Write this badly and you too can sell tens of millions of books

[Bramblethorn]

You're wrong. I just read a really interesting article about what we can learn about the publishing business from the Penguin v. DOJ antitrust case, and it talks extensively about this. Publishers are constantly looking for the next big thing and doing their best to create them, of course, but their hit rate is low: a book doesn't become a smash hit just because of a marketing push. The successes are mostly serendipitous, more or less unpredictable phenomena.

I was about to mention that same case. From what was disclosed there, most fiction books are published at a loss, by publishers gambling on finding the one that makes it big. Obviously they will choose to plug some books more heavily than others, and no doubt that affects sales, but the evidence discussed in that article doesn't paint a picture of an industry where publishers can reliably choose what's going to be a bestseller.

From that article:

The DOJ’s lawyer collected data on 58,000 titles published in a year and discovered that 90 percent of them sold fewer than 2,000 copies and 50 percent sold less than a dozen copies.

When one considers all the costs involved in getting a book onto shelves, that's not remotely profitable. I recently edited a non-fiction book for a well-known publisher; they'll need to sell about 200 copies just to cover my contract, even ignoring the cost of printing and distributing those copies. Granted what I do is specialised work and priced higher than general fiction editing would be. But even for something generic that can be offshored at low rates, selling 2000 copies isn't likely to leave any kind of margin.

If publishers could tell up front which ones were going to be bestsellers, they wouldn't be publishing that unprofitable 90%.

 

[KeithD]

I'll stick with my claim, based on actual work in U.S. publishing houses, that most best-sellers are preselected as such by the publishing houses themselves and made so by the marketing campaign put to them. On 50 Shades, I provided an example--that the week it was released it appeared taking up multiple shelves in venues across the English-speaking world. Road rest stops across the UK was where I saw it that week. That's not something that either EL James or her friends could have done, and it's effective in getting readers to think "this book must be hot stuff." I won't bother arguing this with armchair gurus here. Users can believe what they want to.

 

[KeithD]

Any chance you're thinking of Ann Coulter?

Yeah, at some point in the discussion my mind made the substitution.

 

[KeithD]

When one considers all the costs involved in getting a book onto shelves, that's not remotely profitable.

Australia is hardly the center of the publishing house world.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Throwing stones is easy...
Opinions are everywhere.
Is writing good or bad... Who knows. We are all different, thankfully.
it is impossible to please everybody.
We like what we like.

Regardless of the field of creativity. Music, art, literature. I see, hear or read something and wonder. "What made that so popular? I didn't get it, but millions of others did. So was it good or bad? Clearly it pleased the millions, so on the weight of popular demand and averages you'd say it was good.

Old adage that always comes to mind.

"You can't make your candle burn brighter, by blowing somebody else's out."

Cagivagurl

 

[Bramblethorn]

Australia is hardly the center of the publishing house world.

??

Obviously true, but not seeing the relevance to this discussion.

 

[TheArsonist]

I'll stick with my claim, based on actual work in U.S. publishing houses, that most best-sellers are preselected as such by the publishing houses themselves and made so by the marketing campaign put to them. On 50 Shades, I provided an example--that the week it was released it appeared taking up multiple shelves in venues across the English-speaking world. Road rest stops across the UK was where I saw it that week. That's not something that either EL James or her friends could have done, and it's effective in getting readers to think "this book must be hot stuff." I won't bother arguing this with armchair gurus here. Users can believe what they want to.

And I will stick with mine, you ass, based on evidence presented in court by the major publishing houses.

First of all, you picked just about the worst example to make your point. 50 Shades of Grey was already a hit when it was acquired by a major publisher, having first been self-published—initially on-line, then through a print-on-demand publisher—and being such a success in that format that it attracted media attention. (I for one heard about it then, and I was not at all attuned to the genre.) It achieved that almost entirely by word of mouth. That record of proven success was the reason it got picked up by Random House and why they had such faith in it and gave it such a major launch. The push certainly helped, but by the time they re-released it there was already significant organic hype around it.

