October 23, 2007
Are the bestseller lists made up?
The Times’ list is completely fictional. Made up. Divorced from reality. The stated goal of the list is to find (and promote) books that Times editors want people to read, not books that are actually selling a lot. (The editor of the Book Review told this to me years ago). So, they make up ‘rules’ to appear consistent. When Harry Potter was selling like crazy, they invented a new list so that they could take JK Rowling’s books off the real list. When diet and other books started selling a lot, they made up a new ghetto (miscellaneous) for those books. When books started selling in places like Wal-Mart (thus driving the snootiness factor down) the Times penalized sales in chain outlets. And books like the Bible are banished because they’re not current enough.
He seems to have a point. Here’s the article that got him started:
Why does “Night” become an evergreen [and therefore dropped from the list] at 80 weeks when Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point” remains on the list at 164 weeks?
Hm. That explains why "The Undercover Economist" never quite made the NYT. The British edition made the Sunday Times bestseller list, however, which I am sure is utterly beyond reproach.
This would explain why Rosie’s Celebrity Detox is #5 on NYT list, but not even in the top 100 on Amazon.
Posted by: Lacie McDougal | October 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 pm | Report this comment