# Write What You Know, or Write What Sells?



## neodoering (Mar 2, 2017)

Every few years a trilogy of vampire novels goes completely berserk on the sales chart, and another millionaire writer is born.  So people write vampire novels.  They write a thousand vampire novels every year and spam the inboxes of agents, editors and publishers with their stories.  And inevitably, some of these will be accepted and will be published, and they will make their writers some money.  

And ditto with cyberpunk stories.  And steampunk.  And "invading aliens" stories.  And "talking animals" stories.  etc.  

The point is, these tried and true marketing categories are formulaic and well-defined, so all you have to do is study the forms and then produce your own copy.  The competition is fierce, because it's easier to mimic someone else's success than forge a path to success for yourself, but at least you're taking a chance on material with a proven rate of success.  

On the other hand, there are those writers who strike out on their own, writing about subjects that are personally interesting to them.  There is no proven track record of success for their ideas, and no neat marketing categories all ready-made.  Just the desire to tell a story out of personal experience.  

Which type of writer are you?  You _know_ it's a waste of time to fight the competition for another vampire novel.  But you _also_ know it's a waste of time writing an entire novel that doesn't fit a neat marketer's dream.  In either case, your chances for success are tiny, almost microscopic.  So which do _you_ think is better, and why?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 2, 2017)

Your odds of success are slim, so might as well write what you love unless someone pays you to do otherwise. If you happen to love the type of story in vogue, or better, about to be the it thing, all the better, LOL.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 2, 2017)

To answer this question I have to first ask what is your goal as a writer. Do you want this to be your "day job"? If you want it to be your day job do you want it to be your day job right now or do you want it under certain conditions. 

Take me for example, I have a profession. I like this profession. I still want to be a writer for my day job. But not right away. I want it under certain conditions, like that I make as much as I do now through my writing and other considerations. So, for me, I write what I want to write, what I love to write. I have no reason to push out the formulaic stuff. So, I won't.

However, if your goal is to be a day job writer right now, you best write to the market. But at the same time write your passion. It's just that your day job should overcome your passion writing.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 2, 2017)

Me, I write what interests me. If it's a vampire story, it's a vampire story. If its a story about a mutant potato conquering the world, it's that. Unless someone is giving me a check to write X, I'll write what I want. But that doesn't mean, I won't choose to write a story first because I think it has a better chance to be picked up. But again, it has to be a story I'm interested in, not just what the market wants.

IMHO, if you chase the market and don't actually have an interest in what you write, then it will most likely show in a lacklustre effort. Doesn't matter how many check boxes you tick off because there will be something missing. It's hard to articulate what that something is, but it's basically an insiders in the know type thing, like spotting a wannabe from those who are genuinely interested in something.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2017)

I will never sacrifice writing what I love on the altar of making money, I'm afraid...

Some of the things I love do, I think, fit into prescribed categories that have an established readership. That's fair enough. 

(Why must you assume that people who write about vampires do it because it sells, and not because they read and enjoy vampire novels and are inspired by them, or simply like vampires?) 

Many of my books don't. Probably most. My ideas and stories are insufferably weird and I like them that way. They don't fit into genres or trends. And, well, I don't care. I write them anyway.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 2, 2017)

Well, this argument looks differently from the side of "gee, I can use my writing skills to make money so I won't need to work at a job I hate and instead be able to do what I love."

Some here seem to think it's dirty and un-artistic to focus on making money from writing. That's okay. I'll happily keep cashing my Amazon royalty checks.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 2, 2017)

If I want other people to read my writing, it seems only fair to consider what they want to read. I still write what I love, because I would get nowhere otherwise, but I try to shape it according to how I think my target audience will receive it. I've written several short stories, and usually ended up self-publishing those stories where I didn't have a specific target audience in mind at the time of writing.

I'm currently working on my debut novel. I intend to look for an agent once I'm finished. I am trying to be original yet marketable. Some agents will tell you they are not interested in novels featuring vampires, werewolves, angels, etc. I'll be looking at those agents first, because I'm not writing about vampires, werewolves, angels, etc. The trick, it would seem, is to find the agent who likes what you like. This takes a lot of research. I'm reading novels that were handled by agents I'm interested in, to see if I like those stories. I figure if I hope to make any money from my writing, then I have to put in the work. It's not just writing the story that matters.

Some writers are not interested in sharing their work. Great, they can write what they love. They don't have to care about what others think. They don't need to ask anyone advice about what they write, because who besides themselves is ever going to care?

If a writer does share but has no monetary incentive, then again, what does it matter if they write well or write crap, unless, I suppose, they only want respect. If at some point they are hoping to sell their fiction, is it a better use of time now to practice writing to an audience or to just write what they love? If the latter, are they hoping that when the time comes for them to sell their fiction, they will somehow transform the readers of the world with their awesomeness? It's not impossible. I hope to do that too, but that's not my only plan.


----------



## SergeiMeranov (Mar 2, 2017)

If you read pretty much any book regarding how to write compelling fiction it will address this question.  The resounding chorus of answers is to not try to write what is "vogue" because that is a moving target that you're never going to hit.  If tomorrow a new vampire series takes off like gangbusters and mints a new billion dollar series it won't matter at all to someone that's still writing.  Even if you assume your book is finished, you still need to submit it to agents, then publishers,  and then go through editing and publishing before it finally hits the shelves.  At that point, whatever is in vogue has changed.

This is why, as others suggest, I think it's more important to write what you love.  The focus of a writer should be to write a good story.  I think the only advice ever given in most writing books is that you should have some eye to what sort of an audience you imagine for the book but other than that you shouldn't be chasing what's popular.  To me, it has less to do with "artistic integrity vs. writing to sell" it's more about the fact that good books are better to sell and read than bad books.  It's a re-imagining of that old proverb that says a true leader doesn't find a group and ask where they're going so that they may lead them there, a true leader convinces people to go in the direction he's going.  So, applying it here, a good author in my mind writes a good book that becomes popular, they don't focus on what's popular to figure out what to write.


----------



## Alyssa (Mar 2, 2017)

Yes, *vampire/werewolf/hot-guy-with-no-shirt-on fiction* sells. It's also an oversaturated market. Making it brutally competitive. The end result might not have, and I'm sure you agree, literary merit. But this is being conflated with the story in question being compelling.

compelling story ≠ literary merit    (although a story sometimes has both)

There is indeed a market for *vampire/werewolf/hot-guy-with-no-shirt-on fiction* and so people write this. Also, it is sort of hot. But make no mistake. The book may never win any prizes. But it is a good, compelling and generally well-written story. That is why, out of the slush pile of *vampire/werewolf/hot-guy-with-no-shirt-on fiction* half a mile high, that story in particular gets chosen. Because it is compelling, because it appeals.

That, I think, ultimately, is why people read. Because a story draws them in – literary merit be damned.

Compelling books sell. It doesn't need to be *vampire/werewolf/hot-guy-with-no-shirt-on fiction*. Although it does have a large following and market, which helps – they're also a very hormonal and demanding audience, though.

Write what you know, as long as what you know is a compelling story. Because compelling stories sell.

Even *hot-guy-with-no-shirt-on fiction* started somewhere. Make your own breakout genre. People will read it if it is compelling enough – though it might be a harder climb, granted, the rewards are also far greater. But please, for the love of Xenu, stop singing_ lascia ch'io pianga mia cruda sorte_. You chose the hard road, with greater rewards if you succeed, no one forced you onto it. The stones cut everyone's feet.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 2, 2017)

> I will never sacrifice writing what I love on the altar of making money, I'm afraid...
> 
> Some of the things I love do, I think, fit into prescribed categories that have an established readership. That's fair enough.
> 
> ...



YES YES YES! It's nice that we think along the same lines.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Mar 2, 2017)

Write what you love, the stories that live inside you, the stories that only you can tell. Success will follow. Some writers are more or less commercial than others, and that is okay. We all follow our own artistic path.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 2, 2017)

^Well said!


----------



## Chessie (Mar 2, 2017)

A. E. Lowan said:


> Write what you love, the stories that live inside you, the stories that only you can tell. Success will follow. Some writers are more or less commercial than others, and that is okay. We all follow our own artistic path.



It also makes sense to learn and understand what your chosen audience likes to read and why. I don't understand when writers say they want to make a living off their fiction yet are unwilling to take their readers into consideration. I write to market and also write what I love. I'm happy with this balance, which does exist. It doesn't have to be that being an artist means you starve.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 2, 2017)

This discussion reminds of a song from a musical. [video=youtube_share;iKaqJCodIf4]https://youtu.be/iKaqJCodIf4[/video]

But here's what I'd like to talk about. There's this myth that a writer can only write one book a year or something like that. Or must be an artist. Me must suffer for their art. They don't. They can be a market writer and an artist writer. They can write for money and write for passion. It's a matter of discipline and work ethic and time. 

I've crunched some numbers, when I'm writing, actually writing, I can crack out 5600 words in an 8 hour day. That's a little over three work weeks to do a first draft of 90k words. That leaves another 11 months to do other things. 11 months. I'd bet that I could crack out two books a year. One for market and one for love. It's possible. But we have some strange ideas that an artist must not treat their writing like a job or else their art will be some how sullied. It's a strange idea. 

So like the little girl in the taco shell commercial I ask


----------



## Russ (Mar 2, 2017)

I think BSA and AEL are pretty much dead right.  This is a false dichotomy indulged in by people who want to really simplify things.

I suspect that the people posting about not sacrificing their art etc have never had to try and pay the rent through writing.  Sometimes being uncompromising is a luxury that one cannot afford.

I am also pretty confident that one cannot chase the market to any degree of success in publishing.  

AEL is right.  Write what you love.  Editors, agents and the public, or most of them, can tell when you are not.  

And I find it odd that the OP talks about all the genres with any success already being defined.  I have been to his website and seen his pic and he looks to about my age.  I am just over 50 and when I was a young guy reading spec fic, there was virtually no vampire literature, no werewolf literature, no steampunk, no cyberpunk, no New Weird, no urban fantasy, no grimdark and erotica was a tiny market. Given time I could think up a few more.  These are all completely new genres that have risen from almost nothing to significant success over my lifetime.  Literature is evolving all the time.  There is no reason that one cannot be a catalyst in that evolution.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 2, 2017)

Absolutely not an either or situation. Now mind you, I don't need to write for a living, but bet yer ass, write to the market you love.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> This discussion reminds of a song from a musical. [video=youtube_share;iKaqJCodIf4]https://youtu.be/iKaqJCodIf4[/video]
> 
> But here's what I'd like to talk about. There's this myth that a writer can only write one book a year or something like that. Or must be an artist. Me must suffer for their art. They don't. They can be a market writer and an artist writer. They can write for money and write for passion. It's a matter of discipline and work ethic and time.
> 
> ...



That's a very good usage of a meme. I commend you for it. 

And it's something worth considering...yes, why not both? 

I mean...here's a thought: why do we assume that the stuff we love won't sell? (I mean the fact that we love it means something; are there not other people like us out there somewhere, who would read such books if we were to find them?) 

I personally have an aggressive commitment to artistic integrity. Yeah, I know a lot of you probably find that idea annoying, but I'm committed to the ideas I love and writing them the way I want to write them. That doesn't mean I've resigned myself, martyr-fashion, to a life of being a sadly underappreciated starving artist. I think that there are people out there that will read and love my ideas.

I know where my priorities lie. As I said before, I won't sacrifice writing what I love on the altar of making money...

But, do we even have to choose between the two? That is what I'm pondering now... 

Some people seem to frame it like "there are prescribed categories of books that sell and if yours is a little different, well you're screwed..." 

