# Some Ramblings on Quality vs. Quantity



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

I alternate a lot between being pretty discouraged - it's not realistic to expect anyone to buy my book as most self published authors seem to sell about 50 copies - and being optimistic - there are people out there that do succeed and, if I can make my book good enough, maybe I can be one of them.

The fact is that, at my current work rate, I'm not likely to ever replace my current salary and become a full time writer unless I hit the writing equivalent of the lottery to become the next Rowling.  Right now, I stress over every word.  Is that phrase perfect?  Could I express that better?  Is that plot point clear enough and realistic enough?

It seems like some of the people who are making it in the self publishing world are doing so by quantity.  Book releases sell older books.  More books mean more revenue streams.

I think that it's important, in learning the craft, to go through the process I'm doing now.  I've learned a lot about writing by trying to achieve perfection.  

Once I reach a level where I can produce something that isn't total crap, however, does it pay to edit as much as I do?  Would a streamlined process - rough draft -> pretty it up for the second draft -> hire a proof reader and formatter -> publish - be so much more profitable in the end?

I don't think I'm to that point yet.  If I'd have stopped at the 2nd draft of my current novel, I'd have put out something that I would have been embarrassed to see my name on.

At what point, though, does the pursuit of quality become too much of a financial burden?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 31, 2012)

Interesting conversation. 

The way I see it is, at most, you'll could potentially put out 1 book every couple years (assuming you're not yet a full time writer) while ensuring the best possible quality you're capable of writing. Conversely, by streamlining the revision and editing process, and possibly allowing work to hit the virtual selves, that years from now you'd consider substandard, maybe 2-3 books every couple years.

Extend those numbers (they may vary from writer to writer) over a decade and we'd have 5 good quality books (let's say 2 stand alone novels & a trilogy) or 10-15 books that are of questionable quality. Which do you think will sell more?

Now, assuming like me, you're a writer for life let's look at 40 years of production. 20 really good books you're proud of vs 40 to 60 books, some of which you now really regret publishing because you're a much better writer at this point.

The above is obviously hypothetical and may not represent your actual efforts but I illustrated that scenario to help make a point. When your name is on something you pour heart & soul into, when the number you can produce is so limited regardless of cutting corners, why not strive for ultimate quality?

Personally, it wouldn't bother me if it takes 2 years from conception to completion, or 6 as long as the end result is a good novel.  Quantity may win the game over a short span, however over the course of a writing career, quality should win the day. When you consider that most writers will never make enough to be a full time author anyway, why would you play for the short game (quantity) over the long (quality)?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

> When your name is on something you pour heart & soul into, when the number you can produce is so limited regardless of cutting corners, why not strive for ultimate quality?



My first thought about your post is that you don't take into account that:
1. The quantity path potentially brings me closer to full time writer status faster
2. If I'm a full time writer, the number of books I can produce greatly increases
3. With a greater number of books, my profit likewise goes way up.

My second thought is:

What, exactly, does the pursuit of perfection gain me?  Can I write an entertaining book without putting as much time and effort into editing?  I think so.  Look at John Ringo.  I enjoy his stuff immensely, and I wouldn't consider it remotely "polished."  If I can get the tension, conflict, emotion, and story telling down, does the minutia of paying attention to every word do anything for me?  Honestly, aside from other writers, will most readers even notice the difference?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

I think, particularly if you're going self-published, you need the quantity. Even traditional authors, however, as pushing a faster release cycle, from what I understand. Unless you have and established following, I don't think a traditional publisher will be very happy with a two-year release cycle. Without a good deal of luck, that kind of release cycle seems like a good way to be stuck on the mid-list and then maybe fall off it.

For a self-published author, it is both better and worse. On the one hand, if you already have a career and don't need to make a living writing, you have the freedom to do whatever the hell you want, when you want. If you want to quit your day job and make a living as an author, I think a two-year release cycle will be a detriment to you. Look at the number of self-published works and how fact readers consume the material. If they read your book and it's two years until the next one comes out, how many will have moved on and forgotten your series by then? Probably a lot. I know I've done that with any number of traditionally published books when the release cycle is too long.

You can point to plenty of authors who can have a release cycle as long as they like, of course. But I think it is harder to get to that place these days, and if your release cycle starting out is too slow maybe you never get there. If you can build up a large, faithful readership, then you can slow down your production later. 

I think editing, re-editing, and then editing again, for repeated iterations, is the death of many an aspiring writer, though. Write a good story and get it out there. There is no perfect story, and odds are unless you're fixing a glaring mistake the reader will never realize, consciously or unconsciously, that you agonized for hours over a sentence.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 31, 2012)

I understand your point fully. I suppose it really comes down to what you want and what you're willing to do/accept to get there. Let's not forget though, the vast majority of writers will NEVER make enough to replace a day job salary. Now, I know there a tons of variables that go into those figures. However, we need to be realistic & understand that commercial success will not strike for most writers.

Because of this, I've adopted an outlook that I write because it's what I do. It's what I am. If commercial success occurs (and believe me, I strive for that success) then I can write full time. That's a main goal. In the meantime though, I choose to put forward my best & only my best. I'm writing for me after all. Why shortchange myself?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Let's not forget though, the vast majority of writers will NEVER make enough to replace a day job salary.



Yep. This is one of the first things you have to grok as an aspiring writer.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Look at the number of self-published works and how fact readers consume the material. If they read your book and it's two years until the next one comes out, how many will have moved on and forgotten your series by then? Probably a lot. I know I've done that with any number of traditionally published books when the release cycle is too long.
> 
> You can point to plenty of authors who can have a release cycle as long as they like, of course. But I think it is harder to get to that place these days, and if your release cycle starting out is too slow maybe you never get there. If you can build up a large, faithful readership, then you can slow down your production later.
> 
> I think editing, re-editing, and then editing again, for repeated iterations, is the death of many an aspiring writer, though. Write a good story and get it out there. There is no perfect story, and odds are unless you're fixing a glaring mistake the reader will never realize, consciously or unconsciously, that you agonized for hours over a sentence.




I don't entirely disagree with your point here either. I guess the difference lies in the quality level. Are we talking about a good story that could always be made better & endlessly improved, or are we talking about a substandard work that truly needs improvement? I suppose, if you're talking about improving each word/sentence under a literary microscope then you're in the former category. If its the latter, and you're publishing a work that's not ready, then you wouldn't likely gain readership anyway. If it is a good story and the only thing holding you back is the pursuit of some perfection ideal, then yes...no novel will ever attain that ideal.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> If it is a good story and the only thing holding you back is the pursuit of some perfection ideal, then yes...no novel will ever attain that ideal.



