It’s an uncertain time for those who make their money off of the written word. In the end, I want to believe that the changes will benefit the reader. What do you think?

I don’t see how readers will benefit if writing becomes a riskier, costlier, and less profitable venture for authors.

I’m just flabbergasted. For one brief moment, I (figuratively) touched a shining star. I’m tickled pink for her!

OMG that book was freaking awesome! Someone from DA should review this, because folks are missing out. (MRs G gave this a 95! And we all know how often she give out those.)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/books/milliondollar-mum-hailed-as-new-jk-rowling/2009/11/06/1257247749015.html?autostart=1

If you can identify a series of genre authors over a course of a number of years who are consistently getting six figure advances from one house, I think it’s much, MUCH more likely that the house has a pretty good idea of earn-out figures and doesn’t feel like it’s risking the farm paying those advances. If the initial set of authors had really burned Ballantine, you’d think that they would have cut back for the former, if they had even an inkling of rationality, right? They’re running profit & loss statements for the new authors when they make an offer, and they have to be basing their figures in part on past performance. That they haven’t cut back the advances is evidence that they don’t feel they’re overpaying.

This is not to say that there isn’t overpayment on advances, but I suspect that overall there’s less of that in romance than you see in some other fields.

This is not to say that times are not a-changing; just that I wouldn’t look at Ballantine’s model and say that high #s for romance indicate overpayment.

It’s an uncertain time for those who make their money off of the written word. In the end, I want to believe that the changes will benefit the reader. What do you think?

I think it will, because it will benefit the midlist writer–eventually. In the short term, though, I think some writers will give up and some good books won’t get written. More likely, though: a lot of mediocre books won’t get written.

Just my 2 cents.

Lindsay Graves never made a bestseller list. Kimberly Raye squeaked into the USA Today list for the first two books (126 and 145 for books 1 and 2) but the nothing since 2008 has placed. Christy Reece’s books were published back to back to back this summer but she never placed on the bestseller list either.

I think making the bestseller lists may be a poor way to gauge whether a book has earned back a large advance, though. Making most of the lists requires a large “clump” of sales. A book that sells steadily over 4-6 months may actually be a better earner for the publisher than one that has made a bestseller list for a week or two and then has its sales drop off significantly. I know of several books that had an initial print run well above the earn out point for a $40k advance that have gone into a second printing without ever hitting any bestseller lists.

That said, while Audrey Niffenegger was obviously overpaid for her current book based on its sales, I say more power to her. She probably won’t earn out that advance and she’ll probably never get that kind of advance again, but hey, one payout of $5 million plus a first book that’s more than earned out its advance and continues to hit bestseller lists is a lifetime’s income. I’d take it :).

“These people may be fine readers, but I think when you get something that’s free as part of a program like that, they’re hypercritical,”

I’m confused; I thought people who get free books are shills.

Okay, nobody give their opinions about books. You can only talk about a book if you’re advertising it.

pfhht!