Well, of course nobody really knows. Beyond, that is, the obvious and boring answer — by having lots of people buy it.

Crusoe’s Books has a go at answering the question in a post entitled Sleepers. They use as a case in point John Williams’ Stoner. This book is a bit of a slow-burn phenomenon though it has never broken into truly astronomical bestsellerdom. “Published by Viking Press in 1965, Stoner sold somewhere in the region of two thousand copies before quietly slipping out of print.” Then forty years later, in 2006, New York Review Books published an edition. (It had been quietly reissued once or twice in the intervening years.) In a 2007 review of that edition in The New York Times Book Review, Morris Dickstein [not John McGahern as Crusoe’s has it] referred to it as “a perfect novel, so well told and beautifully written, so deeply moving, that it takes your breath away”.

Reviews generally don’t sell huge numbers of books — unless, that is, they do. And this review certainly got the ball rolling. One of the frustrating things about book marketing is that any rules there may be have exceptions, and the exceptions are often more potent than the rules!

Crusoes assures us “However much critics may disagree over a book’s artistic merits, its commercial success depends to an extraordinary degree upon the institutions that legitimise it. Reviews, prizes, influential advocates, university syllabuses, booksellers, literary festivals and changing cultural fashions all contribute to what eventually comes to seem like an entirely natural success.” Of Stoner they claim “Success followed not because the text itself altered, but because the conditions of its reception had”. This doesn’t seem to me to be saying anything much. It’s not like Stoner suddenly started winning prizes, being featured at festivals, getting reviewed everywhere, and I’d be surprised if it was to be found on any university syllabuses in 2006-7. In so far as it began to be talked about by booksellers that would be because — well — the book was being talked about. Once a few people had responded to the “perfect novel” message, others followed. You can’t bring this sort of thing about: it happens by chance — and that’s what makes a bestseller.

I can’t help thinking that the NYRB cover design helped. It’s a detail from Thomas Eakins’ 1900 portrait of Louis N. Kenton (1865–1947), Eakins’ brother-in-law.* The picture, shown below, is named “The Thinker”, a title which The New York Metropolitan Museum’s website tells us was added a few years later by Susan, Eakins’ wife, after her sister’s marriage to Mr Kenton had broken down.

The original life-size painting measures 82″ x 42″, (208.3 x 106.7 cm).

Crusoe’s reaches for intellectual support from Pierre Bourdieu who apparently told us that cultural prestige is garnered by restricted distribution. Maybe OK if we’re talking about a Picasso painting — but when did you last notice a book shooting to the top of the bestseller list because nobody could find a copy? Publishers have NOT learned from Bourdieu that they can make money off old forgotten books because of this mechanism: they’ve learned they can make money off old books because of the revolution in printing technology has enabled them to print small quantities, even ones and twos, on-odrer.

For a fifty-year old book to now be selling more copies each year than it did in the prior year is, to say the least, remarkable. By the early 2020s it was ticking over at an impressive 10,000+ a year. Last year it got to more than 50,000; this year’s going to be many more. Fifty, even a hundred thousand copies in a year of a bright spanking new novel is an impressive sale — probably get you into the bestseller list, — but for an ancient book it’s almost unbelievable.

What has changed, and what is it that is leading to a steadily rising sale for Stoner, is that the world has now managed to evolve an animal called the “on-line influencer”. When Jack Edwards, or Hudson Williams, says they love a book, hundreds of people rush out and buy it. Stoner speaks particularly to the young, I guess, being as it is a tale about love and a university teacher. What makes a bestseller is people telling other people that this is a book they have to read. Publishers all know this — we just have no idea how to make this happen.

Here you can observe Jack Edwards at work. Stoner is the second book he presents (at between 4 minutes in and 7 minutes). Enthusiasm like this is golden!

If you don’t see a video here. please click on the title of this post in order to view it in your browser.

Twelve years ago I wrote one of the rare reviews to be published in this blog. I read William Stoner as a reader, reading his way through his life as he lived it. The novel on its first page lets us know that “few students remembered him with any sharpness after they had taken his courses”. The only reason Stoner is remembered nowadays, it continues, is when an occasional student stumbles upon the medieval manuscript volume in “the Rare Books Collection, bearing the inscription: ‘Presented to the Library of the University of Missouri, in memory of William Stoner, Department of English. By his colleagues’.” Well that forgotten life has had a late blossoming into bestsellerdom.

