Skip to main content

The book signing as a fishing trip

I did a signing of Ecologic yesterday at our local Borders. They had done a great job, producing some excellent posters and a brilliant signing position with the sort of display of books you'd normally only expect for a big name. All in all, it was a good experience.

There are two types of book signing. There's the signing by the celebrity author, with a queue of people out the door, and there's the signing by the ordinary author like me, where most of the time there's no one at your table.

One of my customers (yes, I did have some) asked me if it wasn't dispiriting sitting there on my own with no one coming up. In fact, it wasn't. (Or at least it wasn't for me.) It had a rather similar appeal to that I'm told fishing has for many. It was a chance to sit and contemplate, to watch the world go by. I sat there for four hours, and it really was fascinating, just watching what people do in a bookshop.

But there were more parallels than that. I started spotting the likely candidates for buyers. I'd try to entice them with a smile. (Women smile back a lot more.) If they came and studied the display I'd say 'hello'. Sometimes this was totally ignored but if I got a response I'd then try to open it into a conversation. It really was like fly fishing, delicately trying to get the link in place without losing the fish.

I don't say this to insult the people who bought my book. They were all extremely intelligent, excellent people. But rather to draw a parallel with the experience.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sue Guiney8 March 2009 at 11:38

    This is a great metaphor for the experience and very much like what I found on my tour. It's very hard work sitting there on your own and getting up the nerve to "accost" people, but I loved the discussions I found myself in. But I guess that ruins the metaphor eh? Unless you talk to your fish while hooking them....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brian Clegg8 March 2009 at 12:08

    I'm imagining the conversation as being like the interaction between the fisherperson and the fish once the fly has been spotted but before the fish is hooked.

    I suspect in real fishing you don't see the fish and consciously interact with it - but every metaphor has its limitations!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8 March 2009 at 17:58

    i was there yesterday and saw you sitting there by youself, then i saw the poster in the toilet and was really intrested how bmw 3 series are better than toyota hybrid?(as we have a 330ci and it uses up lots petrol!!)

    me and my husband were sitting in starbucks and talking about it unfortunally we didnt have time to stop by to talk to you...

    maybe when you come to london do the signing we could go to see you and we can find out why bmw is better hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg9 March 2009 at 09:22

    I'm afraid I've already done the signing in London, though I am expecting to do a British Science Association bookclub on Ecologic there in April.

    I was rather impressed by the poster in the toilet myself.

    I'm afraid I couldn't stretch to supporting a 330, but the point about BMW 3 series versus Toyota Prius is that an reasonably fuel efficient conventional saloon (so bottom end 3 series), is greener than a Prius if you are mostly driving on motorways or country roads. The Prius comes into its own in towns and cities. But this is rarely mentioned, so plenty of people are probably feeling really pleased with their Prius as they cruise down the motorway.

    The other thing about the Prius is that there's a whole bunch of emissions from its production - and even if you are a town driver, you will need around 5 years usage just to offset the benefit over a conventional saloon in a town-based cycle. So anyone buying a new Prius every 3 years (say) also has a problem.

    Oh, and there are some conventional cars with lower emissions even on the same urban cycle (e.g. Polo Blue Motion).

    I've nothing against the Prius (and I drive a Toyota myself, though not a Prius as I'm largely a country road user), but there's a need to be clearer about just what works and what's all image. Which is what Ecologic is all about.

    Sorry for the long reply!

    ReplyDelete
  5. cromercrox15 March 2009 at 23:38

    Did you sell any copies at Borders?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brian Clegg16 March 2009 at 10:25

    I did, Henry, but not a huge number.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Brian Clegg16 March 2009 at 10:25

    ... and you should have seen the one that got away.

    ReplyDelete
  8. cromercrox16 March 2009 at 19:31

    I remember doing a signing session for The Science of Middle-earth in the dealer's room at a Tolkien Society meeting... and sold nothing, not a scrap. Harumph.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Brian Clegg17 March 2009 at 12:20

    I've never managed absolutely nothing. My worst signing to date was 1 copy and two people given instructions on finding the toilet. This was rather better.

    At the other end of the scale was the signing of my Infinity book after my Royal Institution talk. The publisher brought 50 copies and they sold (and I signed) all of them, and we could have done more if they hadn't run out.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more