There always should be a contractual clause calling for publication within 24 months of signing. Yes, that’s still a slow slog but I’ve seen bad things happen to writers without that clause. And of course, if it’s not met, what are the consequences? Reversion of rights? Most authors don’t want that unless the experience has been dreadful. Most writers have little to no power.
I write what I want to write and how I want to write. I don't care about trends or markets, which is why I gave up on publishing houses and decided to self publish. I'm more interested in seeing people read my work. I'm too old to worry about hitting it big and earning big bucks.
For what it's worth, self-published books currently account for 51% of ebook sales per Bowker, and climbing. Figures on print books are harder to come by, but there are several self-published authors like Dominic Piper doing quite well, sales-wise, and not at all bad writers. Of course the novelist currently at the top of the Big 5 food chain, Colleen Hoover, began as a self-publisher in 2012. If she can come out of that world, so can novelists who are much better.
And don’t forget how Random House looked down their noses at self-publishing and then bought self-published Fifty Shades of Meh, which paid all their bonuses. Noice!
Since I am not a writer, this advice only relates to me as a voracious reader. Oddly enough, few of the rich and famous authors appeal to me. Lately I mostly read horror, folk tales and the occasional suspense. Thankfully the indie authors I follow seem to get their works released either by small publishers or by themselves.
This is totally incidental to the post, but my mind is kind of blown learning that Tom Perrotta ghostwrote some Fear Street books. I know that Scholastic and RL Stine had a protracted legal battle a while ago about the rights to the Goosebumps IP, and Stine vociferously denied using ghostwriters on that series - which tracks, honestly, given the writing of those books! - so I guess I just figured Fear Street was the same way.
Thanks for this. I agree with everything you say, still, I can't help but ask: how do you pick comps when you query a novel that isn't much like anything else? Especially now when it seems like comps have to be novels published within the last three or so years.
But a tl;dr version would be that I would recommend not worrying about comps until you finish a book and then think of comps as just painting a broad strokes picture for an agent or editor. You don't have to find two books that are exactly like or even THAT much like yours. But let's say you wrote a comedic horror novel set among a poor family in the American South. Maybe you find comp titles that hit two of those notes each (one comedic, family focused novel and one horror novel set int he south). Even the most unique novel imaginable will have some themes or elements that can be drawn out for comp purposes.
Indeed a good reflection and important to note that "the market is random". Too bad we can not completely detach from it, it is next to all- pervasive. I think it is always best to have more than one leg to stand on, what one likes rarely keeps us afloat in the sea of commodification....
I always think about how Philip K Dick wrote ten novels before his first “hit,” Man in the High Castle, which was only critically acclaimed when it came out, not a bestseller, much less a TV series.
I think it’s always worth repeating what William Goldman said about the film industry in Adventures in the Screen Trade—“nobody knows anything”—for a couple of reasons. One is that what he meant a few decades ago about Hollywood by saying that was in large part exactly what Lincoln is saying about Publishing today (or in the 21st century, I guess): chasing the market is a fool’s errand. It’s worth noting that the time span from idea to screenplay ready to sell is (or can be) so much shorter than idea to novel ready to sell. And two is that, while I have no proof of this thesis, I feel like mainstream publishing has been taking their operational-business cues from Hollywood for a while (and certainly since the economic collapse); the big five have embraced the same risk-averse approach to the “content” they put out there, and as a result (just like in the 90s in Hollywood), a robust independent scene has risen up to still put out what the mainstream no longer does. In some ways Patterson (with whom I collaborated once) has become to publishing what the MCU is to Hollywood, a highly-repetitive, highly-formulaic, and highly-profitable juggernaut who everyone reads even though they kinda complain about the quality at the same time.
I think the Big 5 still fund a lot more small artsy projects and "mid-budget movie" equivalents than Hollywood... but that's probably largely because less money is involved. Publishing has definitely moved more and more towards a Hollywood blockbuster model where a handful of big hits fund everything else.
Thank you for writing this. I have also been mulling over that wonderful Christian Lorentzen essay. The Tom Perotta quote about "taking the romance out of writing" says a lot. We should take the romance out of writing. I know so many people who would write if they didn't think it was such an elevated, romantic pursuit. Perotta's words, and this whole discussion about writing and the market, reminds me of how I've been feeling all week about the death of Francine Pascal, author of Sweet Valley High books (to the same extent that R.L. Stine and James Patterson author their successful series). Her books aren't great literature by any means, but I learned a lot about constructing a story from reading all of them as a teenager.
Great post, and congrats! After years spent trying to figure out this crazy industry, I myself have just gone back to the one thing I can control — writing what I want and love.
