Commodity Publishing, Self-Publishing, and The Future of Fiction

Commodity Publishing and The Future of Fiction

Many years ago, when I started working for Writer’s Digest, I was put on the self-publishing beat. I started by reading Dan Poynter’s guide, by the godfather of self-publishing, then the Marilyn Ross guide. I attended EPIC, once the leading conference for e-book authors, and sat on a panel with Piers Anthony to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of traditional publishing, POD publishing, and digital publishing. For a couple of years, I edited a newsstand-only magazine called Publishing Success, geared toward independent authors, and oversaw the Writer’s Digest Self-Publishing Book Awards. I developed lasting relationships with several indie authors during that time, including John Sundman and M.J. Rose, and I saw a few authors successfully cross over to traditional publishing.

At that time (which was in the early 2000s), if you were a self-published author, print-on-demand was emerging as the golden ticket to affordable independent publishing. New POD publishers were marketing their services with dirt-cheap introductory packages—as low as $99—to entice authors fed up with rejection to find success through this no-print-run-required technology. What most authors discovered, however, is that without access to bookstore shelves, or a reliable way to get in front of readers (these were the early days of the Internet—no social media and very little in the way of popular blogging), you were pretty much wasting your time.

One author stood out, though, as finding a way where the others didn’t—M.J. Rose. She was turned down by traditional publishers but was convinced there was a readership for her work. So in 1998, she set up a website where readers could download her book for $9.95 and began to seriously market the novel online. After selling 2,500 copies (in both electronic and trade paper), her novel Lip Service became the first e-book sensation to score an author a traditional publishing contract. (What is also interesting here is Rose’s background: advertising.)

When asked about the future of self-publishing in October 2012, Rose told The Nervous Breakdown:

In 2000, when I was the e-publishing reporter for Wired.com, I was asked about the future of self-publishing and at that time said it would become the best test market for publishers to find future superstars—as soon as e-books took off and that wouldn’t happen until the readers dropped to under $100. We’re there—it’s happening. Every week the press reports on two or three major deals with self-pubbed authors who have built up their own fan bases.{{1}} [[1]]Publishers Lunch reported on roughly 5,000 traditional publishing deals in 2012; 45 of them were for books originally self-published.[[1]] But notice how those self-pubbed authors are moving to traditional deals.  As empowering as self-pubbing is—it’s not easy to go it alone. Most of us writers want to be writers—not have to spend years studying the business of publishing and becoming entrepreneurs.  So I think there are going to be more and more creative business models to offer authors trustworthy and creative partnerships as solutions to going it alone. It’s an amazingly exciting time in publishing.

I agree with M.J. My question is: Is self-publishing going to become the predominant, preferred, or recommended means for authors to launch their careers? While we might all agree there are more paths than ever to get published and be a successful author, some advocates of self-publishing—primarily those (perhaps exclusively those) who write genre fiction go a step further: Don’t even bother getting traditionally published. Self-publish first.

Usually the model or formula is expressed like this:

  1. Write a ton of material.
  2. Publish it yourself on all the digital platforms.
  3. Repeat as quickly as possible.
  4. Make a living as a writer.

For those unfamiliar with this emerging model of authorship, you may think I’m oversimplifying. Not by much. This model doesn’t care about quality. It says: You will get better as you write more, and besides, everyone knows that quality is subjective. It says: Don’t waste your time perfecting something that you can’t be sure makes a difference to your readers or your sales.

Nor does this model rely on marketing and promotion. According to its rules, the author is better off producing more salable product, which, over time, snowballs into more and more sales, and people discovering and buying your books. Do you need a website? Of course, like any author does. Do you need to market yourself or your work? As little as possible, the model says. Focus on writing your next book.

If you want to delve into the philosophy of this model further, I recommend reading the blogs of Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Katherine Rusch, very commercially successful genre fiction authors who have significant followings, with experience in both traditional and indie authorship.

My observations follow.

1. This model relies on a readership that consumes books like candy, or readers mostly interested in finding a next read as quickly and cheaply as possible. (We’re starting to see the impact of this cheap-read behavior: agents asking publishers to reduce prices because it’s inhibiting the greater volume needed to reach maximum profits.)

If you’ve ever walked into certain kinds of used bookshops (especially back before e-books became prevalent), you’ve seen the racks and racks of mass-market romances and other genre fiction, sold for 25 cents each. A customer might walk in, buy a grocery bag full, walk out, then return the following week for a refill.

