Publishing: No Longer Just a Popularity Contest

Nan Hawthorne

Two recent developments in book publishing  are resulting in more choices for readers.  They are, after all, the point of all this, not authors, not corporate mass market publishers.  Wit the development of ebooks and print on demand, it is no longer necessary for a book to win a sort of popularity contest in order to reach potential customers.

It is simply a business fact that traditional publishers have to keep their eyes on the bottom line.  They are not in the industry to five away books, and it takes mass runs of titles to make publishing them feasible economically.  As it is, the industry loses money on many books, so I understand.  They must appeal to the largest possible market, so taking a chance on, say, a genre novel like historical fiction is just too much of a risk.

On the down side, that means those people who want to read books that appeal to a slender slice of the market have to do without.  The up side is that there is a growing supply of books to take their place.  If, as in the case of ebooks and print on demand publications a book can come out copy by copy, it is no longer necessary for print runs at all, no less in the thousands.

That is the good news for readers who have definite tastes in reading matter.  One example I've found is books meant to appeal to gay men or lesbians.  They are a growing market, but too scattered to warrant publishing a single book in huge quantities.  Eboks "eat no bread", that is, other than space on a server they do not use up resources when they sit and wait for someone to buy and download them.  Print on demand books are similar in that they take up a minuscule electronic space until someone orders the book and it is printed and bound.  A book can reach as few as one reader or dozens, even hundreds, with no loss in initial outlay.  Yes, this is a simplification, but when compared with large print runs, valid, I think.

Historical fiction may be a genre in and of itself, but within that category there are many many specific eras, styles, and even more minute differences.  I know two different authors who are publishing with literary publishing houses who are encouraged to write historical fiction, but narrowly proscribed.  In both cases, they are expected to write first person female nobility.  What, I ask, if that is not what you personally want to read?  I know I don't have any particular fondness for this sub-sub-genre.  But I am in the minority.  I and those like me are too small a group to risk a book on.  Does that mean that people like me and those with other "outside the box" interests should have to do without?

No, but "have to" is not a value judgment.  It is a matter of economic reality.  No one is intentionally denying us.  It is simply not the purpose of a publishing company to supply books in small quantities.

All the more reason to applaud the ebook and the print on demand book.  Though many decry the poor quality of many such books, the old "vanity press" designation, if the individual reader enjoys the book, isn't that what the book was meant for?  The reader?

It's no secret I celebrate ebooks and print on demand.  I am after all a founding board member of the Independent Authors Guild.  I have my reasons, peculiar to me, but above all I love all the choices and more even than that, that those choices are mine, as a reader, to make.

Bravo to all authors, publishers, printers, ebook providers, and especially readers!