Writers, Participation in Your Own Disadvantage is Not Required

We have a Big (Five) problem.

Literary fiction isn’t dead. It’s just harder and harder for new and young readers to discover literary fiction books (and literary genres in general), and that is something we truly need to be concerned about.

It’s true that to have a good chance in publishing, writers must continue to focus and persevere on both the creative and business sides of writing and publishing. It’s true that writers need to consider their readers and the market at large and research to see where they fit in the ecosystem.

Another thing that’s true: the market forces that govern publishing are not benign nor completely subject to what people are reading—not when the biggest resources and mainstream points of distribution are controlled by just five big corporate conglomerates.

What’s not completely true is that Big Five are only publishing or pushing books “based on what people read.”

For one thing, some books on bestseller lists are bought in bulk by their own authors or corporations related to them. The dagger symbol in New York Times Bestseller Lists indicate these books (refer to the sixth paragraph of their methodology page).

For another—and this is the biggest concern, in my opinion—even the more popular authors in literary fiction aren’t given the same marketing and PR promotion as books from what has become popular genres, which publishers make even more popular by virtue of them spending more money and effort to push them—it’s a vicious cycle. If I wanted to buy Garth Greenwell’s books (I purchased Small Rain in a bookstore recently) in a retail bookstore, I have to walk past some feet of display tables and merchandising for romance/romantasy, fantasy, and celebrity books. Even when I don’t read these books and authors, I will know about ACOTAR and It Ends With Us because they are all over social media, articles, and online retailers. There’s no poster or any other kind of resource in bookstores or online for me to discover Greenwell if I were a reader who was looking to try something new.

It’s baffling to me how many authors and influential literary influencers who know the business better (or so I think) are so quick to dismiss or downplay anything critical of Big Five publishers. The Big Five is focused on what’s profitable, which again, isn’t the problem. The problem is this profitability is based on unfettered commodification, which motivates them to control what is getting attention (for the sake of streamlining the same fiscal success), even if this means crippling other genres.

And yes, it’s inconvenient to think about it (which is probably why there’s so much knee-jerk denial going on), but all this is intentional. This is true of anything that has to do collusion for financial outcomes. They are not benevolent benefactors of publishing nor are they victims who are beholden to “market forces.”

Are they to blame for every author who doesn’t get published? Of course not.

However, it’s truly a different level of cognitive dissonance to say that the Big Five have no say in market trends when they have the most influence over it. Corporate consolidation and oligarchy is never good for any industry, especially publishing. They are too big and too consolidated to be truly affected by fully organic market influence, save for a few exceptions (which is then quickly coopted and overhyped so people have the impression that is the norm).

So what then? Of course, as writers we need to keep going and keep publishing and keep on earning from our work, as we should. And we should do it with full knowledge of the industry and prevailing systems in which we have to move around—knowledge that will help, not harm us.

We may not be able to change how the oligarchs run the industry right now, we may still want to try to be published by the Big Five because that is a major path for career and financial advancement, but we are not required to happily participate in our own disadvantage. We can fulfill our writing goals with this awareness and without perpetuating narratives that take away accountability from the players who control the biggest variables in the industry.