Does the market really work that way? Somehow I don't think so.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2017)

I really have no idea how one would be like "Hey, this thing is selling! I'll write a book about it of my own!" 

Writing is hard as hell. The way I see it, the only thing that gets you through it is your love of it.


----------



## Russ (Mar 2, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I really have no idea how one would be like "Hey, this thing is selling! I'll write a book about it of my own!"
> 
> Writing is hard as hell. The way I see it, the only thing that gets you through it is your love of it.



Digging a ditch is hard as hell, coal mining is hard as hell, commercial fishing is as hard as hell, high steel construction is as hard as hell...but there is that whole "pay the rent, feed the family" thing...

It appears you have a fairly narrow worldview on these things.


----------



## Devor (Mar 3, 2017)

I've seen author interviews where people talk about how they have to write to the market, and they don't talk about vampires.  Instead, it's usually, "I wrote a book, people really liked that book, and now all of the pressure is on for me to do a sequel."  On the other hand, I've seen several submission guides which include something like, "We do not accept stories about vampires or zombies."

The "market" is a big place, you only need a tiny slice of it to do well, and the bigger slices have way more competition.  Honestly, anyone telling you to write about vampires - I mean, the advice sounds kind of amateurish to me.




DragonOfTheAerie said:


> (Why must you assume that people who write about vampires do it because it sells, and not because they read and enjoy vampire novels and are inspired by them, or simply like vampires?)



^ Yeah, this.  Vampires are popular.  People like them, so they write about them.  I don't think there's many credible people out there thinking, "I hate vampires, but I'll write about them because it'll make me stinkin' rich."


----------



## Devor (Mar 3, 2017)

Russ said:


> It appears you have a fairly narrow worldview on these things.



Let's tone it down Russ.




Russ said:


> Digging a ditch is hard as hell, coal mining is hard as hell, commercial fishing is as hard as hell, high steel construction is as hard as hell...but there is that whole "pay the rent, feed the family" thing...



We all know that it's hard - and unlikely - to write in a way that actually does pay the rent or feed the family.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 3, 2017)

Russ said:


> It appears you have a fairly narrow worldview on these things.



Um...Ouch...

Ima leave this discussion, if it's going to get personal.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Mar 3, 2017)

I spent a couple decades writing magazine articles, mostly on fitness and bodybuilding. That was a subject that interested me so it was both writing what I know and writing what sold — but it was still a job, to pay the bills and nothing more. Now I try to write things that actually mean something to me and, with any luck, to someone else, an essentially different endeavor. Yes, I would hope they sell but, as W.H. Auden put it (more or less), I write for people who like my work. That's my target audience.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 3, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Does the market really work that way? Somehow I don't think so.



It actually does. Not having been in it yourself, can you really attest to knowing what it takes to sell your fiction for a living? It's so, so much harder than anyone realizes. Sometimes writers are able to find their audience right out of the gate. Most of the time—no. Writing what you love is best intercepted by what readers love and it takes time to figure that out. What's really important is learning story structure above all else. If you can get good at that, like, really good, understand what readers want out of that particular genre (and what you want is different than what they want because you are not your readers), then your chances of writing what you love and making a living increase.

But it takes a strong back list for most authors of work that people are willing to pay money for, and a serious adjustment of your writing if what you're publishing isn't hitting the mark. To you, Dragon, this may not be something you're willing to do because you're only 16. As an adult responsible for a family, my focus is different. I do write for money but I love what I write. I just think it comes across as harsh and judgmental when the attitude is put out there that writing for a living means you're a hack. It's offensive to someone (like me and many other authors) who get up at the crack of dawn to write for hours, take care of our kids and husbands and wives, sometimes have a day job, etc. At the risk of getting personal, my husband has been undergoing a major health crisis in where I thought I was seriously going to lose him. It's been a terrifying couple of months that I've _still needed to write through or else bills won't get paid._ Have you any idea how stressful that is? So when I read comments like "if you write for a living you're giving up your art" (paraphrasing here), it's hurtful and makes me not want to participate in these discussions.

Because writing for a living is the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. I'm at the mercy of my readers in order to take care of my family. You absolutely BET I'm going to give them what they want and anyone saying that I don't write artistically can take a hike. It's so disrespectful and I believe that's why emotions run high when these sorts of conversations come up. Just because one writer puts in hobby time to write their book doesn't mean they are any better/less than a writer who produces more, because I could easily say the same "if you don't get up at the crack of dawn to write you're wasting your time in this profession." That would be mean, right?


P.S.
I wanted to add that for an Indie, there's much more than just the writing. There's building a mailing list, often more than one (right now I'm running 3). There's commissioning covers, editing, formatting, marketing, building relationships with your audience and other authors, booking promotions, getting involved in cross-promotions, keeping up with the changes in the industry, etc. ALL of that I do on a regular basis on top of my writing. So see? It's not easy. There's a grip of stuff to do if you want to get paid. Not to mention keywords and the study of your competition and reading, which is so important. Writing for a living means you'll be marketing and that takes up a huge chunk of time + family. It's not ez-pz the way some might think.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 3, 2017)

Author Larry Correia wrote a nice post about needing to get paid. It was a response to a newspaper article that was critical of indie authors whose wrote too quickly in the article's eyes. I think it applies to this thread nicely. 

Fisking the HuffPo, because writers need to GET PAID – Monster Hunter Nation


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 3, 2017)

I write what I know. I know romance sells, but I don't "know" it, really don't like writing it, and so what I do have either isn't there or very minimalistic. Left up to the audience. I've heard writers say  similar things about action.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 3, 2017)

_What’s your point as a creative, an artist; an author?

GET PAID.

A purveyor of the written word?

GET PAID.

Why are you here, what is your purpose, your goal as a writer?

GET PAID.

What do you hope to achieve?

GET PAID. _

Yes. This pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 3, 2017)

Chessie said:


> _What’s your point as a creative, an artist; an author?
> 
> GET PAID.
> 
> ...



And I am going to change the analysis to illustrate a point.
_
What’s your point as a creative, an artist; an author?_

1. To write for fun.
2. Get paid, eventually.

This means that I can write for love because I have a job that gets me paid, and I get a lot of writing done in my job too.

So, I ask what is your goal? If its get paid and get paid now, write to market primarily. If you don't need dem benjamins, then write what you love.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 3, 2017)

Chessie said:


> _What’s your point as a creative, an artist; an author?
> 
> GET PAID.
> 
> ...



I definitely don't intend to disparage those who make their living writing books; if you do it, great, if you love doing it, even better. 

However, I know that for me personally, thinking of writing as a job only, even if a job I really enjoy, would be...I'm not sure of the correct way to word this. Unfulfilling? Writing is an entire identity for me. It's the way my inner self is fully realized; as freaking hokey as that probably sounds...that's the truth. I do think of myself as an artist; I do think I have an obligation to the craft, to myself, to my ideas...of sincerity at least. 

Call me naive; do it. I don't care. All this is important to me personally. 

I'm not saying that making a living writing can't be fulfilling. Or that y'all who do aren't fulfilled. It's a very personal thing as far as I can tell...my goals are different than others'. But if (if) writing as a job and writing as an art really can't be reconciled (for me anyway)...

At the end of the day, I'm going to write the stories that excite me and that I enjoy. I believe their readers are out there. (Otherwise I am rather alone in the world. I write all the things I wish other people would write because I would like to read them.) If y'all disagree, and think that my weird and impossible-to-categorize stories do NOT have an audience and I can NOT make a living writing them, or sell them at all...well, I'll keep looking, and I'll keep writing. 

But, I'm not sure of anyone's point here. One moment, I hear that writing for a living does not require compromising the ideas you love. Next moment, I hear that the kinds of stories you CAN make a living from are narrowly defined. Being a writer of really weird, quirky stuff that doesn't fit into any categories that exist, perhaps I am the only one who can see a serious contradiction in this? 

Is there anything WRONG with my stories for being what seems like hard sells? I've heard you say that you should be attentive to what your audience wants, and I agree for the most part. But, if my stories are not much like anything that's popular, is that a flaw in them, then? Is the reason no one has written what I write simply that no one likes it? 

That's a depressing thought. But I don't really think it's true.

I love my stories. Making money off them would be nice. But (using this example since at least some of the things I write probably fit best into the YA category) if that means throwing in 100 pages of angst over two hot boys, because that's what people expect of YA...I'll have to figure something else out. I certainly hope it doesn't. Geez. I hate love triangles.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 3, 2017)

(Also, I'm not calling any of you 'not artists'...I think that's something you define for yourself. If you think of your work as art, you'd be an artist, and I can't judge either way.)


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 3, 2017)

If I was just writing to get paid, I would change the title characters  to white straight males. A buff bad boy jock, the father figure for the older crowd, and the nerdy, yet still hollywood pretty one.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 3, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> If I was just writing to get paid, I would change the title characters  to white straight males. A buff bad boy jock, the father figure for the older crowd, and the nerdy, yet still hollywood pretty one.



Which is precisely the opposite of what anybody writing to get paid would do. Why? Because the readership _does not want_ those stock, boring, characters.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 3, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Which is precisely the opposite of what anybody writing to get paid would do. Why? Because the readership _does not want_ those stock, boring, characters.



Stock automatically equals boring? I don't think so. Especially not with the amount of sex and violence I'd put in. Of course not too explicit with the violence, don't want the teenage girl audience to get alienated.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 3, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Which is precisely the opposite of what anybody writing to get paid would do. Why? Because the readership _does not want_ those stock, boring, characters.



This is an exhibition of the way I think...Im part of "the readership." In a lot of ways, I feel like my audience is people like me.


----------



## staiger95 (Mar 3, 2017)

I would compare the question to the same hurdles that musicians face: compose with your own passion or sell-out to the industry.  Either way, you have a narrow chance, but I would rather be remembered for something that was uniquely mine if I did make it.

_All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted, sot so coldly charted.  It's really just a question of your honesty.  One likes to believe in the freedom of music, but glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.  --Rush_


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 3, 2017)

> However, I know that for me personally, thinking of writing as a job only, even if a job I really enjoy, would be...I'm not sure of the correct way to word this. Unfulfilling? Writing is an entire identity for me. It's the way my inner self is fully realized; as freaking hokey as that probably sounds...that's the truth. I do think of myself as an artist; I do think I have an obligation to the craft, to myself, to my ideas...of sincerity at least.
> Call me naive; do it. I don't care. All this is important to me personally.



I agree.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 3, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Is there anything WRONG with my stories for being what seems like hard sells? I've heard you say that you should be attentive to what your audience wants, and I agree for the most part. But, if my stories are not much like anything that's popular, is that a flaw in them, then? Is the reason no one has written what I write simply that no one likes it?



No, there's nothing wrong with writing what seems like hard sells. Nothing wrong in the least. For me, I like to take a balanced approach to things. I keep in mind that some stories will have wider appeal than others. And like it or not, there is a business side to writing, and that's something that can't be ignored if you plan on making money with your writing.

One of the things I thing every writer needs to learn is how to weigh all the opinions thrown their way, whether it's a critique about their writing or how to approach writing itself. There is no one-size-fits-all. There's just what fits you and your situation. 

Take what's useful and discard the rest.

Which brings me to another thing, understanding what you want, and to temper expectations accordingly. 

For every "success" someone has by using method A, there will be a failure by someone else who used method A. So IMHO find you own way, whether that ways means following someone else's path step-for-step or blazing your own. It doesn't matter as long as it fits you.

