Slashdot Mirror
Why Doesn't Sci-Fi Hit the Bestseller Lists?
Pomeranian writes "Sci fi readers often deplore book bestseller lists -- because review editors actively ignore many sci-fi sales, since they don't consider that stuff "popular", even though sci-fi titles often sell in far greater numbers than "serious" highbrow lit. But this all might change soon, with the launch of Bookscan: New technology that tracks actual sales at the cash register with greater precision than ever before. When similar technology launched in the music industry ten years ago, it proved the popularity of "new country" and hip-hop overnight. This story in the Washington Post wonders: Will Bookscan do the same thing to sci-fi? NOTE: this is a *shameless* self-aggrandizing plug, because I wrote the Washington Post story! But I figured it'd be of particular interest to Slashdot readers"
CD: While I'd love to see lists that are more reflective of reality, I don't think that a pure unadulterated list is in the interest of the reading public. When I worked at Waldenbooks many moons ago, we would commonly receive copies of one book, Dianetics, from the publisher, with our (And our competitors) sales stickers already on them. While this was an extreme case, it does serve as a cautionary tale about the lengths some will go to manipulate the numbers.
I would hate for this to lead the local stores of national chains to change what they carry based on what people in my area were more "likely" to purchase. Just like targetted advertising, their squeezing dollars leads to less local choice.
I know that I can look online and make decisions on what I might like, but the seredipity of finding something in the stacks is one of my greatest thrills (yes, my life *is* that boring...)
Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
It's good to be popular, or for people to suddenly discover you. It gets you more money, more opportunities, and with greater exposure comes greater influence. Look at Open Source and GNU/Linux - as it's popularity has risen, business have been forced to compete, support, and develop for the system. Like the article mentions with Country Music, sometimes there's an entire market waiting to be tappd.
At the same time, there's the dark side. As publishers notice "dang - there's lots of money to be made with science fiction", you can expect a flurry of studies, marketing strategies - imagine the N'Sync of sci-fi, as one evil example. It means the corner of the universe that used to be yours - or in the case of groups, ours, is now open to the world - with all the good and bad it brings.
So while I'm hoping this promotes more interest in sci-fi books and literature, and perhaps even more funding/greater recognition for those artists, I'm also worried about what the sudden press of "marketing studies" will do, or the effects of making sci-fi "mainstream" to try and get a greater public hooked.
Of course, I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
The large chain bookstores already track author popularity very closely and, if your last book didn't do well, your next book may not get the opportunity to do well. This discourages authors from branching out or trying something new. Several authors have found themselves forced to adopt new pen names to get around these problems.
I fear that this proposed system is only going to make things worse, not better. Yes, I would like to see SF treated with a little respect, but I'd also like to see authors free to experiment and to try something new and off the beaten track. I'm afraid that this will kill off what little market remains for interesting and innovative writers, and leave us with nothing but "popular" cookie-cutter pablum.
I think if you browse around on the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America web pages, you may find some articles that address these concerns in greater detail.
Ok maybe sci fi will become "hot" but would that make sci fi better - probably not.
Sci fi has been hot in movies for a long time and what do we have to show for it - several big budget movies that are complete crap (men in black independance day, that arnold thing, phantom menace etc.) with one medium budget movie that is not that bad (the matrix).
And even though sci fi movies were hot Douglas Adams did not live to see a Hitchikers movie.
Good sci fi gets written not because its on bestsellers lists but because people that write it love doing it.
The large chain bookstores already track author popularity very closely and, if your last book didn't do well, your next book may not get the opportunity to do well. This discourages authors from branching out or trying something new. Several authors have found themselves forced to adopt new pen names to get around these problems.
I fear that this proposed system is only going to make things worse, not better. Yes, I would like to see SF treated with a little respect, but I'd also like to see authors free to experiment and to try something new and off the beaten track. I'm afraid that this will kill off what little market remains for interesting and innovative writers, and leave us with nothing but "popular" cookie-cutter pablum.
