Death of the Woman’s Hardback
Emily Rhodes
To say that books are going through a troubled time is a gross understatement. The Bookseller appears to have an endless supply of horrific statistics, whether it’s that book sales during the week of the Royal Wedding were the worst in eight years (20% down on the same week last year) or that the trade’s just suffered the worst March in six years (an 8.7% slump on last year).
Waterstone’s is facing a buyout after HMV’s repeated profit warnings. Bookshops are panicking over the news that e-books are now the bestselling format for books in the US. It’s going to take more than a bit of excitement at last month’s London Book Fair to restore faith in this shaky industry.
One can’t help but feel that something’s gotta give. And that something may just be hardback novels by women.
Novels used to be published first in hardback for around £20 and then, around a year later, in paperback for around £7.99. The theory goes that reviews and hype surround hardback publication and then the paperback – a more accessible format – gives the book another life.
But, over the past few troubled years, publishers have started to add an extra stage to this model, introducing a trade paperback format six months or so after the hardback. (For those of you who are understandably mystified by this term, a trade paperback book is the same size as a hardback, but has a soft cover and costs only around £12.99.)
Take Martin Amis’s The Pregnant Widow, for instance. It was first published as an £18.99 hardback in February 2010, then as a £13.99 trade paperback in October 2010, and now, since April, as a £7.99 mass-market paperback. Freedom by Jonathan Franzen, The Finkler Question by Howard Jacobson, and The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet by David Mitchell are all published according to the same three-stage model.
It’s very sensible. Once the initial surge in hardback sales has passed, few people are willing to part with the best part of £20 for a book. For the latter part of that year after hardback publication, sales will dwindle to a trickle. Bringing in a cheaper version at a halfway point boosts sales, while still remaining sufficiently different in design and price not to cannibalise sales of the mass-market paperback six months later.
But what about Lucky Break by Esther Freud, Rescue by Anita Shreve, and We Had it so Good by Linda Grant? All new novels, all published straight into trade paperback, all written by women.
It would appear that a hardback novel written by woman is a very rare book indeed. Of course there are a few. The Tiger’s Wife by Téa Obrecht is in hardback, as is The London Train by Tessa Hadley, and The Paris Wife by Paula McLain – although these three all share the cheap, trade paperbacky price of £12.99. The Forgotten Waltz by Anne Enright is a £16.99 hardback, as was Great House by Nicole Krauss, but I’m really struggling to think of many more expensive hardback novels written by women. And even these more expensive ones are at least two pounds cheaper than their male counterparts.
It really does seem as though the work of an established female novelist is valued less than that of an established male novelist. It is particularly odd, given that women have always read more novels than men.
When novels first came into being in the 18th Century, men looked down on them as rather frivolous distractions. It was women who devoured them, as a welcome alternative to needlework and
piano-playing. Three hundred years later, the needlework might have gone out the window, but novels haven’t. Ian McEwan undertook an – albeit utterly unscientific – experiment a
few years ago, in which he gave away novels in his local park. He noted in his article about it for The
Guardian that every woman he approached was:
eager and grateful to take a book. Some rifled the pile murmuring, ‘Read that, read that, read that ...’ before making a choice. Others asked for two, or even three.
Whereas the men:
were a different proposition. They frowned in suspicion, or distaste. When they were assured they would not have to part with their money, they still could not be persuaded. ‘Nah, nah. Not for me. Thanks mate, but no.’ Only one sensitive male soul was tempted.
When I began working in a bookshop, I was surprised by how the men tended to gravitate towards the non-fiction and the women towards the fiction. Having studied English Literature at Oxford, where there seemed to be just as many male students as female, it had never occurred to me to divide reading habits along such bold gender lines. Obviously more women read ‘chick lit’ than men, but seeing that very few men read any novels at all was a real shock.
More interesting still is noticing – on the rare occasions that men do buy fiction – which novels they buy. Chances are, it will be one of those £18.99 hardbacks, written by a man. There are undoubtedly more male readers of Martin Amis, Jonathan Franzen or Howard Jacobson than of Esther Freud, Linda Grant or Tessa Hadley.
Evidently, men will spend the best part of £20 on a hardback novel, whereas women won’t. This unleashes a flurry of questions:
Does a novel have to be an expensive hardback for a man to feel it’s substantial enough to warrant reading? Does it have to be dressed up to look almost like a work of non-fiction? Why do men and women value books so differently? Are women shy of buying a hardback? Are they intimidated by it? Is a hardback perceived as a man’s format, whereas a paperback is a woman’s?