And be wary of anyone who tries to force you down a path you don't want to go. There's nothing wrong with pointing out alternatives, but for me, anytime someone says this is the only way, and you must go down it because it leads to a specific destination, it gives me the impression they haven't bothered to really look around and see all the alternatives available or realise that not everyone wants to go to that specific destination.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 3, 2017)

1. Write what you know.
2. Write what sells.
3. Write what you can.

Seems I fall @ #3 lately.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 3, 2017)

> And be wary of anyone who tries to force you down a path you don't want to go. There's nothing wrong with pointing out alternatives, but for me, anytime someone says this is the only way, and you must go down it because it leads to a specific destination, it gives me the impression they haven't bothered to really look around and see all the alternatives available or realise that not everyone wants to go to that specific destination.



No kidding. I learned that first-hand.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 3, 2017)

FifthView said:


> 1. Write what you know.
> 2. Write what sells.
> 3. Write what you can.
> 
> Seems I fall @ #3 lately.



One might add: "Write what you love."

These are not mutually exclusive for me. I endeavor to do all four. #2 is the one I'm least capable at currently, so it requires more attention. I'm not going to write about something I know nothing about. I'm not going to write more than I can (by definition, impossible). I'm going to write in the genres/subgenres that I love, because I would suck at other genres/subgenres. I've been studying the craft to help make my stories more salable, and trying to apply these techniques.

Look up the etymology of the words "technique" and "technology." They are based on the Greek for "art, craft." One is no less of an artist because of applying certain techniques to their work.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 3, 2017)

I find that #3 must come before "Write what you love."

I.e., if what appears on page happens to be a sign of "can't," I simply can't love what I find there. I know this from much personal experience, heh.  It is quite obvious I haven't written what I love, even if I had a lovely idea behind my efforts.

Sometimes I feel that focusing on "what I love" or the grand idea of "artistry" can become a little narcissistic.  Narcissus stares at his reflection and feels great love; but perhaps only his eyes see that lovely thing.  The water could be rather muddy, his reflection very unclear to any passersby who happen to appear, but he loves it.  And what's wrong with that? If Narcissus is happy, shouldn't that be fine for Narcissus?  Maybe; I don't know. But all too often there's not even a pool of water, not a real pool, but rather only the _idea_ of a pool and the _idea_ of that beautiful other staring back.  The "what I love" doesn't actually make it to the page, may only be a dream for the future.  This might not be a problem for the writer, but what does it do for passersby?

Let us suppose that the author goes the extra step and builds a pool of water and many props around it so that any passersby catching a glimpse of the pool will find something lovely reflected there—the author's own lovely thing, but now presented in a way that others can love it also.  Could you make the pool an exhibit and sell tickets to see it?  Possibly.  But what if no one wants to see it?  Is this the fault of the 6+ billion other Earthlings who refuse to pay the price?  I don't think so.

I also find difficult the proposition that someone can write something that sells without loving it at least a little.  Maybe he loves it precisely because it sells, heh. But I'd imagine there'd be a passage here, a passage there, a slight twist on the most common stock, and he'd take a little pride it in.  Or a third possibility:  He has written the most common of common stock and nothing else—but done so rather _well_, and loves it for that reason.

I suppose you could say I, too, am not a fan of approaching these considerations as if the 3/4 choices are exclusive.




Michael K. Eidson said:


> One might add: "Write what you love."
> 
> These are not mutually exclusive for me. I endeavor to do all four. #2 is the one I'm least capable at currently, so it requires more attention. I'm not going to write about something I know nothing about. I'm not going to write more than I can (by definition, impossible). I'm going to write in the genres/subgenres that I love, because I would suck at other genres/subgenres. I've been studying the craft to help make my stories more salable, and trying to apply these techniques.
> 
> Look up the etymology of the words "technique" and "technology." They are based on the Greek for "art, craft." One is no less of an artist because of applying certain techniques to their work.


----------



## Russ (Mar 3, 2017)

Chessie said:


> At the risk of getting personal, my husband has been undergoing a major health crisis in where I thought I was seriously going to lose him. It's been a terrifying couple of months that I've _still needed to write through or else bills won't get paid._ Have you any idea how stressful that is?



Very sorry to hear about your husband's health problems.  I hope he has a strong and wonderful recovery.  I will keep you in  my thoughts and prayers.

Also, please accept my apologies, and frank embarrassment, on the part of this community that I allegedly am a part of at MS, for being the first one on this thread to do you the courtesy of recognizing your troubles.


----------



## Russ (Mar 3, 2017)

Different people write for different reasons and different people have different writing goals.

What I find troubling is people who refuse to acknowledge that other people's writing experiences, goals and reasons are valid and have value.  It strikes me inappropriate and oppressive when people suggest theirs is the one true way, or are unable to comprehend that others might d0 things for different reasons or motivations.  This is particularly troubling where the experience being ignored or devalued is one of a group that is also oppressed or disadvantaged in other ways.

The person who suggests (as the link above does) that money is the only way to value writing is an unhealthy as one who suggests that writing in a commercial fashion is not perfectly valid or that only love can get you through the hard work of writing a novel.

I have a friend with three kids and a long gone deadbeat dad.  She works a full time job and publishes two or three category romance novels a year (and if you are curious she makes about 5-8k cdn a book).  This pays for her kids extra curricular activities and helps put gas in the car and pays for a vacation every year if she does it write.  This award winning author does not write out of love.

One famous author said not too long ago that that she continues to write "out of fear of the IRS".  She was only half joking.

One of the most successful novelists of the modern era said this about his writing:


> " It wasn't a hobby, it wasn't for fun, it wasn't for satisfaction," he replies frankly. " I wasn't one of these people that felt compelled to write. It had to keep a roof over our heads, so it was totally, totally 110% commercially motivated.



Now, there is no need for everyone to write for those reasons, but it is important, and civil, to recognize that some people write for commercial reasons and they are equally as capable of producing great work, or art if you prefer that term, as those who write for love or art's sake.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 3, 2017)

Super kitty hugs for you, Chessie, and your family.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 3, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Stock automatically equals boring? I don't think so. Especially not with the amount of sex and violence I'd put in. Of course not too explicit with the violence, don't want the teenage girl audience to get alienated.



It is worth pointing out that you are an audience as well. What sort of stories do you like?

There are more of you out there than just you. That's an audience.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 3, 2017)

Btw Chessie, I really only skimmed your post and completely missed that your husband's health crisis was occurring in the present. My initial reaction was that it had happened some time ago until Russ pointed it out...I will hope and pray for a swift and full recovery!


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 3, 2017)

I find that giving characters similar experiences to mine actually helps me overcome those experiences. Many of my characters have a 'well of sadness' hidden away inside.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 3, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Stock automatically equals boring? I don't think so. Especially not with the amount of sex and violence I'd put in. Of course not too explicit with the violence, don't want the teenage girl audience to get alienated.



You just described the _literal_ definition of a boring novel. The same characters, the same plots, the same interactions your readership has seen a million times before.

A writer who is writing with _a_ primary focus on getting paid? They'll write in the genres their readership exists in. They'll include the "required" elements in those genres. And they'll either use or subvert every trope in the genre.
The one thing they're absolutely _not_ going to do is give the readership the same thing they've _already proven_ they're not interested in.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 3, 2017)

If you write only for yourself? Get a blog. Write fanfiction. Go to FictionPress. But that's not what authors do. Authors don't write for themselves. They write to be read.
Picasso painted to be viewed. Beethoven composed to be heard. Shakespeare wrote to see his plays performed. Authors write to be read.
What do all of these have in common? Yeah, they did what they did because they loved what they did. But they _wanted to sell_.
The concept of "do what you love" and "do what sells" being somehow in conflict with or opposition to each other? That's complete and absolute bull****. You can do both. You _should_ do both, imho.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 3, 2017)

> The same characters, the same plots, the same interactions your readership has seen a million times before.



They've seen them a million times before for a reason. Because those plots and interactions stay popular.


----------



## oenanthe (Mar 4, 2017)

eh, I wrote what I wanted to write. I didn't consider what was "in" or what was "out." I wrote the story that barely let me sleep.

And that's what I'll continue to do.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 4, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> They've seen them a million times before for a reason. Because those plots and interactions stay popular.



Damn. And I thought _I_ loved a ridiculous argument.
If those plots and interactions remained popular? _They would still be constantly written_. But they're not. Because the readership has moved past them.
And with that, my time with this argument is done. (Note: No matter how personal you feel that may be, it isn't. The _argument_ you are making is my problem, not you.)


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 4, 2017)

I do both. I write to market _and_ write what I know and love.

How? It's not that difficult. There is _always_ a fantasy market. There is _always_ a science fiction market. There is _always_ a spec fic market. So the stories I love and want to tell? There's always a market for them.
I don't chase trends. Vampire stories are hot right now? I'm not going to tell one. Why? Because by the time I got one written, edited, pitched and published? The trend is going to disappear and something new will have taken it's place. Wizard school stories are popular? Again, by the time I get it published that trend is going to be done.
But character centric, character driven, fantasy? There is going to be a market for that for centuries.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Mar 4, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> I do both. I write to market _and_ write what I know and love.
> 
> How? It's not that difficult. There is _always_ a fantasy market. There is _always_ a science fiction market. There is _always_ a spec fic market. So the stories I love and want to tell? There's always a market for them.



I think this is an important point here ... as we all ponder the false dichotomy of something you love vs something you can sell, we should keep in mind that _*Fantasy is something that sells*_. For all of us here, there really is no distinction to be made. This question really only applies if you write something like Westerns. (Really, when's the last time you heard of a massive hit in the Western genre)? 

Nobody says you have to write Romance/Erotica ... but the Speculative market isn't exactly hard up for readers. So, assuming you have a piece that's well written (and well marketed) you should be able to make at least a few sales.      

What might need to happen though, is tweaking and relabeling something to fit in better with a certain market... that doesn't mean throwing in fluff (that hated love triangle or whatever it is you dislike) it might mean putting more emphasis on one subplot versus another or changing your label from general Crime to Psychological Thriller.... that's where compromise comes in.
That's part of writing to the market.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Mar 4, 2017)

All this time I have been keeping an eye on this thread for administrative reasons, but now I want to join the discussion and present my own personal thoughts and points of view.

Some of you are describing the initial argument of this thread as a _false dichotomy_, which is a term that is often seen in this site and I often disagree with it. In this case, I think that you need to see it from various points of view before deciding whether it's false _for you_, or not. For me, the described dichotomy is very real and valid and this is why:

I tell stories because my stories are like friends that I meet, like a spark that comes all of a sudden and starts a wonderful fire inside of me. When a story comes to me, and I get to know it and become excited by it, often it's just not going to go away and I am forced to write it down.

To me, the work of storytelling is incredibly pleasant and rewarding even if very few people read my stories apart from myself.

That's why I write. To me, it's as natural and enjoyable as breathing and it's simply a part of my life, a part of who I am and why I live. Even if I never get paid for my work, even if I have very few readers, I still do it.

Now, let's see what would be the other side of the coin:

What if I was seeking sales, marketing and earnings as my main goals? The clearest path to achieve that would be to follow the kind of characters and stories that are more marketable, more sellable in our times. Let's say that stories about crocodile hunters were the biggest fashion and business today.

In that case, I would be forcing myself to craft a crocodile hunters story so I can reach that large and exploitable target audience. I have no interest at all in crocodile hunters and their adventures, so instead of having a story come to me and start the Magic, I would be working on some kind of artificial project and I would hate the experience instead of loving it.

Two totally different experiences, two totally different ways to work. In this case (again, _for me_) the dichotomy is very real.

