Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No one buys books

elysian.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 752 posts

Re: No one buys books

#241

Post by wolverine876 »

iamacyborg wrote: post #68
yreg wrote: post #51

I recently started buying paper books. Yes, it's not particularly ecological, but I found that I'm able to focus at the text much better this way. My Kindle (despite plenty of obvious advantages) just doesn't really work for me. It took me years to realize this, but I always start to tinker with the brightness settings, switch pages back and forth, go into the book library and back, play with highlighting words, etc.…

Paper books are also just orders of magnitude easier to flip through and re-read specific chapters, paragraphs or sections. I can skim through a shelf full of books in a way that I’m just not able to with ebooks, even with stuff like full text search available in Calibre.

> Paper books are also just orders of magnitude easier to flip through and re-read specific chapters, paragraphs or sections.

Whatever works for you, of course. PDFs have bookmarks, which instantly take me to a specific spot on a specific page. Also, I can open multiple instances of the PDF, viewing multiple pages of the same book (or some PDF readers allow split screens to do the same thing). Edit: And if I don't recall where something is, I can search for it.

Re: No one buys books

#242

Post by hintymad »

yreg wrote: post #51

I recently started buying paper books. Yes, it's not particularly ecological, but I found that I'm able to focus at the text much better this way. My Kindle (despite plenty of obvious advantages) just doesn't really work for me. It took me years to realize this, but I always start to tinker with the brightness settings, switch pages back and forth, go into the book library and back, play with highlighting words, etc.…

Same here. I'm not sure if it's psychological. When reading my Kindle, I have to constantly fight my urge to do something else, maybe except for reading a page-turner novel.

Re: No one buys books

#243

Post by wolverine876 »

alexpetralia wrote: post #128
skydhash wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use my iPad and my Kobo for digital reading. I have paper version of "important" books (stuff I'd like to read if I don't have power), but some are unwieldy (Algorithms by Cormen et Al). I prefer e-ink for reading, but it's too slow for my learning workflow. I highlight and mark interesting stuff, that I export later to condense and reflect upon. And that is cumbersome on an e-reader. There's also the matter of siz…

I recommend the Fujitsu Quaderno. Great for marking up textbooks on A4 size pages, and far lighter than a book itself.

Will you be able to read those textbooks and markups in 10 or 20 years, if Fujitsu stops making Quadernos?

Re: No one buys books

#244

Post by AtlasBarfed »

paxys wrote: post #101

Can't help but feel for the publishing industry considering how shafted they got by tech. You distribute books all over the country? Amazon can do it better and cheaper. You print books? Well we have e-books now. You have a massive back catalog? Google just scanned all of it. You do marketing? Authors now have their own followings on social media and can reach them directly. You give cash advances? Fans on Kickstarte…

Copyright law is ridiculous and abusive (thank you supreme court).

There is some role for domain knowledge, curation, and editing, but the article shows that's not what they make bucjs on: celebrity drivel, bibles, sat prep, and the copyright monopoly.

It's just a cartel, just like the music labels are.

Re: No one buys books

#245

Post by tptacek »

bachmeier wrote: post #193

The headline isn't accurate. "No One Buys Most Books" maybe, but the article talks about books that sell more than 300,000 copies in a year. 90% of books sell fewer than 2000 copies in a year, but 2000 is actually a decent number, especially considering it will be a lot more than 2000 over the lifetime of the book. There's more to this as well. You have to factor in that a lot of people write books because they want…

The article doesn't say these books sell 2000 copies a year; it says they sell 2000 copies, period. Generously assume a $30 new release hardcover cost ("The City Is Up For Grabs", the most recent book I bought, cost $25) and a 20% gross margin for the publisher, and you're talking $35k total to split between the publisher and the author.

It does talk about celebrity books selling some low number of copies within the year of publication. Presumably those books do keep selling at some level for some long tail of the book being in print. But unless books are utterly unlike all other media, 80-90% of the proceeds from selling the book will come during the new release window.