I was left reflecting on the outlining skeleton, as you put it, and having a ghostwriter fill in the flesh. I inevitably discard my outlines the moment I start writing. Though writing with someone else‘s outline is probably like writing on spec for a writer‘s room.
And what a fine job you have done here, reinforcing the power of traditional publishing by entirely ignoring the Indy publishing market. Can you really lower your sights low enough to discuss Patterson and still dismiss the silent majority of books sold outside the vanity limelight of traditional publishers? I enjoy your column more than any other SS, but come on, the real killer of author creativity if this distortion field you support by leading new creative authors into believing the agent route is the only option. That’s bad for everyone. My agent wanted to strip out everything I loved about my debut novel to make it sellable. Totally toxic is what trad publishing is to creative writing.
I really focus on traditional publishing, including independent presses and small presses, mostly because that's what I'm familiar with. That's all. I don't have anything against self-publishing--and have done some myself--although it seems much more useful for certain genres of fiction than others. I agree that from what I know of the self-pub ebook market it's easier to publish quickly and perhaps ride trends (although there you are also facing a million similar writers also trying to ride the trend and self-pub is likewise very hard to succeed in financially speaking).
The main reason self-published authors sell so many ebooks is they price them within the broader market for digital goods. The Big 5 intentionally killed that burgeoning market when they colluded to raise ebook prices so high you typically can buy hardcovers that have been out for two years for less than the ebook. Amazon knows going above $9.99 for an ebook means it will not sell well.
The "right" pricing for ebooks is an interesting topic and I tend to agree the Big 5 set them too high. Although at the same time the 0.99-$4.99 range popular in the self-pub market is too low to be sustainable for traditional publishers (and Amazon was selling ebooks at a loss to close up the market to competition and then raise the price down the line.) Personally think $9.99 is right. That's roughly a paperback price minus the cost of printing and shipping.
But pricing aside most self-pub authors, like most trying the traditional route, don't make much money at all or even lose money. It's hard out there!
I'm writing something extremely weird right now and it's maybe my favorite thing I've ever written, so this was very appreciated and very timely.
“A trend is gone as soon as you can spot it.” A wise adage many publishers know all too well.
Especially when publisher drag their ass for years to get a book out. Hitting a trend is like timing your jump off the Brooklyn bridge
There always should be a contractual clause calling for publication within 24 months of signing. Yes, that’s still a slow slog but I’ve seen bad things happen to writers without that clause. And of course, if it’s not met, what are the consequences? Reversion of rights? Most authors don’t want that unless the experience has been dreadful. Most writers have little to no power.
I write what I want to write and how I want to write. I don't care about trends or markets, which is why I gave up on publishing houses and decided to self publish. I'm more interested in seeing people read my work. I'm too old to worry about hitting it big and earning big bucks.
For what it's worth, self-published books currently account for 51% of ebook sales per Bowker, and climbing. Figures on print books are harder to come by, but there are several self-published authors like Dominic Piper doing quite well, sales-wise, and not at all bad writers. Of course the novelist currently at the top of the Big 5 food chain, Colleen Hoover, began as a self-publisher in 2012. If she can come out of that world, so can novelists who are much better.
And don’t forget how Random House looked down their noses at self-publishing and then bought self-published Fifty Shades of Meh, which paid all their bonuses. Noice!
Since I am not a writer, this advice only relates to me as a voracious reader. Oddly enough, few of the rich and famous authors appeal to me. Lately I mostly read horror, folk tales and the occasional suspense. Thankfully the indie authors I follow seem to get their works released either by small publishers or by themselves.
First non-writer I've seen on Substack. Nice
A big, fat, juicy thank you for this!
And best of luck!
This is totally incidental to the post, but my mind is kind of blown learning that Tom Perrotta ghostwrote some Fear Street books. I know that Scholastic and RL Stine had a protracted legal battle a while ago about the rights to the Goosebumps IP, and Stine vociferously denied using ghostwriters on that series - which tracks, honestly, given the writing of those books! - so I guess I just figured Fear Street was the same way.
Thanks for this. I agree with everything you say, still, I can't help but ask: how do you pick comps when you query a novel that isn't much like anything else? Especially now when it seems like comps have to be novels published within the last three or so years.
I wrote about finding comp titles recently actually! https://countercraft.substack.com/p/comps-and-circumstance
But a tl;dr version would be that I would recommend not worrying about comps until you finish a book and then think of comps as just painting a broad strokes picture for an agent or editor. You don't have to find two books that are exactly like or even THAT much like yours. But let's say you wrote a comedic horror novel set among a poor family in the American South. Maybe you find comp titles that hit two of those notes each (one comedic, family focused novel and one horror novel set int he south). Even the most unique novel imaginable will have some themes or elements that can be drawn out for comp purposes.
