Skip to main content

Meet the authors


I spent six hours in Newbury on Saturday. It was an interesting affair - publisher Tim Hirst had got together twelve authors to set up stalls in Newbury's Kennet Centre (the picture is where we were located, but before the authors were inserted). The idea was that all the shoppers would come in and see those lovely signed books and buy them as Christmas presents.

It managed to be a failure and a success at the same time - but certainly a worthwhile experiment.

The failure part was that none of us really sold many books. The sad truth is, most of the people going into the Kennet Centre of a Saturday weren't book buyers and had zero interest. I think the concept would work in the right location, with the right people - but this wasn't it.

The success was the opportunity to meet the stallholders. It was great, for example, to meet up with John Brindley, with whom I once shared an agent, but who I'd never met. And at the table next to me was Anneke Wills, one time Doctor Who companion, signing both books and photos - and she proved a fascinating person to talk to.

All in all, it was a few hours well invested. The books I did manage to sell covered costs and an interesting time was had by all.

Comments

  1. "It managed to be a failure and a success at the same time" I've always found this to be the case, as well. It is hard to get people to actually buy under these circumstances, unless it is a special "Xmas Fair" or something. I only have been able to sell books when I've gone up to people and forced my way into their presence and did my most wonderful song and dance act. Exhausting. But still, somehow, an interesting and -- dare I say -- important exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What you say is interesting, Sue - about the only one apart from Anneke Wills who did do reasonably well in sales volume was a woman with a very determined friend who were aggressively stopping passers-by saying 'Are you are a reader? Here's a real page turner!' I just can't do this kind of interaction - I'm happy to chat, but I can't do the aggressive attention grabbing.

    I suspect, though, her coup de grace was that she was selling three fat novels for £10 the set - I can't buy my books for that.

    She did have one disaster, though. A man said 'No I can't,' in response to 'Do you read?' She hectored him - 'I'm sure you do!' and he came back 'No, since my stroke I haven't been physically capable of reading.' That shut her up for a little while.

    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

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

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense