I thought this about the memoir I’m Mostly Here to Enjoy Myself, which was marketed as being a very sexual book, when really the sex scenes are not the main thrust (sorry, had to) of the book at all. Then I heard Glynnis speak at The Red Wheelbarrow in Paris, where she addressed this. She said she thought of the book as more a love letter to female friendships — and her bike! The sex angle was all marketing. And apparently reviewers/readers wanted the sex they thought they’d be getting. (Her advice that day: women readers want sex scenes.) Thank you, as always, for this deep dive into marketing and publicity!
Oh my gosh, the bike! It’s always the little peculiar thing that gets readers too—I wish we leaned into that, and of course leaned into more sex scenes for women too!!
If someone could explain which writers get pitched as literary fiction, that’d be much appreciated. Because it doesn’t seem to be based on the writing sometimes. Case in point: Kiley Reid. Second case in point: Chelsea Bieker. I liked Madwoman but it read a bit cutesy, with some convenient plot twists. Calling it emotional suspense was a stretch. I read a review of her work recently that described her as a literary fiction titan, and I think I barfed up my coffee a bit. Upmarket’s being generous.
I agreeeeeeee. I think part of this is that she started in literary fiction--her initial story collection is pretty rooted in literary fiction, and we don't really allow writers to switch lanes in the current publishing market. So, if you've been writing in one genre, then you stay there and they try to adapt the new work (marketing-wise) to your old audience, while trying to bring in the newer audience too and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree with Kiley Ried too, I LOVE her books and writing but it's pretty commercial feeling to me even if it's character-driven and insular in the storytelling! And from when I was agenting, we sort of never marketed anything as literary fiction because expectations were way too high for it, so we called everything that wasn't REALLY REALLY REALLY literary, upmarket. I think I sold one true LITERARY fiction book that I admitted was literary fiction on the outset!
I’m coming to this post after reading the MadLibs one and I have to say - THANK YOU! I think I get it - in a way I hadn’t quite before. Also thanks for the discussion above in the comments about genre. This explains a lot. In general I appreciate how much care and transparency you’re bring to this newsletter. Thanks, thanks, thanks. 💖
This is something I constantly think about Cassie so thank you for pulling back the curtain a bit while also being vulnerable! I work in comms, (but not book publicity),l writing a pitch to a reporter/editor is tough and I am always tweaking the language and feeling a tad guilty when leading with what will resonate because it's a "hot topic" vs the heart of the thing. I can think of several books this year where the marketing confused me and now I feel a bit more enlightened
It’s so hard to balance! You want to be like HEY OPEN MY EMAIL AND READ PAST THREE LINES, but also like… hey, this is really about something beautiful and here it is. The constant tweaking is such a lifestyle of ours, ha! Thanks, Ariana! I’d be interested to hear which books felt marketed differently than the book too (though don’t feel pressure to share, I just like to be nosy and to do some research!)
Exactly! And most recently American Daughters . It was not at all a thrilling historical spy tale and I was so upset but could have tempered my expectations had I known what to expect. One whose marketing I found fascinating was Off the Books. The description is very vague but the story ends up being incredibly poignant while stoll a bit zany, it wasn't a perfect balance but I was impressed. And i think witholding so much in the summary kept away a lot of potential readers who wouldn't think to read a road trip novel but might have if you said it's about community/genocide/forced migration
Cassie, I loooove how high-level this exploration is-- not something we see very often and something very useful to think about.
Fi is such an interesting example of a book, because Fuller has written SO MANY memoirs and has such a specific audience. I'm one of those who would read anything she publishes, period. Because of everything that's been published, she can't draw on certain material in certain ways--it's been covered-- which I'm guessing structurally shapes her books... then at the same time many readers like me are bringing additional context and history into the story, so we're not missing it. How *DO* you market such a thing? Fuller is also local to my area and I've heard anecdotally that she got big pushback from her publisher/agent from trying to write a grief memoir-- but she still got to publish this, in the end, which is interesting. Would be curious what the numbers of that book look like. (It sold like gangbusters here, but this is where Fi lived and died.)
