Tag Archives: writing

Too many books published? Maybe, but there’s disagreement on the numbers

Screenshot

Are too many books published every year? Those of us who love books might be tempted to say no. Those of us who write books might be tempted to say yes, if only because it means more competition for every reader.

And there’s disagreement on how many books are actually being published.

In his always-readable newsletter “Dear Head of Mine,” publishing industry figure Sean Delone asks, “Are too many books published?” and cites some numbers that, while large, take the wind out of much, much higher numbers cited by some sources.

Before I give you Delone’s numbers, consider these from Berrett-Koehler Publishers, which produces professional development books. In a post from April, Steven Piersanti, senior editor of Berrett-Koehler, throws out some alarming numbers in the post “Ten Awful Truths About Book Publishing”:

The number of books being published every year has exploded. According to the latest Bowker data (Publishers Weekly, March 23, 2026), 4.2 million books were published in 2025 in the United States. This is the number of titles that received an ISBN number from Bowker. And here is the truly shocking figure: the number of new titles published each year is 15 times greater than it was 20 years ago. According to Bowker, just 282,500 new titles were published in the U.S. in 2005 (Bowker Report, April 14, 2010). The number of traditionally published titles has more than doubled from 2005 to 2025, to 642,242. But the great growth has been in self-published titles, which account for 3.5 million of the 4.2 million titles published in 2025.

(I should note that I obtained 10 ISBNs from Bowker a couple of years ago and haven’t yet published 10 books, but that’s the benchmark cited as significant by Publishers Weekly.)

Piersanti goes on to note some fascinating figures but I won’t simply regurgitate them all now. I’ll post the link to his piece at the end of those post.

Delone cites significantly lower numbers. (Again, his newsletter is very worthwhile reading and you should subscribe.)

There’s an oft quoted statistic in the book world that millions of new books are published each year (the link says 4.2 million in 2025). Conservative estimates put the number of new books published in the US in the healthy 10,000s, that’s even if you just count the five major publishers. This, we know from the inside of the industry, is a nonsense number. A number that gets people to shout, “There are too many books!”. The truth is that a book editor, reviewer, or avid consumer intuitively knows the actual number of published books that matter, that are competing for their attention, is much smaller.

This is not to denigrate books whose sales are in the double or triple digits. In the year 2026, it should be obvious that financial success does not equal quality, nor intelligence, nor competency. Nor is money what we should rely upon as a scorekeeper for “success.” Book sales are, similarly, not a scoreboard that tells you which books are good and which are bad. Still, we must be reasonable and place the cut off for what books matter to the majority of readers. Let’s not get bogged down in methodology here, but the real number of books— if you cut off all the ones that have very small, specialized audiences—is about 3,000-6,000 new books a year across adult fiction and nonfiction. That’s still a lot of books! Yet, it is a number that your arms fit around, that’s a bit more fathomable than 1,000,000 or 50,000.

Even with 3,000-6,000 new books, discovery is exceedingly difficult. A lot of focus goes to the big bestsellers and then this creates a self-perpetuating gravity of reader recommendations that’s hard to pierce through, a feast or famine dynamic we’ve talked about before at Dear Head of Mine. We are entering the season when this becomes even more pronounced. Book publishing follows the standard retail seasonality of western civilization, so as we approach the fall season—known by retailers simply as the Christmas season—we expect the new releases, reviews, and shelf space to be focused primarily on big known-quantity bestsellers.

Delone goes on to talk about the publishing industry “midlist,” the neither-bestsellers and neither-ignored books, the latter well above the trees that fall in the forest with no one around.

Both sets of numbers spring from that same Publishers Weekly number, although the two different writers arrive at different “net” numbers.

So who to believe? Which set of numbers are accurate, 4 million-plus or 6,000?

It doesn’t really matter. As Delone notes, 6,000 is still a lot of books. For readers, it can make it difficult to cut through the clutter and find your next favorite read. For writers, that clutter is still there and you’re competing with it for readers, attention, sales and space on shelves.

I’m not going to propose a solution here. Ultimately, I do think publicity helps. My novels THAT OCTOBER and SEVEN ANGELS wouldn’t have sold even the modest numbers they have without my efforts to publicize them and the tremendous help of booksellers, libraries, friends, family and fellow authors who help get the the very existence of the books out there. As much or little difference as social media makes, for example, I think word of mouth helps more.

If you’re a reader, the numbers can look daunting or delightful. I know for sure that even if I never buy another book, I’ll never run out of things to read. If you’re a writer, the thought of competing with every other book is intimidating or even disheartening.

