Between the Covers

Tuesdays + Jason Pinter = The Man in Black

Jed Rubenfeld, John Twelve Hawks, and Janet Jackson (oh my!)

We all read it, digested it, talked about it, threw in our own opinions, and came away with the same prognosis. Of course I'm talking about yesterday's Wall Street Journal piece detailing that, for various reasons (few of which are explainable or quantifiable), the two most heavily-hyped debut novels of the fall season, Diane Setterfield's THE THIRTEENTH TALE and Jed Rubenfeld's THE INTERPRETATION OF MURDER, wound up following drastically different paths to success and failure. Both books received massive marketing budgets that anyone not named King, Patterson, Grisham or Cornwell would be envious of, both were the recipient of staggering advances for debut novelists, and both cost their respective publishers countless hours brainstorming and preparing for their launch.

Yet the facts remain. Rubenfeld's book barely scraped the bestseller list and, barring an unexpected boost or abnormally large paperback sales, will wind up heavily in the red. Setterfield's book became one of the precious few debut novels to land atop the New York Times bestseller list, and has its publisher swigging champagne and snorting cocaine through $1,000 bills (ok, maybe the last part isn't true).

So what happened? Nobody's really sure, except that it sure as hell happened. Of course this is merely the first such heavyweight bout of this ilk since the summer of 2005, when two other massively hyped debuts hit shelves. Like Rubenfeld's MURDER, John Twelve Hawks's THE TRAVELER just scraped the bestseller list and wound up with a gut-wrenching sell-through, while Elizabeth Kostova's THE HISTORIAN debuted at #1 and eventually tripled its already massive 350,000 copy first hardcover printing.

Now it's time to cut the bodies open and attempt an autopsy. I still contend that publishing dollars are far more valuable than those in other forms of media and entertainment, simply because they're much more scarce. The budget for the biggest bestseller is a mere drop in the bucket for your average art house flick, let alone mainstream film. and because every dollar must pull that much more weight, every cent wasted hurts that much more. I do think Sarah Weinman had an excellent point in Galleycat, saying that TALE appealed more towards women than MURDER (women buy more books than men, yadda yadda yadda). I could write a whole separate post on why men don't buy as many books, but I've already done that.

THE THIRTEENTH TALE had a terrific one-two promotional punch: First, the massive support from Barnes and Noble. Second, an innovative internet push that spread tremendous word of mouth (One can argue that the word of mouth was more about the promotion than the book, but regardless, it worked). It had massive presence in both brick and mortar stores as well as virtual ones. Not to mention the cover was roughly 1,000 times more effective, but that's my personal opinion.

Now when you look at THE TRAVELER and THE INTERPRETATION OF MURDER (neither of which I've read, so I won't make any critical evaluations, though the public's sentiment seemed to be, "Meh."), one thing is abundantly clear. When considering the large amount of ink both books received, a tremendous percentage of that ink was spilled in discussion of the business of publishing the books rather than the art of the books themselves. Discussing the marketing, promotion, and hype instead of the craftwork.

Now consider Janet Jackson's latest album, "20 Y.O." There's no debating that Janet has been everywhere over the last few weeks, appearing half-naked on the cover of countless magazines, flauting her fab bod and putting the ghost of Nipplegate to rest (note to self: THE GHOSTS OF NIPPLEGATE would be a great title for a book). Yet despite the fact that everyone has seen Janet in various forms of (un)dress, can anyone actually hum a few bars off a single track from the new album? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

And of course now come all the articles about the album's lack of success. Blaming it on everything under the sun. One thing they can't blame it on, like Rubenfeld and Hawks, is lack of exposure.

I'd like to call this the Cruisian Syndrome, named after the Katie-napper himself, who made such a spectacle during his promotion for "Mission Impossible: 3" that people ignored the film and spent their time discussing the actor. The film flopped, which led to one of the most humiliating public lashings ever. In comparison, every article about Janet has said something along the lines of, "Wow, Janet sure looks fabulous! How does she look so fabulous at forty? I bet it has nothing to do with her ability to pay for the best personal trainers and nutritional supplements money can buy!" (ok, I made that last part up). But still, nobody talked about the music. They saw her bod, knew she was still chugging along, but didn't cough up the dough. She sold a lot of magazines, but not too many CDs.