I’m afraid I don’t have the answers. But publishers have responded to this difference by pandering to the market. Women won’t spend the money on a book, so women’s novels are cheaper. And publishers have made them look cheaper too.
It makes sense, but it also makes me quietly furious. Why should a novel, written by a woman for a woman, be deemed of less value than a book written for a man? Why should a historian’s heavily-footnoted thesis be valued more than a novelist’s astute observations on human behaviour? How can publishers tell a woman that her choice of book is only worth £12.99, but a man’s is worth £18.99? And, worse still, how can they deny a woman’s book all the trimmings – hard covers, dust jackets, a decent RRP – that belie confidence in its publication?
Ian McEwan’s conclusion from his novel-giveaway experiment was, ‘when women stop reading, the novel will be dead’. Women are still reading and the novel isn’t dead. So why
have novels written by women suffered such physical butchery? What have they done to deserve losing their hard covers? Why do we value them so much less than novels written by men?
Emily Rhodes writes the book blog Emily Books.
ShareThis
Comments
May 12th, 2011 9:01am
Julia Williams
I see your point, but frankly even though I have worked in publishing and am now a writer I rarely buy hardbacks whatever the gender of the writer. While I think they are things of great beauty (I worked for a while in production), they are awkward to handle & I find reading paperbacks more comfortable. I'm not all that keen on trade pbs either, because they are big and unwieldy. I do usually buy Terry Pratchett in hardback, but that's because I am a massive fan of his cannot wait for the paperback. Conveniently his books are usually published round Christmas time, so I justify the expense by buying my husband a present for myself(-:
Having worked in the commercial end of publishing it always used to infuriate me that a book was deemed to have merit because it was in hardback and therefore worthy of review, whereas an A format paperback was seen as cheap and tacky.
I think the times, they are a changing. And with ebooks sales having overtaken hb sales (over priced, hard to use, why would you buy?)those boys with their £20 books that aren't selling to anyone aren't going to be any better off. (Mind you, another annoying feature of them being in hb, is that if their books do sell they will be making heaps more money then their female counterparts. I will get cross about that.)
As to male/female reading patterns, I think that's genetically hard wired, and apart from the sensitive male souls who end up studying English (we were about 60:40 female:male), or the very few who end up in publishing, most want non fiction, and if they read fiction they want manly books. My husband reads a lot. He has yet to read one of my books. I also know someone who just won't pick up a book by a woman. He says they just don't appeal to him (and yet, The Secret History is one of his favourite books).
Don't know what we can do about it, but I think the majority of female readers probably buy their books pragmatically - if they read alot they want to spread the cost and hardbacks are too pricey & often impractical. Actually, as a female reader my prejudices are such that none of the male authors on your list appeal to me, so I wouldn't buy their books whatever the format, whilst I would read most of the female authors you mention.
Apart from Terry Pratchett, the last two authors I bought in hardback are Margaret Atwood, & Marie Phillips' Gods Behaving Badly. And both authors I have bought multiple times, because I love them and I give their books to others as presents. Worth paying the money for the right book then(-:
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 9:24am
Dominic Newbould
The production cost of a hardback book is only fractionally more than a paperback. The tradition of publishing in hardback - originally leather- wrapped boards - began to protect the book and its contents. Currently, it's simply a format that allows publishers and authors to charge more. It's Market driven.
I remember my first boss in publishing (Robert Lusty - his biography is entitled Bound to be Read: such irony!), telling me that he'd spent most of his life trying to persuade book-buyers that the value of a book should match the value, say, of a fine meal, a painting or even an LP. he failed in his mission and it seems women are much less likely to pay more for a book simply because of its production values. And it's the author, of course, who loses out...