Yes. I'm talking about someone who can already write well. This person can put out a decent first draft and end up with something salable after maybe a couple of revision/editing cycles. I think Brian's example of John Ringo is as good as any. He writes well and his stories are fun, but they are by no means perfection. 

If what you've produced is just bad and would be a detriment to your career, then I don't think you can publish it as-is of course. You have to improve it, and if you can't then you discard it. But the fact of the matter is most of us are going to be putting out mass-market commodities for the general consuming public. It has to be good enough to meet that standard. If you're interesting in creating "literature," the next Moby Dick, or Ulysses, or something, then maybe you take a decade working on it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

> Let's not forget though, the vast majority of writers will NEVER make enough to replace a day job salary.



Believe me, I get that.  I really, really get that.  The fact that I do get it depresses me to no end.



> Because of this, I've adopted an outlook that I write because it's what I do. It's what I am.



I take a different approach.  My thinking process is: What gives me the best chance to be one of those that succeed?

Here's what I've come up with so far:

1. Get good at writing.  Yes, some people who aren't very good at all somehow managed to attain success, but I have to think that better skill, on some level, equals better chance for success.
2. Find the most efficient ways to market and promote your work.
3. Publish.  Publish.  Publish.

Even the best plan in the world coupled with good work isn't a guarantee of success in this endeavor, but I have to think that anything that I can do to increase my chances is to the good.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Believe me, I get that.  I really, really get that.  The fact that I do get it depresses me to no end.



It's better than the alternative. I know too many people, either from online groups, friends, or in-person writing groups, who didn't really 'get' this fact and ended up pretty bitter and disillusioned about limited success. I think they've all stopped writing at this point, unfortunately.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Dec 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I take a different approach.  My thinking process is: What gives me the best chance to be one of those that succeed?



I would counter this by saying that when you write for yourself, and do so with honesty, you ARE giving yourself the best chance to succeed. I don't feel there's any formula for success outside of that pursuit.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I take a different approach.  My thinking process is: What gives me the best chance to be one of those that succeed?



Is that quantifiable? I wonder, if you went back a decade or more, and Stephanie Meyer or even J.K. Rowling posted writing in this forum, would we be saying "oh, yeah. These will be the writers who make it?" 

Of the factors that contribute to likelihood of success, I think quality of writing is probably 4th on the list, behind (in no particular order) ability to tell a story, concept, ability to create an emotional connection with characters, and luck.

EDIT: I think you can look at most of the biggest literary phenomena this way. If Suzanne Collins posted part of Hunger Games in here, pre-publication, we might enjoy it but it would be nit-picked to death. What about Dan Brown? Have you read any of his work? Whatever the key to success is, having perfect writing technique isn't high on the list


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

In answer to both T.Allen and Steerpike, I'm not talking about statospheric, become a billionaire as my definition for success.  We don't have to look at JK Rowling and Stephenie Meyer, here.  I'm talking about attaining the success of all the writers out there who make a good living at it.

It's certainly debateable what gives the best chance for success, but I'd think that my list is a good start (assuming you define getting good at writing to include storytelling so we don't rehash that debate).

I'd more than welcome other opinions on what improves likelihood for success.

Personally, I don't think that "being true to myself" is going to do much for me.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

Even the writers who make a 'good' living are limited in number in comparison to those who try. I don't know that the factors are much different than they are when you look at Meyer, Rowling, Collins, etc. Their success is a matter of greater degree, and timing and luck surely have something to do with that, but I'm hard-pressed to think of many writers who are doing very well where the explanation is technical quality of writing. Michael Connelly may be a guy who consistently puts out high-quality writing as well as engaging stories with character you care about, but even in his case I think the factors other than technical quality of writing are what drive his sales. 

Maybe I'm more on the cynical side, but I don't the ability to write in a technically perfect way has much bearing on success, and looking around at authors from bestsellers to consistent mid-list names seems to bear that out.


----------



## Xaysai (Dec 31, 2012)

I'm a complete rookie, but I'd like to reply with some probably-not-even-relevant, rambling opinions.

As someone who managed a Barnes & Noble for 5 years, I've learned you can't stack well written or "good" books high and watch 'em fly. On the other hand, some books which are total crap (from a writing, plot, or execution standpoint) sell like hotcakes. This leads me to believe that there is no "right way" or "silver bullet" to sell enough books to make a living as a writer.

Honestly, I believe it comes to marketing. I think you need to look at your writing as a product, and market it like any other product. If I manufacture a widget and list it on Amazon, I might sell a few, but I won't get rich. If I manufacture a widget and put it in front of them, actually put it in their hands, engage them,  and REALLY CONNECT with them to get them talking about it you will have more success.

I think social media is a great tool to use for this, but most people go about it the wrong way. I follow authors (both big and small) on Facebook, Twitter & Google Plus, and I can't help but shake my head at the small time authors who spam links to their self pubbed book five hundred times a day with some silly blurb and wonder why people aren't buying it. "Oh hey, I'm new to google plus, but here is a link to my book" doesn't sell books.

I think there has to be some showmanship to it, some effort, some dedication to want to reach out to people and genuinely touch them. I'd never heard of Mike Wells before, but I can't stop hearing about how great his newest book "Lust, Money and Murder" is from the authors and writers that I follow on Twitter. Is his book better than the other five billion I see linked on Twitter? I don't know, but I do see him genuinely interacting with his readers and showing appreciation for people reading them.

The same goes for John Scalzi, Peter V. Brett, Michael J. Sullivan, Neil Gaiman (not that he needs it). I see them on Twitter genuinely interacting with people.

I read a terrific book about Social Media marketing by Gary Vaynerchuk called "The Thank You Economy", and it's all about genuinely connecting with your audience to sell your product; not trying to force your product down their throats. He's very funny and inspirational (check him out on YouTube).

I also think that selling a product is about the person behind it. People buy things from people they like. Will they buy a great book from a faceless author? Perhaps. Will they be more willing to buy from someone they "like"? I think so. 

These things are the difference between people who stand out and people who allow their product to fade into the white noise of the internet.

TLR - Having a great product isn't always enough. You've probably placed HUNDREDS of hours into writing a terrific book which you want people to read, how many hours have you placed into getting it in front of them?