_________________

* Wikipedia tells us that “Louis Kenton was the son of a flour and grain salesman from Philadelphia. Although little is known about his life, he was listed as a bookkeeper and clerk in that city’s directories between 1889 and 1891.”

This seems like a good little idea. BookRiot has set up a survey researching this question. There’s a link to the survey here.

If we only knew what we all think about AI, we might be able to discuss it a little less emotionally.

This is a deceptively tricky question.

Sales numbers are almost impossible to come by. For a publisher, revealing an author’s sales is almost tantamount to revealing their income, so the one source which would really know is constrained from making any revelations. The Association of American Publishers will periodically issue authoritative numbers (generally in dollars), but these numbers represent sales make by those of their members who went to the trouble of reporting to them — and not all publishers are members of AAP, though most members do report. Self-publishing data are so disparate as to be effectively non-existent. Amazon, the single biggest retailer of books, doesn’t provide numbers on any consistent basis. Even when they do, caution needs to be exercised: Amy Chan in her post I Spent $44,000 Launching My Book. Three of Those Dollars Worked, confides “Amazon counts 3 books bought separately as 3 sales toward your sales ranking. But 30 books ordered in one transaction counts as a single sale.” (Thanks to John Samples for the link.)

Even the number of books published is hard to come by. Fortunately Thad McIlroy has researched the numbers, and gives us them in his recent post.

Way back in 1993 there were 7,721 new works of fiction published (or, in some cases, new editions of existing titles), out of a total of 104,124 new books, in hardcover and paperback. In 2025 there were roughly 475,000 new adult fiction titles published, from a total of over 4 million new titles and editions. That’s 71 times more new fiction titles and editions as were published in 1995. And, as Mike Shatzkin often reminded us, ebooks never go out of print, while dated print books generally find their way also to the used book market. Newly-published titles just get added to the vast catalog of existing titles, in multiple formats, available for purchase on Amazon and elsewhere.

And how big is the book catalog?

Google has estimated that, as of 2010, 129,864,880 books had been published. A Stanford Literary Lab study from 2016 raised that number to 189 million books (and estimated that perhaps 10% were fiction). WorldCat.org, a nonprofit that holds data from the collections of more than 10,000 libraries, estimated in 2022 that it had records for 405 million books (this would include multiple formats and languages) and 43 million ebooks.

Jim Milliot at Publishers Weekly offered an exclusive view of Bowker’s assessment of the “total number of books published in the U.S. in 2025 with ISBN numbers.” Which was 4,172,222. Self-published books numbered 3.5 million, up from 2.5 million in 2025. Traditionally-published books totaled over 640,000, six times the number of titles traditionally-published in 1993. (Keep in mind two things: 1. different editions of books, such as ebook and print, generally receive separate ISBN numbers, except that 2. self-published authors often don’t bother with ISBNs, which can be expensive, and are not required by Amazon [even though Amazon now offers them for free].)

And how many books are on Amazon? Up until about 2017 you could actually find that number right on Amazon. My last snapshot of the published number, in early 2017, found 47.7 million books (some with multiple editions). Ebook Friendly, reporting initially in 2021, claimed “over 10 million publications in the Kindle Store.” Derek Haines, at Just Publishing Advice, put the number at “over 12 million ebooks in the Kindle Store” in 2023.

Let’s go back a few years, to the pre-ChatGPT days. It’s safe to assume that few if any AI books published in 2021 were created with significant involvement from AI LLMs. And yet in the 5 years from 2017-2021, an average of 2.43 million books were published each year, of which, on average, nearly 300,000 were fiction. And all of these were stirred into a pot of at least ten of millions of existing titles.

Take any of the numbers, add in the data released since, and the totals are through the roof.

Consider for a mere instant the fact that the number of fiction books published each year has increased by sixty times since 1993. That really makes it clear that nobody’s reading any more doesn’t it!

