Mysterious Matters: Mystery Publishing Demystified

Is Your Self-Confidence Helping Your Career?

Over the last few months, I have been dealing with a fair amount of "attitude" on the part of writers - mostly, but not exclusively, of the unpublished variety.

First, I expressed interest in a manuscript and emailed the writer with some questions. He answered snippily, telling me that I was to take his manuscript as is, as he wasn't willing to make any changes. Because the manuscript had potential but was average at best, I simply deleted his response. Then, while attending a conference, I encouraged a writer who had a terrific idea and asked her to send me the manuscript. (Note: This was a writer who does not have an agent, or who did not have one at the time we spoke.) Her response: "If I'm going to give it to a small publisher, I might as well publish it myself." Finally, I spoke with an author whose first book was a moderate success but whose work in progress is far below the standard set by the first book. Author's response to me: "Well, this is what I want to do."

Excuse me?

Listen, I feel your pain. I understand your frustration. This is an unpredictable - and often downright flaky industry. There are plenty of frauds out there who don't know what they're doing and who sell you a bundle of dreams while taking your money. But, to take the above experiences in order:

#1 - If you queried me about publishing your book, doesn't that mean you want to work with a professional editor and publisher?

#2 - If you don't have an agent, and a convention has paid for a reputable small press editor (i.e., me) to attend, don't you think you might want to at least explore the possibilities, in the EXTREMELY LIKELY case that you can't find an agent to take you on and you DON'T get signed by Knopf?

# 3 - If the advice I've offered has helped make your first book a success, why would my advice suddenly become useless as you're writing your next book?

What it all comes down to, I'm sorry to say, is the idea that vanity publishing/self-publishing is the path to all writer's goals. I've ridden this hobby horse before, and I know it's controversial, so I won't get into that - as I'm not going to change anybody's mind about it, and nobody is going to change mine.

But I'm trying to make a specific point here: EVERY WRITER NEEDS AN EDITOR. I know these blog posts at Mysterious Matters would be better if I had someone read and comment on them before I hit the "publish" key. And sometimes when I read earlier posts, I fixate on all the ways they could have been better, if I'd asked for some feedback from someone I respect.

All of the above scenarios have one truism at their core: "I, the writer, know best. I don't need professional guidance in terms of my career or manuscript. If nobody out there wants my piece of perfection, then I'll publish it myself and make all the money."

My friends, that is the approach of a narcissistic amateur. Your book isn't about YOU. It's about whether READERS want to buy it or not.

Every professional - including every professional writer - knows that he or she cannot do it alone. If your manuscript keeps getting rejected, it's for a reason that almost any of us who work in this industry could summarize in one sentence. Are you really going to grow in your craft by thinking that there's nothing anyone can teach you?

It's true, when I get query letters in which the writer tells me about his or her membership in a writer's group, I sometimes roll my eyes - because who's to say whether the people in the group have good taste or not? BUT: this signals to me that the writer wants to be commercially successful. S/he wants to understand how readers perceive the work and whether s/he is accomplishing her goals. In essence, the writer is saying: I want this to be the best it can be, and I can't do that alone.

And to those people I say: You are the successful novelists of tomorrow.

(Enraged readers may now commence to send me nasty emails about painting all vanity published authors with one brush; regale me with tales of 50 Shades of Gray and professional publishers not knowing their asses from a hole in the ground; etc.)

The Joys of 1-Star Reviews

I recently read a (published) book that I found awful. It was a book I rejected a number of years ago, and the intervening years had not improved it.Trite, poorly written, terribly plotted... and with about 100 four- and five-star reviews on Amazon. And yet, among the raves, a couple of dozen one- and two-star reviews were interspersed. These were the reviews that made me think: Ah, I am not alone. There are other astute readers who saw what I saw, felt what I felt.

I think all of us who toil in this business have been enraged by one-star reviews every now and again. I advise all writers to prepare for them, to avoid reading them until they are emotionally ready to do so (which, in some cases, is never), and to hold their tongues and avoid whipping off an angry response. It's an unpleasant fact of the creative life that by putting work out there, you are opening yourself up to criticism from anyone who feels like giving it. Getting uptight about bad reviews is akin to Hollywood celebrities punching out the paparazzi. You want the fame, you want the recognition, you want the sales - you have to put up with it.

Of course, some of this is easier said than done, particularly when you are dealing with reviews that spread misinformation, mislead others, and/or seem based on a personal vendetta. So, I thought I would offer some of the joys of one-star reviews.

