Comments on: Clowing Around with Slim Returns

By: Improper Jhumpa - Ultrabrown

Improper Jhumpa - Ultrabrown — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:23:33 +0000

[...] has over 200 hold requests for her new book. Its 300,000-copy first printing is reportedly from four to twelve times the sales of Rushdie’s last book, depending on which figures you believe. No [...]

By: tayari

tayari — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:18:28 +0000

Maybe I just have low ambitions, but I would love to sell 26,000 in hardcover.

By: Richard Nash

Richard Nash — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:02:07 +0000

26,000 is correct. All the numbers they quoted were from Bookscan, and Wyatt’s rule of thumb on what Bookscan misses is boradly the industry consensus.

The one thign he failed to do was note that the Didion number of 200K was the publishers’ estimate. The Bookscan number is 140K units. (Though the publisher was applying the correct rule of thumb metric to estimate actual sales…they weren’t massaging the number…it was just Wyatt being a little inconsitent with his apples and oranges)

So if the Times does issue a correction, it won’t be because they misstated the Bookscan numbers.

By: Ing

Ing — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:13:34 +0000

One night I was recruited to pick a movie and, I can’t say why except that maybe when I was a kid I liked M*A*S*H, I chose “To Kill a Clown,” starring Alan Alda. Oh god that was embarrassing. It really really sucked ass.

But Shalimar the Clown, as a title — is it really that bad? I mean, maybe the clown part, yeah. But it kind of reminds me of Gimple the Fool.

By: Carter

Carter — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:05:38 +0000

Wasn’t Shalimar the Clown that guy in Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo?

By: ogic

ogic — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 17:44:35 +0000

I have it on good authority that 26,000 is in error & the actual number is closer to 80K. Look out for a correction from the Grey Lady.

By: Jimmy Beck

Jimmy Beck — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:52:41 +0000

What about that infamous never-released Jerry Lewis movie about the clowns in the concentration camp? Surely now is the time, no?

By: Pete

Pete — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 15:14:49 +0000

Guess I won’t be naming my first novel “Fondle the Clown” after all.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:58:24 +0000

Good point. And it’s not for nothing that controversy sells books too. So perhaps Rushdie would have been better off having titled the book “Shalimar the Faux Jihadist Who Is Driven by Satan” or somesuch. Which would have been perfectly demonstrative of the story within. But then all of us litbloggers would have to type that whole title into our hyperlinks and perhaps we wouldn’t have blogged it’s impending realease so much. Of course, by blogging it, we drove impressive sales of 26,000 copies, to your point. And since there are 24,365 litbloggers out there, that translates to an actual 1,635 copies sold to the reading public, or somesuch. Hmm. Problematic at least.

By: DrMabuse

DrMabuse — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:51:49 +0000

Hey, I liked “Shakes the Clown” too. But then I’m a sick bastard. Besides, we’re not talking about artistic merit here, but payola. Since that’s ostensibly what the Gray Lady’s concerned about.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:33:40 +0000

What about the day Shalimar the Clown cried?

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 02:32:54 +0000

I don’t care that it wasn’t a big hit. Shakes the Clown was the best. clown movie. ever.

But the good part of the title is “shakes” — far better than “shalimar,” which makes me think of cheesy 70s perfume commercials.