Tor editor Teresa Nielsen Hayden — an expert on fiction publishing — has written a great response to a Wall Street Journal article where the Journal asserts that publishing is a hit-driven, winner-take-all industry. She points out that this is far from the truth — that publishing isn't driven by bestsellers, but by "okaysellers," and that bookstores are filled with these okaysellers.
What irritated me about the story was having the Wall Street Journal trot out the completely bogus standard paragraph about the state of publishing:
Much like Hollywood, book publishing is becoming a winner-takes-all contest. A publisher has to find a title with huge potential and single it out for special attention. If the book gets traction, the upside is limitless. If it fails, there's a long way to fall. When a book doesn't sell right away, the large chains sweep it into the back room, making space for the next aspirant. With 172,000 books published last year, shelf space is limited.
I think they've got that paragraph set up as a macro–and they're not the only publication that uses it.
I've been hearing the "publishing is becoming a winner-take-all sweepstakes" riff since I started working in the industry. It's not true, and it's not becoming true. I suspect it's generated by lazy news departments that can't be bothered to take notice of books that aren't blockbusters, and from this conclude that blockbusters are all that matters in publishing.
Bestsellers aren't the whole of publishing. Every year, we publish a great many okaysellers. You guys buy them because they look interesting, or because a friend has recommended them, or because you liked another book by that author. Marketing push only goes so far.
Update: Patrick Nielsen Hayden adds, "What Teresa was trying to get at, and she's absolutely right, is that while book publishing may be greatly driven by our need for bestsellers, in the same way that many American policies are "driven by" our national need for easy access to petroleum, we don't in fact spend every second of every day wandering around in a frenzy obsessing about bestsellers, any more than everyone in America spends all their time invading Middle Eastern countries or grovelling at the gas pump. When the Wall Street Journal writes that "publishing is becoming a winner-takes-all contest" and says that "when a book doesn't sell right away, the large chains sweep it into the back room, making space for the next aspirant," they're grossly misrepresenting how most of book publishing works. We may be driven by a need to have some books that "bestsell," but our daily life is far from dominated by work on bestsellers to the exclusion of all else. To the contrary, smart publishers know that publishing is more like gardening than it's like factory-farming; if you want giant successes, you'd better have a whole lot of little experiments going all at the same time. We need bestsellers. But we don't spend all of our time on them, and we don't sweep non-bestselling books (or their authors) off to the glue factory. We need all the other books as well. Because you never know."