1. They give your book credibility. I think many of us have seen books with (say) ten reviews on Amazon, all five-star.  I think most savvy readers know that most or all of these five-star reviews are from friends and relatives. Once you get a few 1- or 2-star reviews in there, you know that the world at large has started to read your book, and that not everyone liked it. That's OK... reading fiction is a subjective experience. I personally gravitate toward reading 3-star reviews first, as I find that those reviews often offer pros and cons about the book. Those reviews often also have an objectivity about them that I respond well to.

2. They show that you've challenged your readership.  If I had to make a list of the top three things that bug me about modern publishing, this would be one of them: In our effort to publish books that will be all things to all people, we homogenize them and remove the elements that (in previous generations) made for provocative reading. Think about the reasons one often sees for a one-star review:

• The political point of view made me sick!  This is a goddamned liberal/conservative book written by a jerk/idiot/right-winger/left-winger. 1 Star!
• I didn't like the main character.  I want someone just like me as the protagonist. I didn't agree with the choices s/he made and I am really irritated that s/he chose Suitor #1 over Suitor #2.  1 Star!
• This book made me uncomfortable. It raised questions about serious issues like teen pregnancy/same-sex marriage/war/the environment. I just wanted a fun read, and instead I got all this heavy stuff. 1 Star!
• This book was too light. I like books with heavy characterization and intricate plots. This cozy was downright silly, with not fully developed characters. 1 Star!
• The book was all right, but it would have been better if it were told in third person rather than first person. I don't like 1st person narratives. 1 Star!

Now imagine that you are a publisher and you attempt to publish only those manuscripts that will pre-empt all of the criticisms in the bulleted list above. What do you end up with?  Pablum. Schlock. Defanged, milquetoast, dull-as-dishwater books by committee.  And, my friends, I think you would agree that we are seeing a lot of that these days. (I spent a few hours at a local B&N yesterday. Don't get me started on the books displayed on the tables near the door.)

3. They make the good reviews that much sweeter. I remember my philosophy class at university many years ago, and the idea that we can know something only by its opposite. So, a few 1-star reviews make that thoughtful five-star review all the sweeter.

Case in point: A few years ago, one of my authors sent me a review that had been published in a small literary journal - not the type of publication that would normally review a mystery or suspense book. This particular book was one of my problem children: I loved it and published it enthusiastically, knowing it was going to be a tough sell because it was so challenging. And we did get our share of 1-star, puzzled and angry reviews. However, the author was over the moon with delight about this particular review, which amounted to a rave. The author said to me, "Agatho, with all the reviews I've had on this book, I feel that this reviewer is the only one who actually understood what I was attempting to do, who heard what I was trying to say."

Yes - yes - yes. I would never publish a book without knowing consciously what the author is trying to do or say. This is not to imply that every book has a serious purpose: The goal might be, simply, "I want to take people away for a few hours and give them a heroine they'll love." But the best writers know what they are trying to accomplish; and the more serious the writer, the more often there will be more to it than that. For the book I'm talking about, the writer was challenging readers to examine their own assumptions on a few matters - and this reviewer saw that and responded to it. For the author, and for me, this helped us continue to think about the book as a minor triumph rather than the not-so-successful (commercially) book that it was. Of course, we are an independent publisher and can look at books this way from time to time (though we wouldn't want it to happen too often). 

This gets at the different review journals and what they mean. A good review in PW means that the book has a good chance of succeeding, and merit is not necessarily a part of that success.  A good review in LJ means the book will likely appeal to the typical reader who patronizes libraries. A good review in Kirkus means the writing is good and the book will likely pass muster among difficult critics. A good review in the New York Times means someone, somewhere, has tapped into the network.

4. They can make us feel superior.  I don't advocate developing a sense of superiority over reviews as a general course of action, but occasionally - being able to laught at the foolishness of certain reviews can help the development of perspective. When a review is written in all lower-case - composed in sentence fragments - when it reviews based on the first ten pages - These are all reasons to think: This is America: The Stupid are allowed a voice, and they are exercising their right.

5. Sometimes they're right. There are a lot of good books published, and a lot of bad ones. Well-written, cogently argued one-star reviews can help readers spend their money in better places. 

 

It's All Subjective

I can never fully understand the ebbs and flows of queries. The last couple of weeks have been fertile. As I've been reading through them, I've found myself doing what I usually do: dismissing some immediately, examining others, asking for a full manuscript or two.

