Sci Fi Vs Mainstream

[Garpy]

I've noticed mainstream book-buyers tend to vigorously ignore the science fiction/fantasy shelves within a book store. They'll happily browse through all the other genres...Young Adult, Crime, Thrillers, Historical etc etc...but they steer well clear of scifi/fantasy, almost like its the porn shelf of a news agents.

Which is a shame, because this genre, I think, has the greatest potential to grow, evolve, and challange. I suppose the problem is, it's still considered childish or nerdish by most mainstream readers....a hangover from the 'golden era' of Amazing tales featuring Dan Dare fighting squidgy green aliens.

Anyway...I've recently finished a manuscript which was specifically aimed at luring mainstream, mainly female, readers towards science fiction. It's sort of 'Thelma and Loiuse in Space' to use a really, really cheesy pitch. And I'd like my agent to present it to publishers as science fiction for the mass market. I suggested that part of this presentation would be to show that the mainstream market can happily digest science fiction if it's gift-wrapped as regular fiction, and has done so already...by giving a few examples:

Margret Atwood - HandMaiden's Tale
Doris Lessing's - The Story of General Dan....
David Mitchell - Cloud Atlas
Aldous Huxley - Brave New World

Can anyone here think of any other science fiction/fantasy works that were never really pigeon-holed as such? I'm sure there are more, but being a dimwitted dunderhead I can't seem to think of them right now.

[GPatten]

I don’t think this fits your description of specifically aimed at luring mainstream, mainly female, readers towards science fiction. However, Haunted Mesa by Louis L’Mour caught the interest of a few lady friends of mine. But, he’s one of the many good writers I’ve admired.

[GPatten]

Somehow I wish we could get the men back to reading. The market has a enormous amount of women reading books that interest them.

Here is a very dull Synopsis of one I’ve finished writing and I have to clean up the first chapter because it is filthy. Sigh.

The story is interesting, funny, and everywhere in between.

“Intercept”

- 21st Century Pleiades, Star Cluster M45 Today -

Asmodeus is Master of Pleiades on the far side of the Universe. Only the United States stands before him. City streets become Battlefields; his wish, to control the Universe.

Six members of Government from a friendly world step in to challenge Asmodeus.

ORDERS - - ‘Intercept Pleiades monarch, Asmodeus in route to America INTENT ON CARRYING THE WAR TO THE UNIVERSE,
...rape, murder, plunder, or take it a prize.’

A stolen B-52 aircraft and a full complement of nuclear bombs by the evil aliens from Pleiades brought an end to the rapes and killings and lead to the six members from a friendly world to step in and bring back the B-52, its crew, and its bombs back home from Pleiades.

Five Russian live Nuclear Warheads had been stolen, the detonation of a nuclear bomb in China, Senate Majority leader, Deborah Johnson kidnapped and carried off to the Seventeenth Century Cuba as the siege began on the town of El Puerto del Principe by pirate Henry Morgan. This brought the six members from a friendly world there to rescue her and bring her home.

The Secretary of Defense kidnapped and carried off to the Ukraine to the year of 1941 to encounter the German Panzers retreating back to Germany. Their attempts upon the Presidents life in DC brought the six members from the friendly world there to the Ukraine and Washington DC to rescue once again.

This caused the President of the United States to honor the six members from the friendly world need of a team of 13 Rangers to go to the alien’s world, to rescue those from Earth that were kidnapped, bring them home, and to train the Rangers on the weapons of combat from her world for the placement, arming, timing, and detonation of three hundred high yield 2.5 Megaton Hydrogen Bombs on the evil alien’s world.

Having rescued those that were from Earth, and destroying Pleiades, those that were kidnapped were returned home, explanations were made to them, their families, and the police on what really happened to them. Having completed their mission, the six members from the friendly world returned to where they had come from, home to their world.




Gad Zooks!

Why did I write that junk above when all I really wanted to say is, it turned out to be a chick lit with two very pretty chick agents and a plain Jane chick that is so funny. All three chicks beet up on the bad guys. Plane Jane is my favorite chick agent. Oh, they are from another world, with normal earth names and look like us. I have fun writing chick heroes in my novels. I like giving the chicks a break, are not a little tired of the men heroes?

However, I don’t want to sit down and read a chick lit love story. No, no! Ugh!