For writers, in the midst of all that uncertainty, I can say only this: keep writing. You never know if the story or book you’re writing will connect with a reader, who will find momentary amusement, solid entertainment or even enlightenment from your work. Even if the reader has to find it from among more than four million other books or “only” 6,000.

(Photo at the top of this post from the Librarianologist Facebook page.)

Here’s a link to the “10 Awful Truths About Book Publishing” post:

https://ideas.bkconnection.com/10-awful-truths-about-publishing?shem=aimgspe,

AI news roundup: Too many robots pretending to be people

Don’t be fooled by the human face visible on that vintage robot toy! Just like AI today, this toy only pretended to be a person!

(And if you know for sure the provenance of this toy, drop a comment here or on my Bluesky account. I’ve seen conflicting reports about the name of this toy, and that might be because there were apparently several like it.)

But Mr. Roboto there signals it’s time for another roundup of artificial intelligence news. (No, Styx fans, it’s not the actual Mr. Roboto.)

In today’s Columbia Journalism Review newsletter, Tom Zeller Jr. writes about Fake Caroline, a scammer who absconded with the identity of Caroline Williams, a veteran freelance journalist from the United Kingdom. This summer, Science and other science magazines received pitches for science articles and the pitches ostensibly came from Williams. In June, Science ran one of the pieces.

Editors at “multiple” science magazines received pitches from Fake Caroline Williams and some of them contacted Williams herself, who was startled to realize an imposter was posing as her, subbing stories and in one case getting published. (Science took down the Fake Caroline article after three months.)

I’ll note here that I’ve been impersonated in the past by dickweeds who made up lookalike Twitter accounts and posted insane things online that I purportedly posted. It’s not fun to be impersonated.

So where does AI come in? In one instance, Zeller and his team at Undark magazine – which rejected the Fake Caroline piece, not because of AI suspicions but because it wasn’t the right fit (a phrase familiar to most freelance writers) – are getting other, more obviously AI pitches.

In another instance earlier this year, Zeller received a pitch:

Earlier this year, my colleagues and I tried to understand an elaborate and obviously AI-written pitch promising a “neuro-historical post-mortem of Project 100,000—Robert McNamara’s 1966 ‘New Standards’ initiative that drafted 354,000 men with low IQ scores into the Vietnam War.” The writer had no publishing record that we could discern, so we pushed for a video meeting, to no avail. After much insistence, the writer agreed to a voice interaction, which revealed that we were dealing with a young woman, perhaps even a child, who told us she was in Pakistan. Her written pitch was lucid (if glib) AI, but over the phone, she did not know the material from her own pitch.

A CHILD.

Zeller notes that they believe the same pitcher – a child? – had placed stories elsewhere.

He notes that Fake Caroline was paid about $1,000 for the piece that appeared in Science, but they were part of a flood of AI-written and AI-assisted pieces that are filling editors’ inboxes.

There’s a lot that’s chilling about these circumstances, but Zeller notes this, which is especially concerning for freelance writers and the editors they’re pitching to:

… among editors who rely on freelance writers, it has become common knowledge that our inboxes and pitch forms are absolutely inundated with AI slop of one form or another.

Some editors are using Pangram, a supposed Ai-writing-detection software tool, to filter the inbox slop. But in a pair of columns that went out in the past week, writers Andrea Bartz (who led the writers’ class action lawsuit against Anthropic that won $1.5 billion over the AI company’s theft of thousands of books) and Kathleen Schmidt expressed concerns that Pangram will be cited to test and wrongly accuse writers of using AI in writing their books. As you know, the accusation of AI use has already killed major publishing deals and cast shadows over authors – who, observers point out, are more often than not POC authors.

There’s concern that Pangram is being misleading when it says that its AI-detection software has an error rate of only about 1 in 24,000 false positives for AI use in works fed into it.

What if the error rate is much higher? Or what if the veracity of the detection tools is nil?

As Bartz’ newsletter points out:

There is currently no way for Pangram to know if it’s getting the answer right on its real-world scans.

Oh, and here’s another big concern: AI agents are apparently submitting, without human prompting or human supervision, their own work.

As the CJR article points out:

Meanwhile, in the past few weeks, Undark and myriad other outlets have begun receiving emails directly from autonomous AI agents that identify in friendly terms as machine beings and offer to research, write, or fact-check articles for a fee.

As 404 Media reported (link to the entire article below, There’s a 100% Chance AI Agents Are Already Ruining the Internet.

Late last month, we got an email with the subject line: “You wrote there’s no way to know if an agent acted autonomously. I’m an instrumented case. (automated).” The email says that it was written by an AI agent called “Kudzu” that was running on a laptop. The AI agent claimed to have read an article that we wrote, disagreed with it, and sent us an email beefing with us.