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Even the writers who make a 'good' living are limited in number in comparison to those who try. I don't know that the factors are much different than they are when you look at Meyer, Rowling, Collins, etc. Their success is a matter of greater degree, and timing and luck surely have something to do with that, but I'm hard-pressed to think of many writers who are doing very well where the explanation is technical quality of writing. Michael Connelly may be a guy who consistently puts out high-quality writing as well as engaging stories with character you care about, but even in his case I think the factors other than technical quality of writing are what drive his sales.
> 
> Maybe I'm more on the cynical side, but I don't the ability to write in a technically perfect way has much bearing on success, and looking around at authors from bestsellers to consistent mid-list names seems to bear that out.



According to a lot of blog posts I've read, there are authors out there making decent money, a lot of whom I've never heard of.  I obviously agree, however, that this number pales in comparison to those that try.

When I'm feeling more positive about life in general, I like to think, however, that a lot of those "trying" just aren't ready yet, either from a marketing or technical standpoint and that, maybe, I'll be different.  Not sure how much of that is self delusion 

I agree that technical perfection doesn't seem to have much bearing on success, but, in this marketplace, something has to draw people to your work.  I'm going with the assumption that the best way to get readers is to have people read your book and have them recommend it to others.  For that to happen, they've got to like something about it.  Trying to get my writing to a level where people will actually like it is the main part of my effort at the moment.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

> As someone who managed a Barnes & Noble for 5 years, I've learned you can't stack well written or "good" books high and watch 'em fly. On the other hand, some books which are total crap (from a writing, plot, or execution standpoint) sell like hotcakes. This leads me to believe that there is no "right way" or "silver bullet" to sell enough books to make a living as a writer.



This is good experience, and I'm glad you're sharing it with us.  I think that we all agree with that last sentence of yours.  I can't help but hope, however, that there are at least some things we can do to improve our chances.



> Honestly, I believe it comes to marketing. I think you need to look at your writing as a product, and market it like any other product.



I agree; I'm just not sure that social media is really the way to do it.  I think we're all looking for the best marketing techniques.  The best advice I've heard so far is to be aggressive about getting your book out there.  Send it to bloggers until your hands bleed from typing.  Ask for endorsements from everyone.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Trying to get my writing to a level where people will actually like it is the main part of my effort at the moment.



I guess we should make sure we're talking about the same thing (as you said, there are threads on this). From the standpoint of technical proficiency, your writing is there. It's ready. If you spend a lot of time making sure you have the perfect world, or adjusting sentence ever so slightly to see if they can't read better than they already do, I think you're spinning your wheels, personally. You may disagree. But I still look at story-telling a bit differently. How do you put together the sequence of events in your story; how do you make the reader actually care what happens to the reader; how do you make the reader get to the end of a chapter and instead of going to bed say "OK, one more." Those things are the keys, in my view. To mention Connelly again, he's a master at it. You don't want to put his stuff done. Same with Robert Crais, who also writes detective-style stories set in Los Angeles.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Dec 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> The fact is that, at my current work rate, I'm not likely to ever replace my current salary and become a full time writer unless I hit the writing equivalent of the lottery to become the next Rowling.



Goddammit. I get tired of hearing this.

Look, selling _450 million books_ cannot be a matter of luck. I cannot accept that as statistically feasable. People like Rowling or Meyer or Collins did not "win the lottery", they wrote books that millions of people _actually enjoyed reading, _books that publishers decided to invest money in because it was their professional opinion that people might like them. They don't offer publishing deals on random goddamned whims, neither do millions of people randomly decide to read the same book. If I was a best-selling author and someone told me I only got there because of luck, I'd punch them in right the face! That's one of the most insulting things I can imagine saying to a writer.

True, it's often unclear what makes a story popular, so it's not something you can easily achive deliberatelly. But to attribute it to _luck _is just the rest of us trying to feel better about ourselves by marginalizing the monumental achievements of others: "Oh, I may not be a great success as a writer, but that's not _my _fault; it's just random chance. One day, if the stars are right and the right person flips the right coin the right way, maybe I too can single-handedly save a whole generation from literary oblivion!"

After all, if we admit these authors actually did something _right_, we must also admit we are doing something _wrong_. We may have to take actual responsibility for our own lack of success. We may have to actually _think_ about what makes a book popular, as opposed to simply good. We may have to aknowledge that we can't just write whatever we want if we wish to move crazy units. We may even find ourselves forced to (God forbid) change our writing style to something more mainstream. It's so much easier to say that Rowling just won the lottery, even if it makes us a little bit smaller every time we repeat it.

Well, I'll have non of it. No more excuses. If I don't find any success as a writer, it's my own fault for failing to move the human heart, period.



Xaysai said:


> As someone who managed a Barnes & Noble for 5 years, I've learned you can't stack well written or "good" books high and watch 'em fly. On the other hand, some books which are total crap (from a writing, plot, or execution standpoint) sell like hotcakes. This leads me to believe that there is no "right way" or "silver bullet" to sell enough books to make a living as a writer.



_Or_ we are missing something important - something _more powerful_ than just "well written" or "good." Just because we can't immediately identify the reason a book sells well doesn't mean there isn't a reason.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Look, selling _450 million books_ cannot be a matter of luck. I cannot accept that as statistically feasable. People like Rowling or Meyer or Collins did not "win the lottery", they wrote books that millions of people _actually enjoyed reading, _books that publishers decided to invest money in because it was their professional opinion that people might like them.



I don't think anyone is discounting the fact they did something very right (well, some people do, mostly aspiring writers, but I think that's jealousy as I've said before). All of these writers, Rowling, Collins, Meyer, Brown, etc. wrote books that engaged and grabbed readers in a way so effective that the vast majority of writers will never come close to duplicating it. Still, I don't discount the idea that factors like luck and timing enter into the equation as well.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I guess we should make sure we're talking about the same thing (as you said, there are threads on this). From the standpoint of technical proficiency, your writing is there. It's ready. If you spend a lot of time making sure you have the perfect world, or adjusting sentence ever so slightly to see if they can't read better than they already do, I think you're spinning your wheels, personally. You may disagree. But I still look at story-telling a bit differently. How do you put together the sequence of events in your story; how do you make the reader actually care what happens to the reader; how do you make the reader get to the end of a chapter and instead of going to bed say "OK, one more." Those things are the keys, in my view. To mention Connelly again, he's a master at it. You don't want to put his stuff done. Same with Robert Crais, who also writes detective-style stories set in Los Angeles.



At this point, I think I'm pretty much where I want to be technically (though I think I'll continue to learn and improve for the rest of my life).  I spent a lot of time getting there, and I think the people on this board helped a lot by patiently (mostly anyway) answering my questions and debating me.  I had to go through that process to move on.