[Penman Shipp]

Great idea. I'd say you're dead-on right. Go ahead and write it whether anyone else agrees with you or not. Agreement in THIS society is pretty low-scale. ( Look at what passes for 'entertainment' on the idiot box )

I always admired Heinlein's heoines - Friday, Jill, Dora - et al.

Now, there's David Weber's Honor Harrington. Dang! High integrity and fantastically whole characters. And, the girl kicks butt.

Have you read Weber ?

Point here is, its a GREAT idea, and I think women would like more characters like Heinlen's or Weber's that might otherwise shy away from the 'technical' reputation of Science Fiction. L. Ron Hubbard was brought into the genre in the golden age by his publisher because he wrote about people rather than machines.

So the key would be to write what you want to write to that audience and make your own mark on the genre!

[Penman Shipp]

Great idea. I'd say you're dead-on right. Go ahead and write it whether anyone else agrees with you or not. Agreement in THIS society is pretty low-scale. ( Look at what passes for 'entertainment' on the idiot box )

I always admired Heinlein's heoines - Friday, Jill, Dora - et al.

Now, there's David Weber's Honor Harrington. Dang! High integrity and fantastically whole characters. And, the girl kicks butt.

Have you read Weber ?

Point here is, its a GREAT idea, and I think women would like more characters like Heinlen's or Weber's that might otherwise shy away from the 'technical' reputation of Science Fiction. L. Ron Hubbard was brought into the genre in the golden age by his publisher because he wrote about people rather than machines.

So the key would be to write what you want to write to that audience and make your own mark on the genre!

[Garpy]

Yup, that's just it....the manuscript I've just finished could also be cheesily pitched as Chiklit-scifi....although that's kind of a clumsy tag. If I could get that tag sounding sexy, that's half the battle ;-)

You've put your finger on it nicely, Penman, the most important aspect is that it really focuses on the characters, and the technology stays wa-a-a-y in the background.

nb: like your wacky synopsis Gpatten....it reads as a very lighthearted romp. Which is not a million miles away from where I'm pitching mine. Although I've gone for a more 'realistic' universe, with the humour/light-heartedness focused on what the characters get up to.

[pixiejuice]

I've noticed mainstream book-buyers tend to vigorously ignore the science fiction/fantasy shelves within a book store. They'll happily browse through all the other genres...Young Adult, Crime, Thrillers, Historical etc etc...but they steer well clear of scifi/fantasy, almost like its the porn shelf of a news agents.

As a mainstream book-buyer myself, I can tell you that it's nothing against sci-fi/fantasy. Honestly, I don't browse any genre shelves at all. Most often, actually, I buy my books on Amazon.com, so if I did happen to read a genre book, I wouldn't know where it would have been shelved.

I tend to read literary. And because literary books are shelved with the mainstream, that's where I look. I will read (and very often enjoy) literary sci-fi, literary crime/thriller, literary historical, chick-lit... In fact, a lot of literary novels are a mix of genres that just happen to be brilliantly written. I don't classify literary as a genre itself, it's just a way of writing.

For example:

Kurt Vonnegut - literary sci-fi
Stephen King - (literary?) horror/suspense
Will Christopher Baer - literary crime/drama
John Irving - literary, often historical...

And you'll find all of those authors shelved in mainstream.

So, that is the long answer to why I (a mainstream book-buyer) don't browse the genre shelves. Maybe I would find a brilliantly written literary gem in the genre sections, who knows?

But I know what works for me, and I never run out of things to read, so I keep doing it.

[Barb]

How about "Fahrenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury or "A clockwork orange" by Anthony Burgress?

We read the former in English class - which kind of "nobled" it as mainstream since my Engish teacher would "of course not" let us read ugly, bad, sinful *genre* fiction. Thus it had to be "utopian" by definition - the corner of mainstream where the genre fiction that gets sucked in remains trapped. ;)

[ANNIE]

one of my favorite books of all time; Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury

[brinkett]

As a mainstream book-buyer myself, I can tell you that it's nothing against sci-fi/fantasy. Honestly, I don't browse any genre shelves at all. Most often, actually, I buy my books on Amazon.com, so if I did happen to read a genre book, I wouldn't know where it would have been shelved.

Same here. I haven't stepped into a brick and mortar bookstore for a while. I read somewhere that people 25 and under prefer to buy books over the internet. I'm not in that age group, and neither are any of my friends, but we all buy our books online.