Mr McIlroy advances these numbers in order to demolish the claims of Chakrabarty et al that AI-generated titles are canibalizing the sale of human-written books. (See Market dilution?.) Even of you accept that every book sold on Amazon represents the non-sale of another book, which I don’t, the number of different titles is just so immense that no help is needed from any external force to limit the sales of any particular book. If there really are 405,000,000 different books out there, very little need happen to limit the sales of any one of them. How many books do you buy in a year?

Here’s a sign of the times. Oxford University Press’ booth at the American Library Association’s 150th Annual Conference in June in Chicago features nary a book.

Seems like others still believe that libraries are interested in print books! In a nice simultaneous announcement Publishing Perspectives brings us a story under the title “Better Late Than Never: Late Adoption of POD Brings PRH’s Titles to U.S. Libraries” Carlo Carrenho’s piece on late adoption of Print on demand. (It’s the second story there.)

The oddest thing about this story is perhaps that it’s a story at all. Even “anti-book” OUP have been using print-on-demand for years. If Penguin Random House set up lots of backlist titles at Lightning Source then presumably any customer, wholesaler, library, bookstore or even individual could get a copy. “After researching which high-demand books often become unavailable, particularly in libraries’ preferred hardcover format, ILS and PRH have created a set of 200 titles by authors including Harlan Coben, Janet Evanovich, Lisa Gardner, Yaa Gyasi, Paula Hawkins, Debbie Macomber, Anne Perry, Nalini Singh, Gary Shteyngart, and others, whose work will be made available through Lightning Source.”

It makes perfect sense to do this — with POD a book need never go out of print (or should we now say “become unavailable”?)

Carolyn Morris, VP of Ingram Library Services told Publishers Weekly “The beauty of print-on-demand is that we can have all of these books available for order, we can manufacture and ship them the same day, and we can do that without having to allocate valuable shelf space or inventory dollars, which makes it low-risk to offer this breadth of library titles.” Undeniable, but it also makes it low risk period. Maybe PRH really does believe that it’s going to fulfill bookstore trade from conventionally printed inventory held in the warehouse. If they do, surely that’s just overly innocent. POD will always be there to head off out of stocks when their regular inventory runs out. I bet the ILS/PRH program will be expanded quite quickly.

We’ve all heard about those book auctions which literary agents set up, where, the idea is, publishers will vie with one another in offering ever more favorable terms in order to sign up a hot property. They generally take place before the book is written, so involve a belief by the publisher that the author can indeed deliver a manuscript which matches the hype put out by the agent. The agent’s hope is that the excitement of the whole thing will drive the advance offered by the winning publisher up to incredible levels. And often it does. No doubt if you’re sitting there, confident in your ability to sell 10,000 copies which might allow you to offer an advance on royalties of $20,000 or $30,000, and you hear the opposition going to $40,000, it must be difficult to avoid the thought that if they think they can sell more than 10,000 maybe your sales forecast has been a bit too conservative, or that the selling price might be able to be a bit higher, and of course that the world needs to know you are the top publisher at this game — and bingo, you’ve got the book for $1,400,000!

A publisher might think it preferable to avoid the whole theater performance, short-circuiting the process, pre-empting it, by offering such a huge advance that the agent says “Wow! Let’s just cancel the whole auction thing.”

Jason Arday says he was paid 1.4 million by Simon and Schuster as a pre-empt for his memoir Great and Unfortunate Things, cowritten with Eve Claxton. He doesn’t specify the currency, but as he’s British and was until recently a professor at Cambridge University, we might assume that he was thinking pounds, which would make the advance even more extraordinary than if it were in dollars. The publisher has not commented on the currency question or on the whole pre-empt story. It almost doesn’t matter which currency it’s in. It seems wildly high. The Guardian states “One senior publisher said it was an utterly mad number, but that ‘madness sometimes happens’, so it was conceivable. They said a book such as Arday’s would normally be expected to sell about 5,000 copies, so with £2 of royalty per copy, that equates to an advance of £10,000, not 1.4 million dollars or pounds.”

The book is scheduled for publication today, 11 August. It is available this morning at Barnes & Noble, as well of course as Bookshop.org, and elsewhere.