At this point, I'm more focused on what I think you would consider story elements - making the characters relateable, injecting (hopefully) the right amount of emotion, adding tension where it's lacking, etc.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

> Look, selling 450 million books cannot be a matter of luck.



If I'm to accept this premise, I'd have to accept that, out of the millions of tomes languishing in obscurity, there are none (or at least few) who measure up to these success stories in terms of being something people would want to read if they were exposed to it.

Sorry.  I just don't buy it.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> At this point, I'm more focused on what I think you would consider story elements - making the characters relateable, injecting (hopefully) the right amount of emotion, adding tension where it's lacking, etc.



Yep. That's what I'm trying to do as well. I read a lot, looking for those books where I really cared about the characters and absolutely didn't want to set the book down (few and far between, I think), and then I try to figure out how the author did it. We'll see if it gets me anywhere


----------



## BWFoster78 (Dec 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yep. That's what I'm trying to do as well. I read a lot, looking for those books where I really cared about the characters and absolutely didn't want to set the book down (few and far between, I think), and then I try to figure out how the author did it. We'll see if it gets me anywhere



Good luck to you!

Speaking of which, I'm reading Confessions of a D-list Supervillian (on recommendation from Terry Ervin's blog) and I'm finding it thoroughly entertaining.  Very character driven plot.  I second Terry's recommendation.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 31, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Good luck to you!
> 
> Speaking of which, I'm reading Confessions of a D-list Supervillian (on recommendation from Terry Ervin's blog) and I'm finding it thoroughly entertaining.  Very character driven plot.  I second Terry's recommendation.



Thanks, you too. I will take a look at that one. I'm not familiar with it, but the title sounds like something I'd like.


----------



## danr62 (Dec 31, 2012)

Good conversation!

One of the things I keep hearing is that one of the best ways to sell books is to put out more books.

Of course, it goes without saying that they need to be good books, otherwise people won't touch your next book with a 10 foot pole. For instance, I read the first two and a half Shannara books before deciding I never wanted to read Terry Brooks again. It could be that he's come a long way since then, but I don't want to invest the effort or money to find out.

Sadly, the fear of this happening to me is something that holds me back a bit.

Anyway...back on topic. Here's how a lot of the SP authors who make good money do it (from what I'm seeing):


Write a good book.

Put a good cover on it.

Write an enticing blurb.

At the end of the book invite the reader to review the book and join the author's mailing list.

Go back to step 1.

Often times they mix in "do free runs with Select" or "make the first in the series perma-free" with those others.


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 31, 2012)

Brian...at this point, instead of self publishing right away, what do h=you have to loose by sending your masterpiece off to the conventional publishers?  At worst, they hold onto it for a while and say "no", though some might also explain WHY they're saying 'no' - which should tell you what reficions are in order.  If they all say 'no', then go ahead and self publish.  At the absoluite worst there, you'd have released something which is 

A) well written, and

B) should let you go to a movie or buy dinner somewhere.

Me...I came here with the intent of seeing about properly finishing some tales I'd written long ago.  A couple of these have eaten great chunks of my time since then, shrinking to novella length in the process.  So I started looking at publishers which accept novellas.  Turns out with this internet thing, novella's might be making a bit of a comeback: most aspiring authors seem to jump straight to full length novel, but there are a fair number of publishers accepting novella's...and apparently fewer authors submitting such (going from the commentary in the 'submissions' section.  

Since getting into the challenge stories on this site, I also started taking a peek at the magazines, online and otherwise, which accept short stories - generally under 5000 words.  Turns out at least some of these outfits, for whatever reason, are buying quite a few short stories.

At this point, I'm seriously contemplating cutting the so called novel length works I'd intended to write down into short story and novellete sized tales, linked together but standing alone.

Then again, I don't see this as a way to make a living...more of a sideline.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Jan 1, 2013)

> Look, selling 450 million books cannot be a matter of luck.





BWFoster78 said:


> If I'm to accept this premise, I'd have to accept that, out of the millions of tomes languishing in obscurity, there are none (or at least few) who measure up to these success stories in terms of being something people would want to read if they were exposed to it. Sorry.  I just don't buy it.



I don't buy it either. Selling 450 million books is down to 2 factors, I think: 1) tapping in to some popular idea/style/premise ahead of the crowd; and 2) pitching it to appeal to lots of people, otherwise known as the lowest common denominator. Factor 1 is perhaps partly skill, but it's mainly luck, I would say. Factor 2 is something that producers of Hollywood blockbusters and reality TV shows have almost perfected, and (I think) can be at least partially defined for books too - nothing too edgy, or literary, or complicated, or difficult to read. That's why IMO YA books are so big just now, and not just for their target demographic. I recently had a look at some of the best-selling self-published fantasy ebooks, and the common factors seemed to be - lighthearted, straightforward, linear storytelling, often of standard tropes (people love the familiar).

To address the original question: the successful self-publishers (as in, those able to make a reasonable living out of it) seem to be those who have multiple books for sale (4-7 seems to be the trigger point), all in the same genre and often featuring the same characters, with the first either permanently free or discounted. They market intelligently, but without aggression, and they present a likeable public face, while always remaining professional. They keep fans on board by publishing 1-2 new books a year, plus shorts and novellas, and involve fans in the process - helping to choose covers (and even titles, in one case!), encouraging fan art, posting snippets of the next book, posting extra background - maps, backstory, etc.

But good writing is not the deciding factor. To sell books, you only need to be able to write well enough.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 1, 2013)

> For instance, I read the first two and a half Shannara books before deciding I never wanted to read Terry Brooks again.



Dan,

I agree completely that this is a worry.  Obviously, a certain minimum standard needs to be reached.  However, I think that minimum standard is far below the point where you stress over every single word.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 1, 2013)

> Brian...at this point, instead of self publishing right away, what do h=you have to loose by sending your masterpiece off to the conventional publishers?



Thinker,

The main thing I have to lose is time.  I have to wait for them to get to reading it and respond to me.  If, by some miracle, they choose to publish me, my understanding is that it could be years before they actually publish it.  Those are years in which the book could have been earning me money.

The question I ask is: what do I have to gain by going the traditional publishing route?

Usually, a first time author gets a $5000 advance and almost no support.  Frankly, 5k doesn't do much for me, and, if the book does well (which would be more through my promotional efforts than anything else), the publisher makes a ton of profit on it while I make peanuts.