[scribbler1382]

Same here. I haven't stepped into a brick and mortar bookstore for a while. I read somewhere that people 25 and under prefer to buy books over the internet. I'm not in that age group, and neither are any of my friends, but we all buy our books online.

I find that really disheartening. While I do buy books online from time to time, there's nothing that compares with wandering through the racks, both at the mammoth superbookstores, and at the smaller, specialty bookshops. When I'm buying books, I want all my senses engaged, not just my eyes. I need to feel the covers and the pages; smell the paper and the binding; hear the riff of the pages or the crack of a fresh hardback opening. Hell, if they let me, I'd taste the damn things. I also make it family affair. At least once a month, I take my daughter to a bookstore with me to stock her up with reads for the coming weeks. We have a ball and she especially likes sitting in the big comfy chairs with our purchases and sipping her hot chocolate while I drink my coffee and double check the receipt. :)

I don't think we should be such luddites as to turn our back on new technologies or experiences, but in the same stead we need to remember where we came from and retain the traditions and experiences from our journey.

[kelker11]

Being female and "an all shelf browse except sci-fi/fanstasy", I finally found a thread I'm qualified to respond in! :banana:

I do tend to stay away from SFF for a two reasons...1) the names of the characters. While it may seem silly, I like to actually be able to pronounce (or even be able to read) the name of the characters in a book. Its like SFF authors purposely try to choose names that no one has ever heard of before.

2) The descriptions of places and things. Instead of saying something like "a spaceship" so you know what the heck the author was talking about, they'll spend two paragraphs describing something that after you read it, you wonder "what is it?".

Now that's not to criticize anyone here, there's different genres because everyone has their own tastes. These are simply my feelings on the subject.

However, after saying all that, I did accidentally purchase a SFF novel (at least I considered it one) online at Books a Million. It was Masque by F. Paul Wilson and Matthew Costello. Simply put: It was fantastic. If I could find other SFF book this well written, I'm become an addict for life.

[victoriastrauss]

Can anyone here think of any other science fiction/fantasy works that were never really pigeon-holed as such? I'm sure there are more, but being a dimwitted dunderhead I can't seem to think of them right now.

Mary Doria Russell's The Sparrow is an example of a book identified as science fiction, yet marketed as general fiction and picked up by a mainstream readership. I also just got a book for review called The Traveler, by John Twelve Hawks, which is clearly speculative in content yet is being very aggressively marketed to mainstream audiences.

What do these two books--and others, such as Susannah Clarke's Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell and those you've already listed--have in common? They are not published by SF/fantasy imprints.

The way to escape the SF pigeonhole isn't to market your work as "SF for a mainstream readership"--it's to call the work something else, such as "futuristic chick-lit", and market it to mainstream publishers. If you get picked up by one of the SF/Fantasy imprints, you will be pigeonholed no matter what you do or say--in the bookstore (since books from those imprints aren't shelved anywhere but in the SF/fantasy section), in the library (which will put a rocket ship label on the spine), by reviewers (since mainstream reviewers don't generally look at books from those imprints), and by anyone who looks at the cover (since you'll probably get identifiably SF-style art). Nearly all SF/Fantasy that has escaped the genre ghetto, or has been targeted to a mainstream audience, has been published by a non-SF/Fantasy imprint.

- Victoria

[brinkett]

I find that really disheartening. While I do buy books online from time to time, there's nothing that compares with wandering through the racks, both at the mammoth superbookstores, and at the smaller, specialty bookshops.
I appreciate that this may be true for you and others, but I simply don't have the time. If I can't find a book I want online, I don't buy it unless I really, really, really x 1000 want it for some reason, and few books fall into that category. When I'm looking for books on a particular subject and have a list of recommended titles, those not available from Amazon or any of the other online vendors are crossed off the list without further consideration. Life is so busy that convenience trumps smelling paper. I'll smell the paper and lovingly caress the book when I unpack the box. :)

Victoria: Thank you for your post--it's given me something to think about.

[Garpy]

Thanks everyone, I'll look those books up that you mentioned, on Amazon. It certainly will help me convince my agent that the novel I'm just wrapping up now can be presented as a mainstream/chicklit/YA offering.

