CCBC-Net Archives
BESTSELLER LIST AND HARRY 4
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Brenda.Bowen at simonandschuster.com <Brenda.Bowen>
Date: 06 Sep 2000 14:02:49 -0400
Just some points to ponder from this publishing person's point of view.
1. As many of you know, the NYT Bestseller list does not reflect actual sales. It reflects, rather, those titles that have been especially noteworthy at the cash registers of only a sampling of stores [independents, chains, speciality stores] in the count ry. In other words,
The Times calls these bookstores every week, asks the booksellers what has been selling briskly or what has jumped out at them, and then tallies the results. The Times list is therefore subjective, as its editor Chip McGrath would, I believe, freely admit, and reflects the tastes of book buyers in this country, rather than hard sales of books. The Times list has been of inestimable service in garnering wide attention for books handsold by independent booksellers. (For hard sales, from chain stores only, look at the Wall Street Journal list.)
2. In the days before the introduction of the children's list, many, many children's books regularly outsold the titles on the adult bestseller list. THE TRUE STORY OF THE THREE LITTLE PIGS was a serious trade bestseller but never appeared on the NYT list because it was solely for children. GOODNIGHT MOON is surely outselling 50% of the titles on the NYT list but because it's backlist and so child oriented it will never appear. All the GOOSEBUMPS titles exponentially outsold anything on the Adult Paperback list but never graced the Times list. (R. L. Stine did appear -- in the #2 slot for an entire year-- on the Wall Street Journal list, between King and Grisham.)
3. Authors and agents are often advanced additional money from their publishers when their books hit the NYT list. When HARRY was sitting in the #1, #2, #3, and #4 spot on the NYT list, it is rumored that there were many unhappy, bonusless adult authors and agents.
4. It's a given, therefore, that many bestselling and noteworthy children's books that have outsold adult books never had the opportunity to appear on any NYT list
-- until now. I am one of the publishers who feels that the NYT list for children, in what ever configuration they choose to print it, is a GOOD thing for children's literature and for children's books. Maybe you won't see OH, THE PLACES YOU'LL GO or HARRY POTTER on the Times list in your local paper, but those of us who are lucky enough to receive the Times Book Review every Sunday will see a greater breadth and depth of children's books than ever before.
Now for a little word on HARRY POTTER #4.
There was an article in some national publication (was it Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal?) complaining that in the world of HP there is no *greater* good or
*greater* evil. This is what sets the books at a notch lower (said this reviewer) than C. S. Lewis or Tolkein.
I am interested in others' opinions of this idea.
Brenda Bowen Children's Publisher Simon & Schuster
Received on Wed 06 Sep 2000 01:02:49 PM CDT
Date: 06 Sep 2000 14:02:49 -0400
Just some points to ponder from this publishing person's point of view.
1. As many of you know, the NYT Bestseller list does not reflect actual sales. It reflects, rather, those titles that have been especially noteworthy at the cash registers of only a sampling of stores [independents, chains, speciality stores] in the count ry. In other words,
The Times calls these bookstores every week, asks the booksellers what has been selling briskly or what has jumped out at them, and then tallies the results. The Times list is therefore subjective, as its editor Chip McGrath would, I believe, freely admit, and reflects the tastes of book buyers in this country, rather than hard sales of books. The Times list has been of inestimable service in garnering wide attention for books handsold by independent booksellers. (For hard sales, from chain stores only, look at the Wall Street Journal list.)
2. In the days before the introduction of the children's list, many, many children's books regularly outsold the titles on the adult bestseller list. THE TRUE STORY OF THE THREE LITTLE PIGS was a serious trade bestseller but never appeared on the NYT list because it was solely for children. GOODNIGHT MOON is surely outselling 50% of the titles on the NYT list but because it's backlist and so child oriented it will never appear. All the GOOSEBUMPS titles exponentially outsold anything on the Adult Paperback list but never graced the Times list. (R. L. Stine did appear -- in the #2 slot for an entire year-- on the Wall Street Journal list, between King and Grisham.)
3. Authors and agents are often advanced additional money from their publishers when their books hit the NYT list. When HARRY was sitting in the #1, #2, #3, and #4 spot on the NYT list, it is rumored that there were many unhappy, bonusless adult authors and agents.
4. It's a given, therefore, that many bestselling and noteworthy children's books that have outsold adult books never had the opportunity to appear on any NYT list
-- until now. I am one of the publishers who feels that the NYT list for children, in what ever configuration they choose to print it, is a GOOD thing for children's literature and for children's books. Maybe you won't see OH, THE PLACES YOU'LL GO or HARRY POTTER on the Times list in your local paper, but those of us who are lucky enough to receive the Times Book Review every Sunday will see a greater breadth and depth of children's books than ever before.
Now for a little word on HARRY POTTER #4.
There was an article in some national publication (was it Harold Bloom in the Wall Street Journal?) complaining that in the world of HP there is no *greater* good or
*greater* evil. This is what sets the books at a notch lower (said this reviewer) than C. S. Lewis or Tolkein.
I am interested in others' opinions of this idea.
Brenda Bowen Children's Publisher Simon & Schuster
Received on Wed 06 Sep 2000 01:02:49 PM CDT
