Amazon vs American literature?

[Hopscotch]

Puzzled why so many kick Amazon when the Zon sponsors (for its own mercenary reasons) indie publishing?  Here, from a scattershot op-ed entitled “University Presses Are Keeping American Literature Alive” in The New York Times, Nov. 14, 2022, is the latest kick:

This is “a particularly fraught time for publishing. According to Gallup, even avid readers report reading fewer books than at any other time in the past, supply-chain issues still dog the industry, and publishers continue to consolidate as big companies swallow up smaller ones…’The number of midlist titles (books with modest print runs and sales expectations) is being greatly diminished, which means that fewer books of quality — or indeed, fewer potential best sellers — will have the chance to be published and read.’...University presses, nonprofits and independent publishers, even combined, won’t solve American literature’s woes. Something absolutely must be done to counter Amazon, which ruthlessly uses its incredible economy of scale to dominate the industry….”

Now if Amazon would ruthlessly use its incredible economy of scale to make me a galactic bestseller...

[TimothyEllis]

"Something absolutely must be done to counter Amazon, which ruthlessly uses its incredible economy of scale to dominate the industry….”

And that ignores every reason why the Trads are going backwards.

It's actually got nothing to do with 'economy of scale'.

It's all about the boom in Indie publishing, and the fact the public are buying more and more Indie written books, with a scale back in the much more expensive Trad books as a result.

I was looking at the Space Opera top 100 earlier today. Most of it is filled with long series by Indies. And some of those series are in the 20+ books range, and have multiples in that top 100.

The Trads need to be looking at why they're failing on Amazon, not blaming Amazon for being different.

[RiverRun]

The key word is 'literature'. Among elitists in particular this means: approved by a gatekeeper. Of which Amazon has few.

I myself really prefer books that typically get labelled as literary, whereas rank and file genre fiction leaves me disappointed, so I think the standard isn't meaningless. Some works have meaning that works on multiple levels and offer something new even after multiple re-readings. Some stories just entertain for a few hours and never need to be read again.

At the same time there is a kind of elitist feedback loop generated by people who go to universities and study 'literature' like its a specimen in a jar, (like I did for a while) then go into publishing where they see themselves as guardians of all that is good in books. They deplore the popularity of books that are not the product of their own hyper-critical type of work. They cannot love Amazon because it undermines the purpose they believe sets their work apart. I don't know for sure if they are right or wrong, but I'm pretty sure the difference between Amazon and a University Press has an ideological drive behind it.

[Bill Hiatt]

University presses would naturally be expected to reflect the goals and ideals of their institutions. I wouldn't necessarily call them elitist for doing so. And if we're speaking of academic nonfiction, it's hard for a self-published author to outdo an author with the resources of a university behind him or her. I can remember chuckled over the Readers' Favorite awards. I haven't looked in some time, but when I first started publishing, those awards were open to books from any source except the Big Six (and then Big Five).  The winners in fiction categories were nearly always self-published. The winners in non-fiction categories were nearly always from publishers like Harvard University Press and Stanford University Press. In those fields, it's not just a case of gate keepers but a difference in resources between the self-published and the university-press published (with a lot more access to research materials, if nothing else).

When I first started publishing, I believed most avid readers were also discerning readers who expected high quality material. That's the way the avid readers I knew were. But it turns out a lot of readers are more than happy to take material that is entertaining for the moment. There's nothing wrong with that. And I'd certainly rather see those folks reading rather than not reading. But I also sometimes wish they were a little more demanding.

[LilyBLily]

I love genre novels, but I also admire stealth literary authors like E.M. Forster, who could write the heck out of a conventional romance and imbue it with lots of depth and who somehow convinced the literary establishment that actually he wasn't writing genre at all.

Some genre novelists bravely tackle difficult topics, but usually they tell those stories with optimism, and that seems to be a no-no to the literary types who are elitists (not all are). The elitists are down for the suffering, but not for the joy. Their version of a proper ending is ships passing in the night, people unable to connect, bad things happening to people who do connect, and more of the same. When I think about it, 1984 was perhaps the most depressing novel ever to be foisted on a teenager, a nightmare of a story.

The fulminating is absurd. Amazon is not ruining the literary establishment. Amazon simply has made it possible for genre authors to keep a bigger share of the money their books earn instead of being paid a pittance and being forced to subsidize a publisher's midlist. Bottom line, if a midlist book can't sell many copies, it's not the fault of Amazon. If a midlist book doesn't get exposure, that also is not the fault of Amazon.

[hungryboson]

The NYT op-ed (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/opinion/university-presses-american-literature.html) ends with: "The same book doesn’t have to matter to everybody, but everybody ought to have access to books that matter."
The idea is great. However the NYT piece doesn't offer any solution as to who would make quality books (which usually aren't cheap) accessible to everybody.

[Hopscotch]

The NYT op-ed...ends with: "The same book doesn’t have to matter to everybody, but everybody ought to have access to books that matter." The idea is great. However the NYT piece doesn't offer any solution as to who would make quality books (which usually aren't cheap) accessible to everybody.

Libraries?

[TimothyEllis]

The NYT op-ed...ends with: "The same book doesn’t have to matter to everybody, but everybody ought to have access to books that matter." The idea is great. However the NYT piece doesn't offer any solution as to who would make quality books (which usually aren't cheap) accessible to everybody.

Libraries?

That word probably has no meaning for the smartphone generation.

[hungryboson]

The NYT op-ed...ends with: "The same book doesn’t have to matter to everybody, but everybody ought to have access to books that matter." The idea is great. However the NYT piece doesn't offer any solution as to who would make quality books (which usually aren't cheap) accessible to everybody.

Libraries?

That word probably has no meaning for the smartphone generation.

Libraries in US lend ebooks, so that shouldn't be a hurdle for university presses (they publish ebook along with hardcover editions). On the other hand, a look at the top lists in public libraries https://proquest.syndetics.com/news/2022/11/14/top-titles-at-public-libraries-october-2022/?utm_source=LT&utm_medium=sott&utm_id=blog_tt_oct22 reveals less optimistic picture for university presses, midlist writers and basically anyone who is not a best selling author. Libraries may buy from university presses, but there is either not enough interest or availability, or both.

[Lynn]

The NYT op-ed...ends with: "The same book doesn’t have to matter to everybody, but everybody ought to have access to books that matter." The idea is great. However the NYT piece doesn't offer any solution as to who would make quality books (which usually aren't cheap) accessible to everybody.

Libraries?

That word probably has no meaning for the smartphone generation.

I check out and read a lot of books on my phone from my (U.S.) library's collection. I also recommend a lot of stuff that gets added when they have the funds.

My library's set up is such that I can download and sideload on my phone, read via Overdrive or Libby on my phone, or have books "sent to Kindle" directly from the library. I do almost all my ebook reading on my phone and none on my tablet or (old) Kindles.

I stopped buying dedicated e-readers several years ago because I had stopped using them in favor of my phone.

[Crystal]

Tim, I'm really disappointed you're using such weak ageist stereotypes. Young people are more likely to buy paperbacks than eBooks, not less. Use data, not assumptions.

It's all about the boom in Indie publishing, and the fact the public are buying more and more Indie written books, with a scale back in the much more expensive Trad books as a result.

I was looking at the Space Opera top 100 earlier today. Most of it is filled with long series by Indies. And some of those series are in the 20+ books range, and have multiples in that top 100.

The Trads need to be looking at why they're failing on Amazon, not blaming Amazon for being different.

Yes, but that is the chart... on Amazon. Amazon controls the visibility on their own platform. That's circular reasoning.

Amazon has done great things for indie authors, but Amazon is not doing those things to help us. Amazon isn't even offering a platform to indie authors to make money off indie authors, perse. They're doing it to lure buyers to Amazon, so they can become the dominant book buying platform/ store.

Do you know what else is all over the Amazon charts? Apub books.

Traditional publishers have plenty of problems, but Amazon has problems too.

When I first started publishing, I believed most avid readers were also discerning readers who expected high quality material. That's the way the avid readers I knew were. But it turns out a lot of readers are more than happy to take material that is entertaining for the moment. There's nothing wrong with that. And I'd certainly rather see those folks reading rather than not reading. But I also sometimes wish they were a little more demanding.

People always respond to the incentives of a system. Authors who publish on Amazon have little incentive to invest in many of the qualities demanding readers (like myself) enjoy. It's hard to find "book club" style fiction: genre books that are well-edited and thoughtful, with plenty of depth to discuss.

It's not that the books aren't there--lots of indies write great, thoughtful books. Rather that they're buried under the more bland or mediocre genre fiction. Or AMS ads.

Indie authors also can't afford to invest in the same resources trad publishers can--like in depth edits to really make a book shine. Or, well, those things don't make as much financial sense for indie authors.

Indie books have many great qualities, but, on average, they are significantly worse than trad books. That is, the average indie book is worse than the average trad books. (The top 1% might be near identical, but the middle 50% is not).

[Hopscotch]

Indie books have many great qualities, but, on average, they are significantly worse than trad books. That is, the average indie book is worse than the average trad books.

Yes, but.  Most books from indie and trad are garbage or, worse, copycat garbage.  Most bookbuyers seem to prefer garbage and are happy w/their reads.  That list of 10 library faves is evidence.  Or almost any bestseller list.  So is any comparison of quality worthwhile?  Espec since the true measure is how much coin can a writer extract from a reader's pocket.   

[TimothyEllis]

Indie books have many great qualities, but, on average, they are significantly worse than trad books. That is, the average indie book is worse than the average trad books. (The top 1% might be near identical, but the middle 50% is not).

I'm re-reading a Trad series I used to love.

The first book is un-readable for me now.

The second book I skipped the first third.

It's not that well edited.

Every single book has the same set of infodumps in it. And there's a lot of them.

They're full of filler.

Once it gets going it's a compelling story, but it could be condensed from 9 books down to 5 without losing anything important.

It's exactly on par with a lot of Indie long series in terms of quality and content. And yet it was written in 1999.

If I was discovering this series now, the sample of the first book would put me right off. And if I did buy it, there's a spot half in that always bounces me, and I'd have binned it there and then. Now.

The whole Trad quality thing for me is a MYTH.

There is a lot of crap Indie stuff, but Trad is not really any better.

1 in 20 odd Trad books actually sell. And it's perfectly obvious they play a numbers game, and have no real idea if any book will sell or not.

The reason Indie crap is more obvious is the Trad selection of books is and always has been so small in comparison to how many books they get submitted to them.

As far as ageist goes, sorry, what?

I don't know a single person under 30 who actually buys paperbacks anymore. They do in India. They probably do in other places. But not where I am.

Most of the bookstores here died a decade or more ago. We used to have 4 major book chains, and a lot of Indie stores. Now we have 1 chain, period. Second hand book stores folded as well, and they mainly exist in the weekend markets now.

I call it the way I see it. And I don't really care what the rest of the world is doing.

[LilyBLily]

Public libraries, chronically underfunded except when I was growing up, are a great place to find good midlist titles. This is what librarians do. They trawl the credible reviews and buy as many interesting books as they can afford. However, if an indie-produced midlist title can't get reviewed where the librarians look, that's a problem. Some indie authors speak at libraries, and obviously that's going to have an effect on whether a particular library buys their books. Additionally, if you want a school to buy your book, you had better make sure it is reviewed in School Library Journal. Some authors have worked other methods to get on the library radar (and thereafter got trad pub contracts) and lots of publicity--but they worked for that publicity themselves. Libraries buy additional books based in part on whether books by that author get borrowed a lot. Public libraries are meant to serve the public, so certain best-selling titles will get bought in multiple copies to fill demand whether they are worthy literary fiction or best-seller dreck.

I agree that trad books are just as likely as indie titles to have horrible info dumps, "As you know, Matt...," and other self-indulgent bits, but usually those happen with trad authors who are well established. Beginning trad authors get harsher editing and arguably better quality editing, too. The more successful the trad author is, the less leeway an editor has to make or urge changes.

Publishers know that genre novels sell without advertisement. They have always been a cash cow, which is why trad pubs are hurting so much now that the cows have moo-ved to the indie paradigm. As for the rest of their lists, publishers simply are guessing. They can expect a book from an author with a good track record to sell, but then again sometimes that doesn't happen.

[Hopscotch]

The more successful the trad author is, the less leeway an editor has to make or urge changes.

Yep.  Knew a fellow whose every sci-fi book from #1 proved a tradpub galactic bestseller.  He asked me to beta read his latest draft.  An inventive but sprawling mess.  "Who edits your stuff?" I asked, politely, thinking there's an editor who deserves the pay.  "Oh, they don't edit me," he said, "I send 'em the ms and they print it and send me lots of money."  Oh, well.

Publishers know that genre novels sell without advertisement. They have always been a cash cow, which is why trad pubs are hurting so much now that the cows have moo-ved to the indie paradigm.

So why ain't I rich?

[Hopscotch]

Yep.  Nope. 