The MS btw is entitled 'Ellie Quin'... is basically the story of a young girl yearning to explore the great big crazy universe, and stumbling unwittingly on a huge plotline, that weaves into and out of her life. It's going to be a series of 4-5 books if we can get the right kind of publisher (ie not scifi). Like I mentioned earlier...it has the whiff of Thelma and Loiuse about it.

[brokenfingers]

Same here. I haven't stepped into a brick and mortar bookstore for a while. I read somewhere that people 25 and under prefer to buy books over the internet. I'm not in that age group, and neither are any of my friends, but we all buy our books online. I find that really disheartening. While I do buy books online from time to time, there's nothing that compares with wandering through the racks, both at the mammoth superbookstores, and at the smaller, specialty bookshops...

I don't think we should be such luddites as to turn our back on new technologies or experiences, but in the same stead we need to remember where we came from and retain the traditions and experiences from our journey.

I hear what you're saying but I think that bookstores themselves are to blame for this trend with their buying and stocking practices.

I usually find out about books I'd like online - through forums etc. and often I find out about it a month or more after the initial release or the author has already had another book out.

I'd say 90% of the times I've looked for a particular book in one of the major bookstores - they simply have not had it! They either had the latest book by the author (the 2nd or 3rd in the series etc.) or just didn't have any by the person at the moment.

Yeah, I could ask them to order it for me - but why would I? When I can also order it online and have it delivered right to my door! And often for cheaper!

The closer I've gotten to a complete ready-to-submit manuscript - the more I've thought about major bookstores and their "shovel 'em in, shovel 'em out" philosophy.

I see this trend of buying books online only increasing in years to come. I'm just curious how that is going to affect writers and their books...

[LightShadow]

Most people buy the top 10's on the supermarket rack while they are waiting 5th in line with two items tuck under their pits. What about Pamela Sargent's Dreams of Venus, or Robert McCammon's Swan Song? Swan Song is SciFi and Horror wrapped up into one, and was a NY Times bestseller. Most consider it mass market, mainstream, everybody but the people who read chicklit wants to read it type of book. Oh, and it won the Bram Stoker Award. You mean there are other sections in the bookstore other than SciFi and Horror?

[BenMears]

Here is my own somewhat cranky understanding of these terms after a long misspent youth in English departments (not at all the same definitions most people in those departments would probably give you).

Mainstream means, or should mean, nothing more than "attracted a lot of readers." That's the equivalent to what separates the main river from the tributaries--more water. It is not a type of book; it is a popular book. From this viewpoint there have certainly been countless writers who produced mainstream Sci-Fi/Fantasy including Tolkien, Howard, Asimov, Herbert, Hubbard, LeGuin, Donaldson, King, plenty I'm missing, and most recently J. K. Rowling.

Literary is not to be confused with "well-written." Literary is a genre all it's own, which turns on their heads most of the characteristics of mainstream fiction. I'm thinking of Raymond Carver, Nicholson Baker type of stuff here. Two chief characteristics are a) unlikeable, or anyway, not admirable characters who b) spend all their time contemplating their unlikeable navels. For an example of a work in the literary genre that is the farthest thing from well-written, try the Pulitzer prize-winning "A Confederacy of Dunces."

Genre is a type of story (as in Literary genre). Any genre can produce a mainstream work, generally through being very well-written or very original ideas or great story-telling. The works that we think of as genre are the ones that, missing these qualities, do not make it to the mainstream, and so stay in the tributaries. It is certainly possible that there are mainstream-quality works that are resting on those shelves by reason of poor marketing or whatever, waiting to attract more attention. Most mainstream writers were on the genre shelves in their early years until a number of good books got them noticed.

So in answer to the original question I would say that certainly mainstream readers are waiting for good SFF books, and it's your job to write so well that if they can't be bothered sifting through the SFF shelves to find you, then you get lifted off those shelves and waved under their noses.

[Garpy]

But I do think there are probably a simple list of Do's and Dont's that give you a greater chance of being embraced by the mainstream, as opposed to being shunted off into the scifi corner. Such as;

-characters over technology
-reasonable character names
-hopefully no being published under a scifi inprint
-cover art that isn't all zappy space ships, and lazers n' all

It is interesting though, that HitchHikers Guide managed to become a mainstream success, read by many people who will probably never touch another science fiction book. It has characters with horribly scifi names, endless tech and social detail, very little character development....so there you go, I guess there's no golden formula for ensuring a scifi book climbs out of the ghetto...other than writing as good as you can.

