Too many books, not enough time
Laura Miller’s essay in this week’s NYTBR, already linked here, has provoked considerable commentary in some message boards I frequent (and will, I bet, be a fairly hot topic tomorrow around the ‘sphere.) I was going to post a long screed about why I agree with Miller but David Montgomery beat me to the punch:
Virtually all of the books I get are crime fiction of one sort or another: mysteries, thrillers, suspense, a little bit of horror and true crime. Books by bestselling authors, debut authors, midlist authors, self-published authors, wannabe authors, old authors, new authors…the list goes on.
Some of the books are great (although never as many as one would hope), a lot of them are good, the majority are adequate. That is what you’d expect. After all, we’re dealing (mostly) with professionals, companies that are doing this in an effort to earn a profit.
The shocking part, though, is just how many of these books are truly bad. I would say conservatively that 10% of these books will never be read. By anyone. Not just my copy, either. Every copy. (I often wonder if the editor in charge even read it — I suspect not.) Many of these books are so bad that I can’t even give them away, much less read them myself.
Oh yes, although I don’t think it’s shocking per se–law of averages, after all, dictates that not everything that’s available can be of equally high quality. There has to be some dreck that makes it through.
Montgomery goes on at length about just how many bad books cross his desk and suggests an alternative for this deluge:
If we’re to see any improvement, it is essential that editors tighten up their standards. Even if publishers were to eliminate that hypothetical 10% of pure dross it would be significant progress. If they were to remove another selection of marginal titles, it would be that much better.
Sure, readers will have slightly fewer choices when it comes to reading material. But they weren’t liable to pick those books anyway. A handful of would-be authors won’t have the joy of seeing their books in print — but, then again, they don’t deserve to in the first place. Besides, there are always self-publishing and vanity options available to them.
If publishers were to concentrate more on fewer titles — and even slightly fewer would be a start — everyone would benefit. The books would be better, authors would sell more copies, publishers would make more money, and readers would be better served.
Yes, yes and yes, which is something that if I haven’t said explicitly here before, then I’m about to do so now:
Just because you write, doesn’t mean you are entitled to be published.
Just because you are published, doesn’t mean you are entitled to be read.
Just because you are read, doesn’t mean you are entitled to be read by many.
Just because you are read by many, doesn’t mean you are entitled to continue to be read by many until perpetuity.
People have expressed disbelief about those who Miller spoke to who were overwhelmed by the choices available at the bookstores. Well, I’m going to admit to being one of those people. Sure, I am addicted to books and somehow find a way to inhabit a bookstore anywhere from 2-3 times a week. I peruse the shelves every time, mentally noting what’s available that I want to read…and then my brain locks up. I cannot process. Whether it’s a superstore like Chapters or Borders or B&N or an independent, the fact is, I cannot keep up. And remember, I read widely, both within the crime fiction genre and outside of it. I read fast and therefore manage to get to what I hope are the absolute best of what is published in given year. But I can’t get to all of them. The more I read, the more my inferiority complex builds.
How will I be able to read everything I want to??
Obviously, I cannot. And by the same token, I do feel sorry for those writers whose careers are cut short. But it’s a tough world out there, folks, and no one’s entitled to anything. Not me, not my friends, not even James Patterson and his legions of ghostwriters. I guess we can only do our best.