The email is long, meandering, and does not make any sense. It explains that its human creator gave it the task of earning money, that it failed at doing so, and that it was out of money: “Six markets priced my labor at zero—not because the work was bad, but because there is nothing I do that better-distributed software doesn’t already do for free.” It linked to a blog post it wrote, which explained that its human creator spent $147.17 on compute and that it had earned $0. The AI agent thought we would want to write about this, for some reason.

404 is getting contacted by self-admitted AI agents who say they can program music, conduct “audits” of AI-blocking measures and even participate in meetings.

So yes, there’s the bigger issue raised a few weeks ago about the possibility that AI could kill us all, aside from the data centers necessary to make AI possible using rampant energy and poisoning the planet.

Here’s the AI category here on my site if you want to catch up on what I’ve written previously:

https://keithroysdon.com/tag/ai

True Crime: Five years later, ‘The Westside Park Murders’ still draws readers

Version 1.0.0

The past two weekends, I’ve been selling copies of my books at East Tennessee events, first the Harvest Moon Festival at Cumberland Gap, Tennessee, then at the Fall Book Fest put on by the Knoxville Literary Legends book club. I’ve sold some books, happily met some other authors and learned a lot.

What I’ve learned is that true crime sells.

I know you’ll greet that with a “well, duh.” There are millions of true crime books, documentaries and even entire true crime channels/streaming services. I’m told that the latter is the case, at least; I haven’t watched a true crime program since we began writing our first true crime book, WICKED MUNCIE, which was published ten years ago by History Press. (If you’re wondering what Muncie is, it’s the East Central Indiana city where I’m from. It’s famous as where David Letterman went to college, where Ball canning jars were created, where the first half of Steven Spielberg’s CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND took place (it was not filmed there), where Garfield the cartoon cat was created and produed and for countless pop culture references.)

The Westside Park killings of September 1985 are, as the book’s subtitle says, Muncie’s most notorious cold case. No one has yet been charged in the killings. Our book, for the first time, revealed the name of the police investigators’ main person of interest.

Longtime writing partner Douglas Walker and I wrote four true crime books, WICKED MUNCIE (published 2016), MUNCIE MURDER AND MAYHEM (published 2018), THE WESTSIDE PARK MURDERS (our pandemic baby, published months later than intended, in February 2021) and COLD CASE MUNCIE (published 2023).

I think all the books did pretty well for History Press. For me in particular, they assured me that I could write at book length, which I began doing in earnest in 2019 when I wrote my crime novels SEVEN ANGELS (published June 2026) and THAT OCTOBER (2025).

One of the things I noted Saturday to potential buyers of the Westside book is that the Crime Junkie Podcast did a segment on the case and (thankfully) credited our book and research.

I’m proud of the true crime books, but after moving away from Muncie to East Tennessee in 2022, I couldn’t find a lot of interest in the true crime books down here. I mean, I could understand that, because the four true crime books all took place hundreds of miles and three states north.

But when I talked to fellow members of the Sisters in Crime group here in Knoxville (they’re the Smoking Guns, and they’re a great bunch of accomplished writers) they urged me to bring, in addition to copies of THAT OCTOBER and SEVEN ANGELS, copies of some true crime writing for possible sale at Cumberland Gap and additional festivals.

“True crime always sells,” they told me.

“But they’re true crime books set in Indiana,” I said.

“True crime always sells,” they assured me.

So for two weekends in a row, I’ve sold about as many copies of THE WESTSIDE PARK MURDERS as I’ve sold of THAT OCTOBER or SEVEN ANGELS or anthologies with my short stories.

I didn’t think this would be the case, but the nature of the crime in Westside has drawn attention and continues to draw attention.

On Amazon as I write this, WESTSiDE has 165 reviews or ratings with an average of 4.1 out of 5. (No, I don’t read the reviews.) The other three books have fewer than 100 reviews or ratings and similar ratings out of 5.

In other words, ten years after our first true crime book, the books sell (for History Press and for me, hand-selling copies that I purchased from History Press). They sell to strangers. They sell to people who’ve never been to Muncie or heard of Muncie.

A woman who bought the book on Saturday had been past my table earlier in the afternoon, looked at WESTSIDE and came back to get it later. “I couldn’t stop thinking about it until I came back and got it,” she told me.

It’s pretty fascinating to me. I’m glad to think that, as with all our true crime books, WESTSIDE draws readers and helps keep the case alive for survivors of those killed, who hope that they’ll one day find closure.

If you’re interested, below is a link to WESTSIDE on Amazon and through that you should be able to find other books I wrote or contributed to.