[Vijaya]

Public libraries, chronically underfunded except when I was growing up, are a great place to find good midlist titles. This is what librarians do. They trawl the credible reviews and buy as many interesting books as they can afford. However, if an indie-produced midlist title can't get reviewed where the librarians look, that's a problem.

Heavy library user here and it's frustrating that they don't stock indie authors unless they're local. I've been buying indie titles since 2010 and the quality continues to improve so I hope librarians will find a way to stock them too.

[LilyBLily]

A couple of the first indie books I ever read were perfect examples of the good/bad of indie quality. I found them in the public library, print books. One was an excellent, cinematic thriller, and the other was dreck that should have had a developmental edit to rein in the author's follies about romancing women. I don't remember the details anymore but they were ridiculous.

I just stopped reading a Look Inside when the hero kept using the wrong form of address for an earl's daughter. How hard is it to learn basic British peerage titles circa 1815? Not hard at all; the recurring mistake kicked me right out of the story. I don't want to read a story by a lazy author who never got a competent edit pass, either.

[Bill Hiatt]

With regard to the trad-indie quality difference, I think it's hard to make generalizations. None of us have read all the trad books out there, and probably no human being could ever read all the indie books out there.

It's probably true that the worst indie book is worse than the worst trad book. I've seen a few indie books that weren't written in understandable English--and probably no amount of editing would have fixed that. In any case, I've never seen a trad that was that bad.

It would be logical to assume that the average trad is better than the average indie also, mostly because of the resources involved. However, as some of you have pointed out, those resources might be not quite what they used to be, especially in editing. I've found good editors to be expensive, though, which means a lot of indie authors probably don't have good editors. There a very small number of people who are good editors themselves, a somewhat larger group who think they are (but aren't) and an even larger group who really need an editor. If they were picked up by a trad, they might get one. If not, well, it's typo city.

It's also worth noting that all trads are not created equal. Some of the smaller ones sometimes produce books that aren't well edited or that have other serious problems.

I have seen some indies that were great, so I'd say the best indies can come close to some of the best trads, depending on the genre.

[LilyBLily]

Yep.  Knew a fellow whose every sci-fi book from #1 proved a tradpub galactic bestseller.  He asked me to beta read his latest draft.  An inventive but sprawling mess.  "Who edits your stuff?" I asked, politely, thinking there's an editor who deserves the pay.  "Oh, they don't edit me," he said, "I send 'em the ms and they print it and send me lots of money."  Oh, well.

It's possible that author did get edited but was so unaware of his errors that he never noticed the improvements. Some authors will fight and die over a comma but others just cash the checks.

I have had the ineffably amusing experience of listening to an author give a presentation in which she spoke as if she knew grammar when I'd seen how inept her mss. were in the raw and how hard it was for editors to make sense of her prose. Nevertheless, she had command of other qualities of storytelling that made her writing effective and therefore popular. So she's had a good career despite herself.

Barbara Cartland at the height of her fame had it in her contract that the editors were to leave alone all her punctuation; at the time she was dictating novels from the comfort of her chaise longue and had a zillion ellipses in every novel, but by god, they stayed in.

[Hopscotch]

I heard once that publishing houses' approach to publishing books is like throwing spaghetti against a wall and seeing what sticks.

I'm not sure tradpub is even that clever.  Their trouble is they think they're clever, usually by copycatting the latest (often accidental) hot thing.  Sticky spaghetti is pretty much the indie approach, which indies can make work b/c we throw spaghetti faster than tradpub and can act faster when we see real stick.

[Post-Doctorate D]

I have had the ineffably amusing experience of listening to an author give a presentation in which she spoke as if she knew grammar when I'd seen how inept her mss. were in the raw and how hard it was for editors to make sense of her prose.

I knew someone like that in terms of grammar.  There was an obvious error and I pointed it out to give her the chance to correct it but she argued that she was an English major in college and knew what she was doing.  So, that error remained for years and years of reprints.

I even rechecked grammar guides and asked other writers just to be sure that I was right or that there weren't multiple correct ways as there sometimes are.  But, I was right and there were no other ways that were correct.  She, the English major in college, was most definitely incorrect.

[Crystal]

Indie books have many great qualities, but, on average, they are significantly worse than trad books. That is, the average indie book is worse than the average trad books. (The top 1% might be near identical, but the middle 50% is not).

I'm re-reading a Trad series I used to love.

The first book is un-readable for me now.

The second book I skipped the first third.

