GOOD TASTE VS. TASTES GOOD

Glen T. Brock · Dec 25, 2007

Hello folks,

The more responses I get from agents the more dissappointed I am. I was in the book business for over thirty years and I know a little about how this rodeo works. For years my customer base wouldn't buy books without my opinion. Why? Not because I could tell if the book, or the author, was a literary genius but because the story was well told. Robert Moore Willaims was not the writer Roger Zelazny was, but I could sell his stories much better than the more literate Zelazny.

My point (and my gripe)is this: Why don't agents look for books that sell, rather than how aesthetic they are? As advocates for both the writer and the publisher it would seem to me that would be a prerequiesant!

I don't mean to be inflamatory but this really gripes me. My first novel would have never been published if not for a great salesman and book rep named Bruce Unk's enthusiasm. I've read of legendary book scouts like the ones who got Margeret Mitchell published. Where are they now?

I don't want an agent who has to love my work before representing me! That's not their job. Their job is to make the publisher love my work, just as it is the publisher's job to make the public love my work. J.K. Rowling didn't make her money because she wrote a perfect novel. She made it because she wrote a damned good story!

Glen T. Brock

astonwest · Dec 25, 2007

My guess is that agents are looking for books they believe they can sell to publishers, based on what the publishers are buying.

It's very possible the trouble is created at the publisher-level...that being, the publishers might not have a good connection to what the general public is interested in reading.

But then, it could just be that we as authors aren't writing the stories people really want to read...

ORION · Dec 25, 2007

Um...there really are lots of posts on this. My agent HAD to love my novel because my editor had to FEEL that LOVE to love it herself and pitch it to the rest of the editors at Putnam. Every person at Putnam that then read my book had to feel that others would love it (especially booksellers). If they love it then they will recommend it to customers.
Why would they recommend a book they didn't love?
My agent is primarily interested in finding books she loves and that will sell -- since no one is able to predict with certainty what books will sell -- what book will be popular with readers and booksellers--this is notoriously difficult to do-
My agent is also interested in representing writers she believes in and helping a writer's career- I don't know any agent who is not looking for a good story- read their blogs...

Provrb1810meggy · Dec 25, 2007

It's not really an agent's job to make a publisher love your work. It's an agent's job to make a publisher love their client's work, and why would an agent take you on as a client if they don't love your work?

Basically, you're not entitled to getting an agent, even though I, of course, wish you all the best and hope you find the agent that's right for you. I know how frustrating this process can be. Remember, you only need one yes!

Will Lavender · Dec 25, 2007

Glen T. Brock said:
I don't want an agent who has to love my work before representing me! That's not their job. Their job is to make the publisher love my work, just as it is the publisher's job to make the public love my work. J.K. Rowling didn't make her money because she wrote a perfect novel. She made it because she wrote a damned good story!

You've got it all backwards, Glen. YOU have to make the agent love your work. YOU have to make a reader love your work. YOU have to write a good enough book that a publisher is going to believe in. You're trying to pin it all on other people, when it's the writer's responsibility to write a book that's going to sell and resonate with an audience.

And since when are agents looking for "aesthetics" over what sells? That's horse poo. Every agent on planet Earth is trying to find books that people will buy. If no one buys the book, then the aeshetics are moot anyway. No one hears that tree that falls in the lonely forest...

ColoradoGuy · Dec 25, 2007

Glen T. Brock said:
My point (and my gripe)is this: Why don't agents look for books that sell, rather than how aesthetic they are? As advocates for both the writer and the publisher it would seem to me that would be a prerequiesant!

An agent who didn't look for books that will sell would be an agent who couldn't make a living at agenting.

Toothpaste · Dec 25, 2007

This is the first time I've heard the argument from this perspective. Usually it's someone saying that all agents are looking for is a "good story" and not anything that challenges the reader. Literary books, they say, never get published anymore. So to me this is nice and refreshing, someone who wants to sell a book based on the story and not the writing, and for some reason thinks all agents want is literary stuff.

