I DO believe this from the article: “It used to be that books had the shelf-life of a container of yogurt. Nowadays it seems more like hamburger meat. If a book doesn't make it to the New York Times bestseller list within the first several days of arrival, it never will.”
And this was sadly familiar: “Part of the problem may be that bookstores don't pay close enough attention to reviews. I went to look for "Then We Came to the End" at the Lincoln Square Barnes & Noble the day after the Times review, and experienced the kind of scenario that leads authors into years of costly psychotherapy. No one knew where to find it. Three clerks and 10 minutes later, I'd bought one of the store's last three copies.” That made me feel oddly better.
But calling the book’s sales “mid-range” DOESN’T ring true to me. Most authors would kill for 50,000 copies sold hardcover. 10,000 is usually the sign of success.
I think the author had a premise: reviews don’t translate into sales. And then he wrote to that premise.
What do you think? You can read more of the article here.