Was ‚comps titles‘ always a thing? Or was it borrowed from the film industry?
Indeed a good reflection and important to note that "the market is random". Too bad we can not completely detach from it, it is next to all- pervasive. I think it is always best to have more than one leg to stand on, what one likes rarely keeps us afloat in the sea of commodification....
this is so helpful, thank you! congrats on your new novel!
I always think about how Philip K Dick wrote ten novels before his first “hit,” Man in the High Castle, which was only critically acclaimed when it came out, not a bestseller, much less a TV series.
I think it’s always worth repeating what William Goldman said about the film industry in Adventures in the Screen Trade—“nobody knows anything”—for a couple of reasons. One is that what he meant a few decades ago about Hollywood by saying that was in large part exactly what Lincoln is saying about Publishing today (or in the 21st century, I guess): chasing the market is a fool’s errand. It’s worth noting that the time span from idea to screenplay ready to sell is (or can be) so much shorter than idea to novel ready to sell. And two is that, while I have no proof of this thesis, I feel like mainstream publishing has been taking their operational-business cues from Hollywood for a while (and certainly since the economic collapse); the big five have embraced the same risk-averse approach to the “content” they put out there, and as a result (just like in the 90s in Hollywood), a robust independent scene has risen up to still put out what the mainstream no longer does. In some ways Patterson (with whom I collaborated once) has become to publishing what the MCU is to Hollywood, a highly-repetitive, highly-formulaic, and highly-profitable juggernaut who everyone reads even though they kinda complain about the quality at the same time.
I think the Big 5 still fund a lot more small artsy projects and "mid-budget movie" equivalents than Hollywood... but that's probably largely because less money is involved. Publishing has definitely moved more and more towards a Hollywood blockbuster model where a handful of big hits fund everything else.
Thank you for writing this. I have also been mulling over that wonderful Christian Lorentzen essay. The Tom Perotta quote about "taking the romance out of writing" says a lot. We should take the romance out of writing. I know so many people who would write if they didn't think it was such an elevated, romantic pursuit. Perotta's words, and this whole discussion about writing and the market, reminds me of how I've been feeling all week about the death of Francine Pascal, author of Sweet Valley High books (to the same extent that R.L. Stine and James Patterson author their successful series). Her books aren't great literature by any means, but I learned a lot about constructing a story from reading all of them as a teenager.
I totally agree with your point about Francine Pascal!
Great post, and congrats! After years spent trying to figure out this crazy industry, I myself have just gone back to the one thing I can control — writing what I want and love.
I was left reflecting on the outlining skeleton, as you put it, and having a ghostwriter fill in the flesh. I inevitably discard my outlines the moment I start writing. Though writing with someone else‘s outline is probably like writing on spec for a writer‘s room.
And what a fine job you have done here, reinforcing the power of traditional publishing by entirely ignoring the Indy publishing market. Can you really lower your sights low enough to discuss Patterson and still dismiss the silent majority of books sold outside the vanity limelight of traditional publishers? I enjoy your column more than any other SS, but come on, the real killer of author creativity if this distortion field you support by leading new creative authors into believing the agent route is the only option. That’s bad for everyone. My agent wanted to strip out everything I loved about my debut novel to make it sellable. Totally toxic is what trad publishing is to creative writing.
I really focus on traditional publishing, including independent presses and small presses, mostly because that's what I'm familiar with. That's all. I don't have anything against self-publishing--and have done some myself--although it seems much more useful for certain genres of fiction than others. I agree that from what I know of the self-pub ebook market it's easier to publish quickly and perhaps ride trends (although there you are also facing a million similar writers also trying to ride the trend and self-pub is likewise very hard to succeed in financially speaking).
The main reason self-published authors sell so many ebooks is they price them within the broader market for digital goods. The Big 5 intentionally killed that burgeoning market when they colluded to raise ebook prices so high you typically can buy hardcovers that have been out for two years for less than the ebook. Amazon knows going above $9.99 for an ebook means it will not sell well.
The "right" pricing for ebooks is an interesting topic and I tend to agree the Big 5 set them too high. Although at the same time the 0.99-$4.99 range popular in the self-pub market is too low to be sustainable for traditional publishers (and Amazon was selling ebooks at a loss to close up the market to competition and then raise the price down the line.) Personally think $9.99 is right. That's roughly a paperback price minus the cost of printing and shipping.
But pricing aside most self-pub authors, like most trying the traditional route, don't make much money at all or even lose money. It's hard out there!