It's not that well edited.

Every single book has the same set of infodumps in it. And there's a lot of them.

They're full of filler.

Once it gets going it's a compelling story, but it could be condensed from 9 books down to 5 without losing anything important.

It's exactly on par with a lot of Indie long series in terms of quality and content. And yet it was written in 1999.

If I was discovering this series now, the sample of the first book would put me right off. And if I did buy it, there's a spot half in that always bounces me, and I'd have binned it there and then. Now.

The whole Trad quality thing for me is a MYTH.

There are many different ways to measure quality. Some are subjective (is the story interesting) and some are objective (are there lots of typos). Trad books are generally solid on all objective measures of storytelling (typos, spelling errors, plot holes). On average, they hit a certain quality threshold on most subjective measures of storytelling.

That doesn't mean you or I will find them compelling. Or even sensible. The dumbest book I've read recently was a trad legal thriller. But, in my experience, trad books have a baseline level of comprehension than many indie books lack. I'm not talking about the best or even the top 50% of indie books. I am talking ALL indie books.

Trad cuts out the bottom 50% (75% most likely), so it's better, on average. That doesn't mean any one trad book is better than any one indie book.

IMO, it's much more common to see a popular indie book that doesn't quite come together than a popular trad book. Popular trad books typically go through a thorough development process that gives them a certain level of cohesion. Some people feel this makes the books blander, and it can edit out some of the edge. But it's much more common, IME, to pick up a popular indie book with a glaring plot hole, an illogical character trait (i.e. a girl who stays up until three a.m. but also get sup at 5 a.m. but isn't suffering from exhaustion all the time), a stated theme in contradiction with the text theme, etc.

Again, none of that is about how compelling the story is, or how much it resonates with you. Often, the rawness of indie books is compelling to one audience (while alienating another).

I am very happy to be indie and I love my books but they absolutely don't get the same level of editing a comparable trad book gets.

[LilyBLily]

Having worked in trad publishing for many years, I have to reluctantly say I agree: the baseline competence of a trad book is higher than the competence of most indie books.

Even indie authors whose writing I enjoy immensely and who write interesting, innovative books are plagued by indifferent editing and downright lousy copyediting and proofreading, and they write in a sloppy manner, too. Repetition of words within the same sentence or closely within the same paragraph is a sign of writing fast and never going back to improve the first draft. They write for a hungry audience against a lot of competition, so they're in a hurry, but it shows. If they have plot or characterization issues, there is no one whose opinion weighs heavily enough with them to encourage them to make changes.

The slower pace of trad publishing allows for multiple edit passes. (Note I don't say drafts for genre novels; that's a luxury of the midlist.) There is also the healthy fear by trad authors that if they don't do at least a vestigial edit pass themselves, and their ms. requires too much editorial work by the publishing house, they might not be viewed favorably and might not get another contract. Editors do weigh how much work or trouble an author is against how well their books sell. With genre novels, chances are that there are other authors available to take the place of an author who isn't a superstar.     

[Hopscotch]

Even indie authors whose writing I enjoy...are plagued by indifferent editing and downright lousy copyediting and proofreading, and they write in a sloppy manner, too....They write for a hungry audience against a lot of competition, so they're in a hurry, but it shows.

Ah, the good, the bad and the ugly?

[idontknowyet]

Having worked in trad publishing for many years, I have to reluctantly say I agree: the baseline competence of a trad book is higher than the competence of most indie books.

Even indie authors whose writing I enjoy immensely and who write interesting, innovative books are plagued by indifferent editing and downright lousy copyediting and proofreading, and they write in a sloppy manner, too. Repetition of words within the same sentence or closely within the same paragraph is a sign of writing fast and never going back to improve the first draft. They write for a hungry audience against a lot of competition, so they're in a hurry, but it shows. If they have plot or characterization issues, there is no one whose opinion weighs heavily enough with them to encourage them to make changes.

The slower pace of trad publishing allows for multiple edit passes. (Note I don't say drafts for genre novels; that's a luxury of the midlist.) There is also the healthy fear by trad authors that if they don't do at least a vestigial edit pass themselves, and their ms. requires too much editorial work by the publishing house, they might not be viewed favorably and might not get another contract. Editors do weigh how much work or trouble an author is against how well their books sell. With genre novels, chances are that there are other authors available to take the place of an author who isn't a superstar.     

This is one of the trials of working in the writing business. You become very jaded reading others work.