And the larger point you're missing is that these efforts fail most of the time. Of course the publishers try to predict which books are going to be hits, and promote ones they see potential in. But while a heavily-promoted book will obviously sell more than one that isn't promoted (most of the time), it won't necessarily become a runaway hit, or even one that repays the investment.

Most books are not successful, and that includes most books that publishers try to push onto the public.

 

[nice90sguy]

popular ≠ good. That's not sour grapes, it's a guiding mission for me, reminding me to rely on the people whose judgement I respect (including myself), when assessing the quality of writing, movies, soft beverages, music and food.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'll stick with my claim, based on actual work in U.S. publishing houses, that most best-sellers are preselected as such by the publishing houses themselves and made so by the marketing campaign put to them. On 50 Shades, I provided an example--that the week it was released it appeared taking up multiple shelves in venues across the English-speaking world.

I think you've misremembered the timeline, or you're confused about the circumstances of its release.

50SoG was originally released in mid-2011 as an e-book/PoD only, self-published by E.L. James via a small Australian publisher. Far from the centre of the publishing world, as they say. Over the next few months it grew in popularity via word-of-mouth. Obviously it wasn't "taking up multiple shelves" anywhere at this time.

By 12 March 2012, it had hit the top of the NYT bestseller list, primarily on e-book sales (plus a small print run, I understand). Around that time, Random House picked it up and did a large print run. That would've been the "taking up multiple shelves" that you saw, but that only happened after it had already become a bestseller.

 

[StillStunned]

popular ≠ good.

I think it's more accurate to say popular isn't necessarily the same as well-written, or authorly, or profound. "Good" can take many forms, and "entertaining" is one of them.

That doesn't mean, of course, that "well-written" isn't one of my priorities in my own writing, and one of the things I look for in other people's writing. It's just not what everyone else looks for.

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

I think it's more accurate to say popular isn't necessarily the same as well-written, or authorly, or profound

There is a chance that the most exquisite prose ever crafted is scribbled on a napkin locked away in a footlocker in an attic of a house on a planet orbiting Vega, 25.05 light-years from Earth.

 

[StillStunned]

There is a chance that the most exquisite prose ever crafted is scribbled on a napkin locked away in a footlocker in an attic of a house on a planet orbiting Vega, 25.05 light-years from Earth.

Actually, you'll find it in Anonybush's lyrical comments about a mother's pubic hair.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Actually, you'll find it in Anonybush's lyrical comments about a mother's pubic hair.

Literotica comments would make a great numbers station.

 

[SimonDoom]

And I will stick with mine, you ass, based on evidence presented in court by the major publishing houses.

First of all, you picked just about the worst example to make your point. 50 Shades of Grey was already a hit when it was acquired by a major publisher, having first been self-published—initially on-line, then through a print-on-demand publisher—and being such a success in that format that it attracted media attention. (I for one heard about it then, and I was not at all attuned to the genre.) It achieved that almost entirely by word of mouth. That record of proven success was the reason it got picked up by Random House and why they had such faith in it and gave it such a major launch. The push certainly helped, but by the time they re-released it there was already significant organic hype around it.

And the larger point you're missing is that these efforts fail most of the time. Of course the publishers try to predict which books are going to be hits, and promote ones they see potential in. But while a heavily-promoted book will obviously sell more than one that isn't promoted (most of the time), it won't necessarily become a runaway hit, or even one that repays the investment.

Most books are not successful, and that includes most books that publishers try to push onto the public.

If I recall, Andy Weir's The Martian had a similar history. It initially achieved success as a self-published novel, was picked up by a major publishing house, and became a phenomenon. In that case, I think you have to give credit to the author. It's an extremely engaging story and an obvious labor of love for the author, who put a lot of research into it.

 

[intim8]

Old adage that always comes to mind.

"You can't make your candle burn brighter, by blowing somebody else's out."

Cagivagurl

I love that. It's a keeper.

 

[intim8]

That doesn't mean, of course, that "well-written" isn't one of my priorities in my own writing, and one of the things I look for in other people's writing. It's just not what everyone else looks for.