A world which had never heard of Jason Arday a couple of weeks ago now can’t get away from him. He’s just resigned his job as Professor of Sociology of Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge. When he was appointed to the job in 2023 he was the youngest black person to be appointed professor by the University. His life story sounds like it is worth telling. He claims to have been diagnosed with autism at the age of three and to have suffered from global developmental delay, deafness and discalcuia as well, that he was non-verbal until the age of eleven, and was unable to read until he was eighteen. While there may be no reason to doubt these claims, it does make it a pretty extraordinary achievement to have earned a PhD at John Moores University, Liverpool in 2015, when he was thirty. Other claims, like having run 30 marathons in 35 days, may be a bit harder to stomach, but who am I to say nay?

The basic problem which has lead to his resignation is continuing accusations of plagiarism in his PhD thesis and other academic papers. The first post I saw on this was a bit of a racist rant. More soberly The New York Times sums it all up. “If Mr. Arday isn’t just a scholar, but a symbol of his university’s commitment to social justice, perhaps that made it more difficult for Cambridge to examine its own role in his ascent”. 

Now we’d all agree that people shouldn’t plagiarize other people’s work, though of course we do think it’s entirely right and proper for scholars to read and react to other scholars’ work and then to build on it. What we want is that if you use another scholar’s words you put the sentence in quotes, and provide a reference to the original in order to give credit for the idea to the originator. If, as occasionally may quite legitimately happen, it just seems too pedantic to reference a casually copied string of words, we all would wish that the “borrower” should go in to the document and edit the text in order to eliminate any traces of copying — just as we’d like them to do with AI use.

Now I don’t know just how bad Professor Arday’s plagiarism was, but among the pantheon of possible crimes I tend to regard plagiarism as a fairly minor one. You’d think that in the world of academe it must be difficult to get away with extensive copying of an other’s work — too many of your colleagues, all experts in the subject, will recognize any extensive copying — and surely trivial copying is, well, trivial. The University stood up for its Professor; maybe for too long as several commentators suggest, and he ultimately resigned after the University announced it would be looking into the matter. I’ve no idea whether Professor Arday was an inspiring teacher, and future students at the Faculty of Education are not going to be able to find out. But he seems to have been a magnet for attention. I’m not planning on reading Great and Unfortunate Things, but S&S does seem to have brought it out today. I guess they hope lots of punters do buy it: there’s a whole lot of royalties to be earned to earn out that advance. At 10% of the retail price of $29 it’ll need almost half a million purchasers to pay off that advance.

But might the reported 1.4 million pre-empt be an exaggeration — or even a fiction? We really hope not — we prefer to think of our teachers as honest about the evidence.

Jan Sobieski (1629-1696) — king of Poland and “Saviour of Western Christendom”.

No. The different kind of royalty.

Publishing Perspectives brings us a report on an effort in Poland to get the government to legislate a 10% royalty based on the retail price of the book.

The Unia Literacka (pron. Oonia Literatzka), the Polish writers’ union, has submitted a proposal to the government, and is in discussions about the proposal to mandate a minimum 10% royalty, calculated on the book’s cover price. The Unia argues “In Poland, both salaried employees and people working under civil-law service contracts are guaranteed a statutory minimum wage. Yet when our readers learn that an author in Poland earns just PLN* 2.87 [or $0.76] from the sale of a single book, they usually react with disbelief.”

Now of course one sympathizes with the Polish author, but you can’t really describe writers as “salaried employees” or as “people working under civil-law service contracts”. (Let us leave out of the discussion the tiny, tiny number of writers employed by specialized publishers to compile reference or educational materials.) Writers prize their independence, and would be reluctant to submit to the discipline of salaried employment which might require them to write from 9 till 5 five days a week! But the fact that the Unia‘s comparison is transparently irrelevant doesn’t mean Polish authors don’t deserve help. Apparently it has become the practice in Poland for publishers to pay royalties based upon net receipts.†