Unfortunately the answer is the same in both circumstances. Where exactly are you drawing your conclusions from? If it is because your MS is being rejected, I'm not sure that is enough evidence. If it is because you think there are no great stories on the shelf, I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Normally at this point I cite the novel Finn, a book by the first time author Jon Clinch that is both literary and doing brilliantly. But your issue isn't about the literary stuff. So how about I cite Dan Brown (yup I did go there, his is a very compelling story despite the writing), JK. Oh an heck any number of authors published on here (though I don't want to imply their writing is bad, simply that they tell really good stories).

I honestly have no idea where you are drawing your conclusions from on that front.

As to the agent LOVING your work. I've posted in a thread like that months ago with someone who simply refused to believe it was necessary. You know what, maybe it shouldn't be, but that's how it is and I have to tell you, as an author working with her agent, I am so glad my agent is a passionate about my work as I am. She puts in so much effort for my book, is a great support when things go wrong, and at the same time is very savvy.

Like Will said, no one else can make your book loved but you.

Glen T. Brock · Dec 25, 2007

Hello folks,

I'm not complaining about my manuscript being rejected. That's part of the game. What I am objecting to is the sea change in perspective on what sells in the book business. In the thirty years I was in business I had a shouting match with Don Wolhiem (DAW books) over the way his books were being distributed, discussed after market sales with Carmine Infantino(National comics) long before direct sales was introduced, and successfully changed some of the arbitrary distribution policies of some of the local ID distributors.

The problem, as I see it, is that publishers and agents have decided the primary market for book sales consists of middle aged women. Before you start yelling at me for being sexist let me freely admit there is a huge market for women in the book industry. What irks me is the elimination of the men's market. Just a couple of days ago I was in a Walmart book section. There were two or three westerns, a couple of police proceedural mysteries, and a couple of science fiction titles. The rest were best sellers (so called) and romance, particularly harleqins. Being familiar with the Harlequin distribution technique I can only congratulate them on their excellent system, but what about the others, like the giants that distibuted series titles like THE EXECUTIONER, DESTROYER, etc.? There was one title of the Executioner series at Walmart. If these books are being published they are certainly not being distributed. I know this because of my experience in the industry. The world doesn't spin on stories with strong female protagonists alone. Under those guidelines Edgar Rice Burroughs, Alistar Maclean, and Max Brand would have never found a market. All of those authors have proven track records as major bestselling writers. Something is wrong here.

Depending on your point of view, the role of the agent is to be the advocate for the writer or the publisher. The writer writes it, the agent sells it, and the publisher produces it. All other duties, like contract negotiations and royalty accounting, are really secondary to the primary goal--selling the product. If the product isn't sold nothing else matters.

Glen T. Brock

Toothpaste · Dec 25, 2007

Hmm . . . I'm not sure I agree with you. Well I do in a way that I think the largest market for books is women. But your example of Walmart really isn't that accurate. Because largely Walmart is appealing to women. It's appealing to the housewife/working mother, the person who is buying for the home and for the children. Now though things are far more equal these days, it is still usually women who are the primary care givers. Walmart is stocking Harlequin because they know who their customer is. (and yes I am making generalisations about what women read and such).

Have you been into any of the major bookstore chains? Because I know when I go there I see a lot of books aimed towards men. One could argue that the entire fantasy genre is aimed more in that direction (sweeping generalisations folks, I know a lot of female fantasy fans). And when I check out the top hardcover fiction books on the New York Times bestseller list, 11 out of the 15 have male protagonists, and many of them all looked like typically "male" thrillers. (so much fun talking in stereotypes, grr) And 12 out of the 15 were written by men, whatever that means.

I still am a bit confused at to what your point is, however with all of this. What are you trying to say? Is it something to do with agents? Would you mind repeating your intial point? - this is a genuine request to understand, not leading in the least.

Glen T. Brock · Dec 25, 2007

Adrienne,

Fair point. Let me extrapolate.