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 9:51am
Miffed Lit Scout
I think the more pertinent question is why you see 'value' solely in terms of price? (written by a woman)
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 10:01am
Amanda Craig
Thank-you for this most interesting piece. As a woman author who is still published in hardback (but, like far too many serious women authors, not reviewed by the Spectator)I applaud your fury. There is the implication that novels written by women are somehow less intelligent and valuable than those by men; personally, I had to fight to avoid the colour pink appearing anywhere on my cover designs, even if my novels have equal numbers of male and female characters, and are of interest to both sexes. Yet I wonder whether the male/female hardback/paperback divide is not also due to women feeling less confident about spending money on their tastes and interests? I've noticed that at festivals men seemed to feel no hesitation in paying £17.99, but women waited for the paperback.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 10:36am
Linda Grant
Others have raised the following with me: my novel, We Had It So Good was indeed published in hardback as well as simultaneous trade paperback. But most of the hardbacks went to libraries and to reviewers. Waterstones, which took up the bulk of the orders, chose the trade paperback so they could put it in their 3 for 2 promotions. This meant it was not displayed with the newly published hardbacks. Ironically, the hardback was only £2 more than the trade paperback.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 10:38am
Rebecca Brown
Just a thought, but wasn't the answer in the article? Women buy more novels. So they want to spend less on each one. Men buy less so they're willing to spend a bit more but they want it to be more of an "investment" - ie more hardwearing. And as another commenter points out, paperbacks are easier to handle & more comfortable to read, so the people who read more will buy them in the most suitable format.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 10:48am
Katy Evans-Bush
One simple bit of arithmatic is that if men are going to buy fewer books over a year - and, though they do read non-fiction rather than novels, the women readers I know read far more books than most men - they can spend more on each one. A big political biography or history of Stalingrad will take weeks to read. If I'm a woman who reads a novel or even two novels a week, I'm not likely to want to spend more than £8 on any given one.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 10:48am
Mary Hoffman
This is interesting but Emily Rhodes talks as if the trade paperback were a new phenomenon. I don't think there's a genuine gender issue here. I think the problem is entirely what it always has been - the abolition of the Net Book Agreement (NBA) which has led book-buyers to expect everything to be a bargain.
I buy Terry Pratchett in paperback but the last hardback exchange in our house was husband buying The Children's Book for me and I buying Wolf Hall for him. We both read both but when it came to my turn to read the Mantel I bought it again as an ebook and read it easily on my Kindle in a week because I could carry it everywhere.
Genuine booklovers will embrace all formats and genres and not find gender relevant.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 10:58am
Philippa Perry
Tides of War - a debut novel by Stella Tillyard - very hardback but only 12.99 maybe she is an exception as she used to write heavy academic history but now is writing insightful psychological fiction albeit set in Jane Austen times.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 11:13am
Rowan Coleman
As a writer who worked first in bookselling and then in all areas of publishing for ten years before securing my first book deal, I feel that this article misses the point a little. Hardbacks have been in the decline for at least the ten years that I have been published and much of the ten years I worked in the book trade prior to that. Not all writers, not even male or literary writers are automatically published in hardback first anymore. Commercially the format rarely makes sense, particularly if you hope to see you writer enter the top ten - why canablize the sales of the paperback for the minimal commercial value of a hardback that very few people feel the need to buy? For example the Finkler Question, when first published in hardback sold less than 1000 copies prior to being nominated for the Man Booker Prize. Even much beloved authors sales in hardback are small, even taking into account that quite often they are discounted down to less than half the cover price. Many fine women brand name writers still regularly merit a hardback Philippa Gregory, Karin Slaughter, Katie Fford, Marion Keyes among them, but in truth the death of the hardback is much more about hard times in publishing than it is about penalising women writers or readers. We just don't need them.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 11:16am
Roger Morris
Not so sure it is determined by gender. I'm a male writer and I get published straight to paperback. My publisher is Faber - as far as I can tell, hardback publication seems to be the exception rather than the rule for them. They seem to favour the trade paperback - or sometimes the trade paperback with a wrap. As far as I can tell, the decision is not determined by the gender of the writer but by business and marketing considerations.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 11:26am
An editor
Margaret Atwood. Sarah Waters. Martina Cole. Jilly Cooper. Jackie Collins. Marian Keyes. Jodi Picoult. Philippa Gregory. I could go on. This article seems to be based on little more than a random selection of a few male authors published in hardback and a few women published in trade paperback. Hardly an overview.
I agree with the poster who took issue with your seeing price as the only measure of value, and the one who pointed out that if women read more (and statistically tend to earn less - that at least is true) then of course they will tend to buy the cheaper format.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 11:53am
Amanda Grange
My novel, Henry Tilney's Diary, has just come out in hardback, and yes, I'm a woman. I doubt if it will get a mention in the press as the attitudes towards "serious" and other literature are just as divisive as those towards men/ women, academic work / novels etc. But it's an enjoyable book for all that - although I have to admit, it's not as well illustrated as Gods, Men and Monsters from the Greek myths! The picture of the cover on your blog took me back and put a smile on my face. I, too, had all the books and I loved them. And they were published in hardback!
