# What is Important?



## BWFoster78

I love a good theoretical debate on what “good” writing is, but when you get right down to it, my focus is on actionable suggestions for making me a successful indie writer.  So my question is:

What qualities are most important for a writer to develop in order to achieve commercial success?

First of all, I'm not sure "qualities" is the right word. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not, but at the moment, I'm at a loss as to what the right word should be.  Feel free to supply a better one.

Second, let me admit straight off that I do not know the answer to the posed question. I'm going to list a few of my thoughts in order to get the conversation rolling. Please don't take these as anything other than conjecture.

1. Craft

In the beginning of my exploration of writing as a career, I focused a lot on learning craft. I do not in any way regret that time spent learning.  However, I'm not sure that craft above a certain level is all that important for selling books.

It seems that really inferior craft will hold a book back, but I'm not sure that the effort and expense required to achieve really good (for all values of good) craft is worth it if you're seeking success from self publishing. I'm not nearly as familiar with what's required to do well with traditional publishing, but it seems to me that traditionally published works, in general, are superior from a craft perspective than most self published ones.  It also seems to me, though, that the lack of superior craft in the independent books aren't harming sales as much as purists might want to think they would.

If I were to go back in time to advise a younger me on how to most efficiently proceed forward, I'm not sure what I'd say. From my current perspective, each step in the path to where I am now seems absolutely necessary. So even though I value craft less now than I did at the beginning, I'm not sure I would advise my younger self to change that opinion.

Bottom line: A minimum level of competence is required to keep readers turning pages, but that level is much lower than my personal taste requires.

2. Focus on the reader

If one wants to sell books, one simply must write books that a reader wants to read. It seems like there’s a lot of advice out there to write what you’re passionate about.  Three issues: 1) if your passion is a really small niche, you’re probably not going to sell a lot of books just because the pool of buyers is too small and 2) just because you’re passionate about a subject, does not make your writing/story good and 3) just because you don’t have passion about a subject doesn’t mean the writing/story is going to be bad.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have to constantly think, “How can I make this story interesting to the reader?”

My contention is that I’m already interested in my story. Therefore, my words don’t have to do the work of creating interest. When a reader picks up my story, however, all they have are my words to create that interest.

Back before I started this focus, I didn’t get anywhere hoping what I wrote would engage my reader. Since, it seems like things have gotten better.

3. Story

When evaluating a book I’ve just finished, my first criteria is, “Did I finish it?” If not, the likelihood that I’ll ever read that author again is slim. If so, the author’s craft skills were strong enough to keep me engaged. Best case scenario, that means I’d be open to reading that author again.

Here’s the problem, though. With so many authors and books out there, merely being open to reading the author again isn’t good enough. That author needs me to search out his books. To join his mailing list. To become a fan.

The only way any of that happens is if I loved the book, and the only way I love a book is if the combination of concept, characters, and conflict provoked an emotional response.

It seems to me that a key to long term success is figuring out how to write stories that compel your readers to search out the rest of your library.

4. Write a lot

I think the chances of any one book making you gazillions of dollars is slim, but if you have enough books on the market, the combined sales can make you decent money. Additionally, each book you put out is another opportunity to find members of your core audience, especially since Amazon more heavily promotes new releases.

Conclusion:

Going forward with my attempt to make a go of it as a self published author, here’s my current focus:

- Always keep improving my writing craft but don’t focus on it unless reader/sales feedback indicates that it is a problem.
- Take reader feedback to heart. Who is my core reader? What do they want? How can I better serve them?
- Put more time/money/effort into making my stories good than in making my writing good.
- Stop writing freaking forum posts and get back to editing my novel!


----------



## Svrtnsse

A really thick skin and a high level of persistence.


----------



## Heliotrope

I don't have an answer, being an amateur myself, but I found Writing 21st Century Fiction, by Donald Maas, and Writing the Breakout novel by the same author really helped to put some of these questions into perspective especially: 
What todays publisher is looking for (with examples)
The death of the genre, and genre bending

etc. I really suggest it as a great read, not about craft, but about making our work really stand out.


----------



## skip.knox

I don't entirely disagree with the focus on the reader, but I don't place so much importance on it, for two reasons.

One, I have to please myself first. This is both more important and more difficult than it sounds. It's important because I have to care. Writing can be formulaic (and successful), but that is not the path I want to walk. If someone else does, that's fine by me, as long as they don't care that I don't buy a second book from them. Pleasing myself first is difficult because I do not yet know what feels right, or if it feels wrong how I go about fixing it. I myself am a work in progress, creating a work in progress. 

The other reason is that I don't entirely trust the reader. First of all, there are many readers, with many different levels of sophistication and different ranges of expectation they bring to the book. Focusing on "the reader" means focusing on an abstraction I myself create (or which a publishing house, or marketing studies, create for me). Moreover, I'm not sure "the reader" knows what he wants before he reads it. That's why we, as readers, are sometimes surprised. We love it when an author comes along who doesn't meet our expectations but rather creates new ones. For all the criticisms I level at GRRM, he did this for me in the first ASoIaF novel. When I picked up the book I saw nothing but tired tropes, and he *still* made me read the whole thing. I didn't know I wanted to read that and couldn't have told you if you'd asked me. Focusing on me as I was prior to reading that book would not have led GRRM to write the book he did. He wrote for himself first.

I suppose that somewhere around my fourth successful published novel (note I did not say my fourth novel ever), I might have enough of a sense of myself, my craft, and the market, to be more cognizant of trends or specific readerships. That's a long way off. 

Meanwhile, I'll go this far, since I'm in company with Ray Bradbury. I try never to underestimate the reader's intelligence. I try to take the reader as seriously and respectfully as I want the reader to take my writing.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Writing can be formulaic (and successful), but that is not the path I want to walk.



Skip,

First of all, I think it is completely cool to walk whatever path you want to walk.  Within the context of the subject of what would tend to lead to a self published author being commercially successful, however, not writing according to the readers notions of formula is generally thought to be less likely to lead to success.  That's not my stance on the subject as much as it is the prevailing theory that I've inferred from a very unscientific survey of posts by self published writers who are making bank.

Until many somebodies who have walked that path tell me, "Hey, readers are going for new stories that break all tropes!" I'm going to keep assuming that my ultimate commercial success is more likely to come by following formulas than it is to come from venturing off on my own.



> It's important because I have to care.



The advice most given when this subject comes up is: your best bet is to find the intersection between what people are reading and the stories that you want to tell.

I don't know about you, but I could come up with a dozen ideas a day for stories.  Probably more.  All I have to do is let my mind drift for a while and_ Bang!_ there's another idea.  I think the concept is: discard all the ideas that don't interest you and then pursue the one that is left that has the best chance of being commercially viable.



> Focusing on "the reader" means focusing on an abstraction I myself create (or which a publishing house, or marketing studies, create for me). Moreover, I'm not sure "the reader" knows what he wants before he reads it.



I'm not sure this idea holds much merit.  If you want to know what readers are reading, simply study the bestsellers in your genre.  There's no mystery to it.



> We love it when an author comes along who doesn't meet our expectations but rather creates new ones.



I guess my thinking is this: what's more likely, long term, to lead to my financial well being - going to work every day or buying lotto tickets?  Producing books that resemble the bestseller lists and that I know people want to read is likely to lead to sales.  Those books may be less likely to break out into the stratosphere of GRRM, but they're also likely to provide that monthly paycheck.  Going off on my own may give me "more" of a chance to break into GRRM's territory, but that chance is a lot like buying lotto tickets.

I get that some people have no aspiration to the mid list. They want to be GRRM or nothing.  There is nothing wrong with swinging for the fences.  However, I don't think that's the answer to the question, "What's the best path to commercial success?"


----------



## Helen

BWFoster78 said:


> What qualities are most important for a writer to develop in order to achieve commercial success?



I think the ability to get writing work is up there.


----------



## FifthView

But isn't this the case:  Every author is also "the reader."

I would say, focus on what _you_ would want to read.  I am not arguing against shooting for commercial success, but I do find odd the notion that the author-as-reader is somehow an unusual "reader" not fitting into that amorphous class composed of "the readers" populating the public.  I would bet good money that most authors themselves have sets of common, genre-specific tropes they like, particular types of story structure they enjoy reading.  Perhaps rather than an either/or conundrum, authors who want commercial success should merely allow themselves to utilize these things instead of feeling pressed to write everything anew.

Also, I think a distinction can be made between what you as author want to read and what you as author want to write.  Sometimes there is a pressure to write "the new" or "the groundbreaking" novel, the magnum opus that will in time become not only a classic but also a model for a whole new subset in the fantasy genre.  Well of course that desire may sound ridiculous or unrealistic at best; but my guess is that most authors at some time in their careers have wanted to write such a thing.  But what do you want to _read?_

I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with writing only for commercial success, if that's what you (generic you, meaning any of us) want to do.


----------



## BWFoster78

> But isn't this the case: Every author is also "the reader."
> 
> I would say, focus on what you would want to read.



I think you're missing the point.  The advice is to mirror the formulas and tropes used by the bestsellers in your genre.  The goal is to make your book palatable to a large audience in order to give yourself the best chance of succeeding.

If you have tastes that are similar to the tropes and formulas that the genre wants, that's fantastic.  If not, an either/or dynamic is created.


----------



## Steerpike

In order, it seems to me:

1. Be a good story-teller;
2. Write a story with broad appeal that lots of people want to read;
3. Be competent at the technical aspects of commercial fiction writing; and
4. Write the next book.


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> I think you're missing the point.  The advice is to mirror the formulas and tropes used by the bestsellers in your genre.  The goal is to make your book palatable to a large audience in order to give yourself the best chance of succeeding.
> 
> If you have tastes that are similar to the tropes and formulas that the genre wants, that's fantastic.  If not, an either/or dynamic is created.




But, if your tastes run _counter_ to the bestsellers, in fact if you find them distasteful, how are you going to muddle your way through 6 months or a year on the first draft.  And then bear the onerous task of editing, revising, writing succeeding drafts?

Also, isn't it the case that one cannot actually write well what one does not respect or admire on some level?  It is far easier to write a parody of those works.  I suspect that pulling off a reasonable approximation of what the bestsellers pull off could only be achieved a) if you actually do find them to your taste, even if this comes as a surprise, or b) you come to appreciate them after all during the process of recreating their successful features.

In which case, your "if not" doesn't apply.


----------



## Chessie

I've recently discovered that in order to make money writing, working with the market and current trends is the way to do it. This is a popular concept in the Indie publishing world--one I've never really cared much for until I started ghostwriting a couple of months ago, well as preparing my manuscripts for publication. I agree with Brian's perspective of story/craft coming first, then catering to the needs of readers second. If money and audience is important, then writers need to take the market trends into consideration.

I write fantasy just like everyone here. In the past, I've written some stories with romantic subplots, but didn't consider myself a romance writer. Guess what all the ghostwriting jobs I've gotten so far have been? Romance. Mostly erotic in nature, which I've had a bit of experience with and now it's what's bringing in the work. I've had to give in and write less of what's important to me. Yes, everything we write should be interesting to us. Otherwise, every word will drag and the entire experience will suck. But publishing is a business and in order to be successful, making decisions to write along with the market's trends is a wise move. Individual creativity can still be achieved by being flexible to what readers want, too. 

The needs of readers is what's most important to me at this point, second only to craft. If my audience wants shape shifters with romance and candles, that's what I'm going to give them.


----------



## BWFoster78

> But, if your tastes run counter to the bestsellers, in fact if you find them distasteful, how are you going to muddle your way through 6 months or a year on the first draft. And then bear the onerous task of editing, revising, writing succeeding drafts?



First of all, I think you probably need to be more efficient in your writing process.  Writing only a book a year is probably going to make success kind of difficult.

Second, I think that, if you want to have a career as a writer, you have to treat it as a job, not as fun.



> Also, isn't it the case that one cannot actually write well what one does not respect or admire on some level?



I really don't know the answer to this question.  My assumption is that you feel this is a no brainer, that one cannot write well what one does not respect or admire.

I'm not sure that is the case.  If your job is to write well and you know how to write well, does it matter what you're writing?

You absolutely do, however, have to know who you are as an author. There has to be something about some popular genre that you like.


----------



## FifthView

@BWFoster:  My general point, stated previously, is that most of us probably have tastes that align somewhat with the bestsellers, already.  Not everything I read is on the bestseller lists; but over three decades of reading fantasy fiction, many of the novels I've enjoyed reading have also been bestsellers.  Am I odd in this respect?  I don't know. I still question the idea that authors of fantasy fiction are somehow not members of that class, "the reader" being targeted.  Sure, some authors may have tastes quite unlike what appears on the bestseller lists; but then, they are probably going to be least interested in advice like the advice you've given.  Your general observations #1-#4 in your opening post are very good observations, but I believe that in most cases they can serve as good guidelines without the need to sacrifice the personal goals we have for our writing.  (Goals beyond merely making a living at writing.)


----------



## MineOwnKing

I think it's a healthy thing for consumers to privately understand what helps them to keep their sanity. 

Many people live hum drum lives. 

Those hard working pluggers, do not have the gift that makes all members here special, our gift to put words on paper.

If you are writing romance on the side to pay the bills, then you are also doing a great service to those that love romance as their only escape from unhappiness. 

Erotica in moderation, is just as valid in maintaining mental health as reading a great literary work.

I think you should be proud that you are able to do both.

After all, as humans, are we not made up of all the things that make us click? 

I do not see why we cannot have a balance of writing both high brow literature and erotica if the opportunity is there to make money.

Working hard, spending time with family, being a positive force in the community, are all important things but also become tedious if we are not able to relish life through joy, laughter and sensuality. 

We must be all things and enjoy all things to be complete.


----------



## BWFoster78

FifthView said:


> @BWFoster:  My general point, stated previously, is that most of us probably have tastes that align somewhat with the bestsellers, already.  Not everything I read is on the bestseller lists; but over three decades of reading fantasy fiction, many of the novels I've enjoyed reading have also been bestsellers.  Am I odd in this respect?  I don't know. I still question the idea that authors of fantasy fiction are somehow not members of that class, "the reader" being targeted.  Sure, some authors may have tastes quite unlike what appears on the bestseller lists; but then, they are probably going to be least interested in advice like the advice you've given.  Your general observations #1-#4 in your opening post are very good observations, but I believe that in most cases they can serve as good guidelines without the need to sacrifice the personal goals we have for our writing.  (Goals beyond merely making a living at writing.)



I'm hopeful that "writing to my own tastes" is a good idea. That's really what I've done since I feel that my tastes are pretty in line with the market.

To be honest, though, the advice out there is not "write to your own tastes and hope." It's "figure out exactly what is selling and replicate that as closely as possible."

I'm not sure, however, that advice is as easy to follow in a genre like epic fantasy.  It doesn't seem like there is one formula that is dominant, so maybe we have a bit more leeway.  I'm hopeful of that.

Note that a lot of self publishers really making bank write in Romance.  I think that, in those subgenres, following a particular formula is much more important.

Again, though, I'm doing a lot of speculating.  I have no actual experience.  As I gain experience and learn real world lessons, I'll share with the group my takeaways


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm not sure, however, that advice is as easy to follow in a genre like epic fantasy.  It doesn't seem like there is one formula that is dominant, so maybe we have a bit more leeway.  I'm hopeful of that.
> 
> Note that a lot of self publishers really making bank write in Romance.  I think that, in those subgenres, following a particular formula is much more important.



Funny that you say that.  For some time I've been toying with a theory of modern economics that includes the notion that simple increase in population size leads to more viability for various fringe or subculture niches.   Pretty simple idea.  Basically, if 1% of a population likes X and will buy it, then in a population of 1000 people, you are only going to sell 10 of product X, and let's say at $5.oo each that's only $50.  But in a population of 300,000,000, that's 3 million sold so it's $15mil.  So basically, niche markets _can_ become increasingly profitable over time, even if not every oddball niche will. (My example is a gross oversimplification, just to get the idea across.)

I've seen the sudden explosion of m/m romance fiction, also m/m fantasy romance fiction, and my current WIP is in that genre.  I've only been reading in that genre for the last few years.  Although there are some excellent novels in the genre, there's still a lot of mutability in formulae and a lot of bases that haven't been covered.  I'm shooting for a more typical epic fantasy that happens to include a central m/m romance and a f/f romance.

But for me, the decision to write it came first because I've really been enjoying reading m/m fantasy romances, and I've been frustrated that there aren't many that I would call epic fantasy.  I have however been curious to find out if this means there's a huge opening there, to fill that gap in the niche.


----------



## Heliotrope

I would add "read" to the list in your conclusion. Every successful author in the world gives the advice to new authors to read read read read read and read some more. Read everything, even if it is not a genre you normally like. When you find something you like, study it. What exactly did that author do to draw you in… what word choices did they use? How did they frame their sentences? How did they create that emotional pull… then use that same stuff in your books. Soon it will become your own.


----------



## Heliotrope

BWFoster78 said:


> I think the chances of any one book making you gazillions of dollars is slim, but if you have enough books on the market, the combined sales can make you decent money. Additionally, each book you put out is another opportunity to find members of your core audience, especially since Amazon more heavily promotes new releases.



This quote is a bit problematic for me, in regards to your question. I mean, I get the theory… but if you are pushing out book after book of mediocre quality because you were so focussed on writing them quickly instead of properly, than you will lose your audience. Your readers won't come back, basically because the book did not meet the standards of other, better books, and they will move on… You will end up with all your readers basically avoiding your new books because they will say "The last one was pretty crappy and I couldn't get in to it." 

On the other hand, if you printed fewer books, but took the time to really create something of quality than you will develop a following, who will then tell their friends to tell their friends etc etc etc…. "The Martian" for example. 

I would look at the competition. Buy and read the books of the successful Indy authors in your genre. Compare your work to theirs. Is your work equal to theirs in quality? IF yes, then great. IF no, then keep revising and revising and revising until it is, or you will never be able to compete.


----------



## Chessie

^^ I disagree. Just because a book is drafted fast doesn't mean it's crap, especially when there's however many rounds of edits left for the author to do. One thing I don't understand is that in every other craft _except for writing_, people are encouraged to practice, practice, practice. When  you do something again and again enough times, you get better and faster at it. This isn't any different for writers. It's inaccurate to assume that those who write fast create crap. Writers work with editors and other people to improve the quality of their product as well. I think this idea that books shouldn't be written fast or else they're horrible stems from a lack of understanding about writing in general. The more you do it, the better you get at it. Just like with anything else. It'd be nice if all of us writers respected the individual creative journeys of our peers and realized that everyone writes at different speeds with various skill levels, and that doesn't mean they're bad or good.

And regarding comparison to other authors, art is subjective. How can we possibly compare our work to that of others who have been in the game longer, or maybe their craft isn't so great but they're still selling? What makes those books sell? Spending years on a manuscript doesn't guarantee its success.


----------



## Scribe Lord

Heliotrope said:


> On the other hand, if you printed fewer books, but took the time to really create something of quality than you will develop a following, who will then tell their friends to tell their friends etc etc etc…. "The Martian" for example.
> 
> I would look at the competition. Buy and read the books of the successful Indy authors in your genre. Compare your work to theirs. Is your work equal to theirs in quality? IF yes, then great. IF no, then keep revising and revising and revising until it is, or you will never be able to compete.



While I agree you should study your genre, I know quite a few writers who would never release anything if they followed this advice. They might keep revising indefinitely. A book's 'quality' is hugely subjective. I know people who can't wrap their heads around how The Martian got so much hype because they think the writing is trash. Each writer has their own style. At some point they're going to have to start pumping out works or they're definitely never going to make any money by writing.


----------



## BWFoster78

> but if you are pushing out book after book of mediocre quality because you were so focussed on writing them quickly instead of properly, than you will lose your audience.



You absolutely have to maintain quality of writing in addition to a fast pace, so I agree with you there.

Your implication that you cannot write quality fast, as Chesterama noted, is completely flawed.



> On the other hand, if you printed fewer books, but took the time to really create something of quality than you will develop a following, who will then tell their friends to tell their friends etc etc etc…. "The Martian" for example.



The Martian is a lotto pick example.  There are so many more indie writers making a living because they churn out 4 to 12 books a year (yes, you read that correctly) than do because they wrote a single book that caught on.

Again, maybe you can succeed by putting out one "good" book a year, but that's a crapshoot path.  The people who are making a living writing are the ones who are putting out a lot of books.

I agree that you absolutely have to achieve a certain level of quality. Once you figure out how to achieve that quality, though, you also absolutely must figure out how to make your process efficient enough to turn out that quality quickly.


----------



## Amanita

Concerning writing speed: I think it’s possible to create something well-written from a technical point of view quickly with enough practice. Doing believable world-building and proper research in this amount of time? Not so much. If I only think about the amount of research one is required to do when including POC characters or non-western settings... 
People who don’t write fantasy but stories set in the real world dealing with subject matters they’re familiar with have a distinct advantage where writing speed is concerned. I’m quite sure I’d be able to bring out a new horse story every two months if I wanted to do so because I’m sufficiently familiar with horses, riding schools and the behaviour of teenage girls thus realism wouldn’t be an issue. Doing the same thing with fantasy set in different alternate worlds is a different matter though. 
A possibility that appeals to me as a reader is having many books set in the same world only requiring a good portion of the work being done once. It also makes readers eager for new books set in this familiar place and actually by them which I wouldn’t necessarily do because they’ve been written by the same author alone. (I’ve read every Darkover novel by Marion Zimmer-Bradley for example but could never get into her Mists of Avalon books and didn’t finish even one of those.)

Of course, fantasy can be written by throwing existing tropes together without actual research and little thought but the results can't be anything beyond mediocre. There might be people who are prepared to spend the 2 or 3 dollars on the e-book once but there’s little reason to come back to that specific author though because there’s more than enough of this available everywhere.
Which brings me to the second point raised on this thread: I don’t think the secret to success is making cheap copies of best-selling works. (Though maybe that wasn’t what you suggested, Brian.) There’s no set of instructions guaranteeing a successful book but there surely are themes that appeals to broad audiences. Many of those turn up on the lists of “annoying clichÃ©s” found on writing forums.  
Modern media bring information about all the horrible things happening in the world to every one of us while at the same time, we know there’s very little we can do about it. In this situation, the fantasy of being the one who can right this wrong is appealing and many successful fantasy stories have an ordinary person doing something which makes a difference for their entire society/world; Frodo, Harry Potter... Having this ordinary person be some sort of chosen one makes it easier to believe why he is regarded as the hero by everyone around him. This is only one example, there are many more. 
Best-selling novels often use such themes in a way that appeals to a broad audience (combined with other factors of course) and those who simply copy them normally aren’t anywhere nearly as successful. There are countless other vampire romance novels who sell to some extent but none of them successful enough to be remembered by me as a person not interested in this genre like Twilight was.


----------



## Heliotrope

^^ Agree with this. I had a writing professor in University who told us that an author had to write at least 20 stories before they got any good. I had a friend over last night who had the same professor. He told me that he started writing short stories and bringing them to this prof, who would critique his work. Over time the prof pulled him aside and said "I've noticed the quality of your work is getting progressively worse. Are you just trying to reach the 20 story mark?" And my friend had to admit that yes, he was just writing mediocre story after story thinking the practice was going to make him better. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was failing to truly challenge himself to write really quality stuff, and so he just ended up practicing the same terrible technique and tropes over and over again and suffered for it. Yes, writing takes practice. Yes, you have to do a lot of it to get good, but it has to be quality practice, and it takes time.


----------



## Chessie

No one isn't saying that it doesn't take time. You can't use your friend's example as a generalism that writing lots and fast means crap work. That's a shallow perspective because there are many authors out there who work fast and don't suck. Ultimately, your perspective is your own, and if that's the way YOU work then, fine. But don't assume that you can judge the habits/skills of others from your limited experience. That's disrespectful of our writer peers.


----------



## Steerpike

When Michael Moorcock was starting out, he wrote books in three to ten days. And those works made him famous and created iconic fantasy characters that have been licensed for games etc.


----------



## Heliotrope

Ok, obviously my perspective is ruffling some feathers and creating some tension. I'm not meaning to disrespect anyone, and I'm not generalizing. All I said was that the original quote was problematic to me for these reasons. Some people fall into the trap of doing mediocre work in the effort to do more work. Some people may feel pressured to produce more instead of focussing on quality. Some people may feel that when virtually everyone on this site is timing their word output and criticizing others for not working fast enough that there is something wrong with the way they write because they can't keep up. I'm simply advocating for the other side. There is another side of writers that write slowly but surely, taking their time. It takes them longer to get it right. 

Great! I'm happy for you if you can spin out tale after tale of quality work in a short amount of time. But if you can't, that's ok too. Don't fall into the trap of thinking you have too in order to be good. 

Just because someone advocates for a different strategy than yours doesn't mean they are personally attacking you.

I take offense to being told I have a "shallow" perspective, when I simply offer an alternate perspective.


----------



## acapes

Storytelling - trumps every other aspect of the craft for me


----------



## Storm Wolf

For me, the ability to construct interesting characters. But that's what endears me to a story personally. It can have amazing story, technical writing and a beautiful world but if the characters are boring to me, I struggle. That's just me. And what I find intriguing about a character may not be what others do.

As a writer I try to talk to a lot of people, read about people and understand people so I can hope to create good characters. I have a background dabbling in journalism which I feel helps but for many other writers it could be just seeking interesting people out and talking to them. If possible, allowing myself to step into their shoes for a few minutes. Other writers have different approaches; that's just one of mine.


----------



## skip.knox

Apologies to BW. I did miss the point of the OP. It was about how to be a commercial success. The jury is instructed to disregard the previous testimony.


----------



## Miskatonic

I may be in the minority here, but my advice is to _never_ start out a book with the reader in mind, ever. If you do you are going to fall into the trap of focusing on what they want and not what you want.

You have to create for yourself, first and foremost. Otherwise what's the point? Trying to appease a group of people based on hunches and trends? I can't imagine that being fulfilling in the slightest. 

Create what _you_ want to read. Once you've done that you can turn towards constructive criticism from outside sources. Adjustments can come with revising the story after you've been given some critique. 

Ridley Scott doesn't start writing a screenplay thinking "I wonder what the viewers want to see this time?" The Beatles didn't go into the studio thinking "I wonder what kind of songs the listeners want to listen to this time?" 

They started creating based on what they wanted to express, which comes from inside them. They have to be satisfied with the final product and that is based on what they wanted it to be. 

Why should you be any different as an author? Fans are drawn to music, literature and cinema based on the style that they like. When a creative individual finds his or her own style, they will find an audience that gravitates to what makes them unique. 

We are fans of these people because of what they express from within themselves, not what we demand they create. 

Create to make yourself happy first and foremost. Becoming popular is the icing on the cake.


----------



## BWFoster78

> You have to create for yourself, first and foremost. Otherwise what's the point? Trying to appease a group of people based on hunches and trends? I can't imagine that being fulfilling in the slightest.



The point is to write stuff that sells.

If you want to write for yourself, there's nothing wrong with that.  But if you want to be commercially successful, the people who are actively making a living writing are saying to write based on what readers want.



> Create to make yourself happy first and foremost.



What will make me happy is if people are reading my books.  They're much more likely to read my books if I write what they want to read.


----------



## BWFoster78

Heliotrope,



> Some people fall into the trap of doing mediocre work in the effort to do more work. Some people may feel pressured to produce more instead of focussing on quality.



Two separate issues here:

Issue 1 -

A lot of authors take issue with anyone saying that it isn't possible to produce quality quickly.  For future reference, you may want to make sure your statements can't be inferred to be saying that if that's not what you meant.

Issue 2 -

I am really confused at this point about how much quality plays into commercial success.

Almost every author who is selling will tell you that editing is crucial and that quality is incredibly important.

On the other hand, it's hard to get a handle on exactly what "quality" means, nor any empirical data on the impact of editing.  I see tons of books that appear to be selling that there's no way I'd consider up to the standards of traditional publishing.

Bottom line - I'd love to say that the higher the quality of your book, the better your chances for succeeding as an author.  Based on what I'm taking away from the admittedly unscientific process of gleaning scraps of information from advice posts, however, I simply cannot draw that conclusion.

From a logical perspective, it seems that a book's writing needs to be good enough that the reader doesn't throw it across the room before finishing it. And it seems to make sense that a story that speaks to a reader is more likely to cause that reader to search out your other works, increasing your chances for longterm success.

Even if we accept those two premises as fact, however, we still can't put any kind of accurate measure on exactly how "good" your writing or story needs to be.



> I take offense to being told I have a "shallow" perspective, when I simply offer an alternate perspective.



Trying not to be offensive here ... but your perspective came across to me as ill-informed.  The topic is really focused on what does it take to make it in the indie publishing world.  The voices of those who are making it in the indie world seem to consistently advise that your best shot is to put out a lot of books.

When someone who appears not to have personal experience speaks in contrast to that advice, the natural inclination is to think, "Uh, what the crap?"


----------



## Steerpike

Putting out more books isn't just an important factor in indie/self-publishing. Traditional publishers have, over the last decade _at least_, recognized how important it is and are pushing authors to faster release schedules than was the case a couple decades ago. Seems like a lot of traditional authors are putting out a work at least once a year, and from what I've heard from some editors, the publishers would like to see a couple a year if they can get authors there.


----------



## Miskatonic

I guess if you want to make the big bucks then put out a book a year. Quality is going to suffer as a consequence. Fluff sells.


----------



## Steerpike

Miskatonic said:


> I guess if you want to make the big bucks then put out a book a year. Quality is going to suffer as a consequence. Fluff sells.



I don't think that's necessarily true. There are writers who can put out a book a year with consistently good quality. If writing fiction is your only job, I don't think that would be a hard goal to hit at all.


----------



## BWFoster78

Miskatonic said:


> I guess if you want to make the big bucks then put out a book a year. Quality is going to suffer as a consequence. Fluff sells.



Or ... Work harder and explore ways to improve the efficiency of your process.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

If you write only 250 words per day, and poured everything you have towards the quality of those 250 words, you'd still complete over 90,000 words in a year. 

So, even in one or two hour long sessions per day, painstakingly and carefully writing for quality, you should be able to put out a book per year. This is assuming, of course, that you aren't geared toward learning craft anymore, but actually producing for publication. How many professional level authors are incapable of 250 words a day? 

That daily quota is quite low. If you consider a likely higher word per day output, you should have plenty of time to also figure in editing time and publication efforts while still producing one book per year. That's my current plan... one per year.


----------



## Miskatonic

BWFoster78 said:


> Or ... Work harder and explore ways to improve the efficiency of your process.



Or limit your ideas to what has worked before. That should improve efficiency if you already have a reliable template.


----------



## Miskatonic

BWFoster78 said:


> The point is to write stuff that sells.
> 
> If you want to write for yourself, there's nothing wrong with that.  But if you want to be commercially successful, the people who are actively making a living writing are saying to write based on what readers want.
> 
> 
> 
> What will make me happy is if people are reading my books.  They're much more likely to read my books if I write what they want to read.



What you originally wrote is what drew them to your works in the first place. How would you go about knowing what readers want other than copying what a bunch of other writers have already done?