Why I picked Walmart was no accident. What used to be brick and mortar retailors have vanished over the last twenty years to the point that only a few of the megastores remain. What remains are grocery, drug, and department store in house centers. Just as publishers are betting on fewer titles and more reprints to make a profit, these alternative sources of trade (profit centers)tend to mirror the trend. Who is making the decisions as to what to place in these outlets? When I managed my stores (at one time I owned three in the metro Atlanta area)I based my inventory on two major factors: What the public asked for and what was the availability of the product. Distributors always played games with distribution (my argument with Wolhiem)either through selective mark ups or RDAs or both. Here's the way it worked. If you wanted to carry certain popular titles you must display other less popular items. That worked for paperbacks, magazines, comics, and hardcovers. Case in point: comic books. Comic books were at one time distributed in packages. A package consisted of 50 to 100 comics. For every Marvel title the retailer was forced to sell three or four titles of Archie, Harvey, or Dell titles (this was before ISBN). But when title codes were introduced the distributors retained the old system of bulk sales, resulting in higher inventory costs to the retailer. Harlequin still uses that system on their romances. They sell a package of three or four new titles per month with two or three reprint titles included, shrink wrapped and sold as one item. Thus, Harlequin almost automatically retains an edge on display. This is not neccessarilly wrong because Harlequin also offers individual titles by title number as well, but a hurried or lazy store manager might take the easy course of ordering the package rather than the individual titles.

What are the consequences of this type of distribution? Genre books suffer. New authors suffer. Agents aren't stupid. They won't take the risk of genre books either, unless they think the title will hit a home run as a best seller. That's why what used to be genre titles wind up on the 'bestseller' lists. In fact, agents are listing they aren't interested in genre titles (westerns, mysteries, science fiction, or horror) but they ARE interested in 'thrillers' and 'commercial fiction' (catch phrases for those 'bestseller titles that are not really bestsellers but promotion gimmicks to attain wide distribution).

So the genre dries up. Westerns, for example, will sell well if they are displayed. They're not (with the possible exception of Louis Lamour). This is the scandal no one will talk about, from the distributors to the literary agents.

My first published books were all police proceedurals. They sold well in certain areas (I sold over 500 of each title in my stores)but Holloway House is a small publisher, with antiquated distribution policies that prevented sales to larger retailers. For one thing, they insist on whole copy returns rather than torn copy, a kiss of death for most distributors. That's a bullet I had to bite. Could I have done better with a larger publisher? Probably--but maybe not, because of the shrinking interest in genre titles.

I've found that most titles in Barnes&Nobel and Books A Million tend to be reprints. These stores tend to be between 5,000 to 10,000 square feet and carry huge inventories. My stores were smaller. Still, RDAs and dumps contributed greatly to my profit margin. I can only imagine these megastores sell in house space the same way. Full copy displays and dumps make money and seldom are accidental.

Glen T. Brock

Toothpaste · Dec 25, 2007

I find all this genuinely interesting, and I have to say one of the reasons I like AW so much is how much I learn about the industry. I had no idea about any of this, especially about questions of distribution (though being a new author who has been published rather well I think, I do tend to quibble about what the chances are for an newbie).

That said, and I really hope you don't take the bluntness of the following question the wrong way, it may be short but it again is meant in all sincerity:

What's your point?

Glen T. Brock · Dec 25, 2007

Adrienne,

Bluntly put, who does the agent represent, the author or the publisher?

Before giving a pat answer please note that this is pretty muddy, being that the agent is the middleman between the two. Few, if any, publishers will negotiate directly with the author anymore, putting the agent in the catsbird seat. The author pays all the fees but the publisher gets the benefits of an agented reader to sort out the slush. My point is that the idea of the agent being the advocate for the author may not be entirely true. Here's an interesting analogy. Negotiations between social security and applicants will go nowhere unless an attorney requests a hearing, taking the subscriber out of the picture. In many cases, the same thing goes for malpractice, personal injury, and product indemnity cases. Lawyers have locked in a handsome fee for negotiating what could be fair negotiating between parties.

The agent doesn't really advocate for the author. The agent culls from the slush pile for the publisher. When an agent tells you this is not for us, especially without reading more than a query, you are being edited out of the mix. This is a judgement call, pure and simple. There is no justice, only policy.