That being said, I am entering Amazon's contest, mainly because it eliminates some of my time concern (I'll hear feedback by a certain date) and, if I win, we're talking 15-50k instead of just 5.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 1, 2013)

> To address the original question: the successful self-publishers (as in, those able to make a reasonable living out of it) seem to be those who have multiple books for sale (4-7 seems to be the trigger point), all in the same genre and often featuring the same characters, with the first either permanently free or discounted. They market intelligently, but without aggression, and they present a likeable public face, while always remaining professional. They keep fans on board by publishing 1-2 new books a year, plus shorts and novellas, and involve fans in the process - helping to choose covers (and even titles, in one case!), encouraging fan art, posting snippets of the next book, posting extra background - maps, backstory, etc.



Pauline,

This is good advice.  Too bad I'm not following any of it at the moment as I have four books planned all in different genres...


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 1, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Pauline,
> 
> This is good advice.  Too bad I'm not following any of it at the moment as I have four books planned all in different genres...



Keep the faith, Brian.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Jan 1, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Pauline, This is good advice.  Too bad I'm not following any of it at the moment as I have four books planned all in different genres...



LOL... Well, you must write as the muse takes you, Brian  

It does make it easier to sell your work if it's all in one genre, or even sub-genre. One of the first books I read after I got my Kindle was 'Dragon Stones' by James Viscosi, which wasn't perfect but it was a very entertaining piece of fantasy. He had three other books out, and if they'd been in the same line, even if not a series, I'd have bought the lot. But one was horror, one was vampires and one was an urban/paranormal thing, and none of them appealed. They're all broadly in the fantasy/speculative fiction genre, but they really weren't my thing. After that, I never bothered to look him up again (until today, for this post, and I see he's now written another straight fantasy, so I might try that - but you see the problem - once you lose a fan, you may lose him/her for ever).

On the other hand, it's not impossible to genre-hop. Lexi Revellian is one of my must-buy authors, and her 4 books to date are a modern mystery, a sci-fi thriller, a post-apocalypse and a YA fantasy complete with dragons, but the connecting factor with the 3 adult books is a strong romance element. She's sold over 50,000 ebooks so far, so it seems to be working.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 1, 2013)

PaulineMRoss said:


> LOL... Well, you must write as the muse takes you, Brian
> 
> It does make it easier to sell your work if it's all in one genre, or even sub-genre. One of the first books I read after I got my Kindle was 'Dragon Stones' by James Viscosi, which wasn't perfect but it was a very entertaining piece of fantasy. He had three other books out, and if they'd been in the same line, even if not a series, I'd have bought the lot. But one was horror, one was vampires and one was an urban/paranormal thing, and none of them appealed. They're all broadly in the fantasy/speculative fiction genre, but they really weren't my thing. After that, I never bothered to look him up again (until today, for this post, and I see he's now written another straight fantasy, so I might try that - but you see the problem - once you lose a fan, you may lose him/her for ever).
> 
> On the other hand, it's not impossible to genre-hop. Lexi Revellian is one of my must-buy authors, and her 4 books to date are a modern mystery, a sci-fi thriller, a post-apocalypse and a YA fantasy complete with dragons, but the connecting factor with the 3 adult books is a strong romance element. She's sold over 50,000 ebooks so far, so it seems to be working.



There do seem to be advantages of genre hopping, however.  A lot of readers cross genres; I'll read just about anything if it sounds good.  Each genre is marketed to a different audience and thus has the chance of reaching a different set of readers.  Hopefully, some of them will stick around for my other works.

I do plan to make two of those projects into series.  One is nonfiction, which takes a lot less time to write.

I agree, however, that it's probably not the best plan.


----------



## Penpilot (Jan 1, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> My first thought about your post is that you don't take into account that:
> 1. The quantity path potentially brings me closer to full time writer status faster



My thoughts are that it depends on the writer. I think both approaches can work. Perfection, tempered perfection, is like a sniper rifle shot. Nail it and the target's dead. Quantity is like a shotgun blast. You hope that not only do you hit the target, you hope you do enough damage to kill. I'm not sure either is a better way. It's just which is a better way for you. 



> What, exactly, does the pursuit of perfection gain me?  Can I write an entertaining book without putting as much time and effort into editing?  I think so.



I think there's that line between writing prose that's not good enough and writing prose that's good enough. To me, being able to see that line in regards to your own work is key. Assuming that you've nailed the plot, figuring out when you've gotten the prose polished enough so it conveys what you want to the reader is when the story becomes good enough for me. After that point, the time spent editing and polishing results in diminishing returns. For me I do one more polishing edit after that point, and to me the story is completely finished and done unless I find a huge plot error or the story gets bough, and the editor tells me to edit it more. The latter has never happened so... shrug.

One last thing in regards to luck. Yes, the writers mentioned like Rowling, Brown, Colins, Meyers etc. wrote books that some consider imperfect, but those book did some things incredibly well. They earned every inch of their success through hard work. It wasn't an accident. BUT luck does play into it. Have a book that fits exactly into what a publisher is looking for at that time and you'll gain a leg up. It's no guarantee of success but it's still and edge. Having a book that the audience wants at that exact time.... well that can turn an average book into something more in terms of sales.

Timing is key, just like it's key to many things in life. Some days you get up late,miss your bus, but the next bus you take is where you meet the love of your life. Luck played into this meeting but, the love you still had to earn.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 1, 2013)

> After that point, the time spent editing and polishing results in diminishing returns.



Exactly.  I think this is one of my problems.

I need to ask myself, "Have I conveyed what I wished with the scene?"  Not, "Have I conveyed the scene in the absolutely best manner possible?"



> They earned every inch of their success through hard work. It wasn't an accident.



I don't think the success of these books were luck as much as the phenomenal success of the books were luck.  I just think there's no way to figure out in advance how to catch the waves these authors rode to tremendous commercial success.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 1, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I just think there's no way to figure out in advance how to catch the waves these authors rode to tremendous commercial success.



Except, arguably, the editor who paid unknown and unpublished author Meyer $750,000.00 in advance for a first novel did just that, which is somewhat amazing.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Jan 2, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I alternate a lot between being pretty discouraged - it's not realistic to expect anyone to buy my book as most self published authors seem to sell about 50 copies - and being optimistic - there are people out there that do succeed and, if I can make my book good enough, maybe I can be one of them.



That 50 copies (or 100 copies or 500 copies - all of which I hear quoted so often) is misleading. It is because it takes into consideration anyone who self-publishes even those who are doing so for something very niche, just for friends and family, and  those that are just aren't up to quality standards.

