The announcement that the New York Times will start publishing a children’s bestseller list on July 23 has been met with the sort of jaded, industrywide cynicism that one would expect from such a move. Timed to coincide with the mega-release of Harry Potter 4 (aka Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, as seen on eBay), the plan is a jumble of loose ends that is continuing proof to some that the Times ain’t what it used to be, and that this latest project is only hastening the decline in its importance to the book industry.
If the Times wanted to make room for adult bestsellers, said numerous industry observers, well so be it. But what about the lucrative juvenile publishing business which has been taken for granted for so long? Harry has broken so many rules since the publication of the first novel that this was almost to be expected.
Unfortunately, the Times is left with a hodge podge cobbled together from the same group of stores that already report the adult bestsellers. Harry Potter, the poky little puppy, a Disney board book movie tie-in, and even a Barney title could be cheek by jowl. Would Louis Sachar’s HOLES (which won awards for FSG and has sold over 360,000 copies since publication a year and a half ago) finally make the list? As Books of Wonder’s Peter Glassman opined, it will be a complete distortion of facts. By not using children’s-only booksellers, there is no way of knowing what authority is being appealed to.
Craig Virden, Random House children’s book president and publisher, says it’s like comparing apples and oranges, and throwing in bananas and grapes as well. As a measuring tool for bestsellers it fails miserably. Someone should have sat Joe Lelyveld down (it is reportedly entirely his project) and explained just how this very important piece of the book business works. At least a caveat should be issued to explain their sources.
And there will be star turns by Jamie Lee Curtis, Carly Simon, and Dr. Laura titles that just might hit the top of each list: who performs the triage when those authors prefer to be on the adult list? Doubleday is double-cataloguing Katie Couric’s children’s opus this fall — so we’ll see. When big orders are placed, the adult list will be presumed to affect sell through more effectively. And what happens to Dr. Seuss, Chris van Allsburg, David McCauley, and backlist as a category all its own?
Harry has undoubtedly raised the profile of juvenile publishing, most likely because it fits into the “crossover” shoe with ease. One hopes the NYT list will mean more review coverage on a weekly basis rather than the large editorial theme issues devoted several times a year to children’s books, which are not necessarily supported with advertising by major publishers, an ongoing lament. And maybe there will be a rate differential negotiated between adult and juvenile publishing — after all, most children’s books are not Harry, but in the long run will sell considerably more than adult titles. It should be noted that Barnes & Noble, which no longer promotes the NYT list in stores but continues to report sales to the Times, will report Harry 4 on the adult list. And word is that independents will rely even more strongly on their own homegrown BookSense bestseller lists under these circumstances. But check out that list for its own problems — it seems Harry has yet to find a sensible bestseller home.