I've been rejected because my work is too short. I've been rejected because my work is too long, too studied, not studied enough--all from a letter of 250 words or less. I have four manuscripts out there between 55-70,000 words. I kinow I have a market because I have received letters and reviews confirming this. I know I do not deserve anything from anybody but I do deserve a fair reading.

By the way, the reason my novels are too short is because 80,000 to 100,000 words are neccessary to make the work big enough to command the price these 'bestsellers' enjoy. Before the doorstop books of the 1970s 50,00-70,000 words were perfectly all right. Ace Books made a fortune selling them. Now, the publishers want only bloated and obviously padded doorstops to justify their fewer titles.

I'm sorry to be so cynical but I am beginning to get fed up.

Glen T. Brock

Toothpaste · Dec 25, 2007

See this is interesting. Before you were commenting that agents really needn't love the work they represent, and didn't seem to like the fact they worked off of the extremely subjective "love" mentality. Now you are saying that agents are nothing more than the first line of defense for publishers.

Couldn't they be somewhere in between?

I do understand what you are saying. The agent makes money selling a book to a publisher, and in order to sell a book to a publisher it has to be the sort of book the publisher is looking for. Therefore is the agent really working with the author.

I can't tell you anything more than personal experience. My agent loves her job. I am actually fairly jealous at how much she loves her job. And she loves the authors she represents. Now those authors might be loved in part because they are marketable, who knows, but what I do know is my agent truly believes in the work she is selling.

My friend's agent is the same way, and has demonstrated an amazing loyalty to her writer, who despite her MS having been rejected, reworked, and rejected again, still pitched her as an author to write on spec (and this is an unpublished writer mind you) for Harper Collins. My friend now has a two book deal with said publisher. Yes this just proves everything you've pointed out, that my friend was writing what the publisher wanted, but I would also point out that without her agent's unwavering faith in her abilities, despite all the rejection, she would not have got to where she is today. To me that is a kind of love most definitely.

It is now that I can site Jon Clinch again and his work Finn. Now it is not along the same lines as your work, at least from what I am gathering from your posts, but it still seems like a long shot to be published. Because his is the sort of novel you would not expect would be published and to such acclaim by a first time author. Finn is a prequel to the famous Mark Twain novel, is extremely literary and poetic, also graphic and downright vile in its violence and characterisations, and postulates that Huck was *gasp* actually half black. Typical Walmart stuff it ain't.

And what about Vincent Lam's Bloodletting and Miraculous Cures. You know what they say about short story anthologies? Well I mean it's basically there is no way in heck you are getting one published especially as a first time author. But he did. Oh and he also won the largest literary award in Canada.

But I will agree. The world of publishing isn't fair. It just isn't. Fabulous original mind blowing stuff is being published. So is a lot of crap. I am perfect proof the publishing industry isn't fair, my road to publication was so insanely easy I am surprised I haven't received any death threats yet. But . . . it isn't impossible. It isn't as cold and harsh as you make it out to be. It simply isn't. I have seen far too many success stories to believe otherwise (and I don't use myself as an example in that list). It ain't easy, it ain't pretty, it ain't fair . . . but most things aren't.

Nevertheless . . . now at least I understand your posting. It is a rant. There is nothing wrong with rants. I do them often. I approve of rants. However I have the annoying quality of wanting to solve problems, even if no help was asked for. Odd really, as I hate it when people do the same for me.

So then I ask you, have you had any partial/full requests? Have you posted your query in the SYW forum here? Have you considered maybe because you know the industry so well, are obviously intelligent, that you may be overthinking things? That's always been my biggest downfall. Let's brainstorm here. What can we do to get you published sir! Let's figure this out!