I think there's a thread throughout this discussion of treating quality as some abstract thing, something that is meant to be noticed and appreciated in it's own right, as entirely separate from the enjoyment of the book. As if the story is just a vehicle for displaying the author's writing prowess

It isn't. There's two parts to the "quality" of a story. The storytelling; is the plot compelling, are the characters interesting enough to relate to and care about, is the theme enlightening, etc.

Then there's the mechanics; the quality of the prose, the word choice and sentence structure, the aspects we writers discuss endlessly like show-don't-tell, avoid too many adverbs, use "he said" most of the time, things like that.

99% of readers don't actively and deliberately look for such things, nor do they care. They wouldn't know it if they saw it. But what those things do is serve the reader the things he does want. If the storytelling is good in all the ways above, the reader will feel more satisfied, remember it more positively, tell their friends, buy the next one from that author.

If the mechanics are good, it is not something the readers notice. It is something that allows the reader to get the storytelling with minimal effort and maximum clarity, become immersed in the story rather than reading it as a chore. It's what makes the reader feel the emotional impact, to see the characters clearly as actual people, to intuitively understand and follow the plot.

If you're looking for "quality" as a display of ability, you're doing it wrong. If you notice it as a reader (other than by a deliberately analytical read, or a read from the mindset we authors tend to have of appreciation for technique), the author is doing it wrong. Doing it right means the storytelling just lands better, has more impact, reaches the reader more intensely. It means that even a reader who has no notion of what quality writing is will come away thinking it is a better story than they would have otherwise.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

'Easy to read' is often popular. It's not necessarily the same as bad writing. Think of churned-out children's books (Enid Blyton, Hardy Boys, Animal Magic), or genre books like Mills & Boon romances. The Sun newspaper is aimed at a reading age of nine, and writing for it is considered one of the toughest types of journalism, being able to explain things in simple words and phrases.

Some writing is to provide easy entertainment, with the words just complex and non-repetitive enough to carry the story along. Nothing wrong with that, just like a simple fast-food burger. When you get a weak story and pretentious verbiage dressing it up into something it ain't, that's bad writing (just like piling lots of toppings and French descriptions can't rescue a bad burger).

 

[alohadave]

All the technical skill in the world isn't going to help you if you can't tell a story.

It's the same in every art. The technical stuff is the easy part. Having something to say, and getting it across to your audience is the hard part.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think there's a thread throughout this discussion of treating quality as some abstract thing, something that is meant to be noticed and appreciated in it's own right, as entirely separate from the enjoyment of the book. As if the story is just a vehicle for displaying the author's writing prowess

It isn't. There's two parts to the "quality" of a story. The storytelling; is the plot compelling, are the characters interesting enough to relate to and care about, is the theme enlightening, etc.

Then there's the mechanics; the quality of the prose, the word choice and sentence structure, the aspects we writers discuss endlessly like show-don't-tell, avoid too many adverbs, use "he said" most of the time, things like that.

We can distinguish these things to some degree, but it's not a clean separation. Mechanics exist to support storytelling and making good use of them can be vital in getting readers to care about characters and plot. When I'm fussing about something like word choice or sentence structure, it's usually because I'm using those things to reinforce some aspect of the story, not because I'm worried about getting red-penned for incorrect apostrophe's.

 

[KeithD]

not because I'm worried about getting red-penned for incorrect apostrophe's.

I see what you did there.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I see what you did there.

It hurt just to write it, so I'm glad somebody noticed!

 

[TheLobster]

It hurt just to write it, so I'm glad somebody noticed!

Don't do that. Its really jarring, you know, to see a word with it's apostrophe so misplaced.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Don't do that. Its really jarring, you know, to see a word with it's apostrophe so misplaced.

C'ome on, th'ats so b'latan't tha't its n'ot ev'en f'unny!

 

[onehitwanda]

C'ome on, th'ats so b'latan't tha't its n'ot ev'en f'unny!

In his cyclopean palace in drowned R'lyeh, Great Cthulhu woke frowning.