Now, from a different point of view: There is indeed a market for all styles of stories, for all genres. Some markets and target audiences are larger than others, that's the point. I know that there is a potential market even for my weird and not very sellable works, that's true.

In this case, I could follow my passion and pleasures and at the same time seek a market. The dichotomy is indeed false from this point of view, but it seems to me that the original post in this thread meant something else: Whether to seek the largest market even if it appeals zero to you, or to ignore it in favor of doing something that you truly enjoy.

If you are really happy and satisfied with a story you have worked on and finished, there are for sure many other people out there that would like it and enjoy it as well. You have market options anyway, so if you seek sales and earning money then go for that.

I do not seek that. I know that it would be great if my stories somehow ended up at bookstores or even the movie theaters, but that's not why I imagine and tell stories. I do what I do for my own pleasure and satisfaction, and that's not a waste of time, simply because I enjoy myself like crazy doing it.

Also, when I receive comments from my scarce readers saying how much they have enjoyed one of my stories, that's incredibly satisfying and pleasant as well.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 4, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Damn. And I thought _I_ loved a ridiculous argument.
> If those plots and interactions remained popular? _They would still be constantly written_. But they're not. Because the readership has moved past them.
> And with that, my time with this argument is done. (Note: No matter how personal you feel that may be, it isn't. The _argument_ you are making is my problem, not you.)



What argument? There is none. White straight male leads are still the dominant money makers. Especially in my medium of comics and graphic novels, which features sex and violence all the time. The majority of comic buyers are also white straight males. 

So if I was only interested in money I would have all the prominent characters be white straight males and the female characters relegated to sexually available arm candy for said leads so the dominant market can live out their power- and sexual fantasies.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 4, 2017)

In other words: you watch movies but don't read books. Got it. Moving along.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 4, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> In other words: you watch movies but don't read books. Got it. Moving along.



Who says I don't read books? I'm saying prose novels aren't relevant to what I would do because I'm not making a prose novel. Duh.  You were assuming everyone here writes prose. So yeah, move along.


----------



## Russ (Mar 4, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> What argument? There is none. White straight male leads are still the dominant money makers. Especially in my medium of comics and graphic novels, which features sex and violence all the time. The majority of comic buyers are also white straight males.
> 
> So if I was only interested in money I would have all the prominent characters be white straight males and the female characters relegated to sexually available arm candy for said leads so the dominant market can live out their power- and sexual fantasies.



I think your data may be out of date, and you build in some assumptions on top of that, which I might suggest are not supported.

This industry study put women comic book buyers at 53%

Think Comic Book Geeks are Just Guys? Think Again - Publishing Perspectives

I have not seen a study that currently puts them below 46%.  Which would basically put them neck and neck with male buyers.

Now comic book buyer demographics are notoriously hard to track, because so many of them are bought at independent bookstores who don't get any useful data.  But attendance at comic book conventions is almost equally split amongst men and women.

One recent (abliet small and informal) survey showed that the majority of the youngest and newest comic book buyers are female.

If you count Manga as comics it is basically a 50/50 split.  

And that is just the easy data question.

Firstly we now have to ask ourselves is their a reason to believe that gay males read comics at a lower rate then their straight counterparts?  I don't know of any reason to think that.

Then you have to ask yourself if asian or black or hispanic males are somehow less likely to read comics at a lower rate than their white counterparts.

I did see a number that 5% of comic book readers were gay.

So if you do the math it seems highly unlikely that the majority of comic book buyers are straight white males.  The real players in the industry have recognized this some time ago and have started trying to diversify both employees and characters.

The last assumption is that the large majority of straight white male comic book readers (like say...me for instance) want to read the kind of material that you suggest is a guaranteed sure sell in the comic graphic novel world.

I am not convinced that is true either.  The Walking Dead graphic novels is pretty good evidence that is not what the market is hungry for.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Mar 4, 2017)

I'm definitely the latter. Not so much that I write out from personal experience, but I write whatever idea consumes my mind. I don't write with a genre in mind. To be honest, I started writing because a lot of the stuff I found on the bookshelves, I just didn't like, and you know the saying, "If you want something done right..." so I decided to create my own stories so I could have something that would be 100% what I want to read. A lot of other writers would probably jump down my throat for this, but I don't write with a targeted audience. My targeted audience is me and people like me who are interested in the same thing I'm interested in (which is interesting because someone mentioned something like this in an article when I first turned on the site). If I ever break out into the writing industry, I know that I will likely be a very indie obscure writer, and I'm okay with that. In fact, I plan on publishing indie anyway, for the freedom to tell what I want to tell.

Interesting question, btw.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Mar 4, 2017)

Russ said:


> I am not convinced that is true either.  The Walking Dead graphic novels is pretty good evidence that is not what the market is hungry for.



Ms. Marvel is Muslim. Peggy Carter got Operation: Sin (I prefer her as a brunette btw) AND a 2 season television show (which I thought was spectacular). Jessica Jones & Luke Cage have Netflix series ... really the list could go on and on. Minorities (religious, ethnic, and unrepresented gender) are actually the "new" thing in comics ... I'm inclined to side with Russ and say that the modern market is more open now than its ever been & it'll probably become even more inclusive in the next decade or so.  

I don't want to derail the thread but I think it's important to note that there are two sets of data to consider ... not _only_ who is buying comics ... but also _what do they want_? Just because "straight white males" are the largest paying target audience (though I'm inclined to believe the gender split is closer to 50/50) doesn't mean that they necessarily prefer straight white male characters (enter Wonder Woman & Ms Marvel). I'm a female comic reader but that doesn't mean I scout for women in comics (or books for that matter)- my decisions are more often based on the art work than whether or not the character "looks like me" - the same is probably true for many white men....  

As for any trends in ethnic groups, that data will be hard to track not only because (as already noted) many people use small indie stores, but also because certain demographics tend to be more thrifty than others... Unlike my white friends, I know several Latino comic book readers & when we find one we like we don't tell others to go buy it, we'll lend it out ... which means there might be 10 Latino readers for that one graphic novel or comic book but the data reflects only 1 Latino buyer... Stats are weird like that.

In order to talk about recent trends, I think it's important to place a bigger emphasis on the smaller companies and what they're producing (such as Walking Dead) - as with anything more indie-leaning, the change will probably come there first. If we continue this conversation ... I don't think traditional comics (those you'd find in Marvel and DC) are necessarily a good place to start analyzing given that they're going to need to shift slowly from the last several decades of backstory each character has acquired. You do see things like (is it in the Avengers?) a side character that runs a taco truck (or that sort of thing). But its going to have to be an evolutionary thing for them. They can't just wake up one day and decide to make Howard Stark a Puerto Rican woman or make Matthew Murdoch a gay Asian ... I suppose they _could_ but it would feel like a cheap move and they probably wouldn't... unless its Green Lantern or Ms. Marvel hahaha

Wait, what were we talking about again?


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Mar 4, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> I would have all the prominent characters be white straight males and the female characters relegated to sexually available arm candy for said leads so the dominant market can live out their power- and sexual fantasies.



Cough ... Heavy Metal ... cough.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 4, 2017)

Just because people want something or will buy something doesn't mean what they want or buy is automatically right [or even morally or ethically right].


----------



## Chessie (Mar 4, 2017)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> Just because people want something or will buy something doesn't mean what they want or buy is automatically right [or even morally or ethically right].



That's not for any of us to decide though, now is it?


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 4, 2017)

^My apologies. 

Maybe this is alright, then:


> I would have all the prominent characters be white straight males and the female characters relegated to sexually available arm candy for said leads so the dominant market can live out their power- and sexual fantasies.



Who am I to judge?


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 4, 2017)

Annoyingkid said:


> Who says I don't read books? I'm saying prose novels aren't relevant to what I would do because I'm not making a prose novel. Duh.  You were assuming everyone here writes prose. So yeah, move along.



Yes. On a fantasy writing forum... How dare I assume the work in question is prose


----------



## Devor (Mar 4, 2017)

I find it odd that people are talking about the market like it's this homogeneous creature that only buys one kind of thing.  You don't need to write to the market to sell a book - you need to write to a _teeny tiny itty bitty little piece_ of the market.  Screenwriters have to worry about the mass market because they need to get millions and millions of viewers to cover their budget.  Books do not - you can make a living selling something like 20,000 books a year.

What kind of audience are you writing for where 20,000 readers don't exist?  Seriously, in this world you can find 20,000 people who try to live like werewolves if you've got the right book for them.

I honestly.... the notion that "writing to the market" means you have to write a certain kind of book, I find to be shallow and unfounded.


----------



## Russ (Mar 4, 2017)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> Cough ... Heavy Metal ... cough.



The movies, the magazine or the musical genre?


----------



## Russ (Mar 4, 2017)

Devor said:


> I find it odd that people are talking about the market like it's this homogeneous creature that only buys one kind of thing.  You don't need to write to the market to sell a book - you need to write to a _teeny tiny itty bitty little piece_ of the market.  Screenwriters have to worry about the mass market because they need to get millions and millions of viewers to cover their budget.  Books do not - you can make a living selling something like 20,000 books a year.
> 
> What kind of audience are you writing for where 20,000 readers don't exist?  Seriously, in this world you can find 20,000 people who try to live like werewolves if you've got the right book for them.
> 
> I honestly.... the notion that "writing to the market" means you have to write a certain kind of book, I find to be shallow and unfounded.



I am partially with you on this.  I agree that with the internet and indy publishing it is easier than it ever has been to get your message and product to a niche market.

But you still face a conversion/statistical issue when you write in a way that limits your appeal to a small audience.

Before my wife's book came out we went out for dinner with a friend who is a very successful spec fic writer to get marketing advice.  He talked about using the 1% rule.  If his book got exposed to a certain group, he was pleased if 1% of that group bought, and hopefully would by again.

There is a similar problem writing for a niche market.

Firstly you have to find them, and they are a smaller target.  And then you need to convert a much higher proportion of them to make your target number.  So if you want to sell the 20k number, and there are only 100,000 or so people who really make up your potential audience you need to convert 20% of them.  If your potential audience is 1,000,000 you only need to convert 2% of them and so on.

Think about it like you are a baseball player and you need to get 20 hits to make a paycheck.  That is a lot easier in 100 at bats than if you only get 50!

A lot of people here can tell you just how hard it is to sell 20k books a year in a niche market.  I would not underestimate how challenging that can be.


----------



## Devor (Mar 4, 2017)

Russ said:


> Firstly you have to find them, and they are a smaller target.  And then you need to convert a much higher proportion of them to make your target number.  So if you want to sell the 20k number, and there are only 100,000 or so people who really make up your potential audience you need to convert 20% of them.  If your potential audience is 1,000,000 you only need to convert 2% of them and so on.



While that's true enough, you're only looking at half the equation.  Smaller niches have less competition, which means that it is actually easier to find those higher conversion rates.  And while the 1% rule you mentioned is pretty accurate, that percentage _does not_ assume that the book is reaching 1% of a _primary_ target audience.  Target audiences are layered.  Almost everyone here, for instance, should probably consider fantasy readers a _tertiary_ audience - that is, "Anyone who enjoys fantasy _could_ like my book, but I'm really writing epic fantasy with a romantic subplot.... (or whatever)."

Exposing your book to a thousand fantasy readers, and getting a 1% return, might be accurate.  But only a fraction of them were ever really part of your target audience to begin with.

I maintain that a book's problem reaching sales is almost never the size of its chosen niche.


----------



## Russ (Mar 4, 2017)

Devor said:


> I maintain that a book's problem reaching sales is almost never the size of its chosen niche.



That depends on how you set your sales goals. 

