Go Set a Watchman

KatieinBkln

WhatawagSBNy said:

I would hate to see her exploited. But if like many formerly famous people, she is facing a long possible life ahead in need of expensive care to keep her from ending up destitute, I would see making the best of what assets she has to be a good thing. The key would be to make sure, through oversight, that she is getting the majority of the profit, not a small fraction.

As a former drone in the book publishing world, I have to tell you--no (American) author is making the majority of the profit on their book. Royalty rates for hardcovers hover around 15% of retail sales (after the retailers return unsold books, of course! A lovely little holdover from the Great Depression that insulates booksellers from risk at the expense of publishers and writers). Paperbacks are usually somewhere around 8% of retail.

Authors receive an "advance" when their publisher agrees to publish their work; this is short for "advance against royalties," which means that if an author receives a $100,000 advance, she will not start earning royalty checks until her book sales "earn out" that advance (at the aforementioned rate of 15% of retail value from each book sold). 

Now, an author like Harper Lee is sure to A. receive a HUGE advance in the first place, and B. almost certainly earn that advance back and earn royalties on her work. But the vast majority of writers never earn out their advances.

All of this is to say that yes--one hopes her lawyer/agent is not going to fleece her by taking more than the industry-standard 15% of her earnings, but those earnings are going to be somewhere in the realm of 15% of each $15 book she sells--hardly a "majority" of the profit made on the book's sale.

*Dorky book publishing rant OVER*

WhatawagSBNy

I just assumed after booksellers and publishers, net majority of money to her, not 11% to a guardian each year, and higher than average agent fees, and promo fees, any way they can chisel down author's share. Which can and does happen.

Jen4948

relliotts said:

WhatawagSBNy said:

I would hate to see her exploited. But if like many formerly famous people, she is facing a long possible life ahead in need of expensive care to keep her from ending up destitute, I would see making the best of what assets she has to be a good thing.

The key would be to make sure, through oversight, that she is getting the majority of the profit, not a small fraction.

She is almost 90, has lived simply, and is still making profits from TKAMB which is one of the best selling novels of all time. I doubt she is close to destitute.

The "oversight" is entirely what is at issue here.  Her sister, who watched out for her best interests her whole life and was the one who ensured she was NOT taken advantage of, is now gone. Prior business partners have taken advantage of her in recent years by taking the rights to TKAMB for their own personal profit, as documented in legal proceedings. And now, suddenly, there's a new book on the market after a lifetime of insisting that she didn't want any of her other works published. I'd be interested to see the contract as it relates to that book - where does the money flow?  It's just all very strange. I hope that everything is above board and legitimate, but I'm not going to celebrate the publication of this novel until I know that is the case.


So don't read it.

climbingsingle

IMO, if Harper Lee had wanted this book published, it would have been published many years ago. I definitely find the timing suspect. It's disappointing, but I'll probably still read it. 

melbenso

I am truly thrilled and have preordered my copy.  To Kill a Mockingbird is my favorite book ever.  However, I am also torn, because it is possible that Harper Lee was manipulated into publishing this book after her sister and long time guardian passed away.  I hope that it is what she really wanted and not some money-greedy publisher pushing her to do something against her wishes.