----------



## BWFoster78

Miskatonic said:


> Or limit your ideas to what has worked before. That should improve efficiency if you already have a reliable template.



I don't know how your process works, but the structure of my novel and the content of the story doesn't have a whole heck of a lot to do with my process of writing it.

My inference here, though, is that you're turning your nose up at the thought of writing formulas.  I just don't share your disdain for formulas.  There's a reason they exist - because they work and readers like them.

Regardless, the fact that you want to be original doesn't impact whether or not you're willing to put in the work necessary to produce quantity.

Look, writing for commercial gain is work, not fun.  You have to put your butt in a chair when you'd rather be doing other things.  If that's not what you want to do, fine, but as far as I can tell, it's an important contributing factor to becoming successful.


----------



## BWFoster78

Miskatonic said:


> What you originally wrote is what drew them to your works in the first place. How would you go about knowing what readers want other than copying what a bunch of other writers have already done?



That's exactly what you do - adhere to the tropes and formulas that readers of your genre want.


----------



## Heliotrope

Please do not call me misinformed when you do not know me or my background. No, I have not previously published any fiction. I've been immersed in the world of non fiction (which I have published) and have only recently turned to fiction. However, this does not mean I haven't studied the realm of self publishing. From what I have learned, yes, publishing multiple stories is very important. I don't dispute that. 

What makes me nervous is your questioning the value of craft, editing, proper research, and the value of taking your time. The one thing I always read when reading books and interviews by successful indie authors is that new authors tend to publish too early. They always suggest to have your work properly evaluated and edited and make sure you are putting out a quality product. Over time, yes, you may get faster and faster and put out good work faster, but it takes time. 

I'm not arguing that you didn't do this for your novel. You obviously care to take the time to do things properly. I just worry that a new writer reading this thread may confuse more for better...


----------



## Chessie

First, I'd like to apologize to Heliotrope for calling his viewpoint 'shallow'. You're right. It's just a different perspective and it's wrong of me to insult you for it. 

No one here is saying that craft, editing, and everything else that goes into making a strong book aren't important. Of course they are! I think what's being said on one side though is that none of those things have to be forsaken just because someone writes fast. Not at all. And someone who is going to publish fast will do it anyway, whether or not they're ready. We can't control what others do so why worry about it?



Miskatonic said:


> Or limit your ideas to what has worked before. That should improve efficiency if you already have a reliable template.


No. There doesn't have to be a template. Everyone here I'm sure can agree there are certain elements that go into the production of genre stories. Fantasy has its ingredients, mystery has its ingredients, romance, etc. These are not templates, they're the DNA of the genres, what makes them unique. 

I don't understand (and am nearing the road of giving up here) why so many writers out there believe that laboring over every word will produce a quality product. When I pick up a book and read it, the last thing on my mind is whether or not that author spent 5 years on the manuscript or 6 months. Everyone has a different speed of crafting their art. Why put others down? If writing commercial books is how they want to make their living, how does that make them any less of an artist or their profession worse than any other? I seriously don't understand the negativity towards that.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Please do not call me misinformed when you do not know me or my background.



Heliotrope,

What I said was that your perspective came across to me as ill-informed.  I stand by that statement. When I read what you wrote, my thought was, "This guy's opinion is ill-informed."  I have as much right to that opinion as you do to think that I'm ill-informed.



> What makes me nervous is your questioning the value of craft, editing, proper research, and the value of taking your time.



I would love to hear a cogent argument as to how these things help an indie author achieve commercial success.  For a long time, I took the position that those things mattered greatly.  What I'm seeing in the real world, however, doesn't necessarily bear that out.



> They always suggest to have your work properly evaluated and edited and make sure you are putting out a quality product.



It seems to me that almost all indie authors give lip service to this concept.  It appears to me, though, that "quality" is in the eye of the beholder.

I've observed that there are three types of drivers in this world:

1. Idiots who drive slower than me.
2. Maniacs who drive faster than me.
3. Me.

I think the same thing is true for authors. Everyone thinks it is important to gain their level of quality.  Anyone publishing "lower" quality is a hack.

I'm just not sure, however, where the actual bar is for readers.  It's certainly lower than traditionally published books seem to have set.



> Over time, yes, you may get faster and faster and put out good work faster, but it takes time.



There are lots of ways to speed your writing.  It takes practice and actually making the effort to look at your process and figure out where the inefficiencies lie.



> I'm not arguing that you didn't do this for your novel. You obviously care to take the time to do things properly. I just worry that a new writer reading this thread may confuse more for better...



That's the purpose of the thread - to hash out exactly what is important.  To this point, you've stated that craft is important, but I've not heard much to back up the assertion.  I stand by my statement that I'm just not sure that craft is all the important to success.


----------



## Nimue

Chesterama said:


> I seriously don't understand the negativity towards that.


I think that many of these posters are feeling a lot of negativity in the opposite direction, and reacting to that.  Some people are hearing "If your writing doesn't measure up to the Greats, you're not good enough and you shouldn't be writing."  Some people are hearing "If you're not writing 2,000 words an hour and publishing novels twice a year, you're not good enough and you shouldn't be writing."

Threads like "What is good writing?" and "What is important?" go wrong when they veer into "This Is What You Should Be Doing" instead of "This Is What I'm Doing/This Is What I Like."  Because we're all going to do what we feel is best, and I don't know that a forum thread will greatly change that.


----------



## Chessie

Nimue, yes. Agreed. That's what I've been saying all along. My issue is with others making sweeping generalizations without taking individuality into account.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Threads like "What is good writing?" and "What is important?" go wrong when they veer into "This Is What You Should Be Doing" instead of "This Is What I'm Doing/This Is What I Like." Because we're all going to do what we feel is best, and I don't know that a forum thread will greatly change that.



I don't know about you, but I've learned a lot from this forum and forums like it.  These types of discussions absolutely have shaped how I write and, lately, how I'm going forward with my self publishing career.  So in my case, forum threads absolutely have changed things.

Just to be clear, however, the concept of this thread wasn't intended to be, "You should do this!" It was intended to be a discussion on, "What gives you the best chance for commercial success?"

I'm a very opinionated person, but I do not know all the answers.  I would love it if Heliotrope broke out with some logic or facts that convinced me that craft is more important than it seems, as far as I can tell, to be.

As someone who is embarking on a path that will hopefully lead to commercial success, I am definitely hoping for some great discussion on this topic.  Maybe someone will say something that will contribute to that success.



> Some people are hearing "If you're not writing 2,000 words an hour and publishing novels twice a year, you're not good enough and you shouldn't be writing."



Truthfully, my goal is to get to where I can publish 4 novels a year.  I don't know if I can reach that goal before going professional, though.  In fact, I doubt that I can.

What I can do, however, is practice, improve my process, and eliminate inefficiencies.

I see this as a key to achieving my goals.  If you have the same goals, why not investigate whether you feel if it's as important as I think it is?  If so, it's not all that hard to achieve 2000 WPH.


----------



## Heliotrope

I can't Foster. I just can't. 

Like I said, I'm a High School Humanities teacher. I teach Lit and History. I have spent the last ten years of my life writing non-fiction, typically historical non-fiction and Literary criticism. Through my time doing that I have learned that good quality, clear, concise, well edited work is the best way to achieve success. 

I have no clue and absolutely cannot prove it is the same for fiction. I think a lot of it comes down to who your audience is and why you are writing. 

I have only started to think about writing fiction in the past year. I have had an idea for a story for some time and this year decided to tackle it. As a historian, I'm interested in delving into topics from history in a fantasy setting. My WIP is called "The Looking Glass God" and features themes of Industrialization vs. religion. I have set up a timeline for myself of four years to write my book. One year to do some heavy research into topics such as The Age of Enlightenment, The Industrial Revolution, the French Revolution and the role of fundamentalism in American capitalism. I am also researching some key players in these historical events to use as themes for some of my characters… William Blake, Thomas Paine, etc. I have also spent considerable amount of time reading everything I can find in the "literary fantasy" genre and taking notes. 

I have then set myself a year for plotting and formatting and drafting, another for writing, and another year for editing, publishing (self publishing if that is the way I go). 

I work full time. I have two children. I write in the evenings for an hour or two and that is it. 

My novel is very different in theme, characterization and plot than your story will be, and I'm giving myself a longer timelines. 

Obviously you are correct that you will make more money than me writing four books a year. Obviously. You will have a different audience who are looking for a different story. 

I just believe that we all need to put all of our effort into our stories, whatever they may be, and skipping the editor may be doing yourself a disservice.


----------



## Nimue

BWFoster78 said:


> Truthfully, my goal is to get to where I can publish 4 novels a year.  I don't know if I can reach that goal before going professional, though.  In fact, I doubt that I can.
> 
> What I can do, however, is practice, improve my process, and eliminate inefficiencies.
> 
> I see this as a key to achieving my goals.  If you have the same goals, why not investigate whether you feel if it's as important as I think it is?  If so, it's not all that hard to achieve 2000 WPH.


I can't do that right now.  Publishing is in the far future for me.  I'm writing as a hobbyist and trying to get some enjoyment and improvement out of it.  While your mindset and views may be helpful for other people who are at the same stage that you're at, they really aren't helpful for me.  So regardless of the discussion that this has turned into, based on the premise of this thread, I don't think I need to be part of the conversation.  It's not one that addresses me.


----------



## Heliotrope

I too feel that we are at opposite ends of the spectrum here and that we have very opposite goals. Please disregard my previous posts, as I'm sorry to have insulted anyone here on the matter of fast writing. I'm obviously not yet of this calibre and so had no real right to participate in the conversation. 

Please, carry on


----------



## BWFoster78

> Through my time doing that I have learned that good quality, clear, concise, well edited work is the best way to achieve success.
> 
> I have no clue and absolutely cannot prove it is the same for fiction.



I understand. Despite my long, tightly held beliefs on the subject, I can't find any evidence that points to "quality" being a requisite to success in self publishing.


----------



## BWFoster78

Nimue said:


> I can't do that right now.  Publishing is in the far future for me.  I'm writing as a hobbyist and trying to get some enjoyment and improvement out of it.  While your mindset and views may be helpful for other people who are at the same stage that you're at, they really aren't helpful for me.  So regardless of the discussion that this has turned into, based on the premise of this thread, I don't think I need to be part of the conversation.  It's not one that addresses me.



Nimue,

Part of the point of this whole discussion, though, was, "What would I have told myself when I was starting out?"

If I had been more focused back then, would I be in a different place now?

That being said, I respect your choice.  There is nothing at all wrong with being a hobbyist.  If you ever decide to enter into it as a profession, though, I seriously advise you to keep your eyes open and really think about the best path to success.


----------



## Steerpike

This should dispel any notions of quality and commercial success being inextricably linked. And from what I read in an interview with the author, she has a friend who is an engineer at Boeing, and she makes more with her books than he gets paid.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesth...zon-who-writes-erotic-novels-about#.jvl6bb2oE


----------



## Heliotrope

lol! OMG that totally just made my day.


----------



## Heliotrope

I love how they didn't even have cave woman clothes on…. red cocktail dress? Seriously? Hilarious.


----------



## Heliotrope

Wait, so is the answer to Foster's question "All you need to do is pose in a bathing suit on the cover of your books" 

What do you think Foster? Sound like a plan? String or cut-out


----------



## Chessie

HA! Steerpike, I just laughed and laughed thanks to that article. What a way to lighten the mood, I gotta hand it to you! *claps* Now I don't feel so bad for writing werewolf/werebear lust tales.


----------



## BWFoster78

Heliotrope said:


> Wait, so is the answer to Foster's question "All you need to do is pose in a bathing suit on the cover of your books"
> 
> What do you think Foster? Sound like a plan? String or cut-out



If all else fails ...


----------



## Svrtnsse

BWFoster78 said:


> If all else fails ...



...just try and write another book. Please.


----------



## Incanus

Steerpike said:


> This should dispel any notions of quality and commercial success being inextricably linked. And from what I read in an interview with the author, she has a friend who is an engineer at Boeing, and she makes more with her books than he gets paid.
> 
> http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesth...zon-who-writes-erotic-novels-about#.jvl6bb2oE



Man that's rich.

If I were trying to 'give the readers what they want', I suppose I'd have to be looking at something in the 'erotica' vein.

Of course, I'm not, and I won't.

So is there an 'epic-erotica' sub-genre yet?  Or 'high-erotica' perchance?


----------



## BWFoster78

Incanus said:


> Man that's rich.
> 
> If I were trying to 'give the readers what they want', I suppose I'd have to be looking at something in the 'erotica' vein.
> 
> Of course, I'm not, and I won't.
> 
> So is there an 'epic-erotica' sub-genre yet?  Or 'high-erotica' perchance?



To be honest, I think that erotica is probably just like any other genre. It's not like I see a ton of posts saying, "I'm making millions writing erotica!"

I haven't given it a lot of consideration, but just from browsing a few threads, there are some challenges.  For example, apparently if you cross certain lines, Amazon makes it very hard to find your books.  More importantly, though, a lot of the promotion opportunities are closed to erotica writers (I think - not 100% sure on that).

If you really want to choose a genre based solely on earning potential, I think that romance might win out.  It is my understanding, though, that fantasy is not a bad choice at all for indie authors.


----------



## Svrtnsse

I'm sure there is - but I have feeling we'd better steer the discussion back on track. 


When it comes to writing, what's important to me is to produce a story I can take pride in.

The cool thing is, I've done that already, several times. I may not be nearly as proud of these stories now as I were when I wrote them, but that's a different matter.

Like I posted at the beginning of this thread I believe that one of the keys to success, whether commercial or personal, is persistence. You have to keep going and you have to keep trying. This won't guartantee success, but stopping will guarantee "failure"


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Incanus said:


> So is there an 'epic-erotica' sub-genre yet?  Or 'high-erotica' perchance?


Believe it or not, the topic "Elvish Bodice Ripper" has been discussed on this forum in the past.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I'm sure there is - but I have feeling we'd better steer the discussion back on track.



That's kinda what I was trying to do 



> When it comes to writing, what's important to me is to produce a story I can take pride in.



I can agree with that.  The question is: what criteria does a story have to possess in order for you to take pride in it?

For me, the main criterion is that my readers enjoyed it.



> Like I posted at the beginning of this thread I believe that one of the keys to success, whether commercial or personal, is persistence. You have to keep going and you have to keep trying. This won't guartantee success, but stopping will guarantee "failure"



I definitely agree with you there!


----------



## Incanus

BWFoster78 said:


> The question is: what criteria does a story have to possess in order for you to take pride in it?



My ideal would be to create a story that exhibits an emergent property.  Meaning the whole piece should be greater than the sum of its discrete parts.  To me, that is what is important.


----------



## Russ

Miskatonic said:


> I guess if you want to make the big bucks then put out a book a year. Quality is going to suffer as a consequence. Fluff sells.



Some of the best, highest quality, best selling writers in the world think a book a year is a good pace.  Very few go much slower than that.

As noted above Moorcock banged out genre changing and top award winning novels in a couple of weeks.  Of course he had been writing for a living since about age 17 in multiple formats.  Tons of practice had built up his skill and speed.


----------



## Russ

To add in a couple of different useful elements to becoming a successful commercial fiction writer:

1) develop your self editing to a very high standard.  Make is a priority.  Have a thorough, harsh, editing system for your work.

2) Considering in both the traditional and self pub sides these days that authors are required to participate a great deal more in marketing their own work it really helps to have the social skills to deal well with people (online and elsewhere) as well as keeping abreast on marketing trends.


----------



## BWFoster78

*Some additional thoughts on the importance of quality*

The strategy that successful indie authors are talking about (vastly simplified) is to publish a series, drop the price of the first book, and promote the heck out of that discounted book.

You're not going to make much off the discounted book. Your profit comes in the sell through to the other books in the series.

So let's think about quality.

No matter how good a book is, not everyone who downloads the discounted book is going to continue the series.  By the same token, it doesn't seem that, no matter how bad a book is, everyone isn't going to continue the series. Logically, the better the book  entertains readers, the more people will continue reading.

Quality is so subjective, however, that it is difficult to ascertain just how much an incremental increase in quality moves the needle to more sales. Quantity, on the other hand, is easy to evaluate.  The percentage of readers will decrease book over book for the sequels, but each book will give you definite sales.

That's my main argument against the importance of quality for an indie author - quantity is clearly a factor while I can't find any non-subjective data that defines exactly how much quality impacts sales.

Note, though, that this analysis only applies to following the dominant sales strategy for indie authors.

If you are in the position where that dominant strategy turns your stomach, what do you do?

Perhaps you should consider traditional publishing. People like GRRM and Rothfuss put out books very infrequently, but when they do, each book is consumed in mass quantities. Subjectively, I think most people would say that the quality level of both those authors (even if not to your individual taste) is much higher than the average indie author.

The downside is that you're going to have to be patient.

I'll be honest - I do not think that my craft level is good enough yet to get a contract with a traditional publisher. It takes some authors decades to get their skill level up to where they need it to be.

Regardless of which path you choose, though, I think that the inescapable conclusion is that you absolutely have a lot of hard work ahead of you if you want to have a career writing fiction.


----------



## Svrtnsse

My primary goal at the moment isn't to make a living out of my writing. That's the long term goal and I hope to get there eventually. For now I just want to improve my craft. I'm currently in the enviable position of having an easy job with a steady income and plenty of free time. This gives me the opportunity to tinker around with my writing without the pressure of having to produce a commercially viable story.

I figure this is a very good time for me to learn the craft and to try and increase the quality of my work as much as I can. Once I get more confident I know what I'm doing I'll try and focus on the productivity side of things. Three years on a novel is a bit on the slow side, but just knowing what I'm doing is probably going to cut that in at least half - probably more.

While I'm currently writing to learn, I'm still aiming to publish what I produce and it keeps me motivated to try and improve on craft. This also means that once I feel ready to go full time on this, I'll have a bit of a back catalogue for readers to explore. It will also be all in the same setting. The stories will not all be connected in series, but the basic world will be the same and I'm hoping that this will appeal to at least some readers.

*On Pride:*
I mentioned earlier that I want to produce stories I can take pride in.
It feels like it's hard define any exact criteria for that, but I'll try (in no particular order):
 - The writing needs to be of the highest possible quality I'm reasonably capable of at my skill level.
 - The story should have a theme and a message that I can fully support and that I won't have any doubts about putting my name on.
 - Those characters of the story that matter need to be fully realized and believable people.
 - I want the story to be enjoyable to someone who likes the kind of story I've written.
 - I want to feel that it's my story and not something I've copied from someone else.

Makes sense?


----------



## BWFoster78

> This also means that once I feel ready to go full time on this, I'll have a bit of a back catalogue for readers to explore.



This is a very smart strategy.  Truthfully, I'm kinda wishing I had waited to publish until I had a few more books lying around in order to capitalize on momentum.


----------



## FifthView

Svrtnsse said:


> I'm currently in the enviable position of having an easy job with a steady income and plenty of free time.



This describes me exactly, as well.  I'm not in the position to _need_ to earn a living from writing, have a very cushy job–although my general goal is to reach a stage where I can write exclusively once I retire.



> *On Pride:*
> I mentioned earlier that I want to produce stories I can take pride in.
> It feels like it's hard define any exact criteria for that, but I'll try (in no particular order):
> - The writing needs to be of the highest possible quality I'm reasonably capable of at my skill level.
> - The story should have a theme and a message that I can fully support and that I won't have any doubts about putting my name on.
> - Those characters of the story that matter need to be fully realized and believable people.
> - I want the story to be enjoyable to someone who likes the kind of story I've written.
> - I want to feel that it's my story and not something I've copied from someone else.
> 
> Makes sense?



Makes perfect sense and also fits me perfectly.

I think though that, when all is said and done, _how_ a person achieves her individual level of desired success in writing doesn't matter much, as long as she reaches it.  Different people will have different goals and different methods of reaching that point.  Deciding what methods best fit an individual goal seems to be the main purpose of this thread.


----------



## Incanus

Wow, Svrtnsse.  You've described me and my situation almost to the letter.  Very well put.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> That's my main argument against the importance of quality for an indie author - quantity is clearly a factor while I can't find any non-subjective data that defines exactly how much quality impacts sales.



My anecdotal experience is that quality really does matter.

I agree that it is very hard to measure quality in things like writing, but that does not mean that each reader does not make that subjective judgment or obviate the need to make that judgment yourself or listen to others judgments on that subject.  

I suspect that if a reader thinks your work is poor quality their likelihood of buying any more books in the series or from the author are virtually zero.

There are massive obstacles in dealing with an idea like quality in scientific or objective data driven terms, but that does not mean we should ignore that factor.  Not all things are easily reduced to numbers but that does not mean they are not vital and important things.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> My anecdotal experience is that quality really does matter.
> 
> I agree that it is very hard to measure quality in things like writing, but that does not mean that each reader does not make that subjective judgment or obviate the need to make that judgment yourself or listen to others judgments on that subject.
> 
> I suspect that if a reader thinks your work is poor quality their likelihood of buying any more books in the series or from the author are virtually zero.
> 
> There are massive obstacles in dealing with an idea like quality in scientific or objective data driven terms, but that does not mean we should ignore that factor.  Not all things are easily reduced to numbers but that does not mean they are not vital and important things.



My issue is that it takes a massive amount of effort to improve quality, and there is no proof beyond anecdotal that any specific improvement actually increases readership.

If you delete all adverbs from your work per Mr. King's advice, will more people buy your book? I kinda doubt the vast majority of people will even notice.

It does make sense that increasing quality will have an impact on sell through - but what increase and what impact?  From an ROI standpoint, is the increase in sales worth the effort required to increase the quality?

Indie publishing is a business.  Businesses are all about ROI.  If the only evidence of any ROI is anecdotal, how can any business owner make decisions based on it?


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> Indie publishing is a business.  Businesses are all about ROI.  If the only evidence of any ROI is anecdotal, how can any business owner make decisions based on it?



As a lawyer I do it all the time.  Especially in Canada where we are not allowed to interview jurors.  I have to assess how a jury will react to multiple factors without hard data to do so.

ROI on indy writing for the vast majority of indy writers really sucks.  If you calculate the numbers of hours that go into writing, marketing etc versus the income I bet the hourly rate is a joke.

How do you value your time in your equations?


----------



## FifthView

ROI in this context is interesting, mostly for the "I".

I know from my experience (yes, anecdotal), I've pushed the 1-click buy button on Amazon to purchase relatively cheap indie-published novels by unknown authors for my Kindle, and have experienced these results: 

a. A surprising, very enjoyable read.
b. A major disappointment, usually leading to never finishing the read after a handful of chapters, but sometimes just a mediocre read not reaching the level of "a" above for me.
c. An unread .mobi file on my Kindle Fire HD that sits on my tablet forever, probably unread forever.

I can say that, for myself, "a" is the rarest of those three results, by a significant margin.  Probably "b" and "c" are about even in numbers, although I've never performed an actual count.

But in each of those cases, the author got the sale.

In the case of "b," I'm almost 100% likely to never buy another book by the author.  I can't commit to a 100% figure, because the chance always exists that I'll forget a bad experience and in a moment of browsing and casting my cash to the wind, I might buy another.

I don't know how my experience compares to the experience of other readers.  But with millions of Kindle users, the "give it a try" consumer habit might lead to an awful lot of sales.  A large library of self-published novels for any given author can increase the chances of 1-click impulse buys.

And if an author can produce a few novels a year that fall into the "a" category for enough readers, that's an added bonus.

Does an author who writes 3-4 novels a year "I"–invest–more in the process, or less in the process, than an author who writes only 1 novel a year?  Or is it about the same, on average?


----------



## BWFoster78

> I can say that, for myself, "a" is the rarest of those three results, by a significant margin.



It's the same for me.

For the longest time, I advocated quality as the most essential ingredient for success.  Now, I read stories about indie authors making major bank and go check out their books.  For the most part, I can't get past the first page.

So where are their sales coming from?

It could be like you said, that it's a bunch of "give it a try" consumers.

I don't think that's the case, though.  Look at their reviews.  Sure, there are a ton of, "This sux!!! 1 Star!" but there are also a bunch of people exclaiming over how they can't wait for the next in the series.

Sell through on a series ranges anywhere from .5% to 50%, depending on too many factors to get into in this post.  If you get thousands of downloads, though, and you have a bunch of books in the series, you're likely to come out pretty good even at the lower range of those percentages.

I really, really think that the majority of readers who buy indie books simply don't care as much about the writing quality or story quality as we do.

Truthfully, before I learned the "right" way to write, I was much less picky about what I read.  Some of the books that I wouldn't even consider reading now, I liked okay back then.


----------



## Chessie

I don't mean this as offensive to anyone's intelligence--ever--but I read a while ago somewhere online that the majority of people here in the states have a reading average at an 8th grade level. For those of us who write books, we probably were way more interested in grammar & Language Arts in school than our peers with different interests. So we continued learning about how to use words in order to tell stories, whereas they went on to do other things with their lives. And just read for fun. 

To the trained eye, adverbs, starting opening scenes with "it was", shallow characters, etc are big no-nos...but many readers can look past that. Whether an author is a professional or a hobbyist, their knowledge of language, grammar, story structure, etc is exercised more than someone who doesn't do this for a living. Meaning, WE can't get past the first page because we're used to something different and our minds are warped into thinking that only books with limited adverbs are good, for example. 

I believe this is one of the reasons that many Indies do well. They have enough craft to clearly communicate their stories to readers, which is all those readers care about. Indies are versatile in the way they use language, they publish different types of books than traditional publishers (not all, but many I've read do), they have way more liberty than those with contracts. 

Another reason is that Indies are able to publish more often than traditional publishers. They work with freelancers and are able to move through the process of preparing books in less time. If there's two authors I like and one has five books vs two for the other, guess who's going to get most of my money? The author with five books. 

We all seem to agree that quality is subjective. Readers just want to be entertained and move on to the next story, like tv shows. Once I run out of a season of my currently favorite show on Netflix, I'm on to the next one. Some of those are good, some not so good, but I watch them all anyway. Why? Because it's entertainment and it fulfills that need for something to keep me busy for an hour. It's the same way with books, I think.


----------



## BWFoster78

Chesterama,

I agree with your sentiment.  I would add that it's not just with writing. The more one learns about any subject, the more discerning (for lack of a better word) one becomes.

I like to eat relatively simple fare.  If I trained to be a chef, however, my guess is that my palate would become more complex.

It's hard to judge the quality a reader demands by the standards of a writer.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

Chesterama said:


> To the trained eye, adverbs, starting opening scenes with "it was", shallow characters, etc are big no-nos...but many readers can look past that.


I'd agree many readers won't notice these things at the surface level. However, I think these aspects can affect enjoyment, immersion, engagement, etc.   

Storytelling still trumps all, but I still believe it's important to pay attention to the writing. Not in a "do it like this" sense, but more as developing a style and voice that stands apart from the common prose or narratives.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Readers do care about quality, they just don't know it nor can identify the problems readily, until the problems reach a certain critical mass. When there are enough problems (shallow characters, poor sentence structure, etc) the readers will notice and put the book down. 

However, I do have to take exception with the definition of success being solely financial. Sure, that is a kind of success but it is not _the_ only type of success. There are many ways that a person can be successful and be a writer. It depends on what you want to get out of it. If all you want is financial success then sure making money is the only objective measure of success. But what if you want something else? If you want money and a work you can be proud of and your standards of quality exceed that of the average reader your definition of success is going to adjusted accordingly. If you want to change the way people think about a genre, that too requires a different definition of success.

Also, I am not sure writing purely for the sake of some faceless reader is the best for the craft or best for an individual writer. I write primarily because I want to write things that are interesting to me. I want to be financially successful as a writer. But I _do not_ want to write what everyone else is writing. That is _boring_ for me. I want to do stuff that's different enough to get noticed, but similar enough to get people to read it. I want to write novels that use property law as a basis for its magic system. I want to write novels set in a world that _isn't_ your classic medieval setting. And dang it I want to write a story about magic terrorists and a kid trying not to be like that though by rights he should be. Writing the same old crap different day just doesn't sound appealing to me. May as well have fun, I have a regular job that'll be the same crap different day.


----------



## BWFoster78

> However, I do have to take exception with the definition of success being solely financial. Sure, that is a kind of success but it is not the only type of success.



Brian,

I don't think that anyone tried to define financial success as the only type of success.  Due to the fact that "success" means different things to different people, I was clear to define it specifically for this thread in the OP.  Otherwise, we'd have people using the same word to discuss different concepts.



> But I do not want to write what everyone else is writing. That is boring for me. I want to do stuff that's different enough to get noticed, but similar enough to get people to read it. I want to write novels that use property law as a basis for its magic system. I want to write novels set in a world that isn't your classic medieval setting. And dang it I want to write a story about magic terrorists and a kid trying not to be like that though by rights he should be. Writing the same old crap different day just doesn't sound appealing to me. May as well have fun, I have a regular job that'll be the same crap different day.



There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  The way I see it, though, your choice means that you will likely face a less sure path to financial success than the path I laid out.  Again, nothing wrong with that; I just think that we should all make those kinds of decisions with our eyes open and with the full understanding of the impact of our choices.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> Brian,
> 
> I don't think that anyone tried to define financial success as the only type of success.  Due to the fact that "success" means different things to different people, I was clear to define it specifically for this thread in the OP.  Otherwise, we'd have people using the same word to discuss different concepts.



Explicitly defined? No, no one did that. But that is the implication in yours and others posts. Besides, I feel like the discussion had evolved so far beyond the OP that the original question had been largely forgotten and the implication was that financial success was the only success. This is probably a result of the 9 pages, but that I suppose that doesn't matter.



> There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. The way I see it, though, your choice means that you will likely face a less sure path to financial success than the path I laid out. Again, nothing wrong with that; I just think that we should all make those kinds of decisions with our eyes open and with the full understanding of the impact of our choices.



I don't think any of us are coming at this with our eyes closed. In fact, most of us seem to be pretty pessimistic about our chances of being financial successes in writing. We hope and dream but we recognize it's a long shot, hence why I have a career with a more guaranteed source of income.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Brian Scott Allen said:


> If all you want is financial success then sure making money is the only objective measure of success. But what if you want something else? If you want money and a work you can be proud of and your standards of quality exceed that of the average reader your definition of success is going to adjusted accordingly. If you want to change the way people think about a genre, that too requires a different definition of success.



And how do you change the way people think about a genre? In order to do that, first you have to *sell books*. To win awards, to have critical acclaim, to have the book made into a movie - first you have to sell books. Even if all you want is one review from a stranger who likes the book, first you have to sell a book to that reader. It doesn't matter how proud you might be of your book, or how high your standards of quality are, if no one's buying it, then what is the point of publishing it?

So at some very fundamental level, selling books (and therefore money) is a prerequisite for everything else.

I'm with you in not wanting to compromise over what I write. My books are written for me, first and foremost, and if readers like them (ie they sell), that's a bonus. I do my best to encourage people to buy them, by presenting them professionally and promoting them, but I could sell a lot more by channeling my stories into a narrower genre-straitjacket. But - yeah, that would be boring. And money isn't as much of a driver for me as it is for many others (I'm lucky in not having a day job I'd like to escape from). Even so, I measure my *success* in self-publishing (such as it is) by numbers of books sold and money earned.


