gwern comments on How can I strategically write a complex bestseller? (4HS001) - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Neotenic 12 June 2013 08:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 13 June 2013 09:36:57PM *  3 points [-]

I'm not sure I know where you're getting this from. Aren't there a lot fewer than a million books published each year?

Absolutely not. In the UNESCO figures, the USA hits >300k new books a year and a global total of >2.2m new books a year. Estimates sourced from Bowkers (in charge of ISBNs) using a less restrictive definition put it at 3 million, in the USA alone.

Comment author: pjeby 15 June 2013 07:03:23PM 0 points [-]

the USA hits >300k new books a year and a global total of >2.2m new books a year

So, in any given market for books, there are a lot less than a million published each year. 300k/520 opportunities to be a bestseller = better than 1:1000 odds.

Note that an "international bestseller" doesn't mean a book is in the top worldwide, it means that it was a bestseller in more than one country. So nobody's trying to rank out of the 2.2m/year.

Comment author: gwern 15 June 2013 07:41:01PM 0 points [-]

So, in any given market for books, there are a lot less than a million published each year. 300k/520 opportunities to be a bestseller = better than 1:1000 odds.

That doesn't follow. To make the obvious points, books published the previous years (~300m possibilities) are also competing for space on the bestsellers list by means fair and foul (see the Church of Scientology), and books can also spend many weeks on the bestseller list, using up even more slots (not sure where your 520 number is coming from).

Comment author: pjeby 15 June 2013 07:47:43PM 0 points [-]

(not sure where your 520 number is coming from).

10 slots on a list times 52 weeks in a year. While the other issues you mention are relevant, they are at least somewhat balanced by there being more than one best seller list in existence, many with a smaller pool of candidates than the NYT list.

Comment author: gwern 15 June 2013 07:54:06PM *  0 points [-]

somewhat balanced by there being more than one best seller list in existence

Somewhat. Not much. There are books that spend months or years on the bestsellers (eg. Fifty Shades of Grey), and just one of these books alone will blow away an entire tenth of the entire pool for that bestseller list - and then there are the sequels or spinoffs or licensees of existing franchises like Star Wars or Star Trek or Dune or Twilight...

many with a smaller pool of candidates than the NYT list.

That's not a point in favor because it means that you will have a hard time getting into those pools. It's only useful if you know in advance that you can get into them.