I have in my time negotiated quite a few contracts with royalties based upon net receipts (or even no royalty at all), but of course the majority of royalty agreements are based on retail price. The article deadpans “While rare in Poland, a 10% royalty rate is considered standard in numerous European countries, including Germany and Spain, among others, according to data collected by the Polish Literary Union.” Why would a publisher (and even more surprisingly, an author) want to negotiate a reduced royalty? The basic reason would be economic, and will probably never come up in trade publishing where books tend to be more straightforward in content, and salable in essence! If a technical book is inherently expensive to produce, and publisher and author agree that readers cannot (ought not) be charged a huge retail price for the work, compromises start getting made. A good example — and the sort of books on which I was often involved in these reduced royalty agreements — might be the report on an archaeological excavation. Typically this is a large volume with lots of photos, diagrams, graphs, foreign languages, special sorts, tables etc. Publication of these reports is vital: after all the very process of excavation destroys the evidence (apart from the few objects which get preserved in museums) so a thoroughgoing report is vital for the understanding of relationships among the evidence. The authors will probably be somewhat more focussed on getting the report as wide a distribution as possible rather than any idea of financial reward, and so may well be ready to forgo a royalty or part thereof. Clearly such an author should not be prevented by some law from subsidizing the retail price of their work‡.

Royalty negotiations are, or should be, free negotiations between parties whose interests converge but are not identical. For Polish publisher Mariusz Szczygieł to argue against this initiative by claiming that the measure could put some publishers out of business, is just disingenuous. Ever heard of raising your prices? Using authors to subsidize your pricing verges on the immoral; no doubt is immoral — and this appears to be a habit into which Polish publishers have fallen. However wrong this may be, governments should surely not be allowed to insert themselves between freely contracting parties. Being forced to pay a 10% cover-price royalty will just mean that no Polish publisher will touch an archaeological report (and lots of other specialized books) in future. No publisher has to sign this or that book, and no author has to offer it to any particular publisher. The essence of the relationship is free exchange — don’t mess it up because you, Mr Legislator, can only imagine a bestselling novel when the word “book” is mentioned.

While refusing the terms offered by your publisher may be seen as a bit drastic, surely the remedy lies with the authors themselves (and their agents). Refuse to sign a contract which pays royalties on receipts only. The publisher you are talking to is not the only publisher in town. Perhaps the Unia‘s initiative is in fact really directed at the achievement of this sort of outcome. If authors stick together, publishers will quickly stop offering only royalties based on receipts.

_________________

* PLN stands for polski złoty, [pron. zwotie] though obviously not as an acronym.

† In case a worked example is needed here — in the case of a book priced at $30, a 10% royalty based on list price would yield the author $3. If the publisher was selling the book at a discount of 50% with a royalty of 10% on net receipts, the author would be getting $1.50.

‡ It is really hard to make any money, more accurately to avoid losing lots of money, on these sorts of publications. Demand is pretty small and is inelastic, so reducing the price won’t attract any more sales. Publishers have to cover their costs, which in such a case include salaries, rent, insurance etc. (overhead), the cost of origination of the book, the cost of printing and binding (both of these higher than usual), any discount to retail and wholesale suppliers (no doubt smaller than usual), and royalty. Profit in such a business is almost notional — just contributing to overhead is almost enough. If you are interested in the mathematics, please look at Costing.

Barack Obama has announced his annual summer reading list:

Kin, by Tayari Jones
The Things We Never Say, by Elizabeth Strout
A World Appears, by Michael Pollan
Whistler, by Ann Patchett
This Land Is Your Land, by Beverly Gage
Vigil, by George Saunders
One Sun Only, by Camille Bordas
Seek Immediate Shelter, by Vincent Yu
Data Empire, by Roopika Risam
Transcription, by Ben Lerner
Cool Machine, by Colson Whitehead

You can catch a video at The Obama Presidential Center’s Instagram post. (Don’t forget to turn up the volume in the bottom right corner.)

LATER; on 11 August Publishers Lunch tells us

Barack Obama will host a six-episode podcast on Audible about “the books that have profoundly shaped his worldview and our society.” In “A Great Book with Barack Obama,” the former president will be in conversation with to-be-announced guests. The show will debut on September 24 and each episode will be dedicated to a different book: The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin, Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison, All the Pretty Horses by Cormac McCarthy, Gilead by Marilynne Robinson, All the King’s Men by Robert Penn Warren, and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy by John le Carré.”

“The podcast is the sixth release in Audible’s first-look deal with Barack and Michelle Obama’s production company, Higher Ground.”

In a response to my recent post on compiling AI books, Thad McIlroy sent a link to a paper on the topic, “Generative AI floods and dilutes the market for books” by Tuhin Chakrabarty, Xinyue Liu, Jane C. Ginsburg, and Paramveer Dhillon. He has himself written about it, less than flatteringly, at The Future of Publishing.