Sometimes it's hard, being so far inside the industry, to view things from an outsider's perspective. I know what the big books are every season simply because I read all the trade wrap ups, read all the industry magazines, hear most of the gossip, and spend the majority of my week hanging around people who talk about books. But what about John and Jane Q Public? How do they know what the big books are? How do they know which books are actually good, and which books just look pretty in the front of the store? Reading about advances and foreign rights and co-op won't tell them, and for the most part they don't care. If hype was as easy as that, we'd just wrap every book in a picture of Janet and watch Bookscan go through the roof.

We'll never come up with a precise formula. I don't think there is one (though Malcolm Gladwell might disagree). Still, though, I can't help but think there has to be a better way. And unless we focus on the canvas instead of the brushes, people just won't care about the art.

Jason Pinter

author of THE MARK

coming July 2007 from MIRA Books

The Man in Black blog

Comments

[Lorra Laven]

If there's one thing we women have in common, it's the gift of gab. We love to talk . . . about everything. The majority of books that I have read this year have been recommended to me by other women. Marketing campaigns, as far as I'm aware, had no influence on my reading choices -- and I'm a voracious reader.

If publishers could dissect and learn from the spontaneous, one-line blurbs women exchange with one another -- often as quick asides to the subject at hand -- I believe they would have discovered that elusive pot of gold.

One other thought: in reading the Wall Street Journal's account of the marketing debacle, I noticed that "Interpretation" has some smutty sex. Ick, ick and ick. Most of the women I know would find erotica very appealing but smut would be a cause for instant rejection. MJ writes good erotica. Most men, oddly enough, don't. Could it be they really don't know what we want? Hah!

[Bill Cameron]

Here's a nugget of data for the post-mortem. I read a lot. I buy a lot of books. I glance through publications about books when I can. I'm a book guy.

This is the first I've heard of either of these books.

I don't think I live in a cave, and one can reasonably argue my focus hasn't been as broad this past year as it was in the past, but still, I wonder. Am I an outlier, or evidence of just how hit-and-miss book promotion can be? How did I miss even hearing about these?

As a debut novelist who won't get that kind of promotional push, I have to admit that the statement, "unless we focus on the canvas instead of the brushes, people just won't care about the art," resonates. I'll be doing my bit, wandering around waving my arms and saying, "Lookit me!" But I know my best hope is that the book develops traction on its own terms. For me, it's all about the canvas, because heaven knows no one wants to see my midriff.

This brings up the question, how are these debut publishing events chosen? If, as you say, the public reaction has been "Meh," then it seems there is another factor at work, or many other factors. What are they? Did these writers have some Unique Selling Proposition distinct from the books? Are they gorgeous, telegenic, have photos of some VP of Marketing performing indiscretions? What makes a writer into an event in the minds of a publisher?

[Allison Brennan]

I always enjoy your posts, Jason, but this is one of the best.

I agree with Lorra: women talk. Before I sold, my best friend, my mom and I traded books we loved. Now all the books are on ALL our auto-buy lists. My mom introduced me to most of my favorite authors today by talking to me about the books. I gave my best friend her first JD Robb before we knew she was Nora; she owns every book in the series (so do I). Virtually every one of my favorite authors was recommended to me by someone I trust. I'd never read Harlan Coben until Trish gave me TELL NO ONE. FABULOUS book. I've "discovered" a couple sleepers and I tell everyone about them.

Word of mouth sells books. Now, if we can just bottle that formula and sell it, but I don't think that's possible. It might work for one book, but not for the career of an author. If someone gets advice and hates the books, they won't trust the source again.

BTW, I did buy INTERPRETATION but I haven't read it yet. Blame Jim Rollins.

[Kalen Hughes]

I'm another book nut who's never heard of either of these books. *SHRUG* I got suckered into reading THE HISTORIAN (loaned to me thank god). "Meh" would be too kind a comment.