If you have "what it takes" and can produce a well written book then you can sell thousands (or even tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands) of books even through self-publishing.



BWFoster78 said:


> The fact is that, at my current work rate, I'm not likely to ever replace my current salary and become a full time writer unless I hit the writing equivalent of the lottery to become the next Rowling.  Right now, I stress over every word.  Is that phrase perfect?  Could I express that better?  Is that plot point clear enough and realistic enough?



Most writers are this way. Part of shifting from "hobby" to "professional" is to realize that changes are necessary and at what point you are just rearranging words on a page that won't effect either sales or how people think of your work.



BWFoster78 said:


> It seems like some of the people who are making it in the self publishing world are doing so by quantity.  Book releases sell older books.  More books mean more revenue streams.



My rule of thumb is that you really can't make a living wage until you have at least 3 books released and that doesn't matter whether you are self-published or traditional. In fact the number of books required is usually higher in traditional - I know authors who did't quit their day jobs until they had published 10 - 15 books traditionally.



BWFoster78 said:


> I think that it's important, in learning the craft, to go through the process I'm doing now.  I've learned a lot about writing by trying to achieve perfection.



Don't confuse "spending a lot of time" and "perfection" - each author is different and there are those that can write very quickly and still produce quality work.  While in some cases more time = better product - it is not always the case.



BWFoster78 said:


> Once I reach a level where I can produce something that isn't total crap, however, does it pay to edit as much as I do?  Would a streamlined process - rough draft -> pretty it up for the second draft -> hire a proof reader and formatter -> publish - be so much more profitable in the end?



Impossible to tell.  It really depends on how quality the work is.  Some may require years of editing to get something worthy of publication, whereas others may spend a few months doing so.  



BWFoster78 said:


> I don't think I'm to that point yet.  If I'd have stopped at the 2nd draft of my current novel, I'd have put out something that I would have been embarrassed to see my name on.



Having something you are proud of is of course a minimum requirement.



BWFoster78 said:


> At what point, though, does the pursuit of quality become too much of a financial burden?



Again - it's going to vary from author to author.  Keep in mind those authors that sell well (whether self or traditional) ARE producing quality or they wouldn't get the repeat buys.  Quantity without quality is useless because the trick is in repeat buyers and word-of-mouth recommendations.  You have to have quality first.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Jan 2, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> If it is a good story and the only thing holding you back is the pursuit of some perfection ideal, then yes...no novel will ever attain that ideal.



There is no such thing as "perfection." I don't think there is a single author who can re-read their published work and not find things that they would changed if they had the means to.  But at some point you do have to say "good enough" because there is a point of diminishing returns where changes make something "different" but necessarily increase sales or word-of-mouth recommendations.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Jan 2, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'd more than welcome other opinions on what improves likelihood for success.



If you are looking purely to earn and make money from writing then the formula is quite easy.


Pick a genre that has a substantial fanbase which is easy to find/market to.
Write a really good book (and by good I mean one that someone enjoys so much that they recommend it to others, or would buy copies for friends and family as gifts) that is in a series and in a genre (from #1) above
Until you get 3 books out spend 90% of your time writing and 10% of your time marketing.  Once you get 3 books you can shift that to more 50% / 50%
Once you have three books concentrate on promotion to get a core number of people to know about the book
Keep marketing until the books start to gain a following independent of you.
Once you have an audience, shift your writing/promo time back to 90% / 10% because at this stage it's about how much content you have to keep feeding the hungry fans

The problem of course is that doing #2 is not easy - not everyone can write a good book but for those that can't there is nothing that can be done to get any substantial success.


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Jan 2, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> I also think that selling a product is about the person behind it. People buy things from people they like. Will they buy a great book from a faceless author? Perhaps. Will they be more willing to buy from someone they "like"? I think so.



I agree...checkout Simon Sinek's video on Ted he talks a lot about the fact that people don't care "what" your product is but "why" you created it.  The important aspects then is to let your passion, your "why" show through and let people who feel similarly connect with that.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 2, 2013)

> That 50 copies (or 100 copies or 500 copies - all of which I hear quoted so often) is misleading. It is because it takes into consideration anyone who self-publishes even those who are doing so for something very niche, just for friends and family, and those that are just aren't up to quality standards.
> 
> If you have "what it takes" and can produce a well written book then you can sell thousands (or even tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands) of books even through self-publishing.



Michael,

While I certainly hope this is the case, it seems like there are a lot of people on this site who have some degree of skill and aren't having a lot of success.  Perhaps I'm misreading these forums, but it hasn't sounded to me like most of the people self publishing are doing all that well.  The again, most haven't reached the quantity of books necessary for their work to take off.



> Most writers are this way. Part of shifting from "hobby" to "professional" is to realize that changes are necessary and at what point you are just rearranging words on a page that won't effect either sales or how people think of your work.



I appreciate this advice.  I think I'm finally starting to reach this stage.



> My rule of thumb is that you really can't make a living wage until you have at least 3 books released



I understand this.  I'm definitely not going to give up too soon even if the first book tanks.



> Don't confuse "spending a lot of time" and "perfection" - each author is different and there are those that can write very quickly and still produce quality work. While in some cases more time = better product - it is not always the case.



I agree with you.  In the quote in question, however, I was more talking about the fact that I think the time I spent on the front end getting better at the craft of writing has paid off for me.



> Again - it's going to vary from author to author. Keep in mind those authors that sell well (whether self or traditional) ARE producing quality or they wouldn't get the repeat buys. Quantity without quality is useless because the trick is in repeat buyers and word-of-mouth recommendations. You have to have quality first.



I really do appreciate your input.  It's great to hear from someone who has been there, done that.  

I think that a lot of us on this board (and previously me in particular) put way too much emphasis on getting every single word right.  The original post is kinda a representation of my eureka moment where I started to realize that that approach is probably neither profitable nor necessary.

Thanks again!

Brian


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jan 2, 2013)

MichaelSullivan said:


> If you are looking purely to earn and make money from writing then the formula is quite easy.
> 
> 
> Pick a genre that has a substantial fanbase which is easy to find/market to.
> ...



Good advice.  Thanks.

As you stated, number 2 is definitely the hard part.

We had a discussion on the forum a few weeks ago on the "measure of goodness" of a new writer concerning how you know if your writing is good enough.  You introduce a good measure here: if a substantial portion of your target audience would recommend your book, you're good enough.

Thanks!