A lot of industry professionals say this, but I think it bears repeating: The fact that I've rejected your query does not necessarily mean it isn't good. Sometimes it means that, yes. But many times it means the book isn't right for me. Here are the some of the reasons I've done rejections over the last couple of weeks:

1-Book was a historical mystery. I usually don't see historicals as an easy sell to readers.

2-Book focused on a cold case. I don't like books that open with cold cases. For me, they lack immediacy and drive. It's hard enough to get readers interested in something that's happening here and now; digging way into the past is even more of a stretch.

3-Writing was good, characters were weak. This particular manuscript had a lot of potential but I had to reject it on the basis of the flat and/or stereotypical characters.

4-Protagonist is amoral or immoral, or appears to be so. Readers need someone to like, to root for. And over the years I've been amazed by the reasons that readers will turn against a protagonist, for fairly small infractions or moral hiccups. Even in the hardest-boiled books, the best protags have strong moral centers and a desire to do justice or help the downtrodden.

5-Book required too much suspension of disbelief. This one is really tricky. Genre fiction is fiction - strange things happen that wouldn't happen in real life - but the question for any writer is: What can you really get away with before the book breaks with reality too much for readers to continue accepting it?

6-Manuscript had no "hook." The manuscript I'm thinking about was well written, well plotted, and had good characters. But it was so... standard. It was competent, which is an interesting word. So much of what I see is incompetent, so competence is lovely. But it isn't enough.

And, finally, the rejection that pains me the most:

7-I liked it, but I don't think reviewers will. Too quirky, too off the beaten path, too much of an uphill climb to get readers (and reviewers) to give it a fair shake. 

 

 

Time for a Reality Check

Recent events and conversation have caused me to take a step back and consider a few things. Nothing I haven't thought about before, but it helps for me to remind myself of certain eternal truths. So I thought I'd share them here.

1. This industry is not a meritocracy. That's the hardest truth to swallow. And I don't mean just writers - I mean editors, publishers, agents, publicists, etc. I think we have the same bell curve that most industries do: some really bad people, a lot of decent or average people, some stellar people. Think about the ramifications of this statement. Average editors/publishers may not be particularly good about recognizing good writing or books that are likely to take off, which means books get signed for all the wrong reasons. Average or below-average agents mean that works aren't represented well, correctly, or enthusiastically. In sum: Life, and publishing, are not fair.

2. Bad reviews mean your book is being read.  In a recent post I expressed some frustration regarding bad reviews that seemed vindictive, that appeared to have a not-so-hidden agenda. But if you look at the social media sites where readers post reviews, you'll often see a pretty wide variety of rankings, from 5 stars all the way down to 1. People seem to be freaking out about bad reviews lately - and I admit I had a conniption about one of them recently, myself. (Why are we all so hysterical about this topic lately?)  But now that I have had time to cool down, I am reminded of what we have always told ourselves and our authors: Bad reviews happen. Deal with them. And count on readers' good judgment to be able to separate good, honest reviews from reviews written by idiots, people with an agenda, and so on.

3. A bad review doesn't mean a book is bad.  A good review doesn't mean a book is good.  Think of phenom books like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I know several people, whom I respect, who hated it. I know a few people who ate up the Shades of Gray series.  Reviews have to be placed in context. Publishers Weekly is the industry organ; its reviews are often based on how it thinks the book will be received, or how well the book will do, rather than on the quality of the book. (Case in point: I just read a truly, truly terrible book that received a starred and boxed review in PW.) Library Journal is geared toward the average American, the average library goer, who is not necessarily sophisticated or looking to be challenged. More than the other review engines, Kirkus cares about writing and has low tolerance for stupidity. Blurbs are usually done by writers for friends or as favors and often have nothing to do with the quality of the book. Savvy readers know this.

4. It's all subjective. It really is. A couple of weeks ago I read a good manuscript. Good setting, good writing. Objectively, there was nothing wrong with it. But I couldn't get excited about it. Couldn't see myself gushing. It was a heck of a lot better than that starred, boxed PW book mentioned in point #3 above. But I didn't want it; it didn't excite me. Someone might feel differently; a book I rejected a couple of years ago was recently published to quite good sales (but far from critical consensus). Do I regret letting it go? No. 

5. There's not a lot of money here. There really isn't. A lot of people are convinced that getting a book contract is or should be like hitting the lottery. It isn't.  Consider this: I know the editor of the awful book in point #3.  I know the details of the advance. And I know this about sales: 30,000 books shipped, 18,000 returned. That's net sales of 12,000 units.  Let's say author makes $2.00 per book. Is author going to feed his or her family, and pay the rent, on THAT? This business is like any other. The more successful you are, the more money you make.   

