Why Tobias Buckell's Latest Isn't Stocked at Borders, and other stories

[davidlevine]

This is a really important essay for anyone who wants to understand the bookselling industry today. Read it.

http://antickmusings.blogspot.com/2008/10/on-being-skipped.html

(Hat tip to jaylake)

Comments

[alicebentley]

I didn't hear it as "belligerently self-righteous", I heard it as a cautionary "let's not forget" as spoken to an audience that clearly *does* forget it every now and then.
Between the authors, angry or despairing over their title not being shelved, and the customers, frustrated or belittling because what they hoped to find wasn't there, booksellers (as well as marketing folk) are treated to a pretty much unending barrage of unhappiness from the very people they most want to impress.

The conversation about what lead to the shift from [many independents and just a few chain shops] to [many chain shops and just a few independents] is long, complicated, and not suitable for a sub comment buried in Dave's journal. For here, I'll say that I don't think Andrew was saying that the relative qualities of the two groups were the determining causes, just that it wasn't a case of then-was-good, now-is-bad, and mistaking the two types of statements, as well as declaring that this would make someone a "right-wingnut" shows more about the reader's bias than the writer's.

Let me answer your next comment as well, and say that comparing [ordering a book, entering the data into the inventory system, receiving and counting the book in, finding space on the shelf, paying full wholesale for it, waiting several months to see how it does, deciding that it's just not going to move, taking it back off the shelf, packing it up with the appropriate documentation, paying for shipping and hoping that maybe this time the credit will go through without an argument] is not even remotely like [deciding at the sales meeting that this title might not do as well] and to equate the two is either showing exceptional ignorance or verging on troll material.

Oh, hey Dave, sorry for blurting all over your journal comments, but this really hit a vein with me.

[davidlevine]

Worry not. The conversation is fascinating.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

The things you cite as "showing more about the reader's bias" and "exceptional ignorance or verging on troll material" are pretty flagrant misreadings, and might be considered as verging on troll material themselves.

In a sense a good bookstore does carry everything, even if it's not on the shelf, because a good bookstore will order anything a customer asks for. Sometimes even on spec, allowing the customer to look through the arrived book and decide they don't want it.

But even leaving that aside, it's possible to reply to "waah, they don't carry my book" whinging without a belligerent implication of "hey, they're not required to carry anything, so be happy with the crumbs you're tossed, you cretins." That sort of economics-drives-all and if-you-don't-like-it-tough attitude is very definitely conveyed, and that is what makes wingnuttery.

I didn't say anything mistaking a "determining cause" statement for a "then was good, now is bad" statement, and in fact I cited the existence of some really lousy independents. He just left out the principal determining cause, and by emphasizing only the improved service and selection, which as often as not was true, he gives more of an impression of "then was bad, now is good." That's as misleading a conclusion as the opposite is. Belief in the inherent superiority of big business is also a sign of economic right-wingnuttery.

You paint a touching picture of bookstores painstakingly entering books into inventory systems and packing them up individually to be returned, and waiting for the credit to go through, but in fact most large bookstores use centralized inventory databases that list far more books than they actually carry, and most of those books come from large distributors and can be packed up en masse, while the credit comes from the same distributors, and there'd be the same credit problems (or not) regardless, unless the store never made any returns at all.

I'm not equating [all that] with deciding at a sales meeting that a book might not do well. I'm saying that using [that] as a reason for therefore not carrying the book is a lousy reason, and any other reasons make even less sense. If you're an actual bookstore, and not WalMart or a supermarket rack, not every book you sell has to be a bestseller, and if there's enough space, there's room for some flexibility.

[alicebentley]

I think we may have to draw a close to this comparison with the ever-favorite "agree to disagree" as I pretty much disagree with every point you've made here. Either I'm not making my points clearly enough, or you're not hearing what I'm trying to say.

And I really need to get back to my homework.

This is a subject near and dear to my heart, and one that I have a bit of experience in. Perhaps next week (after the current deadlines pass) I'll write something more substantial about this over at my LJ.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

Well, I will await that with interest, as I'm really curious as to what you disagree with. Do you disagree that large bookstores will order any book in print a customer asks for? I know it to be true, for I have done it. Do you disagree that they use inventory databases that include books they don't stock? I know it to be true, for I have seen it. Do you disagree that most regular stock comes from large distributors? I know that to be true as well.

As for what things I am equating, I claim an author's privilege to know my own intent, and as for what I am mistaking, when it's the exact opposite of what I said, and I'd made a particular point of pointing it out, I don't know how to respond.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I should add that I have heard of bookstores being reluctant to carry books that were not available through standard distributors, unless they were confident the book would do well or a customer specifically asked for it. And the reason was precisely the hassle and paperwork of dealing with lots of individual tiny publishers. That I can understand. My point was that that motive can't be the cause for deciding not to take a book expected not to do particularly well, when that book comes from an established publisher via an established distributor, and exists on standard inventory databases.