I think if you browse around on the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America web pages, you may find some articles that address these concerns in greater detail.
Look at your bookshelves (I'll wait). Welcome back. How many of your books are paperbacks, and how many are hardbacks? I would guess 90% paperbacks, but the main bestseller lists track sales of new hardcover books.
Thinking at the keyboard here, I would say most hardbacks are bought as gifts. Tracking paperbacks would tell you what people are buying for themselves to read.
The trouble with this is that paperback buying is probably more spread out over time. Did, say, 2001: a Space Odyssey make the best-seller lists? I don't know. But how many copies did it sell in paperback across the decades?
Hence, I conclude that best-seller lists are marketing hoopla, and we should ignore them.
I, for one, hope that the major newspapers publish both lists.
The benefit of consuming WSJ, NYT, the Post, or any of a host of others is their editorial expertise. Each newspaper has a brand they maintain. Science Fiction is simply not that compatible with their brands. If you want to know about science fiction, do you go to WSJ? Huh, didn't think so. Consumers expect the editorial bent of the paper to affect their content. (Perhaps the moniker "best seller list" is exceptional because it implies statistical rather than anecdotal analysis.)
The new format will be interesting from a sociological perspective. It will provide all kinds of demographic information. Unfortunately, I'm sure the information will be very expensive, so we will probably not benefit beyond the top 10 lists, which will be not all that interesting.
As to why Sci Fi and Fantasy are not taken seriously by the heavy hitters: those categories are, today, formula fiction as much as any thriller or romance is. Go to the "Reference" section of your bookstore. How many "How to Write Science Fiction" books are there? Now, how many "How to Write a Really Good Story" books are there? Sci Fi and Fantasy provide easy gimmicks to let writers off the hook, so the best writing no longer tends to be in them.
A similar thing has happened in TV. Look at any show that starts off really interesting. After a few episodes, people start having exrtraordinary things happening to them: they get shot, things blow up, they get amnesia (and it's prime time, not just daytime TV). That's because it's hard to write really good, creative fiction without using these easy devices. And once the devices were well established, the formula became well known, and its the exceptional writer that now really creates something new in any of these formula categories.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
If the method worked so well in the music industry, how come we have so much garbage coming out in the music industry to this day? For every decent band in the spotlight, I can name 50 that should be there and 200 that shouldn't....and that includes hip hop and "new country" (alt-country?).
I think you will see the same lopsided results in books. The literature industry controls (to a slightly lesser degree than the music industry) what is made available to the public, and far more importantly, what is publicized to the public. That which does not get publicity, will not succeed on a mainstream level. If a book (no matter how good it is) is not considered mainstream material (read: risk-averse vanilla) then it will not hit the bestsellers list. Some of the better music/books out there will never be accepted by the mainstream, but achieve decent sales through the phenomenon known as 'cult'. 'Cult' tends to not be significant enough to be blockbuster (as the music industry has shown).
I must say though that most Sci-Fi, be it books, movies or TV, really REALLY sucks.
For every Brave New World or Snowcrash there's 100s if not 1000s of published shitwork. I think the legitimate Sci-Fi is lost in the noise of all the shit. If the Sci-Fi industry wants to lift itself from the industry ghetto they need to start being a lot more selective in what they publish, IMO.
A sharp marketing department could notice that SF with such-and-such a cover and such-and-such a description sells a solid 5% better than anything else.
A few weeks later, editors and slushpile readers get standing orders to only vet manuscripts that fit a certain profile.
The next year, the books in your local bookstore's SF&F section fall into maybe three categories. Cover artists who want to continue eating ape a certain sterotyped style.
But, dang, SF books start hitting the Bestseller Lists, so it would all be worthwhile.