Chakrabarty et al assure us “When a large supply of cheap-to-produce titles enters a market faster than the sales, revenue, and top ranks available to absorb them, the return and attention left for the average title both fall. We call this dilution.” Mr McIlroy’s most potent point is that it’s hard to see some new thing flooding a market which is already flooded. “In 2025 there were roughly 475,000 new adult fiction titles published, from a total of over 4 million new titles and editions. That’s 71 times more new fiction titles and editions as were published in 1995.” 

We do need to acknowledge that the use of the computer in the identification of AI content is already a disputedly imprecise art. Even the best program, Pangram, manages to register false positives. However let us just accept the authors’ estimates: they say that 20% of their total 14,419 universe of books show substantial AI involvement* and 17.1% light AI content.

In this paper there’s a whole lot of hairy looking mathematics being applied to Amazon’s sales data, derived Mr McIlroy reveals from Kindle Unlimited data — which data is page-rental, not sales data. But hey, it’s hard to get these sorts of numbers! I’m sorry, but all this analysis just seems to me to be busy work. It’s what academics do. But the beam in their eye which they are of course overlooking is the fact that books are not like gravel. One load is NOT just the same as any another load. A gain in sales of this book does not mean a loss of sales for some other book. Book purchases are individual purchases, and I suspect that market dilution just isn’t a factor in the book business — that requires some sort of equivalency between the objects being sold. There is no equivalency between The Elements of Hydrodynamics and Shy Girl. I am perhaps willing to accept that some such equivalency may be available in some genre markets — though even there I’d need to see more real evidence. The authors are, to be fair, focussing on genre books plus what they call General/Contemporary Fiction. See their diagram for the categories they use in their analysis of Amazon “sales” data.

They claim to have detected a drop in sales of real books after the addition to Amazon of lots of AI books. “The study rules out the conclusion that the average revenue per book fell merely because the catalog filled up with a plethora of low-earning AI books, cumulatively depressing the average without deleteriously affecting the sales of human-written books. In other words, bloating the catalog with poorly selling AI books is not akin to the effect on individual students in a college class when weaker students enroll: there, the overall grades fall, but the weaker students’ results do not drag down the stronger students’ grades. Rather, this study shows that books with ‘no AI text’ (the good students) also, as a category, earned less than human-written books had earned before AI-content books began to compete with them. AI books’ entry into the market on a vast scale does not just overpopulate the bottom tier of sales; it allows at least some of the entrants to vie for the higher echelons of revenue generation, to the displacement of human-authored content. We note that this study does not attribute a reason for competition through scale; it merely documents the phenomenon.” . . . Our authors slide effortlessly from sales numbers (which are actually really numbers of pages read) to dollars earned. Just what “earned less than” really means is not clear. — Do bear in mind this is just a pre-print, an academic paper which has not been looked at (and by implication approved) by other scholars in the field. It may all end up having to be revised or abandoned.

Do not panic about market dilution — if your book’s any good, chances are it’ll find its market. Twas ever thus. A fixation on AI is once again obscuring the important issues.

_________________

* Substantial is defined by Chakrabarty et al. as greater than 25%. One might argue about the substantiality of 26% if one really knew what counted as evidence of AI use.

Is this it, at last? The brilliant book written by AI?

Probably not, though the headline at The Bookseller does raise hopes. It reads ‘Genius novel’ sold in six and seven-figure deals at auction pulled over suspected AI use.

The Mirror reports the story without the need for a subscription. Having been hailed as a work of genius, the book is suddenly unpublishable! The identity of the author is being withheld (though he’s now being identified as male and Nigerian), but The Mirror reveals that Deadline has said the title of the book is Call Me, I’ll Hide the Body — not perhaps a title of genius.