The new era of self-publishing authors{{2}}[[2]]There’s also another subset of self-publishing authors that are of the Seth Godin variety: authorities or experts who publish nonfiction and offer other content and services to a fan base, whether a large one or more modest one of the Kevin Kelly variety. I’m excluding such authors for the purposes of this post since I consider them an entirely different animal.[[2]] are, by and large, serving these customers.

I call it commodity publishing. It’s not about art; it’s about product.

But isn’t that what traditional publishing has been about all along? Isn’t it also commodity publishing? It is a business, yes?

Funny, it’s the business that no one gets into for business reasons. It’s the business that, if you asked its individual participants, would likely prefer to talk about the art or culture of the business, would prefer to make the argument that it focuses on quality work that deserves publication. Yet those with trade experience know how the decisions really get made: based on a profit-and-loss analysis (P&L) and for the benefit of the bottom line.

2. If commodity publishing is here to stay, I can only see its future in the realm of genre fiction, because this is the area where I see sufficient reader demand to drive the kind of volume that leads to a living wage. It’s also the only area where I see authors without qualms about quality, or without any hesitation to produce as much material as possible, with the only limitation the amount of time you can keep your butt in the chair writing.

Most literary authors and nonfiction writers I know are not able to pursue this model. They either cannot produce—or would not want to produce—multiple volumes in a few years’ time.

I’m now on the edge of a longstanding argument: whether genre fiction is as “good” as so-called literary fiction. I’ve had more than one person challenge me on the definition of “literary” fiction on the premise that it’s an elitist, exclusionary term that implies that other types of fiction can’t be as intelligent or complex. That is to say, it is possible for literary romance, literary thriller, etc., to exist, and that “literary” should not exist except as an adjective to some other genre category.

That’s a sensible argument. But I do think it’s relevant to talk about how readers self-identify, or how they decide what to read next, and you can be certain there’s a class of reader who considers themselves devoted to the consumption of, at the very least, serious fiction. Serious fiction means: you don’t read it or skim it in an afternoon, and you don’t go through an entire grocery bag of them in a week. A lot of people enjoy both types of fiction. Yet you don’t often find authors who are switching off between writing beach reads and next year’s critically acclaimed novel. Further, authors tend to get pigeon-holed and marketed in a particular way to the same audience over years, since that’s how commercial success works best (see: James Patterson), and even if we find this constricting from a creative standpoint, it’s a sound marketing strategy.

All this to say: I don’t think it wise to recommend self-publishing as the first strategy for writers outside of the genres. I don’t think it is compatible with the goals or attitudes of a significant population of authors. However, this is NOT to say that such authors are somehow exempt from innovation, or from adopting digital tools to further their careers. Quite the contrary, and regular readers of this blog know how often I advocate that authors break out of the traditional thinking and experiment across mediums—that they think beyond the book in approaching creative expression, storytelling, and marketing/promotion.

As far as the ongoing need or demand for traditional publishers, it’s tough to imagine their demise when it comes to non-commodity authors, though I do worry that if publishers have been playing at the commodity publishing game all along (which they have), and their existing corporate parents expect growing profits, should we expect their fortunes to fall if/when the genre fiction authors increasingly go-it-alone{{3}}[[3]]I’ve also written about my concern that traditional publishers may not evolve to offer sufficient value for authors. I write in-depth about this here.[[3]] because they can earn more{{4}}[[4]]Some have suggested that the high royalty rates that indie authors now enjoy from retailers like Amazon will be yanked down to much lower numbers once the e-reading/e-publishing gold rush has concluded. Who knows if that will come to pass, but if so, it would be smart for authors currently enjoying indie success to start building their online presence and e-mail lists to ensure they can reach their readership and sell direct in the future. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.[[4]]—especially as more readers buy online and buy digital rather than visiting physical bookstores, that dwindling haven of traditional publishing profits?

And if traditional publishing declines, will the big corporate houses have the same ability to publish those titles that aren’t destined to be commercial successes, but critical successes?

