I suppose everyone has heard, but thought I would mention the death of John Updike on this blog. Two things interested me from the Yahoo article linked to this site.
One was the line: "On purely literary grounds, he [Updike] was attacked by Normal Mailer as the kind of an author appreciated by readers who knew nothing about writing." As a writer myself, I wonder what is so laughable in giving your audience what it wants. Is Stephen King the best writer ever? Not even close. But he makes millions because he gives people what they want - horror stories - and he does it well. And even if they are genre books, isn't it good enough that people are at least reading, when they could be playing video games or watching TV?
I guess my question is what makes a good writer good: is it the amount of awards they get? By how many books they sell? The accolades lavished on them by the "expert" reviewers or by their peers? And what makes one writer a peer and another not: The same awards won? Being in the same genre or print medium? Do you have to know anything at all about writing (besides being able to read it) to enjoy it? Or do "serious" readers need to be able to dissect Joyce's "Ulysses" before they can appreciate writing?
The other item of interest was Updike's stand on the digital future of publishing. The article states that he "delivered a passionate defense of bookstores and words, words on paper, at publishing's annual national convention ... [H]e scorned this 'pretty grisly scenario' and praised the paper book as the site of an 'encounter, in silence, of two minds ... So, booksellers, defend your lonely forts.'" I wonder if many other writers feel this way, especially if they are of older generations (Updike was 76 when he died). This 2006 NY Times article suggests that authors' feelings are mixed; and one great part reminds us that books themselves are a relatively new construct, coming on the heels of oral storytelling's long history; and that mass-producing books is a relatively new phenomenon, as well, putting caligraphers and bookbinders out of business. Sounds vaguely familiar... Brave new world, indeed. (That last line would have been awesome if I was writing about Aldous Huxley! Does anyone have a good Witches of Eastwick quote?)
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Good luck, guys.
Even as a member of the publishing community, with (slightly) more awareness of the business than the average person, I don't frequent publishers' sites to get the books I want. It involves more time and effort to find what you're looking for: a Google search to find out who publishes the title you need, then a visit to that publisher's site; or a visit to Amazon to find the book and publisher, then the journey to the publisher site. It doesn't make sense for anyone to go through all that to find books, especially as the convenience of shopping online is a big factor for consumers. It's easier to remember a title and fish it out of a wider pool (Amazon or Powells, i.e. the carriers of all the major and many smaller presses) than to limit yourself to only one publisher.
Part of the appeal of Amazon is the recommendations at the bottom of the screen; even if individual publisher sites had this same technology, the options would be comparably limited - and consumers like to feel they have options (milk, for example: 2%, 1%, nonfat, Vitamin D, whole, acidophilus, lactose-reduced, ultra-heated, ultrafiltration, soy, rice, etc, etc, etc). More is always more.
I can understand the effort publishers are putting into their sites to make them more consumer-focused and -friendly; why shouldn't they? It's worth a shot, right? The ideal upshot would be more direct-to-consumer sales, cutting out the middleman (the distributor), thus earning and saving money for the publisher. The downside is the continued negligible direct sales. I suspect as well that the Amazon Machine has lit a fire under their asses to make more of an online effort. Publishers can see that online book sales are extremely profitable (the most profitable, actually) and are developing ways to try and get in on that action. You can see it on websites such as Simon & Schuster's, with the user-friendly design and videos and interviews. They see the value in creating an online community, as Nancy says in her blog, but haven't figured out how to get customers there in the first place.
It will be interesting to see what publishers will do in the future. Wouldn't it be great if they all joined together and created a site to rival Amazon's? Imagine the discounts! And the logistics of arranging that. Yikes...
Part of the appeal of Amazon is the recommendations at the bottom of the screen; even if individual publisher sites had this same technology, the options would be comparably limited - and consumers like to feel they have options (milk, for example: 2%, 1%, nonfat, Vitamin D, whole, acidophilus, lactose-reduced, ultra-heated, ultrafiltration, soy, rice, etc, etc, etc). More is always more.
