The Myth of the Bestseller List, and Why the Math Is Really Not Mathing
Literary agent Victoria Marini discusses the myth of the bestseller list, and how it may be more storytelling than mathing in the end.
Let’s start with a disclaimer: I am not an attorney. While Publishing has had its share of real-life legal dramas, I’ve never set foot near one, and nothing in here should be considered legal advice.
What this should be considered is a story. And like our favorite Grisham novels, this one has it all: Courtroom Drama, Millions at Stake, and 40 years of precedent that shows us how The New York Times Bestseller list may be that great classic tall tale—the myth.
To make a myth, though, you must start at the beginning.
Authors and readers often believe that bestseller lists—The NY Times, USA Today, LA Times, etc.—utilize raw numbers to determine which books are Bestsellers. It seems like simple enough math: Sell the most books in a week, top the Bestseller List.
Back in 1983, William Blatty Jr. thought much the same when he published Legion, the sequel to his literary phenomenon, The Exorcist.
Which is why he was surprised to discover that—despite flying off the shelves—the folks at The New York Times did not include Legion on its bestseller list. Even his publisher, Simon & Schuster, was stunned enough to intervene, but after just one week on the list, the book dropped off again.
Clearly, Mr. Blatty—as most writers would—had a hard time letting it go and entered into what would be a three-year legal battle with The New York Times when he sued them over Legion’s absence from the Bestseller List.
His attorneys alleged that The Times purported its Bestseller List to be a numerical ranking (that simple math I mentioned earlier) and that they deliberately and falsely excluded him, which cost him millions in damages.
This is part of the story where most people think millions? Are you kidding? Just from one bestseller list?
While it’s impossible to estimate with accuracy how much Mr. Blatty did or did not lose as a result of his exclusion from the list, there are tangible economic benefits to listing. It’s one of the reasons authors care about these lists at all. Beyond the reach to readers directly, many publishing agreements come with contractual bonuses, and booksellers use lists to guide their purchasing, feature titles, and offer sales (therefore reinforcing a cycle where books that list become bigger bestsellers through bestseller status buzz). So you can see how an author might be angry over being denied a perceived earned spot.
The New York Times, however, in its defense, argued that their Bestseller List falls under the purview of the newspaper itself and therefore its editorial content, which means it is protected by Free Speech. They’re allowed to say what they want.
The raw numbers certainly inform the editors, but they are editors after all and their work is in crafting a narrative.
This is the twist: The list is NOT math—it’s a story.
The New York Times won with this defense, and the ruling still holds.
All bestseller lists are editorial content, which means while they are influenced by sales, the editors at any given newspaper might weigh culture, reviews, and opinion as heavily as they weigh the number, the format, and the venue of copies sold.
The New York Times isn’t trying to hide this. They’ve publicly maintained that what they are trying to do in naming “bestsellers” is tell a story of what the country is reading at a given moment.
That’s the thing about myths, about all stories really: They don’t always have to be real to matter.
But whether you’re looking at a bestseller list to add to your TBR pile, or you’re hoping to find yourself on one, know that the story to chase is not the mythical one others tell for you, but the true tale of how you connected with an author, or with your readers, in a real way that mattered through the power of a book.
