Woke publishers ‘paid huge sums for books that flopped’ - Times article

Yes, really, most of the literary fiction I pick up I don't really enjoy.

Although the Henrietta Lacks book isn't literary fiction.

Of course there are some that are really good, and some that are fine but not amazing, but overall I feel like they are often missing something that's still more commonly found in genre fiction. A kind of energy, maybe?

That isn't how it works.

Vanishingly few books win such staggering advances.

There's not a lot in the article tbh - especially the anonymous publishing quotes bitching about fellow employees. And if I didn't believe that the Bookscan figure for Tough Crowd covered all sales - which I didn't - then I don't believe it for other books too.

Not all books are successful. No kidding.

I find with good genre fiction the stories are more compelling, and the writing itself is as good or better than the literary fiction, without me being aware the whole time that this person is trying to write a Great Novel.

I don't think it's always been that way. Older literary fiction doesn't give me the same sense at all.

@TempestTost I've had very similar thoughts

The thing about reading a book, as opposed to interacting irl or on social, is that it is a solitary, anonymous and intimately individual thing. We read books silently and alone (audio listening aside). Readers can make far braver choices in book content than anywhere else. If you must agree publicly with your tribe that TWAW and Eliot is soo handsome and empowered now, you don't have to back that up with your pocketbook or your precious time. You can quietly get back to that bodice ripper with the dashing cad of a duke.

Invisible - in the former GDR books and films etc were censored, but apparently writers such as Christa Wolf found a way of writing that would satisfy the censors but which readers could read between the lines.
I don’t know how this was done and I’d love to know more about it but I can’t read German so my curiosity will remain unsatisfied.
Anyway, maybe writers will find a similar way round today’s rules.

Other students. The lecture had covered elements of diversity/representation in the literary topics we were analysing, among other things. This came up in the following seminar discussion, during which it was said both that books featuring only white people were bad, essentially, and that white authors shouldn't write non-white characters because it was appropriative. It wasn't the same student making both statements, but both were well-received by the group and not questioned or explored further by the lecturer facilitating the discussion. I had to say something about what I saw as an inconsistency! No, it turned out 'don't write at all' really was the only solution offered.

I know at least a couple of the students went on to work in publishing.

A long silence. The only responses I did get were of the opinion that actually lots of white women have published books already and I should just get out of the way and let 'diverse books' by 'diverse authors' be published instead. Seriously

Thats interesting Invisible. Was this opinion offered by the other students or the tutor?

Some years ago I took a postgrad course in a literature-based field where this debate came up. I asked this very question - if as a white person it's inappropriate for me to write characters of other races, but it's also wrong to write a story full of white characters, what do I do if I want to write novels?

A long silence. The only responses I did get were of the opinion that actually lots of white women have published books already and I should just get out of the way and let 'diverse books' by 'diverse authors' be published instead. Seriously.

@ScholesPanda It's many years since I worked in publishing, but from what I remember, the way books are sold internationally is more complicated than that.

Let's say you're an author. Your agent sells your MS to a publishing house. She (agent) may sell them world rights, meaning they can publish it anywhere, or she may sell them only UK rights, hoping to sell the other territories herself separately. (I think the countries are often grouped into territories, e.g North America for the US, Canada and Mexico.)

It would be ruinously expensive for a publisher to print loads of copies in their home country and ship them across the Atlantic. So if they have world rights, generally, their rights dept will try to sell foreign rights to publishers abroad. (This is quite a money-spinner and shows why you can't evaluate the profitability of a book on sales figures alone, as someone has done up thread. There are lots of other contributing factors including film & TV rights, etc)

if an American book isn't published here, it means no one has managed to sweet talk the UK publishers into buying it. But it may yet happen.

Excellent post Arthurbella.

Yes, sorry, I'm being a bit sarcastic.

The idea is that there are only some 'approved' writers. If you can't write as a white person about other races, and you can't include other races without being accused of appropriation, then the only logical solution for white writers is to ... not write.