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 12:25pm
Miranda France
I love hardbacks and buy them when I can, so I was a bit disappointed when my novel came out as a trade paperback, and with a strap line designed to persuade prospective buyers that it was not too literary. I think the book world prefers serious, literary, important and prize-winning writers to be male. Perhaps we're all complicit in this: we want female writers to be loveable and approachable, like our mothers and male writers to be authoritative, difficult and distant, like our fathers! I would like to be somewhere in the middle, loveable and serious - but that doesn't fit the right category, so one ends up relegated to 'popular fiction'.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 1:03pm
Pete
Linda Grant's book came out in hardback - it's on the shelf in front of me and it's very good.
Hardbacks are inherently seen as a bit of an indulgence aren't they? That's the point of them really - to prove you had the taste and the money to buy the novel when it was first published. I suspect this is less of a concern for women than it is for men and so they're happier to wait for the paperback - in a 3-for-2 deal usually.
Also it's difficult to break the spines of hardback books in order to make them easier to read which, judging by how my partner treats her paperbacks, is a big consideration too.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 1:07pm
Lynette
I've got a hardback Linda Grant so it was published in hardback. And the detective stories of both Lindsy Davis and Donna Leon are published in hardback first. Helen Dumnore's books are hardback first. So that's literary, middle brow [ sorry Linda] and detective fiction all covered. What's the beef? What about the airport stuff - mostly men, all paperback?
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 1:54pm
Miffed Lit Scout
I'm completely baffled by the idea that because something is published in hardback, it is somehow deemed 'literary' or more upmarket somehow. What we're looking at here is accessibility; it is not a sleight on one's novel if it is not published in hardback, merely a reflection of the target market and their spending habits. Surely, as an author, you would prefer that your novels are bought in there many thousands and, if publishing in hardback would restrict this, you would think a trade paperback more sensible?
There are plenty of very commercial novels which are published in hardback; 'an editor' made just that point - Jilly Cooper and Marian Keyes included.
I think the belief that being published in hardback is more prestigious is archaic. People today do not want to be lugging the buying habits of both men and women reflect this.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 3:07pm
Miranda France
I hope you are right about format having nothing to do with literary merit, and I hope, too, that my books are bought in their thousands. However it's a sad fact that bookshops are much less likely to display books on their 'new fiction' tables, and in their windows, if these are not hardbacks. So perhaps it is not writers, publishers or readers who are getting things wrong, but booksellers.
Report this comment
May 12th, 2011 7:37pm
Emily Rhodes
Thanks to those who pointed out some books that I believe to be exceptions rather than the rule. Yes, there are some novels by women still published in hardback, but they tend to be cheaper than hardback novels by men, and they seem to be an increasingly rare phenomenon.
Some of you have suggested that women are pragmatic with their book-buying habits, and I think you’re probably right. I suppose it just feels a bit unfair on a female author to be told that her book will retail at a lower price because her market is pragmatic, whereas male authors tend not to have the same problem. Perhaps male readers need to get a bit more pragmatic. Although I’ve a feeling that would be two wrongs not making a right …
To respond to a few of you:
@Dominic Newbould – Have you come across this quotation from Ruskin back in 1854? I think Robert Lusty would have sympathised. ‘If public libraries were half so costly as public dinners, or books cost the tenth part of what bracelets do, even foolish men and women might sometimes suspect there was good in reading, as well as in munching and sparkling: whereas the very cheapness of literature is making even wise people forget that if a book is worth reading, it is worth buying.’
@Amanda Craig – You’re on to something with lack of confidence; it’s strange that it seems to be a particularly bookish issue. And keep fighting the pink!
@Linda Grant – Thanks for clarifying about the hardback edition of your book. It’s a great shame it wasn’t more widely distributed.
@Amanda Grange – Well done for getting into hardback and best of luck with the reviews. I’m so pleased to have found another fan of Gods Men and Monsters!
Report this comment
May 13th, 2011 10:41am
Danuta Kean
Right here is what is wrong with this piece: it is based on a false premise. The move to trade paperback from hardback has been going on for 15 years, and reflects the economics of publishing rather than sexism. The fact that some people are in hardback often has more to do with their contracts than anything else. Hardbacks have continued to be published in this country as a sop to lit eds, who traditionally regarded paperbacks as "commercial" so wouldn't review them. It is why the print runs are so tiny. That is changing. In the US the move to trade/review paperbacks took place ages ago - which is why Amazon's assertion that kindle sales had outstripped h/b in the US was worth very little in real sales terms, though it was excellent PR because few hacks checked the facts. It is also about the market for the author - there are fewer "literary" books being published because they don't sell - or rather Waterstone's don't pre-order enough to justify the print run. The number of men published in trade paperback is the same percentage-wise as women - there are just more women writers than men. Also, as any statistician will tell you, a survey based on one person handing out one book is statistically unviable. For a survey of McEwan's kind to have any validity, you would have to hand out several books across different locations, do focus groups and a survey of at least 1000 people. If the books had been by Andy McNab - or even William Boyd - I think you would find more men wanted them. As for what books go into hardback most: look at celebrity biographies and look at the Xmas market, when people buy books for presents and want their fiction and non-fiction presents to look like they cost more than a fiver from Tesco (which is probably what they did cost) reductionist and poor reasoning like that presented in the article damages an industry that adds £3bn to the economy a year and employs a hell of a lot of people. If you want to know the real issues faced by women writers look at the way their books are packaged and the way they are treated in the press, which is always about personal life and appearance - no one ever opens and article with comments about McEwan's clothes. There are real issues faced by women writers, but this article does nothing to help them.