Author Goals and Reader Expectations

You know, the recent spate of articles about "puppetry" on Amazon might be making me a little paranoid.

In 2012, I published a book that was by all criteria a "hit." Excellent reviews, including stars in three of the big industry publications (PW, LJ, Kirkus), good sales, positive reader response.  

Just recently I noticed a bunch of 1-star reviews crop up on Amazon. And, interestingly, for this particular book, the first two reviews on Goodreads had been 1-star.

When you work in this industry long enough, you learn to take reviews cum grano salis.  You can't please everyone, which is why we put so much stock in publications with serious, qualified reviewers (like those mentioned above; and yes, for a long time, a good review in Kirkus has meant something, because that publication has high standards).

Still, something wasn't quite sitting right with me about all of this, so I called a friend of mine who keeps more on top of breaking news, and some of the bizarre things that happen in this industry, than I do. And here's what I am told: That some vindictive writers who have been rejected by publishers, whether large or small, begin a campaign of smearing those publishers' books on Amazon and elsewhere. The way to discover this, apparently, is to look for these people's other reviews. If you look for them and can find no other reviews, you have likely found a "puppet" who created an account to smear you.

So I checked those really bad reviews on Amazon and Goodreads and - hmm.  Each of those people (except for one, and more on that later) wrote exactly one bad review, and it was for my book. So, apparently, false identities can be created not only to prop up a book with 5 stars, but also to try attempt to ruin publishers.

I find all of this too much to take in, but I suppose it is the "brave new world."

I don't know whether it's all true or not, but if it is, I can't even tell you how disgusted I am. The editors here respond to every single query we get, and we are never rude. We try to say something encouraging; and even if we can't, we wish writers the best of luck with their work. We don't take joy in swiping at people, and I can't tell you how many times we've passed on really good work because our house really is NOT the best place for the book. We give strangers our time every single day, and to think that we (not to mention our hardworking authors) somehow deserve this sort of smear campaign is stomach-turning. Of course, it may not be true at all. I certainly hope that is the case.

Now, about that other 1-star review. I checked out the reviewer's other 45 or so reviews. I counted: 42 of them were 1-star.  What? In each case, the reviewer took two or three sentences to trash the book. I have to ask this person: Why do you read? Is it to escape and enjoy, or to hate?  Because, from your reviews, it certainly seems like the latter.

So, from there, I went to look at some of the poor reviews of recent best-sellers, the names we all know (and whom many people enjoy to a greater or lesser extent). I'm estimating that in a majority of the cases, the reader was completely out of sync with what the book sets out to accomplish (what I call authorial intent). There were reviews that complained about Alexander McCall Smith books not having enough of a mysterious plot - hence 1 star; reviews that complained about Andrew Vachss being too dark and disturbing - hence 1 star; reviews that complained that Laura Lippman's book was too "female" oriented and chick-litty - hence 1 star; reviews that complained that the latest Stephanie Plum was outlandish, because who really thinks a woman can be a bounty hunter? - hence 1 star.

You get the point I am trying to make. Now, I KNOW and ADMIT that the covers of our books often try to sell them as something they are not. Well-chosen blurbs can put lipstick on a pig, and there's always that delightful ellipsis to get rid of inconvenient or unpleasant words from a review. But with the writers listed in the paragraph above, I think it's pretty clear what you're getting; so why on earth would ANYONE choose to buy and/or read a book that is clearly NOT TO THEIR TASTE? I just don't get it. I could live to be 100 and I'd never have enough time to read everything I WANT to read. Why on earth would I waste precious time reading something that I want to HATE?  Do these same people buy albums (oops, showing my age - I should say CD's) by singers whose voices they cannot stand? Do they go to Chinese restaurants to indulge in their hatred of Asian cuisine? Do they attend Broadway musicals so that they can rant about how unrealistic and silly they are?

I think most writers make it pretty clear what they're up to in the first three pages of their books. Amazon's Look Inside gives you those three pages (and more) for free. And browsing in bookstores is free... So why choose a book that you KNOW you will not like?

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I don't know why this business can be so unrelentingly NASTY. You rarely hear Hollywood actors trashing one another. Most musicians talk about singers/groups that they like and admire, not acts they loathe and detest. But there's something about this whole writing/book thing that makes some people vicious. I mean, think about it: A publisher rejected them, so they seek to destroy not only the publisher, but also the authors published by that house? I'm sorry, there is only one word for that: SICK.