Glen T. Brock · Dec 25, 2007

Adrienne,

Sure, I've had partial requests and full ms. requests. Linda Gil, of BET books once championed one of my novels as 'deserving to be published' but couldn't because I am the wrong ethnicity. She pitched me to a major publisher herself but that pitch, unfortunately, didn't go anywhere. I was approached by Ed Spivia, a spokesman of Hal Needham, who was interested in developing a film option on one, or more, of my published novels. Contract restrictions put an end to that. The editor, who loved my stuff, passed away. Nobody else in that company shared his enthusiasm for my work. During the following years I concentrated on building a business, not on writing. Now, I am retired and have resumed my quest to be a published author. Perhaps my first three novels were analomies, accidents of nature that have no real value. However, Susie Rigsbey, a person I've never met, did a promising review of my third novel, TRUTH KILLERS, at amazon.com. If you wish you can read it by accessing my book listing there. That gives me inspiration that my writing may not be a fluke, but it still doesn't change the system, does it? The niche book is dead, murdered by a conspiracy of publishers and agents who refuse to consider them.

Glen T. Brock

Pup · Dec 26, 2007

What I'm not quite following...

If the goal is to write a book that sells--a purely commercial product, designed for the market--then okay fine. It's like any other business decision. You look at the demographics of the market, the advertising possibilities, etc. and you write with all that in mind. Length, subject matter, characters, style, everything--all designed with the market in mind.

If the goal is to write the book that's in your heart (not to be too maudlin about it), you open a vein and write whatever flows out. Maybe it's a 200,000 word fan fiction with pages of dense misspelled description, but it's your pride and joy. Maybe it's a crisp, breathtaking tale of everyman, with a new twist, that just happens to be 90,000 words. But there it is. You writes your book and you takes your chances, as the man says.

Most successful authors, I think, do a combination of both. They know what'll be an instant "no" (fan fiction, poor grammar, hopeless length) so they consciously avoid it no matter how attractive it may seem, but they still write what they love even if it means not being in the hottest genre of the moment.

So to get to my point--finally--if the goal is to write purely what sells, then it seems one has to back up and take the whole commercial process into consideration, and not start with the premise that if only the book were well distributed... Instead, think, here's what agents are taking on, and here's what publishers are buying, and here's what stores are stocking, so I'll write that.

If one has an emotional attachment to a genre, subject, audience segment, etc., and that's what one wants to write come hell or high water, it's no longer a purely commercial decision.

If your heart is in formula gothic romance that sold like hotcakes a few decades ago, or if your favorite style mimics the leisurely omniscient best sellers of the 19th century, then no matter how much you think you're writing books that sell because those books sold, well, you aren't. You're writing what's in your heart. And it's the same old emotional trap, the one that vanity presses have made a fortune on over the years--I know my book would be a bestseller because I love it; it's the big corporations standing between me and my readers.

Will Lavender · Dec 26, 2007

Glen T. Brock said:
The agent doesn't really advocate for the author. The agent culls from the slush pile for the publisher. When an agent tells you this is not for us, especially without reading more than a query, you are being edited out of the mix. This is a judgement call, pure and simple. There is no justice, only policy.

No. The agent works for you. She's an advocate for your career. I've had many, many conversations with my agent about my career. The money, the future money, the kinds of books that I should be writing, the kinds of books that sell -- we've discussed it all. All of that has little to do with the publisher. That's about me, my future life, my future work. When you sign on with an agent, it's imiportant for her to speak about that stuff because she/he will benefit from your success. Why wouldn't the agent be an advocate for you when she makes a portion of the money you make? It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

To your earlier point about middle-aged women:

The major markets have been aimed toward middle-aged women for thirty years. Yet men's fiction still sells. A story about a young boy at a magical boarding school became the greatest selling series ever written. I am not a middle-aged woman, clearly, and that isn't my core audience -- yet my book sold. How's that?

Toothpaste · Dec 26, 2007

Glen,

Sounds like you've had a run of very bad luck. I'm very sorry about that. But your experiences do not necessarily therefore prove that "The niche book is dead, murdered by a conspiracy of publishers and agents who refuse to consider them." Maybe your books are simply not good enough even to be niche (despite one or two people going to bat for them, and that one nice review on Amazon)? Horrible horrible thing to say I know, and I am not saying it is true, but here you are being incredibly negative yourself about the publishing industry, blaming them for your lack of success, and when I see something like that, my first thought, unfortunately goes back to the author.

