[elmin]

The issue is similar to the black swan phenomenon. Publishers are deciding what will sell based on what sold in the past, but the next great surprise success almost definitively has to be different than those in the past. You need some ability to inject books into the system which don't fit the historical mold.

The best way to do it is probably For publishers to also publish books they think are good, even if they're prospects aren't great. Most will fail, but a few will win big. In a way, it's just like venture capital.

Maybe we need a venture publishing industry.

[dilemma]

> For publishers to also publish books they think are good, even if they're prospects aren't great. Most will fail, but a few will win big. In a way, it's just like venture capital. Maybe we need a venture publishing industry.

They already do and we already have that. In fact, that is the reason why so many authors are dissatisfied with publishers. Publishers publish a large number of titles on the hope that one of them will take off, and spend little to nothing on promoting the majority of them. So in the majority of cases, titles are neglected and may not earn back the advance - unless the author has a significant existing audience. Then they get a better deal, too.

[ekidd]

> Maybe we need a venture publishing industry.

I've spoken with professional authors and editors, and I get the impression that the typical mid-range fiction publishing house pretty much _is_ a "venture publishing" operation. They buy books from lots of authors, many of whom disappear without a trace. The bulk of their profits comes from a handful of well-known authors.