I always felt like my team did a horrible job with my book description v. the book itself (curious what you think) but I struggled to add anything myself; it was a scenario where I tried to just trust that they knew more on the marketing end than I do. I pitch it much differently in person, though, when people ask what my book is about.
Oh, I'm SO CURIOUS what you're saying about Fi. I agree about Fuller--I actually think she's one of those writers that's really love to trace as an arc of a career because she very clearly has obsessions, and yet I would still pick up all of her books? And it's not even solely style, it's that I know she will make interesting anything she chooses to look at. I am also so interested in the idea that she got pushback on grief, because if she's getting push back--imagine any debut author whose main thread of a book is grief. She's published so much, she's so prolific, and even she's not allowed to write grief? A travesty. This also makes me want to finish it before break is over and I have to go back to mostly work reading.
Your book description takes a HARD left from the very embodied story of the book. Your book is essentially much more human than this description. I ... I wonder who they were writing too because this is also such an intellectualized way to talk about a book--very medical jargon-y, when I think that, yes, that is an audience for your book, but I agree much more with the NYT quote about "feeling less alone." I think, honestly, we would all do better if we lead with feeling on MOST books rather than trying to intellectualize STORY which is a thing that lives in our blood / bones / stardust / cells.
Yes-- you've said it well here. When I share Lightning Flowers' elevator pitch in person, I start with, "So when I was 24, I was working as a ski instructor and climbing guide here in Jackson when I suddenly went into cardiac arrest in a parking lot downtown-- while uninsured, in a time before Obamacare." The story has to come first, and so many of the central tensions are available within one sentence. The larger wrestling with the ICD-- including the idea of a life-saving device causing loss of life elsewhere-- comes much later in the "paragraph" of the verbal pitch, when I mention that the same device I uprooted my life to access has turned out to be something more harmful than helpful in my story.
Sometimes mentioning the supply chain journey ends up a throwaway sentence because people want to engage with ME (the part of the story standing in front of them). But sometimes it perks people up--"whoa, I've never thought of that, you went to mines and factories around the world?!"-- and we set down a much more intellectual path.
But I feel like MOST of the resonance has been with patients of various types... even NPR cut the supply chain stuff on my episode of Fresh Air and stuck with the story of living with a heart condition in our healthcare system. It's hard to hold both pieces at once, which is why I wrote the book... but describing that book remains slippery. My goop podcast episode remains my favorite piece of publicity because Elise Loehnen did an uncommonly good job at bringing the whole book into the conversation and making the connections live.
I'm actually realizing through the process of typing this comment out (and editing it--full disclosure) that most of my late-stage publicity and marketing opportunities have relied on cardiology departments, neuroethics conferences, biomedical engineering hubs, environmental groups etc. thinking me legit and bringing me in... so that slightly validates the publisher's choices. BUT, if the copy had been more general-reader-friendly from the beginning, maybe its reputation would have proceeded it and I would have ended up in those spaces without so specifically trying to posture as a certain kind of intellectual title. A biomedical inventor's MOM would have read it and told them they needed to pick it up or bring me in.
As for Fuller, RIGHT?! All I can hope is that the book does well enough that someone newer can use it as a comp for the idea of books selling-- even though Fuller is a tough person to try to compare yourself to. (FWIW my favorite book of hers is the slightly-unhinged SCRIBBLING THE CAT, which operates slightly outside her normal range, but which could truly be written by no one else.)
I thought this about the memoir I’m Mostly Here to Enjoy Myself, which was marketed as being a very sexual book, when really the sex scenes are not the main thrust (sorry, had to) of the book at all. Then I heard Glynnis speak at The Red Wheelbarrow in Paris, where she addressed this. She said she thought of the book as more a love letter to female friendships — and her bike! The sex angle was all marketing. And apparently reviewers/readers wanted the sex they thought they’d be getting. (Her advice that day: women readers want sex scenes.) Thank you, as always, for this deep dive into marketing and publicity!