And there, in a nutshell, is the other side of the story of all those "puppet" 5-star reviews.

Crime Fiction and the G-Word

I usually avoid politics here on Mysterious Matters, mostly because I revel in intelligent discussion, and political topics can turn even the most intelligent people into raving lunatics. So, as you read (IF you keep reading) please keep in mind that the following has no hidden agenda.

The topic is guns.

With the rash of highly publicized shootings, from Gabrielle Giffords through Aurora, Colorado, through Newtown, Connecticut, I am thinking a lot about violence in crime fiction. Specifically, I'm thinking about guns. We see a lot of guns on the printed page, lots of vigilantes, lots of lone-wolf protagonists (and villains) whose gun is their best friend. 

What is our responsibility with regard to guns and gun violence in the genre? 

On the one hand, we never hear that the latest gun spree was motivated by too heavy an immersion in books. Hollywood, yes; video games, yes; but not books or printed fiction. Thank God.

On the other hand, how much responsibility do we have, as industry, in terms of the way we portray guns? I think we use guns, in our books, almost as regularly as they're used in feature films and TV shows. Perhaps they don't make the impression in books that they do on the silver screen, because we can't hear the shots and see the blood. Should we be encouraging writers to develop other methods of self-defense for their protagonists, such as judo or jujitsu?  This could lead to some clever, original pots - what could writers come up with if they couldn't have their characters use guns as weapons? 

Of course I am not suggesting that we impose any such rule. Writers would balk at having their creativty stifled, and rightfully so. Then there's the "realism" argument, too: How can an author write a good hardboiled tale without guns? But I am thinking more and more that I'd like to read some stellar crime fiction that doesn't have gunplay. Because the gun scenes in what I've been reading lately have been reminding me a lot of Newtown.

I'd love to hear from readers on this. Do you consider violence level when you are selecting a book to buy and read? What about guns - would you purchase a book that include a silhouette of a hero holding a gun on the cover? 

 

Does the Writing Matter?

The latest in my ongoing interior monologue on the question I wrestle with every day: Is there a disconnect between what appeals to editors and what appeals to the reading, book-buying public?

I had a nicely successful book by a first-time author in 2012. Success was driven largely (I think) by good reviews and word of mouth. The book has about 60 reviews on Amazon and about 50 reviews on Goodreads.

I was doing a sort of post-mortem on this title, reading over all the reader reviews and trying to suss out... whatever I could suss out. The professional reviews were uniformly positive; the Goodreads and Amazon reviews were the usual mix of 1-5 stars, fortunately heavy on the 3-5 scale.

And what I noticed as I read through the reader reviews is this: So few of them comment on the WRITING. The professional reviews often comment on the craft, at the author's facility with the language or mastery of the genre conventions. Can it be that the "average" reader (if this is an appropriate term to use for the "typical" Amazon or Goodreads reviewer) doesn't give a hoot about the quality of the writing?

Herewith some statistics, based on my parsing these reviews to the best of my ability. Please note there may be some overlap among categories:

AMAZON: 50 reviews

8 commented on the pleasurable writing style

28 said they liked the characters, 4 said they found at least one character annoying or unlikable

16 said it was a fast read

22 liked the setting

36 did not mention writing at all

4 did not like the point of view

3 complained that it was not "realistic"

3 liked the sense of humor

2 seemed to be written by reviewers with a personal vendetta against someone or something

2 do not like reading mysteries (So, I ask myself, Why did they read this book?)

2 thought it would be fun to hang out with the author

 

GOODREADS: 60 reviews

14 commented on writing

46 said nothing at all about the writing

12 wrote one-line reviews with almost no content

36 rated the book without saying anything else

16 liked the protagonist and/or supporting characters

3 said the setting was not to their taste

8 complained that certain characters were not likable enough

8 said they "cared" about the characters, 6 said they "did not care" about the characters

 

I guess I could start speculating about what this all means... or I can let the readers of Mysterious Matters do that by clicking on the "Comment" link below!

 

Jobs for Psychopaths

Here at Mysterious Matters, I like to write my own content, but every so often I come across something that has to be shared.