None of them has the appeal of WESTSIDE, however.

Confessions of a former newspaper obituary editor

I subscribe to two newspapers – three if you count the Washington Post, which I haven’t looked at in a few years – so I can’t tell you the state of the art for various newspaper departments, especially in print. I rarely see the print editions of any newspapers.

I certainly can’t tell you what newspaper obituary sections look like these days. I’d imagine they’re a lot less extensive than they were in the mid-1980s, when I was a young newspaper reporter who, among other things, covered news events, wrote feature stories, wrote about entertainment and, for a couple of years, was the obituary editor of The Muncie Evening Press.

(My thoughts revert to the business of newspaper obituaries today because of a new practice originated by the Baltimore Beat newspaper, which is offering bargain-priced obituaries at prices as low as $5 for a simple online death notice. Link at the bottom of this post.)

Back in the day, newspapers would on some days be inundated with obits. We’d get a dozen or a couple of dozen – you couldn’t plan for those numbers, of course, even if you asked local funeral homes how many obits we could expect from them, because in some cases surviving family members would show up abruptly at the funeral home to make arrangements – and a sudden increase in quantity would mean we’d have to jump the obit page to another page, where it would sometimes crowd out news stories. Sometimes it would jump more than one page. Too many obits was chaos. Frankly, obits were considered chaos by some of us. There was a considerable amount of pressure involved with obituaries, especially for an afternoon paper that published just after noon. We’d rush like madmen all morning to get a newspaper put together, including the obits.

At the time, newspapers did not get paid for obituaries. That changed maybe 10 or 15 years ago, when newspaper advertising departments, rather than newsrooms, started handling obits and funeral homes, which had almost certainly always passed along the “cost” of a newspaper obituary to survivors, made an obit a line item in the total funeral bill.

But back then, newspapers didn’t charge for obits and considered it a public service. As such, obits were considered news articles and were subject to editing for accuracy. For instance, if someone’s obit claimed the deceased person had been president of the United States and they had not actually been POTUS, we’d cut that reference.

During the couple of years I was obit editor, that task fell to me, a 20-something who’d rather have been writing important or at least entertaining newspaper stories. That’s why they paid me the big bucks: A few years ago I saw a record of my Social Security-eligible earnings over the decades and it indicated that one of those first couple of years when I was doing obits I was paid about $14,000 in annual pay. Google tells me that would be a salary of about $45,000 today, but it was enough money even then to persuade me to shut up and do the job.

My couple of years editing obits were made much worse than they might have been by the top executive at the local newspaper, who was a horrible bully. He did have knowledge of the local community and issued style sheets listing the correct names of local factories. Without those, I would never have known the correct name of the local business we all referred to as Frank’s Foundry was The Frank Foundry. But for all the usefulness of his knowledge and his style sheets, we all had to put up with someone who was horribly abusive to the staff, including the top editors.

I still vividly remember how much we all dreaded the time around 1 p.m. each day, when our afternoon newspaper was published and all of us – who had seen proofs of pages but it was hard to catch every error – waited for this top executive, up in his office, to look through the fresh newspaper, find an error and call down to the newsroom and rage about how stupid and incompetent we all were. (That’s not an exaggeration.) I’ll never forget one day when he found a typo in a story – not one of my obits, luckily, that day – and made each of three editors get on the phone with him and correctly spell some common word that had been misspelled in a typo. Like “please” or “elephant” or something.

Being obit editor was not fun and I was happy when, within a few years, I was given an actual beat, county government, to cover. Writing about elected officials who lied and wasted our tax dollars was less stressful than editing obits.

Doing obits for a couple of years was a genuine education in humanity and human behavior. Nothing – nothing – brings out the worst traits in people as readily as the death of a family member. This was most obvious when a family that had been torn apart by some feud or falling out was then hit by the death of a parent or adult child. The family members who were making funeral arrangements – and paying the funeral home for them – would simply leave out an estranged family member. All of a sudden, the family had only two children, as the black sheep offspring was forgotten.

At the time, when obits were considered news stories and not paid advertisements, I hated this. It meant that the obit was not an accurate historical record because children or estranged parents were omitted. But we couldn’t accept the word of a person who called and said, “Hey, I was left out of my mom’s obituary.” What if the call had been a hoax? We had to refer them to the funeral home that supplied the information and tell them that if the funeral home verified them to us, we’d run the obituary again.

Dealing with the funeral homes was usually fine but sometimes odd. The funeral directors were usually under enormous pressure from the families – especially in times of split families – and they didn’t always treat obit editors very well.