[Jamesaritchie]

From a publisher's perspective, a mainstream novel is any novel they think will sell to the publisc at large, regardless of the kind of novel these readers usually buy. As for science fiction, I'd say Michael Crichton might well qualify.

Most of his novels are probably science fiction, but I dont think any of them say "science fiction" anywhere on the cover, and they mostly hit the top of the bestseller lists.

[BenMears]

Thank you, James, another good example.
Certainly the Crichton of "Andromeda Strain" and "Jurrasic Park" qualifies as SF. The Crichton of "Great Train Robbery" and "Rising Sun" is a mainstream suspense writer.
Thinking of Douglas Adams, the humor would be a big part. You probably can't formulate specific rules that will cover them all, other than this: the books gave a lot of readers a very good time.

[Lenora Rose]

Holly Lisle points out one major reason she feels readers - of any books - should order in at bookstores, and buy there whenever possible. The bookstore's own buying policy, which Uncle Jim details twice in the course of "Learn Writing with...", where the bookstore orders only what actually sold of the prior book. Which leads to diminishing orders, which leads to diminishing interest from publishers. Which kills the midlist.

So far, online sales are so negligible that when considering whether an author still has a viable career, the online sales are rarely a factor. The bookstore sales always are.

As someone who wants to be in a position where sales issues like this matter to me intimately, I do want to encourage people to check bookstores first.

That, and the websites are terrible for browsing for things. I have a good memory for some things, but not necessarily for the comprehensive list of authors whose works I might want to pick up -- moreso, because I browse several genres, plus the remaindered stacks.

Fantasy and SF are full of books with clear writing, straightforward descriptions, easily pronounceable names, and all the other things someone was griping they didn't have. The problem is, it's impossible to tell, from outside a genre, who are the accessible writers, who are the ones who write well but aren't to your taste, etc, etc.

I can't do more than guess at the good writers in Romance, for instance, and I have even less clue about Westerns. Since popularity does not equal good writing -- some of the most popular fantasy writers are on my "shun" list, and some hard to find ones are on my grab and buy instantly -- seeing a huge pile of books on the shelf doesn't help, either. So those occasions when I'm intending to read something outside my genre for some reason, I have to either trust to luck (not easy), or ask someone who is conversant with both genres, and whose taste in the genre I do read doesn't clash badly with mine. Or occasionally, encounter a writer who seems both nice and well-written in-person / online.

I do wonder, do people who dislike unpronounceable names never read books that take place in exotic real world locales, either? Some of those are as bad - especially as the least pronbounceable names I've personally run into are based directly on Irish Gaelic, or Hungarian, or something else from this world -- and exotic real world fiction is less likely, as far as I've seen, to add a pronunciation guide.

Caveat: I realise my tone in every single part of this post probably sounds confrontational or grumpy. I don't mean to, but I can't think of another way to phrase any of this at this moment. End of the week very tired blues...:sleepy:

[maestrowork]

A lot of sci-fi is mainstream.

[Garpy]

It's alright, you dont sound grumpy :-)

As for bookshop vs online, I've always found browsing online far more efficient than browsing a shop, particularly with Amazon's 'if you liked that, you might like this', and 'people who bought that, bought this too' lists. And for some reason....my mind always goes blank when i enter a bookshop.

[Jamesaritchie]

A lot of sci-fi is mainstream.

Not according to publishers. The last thing a publisher wants on a mainstream title is the label "science fiction." Calling something science fiction seems to be a turn off for mainstream readers.

I might go with the other way around and say that a lot of mainstream is science fiction, even if it isn't called SF.

I know there are some, but I can't recall the last novel I saw that was labelled science fiction, and that still made the mainstream lists.

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, if you really want to help the writers you like, it's far better to buy at a bookstore. Having said that, some of us live a long way from the nearest bookstore. I'm sixty miles from the nearest Barnes & Noble, and that's far enough to make going a real chore, especiallty with gas prices being what they are.

But I agree about bookstores. Convenience isn't everything, and buying from bookstores is a help to all writers, including wannabes.

[brinkett]

So far, online sales are so negligible that when considering whether an author still has a viable career, the online sales are rarely a factor. The bookstore sales always are.

As a reader, I don't care. I buy books in the way that's most convenient for me. If I had to go to a bookstore to buy books, I'd probably buy 99% less books than I do now, and I buy a lot of books.