Take this year for example:

  • No. 1 commercial success of 2012: 50 Shades of Grey by E.L. James—published by Random House after the author self-published
  • No. 1 critical success of 2012: Behind the Beautiful Forevers by Katherine Boo—also published by Random House; a National Book Award winner and named one of the top 10 books of the year by countless publications

Can Random House deliver books like the Behind the Beautiful Forevers if they don’t also profit from 50 Shades of Grey? Maybe someone else with more insight into corporate-wide publishing P&Ls can offer insight here.

3. Lest one be misled into thinking I prefer literary fiction and would like to protect it (and the infrastructure that goes along with it), I must agree with what Tim O’Reilly said in a recent interview with Wired:

Wired: You’re a publisher and big reader as well as a technologist. What is the future for books?

O’Reilly: Well, what kind of book do you mean? Because there are many, many things that were put into codices that have no particular reason to be books. Things like paper maps and atlases are just gone. Online dictionaries and online encyclopedias have killed printed dictionaries and encyclopedias. … But I don’t really give a shit if literary novels go away. They’re an elitist pursuit. And they’re relatively recent. The most popular author in the 1850s in the US wasn’t Herman Melville writing Moby-Dick, you know, or Nathaniel Hawthorne writing The House of the Seven Gables. It was Henry Wadsworth Longfellow writing long narrative poems that were meant to be read aloud. So the novel as we know it today is only a 200-year-old construct. And now we’re getting new forms of entertainment, new forms of popular culture.

Personally (after a couple decades of being a very devoted reader of novels), I have all but stopped reading fiction. My storytelling fix comes from watching TV, which, for my money, is where the best narratives are told these days—Six Feet Under, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, Breaking Bad, many others. I know I’m not alone in this.

So that raises the question of what I do read, and it’s narrative nonfiction of a journalistic bent (one of the reasons I recently joined VQR). I’m sure everyone is aware of the parallel conversations happening, in the magazine journalism and news world, about what their publishing future entails, and you’ll find no less confusion or wringing of hands. But I find their practitioners to be in a similar boat as the serious fiction authors, in that they need some kind of support—typically traditional media/publisher support—to carry out their work, which takes years to complete and cannot be churned out on demand. Katherine Boo, and many other nonfiction authors, require years of research to produce even a slim volume of import. What they produce is distinctly not disposable, not a commodity.

Will such authors be supported by nonprofits? Grants? Small presses whose profit demands are lower? Crowdsourcing? Kickstarter? I don’t know, but of all the options I can fathom, self-publishing seems least likely to become the preferred or prevalent model.

What do you say?

Share on:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

131 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
trackback

[…] Is self-publishing going to become the predominant, preferred, or recommended means for authors to launch their careers?  […]

CJ Lyons

Jane,
I think many of your points are valid: traditional publishing will always be the venue of choice to curate and create books that are “souvenirs.” The special books that readers feel reflect their personalities and want a copy to keep on their shelves, to show the world who they are.

But I disagree with your point that indy writers are not concerned with quality. It’s not just writing a book and repeating that leads to success, it’s writing a GREAT book, one that will delight and inspire your readers to tell their friends and share it with the world, then repeat.

It’s the exact same formula that most mid-list authors contracted by NYC follow as well—many of them also “churning” out multiple books a year under a variety of pen names. The main difference is that with indy publishing midlist authors can actually make a living wage.

Why have many indy authors been able to find success outside of traditional publishing? It’s not because they’re churning out books with no regard to quality.

It’s because they know and understand their readers.

Successful small presses like Alquonquin have also done this.

When NYC looks beyond pleasing stockholders and distributors and truly begins to understand the heart and soul of readers (hint: listen to your editors talk about books they’re passionate about because the character and story moved them, not because of an impressive P/L sheet, which is its own kind of fiction anyway) they won’t need to bemoan the changes in publishing—instead they’ll be embracing exciting new opportunities.

Thanks as always for sharing your insights,
CJ Lyons

http://norulesjustwrite.com

http://cjlyons.net

Dani G.

Terrific insights, Jane, and thumbs up to CJ as well. I’ve watched this industry change since the early 70s and what’s happening now is fascinating and exciting, especially for the writer. There are so many more options. MJ, of course, will always be the blog book tour queen in my eyes. 😉

jefishman

Thanks for provoking the discussion, Jane.

Publishing needs to get away from the idea of quality as some kind of objective judgment (evaluated by gatekeepers) and understand that quality is about meeting the reader’s expectations, whatever they are. It has always been true that if you picked up a novel by Philip Roth (to take a literary example) while expecting a Stephen King horror read, you’d likely be disappointed. And vice versa.