----------



## Russ

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Also, I am not sure writing purely for the sake of some faceless reader is the best for the craft or best for an individual writer. I write primarily because I want to write things that are interesting to me. I want to be financially successful as a writer. But I _do not_ want to write what everyone else is writing. That is _boring_ for me. I want to do stuff that's different enough to get noticed, but similar enough to get people to read it. *I want to write novels that use property law* as a basis for its magic system. I want to write novels set in a world that _isn't_ your classic medieval setting. And dang it I want to write a story about magic terrorists and a kid trying not to be like that though by rights he should be. Writing the same old crap different day just doesn't sound appealing to me. May as well have fun, I have a regular job that'll be the same crap different day.



Lord Denning and choses-in-action FTW.

I would buy that.

On the larger question there are different strategies in all fields that lead to different types of "success" and different ways to create financial success.

I was going to talk about law, but thought that might be boring.  Think baseball.  If it suits you, you can be a patient hitter, hit a lot of singles and get a lot of walks.  Not spectacular, or probably not memorable.  Or, if it suits you, you can try to hit home runs, swing for the fences.  A riskier proposition, with more strike outs and some great  moments.  Writing, I think, is similar.  If you do either method really well, you can make good money.  There are plenty of examples of each.

But  most people can't remember who was on base when Carter hit his walk off home run to win the World Series in 1993 for Toronto.


----------



## BWFoster78

Brian,



> Explicitly defined? No, no one did that. But that is the implication in yours and others posts.



I don't know how I can be more clear than to say this:



> What qualities are most important for a writer to develop in order to achieve commercial success?



How much more defined do you want it than to say "commercial success?"  Does that term not explicitly say that we're talking about purely financial success?  If it doesn't, I don't know how to be more clear.



> I don't think any of us are coming at this with our eyes closed. In fact, most of us seem to be pretty pessimistic about our chances of being financial successes in writing. We hope and dream but we recognize it's a long shot, hence why I have a career with a more guaranteed source of income.



To be clear, I'm not pessimistic at all about my chances.  I think it's highly likely that, if I keep working hard, I'll be making a couple of thousand dollars a month writing.  I just really don't think that's a high bar to get over if one is willing to put in the effort.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Brian,

I read these pages over the course of a few hours so please forgive me if I forgot what the OP said. However, as I stated in my prior post I feel like the conversation had evolved beyond the original question presented and the posts implied that there is but one success, financial. If I missed my guess it's probably because I'm skeptical that financial success is likely, in large part because there are too many factors that depend on other peoples' choices. Of course this can be mitigated by higher production, but that in turn has its own costs. It could turn a labor of love into a chore. It could also tend to a person pumping out a bunch of just okay books. That again can be mitigated by ones own actions. So, perhaps I am just trying to be a counter so that our eyes can truly be open when we choose what path to take.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I read these pages over the course of a few hours so please forgive me if I forgot what the OP said. However, as I stated in my prior post I feel like the conversation had evolved beyond the original question presented and the posts implied that there is but one success, financial.



I understand, but I don't agree.  The conversation was clearly expressed from the beginning that we were discussing what was important to achieve financial success.  Therefore, it made sense that the conversation then centered on financial success.



> If I missed my guess it's probably because I'm skeptical that financial success is likely, in large part because there are too many factors that depend on other peoples' choices.



I reject this opinion in its entirety.  Vehemently.

(For clarity: Remember that I'm defining financial success as a relatively modest goal of consistently reaching a couple of thousand dollars a month.  I am not talking a Ferrari for each day of the week and Lamborghinis for the weekend.)

The fact is that there are a lot of people succeeding as indie writers.  The vast majority of people on this board have the ability to succeed as well.

There is no mystery to it.  Simply write a series of books, drop the price of the first one, and promote the heck out of it.  Everything is within your control.  If your writing is good enough and you've written something that people want to read and you put the books in front of readers, they will buy your book.

The only variables are: did you write well enough and did you write something that people want to read?

That doesn't depend on other people. That, imo, depends solely on you.



> It could turn a labor of love into a chore.



Making money from writing in the way that I describe is work.  You have to put your butt in a chair and put words on a page even when you'd rather be doing other things.

Ideally, one still finds enjoyment in the work, but it's work, not fun.



> So, perhaps I am just trying to be a counter so that our eyes can truly be open when we choose what path to take.



Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Your concerns are valid.


----------



## BWFoster78

To be completely clear about the purpose for me starting this thread: I am a newly self published writer who has a goal of making money with my writing. I wish to figure out what, from a writing standpoint, my focus should be to help me achieve this goal.

I do not think that I have any answers.  I am merely in the process of thinking through my options.  If my initial thoughts on the subject are incorrect, I'm open to being proved wrong.

I am finding this process very useful, and I hope others who are in a similar situation feel the same way.  An example of the usefulness - this thought came to me today:

The strategy I'm following to achieve financial success involves writing a series.  I think that, psychologically, people are inclined to buy the next book in a series because they're driven to find out how the story ends.  The strategy takes advantage of this characteristic.

When talking about quality, then, the minimum level (when pursuing this strategy) has to be: My writing has to be good enough to compel some percentage of readers to buy the remaining books in the series.

If one isn't pursuing this strategy, the minimum level has to be: One's writing has to be good enough to compel some percentage of readers to buy all your other non-series books. (Or, even harder, to be so good that you attract massive quantities of readers to your limited catalog of books)

That's a much harder bar to achieve.  Truthfully, I'm just not at that second level yet.  I think I've reached the first level (Time and sales data will tell  In the meantime, I have this from someone on this board - "My assessment is that 'Mages' is good, probably on a par with some of the print fantasy novels in the stores, but could be better."  I think that assessment is fair.)

Obviously, the ability to compel readers to buy all your books, not just the ones in a series, is a game changer.  How long does it take to reach that level? How does one reach that level?

I don't know.  All I do know is that I've been working hard at learning to write for four and a half years, and I'm not there yet.  So I'll continue to be open to improving my quality, but honestly, I don't think that should be my priority.


----------



## FifthView

Turning back to the OP is a good idea.  I think that, yes, commercial success was the focus; but, no, the four items listed are not as stringent or extreme as many of the following comments would indicate.

*On Craft*



BWFoster78 said:


> Bottom line: A minimum level of competence is required to keep readers turning pages, but that level is much lower than my personal taste requires.



So far in this thread, no one has established what that minimum level _is_.  I don't know that we can establish it.  But this statement seems accurate to me.

I would note that _craft_ can apply to various aspects of storytelling–pacing, plotting, character development–as well as syntax, grammar, word choice (vividness, showing vs telling vs showing-and-telling, reading level), etc.

I agree with Brian Scott Allen and T.Allen.Smith who have said that although many readers may not be able to pinpoint precisely where a work of fiction fails in craft, a problematic work can reach a critical mass affecting enjoyment negatively.  But this issue relates to the "minimum level of competence."

Also, I think that merely keeping readers turning pages should be considered a sign of competent craft.  The issue is:  What is the minimum level of craftsmanship?  I am sure that level falls well below what _our_ top favorite authors do.

As a guideline for new authors who want to become commercially successful, this #1 is good in the "don't sweat the small stuff" way.  For one thing, ignoring conscientious crafting altogether isn't going to reach that vague "minimum level."  _Check._  For another, most of us will naturally improve in our craft, however incrementally, the more we write, particularly as we experience our own try-fail cycles in the marketplace. (Or even merely as a response to our own inner critics.  But also:  Don't sweat the small stuff.)


*On Focusing on the Reader*

Focusing on the reader is actually very old advice, depending on how you view the topic. Isn't craft intimately related to an ability to write for the reader's enjoyment?  For instance, knowing when/how to foreshadow, or use a cliff hanger, or create an interesting and sympathy-producing character?  Is this a paradox when considering the advice in #1 above?

The controversial part:



> It seems like there’s a lot of advice out there to write what you’re passionate about.  Three issues: 1) if your passion is a really small niche, you’re probably not going to sell a lot of books just because the pool of buyers is too small and 2) just because you’re passionate about a subject, does not make your writing/story good and 3) just because you don’t have passion about a subject doesn’t mean the writing/story is going to be bad.



2 & 3 seem to say that an author's passion is irrelevant.  1 warns that passion might be relevant–in fact, a detriment!

These are odd, given this statement not long after:



> My contention is that I’m already interested in my story.



I suppose we could try distinguishing between mere interest and strong passion; but, I don't think that's necessary.  The more significant guideline is what follows:



> Therefore, my words don’t have to do the work of creating interest [for me, i.e. for the author.] When a reader picks up my story, however, all they have are my words to create that interest.



Note that many of the discussions following the OP have focused on the idea that "focusing on the reader" means writing in a popular subgenre in a common way with common tropes...i.e., deciding what to write on the basis of the kinds of things that are already selling.

But here, the OP is clear:  "all they have are my words to create that interest."  In other words, an author's words can create interest for the reader in whatever is written, rather than first finding an existing interest and choosing to write to that.

More importantly, here there is a recognition that an author's passion/interest preexists regardless of the text he is going to write.  The job of prose is to interest the reader. 

Based on much of the discussion that follows the OP, I am guessing that the intent behind this guideline may well have been to say:  Find the readers' preexisting interest, and write to that.  Even in this case, the job of prose is to successfully fulfill those readers' expectations.

This guideline might work in tandem with the first, on craft, in this way:


Fulfilling the expectations of a preexisting reader interest may be the best course of action if one wants to focus less on craft (while still using minimally competent craftsmanship)
Interesting a reader in your personal passion may require a much higher level of craftsmanship–_if_, that is, your passion is particularly odd or a-typical.  But succeeding in this way is riskier, even assuming that you have a very high level of craftsmanship.

But in tandem, the two pieces of advice seem crafted to serve as an "out" for those who feel they haven't reached the level of craftsmanship they would like to achieve, or who don't have the time to hone their craft to that level. ("Sell soon, sell often.")  Or, for those who doubt their passionate interests will ever be shared by a large number of readers.

My personal opinion on this matter:  As long as readers are pleased, and an author is happy, why should I care which route another author takes?

Also:  These are not stark dichotomies.  With adequate craft, one can "write to reader interest" while also inserting creative flourishes or modifying the standard formulae according to one's own passions.

Whatever is done, your prose must interest readers if you want to be commercially successful.


*On Story*

Readers read novels for the stories.  However the actual prose might improve or hinder reader enjoyment, the point is still the same:  story is king.



> It seems to me that a key to long term success is figuring out how to write stories that compel your readers to search out the rest of your library.



"Figuring out how to write stories that compel your readers" –Again, this is craft-related and related to creating interest for your reader.  I'm not sure this guideline is much more that the first and second, above, combined.

When considered in tandem with the above guidelines, the question here seems to be in whether you first seek out a specific, preexisting _demand_ and then create a supply; or, seek to create a demand via your craftsmanship without worrying overmuch about preexisting demand.

I personally believe that some consideration of preexisting demand is necessary, if only because considering one's audience seems an integral, almost instinctive step for me in the writing process.  Merely looking at the words on my page often induces that "internal critic" which, let's be honest, might have its roots in my understanding that there will be external critics.

I believe this guideline, if it's to be considered useful beyond merely being a reiteration of the first two, should point toward a consideration of the whole work rather than just the individual parts of the work.  Craft's purpose is to create a story, after all, and not merely to be minimally adequate or particularly....crafty.


*On Writing a Lot*



> I think the chances of any one book making you gazillions of dollars is slim, but if you have enough books on the market, the combined sales can make you decent money. Additionally, each book you put out is another opportunity to find members of your core audience, especially since Amazon more heavily promotes new releases.



This seems a truism.  Diversification of one sort or another can be a very good strategy.  Or, not putting all of one's eggs in a single basket.  Hedging bets, and all that.

I think there might be something of a continuum for the strategy.  Let's suppose you shoot for and succeed in writing three novels a year that sell adequately but not as well as you'd like.  Do you try for a fourth novel in your third year?  But then, what happens if one of your novels in your second year absolutely blows up the market and you get a movie deal; would you then focus on your dream project and not worry about putting out a novel for a year or two?  Of course, that would be one of those ideal situations, the sort you don't want to rely on financially. 

Also, if one isn't concerned with earning a living writing exclusively, _now_,  then 15 books on the market after 15 years (one per year) could end up being adequate by that 15th year, especially if you can keep putting out a new book each year.

There does seem to be a conveyor-belt automation assumption associated with the idea of mass producing books in the hopes that small sales figures for each book can multiply overall earnings to a desired level.   Also:  a bit of pessimism which I don't particularly like–even if, I will stress, it's realistic.  But if it works, it works.


----------



## skip.knox

BWFoster said
>On the other hand, it's hard to get a handle on exactly what "quality" means,

Robert Pirsig wrote a whole book on this very topic. Spoiler alert: it drove him crazy.
(love that book)


----------



## skip.knox

BWFoster78 said:


> I understand. Despite my long, tightly held beliefs on the subject, I can't find any evidence that points to "quality" being a requisite to success in self publishing.



OTOH, there is some evidence, I think, for quality being a criterion for longevity. Longevity is here defined as "making sales even after I'm dead."


----------



## skip.knox

>For me, the main criterion is that my readers enjoyed it.

I think you are dodging an important question here, BW. (I hope it's okay to call you BW)

*How many* readers?

That is, if two readers enjoy your writing, is that success? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing that you mean, at the very least, enough readers to cover my costs of publishing. Or, more ambitiously, enough readers to let me quit my day job. But more than two.

So, how many readers do you require to make it a success? I think this is an important question because it may affect your consideration of "what my readers want".


----------



## skip.knox

Russ makes a valuable point. While it may be difficult to quantify the importance of high quality, it's pretty indisputable that *low* quality matters. Specifically, a crappy cover, badly-written summary, and lousy copyediting in the e thfreely-readable first 10% (or whatever) of the book will cause me not to buy. Every time.

I'm finding this is a reliable rule everywhere in the writing business. Few can say what to do, but nearly everyone can say what *not* to do. Maybe that's true in other fields as well, but it's awfully frustrating.

But I also want to echo Russ' comments about subjectivity. Numbers are overrated. Just because you can quantify something doesn't mean it's important or that you've understood it. In fact, my personal mantra is that only the trivial can be quantified. Which is pretty much what Russ said.


----------



## skip.knox

>It's hard to judge the quality a reader demands by the standards of a writer. 

70% of everything, sayeth the sage, is crap.


----------



## skip.knox

Here's my question, BW:  if commercial success is the only consideration, why are you writing fantasy? If you want to write what the readers want, why pick this niche?


----------



## BWFoster78

skip.knox said:


> >For me, the main criterion is that my readers enjoyed it.
> 
> I think you are dodging an important question here, BW. (I hope it's okay to call you BW)
> 
> *How many* readers?
> 
> That is, if two readers enjoy your writing, is that success? I'm guessing not. I'm guessing that you mean, at the very least, enough readers to cover my costs of publishing. Or, more ambitiously, enough readers to let me quit my day job. But more than two.
> 
> So, how many readers do you require to make it a success? I think this is an important question because it may affect your consideration of "what my readers want".



Obviously from the context, enough readers to achieve what I've defined as commercial success - consistently hitting a couple of thousand dollars a month.

A. I don't understand how something so obviously answered via context could be considered "dodging."
B. I'm not sure how that impacts what my readers want.


----------



## BWFoster78

> While it may be difficult to quantify the importance of high quality, it's pretty indisputable that *low* quality matters. Specifically, a crappy cover, badly-written summary, and lousy copyediting in the e thfreely-readable first 10% (or whatever) of the book will cause me not to buy. Every time.