As far as the bookstore model goes where they order based on the sales from the last book, I agree that's a problem, but I don't think the solution is to guilt readers into going to bookstores. The solution is to change the model, including the policy around returns. Yeah, it'll probably never happen, just like I'll never take the time out of my busy schedule to go to a bookstore when I can order the book I want from the comfort of my own home.

A few weeks ago, I went to a bookstore because I really wanted a book that isn't even available on Amazon. The web site for the book had a list of independent stores that carry it. Fine. I pop in to the one closest to me--they don't have it. So I order it. "It'll take about two weeks." Three weeks later and I'm still waiting. As someone else said, the brick and mortar stores rarely have what you're looking for. And the odd time I do happen to be passing a bookstore and decide to go in, I don't browse. Books are so expensive these days that I don't buy books from authors that haven't been recommended to me. I've been burned too many times with boring, unoriginal dreck. So I'm always looking for something specific. That's another reason Amazon is so convenient.

The bottom line is that as a reader, I want to buy books in the way that's most convenient for me. How books are ordered and returned, and how this affects authors tottering on the brink of oblivion, aren't my problem. If authors have a problem with the system, they need to work to get it changed, not expect people who shell out money for their books to be inconvenienced.


I do wonder, do people who dislike unpronounceable names never read books that take place in exotic real world locales, either?
What I don't like about unpronounceable names in sf/f is that often, the names are the ONLY thing that's unpronounceable, so it comes off as being a bit of a farce. If everything else is written in straightforward English, there's no reason the names shouldn't be.

[maestrowork]

But I agree about bookstores. Convenience isn't everything, and buying from bookstores is a help to all writers, including wannabes.

I agree. It really is.

[Jamesaritchie]

As a reader, I don't care. .

You will when you find yourself unable to buy any more books by your favorite writer. The problem with the system is readers who don't care about the writers whose novels they profess to like. How do we go about changing that part of the system?

[brinkett]

You will when you find yourself unable to buy any more books by your favorite writer.

There are plenty of books out there. I'll read something else.


The problem with the system is readers who don't care about the writers whose novels they profess to like.

I thought the problem was that when ordering a new title, bookstores order the quantity that the author's last title sold. Is that even a problem? It's a business. Why would a bookstore order more? If an author isn't selling, why would a bookstore stuff its shelves with copies of the next title?


How do we go about changing that part of the system?
Why do you expect readers to care about you personally? Why are readers responsible for helping you sustain your career? You're an adult--you're responsible for sustaining your own career.

[scribbler1382]

There are plenty of books out there. I'll read something else.
Nice. Remember that when your publisher (some day, I guess) says the critics loved your books, but they won't be renewing your contract due to poor sales figures.


Why would a bookstore order more? If an author isn't selling, why would a bookstore stuff its shelves with copies of the next title?
Because patrons ASK them to. Wasn't that the subject of the damn discussion?


Why do you expect readers to care about you personally? Why are readers responsible for helping you sustain your career? You're an adult--you're responsible for sustaining your own career.
Are you serious? The goal of everything ever sold is to foster brand loyalty, nevermind just within the publishing industry. This is either monumentally naive, or just plain mean. Not much of a choice.

[brinkett]

Let's try to keep the tone civil.

Nice. Remember that when your publisher (some day, I guess) says the critics loved your books, but they won't be renewing your contract due to poor sales figures.

If my books aren't selling, I wouldn't expect them to renew the contract.


Because patrons ASK them to. Wasn't that the subject of the damn discussion?

But patrons aren't asking them to. That's why the bookstore isn't ordering a large quantity of the next title.


Are you serious? The goal of everything ever sold is to foster brand loyalty, nevermind just within the publishing industry.
Inconveniencing someone isn't likely to foster any sort of loyalty. Just because I like an author's work doesn't mean the author should expect me to change my personal habits so their next book will be ordered in large quantities. I'm more likely to buy what's convenient to get my hands on. I may prefer brand X, but if brand Y is just as good and easier to obtain, I'll go for brand Y. Convenience is key in this day and age.

Online book sales will only increase in the future. Authors who adapt will swim. Those who don't will sink. And it won't be my fault. If the system is such that many authors are likely to sink, then they better start working to change the system now. Blaming the shopping habits of their customers isn't the answer.