But it certainly is a factor, and may set practical limitations on the commercial value of any particular project.


----------



## Devor (Mar 4, 2017)

Russ said:


> That depends on how you set your sales goals.
> 
> But it certainly is a factor, and may set practical limitations on the commercial value of any particular project.



I'm not sure I understand what you mean Russ.


----------



## Russ (Mar 5, 2017)

Devor said:


> I'm not sure I understand what you mean Russ.



That a small audience means you have a cap on how many books you will sell, regardless of conversion rate or other issues of selling to the smaller market.

i.e. You will never sell a million copies to 100,000 people.  :cool2:


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 5, 2017)

Russ said:


> i.e. You will never sell a million copies to 100,000 people.  :cool2:



Although I don't entirely disagree, I need to point out that targeting the _right_ 100,000 people means you will absolutely sell a million copies. Because word of mouth is still crucial.


----------



## Devor (Mar 5, 2017)

Russ said:


> i.e. You will never sell a million copies to 100,000 people.  :cool2:



Yeah, that would be true of some products.  But that's not really how an audience works.  Again, audience appeal is a layered concept.  Your _primary_ audience may be 100,000 people.  But any well-told story has the potential for far broader appeal.  Even with a well-defined, highly pinpointed primary audience, most of your sales will still come from your broader secondary and tertiary markets.

That is, you may write for people who like to think of themselves literally as werewolves, but hey, what a weird perspective, I might try that book too.

And if you look at sort of the "big three" in fantasy, which are Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and A Song of Ice and Fire (and okay, I'll be honest, Twilight), they are very different from each other, and it would've been easy, before they came out, to argue that they were niche markets.  School magic?  Vampire romance? Who cares how elves live or would want to read a story where everyone dies?  And yet they're some of the best selling books in history.

I mean, I maintain that a book's problem is almost never size of its niche.


----------



## Russ (Mar 5, 2017)

Devor said:


> Y
> I mean, I maintain that a book's problem is almost never size of its niche.



Well it is easy to quote some outliers, like historical black swans to try and make a point, but that doesn't change the writers or marketer's thought process.

There are plenty of authors who would disagree with you and almost every publisher would.

I know folks who make a living writing, for instance, amazing, award winning Caribbean Fantabulist fiction.  It has a limited market.  Their publisher is not going to do a first print run of 75,000 because there is not a market that large to support it.  There are just not enough people interested.  Nor likely will there ever be.

Same thing for say, cozy mysteries.  Or hockey romance.  I could go on and on.  You can write this material as well as you like, and it will not likely ever break out into the general market.  Vampires, on the other hand, have proven again and again to have explosive break out potential.  So has epic fantasy.  Even GRRM has done vampire novels in  his day!

While in theory, a well told story has the potential for broader appeal, it rarely happens.

I don't know why you think that most book sales will come from your secondary or tertiary market.  I have never seen either author or publisher data that supports that.  Most authors appeal to certain demographics and don't sell a lot of books outside their demographic.   That is why you don't see that much genre book advertising directed at the general public.


----------



## Russ (Mar 5, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Although I don't entirely disagree, I need to point out that targeting the _right_ 100,000 people means you will absolutely sell a million copies. Because word of mouth is still crucial.



I agree word of mouth is important.

But no matter how many people you tell about your profound love of Caribbean Fantabulist Fiction, you are not likely to get too many of them to actually buy the work.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 5, 2017)

As someone who writes in a tiny niche of historical romance, I must attest to it being difficult to make serious sales. I played with the packaging a lot for these books, got help on doing this, too. Still, even with promos I sell very little. It's a tiny niche. Other books in it do well....but they've been sticky for a while and most of them aren't even 1940's romance but family sagas instead. NOT the same thing! 

Now, fantasy romance has more of an audience than 1940's romance. This is where the majority of my work is going so I'm more hopeful about the future. Plus I care more about these books and approach audience building in fantasy romance in an entirely different way than the historical novels, which I put up for sale and don't care necessarily if they sell. 

What it comes down to is this: fantasy is ingrained into the fiber of my very soul. I understand what nerds want because I am one. We want action, magic, romance, adventure, dark forces and castles and enchanted items and swords. Writing these stories turns me on in a way that writing historical romance doesn't. If I truly wanted to make money at historical romance, I'd write Regency or Victorian. I hate both. So I write in a niche with a tiny audience because it's what I love, but in actuality it's screwing me. Why waste time writing stories no one is going to buy or that I don't care if they buy? 

Writing to market doesn't mean writing stories that you hate. That would be me writing Regency romance. Writing to market, at least to me as an author, means that I write fantasy romance because it's the best of both worlds. There is nothing more delectable than a fantasy adventure story with a hot romance as the front center. I'm not the only reader like this. It's a larger audience with more potential and some pretty nice Indie authors willing to cross-promo together. This is writing to market. Finding what you love and giving it your all. It doesn't have to be any other way!


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 5, 2017)

I'm in the same boat, Chessie. I can find plenty of alternate history. I can find plenty of historical fantasies. I find very few fantasies set in an alternate timeline. Those that exist are not huge sellers and they tend to fall into very specific eras. Most of which don't interest me.

I'm not going to let that deter me. But I'm also not going to complain about low sales or claim evil conspiracies keep me from fame and fortune. Then again, I have that luxury. I'm retired. I don't need to live off my income. In a sense, I don't even care about the money; it's readers I want. I look forward to hearing from people who like my work and want to know more about Altearth.

People write for many different reasons. All are valid, even if not all are realistic.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 5, 2017)

I am fortunate in one sense, my love is epic fantasy which has big potential, I just don't love how most of it is written, heh heh. Too much of it epic (as in slow) rather than epic (as in fun). Pretty much all writing is niche these days, it's the level of crossover each has and the potential for movie rights, if you're looking at the monetary and big readership side of things.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 5, 2017)

I tend to gravitate toward stuff that falls into multiple genres. Fantasy alternate history is one of my favorite things; alternate history with dragons, even better. The book I just finished is, um...a post-apocalyptic urban fantasy with steampunk and maybe even Weird Fiction stuff in it, but the technology level is like early 1900's so it's not QUITE steampunk, and it's not a post-apocalypse of Earth but a post-apocalypse of some other place that used to be ruled by wizard immortals. the NEXT book is a magical realism/horror hybrid with a strong historical base (the setting is kinda a direct copy of 1950's Appalachia, even though it's not actually stated if we're even on this planet.) Some of my planned ideas are even messier. 

However, it's hard for me to understand WHY readers would read inside extremely limited categories. Why would a fantasy reader NOT read something because it contains historical or sci-fi elements, for instance? When I run into something that combines genres in an unexpected way, I think, whoa, cool! I know all kinds of people who read and like a wide variety of books crossing all sorts of genres. I have no idea what Caribbean Fantabulist even is, but I sure as heck wouldn't balk at finding out more about it if someone told me they wrote it. In fact, if I'd never heard of a category of book, I'd be twice as likely to want to read it. And I know a lot of my friends are like me...if something seems entirely new and unusual, they're like whoa, that sounds cool. 

I swear half the reason I write is that the books I like DON'T EXIST. And there is only one way to make them exist, really, right? 

I have really general areas of books I like (fantasy) and then I have a few specific things that are like my kryptonite (alt history...especially with DRAGONS) but my main criteria for whether or not to read a book is, uh...whether it seems like a good book. As for genres and subgenres, the weirder the better. I like reading things that are unlike anything I've ever read. Am I so strange? 

I'm almost inclined to think that these tougher-to-categorize, more "niche" books aren't "unpopular" because people who love fantasy generally wouldn't read them, but because they don't get a lot of press. Might their "niche-ness" make it harder to GIVE them press? Idk. All these ideas of how "the market" supposedly works are completely at odds with how it seems things would work from my experience. I myself am "the market" too, you know!


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Mar 5, 2017)

> I swear half the reason I write is that the books I like DON'T EXIST. And there is only one way to make them exist, really, right?


Exactly, exactly! As C. S. Lewis said to his best friend J. R. R. Tolkien, 'There is too little of what we like in books.'


----------



## Chessie (Mar 5, 2017)

Being in the market as solely a reader is a completely different experience than being in the market as an author trying to sell your work. Uncomparable.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Mar 5, 2017)

Russ said:


> The movies, the magazine or the musical genre?



I'm not familiar with the magazine and I actually love the musical genre. 

Heavy Metal (1981) - IMDb

I was referring to ^ this piece of garbage. I let a couple friends choose it for movie night. Made them shut it off no more than twenty minutes in and learned to carefully vet all of their future recommendations.


----------



## Russ (Mar 6, 2017)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> I'm not familiar with the magazine and I actually love the musical genre.
> 
> Heavy Metal (1981) - IMDb
> 
> I was referring to ^ this piece of garbage. I let a couple friends choose it for movie night. Made them shut it off no more than twenty minutes in and learned to carefully vet all of their future recommendations.



Not as bad as the sequel!

But that was based on the legendary magazine.


----------



## Russ (Mar 6, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> I am fortunate in one sense, my love is epic fantasy which has big potential, I just don't love how most of it is written, heh heh. Too much of it epic (as in slow) rather than epic (as in fun). Pretty much all writing is niche these days, it's the level of crossover each has and the potential for movie rights, if you're looking at the monetary and big readership side of things.



As  I am  currently learning, movie rights are an insane topic.  I have often said publishing is crazy...but Hollywood is plain old nuts.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 6, 2017)

Yeah, H-wood in general is just a honey trap full of insanity, and I only got as far as the perimiter before bugging out, and that was in the early phase of remake and super hero mania. Watching/discussing the careers of two screenwriters I got to know a bit, and how despite a basic level of success, they were... how to say, not high on the career choice? LOL. They loved it, but, it was a constant struggle to grasp for a producer credit in order to grasp some modicum of control over their lives and stories. 

Another interesting tidbit was that one said point blank that the most talented screenwriters were in tv, and I'm betting that's far more true now than it ever was then. And that's a world I would loath even more than Hollywood, and it was a dircetion I was pointed to by some folks with one spec script I had, as potential series material. 

I think it was Terry Rossio of Pirates of the Caribbean fame who said (paraphrasing) that there is a stupid cloud over Hollywood, and just driving into that world affects you.



Russ said:


> As  I am  currently learning, movie rights are an insane topic.  I have often said publishing is crazy...but Hollywood is plain old nuts.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 6, 2017)

I should add that Rossio and company must've been deep in the stupid cloud when they envisioned the Lone Ranger remake, heh heh. Just sayin'...



Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah, H-wood in general is just a honey trap full of insanity, and I only got as far as the perimiter before bugging out, and that was in the early phase of remake and super hero mania. Watching/discussing the careers of two screenwriters I got to know a bit, and how despite a basic level of success, they were... how to say, not high on the career choice? LOL. They loved it, but, it was a constant struggle to grasp for a producer credit in order to grasp some modicum of control over their lives and stories.
> 
> Another interesting tidbit was that one said point blank that the most talented screenwriters were in tv, and I'm betting that's far more true now than it ever was then. And that's a world I would loath even more than Hollywood, and it was a dircetion I was pointed to by some folks with one spec script I had, as potential series material.
> 
> I think it was Terry Rossio of Pirates of the Caribbean fame who said (paraphrasing) that there is a stupid cloud over Hollywood, and just driving into that world affects you.


----------



## Kyle8414 (Mar 8, 2017)

I would say I write what I love first, think about the market after. I know people say to "write for the reader", but it isn't hard to spot someone following a trend over their heart. The pattern re-surfaces wherever I write. I know it would make more sense to blog about fashion or celebrity culture but I just can't bring myself to do that. In the long run, however, I think your audience appreciate the sincerity.


