The Agony Column and the Demise of the Doorstopper

[dr_pretentious]

You may have heard me lament about the impending demise of the doorstopper novel. The Agony Column has some useful and interesting things to say about that. If you enjoy big, fat novels in any genre, you ought to know that the bookselling chains are trying to drive such books into extinction on the basis of a belief that wide-spined books play havoc with the ratio of inches of shelf space to profit. If that pisses you off, follow Rick Kleffel's advice on how to tell the bookselling chains of your displeasure. Do it for yourself and readers everywhere. Do it for George R.R. Martin. All right, I'll confess to my self interest: do it for me. Me me me me me. Pretty please.

EDITED 14 June 2005

As Marianne Moore tells us, omissions are not accidents. Please note that I have never blamed the publishing houses for this development in the market. It's a chain bookstore problem.

Comments

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

Sadly, the Tor address doesn't work at the moment. On thei FAQ says:

* All that said, our email address for general queries is inquiries@tor.com.
* TEMPORARY NOTE (27 February 2002): If that doesn't work, please try this for now: torquery@panix.com. This is a temporary workaround which will go away shortly.
* Our office fax number is (212) 388-0191.

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

BAH! Actual FAQ url.

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

The "temporary" address for 3 years ago works nicely.

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

Ignore that - it just bounced. So it's phone or fax, unless someone has a working email address for Tor that Tor isn't prepared to publish on their website.

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

O faithful Karen! Thank you for pointing over here in your blog, and for pursuing all this in your usual relentless manner.

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

Relentless is my middle name.

Well, no, it isn't really, but it sounds kind of cool.

[sabrinamari.livejournal.com]

On it, oh amazing novelist friend.

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

As bandwagons go, it's a pretty good one. Thanks!

[radiotelescope.livejournal.com]

Mmf. Does it count if I stop buying split hardcovers, and instead wait for the paperbacks? Which I am considering. That's using my wallet to argue with the bookstores, but not really arguing *for* the *authors*.

Note that my wallet is fully capable of handling the load. It's my bookshelves that cannot. Stores aren't the only ones trying to optimize for space.

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

How unexpected and wonderful to see you here!

Since at the moment I have no royalties to lose by saying so, yes, it counts. (And really, how would I know if it didn't?)

I sympathize with the shelf-space shortage. I keep hoping something sufficiently auspicious will happen--and plenty of different things might be auspicious enough--for me to feel safe offloading the scholarly books I'll never have a reason to look at again if I don't have to crawl back to academia. I've got three different careers' worth of professional libraries crammed into my study, to say nothing of the books I picked up just for pleasure.

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

if i've learned one thing while working for large french-named company&trade, it's that large businesses know what they're losing money on. they may not have the slightest clue what to do about it, but they're very clear that they should do something.

if the bookstores do believe that bug-squashers aren't selling well -- and that claim is third-hand or so -- i'd take it as free market research about what readers are paying for.

[radiotelescope.livejournal.com]

The claim isn't that they're not selling well, it's that they're not selling well *per unit thickness*. In other words, readers buy by the story, not by the page.

This only equates to market research if pages are a fungible commodity.

[twoeleven.livejournal.com]

In other words, readers buy by the story, not by the page.
exactly. a story of 10⁶ words is worth no more to write than one of 10⁵ words. free market research.

well, ok, the long story may be worth more, but not proportionately so. i think this is extremely valuable information to a beginning writer trying to convince a publisher that they're worth their advance.

[dr-pretentious.livejournal.com]

I'm aiming to revise this volume into the best book it can be. Unfortunately, it's proving very difficult to make it the most marketable book it can be at the same time. I'm beginning to suspect that the two imperatives may be incommensurable, if marketability is a function of length. A smaller advance on a better version of the book (and therefore a more durable seller on the backlist) suits me just fine. An advance is just an advance on royalties, after all. Earning out the advance is a good thing.

Well, the Brits aren't scared of long manuscripts by first-time novelists solely on the basis of length, as witness Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. My current draft is nowhere near that degree of polish, obviously, and it's possible I might not ever equal Susanna Clarke at the game. But then, I don't mean to languish in perfectionistic obscurity through ten years of revisions, which seems like a rather extreme trade to make for any single volume. I was about to say I had no idea how Clarke could stand to do that, but then realized I'd (sort of) done it myself. Having traded a decade for the dissertation, it's not a sort of exchange I'm eager to make again, not even for my Beltresins. Anyhow, maybe the Brits will look at the thing, once I've put it back together enough for the engine to run, if the American publishers are too cowed by the American bookselling chains.

[vgnwtch.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the book, but I am reading your MS. As far as having to live up to anyone, you have nothing to worry about.