Thoughts on the current state of publishing from Mark Tavani

Mark Tavani, Senior Editor at Ballantine Books, and a guest of CFD a while back, has some smart things to say about the current state of publishing over on Laura Benedict's website. There's been a lot of bad news recently, but Mark puts it into a useful context.

Here's an excerpt that I particularly liked:

A few months back I read about how Starbucks was shutting down a few thousand locations. I can say I didn’t notice anyone freaking out and running around, screaming about how coffee was going out of fashion. That’s because coffee’s fine, as we all know. People love coffee, and coffee will almost certainly be around for a long time. But the industry had outgrown itself…plus, they were charging something like twelve frickin’ dollars for a grande whatchamahoozit…. But I digress.

Anyway, maybe we contract. Maybe fewer books get published. Maybe some publishing folks have to look elsewhere for a paycheck. I don’t say those things lightly, because I love those books, and I’m one of those publishing folks, and I have a lot of friends in the industry. But on the bright side, maybe fewer books will mean better books. Maybe, over time, books will regain an elite status that I sense they once had. Maybe, in the end, books won’t qualify precisely as mass entertainment, but entertainment for a sizable if select audience.

My thoughts exactly.

Comments

[I. J. Parker]

As I've said elsewhere, given the fact that publishing is a business with an eye for profits, it is highly unlikely that the "fewer" books will be "better" books. Considering which books have in the past reached bestseller status, the reverse will be true: "fewer" books will mean only bad books.

[Philip Hawley, Jr]

I.J. and I see this issue from opposite perspectives.

Fewer books will mean, on average, better books. This simple principle applies to virtually every human endeavor. The evidence is overwhelming.

And sure, everyone can think of an exception, but that's why they're called exceptions!

[David J. Montgomery]

I think it's inaccurate that only lousy books make money. There are plenty of good books (and good writers) that sell a lot and make a lot of money. Sure, there are bad books that are bestsellers, but there are also a lot of bad books that fail miserably -- and plenty more of the latter, I think, than the former.

I think it is quite possible for editors of discernment to publish fewer and better books, and still make significant profits.

[Dave Zeltserman]

I think IJ's guess is closer to what will happen, although instead of bad books it will be safer books. Fortunately, independents still exist, like Serpent's Tail, Bitter Lemon Press and SOHO who will continue publishing the riskier, more interesting books.

[Dennis Heintz]

I love how it's always frustrated writers - people who have desperately wanted successful careers as authors, but haven't had the talent to rise above what are nearly vanity presses - who are saying fewer books will mean worse books.

[Dave Zeltserman]

Dennis, not sure who you're referring to here, but since IJ and myself are both saying that fewer books will mean either worse or safer books I'm assuming you're referring to one of us. In IJ's case, she's had a string of successful mysteries published by Penguin books. In my own case I'm being published now by Serpent's Tail, and am very happy about that--and am very happy with how things are going with my writing career with my latest book, Small Crimes, being picked by both NPR and the Washington Post as one of the best mysteries of the year, and my film agent at APA finalizing a movie deal for yet another book. My thoughts/post came from phone conversations I've had with editor working for large houses in NY who I've become friendly with, as opposed to a completely uninformed and kneejerk post like your own.

[Historical Books]

First Edition Book offers a wide range of first edition historical fiction by various contemporary authors.

[coach outlet]

I wish you great blessings and love.*