As for production over quality, as a former literary agent and Doubleday editor, I can say with conviction that beyond the extremes there is little correlation. I’ve seen people labor for a decade to produce crap. On the other hand, before the days of ebooks many genre authors produced three or four quality books a year — sometimes more…sometimes under multiple names — in mass market paperback. Only later did these authors build big enough audiences to break into hardcover. Isaac Asimov, to take one example, had his name as author or editor on more than 500 books. Some sold better than others. As for posterity, he’s remembered for only a handful, but that’s better than most ever achieve.

Fiction — even genre fiction — relies on a certain alchemy. Even the greatest novelists (however you choose to define greatness) were not great all the time. That, in and of itself, is an argument for doing more writing and less [fill in the blank].

http://jefishman.com

Dave Cornford

What CJ said. You can’t build an audience turning out loads of sub-par work.

Jane Friedman

CJ,

Thanks so much for taking time to comment.

It wasn’t my intent to characterize *all* indie writers as unconcerned with quality—only to point to a growing phenomenon/trend of indie authors saying that quality is subjective or not as important as is usually taught.

After hearing your presentation in Pittsburgh last fall, I couldn’t have been more impressed by your own model of top-notch quality (and concern with serving your readership) combined with a savvy marketing approach — and to top it off, a reasonable and respectful approach to all types of publishing paths and goals. I’m fairly confident that your marketing/promotion wouldn’t work half as well (or even a tenth as well) if you didn’t have the quality books to begin with.

For any aspirants reading, here is your model to follow. (She teaches classes!)

CJ Lyons

Okay, now you’re scaring me–there are groups of writers expecting readers to spend their time and hard-earned money on their books and they’re saying that quality doesn’t matter???

I wouldn’t worry too much about them, they won’t be around long…readers are smarter than that.

Thanks for the kind words about my model, Jane! I don’t see it as marketing/promotion (although I know it is, but those words imply “work” and I love what I do!) so much as relationship building…and it all starts with a great story worthy of my readers.

CJ

Marc Cabot

I am not aware of any successful writers who argue that quality doesn’t matter. Although Ms. Friedman did separate the two concepts (quality is subjective, quality doesn’t matter) with an “or,” I do get a strong sense that she thinks they are related and/or one implies the other. If I am over-reading that, then that is my error. The two authors she cites as major examples of advocates of the first position (quality is subjective) would certainly NOT argue that quality is irrelevant.

That being said, in my opinion they would very possibly argue that not only is quality subjective, but that what the Literary World considers a quality book is so highly subjective, and unrelated to what the typical reader would consider writing of quality, that it is almost a parody of the idea.

Jane Friedman

As a response to all on this thread started by CJ:
Is it fair to say that a range of indie authors

Lynn Blackmar

I agree with CJ. Those that are the “loudest” proponents of the model, such as Dean Wesley Smith, always mention they send off to their editors. Perhaps without being involved in the indie community it seems like there isn’t an emphasis on quality, but that’s not true. It’s discussed a great deal, and with very strong conviction. But I agree with CJ that it’s about appealing to readers over publishers.

Indie authors are under much more scrutiny than the average mid-list author. We get reviews that our books are “filled with typos” when the reader actually only found one (happened to me). And yet, I’m reading a trade book with typo after typo, and not one person mentioned it in their reviews of it on Amazon. Perception is everything.

Those that self-publish without regard to quality, I’ve found, are not actively involved in the indie community. They don’t read those articles, they don’t participate in the communities and blogs. They just publish. There is a difference.

Nicole

So nice to have you say this, because I know that more editors and people in “the biz” do feel that way about literary fiction. And I think it’s good to talk about it openly, maybe 2013 is the year that “the biz” abandons serious fiction.

I can see it happening, as literary journals (like your VQR) are turning to narrative journalism now. I think that’s good, actually. I don’t think that serious fiction should be holed up in academia. University journals are only for schools, they only print stories of professors, and commercial magazines abandoned serious fiction at least a generation ago. So you do have something that seems dead in the outside world.

Maybe we will see a new kind of public intellectual, the “serious” author who is not aligned with a university, and therefore not holed up in the literary journals that have no commercial following. Instead they will self-publish their work and find a small, but dedicated, audience. I am not sure how this model will actually pay, because it won’t work like the genre model of “buy a bag of books at 99 cents each” but if they can find their readers they will make it.