I do understand some of the arguments, fwiw. That 'lived experience' does matter. I remember arrogantly writing about motherhood before I'd been a mother, for example, and that piece would now make me cringe very hard. I can see that argument applying to other areas that I can't and won't ever experience. And certainly there are lots of disadvantages within writing/publishing that make it harder for some voices to be heard, and those need to be addressed. Class, income, caring commitments, race, educational background, etc. Otherwise we risk having a very narrow sliver of the populace involved in the arts.

On the other hand, the whole exercise of fiction is an exercise in empathy and imagination. It's maybe not the 'end point', maybe it's a way to learn or reach an understanding even of our own blindspots and shortcomings.

The solution to this is not to issue approval permits to those who fit the proper criteria of an ever tightening purity spiral, but to encourage a plurality of voices so that we could all hear more and listen more and develop more tolerance and understanding. Cancel fewer writers; encourage more.

On a slight tangent, American Dirt is one of my favourite books. It really was written beautifully.

The race of the writers is the issue.

Sorry, I don’t understand. I thought that a white writer can only write about white people but then there are complaints about lack of diversity.

https://www.vidaweb.org/the-count/

Not done since 2019. I see they've widened it to include 'non binary' people and people of marginalised identities.

So, everyone.

VIDA count used to be good on the subject of sexism/women writers. No idea if they're still doing it.

You misunderstand. The subject matter isn't the issue.

The race of the writers is the issue.

BinturongsSmellOfPopcorn · Yesterday 22:29

'while white writers must avoid writing about non-white characters or risk being accused of cultural appropriation.'
But will also be criticised for having a too-white cast of characters (see Harry Potter).

This seems insoluble. Writer cannot write about races or nationalities other than their own but they must include a multi racial cast of characters.
How are writers to deal with this? I’d be interested to hear an answer from publishers.

Really? Barbara kingsolver, piranesi, Hilary mantel, (yes she’s dead but new works published in reasonably recent years) the wonderful life of Harriet lacks (a little older), and if I sat down to think hard many many others.

I know this is the feminism board but the article is not about gender identity it’s about race. The recent (slight) increase in books about and by non-white people and minority group experiences is absolutely not a bad thing!
American Dirt is on my to read pile. I did not know it was “cancelled” and I still fully intend to read it. The use of “woke” as an insult is confusing and meaningless. In the case of American dirt the “woke” publishers were not on the woke side and they (and their author) were roundly criticised for a form of cultural experience appropriation.
there are huge issues in the publishing industry but attacking those who try to diversify their portfolios is not something I can support in the name of being GC.

Which made me think 'Why pay someone $250,000 for a novel that you are only going to print in limited numbers in one market?'

Print runs are decided at the very last possible minute and are based on pre-orders and firm orders from major retailers, which also wait until the very last minute to finalise their numbers. As warehousing/printing is expensive, publishers tend to print the bare minimum, then go back to reprints if necessary, based on sales.

Advances, however, are calculated on an opaque formula along the lines of: number of books the Sales team think is realistically shiftable, plus kudos of being associated with Important New Voice, plus auction-based hysteria, plus agent hype, plus author's media profile, plus fear of not having a similar book on the list, plus profile uplift for editor/publisher, etc, etc. The first of these figures is more important in the calculation for normal writers' advances, hence UK average author advance being less than £7k. It goes out of the window when it comes to splashy Book Fair bunfights.

Exactly - if you look at booktok, where they’re all furiously buying books, including hardbacks, and film their videos in front of a whole wall of brightly coloured books, they’re fantasy, not supermarket autobiographies with a “could be anyone” black and white portrait photo on the cover and a big red sticker with £3 off.

Fans of Elliott Page and will probably gladly watch a 90 interview on a livestream or YouTube, but an autobiography seems quite “middle aged” as a genre, and middle aged people clearly couldn’t care less about EP’s transition journey.

Go woke, go broke!