Re: No one buys books

#246

Post by AlbertCory »

tptacek wrote: post #214
AlbertCory wrote: post #58

I've asked a number of agents online for two numbers: 1) How many unsolicited queries have you received, in whatever time period you like: month, quarter, year, forever? 2) How many turned into published books? None will provide that data, but I strongly suspect that the answer to #2 is "zero." They'll happily quote you BS quantities, like "a bunch" or "a handful." So as this article says, they spend their time chasi…

I don't think this is what the article says at all. It says that publishers make all their money celebrities and the backlist, and that those titles pay for all the midlist titles, most of which don't recoup their advances. It's not like publishers can simply decide to focus on new and midlist authors. The books that sell, sell. The top line of this article is well described by its title.

No, you're quite mistaken. The agents try to divine what the publishers want, which is, as you said, "celebrities [and the backlist], and that those titles pay for all the midlist titles, most of which don't recoup their advances."

> It's not like publishers can simply decide to focus on new and midlist authors

who said anything about what they should or shouldn't do?

But since you brought it up: the same applies to the music business, as Ted Gioia (my original source). At one time in history, everyone in the music business was focused on selling more music, so nurturing and promoting new artists was good business. They didn't simply look at "what are people buying now?"

Re: No one buys books

#247

Post by AlbertCory »

kyleyeats wrote: post #71
AlbertCory wrote: post #58

I've asked a number of agents online for two numbers: 1) How many unsolicited queries have you received, in whatever time period you like: month, quarter, year, forever? 2) How many turned into published books? None will provide that data, but I strongly suspect that the answer to #2 is "zero." They'll happily quote you BS quantities, like "a bunch" or "a handful." So as this article says, they spend their time chasi…

You used to pitch your book to publishers. Now you pitch your audience.

I think that's true, actually.

Re: No one buys books

#248

Post by wolverine876 »

mysteria wrote: post #120
bjelkeman-again wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this idea for a hard science fiction story that I have been thinking about for years. Nobody else is going to write it, so I started. 20 000 words in my beta readers say it is good, so I think I will continue. And I don’t expect to sell it, but I want to know what happens and so do the beta readers. So on we go.

You really have to write it for yourself if you want to keep going - unless you're lucky or have a large following already it's hard to get a lot of readers. I've written stories and serials and posted them on social media, my personal site, etc. (I release them as Creative Commons works) and few people read them. Self-published authors who want to make a living typically have to do a lot of promotion to get a chance…

Many successful artists in any medium say they create things for themselves; it's more a compulsion than a business activity. Some are lucky that others like it; some are even luckier that others like it during the creator's lifetime; the luckiest even make money from it!

Re: No one buys books

#249

Post by IlliOnato »

gizmo wrote: post #42
joshuamcginnis wrote: post #38

I'm currently writing a book about independent thinking and I have zero expectations that it will sell even a single copy. However, the net gain I will get from having completed the goal of writing the book is invaluable to me personally.

I have read a couple of books on that subject and they all disappointed. I will gladly buy your book if it's original work.

Same here

Re: No one buys books

#250

Post by tptacek »

AlbertCory wrote: post #246
tptacek wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is what the article says at all. It says that publishers make all their money celebrities and the backlist, and that those titles pay for all the midlist titles, most of which don't recoup their advances. It's not like publishers can simply decide to focus on new and midlist authors. The books that sell, sell. The top line of this article is well described by its title.

No, you're quite mistaken. The agents try to divine what the publishers want, which is, as you said, "celebrities [and the backlist], and that those titles pay for all the midlist titles, most of which don't recoup their advances." > It's not like publishers can simply decide to focus on new and midlist authors who said anything about what they should or shouldn't do? But since you brought it up: the same applies to…

I have what the article says to go on, and the article contradicts you. But I know a bit more about the music industry, and it is absolutely the case that midlist music acts don't --- and never did --- generate enough record sales to cover their nut. There's a famous Steve Albini zine article that indicts the recording industry for never recouping an advance, and a less famous David Lowery article that explains why nobody could reasonably expect any of these titles to recoup.

It may be that we don't disagree at all, and are just talking past each other? At any rate: my only point here is, like startup investing and the music industry, we're talking about a hits business. And they aren't hits businesses because a cabal of cigar-chomping executives wants them to be that; they're that way because the median investment never recoups, and so the winners have to pay for the losers.

Post reply on HN