----------



## Russ (Mar 8, 2017)

Kyle8414 said:


> I would say I write what I love first, think about the market after. I know people say to "write for the reader", but it isn't hard to spot someone following a trend over their heart. The pattern re-surfaces wherever I write. I know it would make more sense to blog about fashion or celebrity culture but I just can't bring myself to do that. In the long run, however, I think your audience appreciate the sincerity.



I would agree with you, and suggest that the dichotomy is false.  I think one should write what they love keeping the audience in mind.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Mar 9, 2017)

This question seems to pop up every once and awhile and I've always found it odd.

Writing is seriously hard. I honestly can't think of any sane person who would commit themselves to writing a whole novel about something they don't even like just to make money. There are easier ways to get rich. 

The plight of the author who's created an audience for themselves writing one thing and is afraid to branch out and potentially alienate their loyal fan-base is something I sympathize with, but the idea that new authors who start writing for a hot market are doing it just to make money is something I find a bit silly.

Are there some authors who care more about being marketable than others. Sure. But I don't think they're sellouts, they're just adaptable.They're people who are willing to change this element or that so long as the soul of their story remains in tact. I mean if you love romances and you want to write a romance, why not make it a supernatural vampire romance. The supernatural elements or lack there-of are like icing on the cake of a well-written romance. On the other hand if you love supernatural stories, it might not matter to you whether its a romance, a detective novel, or a historical family drama just so long as the supernatural elements are well-crafted and nuanced.

Of course not everyone's like that. I for one have very specific visions of what my story should be like, but not everyone does and that's okay. They're not compromising their art (whatever that means) they're just framing it in such a way as to please a wider audience. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 9, 2017)

Writing isn't necessarily that hard for everybody, and some folks just love all kinds of stories. For a person of one or both of these qualities, writing to market is viable. 



Devouring Wolf said:


> This question seems to pop up every once and awhile and I've always found it odd.
> 
> Writing is seriously hard. I honestly can't think of any sane person who would commit themselves to writing a whole novel about something they don't even like just to make money. There are easier ways to get rich.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ronald T. (Mar 9, 2017)

If you can love whatever you're writing, no matter the subject, then write what sells.

But you have to love writing about that subject, or it will show in the final product.  Lackadaisical writing shows through every time.  I often find that it's lifeless and uninspired.  It's functional, yet lacks fire.

Writing isn't easy, so if an author wishes tp produce their most effective writing examples, they must be emotionally involved in the subject.  Anyone can put words on a page.  But I've discovered that the most powerful stories and articles come from writers who are deeply emotional about their stories and the words they write.  That's because they're in love with what they write.

it takes passion to write a great novel.

Do you believe that any of authors who wrote these fine classics -- To Kill a Mockingbird, 12 Angry Men, High Noon, Gone With the Wind, or Schindler's List -- did so without an endless amount of passion?  I doubt it.

But if you have the ability to put true passion into any subject matter that might pay higher dividends, then go for it.

I have to admit, I'm not quite as gifted at writing as that.  I must feel the stories I write, and feel them deeply, or I'm just wasting my time and everyone else's.  

However, my hat is off to anyone who can write with passion on every subject that might make them money.  I wish I could.  I could certainly use the extra cash.

Of course, this is just one man's opinion.  And what the hell do I know?


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 9, 2017)

Writing isn't easy? Writing is seriously hard? 
What have I been going wrong all these years? Writing is simple. Taking the world in my head and putting it on paper is both enjoyable and insanely easy. 
Writing for market? Simple. Writing for readers? Not even approaching difficult. Writing from passion? Passion is easy to fake, so that's not difficult either.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 9, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Writing isn't easy? Writing is seriously hard?
> What have I been going wrong all these years? Writing is simple. Taking the world in my head and putting it on paper is both enjoyable and insanely easy.
> Writing for market? Simple. Writing for readers? Not even approaching difficult. Writing from passion? Passion is easy to fake, so that's not difficult either.



..........??????????????


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 10, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Writing isn't easy? Writing is seriously hard?
> What have I been going wrong all these years? Writing is simple. Taking the world in my head and putting it on paper is both enjoyable and insanely easy.
> Writing for market? Simple. Writing for readers? Not even approaching difficult. Writing from passion? Passion is easy to fake, so that's not difficult either.



My goal is to write _salable_ novel-length fiction. If you say that's easy, then tell us how much you consistently earn from your sales of novels every year. Ball park figure is good enough. If it's six figures, then we'll accept your claim that writing is easy--for you. There are a lot of people who would like to make six figure incomes from their writing, but aren't. So it must not be all that easy.


----------



## Christopher Michael (Mar 10, 2017)

Nothing either Devouring or Ronald said had anything to do with selling the novel. 
It doesn't matter if I earn anything or not, although I don't at the moment. The act of writing is not a difficult one. The act of crafting a story is not hard. 
The process of going from writing to selling? I'm not denying the difficulty and time consumption there.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 10, 2017)

Once again, we do our discussion a disservice when we are prescriptive. Or proscriptive. We should just be scriptive.

To say "writing is easy" or "writing is hard" pretends that all authors have the same experience. It also pretends that every word we write comes as easily or ... hardly? ... as every other. If either proposition is true, then the discussion is over. We are all the same. My experience is your experience, so no need to ask each other what we think.

Come on, folks. We can do better than that, can't we?

There are interesting questions to ask here. For example, when someone says writing is hard (or easy), what exactly do you mean? Do you mean plotting? Do you mean writing the first draft? Do you mean editing? Copyediting? If every single aspect of the craft does in fact not come easily, which parts are easier? And why?

For that matter, what does it mean to say writing is hard? Does it mean I struggle for words, get only a few, halting sentences out in a day? Does it mean that I can write plenty, but the process is emotionally difficult, filling me with insecurity and dread?  Conversely, by "easy" do I mean I never stumble, never get stuck? Or does it mean that it is a joyous process, one to which I look forward each day? Or does it mean that, no matter what I write, it is always successful, always well-reviewed and in need of few changes? 

In a discussion, it is always worth asking if the other fellow understands my words the way I think he should. It's probably a question worth considering when writing fiction, too.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 10, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> Does it mean that I can write plenty, but the process is emotionally difficult, filling me with insecurity and dread?



^meeeeeeeee


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 10, 2017)

The only thing hard in writing for me is sitting still and doing it, I'd rather be up and moving. But if I'm in rhythm, that isn't so bad either. And maybe I'm to a point in life where I've done enough things that actually are hard, that calling writing hard (for me) would be an insult to the hard work I've done. It is a helluva lot of effort, but I enjoy the process of writing, AND the process of editing, too. The social/marketing thing I dread. But even then, I've done worse things already in this life.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 10, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> The only thing hard in writing for me is sitting still and doing it, I'd rather be up and moving. But if I'm in rhythm, that isn't so bad either. And maybe I'm to a point in life where I've done enough things that actually are hard, that calling writing hard (for me) would be an insult to the hard work I've done. It is a helluva lot of effort, but I enjoy the process of writing, AND the process of editing, too. The social/marketing thing I dread. But even then, I've done worse things already in this life.



Dude, I'm telling you, Google Docs on your smart phone is the most amazing thing ever. I put in 1k laying in BED before turning off the lights. Just saying. With kiddos and everything, gotta get it in where you can!

As for the rest, to an extent, I agree with Christopher Michael. Typing words and using my imagination isn't neuroscience. What's difficult about it is, well, writing fiction people want to buy. You can put on the fancy cover, spend $$$$ on ads, blog like the dickens, etc and still not have a book that sells very well. Why? Because it's ****ing hard that's WHY. Selling books is something different than writing so yeah, writing is the easy part compared to figuring out what people want to read, getting good at that, and sticking to your brand, imo.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 10, 2017)

Demesnedenoir points out another nuance: there's a difference between laborious and difficult. Latin provides a useful distinction here. _Laborare_ versus _operare_. The former means just about what we mean in modern English. Labor. A laborer. The latter has mutated more, but our word _opus_--particularly relevant to us writers--retains the flavor of the original.

I do not find writing to be laborious, but I do find it to be difficult. And it's difficult in a disheartening variety of ways. Just now, for example, what is difficult is transforming the many ideas and pages of disorganized ramblings I have for my new novel into an at least marginally useful outline. There are many directions the story can go, but I can go in only one of them at a time!


----------



## Ronald T. (Mar 10, 2017)

Christopher Michael said:


> Writing isn't easy? Writing is seriously hard?
> What have I been going wrong all these years? Writing is simple. Taking the world in my head and putting it on paper is both enjoyable and insanely easy.
> Writing for market? Simple. Writing for readers? Not even approaching difficult. Writing from passion? Passion is easy to fake, so that's not difficult either.



I'd be interested in reading the novels you've published.  They must be quite something.  I look forward to seeing your list and to enjoying your writing.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 10, 2017)

Chessie said:


> Selling books is something different than writing



Yes, selling clothing is something different than making clothing, too, but makers of clothing don't typically sew random bits of cloth together and hope someone will want to wear the result.

If a writer cares about trying to sell what's written (which I understand not everyone on this forum cares about), then the writer seems best served to take the market into consideration _as part of the process_ of writing. So I don't see writing and selling as distinct processes, but as two integrated parts of a single whole.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 10, 2017)

It really just boils down to intention, which is the key to the OP's statement. And every writer is different. I've heard writers say that they just wrote the book from their heart and it sold like crazy. This experience is different from mine, where I've had to really shift what I write about and how I write it in order to start tapping into the market. I also attribute this to the fact that I didn't know story very well like I thought I did. Everyone is in a different place so saying it's one way or the other is pointless.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 10, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> So I don't see writing and selling as distinct processes, but as two integrated parts of a single whole.



For me, the tension lies in answering the question, Why write fiction?

I have almost zero interest in writing only for myself. My unwritten thoughts, brainstorms, daydreams, and so forth are rather wonderful as-is. Even if they are vague–dreamy in nature–they are wonderful in their undiluted form. Often enough, they are actually very sharp and specific. But words strung together into a narrative are only a crude approximation. Why would I bother to write only for myself when I can experience the magic much more simply, directly, purely in my head, without the bother of also writing them down (or attempting to write them down?)

So when I ask myself, _Why write fiction?_, the answer always involves other questions and answers relating to the existence of an _audience_.  I've found myself wondering more and more about this in the last few years. What do I feel about the audience?  About having an audience? My relationship to an audience? Why do I think others should have access to these dreams of mine? What am I trying to accomplish by sending these fancies out into the world?  –and many like questions.

This isn't to say that I never enjoy simply stringing words together, playing with the language itself as some sort of fun game, being creative with the language, for myself only. I would love to reach a point where I could do that for the entire length of a novel, without any other care in the world (i.e., with no consideration of audience).  But I'm not even close to that yet, and I doubt I ever will be.  At the end of the day, I'd always ask myself, Why bother? (I'd always have that awareness: _ Whelp.  Here's the book taking form. Let's send it out someday._ Once again, the audience would reappear before me.)

But here, I think I wouldn't make much distinction between _sending it out_ and _selling_.  Although, perhaps I'd ask, _If I'm going to send it out–if audience was always a concern–why not also see if I can earn some cash with it?_ But this might just be me.


----------



## Incanus (Mar 10, 2017)

Ronald T. said:


> I'd be interested in reading the novels you've published.  They must be quite something.  I look forward to seeing your list and to enjoying your writing.



I admit I wouldn't mind reading the results of a creative writing exercise that took almost zero effort and no struggle, and that was insanely easy to do.