Look I'm an actress, and have had far less success at that than as a writer. So often I blame the casting agents, the directors, everyone else. And then I see a film that goes against all my preconceived ideas of the acting world, and I remind myself that maybe the negativity I feel I do bring into auditions, people can sense my cynicism. Maybe I've gotten rusty and I should take some classes. Maybe it's because I am shy, and don't go out of my way to meet directors and casting directors like some of my fellow actors aren't frightened to do. What can I, Toothpaste, do to get success? I spent a month seeing friends and staying home when I first moved back to Toronto. Finally I decided to step outside my door and go to a class. That very evening I was offered a role in a play. A lot has to do with attitude and taking responsibility for yourself, not expecting everyone around you to change. It's too easy that way, to sit and cry foul.

Anyway, back to solving the problem.

What I am most confused about is that it seems like you've already published these books. If that's the case, and they haven't sold particularly well (I'm just guessing at this, as if they had I doubt we'd be having this conversation) possibly that is suggesting to an agent that they don't want to rep a work already published that didn't do too well. Have you written anything new since 1989? Are the works you are subbing new works, or old ones? Still trying to help you man, just needing the facts. What exactly are you submitting and to whom? What genre? What length?

Glen T. Brock · Dec 26, 2007

Adrienne,

I have written other books since 1991, when TRUTH KILLERS was puiblished.
THROWAWAY PEOPLE (70,000 wrds)is a police proceedural concerning the politics of the Homeless. Holloway won't publish it but nobody else can either because it has the same characters and settings of the first three books.

EVIL REMEMBRANCES (59,000 wrds)is a quirky thriller about identity fraud, psychic paintings, smuggled icons, and murder. The origonal title was THE PORTRAIT OF HAROLD BRADLEY.

WHITE CAMELLIA (59,000 wrds) In 1881 William Tecumsah Sherman visited Atlanta, Georgia, the same city he allegedly burned to the ground. President Hayes requests Pinkertons to guard the general from possible assasination by a radical Ku Kux Klan faction, THE WHITE CAMELLIA. This is a historical thriller

LAIR OF THE NIGHT WITCH (60,000 wrds) A multigenerational ghost story set in metro Atlanta from 1934 to 2001. A lawyer recruits a grandson and a psychic to convince his grandmother to sell her estate to land developers.

IN DEEP (a working ms.) Science fiction novel concerning the discovery of another species of intelligent life attempting to become the dominant form of life on the planet.

Plus a dozen or so short stories of all genres.

Thanks for asking.

Glen T. Brock

Will Lavender · Dec 26, 2007

Toothpaste said:
A lot has to do with attitude and taking responsibility for yourself, not expecting everyone around you to change. It's too easy that way, to sit and cry foul.

Best point in the thread.

Irysangel · Dec 26, 2007

Jumping in here to offer my two cents (not that anyone asked).

Your word count might be hindering your querying. Most publishers nowdays freely admit that it's cheaper to print a certain amount of pages than to go less/more. Most publishers also admit that people need to feel like they are getting a certain 'amount of book' for their dollar. That is why some novels include a lot of previews at the back, and the font is large and the margins are huge. They are spreading out a 'thin' story to make it into an 'acceptable' size.

60k was probably extremely usual for a novel several years ago (and is still standard for some category romance) but for the most part, it is about 20-30k too short for a regular 'single title' novel. This would make it a hard sell. Most agents (unless totally in love with the concept) won't go for a hard sell. I realize there are always exceptions to this rule, but unfortunately the vast majority of us don't get to be the wild, happy exception to the rule. We get to play by the rules.

As far as agents not representing 'genre' fiction, I'm puzzled by this comment. My agent reps a lot of genre fiction. So do the dozens and dozens of others that I queried when sending my books around. I would suggest doing more agent research.

Also, you mentioned the Destroyer and such as a reference. The Destroyer books are marketed much like men's category fiction (like Harlequin does category for women). A lot of agents don't care to represent category fiction because I believe the money is less than single title (however, I am no expert, so take with a grain of salt). I also heard a friend's agent complain about smaller publishers. She refused to send stuff out to them because it wasn't worth her time and effort to send stuff to smaller houses for the size advance they gave her. Considering how much work the agent has to do with contracts and gun-running for the author, I can definitely understand an agent not wanting to bother with a $100-200 take on a book. It's simply not worth their time.