Oh my gosh, the bike! It’s always the little peculiar thing that gets readers too—I wish we leaned into that, and of course leaned into more sex scenes for women too!!
I JUST finished this book Kristin and thought the same thing! Appreciate that she named that because I was more into the freedom and friendship angles
Oh my gosh, should I read this one? It sounds good! How have I missed it?
Definitely yes
If someone could explain which writers get pitched as literary fiction, that’d be much appreciated. Because it doesn’t seem to be based on the writing sometimes. Case in point: Kiley Reid. Second case in point: Chelsea Bieker. I liked Madwoman but it read a bit cutesy, with some convenient plot twists. Calling it emotional suspense was a stretch. I read a review of her work recently that described her as a literary fiction titan, and I think I barfed up my coffee a bit. Upmarket’s being generous.
I agreeeeeeee. I think part of this is that she started in literary fiction--her initial story collection is pretty rooted in literary fiction, and we don't really allow writers to switch lanes in the current publishing market. So, if you've been writing in one genre, then you stay there and they try to adapt the new work (marketing-wise) to your old audience, while trying to bring in the newer audience too and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I agree with Kiley Ried too, I LOVE her books and writing but it's pretty commercial feeling to me even if it's character-driven and insular in the storytelling! And from when I was agenting, we sort of never marketed anything as literary fiction because expectations were way too high for it, so we called everything that wasn't REALLY REALLY REALLY literary, upmarket. I think I sold one true LITERARY fiction book that I admitted was literary fiction on the outset!
ay ay ay if only I’d understood this before I naively wrote multiple literary grief novels that will most likely never see the light of day 😮💨
You write those novels that are probably great and then you just pitch them not that way! Win win for all of us!!
I’m coming to this post after reading the MadLibs one and I have to say - THANK YOU! I think I get it - in a way I hadn’t quite before. Also thanks for the discussion above in the comments about genre. This explains a lot. In general I appreciate how much care and transparency you’re bring to this newsletter. Thanks, thanks, thanks. 💖
Oh Kelly--this is so nice to read! I'm so glad to help. Books are my love language too! <3
This was so insightful!
Thank you so much!
This is something I constantly think about Cassie so thank you for pulling back the curtain a bit while also being vulnerable! I work in comms, (but not book publicity),l writing a pitch to a reporter/editor is tough and I am always tweaking the language and feeling a tad guilty when leading with what will resonate because it's a "hot topic" vs the heart of the thing. I can think of several books this year where the marketing confused me and now I feel a bit more enlightened
It’s so hard to balance! You want to be like HEY OPEN MY EMAIL AND READ PAST THREE LINES, but also like… hey, this is really about something beautiful and here it is. The constant tweaking is such a lifestyle of ours, ha! Thanks, Ariana! I’d be interested to hear which books felt marketed differently than the book too (though don’t feel pressure to share, I just like to be nosy and to do some research!)
Exactly! And most recently American Daughters . It was not at all a thrilling historical spy tale and I was so upset but could have tempered my expectations had I known what to expect. One whose marketing I found fascinating was Off the Books. The description is very vague but the story ends up being incredibly poignant while stoll a bit zany, it wasn't a perfect balance but I was impressed. And i think witholding so much in the summary kept away a lot of potential readers who wouldn't think to read a road trip novel but might have if you said it's about community/genocide/forced migration
So kind of Christopher Nolan to announce The Odyssey as his next movie project, thus giving you the perfect news peg for Civilians!
Hahahaha I wish it was that easy but she does have so many good essays that are in that conversation!
Cassie, I loooove how high-level this exploration is-- not something we see very often and something very useful to think about.