A couple of years ago I read a book titled The Sociopath Next Door, which makes the argument that 1 in 4 Americans is a sociopath. And what's the next step after sociopathy?  Psychopathy, of course; and now we have a list of Top Jobs that have the highest rate of psychopaths. Here they are:

1. CEO

2. Lawyer

3. Media (TV/Radio)

4. Salesperson

5. Surgeon

6. Journalist

7. Police officer

8. Clergy person

9. Chef

10. Civil servant

Interesting, eh? And now for the the jobs with the lowest rate of psychosis:

1. Care aide

2. Nurse

3. Therapist

4. Craftsperson

5. Beautician or hair stylist

6. Charity worker

7. Teacher

8. Creative artist

9. Doctor

10. Accountant

Apparently, this list comes from a book by psychologist Kevin Dutton, The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success. You can read the full article here.

The article outlines the "positives" of being a psychopath: psychos don't procrastinate; they focus on the positive; they're cool under pressure. I actually find this somewhat reassuring, in that these are often the personality traits of the fictional serial killers I so often encounter in manuscripts and printed books.

What else do many of the Top 10 have in common? Well, it seems to me that people in these jobs are all about power. They want to wield it, to use it, to have it, to use it to manipulate. That seems to be more of a common thread in the Top 10 than even money. If you ask a psycho whether s/he'd prefer money or power, I wouldn't be surprised if s/he answered "power."

A Manifesto for Independent Publishers

Every so often, the publishers and editors here ask ourselves: Should we have an official mission statement? You know, something a little more specific than "to publish great mystery fiction."  But then we shake our heads: That's our number-one goal. Everything else is secondary.

But I've started thinking about a larger issue: the role of independent publishers in our rapidly changing world. What do we do differently than the major players, and how will these differences help us publish more successfully (i.e., sell more books by worthy writers)?

So, herewith:

AGATHO'S MANIFESTO FOR INDEPENDENT PUBLISHERS

 

1. We must publish bravely. As I look back on my career, I think the definition of good publishing has changed. Good publishing used to mean publishing great manuscripts by worthy writers who are not necessarily established celebrities. Nowadays, after the corporate takeovers, good publishing seems to mean acquiring only those manuscripts that you predict will sell boatloads (and you have to go in front of the Powers That Be and swear by all that's holy that yes, this manuscript is the next Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). I think we need to return to an earlier era of bravery, in which we take chances on the manuscripts we believe in. At my current company, we try to hedge our bets by balancing our publishing program: more canny marketing-based book purchases are balanced with passionate acquisitions. It's a lovely balance that works suprisingly well when we look at our P&L at the end of each year.

2. We must listen to our instincts. So much of the industry has become about debates: Will it sell? Won't it? Here are all the reasons why it will sell. Here are all the reasons it won't. But nobody has a crystal ball; and we know how many of those much-argued-over-books end up in remainder bins. I think we have to do a better job of embracing the art of publishing instead of trying to turn it into a science. It isn't.

3. We must embrace the electronic world. I think most of us do. The temptation, I think, is to start publishing more books because the new technologies make it so easy to do so (electronically). But we have to continue to give every book the attention it deserves. Every book must be edited and crafted, whether it is being printed or not. That's the only way for eBooks to have the credibility they must have in the new world.

4. We must accept unagented queries. Some of my best book purchases have been unagented. I think as independent publishers we must accept the truth that many very good writers turn to us in desperation when they cannot find an agent willing to take them on. Of course agents do a very important job of culling the wheat from the chaff; but, as most agents say in their rejection letters, a rejection does not mean a manuscript is not good. I'd say I get almost as many good queries and manuscripts now as I did when I worked at the Big Boys; and I think part of our success has been our willingness to take on writers who are not part of the establishment.

5. We must support non-market-savvy writers. Many, many publishing decisions are being made today based on a writer's "platform." How many Facebook friends does s/he have? How many people subscriber to his/her Twitter feed? How many read his/her blog? These are savvy questions in a world where way too many books are published. And  yet - there are many, many fabulous writers out there for whom self-promotion does not come easily. We have to be willing to publish these writers and help them with marketing (or - crazy idea - do the marketing for them). It's true: Our jobs are easier when Author has 4 million Facebook contacts. But please see #1 on this list.

6. We must adhere to the highest standards. This means that all of our books need to be professionally designed and tyepset, with top-notch cover designs. A book is, after all, a consumer product - and everyone knows that one of the most important parts of the product mix is packaging. Consumers expect quality; we have to provide it.

