Comments on: Holly Lisle Hates Chains (and after reading her rant, Chains may hate her)

By: Carmen Hudson

Carmen Hudson — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 20:21:20 +0000

You didn’t read the post by Holly well at all, Dear Author. I came over here to read this whole thing and found your nasty, rude, demeaning tone to be absolutely abhorrent besides.

Holly Lisle does everything in her power to help other authors and simply speaks towards the reality of the book selling world. I’ve gone into plenty of chain stores to find specific books and have been unable to find them, having to order them special or, more often, go home and order them on Amazon.

It would be nice, Dear Author, if you could avoid being malicious simply for the sake of being malicious.

And you do owe her an apology.

By: The Good, The Bad and The Unread » hitler is so 1980

The Good, The Bad and The Unread » hitler is so 1980 — Tue, 22 May 2007 02:40:29 +0000

[...] you are not playing the home game. Holly Lisle said something stupid, jane dared to blog her opinion about it, linking to Holly’s own post, holly had kittens, jane posted regarding a demand for [...]

By: Dear Author.Com | Marketing Dos and Don’ts: A Reader’s Point of View

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:49:14 +0000

[...] Kent asked last week what Wendy, Superlibrarian thought was good promotion. Promotion is largely in the hands [...]

By: The Good, The Bad and The Unread » Blog Archive » So just where were you last night at midnight?

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:30:20 +0000

[...] It should shock… oh no one… that I was at Walmart (hey it isn’t a evol chain). [...]

By: Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 00:16:31 +0000

This seems to refer to professional writers versus novelists. I.e., an author of a full length novel. I think (and maybe I am totally wrong here) that seems to be comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, I’m afraid you are totally wrong. Either way, someone writing at 3-10c a word in shorts or books could live comfortably in the 50s. This declined through the 70s and was established long before the web. The web has IMPROVED things because it allows broader discourse and marketing. Part of the decline was when word processors came out–made it easier for good and bad writers to submit, which is why there are so many submissions now.

Novels don’t pay substantially better on initial payment. If they earn out one can do better, but there are finite markets for everything.

By: Jane

Jane — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:59:17 +0000

This seems to refer to professional writers versus novelists. I.e., an author of a full length novel. I think (and maybe I am totally wrong here) that seems to be comparing apples to oranges.

As for the decline of buyers of short stories and articles, I think that has much more to do with the increase of the internent than the decline of indie booksellers and the broader spectrum of entertainment choices today. Because the claim is that the demise of the indie bookstore is directly proportional to the lowering of the midlist author. I.e., how many midlisters actually made a living off the bookstore sales (which could include short stories but not really seeing the “articles” inclusion).

By: Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:29:54 +0000

The one thing that has continued to nag at me about Lisle’s post is the seemingly utopian view that more midlist authors had careers that generated enough wealth to support a family when all bookstores were indies.

It’s true. “Professional” rate today is considered anywhere from 3-10c a word and up. But that’s the same rate that was being paid in the 1950s. Writers of short stories and articles were able to maintain a middle class existence on nothing else. These days, you have a day job or are constantly juggling contracts.

By: Melissa

Melissa — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:18:57 +0000

[quote comment="13774"]Actually, the economy (Which at present is respectable) has very little to do with book sales. Books are cheap, and generally marketed to the literate and college educated, who have disposable income.[/quote]

But, the bookstores are seeing losses this year in the first two quarters of this year, and Walmart has posted its worst year in holiday sales in a long time, the economy is not doing as well as the Media would like you to believe.
I agree though, that money spent on bigger authors just seems, well strange. You would think they would spend the time to build someone up. so we are in agreement there, but I don’t see the reason for authors being amazed they are expected to do a little something. And, I disagree that authors had it better with Indies. But the problem there is that you are in the same boat. If you find all the indy sellers in your area are not into romance, they will not stock it. I like indy stores, don’t get me wrong, and I shop at both indy and chain stores, but I don’t think anyone can blame them for hurting the midlist author.

By: Jane

Jane — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:29:45 +0000

[quote comment="13774"] The irony is that bestsellers who don’t need the promotion get it for free, while new writers who would benefit have to cough up out of pocket. Marketing is seen as a reward for success, which is more proof that there business models in need of refinement.[/quote]

I find that odd as well. My only guess is that the publisher sees a higher ROI on the promotion of a big name author than on a midlist author. I am not sure if analysis is done on a long term basis or not, i.e., investing in a career of an author over two or three books in hopes that it becomes a superleader or putting out the splashy dollars for a bestseller. One thing that is true, though, as May pointed out on another blog (educating me) is that you can only promote a few authors else the promotion is rendered meaningless. In every scenario, there are going to be authors who lose out. Even if all bookstores were indies, the bookseller would chose to handsell midlist author A over midlist Author B, meaning that midlist Author B loses out.

Who decides the authors that lose out? The editor? The bookseller? The buying public? I.e., in the Frank case, many marketing dollars went into Frank over another author on the Zebra list. This is a book the editor really believes in and is standing behind. While this is great for Frank, it is not good for someone else. Is there really an answer for that?

The one thing that has continued to nag at me about Lisle’s post is the seemingly utopian view that more midlist authors had careers that generated enough wealth to support a family when all bookstores were indies. I asked before and received no response as to the veracity of this claim. Because of the number of books published today (which means more authors are getting a chance to have careers), perhaps the concentration of sales for one author has gone down.

By: Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:55:51 +0000

Actually, the economy (Which at present is respectable) has very little to do with book sales. Books are cheap, and generally marketed to the literate and college educated, who have disposable income.

It’s true that marketing is largely up to the author. The irony is that bestsellers who don’t need the promotion get it for free, while new writers who would benefit have to cough up out of pocket. Marketing is seen as a reward for success, which is more proof that there business models in need of refinement.