Malena Lott

As for self-publishing as the first route to entry, if the author is entrepreneurial (can hire a team to help with the quality and distribution) and can write a series, they can build a good readership so that model works for some. And what model works for all? None. Offering a freemium plus marketing has landed several of my author friends into the full-time fiction writer role, which they couldn’t do with their once-a-year traditional deals. Some are hybrid authors and some self-pub only, but it’s still a model for serious authors to consider. (I don’t believe it’s “on demand,” but putting thought into a longer story arc.) Readers aren’t dummies. They know if they are being short-changed.

I also agree one book sale sells another, but “churning out” books is usually only an option if you are writing full time so it’s a chicken and egg thing. I absolutely don’t think that’s a self-pub only model. I’ve noticed many traditionally published authors are now at two books a year because the readers and publishers need it to keep the reader’s attention and compete.

Victoria Noe

I would submit that there is a model emerging for self-publishing authors (like me). We want to go it alone, so to speak, meaning without a traditional contract. But we are more than willing to gather a team in support of what we do. I’ve hired an editor and cover designer, and someone to do the interior formatting of my books. I do my own marketing but I’m willing to job out some of that if i find the right person. I would love to hire a manager, because agents don’t fulfill my needs. I think companies and individuals who recognize that self-published authors want and need qualified, creative professionals handling the non-writing elements of their business (and of course, writing is a business) will find rewarding partnerships.

Porter Anderson

@twitter-240542789:disqus

Viki, I’m jumping in here because, as I go over these good comments on Jane’s essay, I find you saying something you’ve said before and I’m curious as to why you keep asking for it but apparently not getting it.

You want a manager. Not an agent. OK. Makes sense to me, I get it entirely, smart move.

So where is your manager? Are you looking? Have you interviewed or spoken with candidates? You’re surrounded by “author services,” we all are. You can have your book formatted by a person in a straw hat with flowers over breakfast on a bicycle, if you’d like. Anything you want is out there in triplicate. I figure that within weeks, Walgreens will replace its film-development counters with author services kiosks. Go in, get your damned book distributed, free flu shot included. It’s almost that absurd, this proliferation of self-styled “author services.”

So where’s your manager? I’m asking you to move this point you keep making down the road a bit so we can learn from your experience, since you’re The Last Writer On Earth Who Actually Wants To Self-Publish, Not Get a Traditional Contract.

What’s up with the manager thing? You can’t find one? Or you can’t find one you like? Or you can’t find one you can afford? Or you can’t find one with red hair and blue eyes? Or what?

Love,
Porter

Victoria Noe

I prefer a manager who’s independent of other author services. I see companies offer a variety of services under one roof, some including a type of managing, though it’s more like customer service. I want a manager who will find me a publicist, not default to the in-house publicist. Does that make sense?

Nath Jones

Thanks, Jane. I know this piece comes after much deliberation and experience. But I’m still so glad you encouraged me to release some e-books. Nothing else could have helped me learn the rudiments of what a book is now. I have such respect for everyone involved. Even if a publishing house may take a look at a debut literary novel, I don’t think they would have bothered much about a few short story collections.

Jane Friedman

Nath! Your experiments (and those of others in literary circles) are so very dear to me. I worry I led you astray in my digital optimism. I am still optimistic. But the literary community in general seems to lag behind on this front. Hopefully not for long.

Loretto

Self-publishing will eventually become the place to discover new and emerging authors. If things progress as they have been doing over the last couple of decades, “literary” fiction, as I understand the implied defintion, will become obselete and the “genre” fiction of self-publishing will become the new model.
That is not to say it is a bad thing. The volumious amounts of self-published works will have to be waded through extensively in order to discover these new and emerging authors. This is where it all began though, did it not?
There was a time when paper was so valuable print on demand was the norm. Weren’t Twain and Dickens both self-published authors to begin with? So maybe we are doing a full circle, paper and ink costs money. Print on demand is environmentally friendly and appeals to the conservationist within.
I think that literary agents and traditional publishing houses should be very worried. The entire structure of publishing, inclding the jobs within that structure, are changing drastically, for good and bad reasons.