I'm dubious as to its quality, but one never can tell.  I'd take a gander though--the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 10, 2017)

Chessie said:


> It really just boils down to intention, which is the key to the OP's statement. And every writer is different. I've heard writers say that they just wrote the book from their heart and it sold like crazy. This experience is different from mine, where I've had to really shift what I write about and how I write it in order to start tapping into the market. I also attribute this to the fact that I didn't know story very well like I thought I did. Everyone is in a different place so saying it's one way or the other is pointless.



I agree that it's pointless to say that things are one way or the other, and I hope I didn't come off that way. If I respond to a statement made by you or someone else, it's because the statement struck me in a way that made me feel it was worthy of further discussion. That doesn't mean I think the statement is wrong or right for the person who made it. I'm simply giving my perspective on it, and that's all it's intended to be.

But to the OP's statement, the concern is with writing fiction to sell: Either writing according to some trend or writing without regard to trends. The question was posed as to which kind of writer each of us is. For me, the answer is not simply one or the other. I'm not writing to a trend, but I try to have my audience in mind as I write, with the idea that it _might_ help. At the same time, I have to write about the kinds of things I love to write about, or I will lose interest and find something else to do. That's _me_. I'm not trying to prescribe what anyone else should do.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 10, 2017)

FifthView said:


> For me, the tension lies in answering the question, Why write fiction?
> 
> I have almost zero interest in writing only for myself. My unwritten thoughts, brainstorms, daydreams, and so forth are rather wonderful as-is. Even if they are vague–dreamy in nature–they are wonderful in their undiluted form. Often enough, they are actually very sharp and specific. But words strung together into a narrative are only a crude approximation. Why would I bother to write only for myself when I can experience the magic much more simply, directly, purely in my head, without the bother of also writing them down (or attempting to write them down?)
> 
> ...



This is how I used to be, and I didn't get very far. I didn't have commitment. Now I am committed to exercising my creative side to earn money, if not right now, then in the relatively near future, and for as long as I am able to do it. Writing has always been a creative outlet for me. Now I want it to be more. What do I have to do to make that happen, and still feel creative in doing it? Writing to a trend is not my answer. Writing whatever wild and crazy ideas pop into my head and make me all giddy is not my answer, but it is where I will start, rather than ever writing to a trend.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 10, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> ...the writer seems best served to take the market into consideration _as part of the process_ of writing.



I still don't understand how I as a writer "take the market into consideration" or the many variations on that phrase. I'm not singling Michael out, here; I'm confessing that I simply don't get how to implement this. Do I "consider my audience" (to use a variation) while I'm editing? Proofreading? Obviously that latter is reduced to the absurd, but it perhaps illustrates the difficulty. 

At the far other end, right now I'm in development on a new novel. Do I "take the market into consideration" when I develop my characters? Choose the setting? How, exactly, does that work? Do I ask myself what sort of setting older, college-educated gentlemen would like to see? (I'm being ludicrous again, but only somewhat) Oh, they would like southern France, so I'll choose that. But they might also like northern Spain or northern Italy, or perhaps Buenos Aires. Maybe everything should happen in caves.

You see my problem. Perhaps it stems from a lack of imagination or experience. I can sort of figure out what audiences might *not* like my novel, but that's rather a different process. Moreover, when I sit down to write--be it development, drafting, or editing--the last thing I need is to be thinking about my audience. I need to be thinking about the story.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 11, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> This is how I used to be, and I didn't get very far. I didn't have commitment. Now I am committed to exercising my creative side to earn money, if not right now, then in the relatively near future, and for as long as I am able to do it.



I think commitment is important, but the question arises:  _Commitment to what?_

The question reminds me of Nietzsche: "The formula of my happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal." [Maxim 44 from "Maxim and Arrows" in _Twilight of the Idols_.] 

I think that the answer, "To make money, earn a living," to the question of "Why write fiction?" is a very clear, clean, and strong answer. I personally feel a little envy for writers who have that clear answer. But I don't think that is the only clear answer a writer might have.



> Writing has always been a creative outlet for me. Now I want it to be more. What do I have to do to make that happen, and still feel creative in doing it? Writing to a trend is not my answer. Writing whatever wild and crazy ideas pop into my head and make me all giddy is not my answer, but it is where I will start, rather than ever writing to a trend.



I think that having a clear answer to the question is important.  With that clarity, we can more easily pick out our path and progress along it. If the answer is to earn a living, then writing to trends, to demand, to fill a niche that isn't being filled, and so forth are probably good strategies. (But not the only strategies. Adding _improvement of craft_ would improve the overall strategy, I think.)  

I also think that many beginning writers don't have a clear answer to the question, Why write fiction? —although most have _some_ answer. There are surface answers, like "I enjoy expressing myself," "I need a creative outlet," "I enjoy flexing my imagination, creating stories."  I don't think these are bad answers, I am very sympathetic, but I do think that stopping with these causes problems when trying to plot out a clear path. I suspect that the real answer has much to do with having an audience, interaction with an audience, reaction from an audience. These "I like/enjoy/need" answers seem to avoid consideration of audience, and this, I think, creates shadows over the path or leaves the path chaotic.  A beginning writer might travel a long way forward and feel lost, frustrated, depressed:  The proverbial spinning of wheels and a nagging voice asking, _Why bother?_

Consideration of audience gives us a path for our stories, our creative endeavors. We can discover better ways for shaping our stories for that audience.  

Maybe for some this means learning what will sell.

Others, less interested in earning a living via writing, might learn what will entertain. (And I'm not saying one can't do both, learn what will entertain _and_ sell, especially also because I think one can't sell very much of what is not entertaining!) 

What will bring the metaphorical applause, fame, etc. BTW, I don't think the desire for fame, which might only be "fame among acquaintances" or "fame on our favorite fan fiction board," etc., is a particularly bad thing; at least, I'm of the same mind as Montaigne who thought that the desire for fame is the most difficult desire to kill, we're all susceptible, and why deny this? It's nice to receive recognition, confirmation and approval of our wacky ideas, acknowledgement, like-minded friends*, even if it comes in the form of laughter, high-fives, or comments between readers about how wonderful our story was. [*Paraphrasing R.W.Emerson, who thought that the purpose of writing was to find like-minded friends.]

Simply stated, I think that having a clear idea of goals helps to give us a clear path forward, or at least enables us to begin to find that path, and this generally requires an acknowledgement of the existence of an audience and a desire, known and acknowledged by the writer, to connect with that audience. This connecting to the audience means writing with the audience in mind, regardless of whether that takes the form of writing according to trends and "what will sell" or merely writing according to "what will entertain" or "what will produce delight in the audience when I put my wacky ideas before them." So when you said you didn't view writing and selling as distinct processes...well, I agree but I'm not sure "selling" is the best word for everyone, unless we acknowledge the fact that the coin returning to the writer might be something other than monetary reward, heh.


----------



## Russ (Mar 12, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I
> You see my problem. Perhaps it stems from a lack of imagination or experience. I can sort of figure out what audiences might *not* like my novel, but that's rather a different process. Moreover, when I sit down to write--be it development, drafting, or editing--the last thing I need is to be thinking about my audience. I need to be thinking about the story.



I believe that you can think about both at once, that being story and audience.

Let me give you an analogy.  I am a trial lawyer, and I am taking a case to trial.  I have a story to tell, evidence to present and arguments to make.  My client got hurt in a certain way and suffered certain consequences.  But the characteristics of the people on my jury and what my focus groups tell me will influence both the way I tell that story and which parts of it I emphasize.

I don't think your problem comes from either inexperience or lack of imagination.  I think to comes from not identifying and trying to analyse your target audience.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 13, 2017)

skip.knox said:


> I still don't understand how I as a writer "take the market into consideration" or the many variations on that phrase. I'm not singling Michael out, here; I'm confessing that I simply don't get how to implement this. Do I "consider my audience" (to use a variation) while I'm editing? Proofreading? Obviously that latter is reduced to the absurd, but it perhaps illustrates the difficulty.
> 
> At the far other end, right now I'm in development on a new novel. Do I "take the market into consideration" when I develop my characters? Choose the setting? How, exactly, does that work? Do I ask myself what sort of setting older, college-educated gentlemen would like to see? (I'm being ludicrous again, but only somewhat) Oh, they would like southern France, so I'll choose that. But they might also like northern Spain or northern Italy, or perhaps Buenos Aires. Maybe everything should happen in caves.
> 
> You see my problem. Perhaps it stems from a lack of imagination or experience. I can sort of figure out what audiences might *not* like my novel, but that's rather a different process. Moreover, when I sit down to write--be it development, drafting, or editing--the last thing I need is to be thinking about my audience. I need to be thinking about the story.



If taking the audience into consideration is something that you are unable to do, then that's your answer, and we all agree that each of us has to do what works for us individually. On the other hand, if after some consideration you determine that you are able to take the intended audience into consideration in some manner during the writing process, why balk at it?

I'm not suggesting that writers take the audience into consideration for every decision made during the writing process. And if thinking about audience reaction is distracting to a writer, then it obviously is best not done. I don't find it distracting, and there have been some decisions I've made about my WIP in which my anticipation of how it would be received by the intended audience was influential in the decision I reached. I might be wrong about how the intended audience will respond to my story, but I still think it worth trying. Along the lines of what Russ said, it helps to have studied your intended audience, especially reading reviews they leave for comparable titles.

Skip, I suspect you know more about your intended audience than you are admitting. Do you read reader reviews for books in your genre? I bet you know your genre's tropes, and that you're not writing strictly to those tropes, knowing that many readers want something a little different than the same old same old. This in itself is taking the audience into consideration during your writing process.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 13, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I think commitment is important, but the question arises:  _Commitment to what?_



For me: To writing salable fantasy novels.



FifthView said:


> So when you said you didn't view writing and selling as distinct processes...well, I agree but I'm not sure "selling" is the best word for everyone, unless we acknowledge the fact that the coin returning to the writer might be something other than monetary reward, heh.



Definitely. As I mentioned in another post somewhere, respect might be all that certain writers want. Earning respect for one's writing can be as difficult as earning money for it. If you want an audience to read it, you have to "sell it," or "market it," or "get people to spread the word about it," or "do _something_ to get your work out before potential readers and convince them somehow to give the damn thing a try." Call it whatever you want, it's effectively _selling_.


----------



## Lilly (Mar 13, 2017)

If you already have slim chances of breaking through the market why not just write whatever pleases you? I think that you need to write what you love and if you love writing what is in the vogue then so be it.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 13, 2017)

Two interesting facets of this issue:


The writer, with respect to his own book, is also a member of the audience. This goes without saying—because it's such a common experience, it's taken for granted!  Like that old saying, we don't know who discovered water but it sure wasn't a fish. So as we write and edit, we are constantly reviewing our work:  Does _this_ work? And _this_? We are audience to our own writing.


Chances are very good that the writer already shares many things in common with other members of a potential audience. The same expectations. The same favored tropes and topics. The desire for certain types of stories.

Perhaps in combination, this means that writing for oneself can succeed well in the longer run, depending on the goal a writer has. That audience is being taken into consideration when the author takes himself into consideration, heh.

But the problem with the first point above is that sometimes [often] a writer is blind to some things in his own writing. And as for the second point, idiosyncrasies, peculiar wackiness, some oddball tastes can insert themselves into the mix—the writer is not _identical_ to every member of a potential audience.

Still, my suspicion is that we are all of us much more alike than we sometimes like to admit, and developing an internal censor/editor or finding help from external sources like writing groups, alpha/beta readers and editors can help reduce errors due to whatever blindness we have with respect to our own writing.