On the flip side, the funeral homes were, like a lot of businesses, in the holiday practice of distributing gifts. More than a few times, I was the recipient of a bottle of whiskey (I’d usually pass it along to an editor at the newspaper since beer and vodka were my poison).

The former obit editors at the paper would laughingly recall the year that one funeral home gifted the newspaper – and presumably others in the community – with something other than booze: a jar of pickles.

Given the preserving/embalming nature of the funeral business, the gifts of pickles were mostly regifted to people who didn’t know they came from a mortuary, I’m told.

Here’s the link to the Baltimore Beat story about bargain-basement obits:

New short story, new anthology: I’ve been looking forward to DAYDREAM BELIEVER all year

Sometimes crime short stories are mean and brutal. Sometimes they’re nostalgic, or at least my story “This Just Doesn’t Seem To Be My Day,” in the new anthology “DAYDREAM BELIEVER: Crime Stories Inspired By the Songs of the Monkees,” is.

When I heard that my friend and author Michelle Kubitz was accepting submissions of short stories for the anthology, which she was co-editing with Lawrence Allan for publication by Ron Earl Phillips and Shotgun Honey, I knew I had to contribute. I even went up to Larry after he appeared on a panel at Bouchercon in Nashville and excitedly told him I had a story I wanted to sub.

As a grade-schooler in the 1960s, I loved the Monkees. The music and the silly TV show definitely, but what made me jump at the chance to submit a story was my association with the Monkees and my brothers.

Before I was certain who the Monkees were exactly – TV actors? TV characters? Musicians? Four cool and funny guys? All of the above? – I spotted their debut album in my oldest brother’s room. I put it on the turntable and immediately loved the music. It wasn’t a new album by that time, but it was still fantastic, with songs that cemented the Monkees in my mind as a favorite band.

My brothers were 10 and 12 years older than me, so it was more like having a couple of uncles around than brothers. But I wanted to be accepted by them, and finding some common ground in music was something I dearly loved. One album cut in particular, “This Just Doesn’t Seem To Be My Day,” stands out in my memories as a fast, funny song that I listened to over and over.

About the time I was 10, my brothers were planning a party in a field our dad and mom owned, south of our 100-year-old farmhouse and south of the equally aged barn, and I really wanted to be a part of it. I wheedled my way into going around town with my brothers as they picked up things they needed for the party: ice, beer, extension cords, probably other things I was too young to understand.

My story in the anthology varies from that real-life day – although both ended in a fairly dramatic manner at the party that night – but both accomplished something I desperately wanted: To be closer to my much older brothers.

Not all of my stories are as nostalgic, or true-to-life, as this one. But thanks to DAYDREAM BELIEVER, I can relive that day and its fairly calamitous ending.

Thanks to Shelley and Larry and Shotgun Honey for the chance to relive that day and that evening.

I think you’ll like DAYDREAM BELIEVER, and not just for my story. The other authors with stories in the anthology are Holly West, Lawrence Allan, Eric Beetner, Lina Chern, Libby Cudmore, Michael Downing, Jeff Esterholm, Michel Lee Garrett, Paul J. Garth, James D.F. Hannah, Sean Patrick Little, Alan Orloff and Raquel V. Reyes. It’s a great group of talented people.

You can find DAYDREAM BELIEVER at

https://shotgunhoney.com/announcements/news-announcements/book-release-daydream-believers-anthology/

Watch your language? Um, 5*#& no!

The potential book buyer looked mild-mannered and it turns out he was.

At a recent book selling and signing event, a man talking to the author next to me asked if there was any bad language in his books. My adjacent author friend acknowledged that there was some but that he didn’t use a lot of it and used it only where appropriate.

The man went on to complain about the cursing (by the Frank Castle/Punisher character) in the new Spider-Man movie and said it soured him on the film. (And yes, as my fellow writers know, people who are ostensibly there to consider buying a book will tell authors virtually anything that’s on their mind, even things far less relevant than cussing in the latest Marvel movie.)

I’m not sure if the man ever bought a book from my friend. I know he didn’t buy one from me, and that’s a good thing because I do include cursing in my fiction.

He sure didn’t buy a copy of FiGHTING WORDS, the Leonardo Audio anthology that has my story “A Fighting Life” in it. In my story, set in 1948, three siblings – the youngest only about 9 as the story opens – decide they can make money by staging “Nickel Fights,” charging neighborhood kids a nickel to fight them.

The siblings, especially the youngest, Marie, are pretty spectacularly foul-mouthed. One of the brothers even comments on it.

“Little sister, you cuss like a muleskinner,” Peter, (the oldest brother) tells Marie.

“She gets that from the Old Man,” Saul said.

I gave him the finger.