I can understand the effort publishers are putting into their sites to make them more consumer-focused and -friendly; why shouldn't they? It's worth a shot, right? The ideal upshot would be more direct-to-consumer sales, cutting out the middleman (the distributor), thus earning and saving money for the publisher. The downside is the continued negligible direct sales. I suspect as well that the Amazon Machine has lit a fire under their asses to make more of an online effort. Publishers can see that online book sales are extremely profitable (the most profitable, actually) and are developing ways to try and get in on that action. You can see it on websites such as Simon & Schuster's, with the user-friendly design and videos and interviews. They see the value in creating an online community, as Nancy says in her blog, but haven't figured out how to get customers there in the first place.
It will be interesting to see what publishers will do in the future. Wouldn't it be great if they all joined together and created a site to rival Amazon's? Imagine the discounts! And the logistics of arranging that. Yikes...
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Continued misconceptions about YA fiction
I found this article while cruising around on the internet today and was somewhat irked at what it had to say about YA fiction. The author claims that YA's huge appeal to adults as well as teens can be explained by the fact that it:
"fills a gap that ex-chick lit readers have been hungry for. Consider the subject matter disclosed in a large majority of popular YA fiction, most of it resembles at its core, the things that make chick lit and other adult fiction so popular: a mix of social and societal trends and a light, easy-reading appeal. Factor in the steamy R-rated scenes and it's easy to understand the appeal YA has on a large audience...They are fun, light and easy to digest." (bad editing copied from the original article)
Really? Chick lit? No wonder YA fiction is having a difficult time being seen as a serious and well-written genre in its own right. People still have a certain image in their minds about what fiction for teens is: it used to be a cover of Sweet Valley High and is now a cover of Gossip Girl. I would challenge anyone to read "The Book Thief" and report back that it is "fun, light and easy to digest." It's none of the above. It's also one of the best books I have ever read - including adult fiction. And "the large majority of popular YA fiction" does not consist solely of the Gossip Girl series, a fact this author seems to have overlooked entirely. That's like summarizing the entire fantasy genre based on the Sookie Stackhouse books. Yikes. Today's New York Times Children's Bestseller list for paperbacks doesn't have one book from the Clique, Gossip Girl, or A-List series; books about President Obama, the holocaust ("The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" and "The Book Thief"), meth addiction ("Tweak"), and teenage pregnancy ("Slam") dominate instead.
So how to encourage the slowly-changing view of YA fiction? The article also states that "YA book sales have increased 23% since 1993, while adult book sales have decreased in the same time period by one percent." Should we let YA speak for itself (as it has been doing and will likely continue to do)? Keep reading it and passing it on to our friends? Maybe write our own articles!
"fills a gap that ex-chick lit readers have been hungry for. Consider the subject matter disclosed in a large majority of popular YA fiction, most of it resembles at its core, the things that make chick lit and other adult fiction so popular: a mix of social and societal trends and a light, easy-reading appeal. Factor in the steamy R-rated scenes and it's easy to understand the appeal YA has on a large audience...They are fun, light and easy to digest." (bad editing copied from the original article)
Really? Chick lit? No wonder YA fiction is having a difficult time being seen as a serious and well-written genre in its own right. People still have a certain image in their minds about what fiction for teens is: it used to be a cover of Sweet Valley High and is now a cover of Gossip Girl. I would challenge anyone to read "The Book Thief" and report back that it is "fun, light and easy to digest." It's none of the above. It's also one of the best books I have ever read - including adult fiction. And "the large majority of popular YA fiction" does not consist solely of the Gossip Girl series, a fact this author seems to have overlooked entirely. That's like summarizing the entire fantasy genre based on the Sookie Stackhouse books. Yikes. Today's New York Times Children's Bestseller list for paperbacks doesn't have one book from the Clique, Gossip Girl, or A-List series; books about President Obama, the holocaust ("The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" and "The Book Thief"), meth addiction ("Tweak"), and teenage pregnancy ("Slam") dominate instead.
So how to encourage the slowly-changing view of YA fiction? The article also states that "YA book sales have increased 23% since 1993, while adult book sales have decreased in the same time period by one percent." Should we let YA speak for itself (as it has been doing and will likely continue to do)? Keep reading it and passing it on to our friends? Maybe write our own articles!
