This sentiment boggles my mind every time I see it. That book I thought sucked so bad I used it as a fetch toy for the dog to get my money’s worth might be someone else’s favorite book ever. Limit the variety of books available, and one group of readers or another is going to be deprived of what they enjoy.

See, I don’t really understand the argument that publishing fewer books would deprive readers of variety. As it stands, there’s, what, 400-500 Romances published a month? And how many do you think any of us choose from when we make our reading decisions? Further, how many authors are we hearing about who are losing contracts because their books aren’t selling to a certain level? How many authors who do sell are being pressured to write at least three books a year (single title length), whether or not it serves their writing pace of the overall quality of the books, because that’s the pace publishers demand of contracted authors?

If I felt that publishers really cared about giving readers diversity in the genre, or even variety, I think I’d be less skeptical. But in what seems to me like a factory-farming publishing system, it seems more like authors are toiling as laborers, and editors are stuck in the middle, getting paid dirt for a very demanding job (I think they make about what public school teachers make, another example of criminal underpayment), all while publishers are throwing a boat load of books out into the market hoping to sell as many as possible. So yeah, what Janine said in her comment was one of the things I was intimating, but even beyond that, I don’t really think that the sheer number of books published in the genre actually serves either variety or quality. Just think of some of the big name authors who are currently writing without contracts (Kinsale and Crusie, for example), or what happened to Tracy Grant after writing Daughter of the Game, or how Carla Kelly was out of a contract for quite a while. Let alone those authors we don’t even know because they didn’t get a shot beyond one book published without fanfare or promotion in a sea of others that may or may not be so very different.

This sentiment boggles my mind every time I see it.

I don’t think Robin was saying that fewer authors should be published, just that the industry should be set up in such a way that authors wouldn’t be pressured to write very quickly and produce a lot of books in a short time. If writers had more time to write and editors more time to edit, then surely the result in many cases would be better books?

There are some authors who can write three or four books a year without their quality suffering, but IMO they are few and far between. And then there are those on the opposite side of the spectrum. Laura Kinsale is an example of a writer who is now taking longer to produce her books than most writers can afford to take, but surely the genre would be worse off without her wonderful books? There may be more writers of Kinsale’s caliber out there whose books we simply aren’t seeing because of the emphasis placed on producing books quickly.

So yeah, I can understand Robin’s comment.

Ultimately, I think the only solution is to publish fewer books…

This sentiment boggles my mind every time I see it. That book I thought sucked so bad I used it as a fetch toy for the dog to get my money’s worth might be someone else’s favorite book ever. Limit the variety of books available, and one group of readers or another is going to be deprived of what they enjoy.

I accept the fact that I’m not going to like every book I read, just as I’m not going to like every peanut M&M I put in my mouth (you know what I mean, the occasional off one that tastes like a sweaty sock). I improve the odds by reading a lot of books (and eating a lot of peanut M&Ms).

I don’t know if the same thing happens in the US, but in the UK, publishers pay the big chain bookstores to put certain books into their front-of-store ‘3 for 2′ special tables, which is where the big sales are. Of course, that’s part of a book’s promotional budget and so it only usually happens for those earmarked as bestsellers before publication. Which means books similar to, or by authors of, other books which have sold by the ton. Which means other books that were on those tables before. And it becomes a closed loop – Book A sells well, so B (similar book) is pushed while C is ignored, so B sells well, so when D, another similar book, comes out…

Much the same process goes on in bookstore stock buying – stores only usually take high volumes of books they know will sell and which they’ll push in-store – and in the allotment of PR funds at publishers. Every now and again there’s a rogue breakout book which does really well through luck or quality and which then joins the loop as a fresh Book A, but otherwise it’s a closed system. And certainly in this country, becoming more closed all the time. Stock levels in particular make it very hard for readers to find good books that aren’t a part of the generic mainstream; if you’re a fan of a particular genre, if the only thing your local store stocks is average tat then all you can buy is average tat. And there’s almost no way to voice your demand and balance the supply/demand equation.

Bugger me, what a long comment. :-)

How many of us reading this have that burning desire to write but let circumstances prevent us making the commitment? It may sound very “be the change you want to see in the world”, but I truly believe that if some of us readers starting using our incredible knowledge of the genre to write the books we want to read, the results would be spectacular. I think that’s what the editors want too. And yes, I’m definitely preaching to myself!

You’ve got a good point Bethany. How many writers out there sat down one day because they thought no one was writing the book they wanted to read? Sure, it results in some bad books being written. But editors can weed those out, especially if there are good books waiting in line. Go forth and write!

Personally, I like both the same old stories and the innovative books . It depends if I’m after a comfort read or something stimulating. I find that they’re generally not the same thing for me. Romance is a very comfort oriented genre so I’m not surprised a lot of people go for the former. Unfortunately, my main comfort in romance was the trad Regency, so now I just re-read my keeper shelf. :(

That lag time seriously complicates everything.

I’d have to agree with this.

I know epubs are usually on the ‘cutting edge’ so to speak with genre trends but the NY pubs also see those trends, and react… but it isn’t a quick a turn around with NY.

A book I wrote for Samhain earlier this year, finished in Sept, I think, will release in January.

But a book that I finished for NY about the same time won’t be out for a good year.