel unable to "make" a book and increasingly depend on word of mouth and the new bottom-up zeitgeist it will surely complicate a publishing business model that makes massive bets on progressively fewer books in the hopes that those books reach the "phenomenon" status that pads margins and launches careers. Will publishers continue to pay a premium for the privilege of taking an increasingly uncertain risk? Will authors be depended upon to bring their own celebrity/platform/253,078 Twitter followers to bear in order to make a hit for the publisher?
Unless the industry finds a better way to minimize their massive risk-taking or find new tools to move the needle, publishing will continue to bow before the increasingly fickle whims of the zeitgeist and the Internet hive. And the only thing worse than failing to push the needle is accidentally sitting on it.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
You Tell Me: How Much Would You Pay for a Dedicated E-Reader?
With nook (yes, no definite article and uncapitalized. That's how you know it's cool!!) arriving on the scene, there are now quite a few e-readers to choose from, and even more questionably named devices arriving imminently.
And though I tease the (whoops! Silly me, using the definite article) nook, it's only because I want one.
Seriously: want.
But how much would you pay for one?
For the purposes of this discussion, let's call our hypothetical e-reader the Wonderbook. The Wonderbook is much like the devices currently on the market: it has e-ink (no eye strain!), 3G wireless, and has a library of hundreds of thousands of titles to choose from, which you can buy for about $9.99. In other words, the only difference between the Wonderbook and the devices currently on the market is that it has a better name.
How much would you pay for the Wonderbook? $50? $100? $150? Nada?
Click through for the poll! If you already own a dedicated e-reader please click the price that's closest to the amount you paid:
Also, if you haven't had your fill of e-reader polls today, Eric at Pimp My Novel is also having a poll about why you haven't bought an e-reader yet. Check it out!
And though I tease the (whoops! Silly me, using the definite article) nook, it's only because I want one.
Seriously: want.
But how much would you pay for one?
For the purposes of this discussion, let's call our hypothetical e-reader the Wonderbook. The Wonderbook is much like the devices currently on the market: it has e-ink (no eye strain!), 3G wireless, and has a library of hundreds of thousands of titles to choose from, which you can buy for about $9.99. In other words, the only difference between the Wonderbook and the devices currently on the market is that it has a better name.
How much would you pay for the Wonderbook? $50? $100? $150? Nada?
Click through for the poll! If you already own a dedicated e-reader please click the price that's closest to the amount you paid:
Also, if you haven't had your fill of e-reader polls today, Eric at Pimp My Novel is also having a poll about why you haven't bought an e-reader yet. Check it out!
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Get the Big Stuff Right
As I was brainstorming about what to blog about today I was thinking I'd discuss how if you just familiarize yourself with agent blogs and use your best judgment and act in good faith and send the best query you can you're going to be fine and there's no need to sweat the tiny details. And then lo and behold I come across an identical post by Michael Bourret. Already written! Today no less!
Between this and Holly Root's recent post, both of which I agree with, clearly there is a feeling among agents at the moment that we have sufficiently terrified authors that it is now necessary to reassure them that we are not going to send them packing at the first sign of a typo or query faux pas.
And Michael's right. It's not about the details.
Only.... it kind of is.
I mean, it is and isn't.
It isn't in the sense that there really is no such thing as an instant rejection if you make a query faux pas. We're going to take everything into account when making a decision, and just because you, say, started with a rhetorical question doesn't mean I will automatically reject you. It just means you will have tried my patience to the breaking point argh don't do it to me!!
It is about the details in the sense that we are actually making a decision based on a short letter and maybe some sample pages and so of course it's about the details.
But which details to sweat and which details to not sweat?
Here's my sweat list:
Overall look - Around the right length, a reasonable font, 10 or 12 point font, broken into reasonable paragraphs, no fiddling with margins, pictures, indenting, colors, etc. Just a clean, professional-looking letter. Don't sweat if it's a little long or a little short, and definitely do not start messing around to try and make it look creative or different. When it comes to letters, "creative" tends to look "insane." It's like showing up to a job interview in a clown costume. When you're formatting your query: wear a boring suit.