7. We must price to show the value of our product. As economists say, price is a signal. It signals the product's worth to the consumer. I know the temptation is there to price our books (especially ebooks) quite low; and I see vanity published authors doing it all the time. I have even seen articles by publishers whom I really respect arguing that lowering ebook prices may have a positive effect on the bottom line. But my gut tells me not to do it, and I won't. Every single book I publish is worth the $7 or $8 what we charge for it on Kindle, Nook, etc. I'm not going to sell them for less. I'm not turning my books into interchangeable commodities. Maybe I'm wrong in this approach; time will tell. But for now I'm standing pat.

8. We must treat our authors as business partners. I've heard/read a lot of tales of publishers who don't pay royalties on time or at all. This is absolutely unacceptable. If we cannot afford to pay royalties to the authors who have earned them, we have no right to be in business. 

9. We must develop our authors' careers. I think we have to do whatever we can to help our authors be successful. Of course, they must meet us halfway in this regard. But it's our obligation to send review copies to any credible reviewer or source that can help us get the word out. In the past, I was adamantly opposed to selling copies on consignment, because 90% of the time (no exaggeration) we never see a penny from the consignees. But I've changed my thinking on this. It doesn't cost that much to send a few copies, via media mail; and who knows, maybe Kelly Ripa will see it, love it, and start talking it up.

10. We must play to our core competencies. It's easy to get distracted in a digital era. Facebook! Google! Twitter! Social media! Amazon! Blogs! The media have changed, and so have the opinion leaders. But what makes editors/publishers successful hasn't changed much over the course of a few centuries: It's our job to find talent, craft it, and bring it to the public's attention. It's harder than ever to get attention for books written by non-celebrities and people who aren't the children of the already famous, but we have to keep trying, as frustrating as it is. 

My Year in Review: 2012

Hard to believe I've been doing this blog for years now. Looking back over some earlier posts, I realize that it has been my tradition to wrap up the year with some thoughts on the industry and so forth. It's a good time to reflect; stops me from having to think about or make New Year's resolutions. 

So, what of the state of mystery/crime fiction publishing in 2012; and what comes our way in 2013? 

I wish I had easy answers to these questions. I mean, I'm sort of paid to know the answers, or to at least be able to guess at them with some accuracy. But I don't think any of us, really, know what to make of just about anything. For every trend I observe, I then see evidence of a diametrically opposed countertrend.

Example: We're all more "connected" via Facebook and other social networks. Yet more and more people are giving up their Facebook accounts, not liking what's become of their linked, harried lives. I think only a fool would say that Facebook is not the present, but is it the future?  The IPO was a disaster, and mounting evidence shows that it's downright awful as a promotional/marketing tool. Oh, we (at the company I work for) have had our experiments with social media, of course; but they've been full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, but taking up a heck of a lot of really good time and brain power that could have been used more productively.

So, does this make me a Facebook "denier"? Ugh, who knows? I don't think of myself as a Luddite, but I'm skeptical of all of this ego-based marketing and always have been. It's all worth watching in 2013 and beyond.

As for the state of reading - Weighing the evidence, I feel somewhat bullish, somewhat cautiously optimistic. I see people reading everywhere I go, and that does my heart good. There are still plenty of printed books, but of course there are more iPads and other reading devices. I'm happy about that, too; anything that makes the written word more accessible, more convenient, is something I can celebrate. 

And, if I had to wager on this, I'd bet that we have more young readers than we had a decade ago. There has always been a large number of kids/teenagers who don't read; I'm not sure that has changed all that much. But the young readers are still out there, flying under the radar somewhat. 

One thing that does my heart good is what I see as a burgeoning readers' revolt. Of course, I may be imagining this - or projecting my own thoughts onto the book-buying public - but I've listened to or eavesdropped on a lot of conversations lately about how bad so many books are. I recently talked to a group of people at an airport bookstore (and got a good manuscript out of it! - but that's another story) and listened as all of them carped about the books on display. Comments were along the lines of, "Do publishers think we're stupid?" "I'm so tired of seeing the same books everywhere" and "Airport bookstores are only for desperate people who've run out of good reading materials."

So, I think the world is ready for the next generation of writers. Everyone I talk to tells me they enjoy crime fiction - except for those people who adamantly tell me that they don't ready any fiction, implying that it's a waste of time. From those people I generally extract a promise that they will read a book I recommend to them (based on their tastes) and then email me their thoughts. Most of them don't, of course; but many of them do, and almost all of them have enjoyed the book and thanked me. So, I continue to not only publish books, but sell them one at a time.