I'm not saying that this is the case with everything you have, of course. But these things will definitely work against you when you are querying.

IceCreamEmpress · Dec 26, 2007

Glen, I'm a little confused by what your issues are. Are you having a hard time finding agents who represent thrillers or science fiction? There seem to be an awful lot of them out there.

Similarly, if you feel like there isn't a big market for books similar to The Executioner, I don't know what bookstores you're going to--I see lots of shoot-'em-up series fiction on the shelves whenever I go to a Borders, Waldenbooks, or similar. A look at the New York Times mass-market paperback best-seller list includes Nelson DeMille and another of the endless books from under the Tom Clancy umbrella.

As for Throwaway People, if I understand you correctly, you wrote the book as part of a series, but the publisher who did the other books in the series isn't interested. Is that correct? It seems to me that the easiest thing to do would be to keep the plot and change the characters slightly, and send it out as a stand-alone book.

Finally, I know that people don't give the attention to posts on a message board that they do to their professional communications, but if your queries to agents are as poorly proofread as your posts here, that might be one reason you're not wowing them. Spell-check doesn't catch misspellings of proper names, like Donald Wollheim and William Tecumseh Sherman. I don't mean to be nitpicky, but you seem to be impatient that you're not getting the respect you feel you deserve, and part of that might be that you're not communicating as effectively as you think you are.

HeronW · Dec 26, 2007

Doesn't the agent have to be in synch with what the writer does so they can pitch better to the publishers?

Cathy C · Dec 26, 2007

Seeing as I'm on both sides of this situation, I'm going to weigh in. While I write romance, which is the darling of the secondary markets, I READ mostly "men's fiction"---thrillers, SF/fantasy, westerns. Because I've also lamented the lack of such genre fiction in the secondary markets (WalMart, Target, airport bookstores and the like, where the sale of books isn't their "primary" business) and since I've had the opportunity to meet the people who buy for these chains, I've done some investigating.

After talks with the national buyers for both Levy Entertainment and Anderson News (the two largest distributors in the country), it turns out that the reason for the lack of books in the male genres is simply . . . sales. Nobody was buying them---or at least not in enough quantities to justify ordering them. Keep in mind that a single order from Levy could be 35-40K books, distributed over several thousand stores in multiple chains.

The others are right. The single greatest demographic SHOPPER in a discount store is a working mother. Now, it's not that men don't buy things in the stores, because they do. But they don't SHOP---i.e., casually wander the store with an empty cart, looking for unnamed, random things to put inside. Books in WalMart aren't a destination purchase. They're an impulse buy, often for something to read on a lunch hour or something to read at the laundromat/sports practice or other household "waiting" event.

But there's not a thing wrong with bookstore-only sales. Most of our readership is in primary market sales. While "romance" readers shop at secondary markets, paranormal romance readers are the same demographic as SF/fantasy. They buy in bookstores. Our bookstore sell-through is around 78%. Our secondary market sell-through? A paltry (but sadly, normal) 38%.

Yeah, secondary markets order lots of books, but they don't SELL lots of books. 60-80% are returns, which just kills a publisher's profit.

My best advice is not to worry about the secondary markets. There are still lots of bookstores selling men's fiction. What I'd worry about more are the length of your books. The thrillers and police procedurals on the shelves today are in the 80-100K range. That's to maximize the price to the public ($6.99-7.99) and stay within the cheapest cover stock the publisher can find. If a publisher can put out books of all the same size--regardless of the genre, they only have to order one kind of paper. Even the western writers I know (like Elmer Kelton & Ken Hodgson) are creating longer books for the same publisher that they used to provide 65-80K for.

Markets change. We all have to change with them. :Shrug:

Just my .02

Glen T. Brock · Dec 26, 2007

Hello folks,

I wish I had the sales figures Cathy's bookstore has! The AVERAGE sales of mass market paperbacks is about 50% and magazines almost as bad. I was in the industry and kept up with the figures. For several years now publishers have been using a 'shotgun' approach to distribution. Massive print runs and numerous 'dumps' are not uncommon. Why? Because as the number of copies printed increases the cost of goods decreases, sometimes dramatically. Therefore, a half million print run with over 50% returns still makes money---lots of money.