The description of your work. Get. This. Right. Get it right. Get it right, get it right, get it right. Get it right. Sweat this. This is what we care about. We're looking for a good story idea and good writing, and you want both to jump out in the query.
Annnnd, we're done!
All that other stuff like credits, genre, word count, series, etc. etc. etc.? Sure, great if you can sort through our pet peeves and get yourself in the ballpark of the right genre, and every little bit helps if you can show that you're cool and professional and know what you're doing. If I didn't blog about that stuff people would still ask, and hey: I'm much more comfortable when I feel like I know what I'm doing, so I try to bore down and help people out with the little stuff too.
But when it comes down to it: use your best judgment and get the big stuff right. All the rest is gravy.
Between this and Holly Root's recent post, both of which I agree with, clearly there is a feeling among agents at the moment that we have sufficiently terrified authors that it is now necessary to reassure them that we are not going to send them packing at the first sign of a typo or query faux pas.
And Michael's right. It's not about the details.
Only.... it kind of is.
I mean, it is and isn't.
It isn't in the sense that there really is no such thing as an instant rejection if you make a query faux pas. We're going to take everything into account when making a decision, and just because you, say, started with a rhetorical question doesn't mean I will automatically reject you. It just means you will have tried my patience to the breaking point argh don't do it to me!!
It is about the details in the sense that we are actually making a decision based on a short letter and maybe some sample pages and so of course it's about the details.
But which details to sweat and which details to not sweat?
Here's my sweat list:
Overall look - Around the right length, a reasonable font, 10 or 12 point font, broken into reasonable paragraphs, no fiddling with margins, pictures, indenting, colors, etc. Just a clean, professional-looking letter. Don't sweat if it's a little long or a little short, and definitely do not start messing around to try and make it look creative or different. When it comes to letters, "creative" tends to look "insane." It's like showing up to a job interview in a clown costume. When you're formatting your query: wear a boring suit.
The description of your work. Get. This. Right. Get it right. Get it right, get it right, get it right. Get it right. Sweat this. This is what we care about. We're looking for a good story idea and good writing, and you want both to jump out in the query.
Annnnd, we're done!
All that other stuff like credits, genre, word count, series, etc. etc. etc.? Sure, great if you can sort through our pet peeves and get yourself in the ballpark of the right genre, and every little bit helps if you can show that you're cool and professional and know what you're doing. If I didn't blog about that stuff people would still ask, and hey: I'm much more comfortable when I feel like I know what I'm doing, so I try to bore down and help people out with the little stuff too.
But when it comes down to it: use your best judgment and get the big stuff right. All the rest is gravy.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Comparing Your Book to Other Books in the Query
One of the very most common questions I receive: how/whether to compare your book to another book or books in the query.
I personally don't mind at all if you compare your book to another book or author or two to put me in the right frame of mind. This is completely optional, so don't feel as if you have to, and honestly I'd just use your best judgment about whether you think it would be helpful.
The only thing I would suggest is that you don't compare your book to 1) a megabestseller or 2) something extremely obscure.
Because:
1) We agents get zillions of queries that declare themselves to be the next DA VINCI TWLIGHT POTTER SECRET, and trust me, you don't want to be in the company of those queries. Honestly, people, what megabestseller is anything like the last megabestseller?
2) If the reference is too obscure you are risking that the agent is going to be all, "Dear god man, I haven't read everything."
At the same time, the right mix can indeed put an agent in the right mindset. So compare away! If you like.
I personally don't mind at all if you compare your book to another book or author or two to put me in the right frame of mind. This is completely optional, so don't feel as if you have to, and honestly I'd just use your best judgment about whether you think it would be helpful.
The only thing I would suggest is that you don't compare your book to 1) a megabestseller or 2) something extremely obscure.
Because:
1) We agents get zillions of queries that declare themselves to be the next DA VINCI TWLIGHT POTTER SECRET, and trust me, you don't want to be in the company of those queries. Honestly, people, what megabestseller is anything like the last megabestseller?
2) If the reference is too obscure you are risking that the agent is going to be all, "Dear god man, I haven't read everything."
At the same time, the right mix can indeed put an agent in the right mindset. So compare away! If you like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