I think that quality of the pitch and cover is ridiculously important, much more so than I ever would have thought or believed until very recently.  I've really left out those considerations in this thread because this is the "Writing Questions" forum, and the importance of pitch and covers seems to venture too far into the publishing and marketing areas.

Here's the thing, though: Go find some posts of people whose books are selling well.  Read the samples.  There is no way in heck I would ever buy most of those books.  IMO, they're dreadfully written.  Yet, they're selling.

Let me repeat that.

To my best ability to judge from a brief sample, these books are horribly written. Yet they're selling.

Horrible writing. Selling.

Even if you wouldn't buy any of these books and Russ wouldn't buy any of these books and I wouldn't buy any of these books, readers are buying these books.

How can I draw any other conclusion for this data than that quality isn't nearly as important as I thought it was.

Simply put, it does not appear that one has to approach the quality level demanded by Big 5 Publishers in order to get readers to buy a book.

If I had to make a guess based on what sounds logical to me, I'd say that sales go up as quality increases.  If you were to come up with a curve showing that, however, and superimposed that curve onto a graph containing the learning curve, I think that you'd find that spending huge amounts of time and effort to improve quality would not be your most efficient way to improve profits.


----------



## BWFoster78

skip.knox said:


> Here's my question, BW:  if commercial success is the only consideration, why are you writing fantasy? If you want to write what the readers want, why pick this niche?



Fantasy is actually considered a pretty darn good niche for people who want to self publish, not on the level of Romance, but still pretty darn good.

I'm dabbling a little bit in the fantasy romance market, but honestly, I think I have a much greater understanding of what the fantasy reader wants than I do the romance reader.

Additionally, most advice on the subject of pleasing readers is to find the intersection between what you want to write and what the readers want to read.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> Simply put, it does not appear that one has to approach the quality level demanded by Big 5 Publishers in order to get readers to buy a book.
> 
> If I had to make a guess based on what sounds logical to me, I'd say that sales go up as quality increases.  If you were to come up with a curve showing that, however, and superimposed that curve onto a graph containing the learning curve, I think that you'd find that spending huge amounts of time and effort to improve quality would not be your most efficient way to improve profits.



I don't think there is any doubt about your first statement.  But your speaking of curves has me wondering.  I wonder if there is a ceiling or threshold beyond which poorly written books are highly unlikely to rise.  Does it effectively cap your top end and consign one to the low middle?  It strikes me much more likely for a better written book, or number of books, to produce a breakthrough for one's writing career than ones written of lower quality.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

FifthView said:


> There does seem to be a conveyor-belt automation assumption associated with the idea of mass producing books in the hopes that small sales figures for each book can multiply overall earnings to a desired level.



{Sorry to cherry-pick such a small part of your excellent post, but I just want to add a tiny comment here}

What I have found in my short time self-publishing is that the amplification factor for additional books is not linear. In other words, whatever a single book earns, a second book more than doubles it, a third book more than triples it. Here are my numbers so far:

1 book: $2/day
2 books: $20/day
3 books: $45/day

The 4th book is only just out, so it's too soon to tell, but I'd expect another jump in income. The reason is that each new book pulls in new readers who then go off and find all your other books. They feed off each other, in other words. This presupposes some connection between books. If each one is a different genre, this probably won't work, but it's why series are so successful. In my own case, they are loosely linked stand-alones.

Bottom line: additional books multiply earnings more than you might expect.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> I wonder if there is a ceiling or threshold beyond which poorly written books are highly unlikely to rise.  Does it effectively cap your top end and consign one to the low middle?  It strikes me much more likely for a better written book, or number of books, to produce a breakthrough for one's writing career than ones written of lower quality.



I really don't know. At this point, I'm mentally disregarding the concept of a breakthrough (which I'm defining as Harry Potter/Twilight etc. level success).  While I think an author can improve his chances of such success, I don't think that any action one can take makes the likelihood of attainment high enough to base career decisions on.


----------



## Russ

I don't think you should quit your day job based on writing quite yet, but I don't see the harm in swinging for the fences from time to time.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> I don't think you should quit your day job based on writing quite yet, but I don't see the harm in swinging for the fences from time to time.



If a breakthrough happens, that's great, but it's not something to base strategic decisions on.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> If a breakthrough happens, that's great, but it's not something to base strategic decisions on.



I disagree with you.  Assuming you have the capacity to produce more ambitious work, it makes sense to do it occasionally.  

Think of it like an investment portfolio.  You can have a bunch of regular well producing but unspectacular stocks (widows and orphans stocks), and then a few high risk/high reward gambles.  As long as you can stomach and afford the risk there is no reason not to have a crack now and again.  In this project your downside is probably less than in stock investing.

I do it my business all the time and it works very well for me.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Assuming you have the capacity to produce more ambitious work, it makes sense to do it occasionally.



Maybe this is where you and I are having a miscommunication.

Each work that I've put out so far (and that I intend to put out in the foreseeable future) is the best that I can do at the time of publication (within reason - I can always do another draft and another draft and another draft).

The way I'm viewing the question is, "Should I devote more time and effort to improving quality in lieu of focusing on some other factor?"

The answer I've come up with is, "Nope."  My quality will improve naturally with experience, but I'm not going to devote much effort, at this point, into trying to improve unless something happens to make me think it's a good idea to do so.


----------



## Russ

Well, if the work you are putting out is the best you are able to do at the time, and you are using all of your time available to produce it, and it is of such quality having it associated with your name down the road won't hurt you...than I don't see it being a hard decision at all.

If your work is at that level that I don't think stopping to practice etc makes sense other than to  perhaps take some courses or go to events that don't slow you down much.

One way to enhance quality on a more ambitious work though is to hire better quality editors or artists etc.

But I am getting ahead of myself.  My wife is off to Bouchercon next week and I hope to read your book while she is away.  Will be able to give you a much better informed opinion after reading it than I can now.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Well, if the work you are putting out is the best you are able to do at the time, and you are using all of your time available to produce it, and it is of such quality having it associated with your name down the road won't hurt you...than I don't see it being a hard decision at all.



Part of the point of this thread was, "What do I concentrate on now?"

Time and money are limited resources.  Should I work on improving the quality of my work or on gaining a better understanding of marketing?  Is it better to spend money on a better editor or on a better artist?  



> Will be able to give you a much better informed opinion after reading it than I can now.



I look forward to it!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

BWFoster78 said:


> Time and money are limited resources.  Should I work on improving the quality of my work or on gaining a better understanding of marketing?  Is it better to spend money on a better editor or on a better artist?


I agree that there is a law of diminishing returns which, may not need to be followed, but at least acknowledged. Your goals will dictate the best choice.

However, there are other concerns regarding craft development that _might_ come into play. For example, sometime in the near future and after a self-publication or two, I want to write a book with an unreliable narrator. 

There's a lot I don't know about writing that type of narrator. I've never done it myself, but I enjoy reading them a great deal. There's going to be study and practice involved before I try my hand at a novel-length work with an unreliable narrator. However, with that as a future goal, I believe that time spent learning another element of craft will be time well spent.


----------



## skip.knox

There may be other factors in play when you look at successful writers who write crap (as defined by us). We don't see, though it may be possible to find out, how much time they've put in on marketing, for example. They may have hit a sweet spot in the epublishing convulsions (as Hugh Howey did). IOW, there may be other things to look at besides just the quality of the writing, good or bad.

But there are plenty of books out there on exactly this topic, written by people with more direct experience than many of us. These books are aimed exactly at the question of achieving commercial success without regard to quality.


----------



## Russ

> Time and money are limited resources.  Should I work on improving the quality of my work or on gaining a better understanding of marketing?  Is it better to spend money on a better editor or on a better artist?



While they are limited resources it is not a zero sum game.  As to your first question I think time is an important component and how long term your planning is.  I suspect marketing for indy authors is a moving target to a large degree and will be very different five years from now than it is now.  Quality I think has more permanence.  I would regard on as a long term "foundational" investment, and the other as more of a current operation that needs to be updated or changed more often.  So I think  you could probably get yourself up to a sufficient level in marketing skills in the current situation and then have time to work on quality.  It also depends on the time frames of your work.  I would think you could concentrate on quality until perhaps near the end of writing the next novel and then turn to marketing skills for the appropriate period before the next book is ready to launch.

I don't have data to back it up, but I have seen amazing work done by top notch editors.  Just amazing.  Also the lessons you learn from them can stretch over a career, a cover is a one book improvement and needs repeating.  Infrastructure and consumables.  



> I look forward to it!



So do I!


----------



## FifthView

PaulineMRoss said:


> {Sorry to cherry-pick such a small part of your excellent post, but I just want to add a tiny comment here}
> 
> What I have found in my short time self-publishing is that the amplification factor for additional books is not linear. In other words, whatever a single book earns, a second book more than doubles it, a third book more than triples it



Thanks for that info!  My conveyor belt metaphor was targeted more toward the idea of pushing out lots of books _quickly_, combined with the idea that doing so would automatically lead to reaching a desired level of profitability even  without as much consideration for other factors.

I do wonder whether the jump in income with succeeding books will be different if those books appear once a year, once every two years, or once every few months.  I.e., would keeping the expectations fresh and freshly met, through multiple books in a single year, have more chance of causing that jump than having a longer delay between releases?

I suspect that quality will play a role in answering that question.  I know that I will buy any new _Farseer_ book released, regardless of whether there is a year gap or more.  But even with enjoyable series, if the delay is too long, I sometimes never finish them.



> This presupposes some connection between books. If each one is a different genre, this probably won't work, but it's why series are so successful.



From time to time, I read reviews on Amazon that are negative for succeeding books in an indie series.  To paraphrase them:  "I really loved the first book, but the quality dropped a lot for each of the next two."  I've only experienced this once myself.  Despite its flaws, I enjoyed one book that had been publicized as having been written in one month during  NaNoWriMo (which will go unnamed here), so I bought the second.  It sucked, bad.  Really, really bad.  So I didn't buy the third in the series.  _But_, I did buy that second book.  So I wonder if maybe a particular focus on the quality of the first book in a planned series is good strategy, even if following books don't receive the same kind of focus.  [I mean, more time.  But good quality for each book would obviously be ideal.]


----------



## BWFoster78

> "I really loved the first book, but the quality dropped a lot for each of the next two."



An author has a big choice to make regarding structure. Do you repeat the structure of the first book and make the series feel episodic? That has the appeal of giving readers what they expect from reading the first book, but quite frankly, it seems like episodic is out of fashion. If you don't repeat the structure, however, it means you have to come up with something new.  There are resources to help with this but I don't think writing a sequel is quite as easy story structure wise as writing the first book.

Or at least, that's what I'm experiencing as I outline my sequel.

Regarding writing my second novel, though (it's the start of a new series in a different subgenre), I really think that, though written a lot faster than Rise, the quality will still be there.  Again, the trick to writing fast is to find ways to make your process more efficient and to put more time in with your butt in the chair. Speaking of which ...


----------



## Chessie

BWFoster78 said:


> Again, the trick to writing fast is to find ways to make your process more efficient and to put more time in with your butt in the chair. Speaking of which ...


Outlining has made this possible for me. I used to hate it, but when looking at what allowed many Indies to write fast I discovered that outlining was part of that process. I've been writing for years but only in the past one have I taken up this feat. Several how-to-outline books have helped me come up with a personal system. Without it, I wouldn't be able to be an efficient writer. My novella drafts take 7-10 days now instead of months.

I recommend outlining to any writer that wants to be faster. Hitting target word counts in the thousands is easier when you have a plan. And despite popular opinion, outlining doesn't suck out the creativity from writing. It makes me really freaking excited to dive into that prose.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I recommend outlining to any writer that wants to be faster.



I considered myself a pantser at first and really resisted this advice.  I've since changed my tune.  It does make the process more efficient.

I notice that my process is really starting to clarify for me as I work my way through finishing my second full novel:

Outline
1st Draft - Get words on page with no regard for anything other than getting words on the page
2nd Draft - Clean up and major rewrite of first draft to clarify, make it readable, and enhance conflict.
3rd Draft - Very fast run through for readability.
Send out for Developmental Beta Reading
4th Draft - Major rewrite to add character depth and enhance conflict
5th Draft - Fairly fast run through to tighten prose
Copy Editing
Pick up copy editor Comments
Proof
Publish


----------



## BWFoster78

ayeshazulfiqar said:


> Try to write different from others. Use unique words in your content.



I completely fail to understand why this writing trait would offer any kind of advantage.


----------



## spectre

Originality in at least your spin
Craft like you said
Making real characters that aren't just decorations in the environment
Establiishing any and all amounts of emotional rapport with readers
Diligence to the task


----------



## BWFoster78

> Originality in at least your spin



I disagree.  If you're swinging for the fences, maybe this is a good thing, but even then, I'm not sure.  Most readers seem to want the familiar, not the original.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> I disagree.  If you're swinging for the fences, maybe this is a good thing, but even then, I'm not sure.  Most readers seem to want the familiar, not the original.



I disagree. I think most readers want a blend of the familiar and the original. The question isn't "Should I be original or stick with the familiar?" It's "To what degree should I mix the original and the familiar."


----------



## BWFoster78

Brian Scott Allen said:


> I disagree. I think most readers want a blend of the familiar and the original. The question isn't "Should I be original or stick with the familiar?" It's "To what degree should I mix the original and the familiar."



I don't think that readers want a straight up rewrite of another book, but they want familiar characters who follow a familiar path to a familiar conclusion.

Since I'm pretty new at self publishing, most of my thoughts on the business are based purely on supposition and on what I've read others say.  From my own recent experience, however, I'm learning that the key to success is meeting reader expectations.  Those expectations are based on all the other books they've read in the genre, and the more you deviate from those expectations, the more readers you turn off.

If you want to be successful, I really believe that you absolutely have to consider what your readers' expectations are and how your book measures up to those expectations.  If your "originality" deviates too much from the expected, I really feel that it's going to hurt you.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't think that readers want a straight up rewrite of another book, but they want familiar characters who follow a familiar path to a familiar conclusion.
> 
> Since I'm pretty new at self publishing, most of my thoughts on the business are based purely on supposition and on what I've read others say.  From my own recent experience, however, I'm learning that the key to success is meeting reader expectations.  Those expectations are based on all the other books they've read in the genre, and the more you deviate from those expectations, the more readers you turn off.
> 
> If you want to be successful, I really believe that you absolutely have to consider what your readers' expectations are and how your book measures up to those expectations.  If your "originality" deviates too much from the expected, I really feel that it's going to hurt you.



But doesn't an author shape those expectations? Sure, coming into a book an author has to deal with preconceived expectations, but, at the outset an author is also making an agreement with the reader and setting up other expectations. So, while an author has to work with some base assumptions, the author can also shape those base assumptions. This happens by blending the familiar expectations with original elements that have a certain nexus to those expectations. If done well the reader will barely notice the change. This is a matter of execution, not of whether or not it should be done.


----------



## Mythopoet

Different readers want different things. It's a huge pet peeve of mine whenever people start generalizing about what "readers want" as if readers were some kind of hive mind. Readers are all unique individuals! Every reader wants something subtly different from every other reader. Hence why there are so many kinds of books. 

An author has to chose whether their objective falls closer to "pleasing the most possible readers and thus making the most possible money", in which case you want to study the market and try to make your work conform to reader expectations and desires as much as possible, or whether their objective comes closer to "offering a specific narrative experience that I personally resonate with and hope that enough readers will also resonate with it enough to let me make a living at this thing", in which case you want to write to your authorly vision and offer that vision to those readers it will appeal to. How you approach your writing and readers is as varied as how readers approach books, that is unique to each writer.


----------



## FifthView

Originality often exists in a new blending of the familiar.  I believe readers do, without exception, want something "new."  But that newness might simply be in the mix—and, not every aspect of the mix, at that.*

*Edit:  Also, I think that that newness is subjective:  new for _them_. It doesn't have to be something that's absolutely new to the world of fiction.


----------



## BWFoster78

> But doesn't an author shape those expectations? Sure, coming into a book an author has to deal with preconceived expectations, but, at the outset an author is also making an agreement with the reader and setting up other expectations.



We're talking different types of expectations here.

An author shapes expectations for how a story is going to turn out within the story itself, but that doesn't account for the overall genre expectations.

Let's take the most important genre expectation that I've read about as an example. Romance readers absolutely demand a happily ever after (HEA) or happily for now (HFN) ending.  This expectation is so deeply ingrained that a lot of readers do not consider a book a romance if the HEA or HFN is not present.

No matter what expectations you create as an author within the story, it is my belief that you will not commercially succeed with a book marketed as a romance that does not have a HEA/HFN ending.

Genre expectations for fantasy subgenres (actually just about any other subgenre at all) are much looser and varied, but I think the same guiding principle applies.


----------



## BWFoster78

Mythopoet said:


> Different readers want different things. It's a huge pet peeve of mine whenever people start generalizing about what "readers want" as if readers were some kind of hive mind. Readers are all unique individuals! Every reader wants something subtly different from every other reader. Hence why there are so many kinds of books.
> 
> An author has to chose whether their objective falls closer to "pleasing the most possible readers and thus making the most possible money", in which case you want to study the market and try to make your work conform to reader expectations and desires as much as possible, or whether their objective comes closer to "offering a specific narrative experience that I personally resonate with and hope that enough readers will also resonate with it enough to let me make a living at this thing", in which case you want to write to your authorly vision and offer that vision to those readers it will appeal to. How you approach your writing and readers is as varied as how readers approach books, that is unique to each writer.



I can buy your overall premise here, but I thought, contextually, the topic of conversation was, "What writing factors are most important to financial success?"

I interpreted the tone of your response to be, "Don't tell authors how to write.  It's okay for a writer to want to write what they want."

Again, no one is saying that that isn't okay.  I'm simply debating that, from the perspective of trying to make the most money possible, you'll please more readers (and thus sell more books) by conforming to expectations instead of achieving originality.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> Let's take the most important genre expectation that I've read about as an example. Romance readers absolutely demand a happily ever after (HEA) or happily for now (HFN) ending.  This expectation is so deeply ingrained that a lot of readers do not consider a book a romance if the HEA or HFN is not present.
> 
> No matter what expectations you create as an author within the story, it is my belief that you will not commercially succeed with a book marketed as a romance that does not have a HEA/HFN ending.
> 
> Genre expectations for fantasy subgenres (actually just about any other subgenre at all) are much looser and varied, but I think the same guiding principle applies.



But this isn't a function of writing it is a function of marketing. This is still the "contract" you are making with the readers. You're saying this is romance, which means they have Y-expectations. Then you fail to perform and the readers get upset. But if you say this is a tragic romance and make it clear through your marketing the readers will expect it and accept it. Sure you will alienate some but you might also bring in some others. 

Look, I could write a novel that has a magic attorney and he gets whisked away on an adventure and uses his lawyering skills to his advantage. That is blending new and familiar. I think readers would read it, if it was "good." That's the key though. The story has to be "good." It has to resonate in someway with the reader(s). It's up to the author to market it post hoc. But at the outset the author should just write the best story they come up with and think about genre and marketing _after_.


----------



## Heliotrope

I agree Brian Scott Allan. First and foremost, a story has to make a reader think "Oh…. this is cool. I've never seen this before…" and then settle in for the ten hours it takes to read it. 

This makes me think of Donald Maass thoughts on 'story tellers vs. status seekers…" 

Perhaps worth a read? 

Novel Matters: Storyteller or Status Seeker?


----------



## Mythopoet

BWFoster78 said:


> I can buy your overall premise here, but I thought, contextually, the topic of conversation was, "What writing factors are most important to financial success?"
> 
> I interpreted the tone of your response to be, "Don't tell authors how to write.  It's okay for a writer to want to write what they want."
> 
> Again, no one is saying that that isn't okay.  I'm simply debating that, from the perspective of trying to make the most money possible, you'll please more readers (and thus sell more books) by conforming to expectations instead of achieving originality.



I wrote that post after reading the most recent posts. I haven't read the whole thread. I think my tone is more "don't think that all readers are the same and that their desires are predictable or easy to understand". No one knows what is going to be big with readers. No one. No one knew that the reading public was waiting for 50 Shades of Grey or Harry Potter or LOTR or any number of books that became bestsellers. But they hit some note that resonates with tons of people. You can't plan that or formulate for that. 

Story telling is far too subjective a business. What is "the most money possible" anyway? How do we decide what that is? Do we look at the highest earning author at this time? Do we try to calculate the number of regular readers in the world so that we can figure out how much a book would earn if they all bought it? Do all factors involved in storytelling have to become subservient to the bottom line? So that you would decide genre, MC gender, plot elements, etc. all for the sake of reaching the max amount of readers possible? Honestly, I think this is all a bit silly. The likelihood of any author even approaching "the most money possible" is so vanishingly small as to be negligible. I don't think it's really helpful to even think about it.

Anyway, I don't think most writers approach this business with the goal of "making the most money possible". Most probably just hope to earn their living through their writing and if major success comes, that's a bonus.


----------



## BWFoster78

> But this isn't a function of writing it is a function of marketing. This is still the "contract" you are making with the readers. You're saying this is romance, which means they have Y-expectations. Then you fail to perform and the readers get upset. But if you say this is a tragic romance and make it clear through your marketing the readers will expect it and accept it. Sure you will alienate some but you might also bring in some others.



I don't follow your logic.

In the context of why it's important to meet reader expectations in order to sell books, I say, "If you want to sell a romance, you have to meet these expectations."

You say, "Then don't sell it as a romance. Sell it as a tragedy."

In that case, I still think it's important to meet the expectations of readers for a tragedy.  The genre we use as an example doesn't have any meaning; I just thought this is a good one to discuss to illustrate the point because Romance has the strongest genre expectation of any genre - one that I don't think any reasonable person would argue is a valid expectation that cannot be broken.

So basically, I don't see how the quoted paragraph is even tangentially related to the point that I made. It's intuitively obvious that genre expectations are set by the genre that the book is marketed in. That does not address my assertion that meeting the genre expectations of whatever genre you're selling in gives you the best chance of becoming a commercial success.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mythopoet said:


> I wrote that post after reading the most recent posts. I haven't read the whole thread. I think my tone is more "don't think that all readers are the same and that their desires are predictable or easy to understand". No one knows what is going to be big with readers. No one. No one knew that the reading public was waiting for 50 Shades of Grey or Harry Potter or LOTR or any number of books that became bestsellers. But they hit some note that resonates with tons of people. You can't plan that or formulate for that.
> 
> Story telling is far too subjective a business. What is "the most money possible" anyway? How do we decide what that is? Do we look at the highest earning author at this time? Do we try to calculate the number of regular readers in the world so that we can figure out how much a book would earn if they all bought it? Do all factors involved in storytelling have to become subservient to the bottom line? So that you would decide genre, MC gender, plot elements, etc. all for the sake of reaching the max amount of readers possible? Honestly, I think this is all a bit silly.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think most writers approach this business with the goal of "making the most money possible". Most probably just hope to earn their living through their writing and if major success comes, that's a bonus.



I think Brian mis-wrote. I don't think he is searching for the most money possible, but the most money probable. He's playing for the base-hits rather than the home runs. Home runs are the approach you mentioned and the one I am pursuing.


----------



## BWFoster78

> No one knew that the reading public was waiting for 50 Shades of Grey or Harry Potter or LOTR or any number of books that became bestsellers. But they hit some note that resonates with tons of people. You can't plan that or formulate for that.



Regarding success on the level your three examples reached, we're in complete agreement.  My contention is that those examples are outliers and that basing any kind of business plan on achieving that level of success is akin to eschewing a 401(k) so you can invest more in lottery tickets.



> I think my tone is more "don't think that all readers are the same and that their desires are predictable or easy to understand". No one knows what is going to be big with readers. No one.



Here's where I definitively disagree with you.  Kboards is filled with posts where a successful self-published author says, "My first books gained no traction. Then, I did a detailed study of the bestsellers in my genre.  I wrote a series based on those genre expectations.  Now, I'm making money hand over fist."

I am being completely honest in the paragraph above.  Admittedly, I have no independent verification that these people are telling the truth or that they are correctly attributing the reason for their success.  There are, however, a lot of examples of people, however, who are making the contention that they used bestsellers to determine what readers want and became successful by using that information as a basis for their books.



> What is "the most money possible" anyway?



Where did that quote even come from?  It really seems like you're saying, "I haven't read the thread, but I'm going to make the assumption that you're making this ridiculous claim."

If you had read the thread, I think you'd find that no one made the claim that you're going on about.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I think Brian mis-wrote. I don't think he is searching for the most money possible,



Actually, I really don't think I ever wrote that at all.  Contextually, it's absolutely clear that what you said is what I'm talking about.


----------



## Steerpike

I think the curve looks a little different than you guys do.

I think if you go with a very unusual, out of the ordinary story, you're going to have a harder time finding a market. If you go entirely with expectations and pander to whatever you think the largest percentage of readers want, you're going to have a better chance of making a modest amount of money over a relatively short span of time. On the other hand, if you do something unique or different, and its done really well, and you break out, that's where you're going to really see not only the financial payoff but the longevity. 

Look at something like The Martian. That's quite a bit different than most of what is out there in SF. A lot of classic fantasy series that have done very well over a long period of time were original at the time they came out (though they don't look it now because there have been so many imitators).


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't follow your logic.



Genre is fluid. Sure some books are clear one way or another, but not all. Your example of romance without a happy ending is an example of a genre fluid book. So, the author has a choice after the work is written how to market it an in what genre. So, if the author chooses romance the author will probably fail. If the author chooses to market it as a romantic tragedy the author will probably succeed. Why? Because the author shaped the reader's expectations with the marketing. So, unless you plan on writing every work in a way that is stereotypical fantasy, yes you will have to conform to the expectations of the reader. But if you want to write something different you can shape the expectations through the marketing and say yes I have these fantasy elements so it could be a fantasy, but I also have these elements of a modern political thriller so you should expect those too. Then the reader will be able to expect both and be satisfied by both. 

I'm saying, and I think you misstated my point, that the author shapes the expectations for the book, both in terms of the promises within the book and the genre expectations. I say this is possible because genre can be and is fluid. Which means the author during marketing can define the genre, thereby defining reader expectations.


----------



## BWFoster78

> If you go entirely with expectations and pander to whatever you think the largest percentage of readers want, you're going to have a better chance of making a modest amount of money over a relatively short span of time.



I think that "modest" in this context is in comparison to JK Rowling.  I think a good author who works hard, nails the market, and makes smart marketing decisions can reach the 5 figures a month income level relatively consistently.

When you say "a relatively short span of time," I think each book generates large amounts of income for only a relatively short time span.  The "work hard" part comes in the fact that this strategy depends on releasing book after book after book.  The people who are making the most money are putting out 12 books a year (or more!).



> On the other hand, if you do something unique or different, and its done really well, and you break out, that's where you're going to really see not only the financial payoff but the longevity.



I do not dispute that something original done well carries the potential for a big payday.  I think the opposite approach is simply more a sure thing due to the fact that marketing unique is harder than marketing something that meets expectations in the same way as existing books. 



> Look at something like The Martian. That's quite a bit different than most of what is out there in SF.



The Martian followed a completely different path to the top.  The author used his writing to develop a following on his blog over the course of a decade.  When he finally published, there was such a demand for his work, that the novel shot to the top of Amazon's charts.

If one can figure out how to build that audience, it's a fantastic way to achieve success.  Personally, I have no idea how to, nor the patience to, gather the type of following that he did.

In the end, I think that's my biggest complaint about unique: I can't find any strategy to go from unique to success that seems in any way probable.  From meeting reader expectations to success, however, there is a well-traveled path.


----------



## BWFoster78

> If the author chooses to market it as a romantic tragedy the author will probably succeed.



There is where you and I disagree completely.

My belief is that, if the writer creates a book with no regard for what the readers in the book's genre are looking for, the writer will most likely fail.

Books that sell in a genre (at the level needed for sustained financial success) sell because they meet the readers' genre expectations.


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> Books that sell in a genre (at the level needed for sustained financial success) sell because they meet the readers' genre expectations.



This is empirically false, as the absolute statement you've made it. Some books that meet genre expectations and trod a well-worn path do well. Some books that turn genre completely on its head and break reader expectations also do well. Again, the "it's one way only" idea doesn't make much sense to me, because it takes only looking at the actual book market and reader's buying behavior to see that one size does not fit all in terms of success.

Glen Cook's Black Company books (just to give one example), have been tremendously successful, and turned into role-playing games and the like, and his approach to fantasy was so different at the time that reviewers were saying he single-handedly changed the genre with a single book. If your view was correct, that book should have flopped and vanished into obscurity. Instead it has been translated into over 20 languages, Cook makes a nice living, people still read it 30 years later etc.


----------



## Chessie

Steerpike said:


> I think if you go with a very unusual, out of the ordinary story, you're going to have a harder time finding a market.


Hm...I don't know about this. Look at our Phil Overby and his unicorn fantasy, which is doing just fine and you can't get any more out of the ordinary than that.

Brian (Foster, not Scott), I know this is a thread to fuel discussion, which I'm thoroughly enjoying by the way, but as you already know this game is totally one of productivity, trial, and error. Sure, there are specific steps that self-published authors take to get their names out there, like publishing more often, which I think is much funner than blogging. Building a readership takes patience and time. You've got the craft and ideas down. You do already write to a market and it's a bonus that you enjoy reading in it, too. Now, just keep on producing. 

Sorry, I'm on codeine for a bad cold at the moment so I'm probably not making much sense, but what I'm trying to say is that I think you're headed in the right direction. It's still too early to tell what pathway to success will work for you, but so long as you have a decent backlist to send your readers to, I think it'll happen. If there's one thing I'm noticing about all of this, is that it takes a BUTTLOAD of work to make a living writing. That's a given fact, right? Everyone knows that. But it's not until recently that this has sunk in. Gotta love writing more than money and have real dedication to stick through it like a marriage: for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.


----------



## BWFoster78

> This is empirically false, as the absolute statement you've made it. Some books that meet genre expectations and trod a well-worn path do well. Some books that turn genre completely on its head and break reader expectations also do well. Again, the "it's one way only" idea doesn't make much sense to me, because it takes only looking at the actual book market and reader's buying behavior to see that one size does not fit all in terms of success.



Have you read my statements and the context of my argument or are you content to simply cherry pick single lines?


----------



## Steerpike

BWFoster78 said:


> Have you read my statements and the context of my argument or are you content to simply cherry pick single lines?



If the single statement is a categorical statement that's false, then why shouldn't it be pointed out?


----------



## FifthView

There was a link in the Marketing forum that hasn't received much attention that relates to the topic in this thread and recent comments: You Can’t Write About THAT: Staying True to Your Writing Passion in the Age of the McBook by Kameron Hurley.

Excerpt:

What I learned pecking at the edges of the publishing industry, trying to get into bigger publishers, is that I wasn’t the sort of writer who was going to give up and write dudebro medieval fantasy or vampire erotica in order to make a career. If you love to write those things, that is great! You will make more money than I will right out the gate. But that just wasn’t what I wanted to write. My strategy, instead, was to build a small but fervent pool of core readers and fans who would help launch my work out of the margins and into the mainstream.