Danuta Kean, Books Editor, Mslexia.
Report this comment
May 13th, 2011 10:50am
Anna Jacobs
I read the article with interest, but perhaps this applies mainly to literary authors. I count myself as part of the entertainment industry.
All my Anna Jacobs novels have come out in hardback. At first these were just for libraries, but now (after over 50 novels published) I have avid readers who buy in hardback because they can't wait, bless 'em.
It's only recently that my books have come out in trade paperback, for the special Australia/NZ editions.
As an avid reader of 3 novels a week, I find the UK hardbacks and trade paperbacks too heavy to hold for a long time and prefer mass market paperbacks or US hardback/trade paperback sizes.
And of course, buying so many books, I mainly buy mass market paperbacks because I can get more stories for my money. No one can accuse me of not supporting the industry I love!
Whatever format they come out in, I love books, both writing them and reading them
Report this comment
May 13th, 2011 2:29pm
Kate Allan
This made me think about when I ever buy books in hardback. The answer, almost never. But it is not for reasons of price. I'd love to have more hardbacks - they look great on the bookshelf, and books should be treasured. But I don't because they are awkward to read, plain and simple. So I'm not even sure this is about a gender agenda and literary snobbery but perhaps the same market forces that have seen serious newspapers shrink: I love it now that proper newspapers come Daily Mail sized, the old broadsheets were so unwieldy.
Is it time for a high quality paper book format that has all the lightness and practicality of a paperback? What about those travel guides with thick but bendable glossy covers and clean, white paper inside. Would you pay £12 for a novel like that? I think I might.
Report this comment
May 13th, 2011 4:04pm
outonalamb
"Bookshops are panicking over the news that e-books are now the bestselling format for books in the US"
What is it with publishers? In other sectors, a technological breakthrough like this would be a massive new market, not a reason to panic. The publishers have the content, the key thing, and royalty arrangements often lock in secondary use such as e-books. All they have to do is get onto Alibaba and find some OEM widget supplier in China. Hardware plus content = problem solved. Where is the initiative in this business?
Report this comment
May 13th, 2011 4:47pm
annieb
I suppose this matters if you only buy the latest big thing being pushed on the bookseller’s front tables, but I rarely do. I'm always looking for something new to me but it doesn't have to be newly published.
Reviewers expect hardbacks because that's what they get. Most of us are just browsing the shelves (or the internet) for something that sounds interesting, looks nice and feels comfortable to hold, very rarely paying RRP in the process
I also take exception with the idea that a hardback is more aesthetically pleasing than a paper back. Dust jackets are a pain and always get ripped or crumpled. A beautifully presented paperback with all the signs that you've read it and loved it is a fabulous thing.
Report this comment
May 13th, 2011 5:16pm
Amanda Craig
I still think this is an interesting issue (and many of these respondents picked up on the piece via Linda Grant's link to Facebook). Is it still the case that fiction only gets reviewed if published in hardback? It certainly used to be.
Also, moving away from sex wars in publishing, there is surely a parallel with film and DVD. If you can't wait for a film, you pay to see it in the cinema; ditto with a hardback book.(Which then, u8nlike a paperback, also makes a good present if you have book-lovers for friends.)
Report this comment
May 17th, 2011 3:02pm
Miranda France
My latest book has been quite widely reviewed (including in the Spectator!) in spite of being a paperback - so no complaints there. You could argue that all books should come out as high quality paperbacks (and e-books) and then those that really earn a place in readers' affections might later on have a hardback print run. This is already happening with books like The Hare with the Amber Eyes. Didn't Captain Corelli's Mandolin came out as a hardback years after its first publication? Perhaps we have the cart before the horse, and should save the hardback format for books that have really earned their shelf space, as opposed to new ones.
Report this comment
Back to top