Into the Fire

I know some of you are convinced that only the best writing gets a publishing contract from a royalty publisher. And that’s true. Well, it’s at least half true. On every book rack in every store that sells them, there are some poorly written books. It’s a fact, known by all in the biz and by all serious readers and by all devoted book reviewers.

I have continually stated that the evaluation of writing is subjective and have been reprimanded for it—or perhaps I should say it has been pointed out to me that insisting on the subjectivity factor is allowing for or can be inferred to mean synonymous with mediocrity. I disagree. If you get far enough along in this business of publishing to have actual conversations with agents or editors either live at conferences or via e-mail dialogues, you will find out who “gets” you as a writer and who does not. I’m not talking about submitting a first draft. I’m talking about a manuscript you’ve tooled and reworked and made ready for submission. I’m talking about a manuscript which you’ve had read by trustworthy test readers who understand novels/stories/what works and what doesn’t.

It can be well written, but it isn’t in the genre a particular publisher is looking for at the time. Or an agent you’ve selected has already acquired too many of that genre and is looking for something else. Many professionals will tell you they’re looking for any reason to reject before they’re truly looking to acquire simply because of the volume of submissions.

So, here’s where the speculation becomes problematic. The nature of the industry is to speculate on what will sell. I’m going to stick to CBA fiction here as usual. Many of the publishing houses will tell you that a small few of their authors’ books carry the rest of the authors. The sales of those successful authors make it possible for the rest of the books produced to make it into the market. Some publishers will also tell you the bulk of the marketing dollars go to promote the already well known authors. It is logical to assume that the already successful author will spawn new readers as the ever-touted word of mouth passes from their fans to others. From this information, much like the moguls of Hollywood think, it is speculated that since this “type” of novel (movie) is selling well, let’s reproduce it with others similar to it. Out of this line of thought, sub-genres can be born such as chick lit, mom lit, hen lit, cozy mysteries instead of straight mysteries, suspense instead of mysteries. Perhaps, you don’t consider them sub-genres.

When those initially sell, a whole new wave of writing is published in those genres. When sales drop off from the saturation level of the market, all of a sudden these sub-genres are considered “out”. The drop in sales isn’t due to the quality of writing. Many of the books are by the same authors who were contracted to write two, three, or four of the similar books often in a series using one protagonist or several related protagonists from the first story. Sometimes in these cases it can simply be the lack of variation in the stories even with enticing characters because the “formula” for these novels begins to seem predictable.

There are wonderful books that haven’t sold well, and there are wonderful books that have sold well. As I’ve stated before, there are also those books which have been tagged with the “poorly written” attachment which have become bestsellers. The “who, what, and why” factors in predicting sales are, well, often unpredictable. Pure speculation.

We all have our authors whose books we will acquire as soon as they’re out, and if they’re prolific enough, sooner or later we will probably read one or two we like less than the others—one that doesn’t really cut it for us. And then most of us have been impressed with some authors, but at some point we stop reading them because either what they’re now writing no longer appeals to us or we’ve decided their earlier books were more attractive for whatever reason.

Problematic speculation comes when publishers lock onto a certain type of writing and decide readers will and should like it, lock out other types and genres, deciding readers will not and/or should not like them, and/or then stick to one style, length, and formula for producing novels when there are as many types of readers as there are books produced. To complicate the speculation they do a reverse positioning in certain arenas and overpopulate the shelves with one or two of their fixated types of books. This eliminates certain kinds of readers who now seek to find what they’re looking for on the ABA shelves. “Fantasy” is a classic example of a genre which sells big in the ABA but, depending on who you quote, fails miserably in CBA—and this is disputed by many who refute the statistics as not addressing certain important factors.

Problematic speculation comes from putting the platform of a writer above the ability of said writer to pen a good story. Any professional on the web will cite platform as being the clincher between two equally competent storytellers as far as getting a publishing contract. This is understandable from the standpoint of being a professional in the industry seeking “qualifications”, but from the standpoint of being a reader it has no merit. Few of the primary consumers of fiction even remember an author’s name, although if they’re enamored with a book, they will make a point of remembering that author’s name in order to read some more of his/her work. What they do remember is the experience provided for them within the pages of that book.

Problematic speculation also arises when trends are placed above all other qualifiers. Trends are generally fleeting and only a portion of readers fit into or adhere to them. The catering to supposed trends eliminates a broad spectrum of other readers, faithful readers, who now are somewhat reduced by the selection opportunities or dissatisfied by what’s available to them. When this happens, it’s difficult to predict what these readers will do to feed their reading habits.

And finally, problematic speculation is at its worst when the basis for selecting publishable material relies totally upon the bestselling authors and their types of work, the platforms of fiction writers, supposed trends in the industry, and the impatience of publishing houses who do not give a book time to build an audience. Word of mouth does take time unless an unnatural buzz is created by something out of the ordinary and also unpredictable (i.e. The Shack). When there are somewhat minimal sales for a new author within a short timeframe and unsatisfactory sales (whatever that number is for the individual house) to render a book an underachiever, there is more than one question which must be asked. And one of those questions is, “Were we wrong in selecting this book for publication?” Others are, “Did we give this book enough time to be discovered?” or “Have we held up our end by giving this book sufficient marketing help or appropriate marketing?” I’m not suggesting these questions aren’t asked and answered—whether or not they’re answered correctly is undetermined.

In any retail business there must be a measure of success to continue. The product(s) sold must be satisfactory to the majority of customers to sustain the business. The bulk of businesses do their best to generate increases in sales each year no matter how small to insure lasting success. If business drops off sharply, either new methods or new products must be considered to enhance or replace what is failing to attract consumers, old and new. From what I’m told there are CBA bookstores which can return any purchased inventory for a full refund if a customer or enough customers decide they don’t like a particular book or if the buyer finds it offensive and doesn’t wish to carry it anymore. If anyone can confirm or deny this policy, please do. It’s an amazing guarantee if true. And quite unfair to the publisher.

The publishing business isn’t diminishing or suffering in spite of recent publicized reductions in both employees and books produced by some big name publishers. They’re taking steps to insure their success continues. Every business must do this—evaluate and make changes if necessary. The business itself is speculative. Changing times and tastes must be considered and met with industry improvements or stalwart, reliable products and practices. New generations of readers require some of the same and some different offerings, just as each generation always has. In a few years things will return to past preferences. It’s the life cycle of “nothing new under the sun”. The interesting component in the publishing realm is that there is always a market for just about everything if you’re willing to fill the vast spectrum of all kinds of readers. Unfortunately for some of us writers and readers alike, the problematic speculation leaves us out.

Father, you provide for all of our needs, different as they are. You have what we all need and give generously. You leave no one out. There is nothing that any one person needs that you do not or cannot provide. Thank you for your graciousness to us, to me. Help me to be gracious to others in the Name of Jesus, Amen.

*Please pray for Kristy Dykes and her family.*