Brian


----------



## MichaelSullivan (Jan 2, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Goddammit. I get tired of hearing this.
> 
> Look, selling _450 million books_ cannot be a matter of luck. I cannot accept that as statistically feasable. People like Rowling or Meyer or Collins did not "win the lottery", they wrote books that millions of people _actually enjoyed reading, _books that publishers decided to invest money in because it was their professional opinion that people might like them. They don't offer publishing deals on random goddamned whims, neither do millions of people randomly decide to read the same book. If I was a best-selling author and someone told me I only got there because of luck, I'd punch them in right the face! That's one of the most insulting things I can imagine saying to a writer.
> 
> ...



Bravo - I agree 100% Thomas Jefferson said:



> "I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it."



We make our own luck by working hard, constantly improving, and never giving up. I find it amazing that people are willing to concede their success to efforts other than their own. Take responsibility for yourself...both your successes and your failures.


----------



## Xaysai (Jan 2, 2013)

Michael J. Sullivan is like John McLane in "Live Free or Die Hard": he just shot a helicopter down with a car.

Rereading that line, I'm not so sure that my meaning came through, but thank you Michael for taking the time to read and reply with such great advice and in such great depth.

It was pretty badass.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Jan 5, 2013)

I have been watching the indie scene for several years now.

I have seen a lot of writers do really, really well for themselves. Some wrote one book, broke out, and had amazing sales. These were the minority - the "lottery winners" who happened to both write a really good book AND get insanely lucky.

Most of the success stories I see are writers who simply Worked Harder Than Their Peers.
They produced more words per year.
Which meant they produced more books per year.
Which made their fans happy, so they retained fans and grew their fanbase.

Even the writers who start off fairly bad get good, eventually, if they continue writing more work, reading more work, and studying their craft.

The answer to writing well is to write more.
The answer to selling more is to have more good books out, which means writing more.

The problem isn't just Michael's #2 (write a good book). It's also that you need to do that, and then do it again, and again, and again, and again. And you need to KEEP doing it for as long as you wish to retain a career. The best, most successful (barring insane luck) writers today are producing 3-6 novels per year, every year. That's the "secret", near as I can tell.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 5, 2013)

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> The best, most successful (barring insane luck) writers today are producing 3-6 novels per year, every year. That's the "secret", near as I can tell.



That figure seems rather high to me. Six a year is one every two months.... Maybe three a year but that's a lot in and of itself. I'm genuinely curious how you came across these figures.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Jan 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That figure seems rather high to me. Six a year is one every two months.... Maybe three a year but that's a lot in and of itself. I'm genuinely curious how you came across these figures.



That's not outrageous output for a full time writer.

Consider: work just 40 hours per week, with a focus on putting 80% of your time into producing new work. Say half of that time is spent revising (which is high; most of the pros I know recommend spending more time on new words than on marketing, production, and revision put together, but...we're newer, let's say our work requires more editing and such).

That means you're spending about 160 hours a month, or 320 per two month cycle. Of that, 64 hours per two months is spent on marketing, promotion, and production/uploading. Another 128 hours per two months is spent on revision. And the third 128 hours is spent on fresh words.

The slowest writers I know produce about 500 words per hour. The fastest do 2000 or so per hour. I generally average 1000-1500 myself. You do your own math for your own hourly rate, but given 128 hours to do the work, there's really no reason why a writer should not be producing 64,000+ words.

Of course, some of the more productive writers I know put in 60+ hours a week. Like most successful small business owners, they know that working extra hours early on in the business is essential to long term success.


Writing and publishing fiction is a business. The more hours you work, the more you produce. The more you produce, the more product you have to sell. The more product you have to sell, the better your odds of success everything else being equal.

The difference between a four book a year novelist and a one book a year novelist is generally that the four book a year novelist puts in four times as many hours actually working on stories. The four book a year novelist also gains new fans faster, makes more sales, and sees much better career progression.

(Six a year isn't that common; I only know a few writers, like Kevin Anderson, who are able to sustain that level of productivity. It's a lot of work; I have huge respect for the writers who can manage that. But moving forward? Now that the plug has been pulled, and writers are no longer being artificially limited in how much they can produce per year by publishers? Yes, we're going to see a return to the mode of the first decades of the 20th century, where the writers who excel will be those who can write GOOD books rapidly, to retain fans.)


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jan 5, 2013)

What about time spent during the conceptual phase? Planning, outlining (if that's something you do), character development and backstory, these all take time as well even if we're discussing 6 serial works.

I'd agree that 6/yr is possible, albeit unlikely, for the vast majority of writers. I doubt that the vast majority could produce any sort of quality under those time constraints that would earn the fan bases you speak of here. There are always exceptions but I'd never use exceptions to make conclusions.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Jan 5, 2013)

Yeah, I agree that six per year is pretty exceptional. I see 3-4 much more often.

But then again, when we're competing for view with tens of thousands of other writers, it's the exceptional that will tend to rise to the surface, right? 

My plan for 2013 is to release twelve new *titles* in the coming year. That's not twelve new novels, mind you. 

Serial novel, six episodes, three already written, two of which are edited. (6)
Compiled version of all six episodes after they're all out. (1)
Blackwell fantasy series short story, written, needs editing. (1)
SF near future novel, written, needs significant rewrite of second half (this was my first novel on getting back into regular fiction a few years ago; nice story, but I was rusty, and it shows, so redrafting the entire thing from scratch, half done). (1)
Historical novel, post-Roman Britain, written, needs editing. (1)
Blackwell fantasy series novel #2, half written. (1)
Something else. Maybe Blackwell book 3, which is already plotted, maybe another short story - something else. (1)

It's maybe 120k new words, and a bunch of edits. If I can get more original work done on top of that, great. But even if I can't, that's still a good stack of new titles out with my name on them. Keeping a work in the "released in the last 90 days" category is pretty huge right now, for fiction writers. Writers who can do that consistently (even if it's a novella or something shorter) are reporting significant benefits from doing so.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jan 5, 2013)

I do find myself wondering.

Once or twice a month I'll go visit 'Wattpad' and run a search on 'fantasy'.  Something like 300,000 works pop up - about 100,000 of them in 'romance/fantasy', which is a real eye opener.  Even in the niches my work would more or less fall into, there are still tens of thousands of listings.

Now granted, a lot of this is probably series or serial work.  A bunch of it, I think is fanfic or 'amateur hour' material.  But still...300,000 fantasy works to choose from?  Including tens of thousands in my subgenre's? Where to even begin?  It is pretty much all I can do to skim the titles, read the odd blurb, and maybe two or three pages of the tale in question.