I do think that a virtual cornucopia of niches almost guarantees at least a little success as long as the writing itself is good.


----------



## oenanthe (Mar 13, 2017)

The thing is, I kinda think you can't write to market.

I mean, how would you sit down and figure out what "the market" is? If it's on the shelf in print right now, there's a darn good chance that the trend is already dead as far as agents are concerned, and are now looking for "something fresh."


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 13, 2017)

Oops. OK. I do think about my readers. It just happens so naturally, I didn't think it was thinking. I think. Examples may help.

So, I write alternate history. Set in an alternate Europe in an alternate Middle Ages. I've got orcs and trolls and such-like. And elves and sprites and gnomes and dwarves. Got the whole packet. Here's a problem, though: where do I put 'em? 

The "good" nations I sort of tucked in around the edges. Dwarves in the mountains (sorry, Switzerland). Elves here and there (e.g., Fisher Elves, or the Wagoneers). The real problem comes with the "bad" nations. 

An early notion was to have the orcs take Constantinople (1453AD). Maybe have trolls come up from North Africa. You see the issue right away. Orcs and trolls do NOT equal Muslims! I can get away with substituting goblins for Visigoths because it's not going to rankle anyone, but if I consistently have the bad guys sweeping in from the Russian steppes, or boiling up out of the Arabian peninsula, I'm going to offend some readers in a way I do not wish to offend.

That forced me to be more inventive. So I did. And Altearth became way more interesting as a result, and it would not have done, had I not thought about my readers.

Another example that goes down a different road. Because I set my stories in historical settings, I often throw in words or references. I usually throw them in just because it tickles me, but in later drafts I do ask myself if this or that reference might not be too obscure or outright confusing. I've made some revisions based on that. Then, if my beta readers consistently raise an objection or question on a usage, I'll re-visit that one, too.

There it's not a case of offense, it's a matter of clear communication. So, when my main character in _Goblins_ has twelve soldiers accompany him to a negotiation, and he looks at them and calls them his lictors, I get a giggle. But my readers just scratched their heads. Upon stepping back, I realized it was because the way I presented the joke, it sounded like I wanted my readers to get it. But of course they aren't going to get it, unless they've taken a couple of Roman history classes or are well read in Republican Rome. So, that one came out, because it also failed the necessity test. OTOH, when multiple characters in conversation react by saying "_vere_" or "_certe_" that's not a problem. It's just a bit of color, and over time the reader sort of figures out it means something like "truly" and "certainly". Same with "_cac_." 

Anyway, it's clear I do think about my readers. I'm not sure that's quite the same as considering an audience, still less a market. Each of those words as a different feel to it. But I do thank folks here for helping me see this in myself.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 13, 2017)

Lilly said:


> If you already have slim chances of breaking through the market why not just write whatever pleases you? I think that you need to write what you love and if you love writing what is in the vogue then so be it.



I definitely need to write what I love. I won't succeed if I try to write in a genre I don't adore. But if you have choices to make in writing what you love, then why not take the audience into consideration _where possible and meaningful_ in making those choices? That doesn't mean deciding to write to a trend if you don't love the trend yourself. It has more to do with implementing story structure, subverting tropes, and being mindful of whether you are giving important info to the reader too early in your story.

When I first started writing stories, I thought the most interesting thing was the plot, and I still adore plot, but I wrote plot without regard to character arcs. I cared about _what_ happened _when_, _who_ was involved, and _how_ the characters traveled from point A to point B. But I didn't care much about _why the characters wanted_ to go from point A to point B. I, as the author, wanted them to go from point A to point B, and so they went. To me, my stories were as interesting as anything written by Arthur C. Clarke.  Friends and family who read my stories said they liked them. I chose to believe them. They might have believed themselves, having the personal connection to me and seeing some potential in my writing. But those stories would not sell. Ever.

I'm trying now to improve my chances for breaking through the market, slim as those chances may be and slim as they might remain -- though not quite as slim as if I didn't make the effort. At some point when writing a novel, I have to assess the potential of what I've written for being shared with strangers. The later in the process I do that, the more work I set for myself. I've discovered that the hard way, because I didn't know as much before as I do now: about premise, theme, hooks, story structure, character arcs, motives, story beats, subverting tropes, delaying info reveals, heightening tension, foreshadowing, etc. The types of things that may give my stories a better chance at being well received by an audience who doesn't have that personal connection to me, yet. The types of things I wouldn't give a damn about if I were only writing what I love and didn't care about sharing my writing with the hope of earning respect and/or money from those who gave of their time to read my words.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 13, 2017)

oenanthe said:


> The thing is, I kinda think you can't write to market.
> 
> I mean, how would you sit down and figure out what "the market" is? If it's on the shelf in print right now, there's a darn good chance that the trend is already dead as far as agents are concerned, and are now looking for "something fresh."



Yeah, I'm not thinking of a "market" as those people reading to a specific trend, but rather those reading within a specific genre or subgenre.

Agents often ask for "comparable titles" when you query your novel. That's so they have an idea of the market you're targeting. If you don't know the market you're targeting, that's a strike against you. If all you list as comparative titles are vampire romance novels, and the agent you query doesn't represent vampire romance novels, that's a strike against you as well with that agent.


----------



## oenanthe (Mar 13, 2017)

I comped Sherlock Holmes and FullMetal Alchemist for a fantasy novel, so don't follow my example. But my comps were what caught the eye of my agent.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 13, 2017)

That sounds more like an X meets Y comparison of movie pitches than the "readers of such and such should enjoy my novel" comparison. Both are functional, but the latter addresses a market more directly, while the former addresses story and perhaps atmosphere.

When it comes to queries, it's a whatever works situation, heh heh.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 13, 2017)

oenanthe said:


> I comped Sherlock Holmes and FullMetal Alchemist for a fantasy novel, so don't follow my example. But my comps were what caught the eye of my agent.



Those are some cool comps for a fantasy novel.  I can understand why they would catch the agent's eye. They speak to the specific market your novel would appeal to within the broad fantasy genre.

Agree with Demesnedenoir's observations too.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 13, 2017)

The movie pitch I always wanted to make was "Debbie Does Dallas meets the Island of Misfit Toys" heh heh. It writes itself, don't it? LOL.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 13, 2017)

Step One:  Write only what interests you personally, without regard to the market.

Step Two:  Sell your creation by comparing it to prominent market successes.

Heh.

Really though, I wonder to what degree we, as consumers, have already had our own personal tastes shaped by the market.

^Different question than a consideration of current trends. But from anecdotal evidence re: movies and television at least, nostalgia itself seems to be a big trend these days, heh.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 13, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Step One:  Write only what interests you personally, without regard to the market.


Maybe if a writer has mainstream tastes this approach might work, but it's not the reality for a lot of other writers. I belong to 2 Indie author groups and frequent an Indie author forum—many authors have a hard time placing their books in the proper categories and marketing to the right audience because they didn't take the market itself into consideration before writing. It's not only discouraging to not sell (which, btw just requires a massive amount of patience and long-term thinking), but readers like the same stories over and over again told in a different way. Yes. They do.

I'm sorry, but one thing that bugs me about these sorts of discussions are writers who aren't in the publishing business giving others advice about publishing and marketing. A lot of times it's the wrong advice, because they don't know the other million tiny details necessary to sell a novel. It's different than sitting down and typing.


----------



## FifthView (Mar 13, 2017)

Eh, that Step One and Step Two comment was just a little commentary inspired by the last handful of comments before it.

I found the idea of "doing your own thing" and having the product of your efforts happen to be comparable to market successes...intriguing.




Chessie said:


> Maybe if a writer has mainstream tastes this approach might work, but it's not the reality for a lot of other writers. I belong to 2 Indie author groups and frequent an Indie author forum—many authors have a hard time placing their books in the proper categories and marketing to the right audience because they didn't take the market itself into consideration before writing. It's not only discouraging to not sell (which, btw just requires a massive amount of patience and long-term thinking), but readers like the same stories over and over again told in a different way. Yes. They do.
> 
> I'm sorry, but one thing that bugs me about these sorts of discussions are writers who aren't in the publishing business giving others advice. A lot of times it's the wrong advice, because they don't know the other million tiny details necessary to sell a novel. It's different than sitting down and typing.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 13, 2017)

Lol Fifthview, I wasn't targeting you at all. Your comment triggered my memory of something I've been wanting to say but kept forgetting.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 13, 2017)

Chessie said:


> I'm sorry, but one thing that bugs me about these sorts of discussions are writers who aren't in the publishing business giving others advice about publishing and marketing. A lot of times it's the wrong advice, because they don't know the other million tiny details necessary to sell a novel. It's different than sitting down and typing.



The thing is, we don't always know who in a discussion has publishing experience and who hasn't. I have. I made a go of it as an indie publisher for a year. Had an LLC for it. Published one anthology and was well on the way to publishing the second (had accepted and paid for stories) before I determined that my business model wasn't going to work. I lost some money, and got out of the business before I lost a lot more, but I learned something from the attempt. I know there's much more that goes into publishing than the writing stories.

You want to know why there aren't more paying short story markets? It's not because there's no one interested in reading short stories. It has as much to do with how difficult it is for a new publisher to land on the right business model and then build a reputation and a brand, while staying afloat long enough to earn a reputation and build a brand. And those who make it...I understand why they are very particular about what stories they purchase. The stories must fit the brand, or they diminish the brand.

Have I sold or published a novel? No. But I do have publishing experience that relates, and a perspective that someone who has only published their own stuff doesn't have.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 13, 2017)

It's pretty easy to know when someone hasn't published anything at all whether it be an anthology or Indie or whatever. I don't give people traditionally published advice because I have none, but I can help with basic Indie things. So, I'm specifically referring to a newbie writer who has never finished a book in their life, or even published to any market, giving others advice on how to gain traction in an audience. Because that's what it comes down to, is audience building. That looks differently for any writer who even wishes to gain an audience. Not every writer cares. But authors do because they publish. 

I don't understand why I constantly have to explain myself around here. I wasn't singling anyone out. Just making an observation of something that bugs me. Geesh.

Also, it's still the same market of readers any author is striving to make contact with. Whether it's via traditional or Indie, you're still trying to reach readers who read the book you wrote. Advice on how to make it in traditional will differ from Indie; but really, a reader finds the book either on Amazon or any other outlet that both publishing avenues provide.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 13, 2017)

And now we know something else that bugs you, eh?


----------



## Chessie (Mar 13, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> And now we know something else that bugs you, eh?


Lol true true!


----------



## Sheilawisz (Mar 13, 2017)

This thread has been moved from Writing Questions to the Marketing Forum.


----------



## Russ (Mar 14, 2017)

oenanthe said:


> The thing is, I kinda think you can't write to market.
> 
> I mean, how would you sit down and figure out what "the market" is? If it's on the shelf in print right now, there's a darn good chance that the trend is already dead as far as agents are concerned, and are now looking for "something fresh."



I completely agree with you.  i think chasing the market is a fool's game and a waste of time.

However you can craft your writing with your audience in mind.


----------



## Russ (Mar 14, 2017)

Chessie said:


> I'm sorry, but one thing that bugs me about these sorts of discussions are writers who aren't in the publishing business giving others advice about publishing and marketing. A lot of times it's the wrong advice, because they don't know the other million tiny details necessary to sell a novel. It's different than sitting down and typing.



Could not agree more.  The internet in general encourages this.  People are happy to spout off about anything that strikes their fancy without knowing the first thing about it.  It is a unhelpful and in fact destructive trend.  IT happens here and plenty of other places.


----------

