Choice Overload

M.J. Rose usefully observes that "We are now at a point where 500 novels are being released weekly." She then asks:

Is it really any surprise that so many writers' careers are crashing and burning before they ever flared? Or that not every title is stocked in the chains?

But, having succinctly made the case that there are more books being published than could ever conceivably reach the readers they need, she takes two steps backward:

As readers of this blog know, my point is not that there are too many books. I want to be really clear about this so I am going to obnoxiously repeat it. I'm not saying there are too many books.

The pressure that someone like M.J. Rose is under to deny reality must be overwhelming indeed. Apparently no one--not writers, not publishers, not even the readers who are being deluged with titles they'll never be able to keep track of--wants to hear the dreaded words "too many books." Better to fiddle while the book world implodes.

But M.J. does venture a few more inches forward:

But I am saying that there are too many books for the system, as it exists now, to deal with.

Huh? There aren't too many books, but, under the current circumstances, the system is producing, well, too many books.

In fairness, I agree with M.J. that the "system" is broken, that it is incapable of bringing a suitable number of readers to the mass of books it is now releasing. Who can deny that her description of the consequences of this system breakdown is accurate?:

. . .with the number of books being published there are going to be more and more of them that don't get fairly and adequately vetted by fiction buyers, by reviewers, and by readers.

We have broken systems in place to deal with the books we're publishing. Because of it, readers suffer with choice overload and writers suffer when poor selling books destroy their careers.

In all of the posts lamenting the state of publishing that I have put up on this blog, the point I have wanted to make is essentially the point M.J. Rose is struggling to make: The "book business," primarily the big New York publishers, but also the smaller presses that try to compete with them, has become hopelessly incompetent at what should be its primary responsibility: to make worthwhile books available to interested readers. (Don't tell me that the primary responsibility of book publishing is to make money. If you're looking to make a lot of money, you're a fool if you get involved with books.) At the moment, it's just throwing books into the air and hoping some people catch a few.

I don't say that too many people want to be writers or that readers should have to make do with whatever books a selected number of book publishers wants to give them. I only say that if you're relying on the "book business" to make your career as a writer you'll be sorely disappointed. (For additional evidence of how the oversupply of books makes it difficult for lesser-known books to even get stocked on bookstore shelves, see this post by Maud Newton.) The "book business" described in M.J. Rose's post is not your friend. As long as you continue seeking entrance to the "book business," as opposed to simply doing good work and perhaps looking for alternate modes of publication, you'll be contributing to the mess the publishers have made of literary production and ensuring that not so many years from now there won't even be a book business to kick around anymore.

Comments

[genevieve]

Mr. Fresh Eyes had a look at this too and was very 'get out there boys and meet your booksellers' about it all. All I have to add is that I have read twice now about the rush of fiction published in France at a certain time every year, and the percentage of first novels involved - they now have a name for it and it is as though everyone braces themselves for the onslaught ( Not the 'deluge', I don't think - the term has slipped my mind but it is apt and along those lines...)Apparently the numbers are large enough for it to be practically guaranteed that many first books will not sell at all.

[John]

Argue all you want, but there is truth to the notion that there simply are too many books. That doesn't mean that publishers should stop publishing (though a year-long moratorium to let all of us catch up a bit would be nice), but that there can be no reasonable expectation by readers that they'll ever put even a modest dent in the list of books they hope to read in their lifetime, or by writers that they stand any chance of actually carving out much of a niche (or, for that matter, a living) from their work. That said, I agree that those authors who are willing to do things to set themselves apart -- guest blogging, readings, radio shows, etc -- are the only ones who stand much chance of rising above the fray. I wrote about books for several years but now I am simply a civilian, and I can't remember the last time I just picked up a book because it looked interesting. Everything I've read in the past year has come to me either through a review, a recommendation or a tangential mention in some other work. A book without buzz isn't really a book at all... at least not one that anyone will ever read.

[Chris]

This figure of 25,000 is seductive, but it just seems unreal. I traced it back to the Bowker report--or I should say the Press Release on Bowker's site--and I still couldn't quite divine enough from it to accept the figures as accurately translatable to "500 new works of fiction are published each week." There are three charts, two of which cite the 2004 figures as preliminary. One is for book production overall, one for trade book production, and the third for university presses. All include hardback and paperback, so that would surely mean that a very significant number of these 25,000 titles (specified as constituting "new titles _and editions_" (emphasis mine) are paperbound editions of books that previously appeared in hardcover or are being brought back into print. There are further taxonomic divisions that murkify the figures--I wouldn't be surprised if there was some overlap.

The press release, with links to the charts, is here:
http://www.bowker.com/press/bowker/2005_0524_bowker.htm

[M.J. Rose]

Thanks for linking to my rant. And for the discussion. The point is - 500 books be they reprints or new books - still get shipped, get sheveled, compete for attention in catalogs that go to bookellers etc. Even if there were 300 novels a week - well you get my point.

And the reason I can't, and no writer can say there are too many book and leave it at that, and have to backpeddle is simple.

If the number of books were to be cut in half - would mine go? I can't be that immodest to suggest I'd live while others die.

Publisher's aren't great at picking hits vs picking misses. That's also part of the problem. No one is comfrotable having them cut the number either. Which would they cut?

I just wish there were a way to start solving the crisis instead of seeing it get worse every damn year.