Stefan
When purchasing a Bible there are tons of options (Adult study, Teen bible, children's picture bible, etc...) as well as different translations (KJ, NKJ, NIV, NL, AS, etc...). Each of these Bibles (probably hundreds) has a different ISBN. So all of these would probably be counted individually under this new system. I think it is likely that the current sales numbers for "The Bible" are probably a combination of all Bible sales regardless of ISBN, which is why it is always a best seller. It will be interesting to see if the new tracking changes the results. Go buy your bible today!
-- Find the Truth...
The Music version of this is called Soundscan. In the music industry it's often referred to as "SoundScam", because of the abuses of the system, and the ease in which it can be manipulated to reflect what the label wants it to do. All you need is an indie promoter, a few thousand copies, and one unscruplous store owner or employee.
All their purchases are made electronically so that has to be the most accurate tracking of books sold. Ok, obviously amazon.com only tracks the books they sell which is slightly different than the article which talks about all book sales. But amazon.com has enough customers to make an accurate random sampling of the entire set of customers who buy books.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
The book isn't being returned to the stories, it's being 'cycled' through. Scientologiests buy the book, then ship it themselves to the publisher, who sends them back to the bookstories to be sold again. So the book cycles through without needing to be remade.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
they are. really.
the only few _good_ NEW books that have come out in a decade or so without being sleepers were the zahn's star wars trilogy. sure there has been few almost good books(as fast selling and wide spread goes), gibson & such. but not anything on par with the zahn's.
and i still can't have conversations with most book reading people about zahns trilogy. whereas, take any asimov book, and some other who digs scifi books(!), he's sure to have read them(at least a few)..
but can i assume he has read the last years 'top selling 'scifi' book'? no, because i haven't either.
actually, imho, you shouldn't categorize books by the surrounds the story is told in, but by the STORY, asimov for example has love drama, exploration and detective stories.. all that would work equally well in different surroundings. you could put the empire to be roman empire & etc, without actually losing one inch. of course it would be raping the whole idea tho.. you could put 1984 or fahrenheit 181(?) to whatever time perioid with minor changes and still have the message told.
it doesn't really matter if the story is told in ancient egypt or starship leaping in the stars, or in both. techinical gizmos are easy for writers to explain in detail, making the reader understand a persons character is much more difficult.
i don't count humour books to be anything else than humour(adams, harry harrison), no matter how great and funny they are(adams&harry harrison again).
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
WTF?
Clearly you have not read a really good book in a long time. I highly recommend hooking up with some intelligent, well-rounded, non-SF readers and finding out what they've read and giving it a shot. For many years I had time only for trade journals and tech books; recently I went back to real literature and have found it much, much more interesting than nearly all SF or fantasy I have read since the Tolkein/Asimov days.
Perhaps the general populace are "dull crayons" but that's because they're the colorful ones. The sharpest crayon in the box is always the white one...
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
Check this out.
Now, by my count, of the top 25 grossing US pictures of all time:
2 comedy...
3 drama...
5 cartoon/family...
SIXTEEN -- SIX-FSCKing-TEEN fit in the SF/Fantasy category.(though Twister might count as a comedy...)
Of course, you can divy 'em up however you want, but my point here should be crystal clear. I'm *NOT* gonna say this again.
BTW, by my count - for those that are interested...
3 movies rated R
4 movies rated PG13
THIRTEEN movies rated PG
2 movies rated G
Now, explain to me why Hollywood keeps doping films with gratuitous sex, violence & language that does nothing to advance the story. My guess is that they're more interested in impressing their party-friends and pushing a social agenda than making decent films. I believe Walt Disney used to say he made family films because "Why sell two tickets when you can sell four?" Hollywood - sheesh. What a bunch of morons.
(Sorry to rant so far OT, but my car ran out of gas on the way to the store tonight, and BP DOESN'T HAVE GAS CANS for loan, rent or buy; so I had to walk to Sheetz Fuel Mart in the rain and buy one. By the time I finally got to the store, it had just closed. What a night -- I'm such an idiot!)