Gary Ponzo

The idea that Indie authors are simply pounding out inferior books as quickly as possible to take advantage of the growing digital market is such a grave generalization it’s laughable. All Asian kids are great at math. All priests are pediphiles. It’s insulting. Do some Indie authors put out bad books. Yes. It’s called bad writing and the readers pick up on this right away. Thank goodness the traditional publishers are there for us, however, because prior to the ebook craze I’d never read a bad book before.

Henry Baum

It sort of seems like you’re making a generalization about her generalization. She’s not saying every indie book is disposable, but many of them are. And she’s right. I say this as a self-publisher who writes un-mainstream genre fiction and I wonder if I’ve made the wrong choice self-publishing, as I don’t write books catering to this audience. Some of my reviews reflect this (“confusing,” “boring”) because these readers are expecting something you don’t have to think very much about.

Jane Friedman

Thank you, Henry.

TourdeFuquay-Varina

Good point Gary. I’ve read plenty of poorly written traditionally published novels and wonder about the math of it all–how those “writers” get their books in the B&Ns of the world.

Ty Patterson

well said

David Lafferty

I don’t really give a **** if Tim O’Reilly goes away. What youthful arrogance. I suspect 100 years from now people will still be reading Melville and asking “Tim who?”.

Porter Anderson

@5dfc713cb1a45542c527de1ea20d2113:disqus
David, I’ll just jump in here to ask you to read the first item in my Writing on the Ether of January 3, it will shed some light on what Tim O’Reilly was saying — his comment was not what many thought it was in the Wired article, where it was stranded from its context. Here you go, and thanks: http://ow.ly/gEATq

larry

Nicholas Carr says it was exactly what it sounded like. Is he wrong?

Porter Anderson

Well, if you’ll read my piece on it, you can make a considered judgment of your own. If Nick Carr means it was what it was inclusive of the correct context, yes. If not, no. Here’s my piece on it, Larry, thanks. http://ow.ly/gEATq

Cathy Day

I’m deeply interested in this discussion. Jane, when you posted that interview with O’Reilly right around Christmas Eve, I read the comment about “not giving a shit if literary novels went away,” and I felt both anger and anguish. I aspire to write literary fiction, which is to say that I aspire to be read 100 years from now. Maybe I will fail at this, but that’s my aspiration. I’m not ignorant to the fact that in order to be read then, I need to be read NOW. You ask a good question in your last paragraph: how am I supported? I’m very lucky to have an academic teaching position; sadly, the continued creation of such positions have not kept pace with the rapid growth in popularity of creative writing instruction. But that’s another story for another day. Every writer I know is struggling with these issues, these changes happening in publishing. To say that mid-list/literary/academically-employed writers are living in some kind of La-La Land of denial is not true. Well, it’s kind of true, but not entirely. Even George Saunders (this generation’s Kurt Vonnegut, I think) is thinking about how he can appeal to a “bigger basket” of readers. https://gist.github.com/4470428. So many thoughts. So many feelings. Suffice it to say that it’s this kind of discussion that prompted me to teach a class on Literary Citizenship this semester (my term for “platform”). I’ll let you know how it goes.

Jane Friedman

Thanks so much, Cathy. Always interested in your perspective, and look forward to more discussions, online and off. 🙂

Marc Cabot

Again, are you saying there is an inherent distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction in this sense? If so, I don’t follow you. People are still reading Jules Verne and Edgar Rice Burroughs: people will still be reading Heinlein, Asimov, Tolkien and Clarke a hundred years from now (or beaming their book-engrams into their brains, or however they do it then.) Meanwhile, what do you suppose the odds are that Beyond the Beautiful Forevers will still be widely read a century hence? Certainly not zero… but IMO, not great. (No offense to Ms. Boo.)

Or as another genre writer observed, “Only posterity can make those judgments.” (Joe Haldeman, The Forever War)

Cathy Day

If anything, I’m trying to say that the best course of action is to steer your boat between the two poles. Certainly not trying to draw a distinction between literary and commercial, although the market does. Bookstores do. Agents and editors do. In the course of doing research, I like to open up short story anthologies, literary journals, and commercial magazines that published fiction from 30, 50, 100 years ago and look at the names to see how many I recognize. It’s always startling when you realize how many published writers “fade away.” I live across the street from the childhood home of writer Emily Kimbrough, the first woman to edit Ladies Home Journal and author of a few best-selling memoirs, one which became a film, Our Hearts Were So Young and Gay. The house is falling down, and few visit. It’s rather sobering. Why isn’t she read anymore? There are many reasons. You’re right that posterity makes those judgements. All writers can do is write the best book they can. What unnerves me are the number of writers who think “literary” is a dirty word.