But you have hit the nail square on the head. Publishers won't sell smaller books (and agents won't pitch them)because they feel the point of price is too high (the point of price being the maximum price a customer will pay for the product). The automobile industry has been playing that game for years.

Personally, I think the point of price has been too high in the book industry for quite some time. Historically, remember, the price of hardbacks was directly responsible for the creation of the paperback industry in the 1940s. The point of price at that time was 98 cents for a hardback book. paperbacks were introduced by pocket books for a quarter. The pulp magazine industry has priced itself out of business and the comic book industry is trying to commit suicide as well. Marvel Comics declared bankruptcy a few years ago, just months before the first Spiderman movie came out. I know this because I owned stock in that company, which at the time was considered the most profitable comic publisher in the industry. My stock went from over twenty dollars per share to zero in less than three months. I took a bath on it.

My spelling.... Good grief, my spelling sucks. I know better. Tecumseh is not spelled with an A and I transposed letters inWolheim's name. None of that changes the fact that I had a heated argument over book sales with him in Birmingham, Alabama.

As for changing with the market think about this. Fifty years ago hundreds of pulp magazines filled the magazine racks. Dozens of movie magazines, romance magazines, men's adventure magazines, as well as daily newspapers provided for every niche. Today, the pulp magazine is all but extinct, only a few movie magazines and ever fewer romance magazines are left. The eventing newspaper is an endangered species, replaced by a few dinosaurs like THE NEW YORK TIMES and, of course, USA TODAY. How many paperback houses have bit the dust? Remember Fawcett, Pyramid, Lancer books and Pinnacle?

The issue here is far more than my wanting to sell a book. If I never sell another piece that's okay with me. I don't make my living that way any more. The industry is short changing not only the buying public but working authors by not publishing short novels. If the ten dollar paperback is not here already it is only a short matter of time before it will be here. Remember, the book business is, and always has been, an impulse sale driven industry. What do you think the point of price will be?

Glen T. Brock

dantem42 · Dec 26, 2007

Glen T. Brock said:
The problem, as I see it, is that publishers and agents have decided the primary market for book sales consists of middle aged women. Before you start yelling at me for being sexist let me freely admit there is a huge market for women in the book industry. What irks me is the elimination of the men's market. Just a couple of days ago I was in a Walmart book section. There were two or three westerns, a couple of police proceedural mysteries, and a couple of science fiction titles. The rest were best sellers (so called) and romance, particularly harleqins. Being familiar with the Harlequin distribution technique I can only congratulate them on their excellent system, but what about the others, like the giants that distibuted series titles like THE EXECUTIONER, DESTROYER, etc.? There was one title of the Executioner series at Walmart. If these books are being published they are certainly not being distributed. I know this because of my experience in the industry. The world doesn't spin on stories with strong female protagonists alone. Under those guidelines Edgar Rice Burroughs, Alistar Maclean, and Max Brand would have never found a market. All of those authors have proven track records as major bestselling writers. Something is wrong here.Glen T. Brock

Having been a fanatical childhood reader of Edgar Rice Burroughs, I'd question your analysis. Certainly in the Mars series, Princess Dejah Thoris of Helium was presented as every bit John Carter's equal, not a shrinking violet given to succumbing to the vapors as was so often the case in comparable literature of the time.

In any case, if you are using Wal Mart as a test milieu, go there on a weekday afternoon and compare the number of women going through the cashier there versus the number of men. Then go to Borders and see if you get the same stats. Wal Mart stocks its shelves for its primary clientele.

GOOD TASTE VS. TASTES GOOD

2 WIP? A glutton for punishment

Sailed away years ago

Everything is what it seems.

I've seen worse.

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

.

Everything is what it seems.

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Everything is what it seems.

She of Many Names

Hapless Virago

Down Under Fan

Ooo! Shiny new cover!