This just gave me a brainstorm for 2013: How about we create an online inventory of questions that people can answer, and then have the engine return a list of recommended books? We could use an algorithm like Amazon's and turn the Internet into a personal shopper for reading materials. Now THAT would be a fabulous use of the Internet!  Until, of course, someone tries to make money off it.

Of course, our industry is slow as molasses, and somewhat thick-headed being ruled by so many colossal egos, so I'm not sure we will respond to market trends as quickly as we should. In the meantime, I see a lot of opportunity for small presses to continue doing some good and brave publishing. Because I think that's what we have to be in 2013 and beyond: Brave.  If we're going to publish the same old, same old, we're never going to be able to compete with the Big Boys, who have a lot more market power than we do. We have to continue to offer amazing alternatives. If we build it, they will come.

But I have my concerns, of course. One of my biggest is the absolute indifference books get in the media engines. 2012 was without a doubt the most difficult year of my career publicity-wise. I published fabulous books and struggled to get people interested in them. You used to be able to count on things like the author's home-town newspaper and alumni magazine; most of them didn't return calls or emails this year. Why is this? Has self-publishing devalued publishing as whole, by making a published book much less of an accomplishment worth writing about? Or is it that readers don't want to read about books? No - I don't believe that.

But it is SO discouraging to see so much media being about celebrities all the time. As we close 2012, I feel as if we are experiencing a cultural crisis. I've never been much of a TV watcher (I'm not a snob about it; I just prefer to do other things) but this year I stopped watching completely. I just can't stand looking at the freakishly deformed faces of people (many of them quite young) who have had so much plastic surgery that they don't even look human any more. And I look at the "top searches" on search engines and see the top queries as "justin bieber's girlfriend" and "kim kardashian baby" and I just want to throw up my hands in despair.

There's another side to all of this, of course. Like the fact that Gillian Flynn's GONE GIRL sold about a billion copies. The success of that book tells me that readers are a heck of a lot more open to innovative works that turn expectations on their head, than most publishers give the public credit for. Now if we could only get some PUBLICITY and some MEDIA COVERAGE for more of the wonderful books that are published each year. And not just, you know, Martin Amis's and Zadie Smith's and Michael Chabon's latest books. 

I had some nice moments in 2012, including several starred reviews in PW, Kirkus, LJ. Those reviews still tickle me like you can't believe. I had a moment of vindication, too, when one of my 2011 books suddenly went berzerk. Such a strange sequence of events. Loved it when I read the manuscript; contracted for it very quickly. Then the reviews came: OK in PW, so-so in LJ, not so nice in Kirkus. Ach! Was I losing my touch, I asked myself; because none of those reviewers seemed to understand at all what the author was doing - and yet it was so clear to me, and to everyone else here. Then, miraculously, an opinion leader in a particular community picked up the book; started talking it up; and before you know it, we had to do another printing of it. Is it really that easy? I asked - telling myself that I now had THE ANSWER: Simply get the book to the correct opinion leader, and then watch your Amazon ranking getting better and better and better. But no: What made it all work was how organic everything was. Nobody targeted this wonderful Opinion Leader, whose name none of us had ever heard before; nobody paid him to talk the book up in all the right places (which right places we had been completely unaware of). Mr. O.L. chose the book on his own - loved it - knew exactly what the author was doing and appreciated how well he did it - and the rest is history. And the best part: I get to sit back in a smug and self-satisfied way and say to myself, "Agatho, you are not crazy! You are not losing your touch!"

In terms of the year's reading, it was the usual mixed bag. I was disappointed in many of the series books I read, many of which had that phoned-in feeling that the people at the airport bookstore were complaining about. Some of the books caused me to scratch my head in wonder: How, exactly, had these books made it into print in hardcover? Because usually I can tell the target audience for a particular book; but so many of them this year just seemed to be really bad judgment calls on the editors' part. Who exactly did you think would like, and buy, this? I wanted to ask the editors (and since I know a bunch of them, I could have asked, but that would have been rude). This was the year I enjoyed some old favorites, from Celia Fremlin through Rex Stout and Earl Stanley Gardner, and was delighted to see how well they stand the test of time. And some longtime favorites gave me many moments of pleasure this year: Laura Lippman, Jeffery Deaver, Cara Black, Dana Stabenow, Karin Fossum.

So, I close 2012 on an optimistic note of continuing to be thankful for having a career doing what I love doing - and bringing the work of really talented writers to the public's attention. Thank you to all who have written to me this year, and in years past. I read and consider everything you say; and I have learned from you.