Drowning in Slush: Laura Miller over at Salon looks at the brave new world of publishing... and is afraid. My Response? Don't Be Afraid. Get Vetted!

Yesterday over at Salon.com, Laura Miller published her article on the changes happening to the book publishing industry, "When Anyone Can Be A Published Author." It's a fascinating read.




She feels that as it gets harder for end-user readers to determine if a book is vanity or self-published versus having gone through the traditional gatekeepers of publishing (agents, editors, publishing houses) we will all be buried in an avalanche of slush - the drek books that might very well turn readers off from books entirely.

In fact, the article cites the wild statistic that last year more than three quarters of a million books were published non-traditionally. (incidentally, Publishers Weekly, when they reported this back in April, said that it was the first year these non-traditionally published books OUTNUMBERED books that came about the more old fashioned way (with someone besides the author and/or their kin willing to put their time, money, and reputation on the line for the project.)

The Salon article mentioned the studies that have shown that too many choices make people less adventurous in their sampling, rather than more, and I have to agree - if I was at the supermarket, and they were offering samples of 22 flavors of mustard, versus samples of 3 different kinds of mustard, I know I'd avoid the 22 flavor sample - too many options.

Miller makes the point that as the industry shifts, we may simply be exchanging one set of gate keepers for a new set - and she calls out bloggers and denizens of social media networks (I'm assuming my fellow facebook 'friends' and Twitter tweeps among them) as where the new power will rest.

But I'm frankly not sure I agree with that.

I don't think that the value of vetting will diminish as choice increases - on the contrary, I think the "brand" of quality will be more important than ever.

Readers will become more savvy, and will look at not just author names they know - "Ohh - Suzanne Collins wrote 'The Hunger Games' - I wanna read her latest!"

but they'll be looking at Editors -

"Ohh - Cheryl Klein edited 'Marcelo in the Real World' - I wanna read her latest!"

They'll be looking at Imprints -

"Ooh - Razorbill put out Jay Asher's '13 Reasons Why' - I wanna see what they do with Vampires!"

They'll be looking at established awards -

"Ooh - Laini Taylor's Lips Touch was a finalist for The National Book Award - I've gotta read that!"

And maybe even new awards -

"What did the book blogger's Cybils say about the best easy reader of 2009? Mo Willem's "Watch Me Throw The Ball! An Elephant and Piggie Book? I'm getting that for my kid!"

They'll look at reviews of the reviewers (print and blog and other media) that they like - Oh, What did Colleen Mondor like for boys in her last YA column over at Bookslut? Francisco X. Stork’s 'The Last Summer of the Death Warriors?' Cool! I'm gonna read that next!

And perhaps most important - they'll listen to WORD OF MOUTH, which can now spread through blogs, facebook, twitter, and the like!

Already people are trying to 'game' the system - like the PR firm that got caught posting Fake 5 star 'reader' reviews to all their client's books on Amazon! (or this guy, who offered to pay people to write good reviews of a product they didn't even own!) Trust is key as we move forward, people!

Ultimately vetting - and the magic of hearing of a book in more than one place will drive readers to books... (Laini Taylor's Lips Touch was a National Book Award finalist, and it was also published by Arthur A. Levine Books, the same people who brought America the Harry Potter books, and I loved her book "Faeries of Dreamdark: Blackbringer - I'm reading that next!)

Yes, I know things are changing.

But good stories are still going to be written.

And readers are still going to want to find them.

And it may be Polly Anna of me, but I think these changes will actually create a way for the handful of self-published successes to rise through the slush and be VETTED alongside the traditionally published books - because no matter what they're reading the books on (ipads or e-readers or paper) that's what readers will be looking for - good stories that someone besides the author said were worth the time.

So as for me, I'm excited about our brave new future of writing, and reading...

What do YOU think?

Boys & Book Cover Shame: Will e-books get boys reading more?

So recently on the amazing twitter #kidlitchat that's on Tuesday nights (6pm west coast time), a discussion of e-books came up, and it was mentioned that Romance is the biggest selling category of e-books.

The theory was Book Cover Shame. The idea that it's embarrassing walking around with a book whose cover is pretty much the equivalent of you SCREAMING:

"I'm reading a bodice-ripping romance novel because I need more passion in my life!"

In contrast, an e-book is completely anonymous. You could be reading about Proust's remembering his pastry (Remembrance Of Things Past) or Orwell's dystopia (1984) - nobody knows what you're reading except you.

And I think that there's an amazing upside to this idea.

See, there's this parallel concept in Children's and especially Teen publishing that boys won't read books that they don't want to be seen with. Hence, boys won't read any books that "look" girly. And thus most of the marketing and promotion of Teen books - especially any books with female protagonists - skews towards girls, because they are the "readers." This makes "girl book" covers look even MORE girly, to appeal to girl readers.

Boys, if they read, are seen as reluctant, and only willing to read about boy protagonists on "manly" adventures. Boy book covers are macho.

Much of the time the cover art pretty much conveys to everyone if the book is considered a "girl book" or a "boy book." Look for yourself:

Girl covers:

Boy Covers:

But enter e-books. If I'm a 15 year old guy, I may LOVE vampire stories, but I don't necessarily want the other kids at school seeing me walking around carrying "Twilight." Especially after the movie and all those sparkly-in-the-sunlight Edward moments. Now I can read it. If I want to read "Wintergirls" or "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" - well, now I can. And nobody has to know, unless I tell them.

Think about what this means for GAY books. Boys AND girls can now carry around and read the amazing GLBTQ titles here on this blog anonymously.

Nobody will know if you're reading "The God Box" or "Gravity." Nobody will know if you're thinking about "can I be Gay and believe in God?" or if you're thinking about which Jonas Brother is cutest... err, most talented. If it's on your e-book, you could be reading ANYthing, and no one across the cafeteria would know.

E-books allow everyone access to stories and information in a way that's private. And there are moments as a teenager when I would have LOVED that level of privacy (After all, I read Anne McCaffrey's fantasy novels with girl protagonists!)

So while I love paper books (or as I recently heard someone call them, "the dead tree versions of books") I think there's quite an upside to this whole e-book transition.

And sure, I look forward to the day when anyone can carry around ANY book and not be embarrassed or made to feel bad about themselves because of what that book is. But for right here, right now? E-books mean that boys and girls are going to read more. Without fear of Book Cover Shame.

And that's a great thing.

What do you think? Have you ever experienced or seen Book Cover Shame in action? Do you think e-books might change that?

Namaste,
Lee