As a first timer to BEA, I had some idea what to expect, but the sheer size of the convention takes some time to get over. So perhaps it's appropriate -- albeit ironic -- that the mystery/suspense spotlight today has been taking place in one far-too-tiny room. A metaphor, maybe, for a genre where "breaking out" and "transcendence" is viewed with increasing importance, where hundreds of books are published every month and only a select few can get noticed at a time.
I'd hoped to be more of an objective observer and provide you all with comments at a distance, but that got blown to hell at around 9:45 this morning when Bonnie Claeson (of the Black Orchid Bookshop) rushed over to me and asked if I'd pinch-hit on the bookseller panel -- I'd once worked at a mystery bookshop, so surely I could add some insights to those offered by everyone else. So I sat behind the desk as veteran booksellers like Claeson, Barbara Peters and J.B. Dickey offered choice insights into what their customers were looking for. The answer? Variety. Mystery readers are a savvy bunch, and they want as much information as is possible. Not suprisingly the topic did turn towards the Internet and how vital it is for a bookshop to have a web presence -- although I must say that I'm surprised the question still comes up. It's like authors who don't believe that they do not need a website when savvy fans (and even less savvy ones) will immediately input the author's name on Google and expect a website (preferably a domained one) to pop up.
Then it was time for my "real" panel --mystery media's take on readers -- and I shared the table with Mystery Scene's Kate Stine, The Drood Review's Jim Huang, Mystery News' Chris Aldrich and USA Today's Carol Memmott. In a way, that each panelist had a wildly different perspective was both good and bad because it was difficult to maintain an overall focus. Memmott's view of the mystery world is so geared towards the big-name authors (it was almost a joke how many times she mentioned Michael Connelly's name) that it seemed irrelevant (and dangerously close to being out of touch) since mystery readers are looking more for people who they haven't heard of yet. Which is where the publications I mention come in, offering up reviews and features that not only spotlight the people we know about, but those lesser known. I think if I'd been sitting in the audience I might have been disappointed because none of us could truly answer the question of how to reach additional readers.
Maybe that disappointment is due to an assumption I'd brought with me to the conference -- that Book Expo, while obviously all about business, deals, making money and the like, is about creating buzz for writers whose books aren't out yet and who should have attention drawn to them. But based on the Editors Book Buzz Forum, which was extremely well attended and a popular draw, I wonder how many others share that assumption. Some editors, especially Random House's Mark Tavani and William Morrow's Carolyn Marino, highlighted first time writers, or those (like Reginald Hill) whose work sell in huge quantities in foreign countries but don't have the same success in the US. But Bantam Dell's Kate Miciak, who had the opportunity to talk about all sorts of promising new writers whose books will be out this fall or later, instead focused on Karin Slaughter and Lee Child. Good writers, certainly, but why on earth do they need extra buzz when their autograph lines stretch all across the autograph room? It wasn't until the Q&A session -- prompted by Barbara Peters -- that Miciak spoke about a midlist writer named Christopher Fowler. His two books (FULL DARK HOUSE and THE WATER ROOM) featuring octegenarian detectives in London are just the kind of crime novels that merit more attention and a wider audience --especially because they are somewhat difficult to classify.
Fortunately things did pick up considerably with the forensic thriller panel. Edna Buchanan, Linda Fairstein, Michael Baden, Linda Kenney and Barry Eisler (albeit to a slightly lesser extent) not only were entertaining panelists, but demonstrated what's become increasingly important in trying to sell such a book: that you have to be a working forensic scientist or equivalent. Patricia Cornwell may have begun this trend 15-odd years ago, but I daresay her background as a pathologist's assistant wouldn't be enough to convince publishers of her credentials.
But I admit my perspective is somewhat different from what I seem to be seeing today. Something that that was never addressed at all but is an issue close to my heart is why there's no real concerted effort to court the 18-34 crowd (or younger) in the mystery world. Because at the moment, the mystery demographic skews heavily towards the boomer and retiree crowd (Or as Kate Stine put it on our panel, Mystery Scene's readers are "highly educated and loaded.") But when my peers retire in 30/40 years, will they have the same buying power or interest in reading mysteries if they never cared about them before? More work has to be done to figure out what to do. And though I've had some feedback from those in my age bracket about my efforts, it's clearly not enough.
Perhaps the bottom line, not only of the mystery/suspense spotlight but of BEA in general, is that there has to be more cross-communication. More idea-sharing and finding new ways to reach readers, to adapt publishing trends to changing needs. Editors interacting directly with booksellers, readers allowed to state more explicity exactly what they want to read. In other words, a little less buzz and a lot more reality.
Posted by caderbooks at June 04, 2005 12:40 PM