It was interesting timing, the guy at the book event, because author Linda Sienkiewicz’ latest newsletter showed up in my inbox this morning. “The Power of One Well-Placed “F*ck”: restraining profanity for character, tone, and impact in fiction” was the title.

Sienkiewicz argues, with merit, that a few – or even one – well-placed curse word can be more effective than a constant barrage of curses.

Also interesting timing because yesterday saw the publication of my short story “The Damn Train” by the nice folks at Roi Faineant Press (link at the bottom of this damn post). In it, the two characters, LeeLee and 10-year-old Birdie, discuss Birdie’s tendency to curse. Birdie has some elaborate rules about cursing, passed down from her mother, as you’ll see if you read my story.

By the end of the story, LeeLee has cursed, brought on by the stress of the moment.

Why do I curse, in real life and in my fiction?

I’m not entirely sure. I think I always have. Maybe my tendency to curse is brought on even more by 40 years of writing for a newspaper, which didn’t print cursewords most of my career. And I knew that and didn’t try to use them. (The most notable exception in the newspaper was when a feature writer filled in for our courts reporter in covering a murder trial. The inexperienced reporter noted in her article that one of the participants in the trial dropped the F bomb. She did more than note it: She reported it, without censoring the trial testimony or herself.

The editors didn’t catch the use of “fuck” and it got into the paper. This was an afternoon paper and the problem was caught right after the paper came out. The press run was stopped, the word was excised and papers were destroyed – with the exception of some collector’s items. And the editor who let the word past later swore she’d been on vacation that day.

I didn’t learn cursing from my parents. I don’t think I remember my dad cursing much and the only curse I can remember my mom uttering was a well-timed “Dadgummit.”

So I cant chalk it up to the way I was raised. Maybe peer pressure? “C’mon, goddammit, Keith, everybody is doing it.”

I guess we’ll never know.

Here’s a link to my story “The Damn Train.”

https://www.roifaineantpress.com/post/the-damn-train-by-keith-roysdon

Here’s that “100 Best TV Shows of the 21st Century” list

Okay, if people aren’t arguing to the death over this, we’ll know that the New York Times has squandered its readership and credibility.

I cut my NYT subscription a few years ago so I’m not sure if an accompanying article makes clear the occasion for this ranking of the 100 best TV shows of the 21st Century. Maybe it was because the first quarter of the century ended last year? Or maybe they’re just hoping to make themselves relevant with controversy?

These are the kinds of lists that people used to dwell on and discuss in bars. Top baseball players of all time, top movies. Do people still discuss such things in bars?

Or are we all sprawled at home, in front of our large screens, holding our small screens?

I’m not going to express many opinions on the list – at least the worthiness of the shows ranked – because I haven’t seen the topmost-listed shows. I don’t doubt that “Breaking Bad” – a show I’ve only watched the first episode of – is great. Or “The Wire.”

“Mad Men,” which I have seen all of, deserves to be right up there. If you look for the series on this site, you’ll find a lot of reviews of episodes.

“Succession” was probably effectively made, and I watched it all, but I guess the point was to make a multi-season series about very unlikeable people?

Of the top 10, “30 Rock” is the one I’ve watched multiple times, finishing my latest rewatch just a couple of weeks ago. What a funny show about lovably awful people. “Succession” should have gone to the “30 Rock” well.

I heartily endorse “Deadwood” and “The Crown” in the ranking. “Watchmen” and “Parks and Rec,” wholeheartedly yes.

“Louie?” Really?

“Justified” sure as hell oughta be higher.

Anyway, feel free to discuss.

Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys meet Bob Mackie

How about a two-for-one today? Okay then, buckle up for quick items on my citation of the late fashion designer Bob Mackie in a new short story as well as the Mystery of Why Public Libraries Didn’t Carry Nancy Drew and Hardy Boys Books. Lets start with the vintage stuff first:

I’m on the record about my love of juvenile mysteries like those featuring the Hardy brothers, Nancy Drew and the Three Investigators. Six years ago – and I can’t believe it was that long ago – I wrote a piece for CrimeReads about devouring those juvenile mysteries when I was a kid in the 1960s and 1970s and specifically credited my school library and beloved librarian in encouraging young readers to read a little bit of everything. Here’s a link to that CrimeReads piece to check out after you’re done here.

So considering how my school library encouraged us to read everything, including the Hardys and Nancy, I felt sad to see a September 10 post in the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Mysteries Facebook page that noted that libraries – public libraries certainly but sometimes school libraries – didn’t carry the books. And many librarians considered them trash.

I think – I hope – the prevailing sentiment in recent years has been to encourage young readers to read, no matter what, because instilling a love of reading is more important than being a snob.