Friday, January 23, 2009
The Amazon Machine
Amazon.com. I am pretty black-and-white about this subject: Monopolies are never a good thing. Any company that begins to burgeon into a monopoly should be regarded warily. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," to dust off that old gem. If one company becomes the company for publishing (publisher, printer, distributor, seller) then they are empowered to call all the shots. This puts everyone involved with the industry - readers, publishers, authors - at the mercy of said company (i.e. Amazon). It's that simple. Would anyone feel comfortable in that situation? Have monopolies in the past ever done anything besides benefit themselves as much as possible?
Amazon has already forced smaller POD publishers to use its BookSurge services, or their books won't be allowed to be sold on Amazon. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to think that self-published authors will be forced to do the same thing at some point. It's an overall limiting of options, a sort of dwindling biodiversity in publishing terms.
It may appear that some parties benefit in the short run-readers will have more to read (if that is even a good thing) and better deals on books; more authors will be able to print and sell their work (if that is even a good thing)-but, ultimately, we will all lose in the end if we allow one giant, and the convenience it represents, to dominate an entire industry.
It's the death of the small, independent bookstores that really bothers me. It's saddening to know that people would rather save money than support their local community. Even with the economy the way it is, people who can still afford books can probably also afford to pay a couple dollars more to buy them at the neighborhood bookstore. My hope is that Amazon's growing dominance and strong-arm tactics will cause a backlash that encourgages authors and readers to embrace other, smaller avenues.
I may be too much of an idealist...
Amazon has already forced smaller POD publishers to use its BookSurge services, or their books won't be allowed to be sold on Amazon. It isn't a stretch of the imagination to think that self-published authors will be forced to do the same thing at some point. It's an overall limiting of options, a sort of dwindling biodiversity in publishing terms.
It may appear that some parties benefit in the short run-readers will have more to read (if that is even a good thing) and better deals on books; more authors will be able to print and sell their work (if that is even a good thing)-but, ultimately, we will all lose in the end if we allow one giant, and the convenience it represents, to dominate an entire industry.
It's the death of the small, independent bookstores that really bothers me. It's saddening to know that people would rather save money than support their local community. Even with the economy the way it is, people who can still afford books can probably also afford to pay a couple dollars more to buy them at the neighborhood bookstore. My hope is that Amazon's growing dominance and strong-arm tactics will cause a backlash that encourgages authors and readers to embrace other, smaller avenues.
I may be too much of an idealist...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Dear Grove/Atlantic: I Almost Gouged My Eyes Out. Sincerely, Chelsea.
There are so many different directions to go when choosing to browse a handful of publisher's websites: The big ones? The small literary presses? Local presses? Comic/graphic novel sites? I decided to check out a smattering of each.
The big ones (Peguin, Simon & Schuster, Random House, etc.) all seemed to have a similar aesthetic, with Simon & Schuster having a bit more of an edge: simple, professional-looking layouts designed to appeal to the widest possible denominator. The menus were comprehensive and straightforward, making the search for a certain genre of book fairly easy. There were plentiful graphics, balanced with text and links; there was a range of media (videos, RSS feeds, book trailers) for that high-tech, cutting-edge feel; there was a little something for everybody (author Q&As, news, bestseller lists, reading guides, teacher guides). The overall impression I got was of very competent and comprehensive, if rather bland, websites.
I definitely preferred the brighter colors, bigger images and graphics, and more artistic feel of the small press sites, such as Top Shelf, Exact Change, and (especially) Tin House. They had a more creative and personal touch that drew me in and made me want to spend more time perusing the sites. Although there isn't nearly the same amount of information, there really doesn't need to be. Tin House stood out for me with it's nice opening graphic and easy layout.
And then there was Grove/Atlantic, a site so astoundingly horrifying that I hardly know where to begin. With the early-90s neon-blue-and-mustard yellow theme colors? Or the scrolling-on-their-own sidebars that change direction and scroll toward one another if you drag your mouse in the vicinity? Even the left-hand sidebar, stating such basic (yet somehow vague) options as "Bookseller/Library" and "Review/Media" have additional pop-up menus for you to navigate. Try clicking on "Ordering Information" and see what parallel universe it takes you to; I was afraid I would never make it back. There was just too much going on in all the wrong ways, from the rapidly changing "notice board" at the top of the page that kept dragging my eyes away from other sections; to the excess of text (that was also in Times New Roman. I repeat: Times New Roman-which I actually noticed on other publisher websites and am astounded by) and dearth of graphics; to the difficulty in even scrolling down the page; to the confusion between similar options in the left-hand sidebar and the main menu bar (I think) toward the top of the screen. In summary, the site was everything I would think a viewer and reader would not want: ugly, wordy, confusing, complicated, and unorganized.