The author is reported as saying

What I’m finding difficult to understand is how a book which on Wednesday was worth an advance of more than £1.5 million, can on Thursday become a piece of garbage. Are there really publishing companies willing to bid more than $2 million at auction for a book when their employees haven’t even bothered to read the manuscript at all carefully? OK, auctions are exciting, but if you’re going to bid that much you’ve got to believe the book’s good enough (which mainly means salable enough) to sell many thousands of copies. How can professionals be so wrong? Or were they not really wrong, and this is just another of these knee-jerk rejection-of-AI stories? Apparently the book which was so recently brilliant is now adjudged to contain “many of the hallmarks of AI, including negative parallelism, off-kilter metaphors, and a flat prose style.” — How can “flat prose style” ever have been seen as consistent with “work of genius”? The author’s agent claims that “The book was stunningly good, everyone fell in love with it.” which I guess suggests that someone actually did glance at it! Egg-covered faces both here and in England.

The publisher involved is Minotaur, an imprint of Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, part of the Holzbrinck Publishing Group. (It was Hachette who recently got into this kind of knicker-twist with Shy Girl.) We need, as an industry, to get beyond this all-consuming terror of AI. The test needs to be not “Can an AI detection program find AI evidence?” but “Is the AI use damaging the project? Is the book any good?” Hugh Howey weighs in on this story, suggesting that publishing is about to move on to a new paradigm. AI and publishing obviously got off on the wrong foot with the argument over the “theft” of copyright materials to train the LLMs, and this negativity is clearly spilling over into our current editorial attitudes. Time to get over it and move on. Using AI isn’t wicked. Palming off raw, unedited AI slop output and pretending it’s the result of a “normal” writing process may be. The sooner we start behaving like rational agents, capable of making aesthetic judgements, the better. A book isn’t axiomatically good because it was written using a Mont Blanc fountain pen. It isn’t axiomatically bad because AI had some role in its creation. It’s good because it’s good: it’s bad because it’s bad.

Rose Horowitch’s article in The Atlantic August issue has got The New Publishing Standard all riled up (and me too; I had to force myself to finish it). TNPS has published two articles debunking Ms H. Here’s the first and here’s the second one. He focuses a lot on Horowitch’s analytical tool of measuring sentence length. She stands convicted of a simplistic belief that longer sentences equal more intelligence.

Ms Horowitch’s piece is an impressive attempt to prove the contention that nobody reads anymore. It appears to be fact-packed, though upon examination it turns out to be more opinion-packed. One would almost have to admire it if it weren’t such nonsense. Truth-shading or truthiness is indulged in throughout. For instance we’re told how students at Harvard were unable to understand A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess, one of them claiming to have had to use ChatGPT to translate the book. It’s been a long time since I read the book, but I clearly remember a feature of it being Burgess’ invention of a new language, a sort of crypto Russian, called Nadsat. Duh! Is Ms Horowitch aware of this? Is the Harvard professor? The student is described as “struggling to read a book in Old English”. We are also invited to be appalled at the fact that English education majors at two regional universities in Kansas had trouble parsing the first seven paragraphs of Bleak House. Lazy (even dumb) students there have always been, and instructors asking you silly questions about a pretty obvious text may not really deserve thoughtful answers. Still Ms Horowitch is quite content to see all these people as symptomatic never-gonna-read folks. It has always been the case that lots of people don’t read books, and while we might prefer that they should, we’re not going to bust a gut trying to convince anyone that War and Peace is better than a parlay on the Super Bowl. To each their own.

But it makes for impressive writing when you can “prove” that Harvard English majors can’t understand a regular English novel!

One might as well not waste time and paper on these sorts of investigations. A study proving the exact opposite is available free of charge from Cambridge University Press until the 6th of August. How Gen Z Discover and Consume Books by Kathi Inman Berens and Rachel Noordais is published in the series Cambridge Elements. According to Book Riot, who noticed this book, the authors show us that “More than 65% of Gen Z people identify as readers, a 15% increase between 2022 and 2025.” Who knows? Who really cares. More bookstores opened last year than ever before, and more books were published (and sold). Why is The Atlantic wasting space like this?

Ms Horowitch even undercuts the whole thing when at the end she boasts of how many books she read as a child. But “In the years since — I’m not quite sure when — the habit [of reading books] slipped. The change was subtle. I became busier. I started scrolling on my phone before bed instead of reading. My attention began to wander every few pages. What did it matter if I read less?” After a brief excursus about the Library of Alexandria and its lost texts — texts which she tells us it’d be impossible to lose nowadays because of digital archiving — she ends up with the totally unearned conclusion: “What we’re losing is the ability and inclination to read those texts.”