[Jamesaritchie]

I think, if going to a bookstore is really an inconvenience, then you shouldn't go to a bookstore. But I suspect people who don't go to bookstores often aren't really much of the market anyway. Not at this point.

For me, not going to a bookstores is an inconvenience. Saying going to one inconveniences anyone is, for me, like saying that breathing is an inconvenience.

And, it's the same all over. People are too "inconvenienced" to go to libraries, as well.

Get up and get out of the house. Go to bookstores and libraries. Even if you don't buy a thing, it's still good for the heart and soul. Shopping for books online is like having sex online. You may get the job done, but you're definitely missing out on all the best parts.

When going to a bookstore is an inconvenience, we've really become a society that needs some serious adjustments in life's realities.

[aadams73]

Call me kooky, but I still love the experience of going to a real brick and mortar bookstore. My favorite place is the B&N just 5 minutes drive up the road. I chat regularly with the staff and they always do their best to find me the books that I request. Somehow they have managed to hire people knowledgable about books instead of teenyboppers with sullen attitudes and constant gum snapping, an affliction the nearest Border's suffers from greatly. My experience there is always pleasant so it will always be my first choice. At times I do order books online, but for the most part I go in.

[aadams73]

I

Get up and get out of the house. Go to bookstores and libraries. Even if you don't buy a thing, it's still good for the heart and soul. Shopping for books online is like having sex online. You may get the job done, but you're definitely missing out on all the best parts.



I agree. There's something wonderful about touching real books: the crisp dust jackets, the stiff paper, and even new ones have a smell that nothing else possesses. For me, it makes what I do everyday, working hard on my own novels, worthwhile and real.

[brinkett]

I think, if going to a bookstore is really an inconvenience, then you shouldn't go to a bookstore. But I suspect people who don't go to bookstores often aren't really much of the market anyway. Not at this point.

Based on what? Over the past three months, I've spent over $1000 on books, and I just ordered another three last night. All but a few were nonfiction, but the point remains. If I had to go to a bookstore to get those books, I probably would have spent less than $100, or even $0.


For me, not going to a bookstores is an inconvenience. Saying going to one inconveniences anyone is, for me, like saying that breathing is an inconvenience.

And for those who enjoy going to bookstores, that's fine. I'm not against the existence of bookstores. But not everybody has the time or the inclination to shop in them. When I go into a bookstore, it isn't a religious experience for me. I don't get a thrill out of picking up a book, just as I'm not particularly thrilled when I feel the bread in a grocery store. I'm one of those people who doesn't like shopping in general, so the faster I can do it, the better. Trying to get me to go to an actual bookstore when I can buy the book online will be an exercise in futility, so if there's a problem, there better be a solution that doesn't depend on readers going to an actual store, because there are people like me who won't.

[aadams73]

And for those who enjoy going to bookstores, that's fine. I'm not against the existence of bookstores. But not everybody has the time or the inclination to shop in them. When I go into a bookstore, it isn't a religious experience for me. I don't get a thrill out of picking up a book, just as I'm not particularly thrilled when I feel the bread in a grocery store. I'm one of those people who doesn't like shopping in general, so the faster I can do it, the better. Trying to get me to go to an actual bookstore when I can buy the book online will be an exercise in futility, so if there's a problem, there better be a solution that doesn't depend on readers going to an actual store, because there are people like me who won't.

Fair enough. Different strokes and all that rot :)

[Lenora Rose]

Let's try to keep the tone civil.

Hurrah! Yes.

But patrons aren't asking them to. That's why the bookstore isn't ordering a large quantity of the next title.

This isn't quite right. You see, there's NO SUCH THING as a 100% sell through. In addition, what percentage of the books sells is MUCH more likely to be consistent than how many individual books are sold.

If one store sells out and has to order extra, another sells none, and it averages out across the chain. (UNplanned word-of-mouth Bestsellers happen, but nobody in the midlist expects or counts on one). If the chain buys 10 books, and 8 sell, there's a good chance that if they buy 10 of the next book, 8 will sell (Maybe only 7, but probably not 9). If they buy 8 the next time to match sales, 6 will sell. (Notice that's less than even the pessimistic 7).

