Short Attention Spans? Publishers love them.

Ron at Galleycat links to an interesting piece in the NY Observer about the economics of short fiction and the evident reticence of many publishers to break up anthologies and make their component parts available on their own.

It's an interesting expose about the apparent lack of joined up thinking in the publishing business.  In particular the fact that we are told that nowadays everyone has a short attention span but at the same time novels are getting longer and longer and short fiction is seen as the preserve of the cool kids that are interested in emerging talent.

You can feel the clash of philosophies in this kind of discussion. 

On the one hand, there are real social changes affecting the marketplace and if it's true that people have shorter attention spans then it would make perfect sense to invest in promoting short fiction as a medium.

On the other hand, it's not clear that the old business models are actually failing.  According to the Guardian, not only did spending on books increase by 4.5% last year but the value of retail book sales is projected to increase by 13.6% between 2008 and 2012.

The truth is that there is no clash of philosophies, no changing demographics and no threat to the business models.  The publishers have us right where they want us.

You see... while publishers want us to buy books, they don't particularly care whether we finish them.  Indeed, if we don't finish them it arguably works out better for them because then we go out and buy more books.

1. Authors are encouraged to churn out longer books with less editorial oversight.
2. Said books are hyped.
3. People buy said books.
4. People get bored of said books halfway through.
5. Return to step 1.

The fact is that longer books increase the perception of value and so publishers can get away with charging more.  Every year we edge that little bit closer to the £10 paperback and the standardisation of the £20 hardback.  Are books getting any better for it?  of course not.

Have you ever heard of someone who gave up reading books?  I refused to buy into the current generation of consoles and this, in effect, meant that I gave up videogames back in 2006.  How many bad books in a row would it take for you to just give up on reading as a hobby?

I think the last book I read that I was completely happy about was Derek Raymond's Eyes Wide Open and before that it was probably Carlotto's The Goodbye Kiss and McDonald's Brasyl.  During that period I've read maybe 20 books.  That's a 15% hit rate.  Yet it would be unthinkable for me to give up reading the way I gave up videogames. 

Given what we know about attention spans and social changes, it would make perfect sense for the publishers to be pushing short fiction.  You'd think that by now there would be the equivalent of an iTunes for books where you could look up short stories by your favourite authors and download them or, have them printed on demand and shipped to you.  Does this exist?  of course not.  The publishers have an interest in longer, more expensive books and if people aren't finishing them because attention spans are shrinking at the same rate as editorial budgets then great... it just means that people will be in the market for more books.

What's worse is that the perception of value associated with large books cuts both ways.  While it encourages you to pay more for bigger books, it also causes you to think twice about buying shorter works.  For example, I recently purchased Jim Thompson's A Swell-Looking Babe.  It is 146 pages and costs nearly £7.  That's maybe £1 less than Geoff Ryman's The Child Garden (390 pages) and £2 less than Stephenson's The System of the World (886 pages).

So I wouldn't expect short attention spans to create a resurgence in short fiction.  Publishers are making too much money selling us longer books.

Comments

[Joe Sherry]

"I think the last book I read that I was completely happy about was Derek Raymond's Eyes Wide Open and before that it was probably Carlotto's The Goodbye Kiss and McDonald's Brasyl. During that period I've read maybe 20 books. That's a 15% hit rate. Yet it would be unthinkable for me to give up reading the way I gave up videogames."

Okay, but did you mostly enjoy the other books, mostly despise the other books...basically, what was your overall enjoyment level. Saying 15% hit rate seems a little misleading. I may not find too many books which work for me on all levels and I want to tell everybody about them (despite the fact that I have a blog), but on the whole my reading experiences are far more positive than negative.

Of course, I use and abuse the library rather than purchase books (my buying habits are extremely discriminating), but I think the point, if I have one, stands.

In regards to your larger point about longer books...is it so much larger books as it is series? Sure, the longer the series the more likely the later books inflate (what is that, anyway?), but I believe without any hard data that series are the driving force of publishing because the smaller first book sold well and publishers want more of a good (financial) thing so they keep pushing more of it. Length doesn't matter, I think.

I don't have all of this well thought out.

[Jonathan M]

Hi Joe :-)

I'd say my reading experiences are actually mostly negative in that I think that most books are okay but massively flawed. Reading is quite a frustrating experience for me on that level. Admittedly it's not as bad as videogames were back in the day; before I gave up every game I played felt like an insult.

Admittedly, as you say, it's difficult to quantify any of this.

Initially, I wrote something about series and pointed out that The Wheel of Time, Dune and Amber have all outlived their original authors and I suggested that Discworld and A Song of Ice and Fire may well do the same. But I think that's a slightly different issue.

The point I was trying to make was that for all the talk of shorter attention spans, the truth is that publishers have no reason to adapt to those attention spans. In fact there may well be good economic reasons for working against them as shorter attention spans could well mean more books bought at higher prices.

[Joe Sherry]

True, and agreed. If attention spans apparently have no bearing on sales, there is no negative impact for the publisher, and potentially a positive impact (though I'm not convinced of that).

I just latched on one particular comment in your post. :)

[Joe Sherry]

Jonathan: One thing that doesn't make sense here...printing larger books COSTS more to the publisher. A 200 page book that has a sale price slightly less than the 600 page monster would have a higher per book profit margin (depending on how much the author got paid, publicity, etc).

Wouldn't that be why agents / publishers prefer shorter books from first time authors? Less cost = less risk?

[Jonathan M]

On an individual basis sure. But you have to look at prices as a whole.

The explosion in longer books may well increase costs, but that upward pressure on prices also applies to shorter books. Simply put, because you are charging more for longer books, you can start charging more for shorter books too.

Consider the book in the original post £7 for a 146 page novel. Even if new authors are pushed into shorter novels (something I'm not sure applies across the board)these are shorter novels that cost far more than they used to.