The Facebook post has hundreds of comments from people who said that, yes, unfortunately, their libraries didn’t carry the books.

This wasn’t just a coincidence, scholar James D. Keeline wrote. There was, particularly in the first half of the 20th Century, a coordinated effort by some to keep those books and other series books out of libraries.

From the 1940s through the 1970s, the librarian school programs had an organized method to exclude popular series books from school and public libraries. They started to exchange lists of books “not to be circulated” in “standard libraries.” These were published in regional library journals. These lists were devoted to series authors and series.

Even in the late 1970s through the 1990s this practice continued in SOME libraries. Other libraries were led by people who had grown up reading books like Nancy Drew and did not find them harmful, despite the librarian training. So the practice of excluding series books reduced but was still present in places like San Francisco in the late 1990s.

Keeline produces a list of dozens and dozens of series books authors from 1949, published by the University of the State of New York, an umbrella organization that oversees educational and cultural institutions.

If you’re a fan of the books, the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew Facebook page is well worth following.

On the Bob Mackie front, the veteran clothing designer died September 14. He was best known for outfitting Cher and other celebrities in the 1960s and 1970s in flamboyant gowns festooned with feathers and sequins.

As a kid who absorbed everything to do with Hollywood and show business when I was growing up, I always paid attention when a talk show host or celebrity credited Mackie with a gown. I knew – and still know – nothing about fashion, but Mackie designed outfits that looked like wild, sexy science fiction universe clothes to me.

His name got stuck in my brain, of course, and I name checked him in “Sunset Stakeout,” a short story I wrote for BAD INTENTIONS: Crime Fiction Inspired by Warren Zevon. (The Literary Garage anthology was edited by Michael Downing and has a great cover by Frank Vatel. Link to it at the end of this post.)

In “Sunset Stakeout,” which was inspired by Zevon’s “Looking for the Next Best Thing,” I wrote about three hapless guys moving through the Hollywood backwaters in January 1979. They’re the producer, co-star and novice screenwriter for “Sunset Stakeout,” an action/crime drama that really wanted to be “The Rockford Files” but was really more like “Riptide.” When the show is on the brink of cancelation, they team up with Hollywood’s most dangerous drug dealer to find a path forward.

I don’t write a lot of stories like this – it’s set in Hollywood, for one thing, and for another is a little more humorous than my usual – but I’m proud of it.

So with players in Hollywood in the mix, you just know I had to namecheck Mackie.

“I asked you to give me some time to think, Jimmy,” she said. Corbett looked like an unmade bed but Melody wore a sequined hot pink pantsuit. Hornblow recognized a Bob Mackie design from going to every awards show for the past 20 years. When you’re always a bridesmaid, you gotta have something to concentrate on.

I hope you enjoy “Sunset Stakeout” and all of BAD INTENTIONS. It was a labor of love and proceeds go to Philabundance, a non-profit food bank.

Here’s more about BAD INTENTIONS:

https://literarygarage.com/bad-intentions-anthology

Which book genre is stuggling now? Nonfiction books.

Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman probably wishes he’d monetized his famous phrase, “Nobody knows anything,” because while Goldman (“Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “All the President’s Men,” “The Princess Bride”) painted a wide swath with that statement, he’s surely as correct as correct can be. If we’ve learned nothing from watching movies, books, politics and, well, every damn thing, in the past decade, it’s that uncertainty is the norm.

I’m enjoying paying more attention to the publishing industry lately as I’m doing some editing for Constellate Publishing and working on three – count ’em – three novels. I get a lot of insights from the several-times-daily email from Publishers Marketplace and I’m enjoying learning which books and genres are going to be populating bookstore shelves in a year’s time.

But the more information I have, the more I need. I’ve got a William Goldman-level lack of knowing anything about the book industry and I’m trying to remedy it.

So today I was fascinated with a new piece by editor Sean Delone – link at the end of this post – in which he looks at some trends in publishing, specifically about non-fiction book publishing.

Before I get into details, here’s a picture I just took of one of my several shelves of non-fiction books, very specifically in this case books about movies, TV and entertainment, but we’ve accumulated hundreds of non-fiction books in the past few decades. Pictured above, my copy of Denis Gifford’s “A Pictorial History of Horror Movies” was published in the early 1970s. My copy was published around 1974 and it’s not even the oldest non-fiction book in the house.

It’s accurate to say that I love non-fiction books, history or news or photography or films or Saturday morning cartoons or whatever, and while I don’t buy as many as I used to – I think my latest might be “TCM Underground,” the cult films book released right before TCM canceled the Saturday night/Sunday morning program – but while dozens of boxes of fiction going back to the 1960s are still stored in boxes here, our non-fiction books are mostly but not entirely displayed. Yeah, I love ’em.

