By Tim Schaffner
Perhaps you read the article in the New York Times last month (Saturday, May 12) titled: Writer’s Cramp: In the E-Reader Era a Book a Year is Slacking.
Tim Schaffner
In short the premise was that publishers are having to crack the whip on their already bestselling authors to produce more product for the voracious appetites of the “impatient readers who have become used to downloading any e-book at the touch of a button.”
My response to this is: “What’s the rush?”
This notion that authors should double their efforts as if good books were produced on an assembly line was distressing to me both as a publisher and a reader, because, in my opinion, books are one of the few things in life that are timeless, and should therefore not be constricted by the ticking of the clock. Granted, there will always be deadlines, but the suggestion that a writer must increase his or her output in order to stay in the game seems counter-intuitive and counter-productive. I recall the old Paul Masson TV ad that featured Orson Welles intoning “We will sell no wine before its time,” so to paraphrase, I would like to say, “We will sell no book before its time.”
I can remember not too far in the past when the publication by a favorite author was an event that one eagerly looked forward to, as much as a special birthday or holiday. Just as music fans anxiously awaited the latest record to come out from a revered singer or band, so too did readers their favorite author’s new work. And, the fact that it might be three or four years’ interval between the release of his or her novel did in no way diminish the author’s appeal. In truth, it had the opposite effect. The book’s much anticipated arrival in the stores became an event of great significance. I’m sure you can recall exactly where you were when a particular book was published, what year it was, and what time of year as well. You can also remember how you rushed to your favorite local bookstore to make this much-coveted purchase. I am also sure that that particular title still sits on your shelf today.
I am not here to tell you what you should read, how you should read or with which device, in the bath, in your hammock, or hanging upside down from the rafters. But, I do wish to point out the time-honored truth that quantity does not equal quality, and moreover, the greater output from authors might in fact create the opposite effect than what their overzealous publishers intend: that in fact an overly-prolific writer’s significance might diminish in readers’ eyes rather than increase. If everything becomes so accessible that it can be downloaded on demand, it loses its allure and ceases to be of value.
And, I’m not going to argue for or against e-books and e-readers which are obviously here to stay, and are now as much a part of a fixture in our business as the MP3 was to the music business a few years ago. We are of the digital world, and that clearly is not going to change. However, when we are bombarded with such a multitude of choices, and can download thousands of titles or as many as the device can hold, what significance then do these books and their authors hold in our lives?
I had a conversation with an agent friend of mine recently who told me of a colleague who had just sold the entire backlist of an extremely prolific author (deceased) for a line of e-books. Now that people can download an author’s complete oeuvre in minutes for a couple of dollars for each title, they can afford to be completists. Never mind the fact that they may never get around to reading every book in the series; they have purchased them, and both publisher and author will suffer no returns would the case in the traditional publishing model. This of course is one of the vast benefits to digital publishing as we well recognize.
My only caveat to this is that we as publishers run the danger of measuring a writer’s work and worth solely in terms of sheer volume and mass production. I seriously doubt, as this article seems to imply, that today’s readers are so fickle, and have such a limited attention span that they would sooner read someone else rather than stay loyal to their favorite author. Does this mean then that book publishers are falling prey to the assumption that their audiences are no longer comprised of readers but consumers? We must ask ourselves as we hurtle forth into this new age if we are losing not only the intrinsic value of the physical book itself, but the value of readership as a whole.
Tim Schaffner is founder and publisher of Schaffner Press in Tucson, AZ.
8 Comments
More output equals more profit, if the books are selling that is. If a writer has hit a rich vein of sales then mine it surely. For the public taste may change and buy elsewhere.
This may explain why the sales of the shorter works in e format are increasing. Making sequels a more obvious path for riches.
It worked for Dickins and Stephen King: The Green Mile was originally printed in 6 parts over 6 months.
Hello Tim,
I do not regret yesterday. Books became an item similar to cheese, wine or car. As put it somebody “Why critic books ? If it is good, it shall have success with word of mouth, if not, it shall vanish in oblivion.”
I think that stress, constraints, anxiety are for some people who accept this way of life (publishers and writers) and serenity is for some others. We can produce ebooks with serenity or with stress. Happily the “market” is still the king, I mean the readers.
Ebooks should accelerate the publishing process but not the process of creating a book. And if you work hard and professionally on a book, its publication is also something special as it once was. If it’s published faster and more accessible to all, much better. It’s great that more and more people can now publish their ideas. But I agree that we should not rush the writing and design process of the book by the only fact that it can be published right now.
Love him or hate him, in counterpoint to your argument I offer this individual: James Patterson.
Sadly, this trend can’t be blamed entirely on ebooks. In the last decade, mainstream publishers have put increasing pressure on popular authors to produce more and faster. A successful author of a fantasy series is urged to develop a second, doubling their quota of books completed per year. When YA books took off, many were also encouraged to develop a third YA series. Sometimes, they allow the original series to end, but the simple fact is that the deadlines had and have a degrading effect on the quality of the author’s work—and I don’t blame them for it.
Some writers can complete a book a month. Others need more time. However, those differences are ignored in interest of cashing in on their popularity.
When you say that there should be no rush in producing a good book. When producing a book, it should be well thought out. I just read a book written by Ernest Clement titled, “The Book of Ernest” that was 14 years in the making, and you could completely tell that it was a very well thought out book.
http://ernestclement.com/
In my opinion part of what Tim is talking about is a result of our culture as a whole that puts such a higher value on that which is new and immediate versus that which has been around a little longer. It shows itself in every aspect of our culture. I remember a long time a go when I worked at a Mom & Pop video store (remember those?) and customers were always asking solely for the newest releases. If they were not available I would often suggest a suitable replacement. Invariably the customer would ask not if it the suggested title was any good but how old it was. In essence, anything older than six months was not worth their time. It’s the same mentality as having an author churn out more work simply so the market can have their latest offering. I’d like to suggest that when time is taken to do it right, and the audience has to wait a little longer for the favorite writer’s newest work, why not spend that time reading an existing title, classic, lost gem, what-have-you? After all, that’s why publishers have backlists!
What a fabulous post. Good things take time, and I, too, wonder if the prolific authors may do more damage to their careers than good by producing so much material. This fall, I’ll be coming up on two years from inception of my novel (it’s done; am editing now) and was just thinking recently that I NEEDED that time — all of it — for ideas to percolate, for new experiences to present themselves and weave their way into my WIP not only thematically but also symbolically. I am telling a richer story, I believe, due to the time I’ve had to write. If I had rushed the process, one thing is certain: the story would not have as much depth as it does now. Much of that is due to the germination process and the ability to BE creative without production worries hanging over my head (I understand deadlines and their importance, esp. as a freelance writer). But there is something to be said about creativity and letting things unfold in their own time.