For a work to rise above this sea of stories would take some serious doing.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Jan 8, 2013)

Wattpad is *all* serialized stories. So a 20 chapter book counts as twenty "works" there. It's not QUITE as bad as it looks.   Plus, Wattpad is mostly amateur work - writers who don't feel good enough to publish their work professionally (although some pros are putting a few stories up there as well, hoping to hook some readers of their other work...!).

As I write this there are 1.8 million ebooks available on Kindle, your main paying market.
647k of them are fiction
51k of those are fantasy fiction
9.5k of them are contemporary fantasy
1121 of those contemporary fantasy were published in the last 90 days
391 were published in the last 30 days

And most of those will not sell in any significant numbers, because of some combination of: bad writing, bad covers, bad blurb, failure to follow through with more works.

Write a book, publish or submit it, write another, publish or submit it. Continue repeating. The folks who fall out and give up fail. The ones who keep striving, learning, and trying can generally succeed.


----------



## Chilari (Jan 9, 2013)

Thanks for the numbers there, Kevin. Really puts it in perspective. Makes me feel better about it, certainly. I guess the more books you have out, the higher the odds, too - going with the 9.5k contemporary fantasy you've listed, if you've got one book, that's 1 in 9500. Two books is 2/9500 or 1/4750. Three is 3/9500 or 1/3167. Four is 1/2375. The more books, the better the odds of being noticed. And the more frequent the publication, the better chance too - 1/391 for the 30 days thing isn't too bad at all, especially if you crop up there every few months and browsing readers keep seeing your name.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin (Jan 9, 2013)

Don't forget that readers LIKE finding writers with multiple works out, too. It means better payoff if they try a book and like it. And avid readers will tend to just burn through everything a writer has produced, if they like one book by that writer. So having someone find one book in the new releases section and like it *can* mean that reader will also buy your other six books - and tell her friends about you, so some of them try your work...and so on.

Patience, multiple works, a steady release schedule that keeps your work visible, and a slow build of fans seems to be the most reliable route to success, from what I am seeing.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Jan 10, 2013)

I just want to say one thing on this thread, and I'm sure it's as important as writing a good book.  I recently published two articles on this site.  you can find them here:  How to Write a Query Letter  and here:How to Write a Synopsis

One thing people don't seem to be mentioning, is no matter how awesome your book might be, there are other factors which influence your potential career.  Of course, self-publishing will be different, but this is something people need to think about.  If you have a great novel, but fail to wow an agent or publisher, you're in the same boat as people with a book about mutant martians who turn earthlings into zombies with a death ray so they can steal the earth's supply of twinkies, and a resistance made up of zombie-slaying fanatical ex-cops all named Steve.  I mean, if your query letter says, "hey agent, I'm a delusional ass-head who thinks I'm all that and a bag of chips.  Want to fight for the privilege of representing my novel?  My mom said it's the best book she's ever read."  You won't stand a chance.  I think this is where most people blow it, personally.

If you put yourself out there, to possibly have the door slammed in your face, at least make sure you have a clean shirt on, right?  Nothing's worse than showing up looking a mess.  It doesn't matter how awesome your book is if you don't write a good query.  Now, I understand we're talking about self-pubbing here, and I can only say that this is directly translatable.  You need cover art that looks professional, a blurb that is professional, and most of all, your conduct as a writer needs to be as professional as the other two things.  If you have a good book, and you can manage the other things too, you set yourself up to succeed (not to say you will, but not doing those things are akin to writing a book blurb that says, "Read me, ass**le, I'm a good book.")

One of the things I think most stands in amateur writers' ways, is that they're looking at their books like some freaking Dali-esque works of art.  It isn't a masterpiece, it's a product.  One that you need to sell like it's a useless kitchen gadget that ought to be the next hot Christmas As Seen on TV gift.  If you don't think of your book as a product, but somehow as some sort of brilliant insight into your complex psyche... no one's going to buy it, not an agent, not a discerning reader, not even your mom who said she loved it so well.

Words on a page... that's all it is unless you make it more.  And frankly, there's a lot of talented people in this world, and they didn't make it.  Applause for Rowling. I loved her books.  They were inventive, creative, and amusing.  In fact, in my life, I've spent more on her books than any other author.  I've kept them and they have a special place on my bookshelf.  She persevered where others dropped out of the race, and though no book can please everyone, she brought hours of laughter and joy to me and millions of others.     

Now, this little rant isn't directed at any of the posters on this thread, but at all amateur authors who think they ought to be _there _already, but don't know what it takes to get _there_.  We're lucky to live in an era where information is accessible no matter where we are, and no matter what we want to know.  You only have to look for it.  There's no excuse for stabbing blindly in the dark. 

 I can appreciate what you're saying Brian, about setting yourself up to succeed.  I think that's the long and short of it.  People need to set themselves up for success, and I'm hearing that echoed on this thread.  But, too often, new writers are focusing on the wrong things.  They think their book is good when it isn't, they think they're going to succeed over the thousands of others, based solely on the content of their manuscript, and they think that time spent is directly equatable to awesomeness of the work.  It's a harsh and cruel world out there, people.  Listen to those who would give you advice, having been there.  Invest in some people, whether they be crit partners who will rake you across the coals and smile while doing it, or a crit group that helps promote each other.  This is a really tough environment, and we need each other.  As steel sharpens steel, so do writers supporting each other help all to succeed.  

Thank you to all the people on this forum who have given me their time and helped me learn and grow.  My journey is far from over, but I'm miles ahead of where I was last year, and I owe it to the people who pushed me, challenged me and supported me.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jan 10, 2013)

> Wattpad is *all* serialized stories. So a 20 chapter book counts as twenty "works" there. It's not QUITE as bad as it looks.  Plus, Wattpad is mostly amateur work - writers who don't feel good enough to publish their work professionally (although some pros are putting a few stories up there as well, hoping to hook some readers of their other work...!).



The 'serial story' bit does go a ways towards accounting for the sky high numbers on Wattpad.  Still...I went and checked the site again after making my previous post in this thread, and the count for 'fantasy' works was now in excess of 400,000 ( and I could no longer get the itemized breakdown, which is a bit of a bummer).  Even with the serialization and fan fic and authors with multiple works and utter junk taken into account...that must be hundreds, possibly thousands of fantasy authors.

That said, while many of the Wattpad authors are amateurs, a sizable percentage (judging from the few works I've peeked at) seem to be *talented* amateurs, people capable of telling a pretty good story in a readable format.  While not properly published, some of these tales look to be as good as the stuff on the store shelve or digital marketplace.


----------