Have you read the Boo book? I haven’t. BTW: I notice that all the genre writers you mention are men. One thing I’ve observed is that writers, critics are willing to tout the “seriousness” of “male” genre fiction but poo-poo “female” genre fiction. Not that you’re doing that. Just something I find interesting…

Marc Cabot

That’s more than fair, and you’re right that the distinction is made, but my point is, I don’t think that the distinction is valid, consistent, worthwhile, and/or helpful. I have seen no evidence that it serves any beneficial purpose whatsoever, other than to provide a level of insulation and job security to its proponents.

I have not read Ms. Boo’s book. I am sure it is wonderful and deeply moving to the sort of person who likes that sort of thing. But history is littered – as you point out – with people who wrote wonderful, deeply moving books which were hailed as literary classics and then just… went away. I am not sure that the record of “literary” works is much better than the record of “genre” books on this score. Certainly not if you only count books people read when they are not forced to do so by English teachers. 🙂 I still recall the outraged horror most of my classmates demonstrated when a literature professor assigned us The Left Hand of Darkness… that’s not literature, that’s science fiction! Yeah, well, you show me a “literary” work with anything more interesting to say about the meaning of gender than TLHOD. 🙂

You are right to call me on the fact that all the genre writers I cited are men. The first name which comes to mind as a good example of a genre writer who seems to be passing the test of time is Agatha Christie. In fantasy, there is E(dith) Nesbit. There are some examples – not titans, but reasonably tall giants – in science fiction, but almost all of them were forced to publish under male or gender-neutral pseudonyms.

Cathy Day

I’m kind of fascinated by the Literary vs. Commercial issue these days. In my novel-writing classes, my students have to query faux agents. They have to say whether what they are writing is literary or commercial, and it puts them in stitches. I taught a novel this past semester called PURE by Julianna Baggott, which was marketed in a commercial way but is quite literary in that it’s gorgeously written and it’s dystopian vision is fully imagined. (We skyped with the author who said this was her aim.) I asked my students to say whether it was “literary” or “commercial.” Half said it was the MOST literary book we read. Half said it was the MOST commercial. Ha. (The other books being A VISIT FROM THE GOON SQUAD by Egan, ELECTION by Perrotta, and TOWELHEAD by Erian.) It was nice talking to you about this, Marc.

Ty Patterson

curious. you are implying that a commercial book is not well written? i am an avid purveyor of commercial books, thrillers and what like and also an avid consumer of ‘literary’ fiction. i find no distinction in the quality of writing. Lee Child’s ‘commercial’ book has just been made into a movie by Hollywood. that extends the long tail of his commercial books. i wonder how long will the tail be for ‘literary’ fiction over decades and centuries

Cathy Day

I don’t think that I’m going out on a limb here when I say that there are some commercial books that aren’t as well written as others. Also “well written” can mean many things. To some it means overtly lyrical writing, to others, “well written” means straightforward, no-nonsense prose. Willa Cather once said, “I don’t want anyone reading my work to think about the style. I just want them to be in the story.” Both of these (lyrical, plain) are “well written” to me, and both are hard to achieve. It is unusual (but certainly not impossible) to see overtly lyrical writing in commercial fiction, which is why my students didn’t know how to classify PURE. It was written in a way that signaled to them literary, but was presented in a very commercial way. Hence, their reactions.

Kortnee

Andre Norton and Anne McCaffrey jump to mind if you’re looking for female genre writers. Mary Shelley is another.

Marc Cabot

Norton is creeping up on “test of time” status, by which I would mean two or three generations (fifty to sixty years, ish) and McCaffrey will probably get there before long and still be strong when she does. Shelley is definitely there already.

It’s not that there aren’t a lot of great female science fiction authors (or fantasy authors, including LeGuin, the author of The Left Hand of Darkness The late Octavia Butler would be another of my own suggestions.) It’s just that they didn’t get in on it, for the most part, that hundred years ago that seemed to be one of the parameters I was responding to. The male authors have a headstart and are closer. (Verne and Burroughs, of course, are already there.)