Do
we really have too many books?
It’s
a question I wrestle with. I know we
have too many books that go unread, unpurchased, unpromoted. We simply lack the number of readers – and
reading hours – to have all books get the exposure they deserve.
But
how many is the right number to publish?
Is the real issue not as to how many books are out there, but rather of
what quality these books are?
Additionally, what system is in place for people to discover – or find –
the best, relevant, and latest books?
The
information explosion was taking place long before self-publishing and new
technology came on the scene. If you go
back almost 40 years ago, The UNESCO Statistical Yearbook ’78-79, showed that
608,000 books were published globally in 1977 – which represented a huge jump
from prior years. In 1970, 521,000
titles were published. That number
jumped 9% in five years to 568,000 in 1975 – and another 7% two years after
that. In just 20 years, from 259,000 titles
in 1955, to 1975 with 568,000, the number of books released annually across the
globe doubled.
Now
add in the advent of personal computers, cheaper printing, self-publishing, and
digital books, and you have millions of new books flooding our planet’s markets. Plus you have increased numbers of reprints,
translations, and books that never go out of print due to digital and
print-on-demand services.
It’s
safe to say there are too many books published but how would we decide which
ones need to be removed and never given a chance to be released?
It
used to be the job of just a handful of major book publishers who determined
what got published. That may have had
some advantages but of course many felt displaced by a system that was
perceived as political, self-serving, and unfair.
Then
things swung the other way. One can
publish anything, anytime. No permission necessary. No big money required. Just click and it’s up for sale. But because anyone can do it, they have. Many anyones publish a book without proper editing, sufficient promotions, good marketing analysis, or taking into consideration consumers' needs.
We
need a balance – you don’t want a gate keeper, but a standard needs to be
set. You don’t want everyone with an
idea to simply jot it into a book without taking some serious considerations of its quality.
But
once we get many decent books published each year, we’ll still be left with
far more than we can handle. The
question is, how do we inform the reading public – in a fair, honest, and
accurate way – about what’s available?
What responsibility is to be required of publishers or authors to
eventually withdraw a book and put it off the market?
We’ve
been flooded with books since the invention of printing in 1456. In 1822, a statistician calculated that
during the first four centuries of printing, the number of works printed
escalated quickly.
While
42,000 works were printed in the first century, 575,200 came the following
century, and then 1,225,000 in the third century, and 1,839,960 in the fourth
century. I can’t imagine what the newest
century holds globally, but it’s sure to exceed 100,000,000 just in the US
alone.
No
one should act as a censor or book banner, so how do we get to restrain the
number of books published? It has to be a voluntary thing that’s encouraged by
fellow writers. Yes, writers should
peer-pressure their fellow writers and convince them that they should each dig
deep to determine if their book warrants publication. Is it needed?
Is it in its best shape?
It
can’t be the government that dictates what gets published.
It can’t
be egotistical authors who get to green-light anything that comes to mind.
The
book industry should create standards and benchmarks to help writers determine
if they should publish their book. These
standards should be promoted and hopefully accepted by writers and book
industry professionals.
Though
I’m encouraging we craft a voluntary litmus test to help everyone determine
what warrants publication, I also acknowledge that no one has to pay attention
to this. We’re a free nation, and to
limit the voice of one is to control the voice of all. But I just hope common sense prevails and the
writers collectively see that in order for good books to gain readership and
media traction we’ll need to reduce the number of books that don’t deserve
attention and serve as a distraction to the process of finding the right books.
I
would think a book should be published where it is well-written, serves a need
or desire, doesn’t provide lies or factual errors, promotes an important
message, compares favorably to its competing titles, and potentially inspires,
informs, enlightens, or entertains.
Books that shouldn’t be published would fall into any number of
categories -- mainly that they are not well-written or edited, seem to be no
different than what’s out there, or come from writers who seem to lack
significant credentials.
Whatever
the quality and quantity of books to be published this coming year and beyond,
this will all be determined by authors who must self-regulate and keep the book
industry safe from saturation. In order
for many books to survive – or thrive – some will need to be sacrificed.
Search
your writing soul: Should your book be published? You decide, so think carefully about it.
Please Click On The Best Out Of 2,100 Posts
2016 Book Marketing & Book Publicity Toolkit
2015 Book Marketing & PR Toolkit
2014 Book Marketing & PR Toolkit
Book Marketing & Book PR Toolkit: 2013
Named one of the best book marketing blogs by Book Baby
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.