A Flawed Gate, but Still a Gate

On what the New York Times List means, and what it doesn't

Welcome to Fidgets and Fries!

Somewhat free. Mostly not.

If you’d like to honor my writings with a monetary contribution, thank you. If you already have, thank you. Your support allows me to invest in my writing in a way I hadn’t thought possible as well as pay for my son’s communication lessons. And if you are still an unpaid subscriber, thank you. Cause in a world where everyone wants their eyes on their work, you still chose to put your gaze on mine.

This newsletter rests at the intersection of the unserious ramblings of a woman full of buttered rice, pie, and bad dad jokes and the somewhat sophisticated stories and essays of someone who knows just enough “smart” words to sound super intelligent and insightful.

What will today’s newsletter be? Hmm…

I watched a few videos from authors that told their audience that the New York Times bestsellers list is trash and that it doesn't actually look at sales and that it's not something that authors should strive for, it's bogus and not a "true measure of how good a book is," and that we shouldn't be "all that happy to make the list."

I agree with some of it. Might even agree with all of it, but I need to unpack some things and then maybe I will figure out my own feelings towards the end? Y'all good with that?

Mmkay, let's get to it then.

First off, no list should ever let you, as an author, feel as though your book is no good should you not make it. Please know that is trash thinking.

Second, the NYT isn't based on sales. They are pretty open about that, but I think perhaps in the past they have not been, and that could play a role in how people still perceive the list to be a reflection of book sales. Think about it like this, y'know how you read those food magazines, and they tell you what the best BBQ in the nation is? It's based on popularity and sales, yes...I mean, people have to show an interest in it, but it's also up to the editor.

The Times list are curated data, not just sales. They got they own little secret formula going on. They'll use data from bookstores and other retailers, but they ain't doing no full sales audit.

This isn't an automated list, again, it's curated. They reserve the right to exclude certain books, and they definitely do. They will give more or less weight to sales based on where they are sold, or they could even prioritize those that have the most meaning or cultural impact. They will also remove books that look to benefit from bulk buying or manipulation.

I don't know of any authors who have done this, but I have read about authors of means and other celebrities buying books in bulk to pad their sales. This is why sometimes, if some bulk sales look suspicious, they won't count those. It's always important that if you want to make the list, that you encourage your audience to buy from a variety of retailers and bookstores.

Bookscan isn't the same as the NYT list. They'll track about 85 percent of sales, but doesn't include all bookstores or bulk orders, and the Times list doesn't use Bookscan exclusively.

All of this means, you can note a book that has outsold others and not make the list. A book with fewer sales can land on the list. And curation means subjectivity. Gotta look at the Times as a journalistic product, not one that hinges solely on numbers.

Alright, let me get a little into my own path to #1 NYT bestseller for my debut published book.

I am told that a Times editor sometimes won't even notice a book until it is shown to them in some way. I think my publicist pitched my book a time or two. There are so many books released all the time, there are probably few times that a book has so much buzz and hype that they just naturally hear about it in the wild. And since the List isn't based solely on numbers, an editor is going to have to know about your book.

I sold a lot of books. A lot. A lot for a first-time author with little name recognition. And I hit the top of the list and beat out Eric Carle. Now, I am aware enough to know that I could not outsell THE Eric Carle, and especially not a classic of his, but I did. Cause it wasn't based on pure sales. They deliberately chose this book.

Now, I wasn't truly week sauce in sales because I did make #8 on Publishers Weekly list. And that list is based on pure sales.

So, ya girl did push some numbers.

The Times list doesn't mean nothing to me. But it doesn't mean everything either.

Sure, it’s flawed. It’s curated, opaque, and prone to overlooking brilliant titles, especially those outside of traditional publishing power structures. But let’s not pretend a list based solely on sales would be immune to its own biases. It might favor the books with the biggest marketing budgets, algorithmic boosts, or mass appeal over artistry, impact, or innovation.

The NYT list isn’t a pure measure of success, but it’s not meaningless, either.

For many authors, especially those from marginalized communities, it can be a door opener: to funding, to press, to future book deals, to speaking gigs. It can amplify voices that have been quietly carving paths for years. So yes, it’s a flawed gate. But it’s still a gate. And walking through it can matter.