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Considering that new paper backs cost around $10 now, no wonder price is such an issue.
.
:) (err, but keep him away from the co$ wackos)
I do not even bother to look at the price of Hardbacks any more, they were ~$17 last time I checked (around ten years ago) so I can only imagine what they have gone up to since.
I have not bought a new (fiction) book in quite a few years, hell I can no longer AFFORD to buy new books. Especialy considering that it takes me all of two or three hours to finish a standard length novel. . .
I used to be able to tell people that buying a book was more bang for your buck then going to the movies, but now I am getting to be rather unsure about it. (of course I only go to $5 movie theaters so. . . . heh. I understand that some people go to expensive ones. ^_^ )
Books are getting to cost WAAAY to much, and the damnest thing is that every time they raise their prices their number of sales go down.
Hell last time I was buying new books I was going to buy 3 books but was instead only able to buy 2 because the books were $7 a piece.
So strange too, when buying the older classic science fiction books (which are a pain in the arse to get ahold of mind you. ^_^ ) paying $5 for a book that has a 25 cent price tag on its label, LOL!!!
Oh well, well worth it though! The Goldern Era Rocked, we so need to clone John Campell.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
If you haven't noticed yet, MTV doesn't drift with the generations. You grew up with MTV and loved, so did your 5 years younger brother and your 10 years younger sister. MTV always targets the same age group, so yeah, even if your taste in music doesn't change, MTV will start sucking after a while. It's supposed to. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
It is a proud and defiant ignorance allowed because the audience doesn't know better- they don't know of the SF books beyond the "Sword of Han Solo" serials on the NYTimes lists. The same reviewers would never review a modern comedy as "the tradition of Mark Twain and Charlie Chaplin" or a mystery as "part of the long history from Poe to Doyle." i.e. if it is another genre they'll have at least a basic knowledge of it: for example, that westerns went from simple ("Indians bad") to complex, and that other countries (Japan, Italy) are part of cowboy movie history. They'll know that Elvis isn't modern rock and Martha Graham isn't cutting edge dance. But with SF they'll use 40 year old movies as their example (in turn based on 60 year old stories/ideas, as SF movies tend to be far behind the literature) without embarrassment.
So what- let them be ignorant, some could say. But when reviewers don't know about or ignore modern SF, it hurts more than some thin-skinned fandom:
So I'll be happy to see (what I assume are at least good sellers) books like Dozois' Best SF Stories of the Year and more showing up. Reviewers will have to first account for the writers like Ian McDonald, the rapidly approaching (and hope he pulls it off) Singularity Charlie Stross, and just intensely good Greg Egan, before they blow off SF as spaceship-westerns.
Maybe one day the worm will turn, and the game will be up, but I think the cracks of doom will have opened and I'd be as cold as a stone before that happens - his plays are a dish fit for a God, and meat and drink for me.
Still, come what may, I'd advise you to learn of his contribution to English. All these phrases in bold are his. The language would be a sorry sight without him.
Personally I wouldn't trust any best seller list. Within the industry it's well known that the numbers are horribly inaccurate. The NY Times used to get their numbers direct from the publishers, so the lists reflected the number of wholesale copies sold to distribution houses, it did not take into account actual store sales or returns of the book. After that came out they struck a deal with Barnes & Noble to use their best seller list.
Sound fine right, the lists would now be based on sales right, wrong! The lists are a marketing tool and all of the book stores use them as such. Deals are struck with publishers to get the books up on the list, titles will often be immediately put on the lists when they come out before any sales are made. Books are kept off the lists because of one reason or another. Harry Potter was selling gang busters to all age groups but the NY Times refused to put it on the list because it was a 'children's book' and they don't list children's books (they finally compromised by starting a separate list for children's hardcovers). I remember when that book by the wrestler Mankind came out, it was out selling every book in the store 3 to 1, it was reprinted twice in its first week, yet it took well over a month before it was finally let onto the lists.