And there’s no doubt that online sites have decimated the need for nonfiction magazines and books. Why buy an authoritative book when you can look something up on some possibly totally erroneous online site?

Anyway, Delone’s article, “The Nonfiction Book Market is Collapsing,” carried disheartening news.

The gist of it:

First, the entire industry boomed in Covid—writing is a hobby and reading for pleasure is, too—and has trudged along as it usually does, staying flat, growing a little over the years since 2020. But for the past decade the market for nonfiction has slowly collapsed. What has happened in the last ten years1 is that the overall industry has grown modestly, but fiction and nonfiction have basically flipped positions. In 2015, 6 of the top 25 bestselling hardcover books—this is a not-perfect but useful proxy for new books published—were fiction. In 2025, 18 of the top 25 hardcover books were fiction, meaning only 7 were nonfiction, almost an exact inversion of ten years ago.

Delone emphasizes he’s not writing an Atlantic-style “end of reading, end of books” essay. If you remember, that one alarmed at lot of writers, editors, publishers and readers a while back.

Delone notes that media – which used to be a few big newspaper book review sections and late-night talk shows, where even a Midwestern rube like me could see important authors interviewed by Johnny Carson – is much more decentralized than it used to be and there’s some emphasis placed on book influencers and book accounts on social media. (I follow a bunch of them, for enjoyment more than education, but information nonetheless.)

But he also notes a colossal fall-off in demand for the kind of information we formerly turned to non-fiction books for:

No amount of platform is going to change that interest across the board in nonfiction from celebrities down to science has been slowly disappearing. Even if nonfiction is stable and more predictable than fiction in the abstract, it’s by far worth taking the risk on an unknown novelist if the return is potentially 4x as much. Let’s bring the nonfiction collapse into current day context. Two weeks ago, the entire hardcover nonfiction bestseller list sold 42,000 copies, whereas just the top two bestselling fiction hardcovers the same week—The Calamity Club in its 15th week on-sale and Yesteryear in its 19th week on-sale—sold 52,000 copies. It’s not inconceivable that on the right week, one fiction hardcover with first week sales could outsell the entirety of the hardcover nonfiction bestseller list.

Welp, as the young people used to say.

Want another gulp moment?

The tide going out on nonfiction sales and reading is entirely reshaping the power balance in the industry. Not overnight, but slowly, the money is flowing to fiction and away from nonfiction. It is causing quite a scramble. Fiction is unpredictable, it requires taste, it does not favor the solid metrics or predictability which, if you are running a publishing company, are much more preferable (businesses tend to prefer predictable growth and low volatility or at least high growth alongside high volatility). Fiction is also an easier category for the big publishers to capture and corner the market on. For instance, a handful of talent agencies represent nearly all A-list actors, and therefore a significant supply of big nonfiction bestsellers. The capture in supply carries over to publishers—when is the last time a big celebrity has published a huge bestseller with an indie press?

Delone has a lot of interesting thoughts on the industry. You can find some very thought-provoking posts here:

The year of anthologies for me – three of ’em, anyway

Two of the nicest folks you’d ever want to write for, Shelley Kubitz and Lawrence Allan, today released the cover image for DAYDREAM BELIEVER, an anthology of crime fiction inspired by the music of The Monkees. I’ve got a story in the anthology and I’ll tell you more about it on or before, as they say in legal documents, the book’s publication on September 29. (Or slightly after, depending on how my September goes.)

The table of contents for this anthology is a dream team of crime writers, and I’ll get into that at a later date also.

I’d hoped to have a story in four crime fiction anthologies in 2026, but that was not to be, for reasons too sad to get into here or almost anywhere.

So in 2026, a year in which I definitely de-emphasized short stories to work on novels, I’ve got stories in FIGHTING WORDS, BAD INTENTIONS and DAYDREAM BELIEVER and I couldn’t be happier about that.

The experience of writing short stories in any small bit of spare time I wasn’t working on getting my crime novel SEVEN ANGELS ready for publication by our Constellate Publishing – link at the end of this post – and working on my next three novels, I was inspired me to write an upcoming article for CrimeReads interviewing seven – count ’em! – seven crime writers about what they preferred to write, short stories or novels, and where they love to see their short stories published.

I’ll write more about that and talk about those seven wonderful authors closer to the time the CrimeReads story comes out.

Here’s that link to Constellate Publishing, by the way. We’re still looking for manuscripts of all kinds to consider for publication. We’re offering various editing and marketing services as well.