Fi is such an interesting example of a book, because Fuller has written SO MANY memoirs and has such a specific audience. I'm one of those who would read anything she publishes, period. Because of everything that's been published, she can't draw on certain material in certain ways--it's been covered-- which I'm guessing structurally shapes her books... then at the same time many readers like me are bringing additional context and history into the story, so we're not missing it. How *DO* you market such a thing? Fuller is also local to my area and I've heard anecdotally that she got big pushback from her publisher/agent from trying to write a grief memoir-- but she still got to publish this, in the end, which is interesting. Would be curious what the numbers of that book look like. (It sold like gangbusters here, but this is where Fi lived and died.)
I always felt like my team did a horrible job with my book description v. the book itself (curious what you think) but I struggled to add anything myself; it was a scenario where I tried to just trust that they knew more on the marketing end than I do. I pitch it much differently in person, though, when people ask what my book is about.
Oh, I'm SO CURIOUS what you're saying about Fi. I agree about Fuller--I actually think she's one of those writers that's really love to trace as an arc of a career because she very clearly has obsessions, and yet I would still pick up all of her books? And it's not even solely style, it's that I know she will make interesting anything she chooses to look at. I am also so interested in the idea that she got pushback on grief, because if she's getting push back--imagine any debut author whose main thread of a book is grief. She's published so much, she's so prolific, and even she's not allowed to write grief? A travesty. This also makes me want to finish it before break is over and I have to go back to mostly work reading.
Your book description takes a HARD left from the very embodied story of the book. Your book is essentially much more human than this description. I ... I wonder who they were writing too because this is also such an intellectualized way to talk about a book--very medical jargon-y, when I think that, yes, that is an audience for your book, but I agree much more with the NYT quote about "feeling less alone." I think, honestly, we would all do better if we lead with feeling on MOST books rather than trying to intellectualize STORY which is a thing that lives in our blood / bones / stardust / cells.
Yes-- you've said it well here. When I share Lightning Flowers' elevator pitch in person, I start with, "So when I was 24, I was working as a ski instructor and climbing guide here in Jackson when I suddenly went into cardiac arrest in a parking lot downtown-- while uninsured, in a time before Obamacare." The story has to come first, and so many of the central tensions are available within one sentence. The larger wrestling with the ICD-- including the idea of a life-saving device causing loss of life elsewhere-- comes much later in the "paragraph" of the verbal pitch, when I mention that the same device I uprooted my life to access has turned out to be something more harmful than helpful in my story.
Sometimes mentioning the supply chain journey ends up a throwaway sentence because people want to engage with ME (the part of the story standing in front of them). But sometimes it perks people up--"whoa, I've never thought of that, you went to mines and factories around the world?!"-- and we set down a much more intellectual path.
But I feel like MOST of the resonance has been with patients of various types... even NPR cut the supply chain stuff on my episode of Fresh Air and stuck with the story of living with a heart condition in our healthcare system. It's hard to hold both pieces at once, which is why I wrote the book... but describing that book remains slippery. My goop podcast episode remains my favorite piece of publicity because Elise Loehnen did an uncommonly good job at bringing the whole book into the conversation and making the connections live.
I'm actually realizing through the process of typing this comment out (and editing it--full disclosure) that most of my late-stage publicity and marketing opportunities have relied on cardiology departments, neuroethics conferences, biomedical engineering hubs, environmental groups etc. thinking me legit and bringing me in... so that slightly validates the publisher's choices. BUT, if the copy had been more general-reader-friendly from the beginning, maybe its reputation would have proceeded it and I would have ended up in those spaces without so specifically trying to posture as a certain kind of intellectual title. A biomedical inventor's MOM would have read it and told them they needed to pick it up or bring me in.
As for Fuller, RIGHT?! All I can hope is that the book does well enough that someone newer can use it as a comp for the idea of books selling-- even though Fuller is a tough person to try to compare yourself to. (FWIW my favorite book of hers is the slightly-unhinged SCRIBBLING THE CAT, which operates slightly outside her normal range, but which could truly be written by no one else.)