P.S. I love hyphenated compound adjectives.
The big ones (Peguin, Simon & Schuster, Random House, etc.) all seemed to have a similar aesthetic, with Simon & Schuster having a bit more of an edge: simple, professional-looking layouts designed to appeal to the widest possible denominator. The menus were comprehensive and straightforward, making the search for a certain genre of book fairly easy. There were plentiful graphics, balanced with text and links; there was a range of media (videos, RSS feeds, book trailers) for that high-tech, cutting-edge feel; there was a little something for everybody (author Q&As, news, bestseller lists, reading guides, teacher guides). The overall impression I got was of very competent and comprehensive, if rather bland, websites.
I definitely preferred the brighter colors, bigger images and graphics, and more artistic feel of the small press sites, such as Top Shelf, Exact Change, and (especially) Tin House. They had a more creative and personal touch that drew me in and made me want to spend more time perusing the sites. Although there isn't nearly the same amount of information, there really doesn't need to be. Tin House stood out for me with it's nice opening graphic and easy layout.
And then there was Grove/Atlantic, a site so astoundingly horrifying that I hardly know where to begin. With the early-90s neon-blue-and-mustard yellow theme colors? Or the scrolling-on-their-own sidebars that change direction and scroll toward one another if you drag your mouse in the vicinity? Even the left-hand sidebar, stating such basic (yet somehow vague) options as "Bookseller/Library" and "Review/Media" have additional pop-up menus for you to navigate. Try clicking on "Ordering Information" and see what parallel universe it takes you to; I was afraid I would never make it back. There was just too much going on in all the wrong ways, from the rapidly changing "notice board" at the top of the page that kept dragging my eyes away from other sections; to the excess of text (that was also in Times New Roman. I repeat: Times New Roman-which I actually noticed on other publisher websites and am astounded by) and dearth of graphics; to the difficulty in even scrolling down the page; to the confusion between similar options in the left-hand sidebar and the main menu bar (I think) toward the top of the screen. In summary, the site was everything I would think a viewer and reader would not want: ugly, wordy, confusing, complicated, and unorganized.
P.S. I love hyphenated compound adjectives.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Bloggin'.
Ahh, blogs. I feel ambiguous about them, an attitude I hope will change over the course of this class. I have never read any blogs or done any blogging myself; I had to look up online where the word even originated from (web log!). Blogging has always struck me as self-indulgent: the ramblings of any asshole with access to a computer and the inclination to express their thoughts, however menial or poorly written. Now I think this is also the genius of the blog. Anyone and everyone can throw their ideas out there, can add to the discourse on any and every subject. I like that there isn't censorship, that the only limit is one's imagination, that we are communicating with each other in a new way-adapting to the encroachment of technology into our lives. Slogging through all the bad to get to the good seems a small price to pay for this freedom of thought and expression.
I looked at this website (ProBlogger) that listed the 9 signs of effective blog post, and thought this line was interesting:
"What they all [blogs] ultimately share is the desire to get their reader to do something-to feel or act a certain way, to buy a product, to think a thought, to answer a question, to leave a comment, or even just to respect the author. Bloggers imagine some outcome, and trust to their writing skills to get their readers there."
I'm still trying to figure it out, I'm behind the times. But the more I explore this world, the more intriguing I find it. I think I may even like it!!!
I looked at this website (ProBlogger) that listed the 9 signs of effective blog post, and thought this line was interesting:
"What they all [blogs] ultimately share is the desire to get their reader to do something-to feel or act a certain way, to buy a product, to think a thought, to answer a question, to leave a comment, or even just to respect the author. Bloggers imagine some outcome, and trust to their writing skills to get their readers there."
I'm still trying to figure it out, I'm behind the times. But the more I explore this world, the more intriguing I find it. I think I may even like it!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