Anyone browsing the shelf for an impulse buy might not spot it, might pass it by for something else. The fewer copies are on the shelf, the more likely an individual book won't be in an individual store, and the more likely when one lonely copy is there, it will be snubbed. More copies of a book on a shelf is known to boost sales. More than one book by one person is better, but that's another debate and another issue...

Note, all of this involves lowering sales based entirely on marketing, and not at all, not one bit, on the quality of the book - or even whether there are readers out there who would want the book if they knew it existed.

At which point, when you* realise an author you like hasn't been on the shelves for a while, you wonder vaguely why they haven't been writing books lately. When they have, but haven't been shelved in that bookstore.

There are things the publisher can do about this (provided, or course, that the author is doing their part in providing the good, marketable books), but not enough to save everyone.

Online book sales will only increase in the future.

True - but when it does, it will be the publishers' marketing departments who start paying attention, not the individual authors. There's exactly one way in which authors (published by any of the presses with its own marketing) are ever to blame for poor sales, and it isn't in influencing how the bookstores buy, or in marketing. It's in writing a book nobody wants to read.

Why do you expect readers to care about you personally? Why are readers responsible for helping you sustain your career? You're an adult--you're responsible for sustaining your own career.

This is a bit of a strange comment. If I write a book, and sell it to the publisher, and nobody buys it, I don't have a career. The ONLY thing that sustains a writing career is readers.

If you mean encouraging the readers to buy in the places most likely to be convenient to me - well, as you might note, many other readers in this discussion don't consider it an inconveniencet to them, and they can/will go to a bookstore.

If you favour online that strongly -- absolutely, buy where you prefer. It's still a sale, and nobody will turn up their nose at a sale.

The argument is mostly to sway people who buy things by both methods (Such as me), not people who strongly favour one over the other.

I don't think encouraging people to shop in the way that best works with the system is rude, provided nobody turns the request into a demand or a dictate. Nor do I think it is blaming the reader to say the *system* is currently broken.

(I don't know if it helps, but when I do order online, I've been trying to do so directly with the bookstore chain I like best rrather than with Amazon or the like, to show them support and hopefully to influence their sales numbers).


* - you in the abstract, not the specific.

[brinkett]

This isn't quite right. You see, there's NO SUCH THING as a 100% sell through. In addition, what percentage of the books sells is MUCH more likely to be consistent than how many individual books are sold.

Right, I understand there's no such thing as a 100% sell through. I was responding to the remark that a bookstore would have books available from an author who isn't selling well because patrons ask it to order the book. My point was that if a lot of patrons were ordering the book, the sales numbers would be better and so the author's next book would be on the shelves. The rest of the information was informative--thanks.


There's exactly one way in which authors (published by any of the presses with its own marketing) are ever to blame for poor sales, and it isn't in influencing how the bookstores buy, or in marketing. It's in writing a book nobody wants to read.

Yes and no. I'd say it's the publisher's fault for publishing a manuscript nobody wants to read, not the author's. The author shouldn't have been published in the first place, in that case. As far as marketing goes, I disagree. I think authors who sit back and expect their publisher to do all the marketing are partially to blame if their book fails. These days, no matter how large or small the publisher, the author has to do some marketing, unless the author is one of the big names. To sit back and expect the publisher to do it isn't wise, especially for newer authors.


This is a bit of a strange comment. If I write a book, and sell it to the publisher, and nobody buys it, I don't have a career. The ONLY thing that sustains a writing career is readers.

Right, and as a reader, I support an author by buying their book. When an author asks me to buy their book a certain way, they risk losing me as a reader because then they're asking me to help sustain their career in ways I shouldn't have to.


The argument is mostly to sway people who buy things by both methods (Such as me), not people who strongly favour one over the other.

I don't think encouraging people to shop in the way that best works with the system is rude, provided nobody turns the request into a demand or a dictate. Nor do I think it is blaming the reader to say the *system* is currently broken.

Perhaps I don't understand why authors aren't trying to change the system, but instead spend energy encouraging readers to shop in a way that perpetuates the broken system. It seems silly to me that the response to a bad situation with a known cause is to encourage behaviour that will only perpetuate the status quo, rather than to fix the root problem. I don't think it's rude; I think it's the wrong answer.

Also, if online sales are so tiny that sales from brick & mortar bookstores are all that really count, then having people who normally buy online go to bookstores won't help. If online sales aren't so tiny, then why would the author care if Amazon or a b&m bookstore sells their book? A sale is a sale.