I understand your fear that authors might make less and less from book sales, but as the studies cited in the original post make clear, used book sales do not create a net loss of revenue for authors.

As far as lending libraries and friends loaning books to one another… look at the practice of loaning music, be it through making a cassette or burning a CD for a friend or file-sharing MP3s… it’s been shown again and again that people who share music buy more music than people who do not. It’s likely that the same trend will be seen with books, because it comes down to this: people who are passionate about an art form are inspired to evangelize it, and that leads to bigger awareness of an author and their work… and that leads to more sales for that author.

If you really want to see authors make more money for their work, I urge you to vocally and actively support the restructuring of the book industry. Work toward an elimination of the returns system that sucks so much money out of the industry. Refuse an advance in favor of larger royalties, and encourage other authors to do the same. Hang on to your electronic rights and produce, sell and distribute your own e-books of your work.

Thanks again for commenting!

A typical book has a lifespan in a brick-and-mortar store of about six to eight weeks (from release date to when it shows up on a returns pull list) unless it’s a big seller. Authors who pump out these “periodical”-style romance books have a window of four to five weeks, and they probably(?) get paid less than most. Of course, a career writer in this sub-genre has twelve shots to make sales in a year… so I reckon it balances out.

As others have said, there is very little chance of Ninc’s wishes becoming reality… but it’s still important to speak up when short-sighted, self-serving and ultiimately destructive ideas surface. It’s equally important to reveal the motivations behind such ideas, and you and the other folks in this thread have done an excellent job of that!

Thanks for the comment!

Thank you!

If I was a multi-published novelist in a market that Ninc considers valid, I would join them, and work my gadfly ways from within to create that evolution you speak of.

Time to write an erotic-historical-urban-fantasy-romance, I guess. A whole mess of ‘em.

As for the publishing business teetering on the edge of collapse… it’s to their advantage to always claim that is the case. That way they can push things like contracts that are less favorable to authors, copyright changes, and so on. Advocacy groups like Ninc also behave this way, because if there’s all good news, there’s no reason to have an advocate.

Thanks for the comment!

Now, I have no doubt that the romance genre and sub-genres contain works that would be considered good writing and would deserve to last, from authors who are not only skilled but smart. At the same time, the genre is famous for the number of publishers who insist on writing to a strict format (in some cases it’s even a “by page __ the hero and heroine must have had their first kiss” kind of formula), and for extremely high volume and short shelf-life expectancies. One can easily imagine the fear of those operating in this arena that a substantive used-books market might cripple the flow of new product to readers and fans–and thus put a crimp in romance authors’ revenue streams.

I say all this not to belittle practitioners in this genre–far from it–but rather to point out that we seem to have representatives of a single segment of the industry trying to dictate terms to the industry as a whole. I would be much more agreeable if I could hear voices from other categories of book author-/editorship, whether they be “genre” or “mainstream.”

So… yeah. Ninc = kinda stupid. Your article = great.

I love used bookstores, and the experience of walking the aisles, seeing what tickles my fancy. But if I’m questing for a specific used book, I hit the ‘net. I know a copy will be available at a reasonable price. That’s why far more used bookstore owners must turn their eyes to online opportunities.

Fortunately for these proprietors, creating online stores (via Amazon and other sites) has become easier than ever. Even eBay’s “Buy It Now” service creates a haggle-free retailing experience. Using these online opportunities to enhance — not fully replace — revenue sources is wise indeed.

As far as Novelists Inc’s position: It’s a preposterous, impossible-to-enforce pipe dream. The organization’s time and effort would be better spent educating used booksellers on online retail opportunities (which would likely help a great many of them improve their earning potential) than shaking its fist at the new paradigm. Evolution is a good thing.

First there are some kinds of books, where used book sales might impinge upon new book sales. “Media Tie Ins” and Harlequin-class romance novels (as well as other serialized tomes) would seem to depend upon selling large (or semi-large) numbers of new books pretty regularly. If the number of readers for these kinds of books can be assumed to be more or less constant +/- a percentage point or two, I could imagine how–particularly in a slumping economy–used books could eat into the sales of new books. Particularly if *this weeks* “How I Met your Mother” novelization wasn’t likely to be that different from the one from last year that you didn’t read either.

Actually, I’d totally buy a HIMYM book, but you get the idea. Some of these books are themselves marketing/licensing tools, and as such their publishers are less likely to think of them as literary works, and thus less likely to be subject to all of the very real factors that you describe above.

That’s part one. Part two is the fact that the publishing business always seems to teeter on the edge of collapse. Industry groups are more prone to act out these fears (as they’re looking to shore up existing business models), than are individual publishers and editors, who might act out these fears by making conservative editorial decisions, but are more likely to be responsive to the arguments you make. Publishers, despite the problems of their industry in its current form, provide a useful service to writers and readers, and I think will continue to exist long into the future. I don’t know if the same can be said about film studios and record companies, but we’ll see.