That is not an easy road. It’s not the fast way to make a living at this, or to build a readership. But it would allow me to write what I wanted to write without giving in to the appetite of the machine. Best of all, if I had “Kameron Hurley readers” instead of just “epic fantasy readers” or “science fiction readers” then it freed me to write Kameron Hurley novels, whatever those were, instead of being boxed in by the success of any one series. Nurturing a core audience means that you can always, reliably, sell a certain number of books. And then you work to break out from there.​
A few takeaways from the whole piece, for me:


Those writers who have a particular passion that involves writing what they want instead of writing only to genre expectations _can_ have a path to success.
The path to success for said writers can (and probably will) be longer, take more time to travel.
Often editors and publishing houses, as the referenced "machine," box themselves in, box their readers in, etc.—operating from a belief similar to BWF's that delivering a product that is already in demand, to specifications well-established, will produce the best ROI.

The last point is interesting, because I personally have to believe that those in the business of selling books have abundant data to back up their acceptance and marketing strategies—but, as with business in general, shooting in a barrel for fish, though offering more dependability, may ignore entire oceans and a greater variety of fish.

That's a pretty horrible metaphor; it just came to mind.  I'm sticking with it.

I was reminded of that link in part by the idea that different strategies may lead to success but some might require longer periods of time before ROI reaches a desired level.  There are going to be outliers for any given strategy; so, I'm aiming at a generality not a universal law.

Edit:  Also, that author mentions having to fib a little bit when describing a book's genre to a potential publisher.  Some of the above comments reminded me of this also:

It’s true that sometimes I pitched my books as being something they weren’t, exactly. I chose the best of the bad fits. I said my weird bugpunk science fiction/fantasy noir novel was just science fiction.  I said that _The Mirror Empire and Empire Ascendant _– the genderbending, parallel universe swapping satellite magic fantasy – was just… epic fantasy. Sometimes you just pick the best of their boxes, and you parade around in front of the publishing industry as if they truly do fit, and you hope they don’t notice that you don’t. You hope they let you slip through so that your readers, the people you really wrote all this mad stuff for, can find you.​


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> If the single statement is a categorical statement that's false, then why shouldn't it be pointed out?



To me, it felt like you're sitting around waiting to pounce on the slightest misstatement instead of trying to have an honest discussion about the topic.  Within the context of the entire post, I think it was obvious  what I was trying to say.

Maybe the context wasn't obvious to you. I don't know. But truthfully, I thought your post was disingenuous.


----------



## Heliotrope

I agree with Steerpike. 

*Status Seekers vs. Story Tellers* From The Fire in Fiction by Donald Maass. Pg 3. 

Why do some novels by published writers go wrong?…

For thirty years I have observed fiction careers. I've seen them succeed and fail. The more I see, the more I feel that novelists fall into two broad categories… _status seekers and storytellers._

It can be tough to tell the difference at first. Before their first contract, most fiction writers will urgently tell me what they believe I want to hear: _I am totally committed to making it, to being the best writer I can be, no matter what it takes. I want to achieve excellence._

I believe such statements are sincere but I have learned to take them with a grain of salt. 

You can begin to see the difference as fiction writers try to break in. The majority of writers attempt representation or publication years too soon. Rejection slips quickly set them straight. How do they respond? Some cleave to the timeless advice _get it in the mail, keep it in the mail._

The more thoughtful pull their manuscripts and go back to work. 

Here's another clue; once in a while an unready but promising manuscript will cross my desk. Wanting to be encouraging, I send a detailed e-mail or letter explaining my reasons for rejecting it. What do you suppose is the most common response? It's the immediate offer of a trunk manuscript; a shame, since what is needed is not something else, but something better. 

Serious fiction writers sooner or later reach a point where their command of craft seems good enough for them to finally break in. Still, rejections arrive, often glib brush-offs like _I didn't love this enough_ or _this would be difficult to place in the current market_. In response, status seekers grow frustrated. They decide that landing an agent is a better of timing or luck. Storytellers may be understandably bewildered at this stage but recognize that something is missing from their writing. They resolve to do something about it. 

At my _Writing the Breakout Novel_ workshops I again notice the difference between the two types of writers. Some want to know how to make their manuscripts acceptable. _If I do this and I do that, will I be OK?_ When I hear that question my heart sinks a little. That is a status seeker talking. 

A storyteller, by contrast, is more concerned with making his story the best story it can be, with discovering the levels and elements that are missing, and with understanding the techniques needed to make it all happen. Status seekers send me fifty pages of an outline a few months after the workshop. Storytellers won't show me their novels again for a year or more, probably after several new drafts… 

Once in the hands of an editor, a status seeker will focus on what he is getting (or not) by way of cover, copy, blurbs, and "support" like advertising and promotion… (Why is this not effective?) 

Because two-thirds of fiction sales are branded - fans buying new titles by authors who work they already love. 

Storytellers have a more realistic grasp of retail realities. The truth, for newer authors anyway, is that the best promotion is between the covers of the last book. 

Typically status seekers go full time too soon. Frustration grows because they are not making enough money to cover how hard they are working. 

Storytellers wonder how to top themselves with each new novel. Storytellers take calculated risks with their fiction. Mostly they try to make their story's bigger. 

Therein lies the essence of why storytellers succeed while status seekers fail. Storytellers may seem anointed, but they are anointed by readers. Give readers stories that will blow them away every time they will become the loyal generators of the sales that make career success seem effortless. 

Storytellers are oriented the right way; consequently their stories almost  never go wrong. Which type of fiction writer are you? Really? I believe you, but the proof is in your passion and whether or not it gets on the page.


----------



## BWFoster78

Heliotrope,

Wow, that excerpt seemed really, really outdated, so I checked. Yep, published in 2009!

The reality of the current marketplace is that one does not need to please the Donald Maasses of the world with their prowess in the craft.  One needs only to please the reader.

Luckily, that task is much more easily accomplished.

I only desire to achieve excellence in writing to the extent to which it helps me to please my readers.


----------



## Steerpike

Brian:

Maas is talking about what leads to success with readers. You have said more than once that you go with advice of successful professionals in the field. But if it goes contrary to your already established view, you ignore it. That's fine, but let's be honest in that you're looking for validation of your viewpoint, not a true consideration of what experts in the field are saying.


----------



## thedarknessrising

For me, the important thing is to write what I would enjoy reading. I don't write with an audience in mind. I don't write for money or any sort of gain. I write fantasy because it's my favorite genre, and I want a way to escape real life.


----------



## MineOwnKing

I think if that Donald guy uses storyteller in a sentence one more time I'm gonna deck him. 

What a load of crap.

If there's anything the members of this community have learned it's that every writer is unique in every way.

That's why there is still hope for the unknown writer.


----------



## Steerpike

MineOwnKing said:


> I think if that Donald guy uses storyteller in a sentence one more time I'm gonna deck him.
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> If there's anything the members of this community have leaned it's that every writer is unique in every way.
> 
> That's why there is still hope for the unknown writer.




I think the difference between writer and storyteller can be significant, and it's a difference many members here have recognized from time to time. Not everyone is going to agree with it, but I think it best explains the evidence.


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> Brian:
> 
> Maas is talking about what leads to success with readers. You have said more than once that you go with advice of successful professionals in the field. But if it goes contrary to your already established view, you ignore it. That's fine, but let's be honest in that you're looking for validation of your viewpoint, not a true consideration of what experts in the field are saying.



Steerpike,

It seems to me that the current marketplace is proving the long-established views of the traditional publishing industry to be incorrect.

My thinking is that the ability to build up a readership base is dependent upon one's ability to please the readers.  Therefore, people who have demonstrated the ability to build a readership base must possess the ability to please their readers. 

Seems logical to me.

Then I see a lot of self published authors reporting that they're making a lot of money selling a lot of books to their readership base.  Based on my reasoning above, it seems to me then that they've demonstrated the ability to please their readers.

So I take a look at their books. In my admittedly inexpert opinion, their writing does not seem to conform with the qualities that are deemed important like Mr Maass.

My conclusion, therefore, is that Mr Maass' viewpoint is flawed in regard to the current world of independent authors.



> That's fine, but let's be honest in that you're looking for validation of your viewpoint, not a true consideration of what experts in the field are saying.



I think I've been very clear that I'm focused on the business of self publishing, not traditional.  Taking the input from authors who are succeeding as self publishers over the words from 6 years ago when the market a completely different place of a guy who is focused on traditional publishing is not "looking for validation of" my viewpoint.

Really?


----------



## MineOwnKing

It's all well and good to set unreasonable expectations upon a writer when that someone is sitting at the head of an agency and has young and hungry agents hanging upon every word.

Agents that are buried under slush piles and scrambling to make sense of a market that has no sense can easily overlook the talent of the greatest writers, (Moby Dick was not appreciated until long after Herman Melville was dead.)

We are all storytellers, the act of rejecting a manuscript is a trigger to any writer regardless of the level of talent or experience.

It is only normal to question and not the sign of mediocrity. 

The whole point of being a writer is that there are no rules and no labels, to be free, to be a rebel, to question authority and deny conformity, to be cool, to be a rock star.

These things are not the mark of seeking status, they are the normal feelings of trying to be the best at everything, including writing.

It is wrong to create imaginary lines in the sand and cast labels, these are the words that lead to segregation and war.


----------



## Russ

Allow me a couple of moments of self indulgent quibble.



> It seems to me that the current marketplace is proving the long-established views of the traditional publishing industry to be incorrect.



Many of the "long established views" of traditional publishing are changing.  But traditional publishing is still very successful, so by your definition they  must be doing something right.



> My conclusion, therefore, is that Mr Maass' viewpoint is flawed in regard to the current world of independent authors.



Generally Mr. Maas does not write his books for independent writers, but I would suggest that good quality writing does not vary between indies and traditional writers.  I think marketing and economics does, but I don't think quality writing does.

However I would be willing to compare the average income and sales of Donald Maas represented writers compared to virtually any equivilent group of indy writers.  

Someone who pleases Mr. Maas enough for him to represent their work is far more likely to be successful than any indy who pleases their readers in the way you discuss that issue.

If monetary success is the measure.


----------



## Russ

MineOwnKing said:


> It's all well and good to set unreasonable expectations upon a writer when that someone is sitting at the head of an agency and has young and hungry agents hanging upon every word.
> 
> Agents that are buried under slush piles and scrambling to make sense of a market that has no sense can easily overlook the talent of the greatest writers, (Moby Dick was not appreciated until long after Herman Melville was dead.)
> 
> We are all storytellers, the act of rejecting a manuscript is a trigger to any writer regardless of the level of talent or experience.
> 
> It is only normal to question and not the sign of mediocrity.
> 
> The whole point of being a writer is that there are no rules and no labels, to be free, to be a rebel, to question authority and deny conformity, to be cool, to be a rock star.
> 
> These things are not the mark of seeking status, they are the normal feelings of trying to be the best at everything, including writing.
> 
> It is wrong to create imaginary lines in the sand and cast labels, these are the words that lead to segregation and war.



What a pile of hooey.

Yes every kid in little league who steps up to the plate is perfectly entitled to dream he is hitting the ball way over center field in Yankee stadium.

But if that kind wants to earn a living at playing baseball there are techniques he must learn, and gatekeepers and consumers with certain expectations he must meet.

The same goes for writers and artists of all kinds.

Rather than talking dramatically of "rock stars, segregation and war" let me tell  you what a great artist once told me.  He was a world class piano player and english was not his first language.  I had the privilege of working with him on some of his projects and being with him when he did some recording.

What he said was "Mastery comes first, then freedom."

He was right.

What he was saying was that you need to master certain fundamentals before you can effectively experiment or try advanced forms.  Many other successful artists, athletes and professionals say the same thing.

One is perfectly entitled to dream of hitting the ball over the center field fence in Yankee Stadium.  But if you really ever want to get a chance to do it you need to spend a lot of time in BP and you just might want to listen to someone who has done it consistently when they tell you how it can be done.


----------



## kennyc

Steerpike said:


> In order, it seems to me:
> 
> 1. Be a good story-teller;
> 2. Write a story with broad appeal that lots of people want to read;
> 3. Be competent at the technical aspects of commercial fiction writing; and
> 4. Write the next book.



This. After many years/decades at this at various levels and in various genres and forms and studying/reading instructional books, taking classes, joining workshops and lapping up what writers and authors say my conclusion is that for fiction (and increasingly for (creative) nonfiction) the primary ability is: 

to tell a story, an engaging story, without distractions.


----------



## kennyc

Brian Scott Allen said:


> But this isn't a function of writing it is a function of marketing. This is still the "contract" you are making with the readers. You're saying this is romance, which means they have Y-expectations. Then you fail to perform and the readers get upset. But if you say this is a tragic romance and make it clear through your marketing the readers will expect it and accept it. Sure you will alienate some but you might also bring in some others.
> 
> Look, I could write a novel that has a magic attorney and he gets whisked away on an adventure and uses his lawyering skills to his advantage. That is blending new and familiar. I think readers would read it, if it was "good." That's the key though. The story has to be "good." It has to resonate in someway with the reader(s). It's up to the author to market it post hoc. But at the outset the author should just write the best story they come up with and think about genre and marketing _after_.



Right! or is that Write! 

 Don't try to write to market, write what your soul, your muse tells you to. 

Honestly, this comes down to 'why are you writing?' Are you writing to try and make money or to tell stories? If you are writing to make money there are much easier ways.


----------



## kennyc

FifthView said:


> There was a link in the Marketing forum that hasn't received much attention that relates to the topic in this thread and recent comments: You Can’t Write About THAT: Staying True to Your Writing Passion in the Age of the McBook by Kameron Hurley.
> 
> ....



I'm missing her columns from Locus the last few months since I let my subscription lapse....maybe I need to resubscribe.

Thanks for this!

P.S. Just went and re-upped my sub.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ,



> Many of the "long established views" of traditional publishing are changing. But traditional publishing is still very successful, so by your definition they must be doing something right.



In retrospect, I think you're right.

Again, I'm really focused on the self publishing side of the equation, not the traditional.  During my evening commute last night, I really tried to put myself in the shoes of a Big 5 Publisher.

Let's say I'm BWF Publishing and I have the ability to get an author's book into markets that are inaccessible by other methods.  I get so many manuscripts submitted to me that I couldn't possibly give each of them the attention they deserve.

In that situation, I can afford to be very, very choosy.  There is absolutely no reason for me to put my money into anyone unless that writer is the best of the best.

So that writer who wants a contract with me better freaking bring his A game, like Mr. Maas recommends.



> but I would suggest that good quality writing does not vary between indies and traditional writers. I think marketing and economics does, but I don't think quality writing does.



I'm not sure I understand this paragraph.

To be honest, I absolutely cannot stomach the writing of most independent writers that I come across.  When I first discovered indie authors, I was like, "Cool. Cheap books!"  At that point, I paid almost no attention to technique "flaws."  The problem was, however, that story after story disappointed me.  I soon (rightly or wrongly) began to equate poor technique with a lack of ability to tell a good story.  I've even encountered a couple of indie authors who exhibited good technique but did not, for me anyway, possess the ability to tell a good story.

I simply do not have this issue with traditionally published books.  When I read Pierce Brown, he blows me out of the water!  And that despite the fact that he writes in present tense (I loathe present tense with a purple passion).

It's hard to find independent books that even approach the quality of even the lower end Big 5 books. Only two indie books out of all I've read rank in my personal Top 10.

Yet there are indie authors who are making a lot of money.  So one of two things, I think, has to be true:

A. My judgment of "quality" is not accurate.  This indie authors are actually putting out books equivalent in quality to the Big 5, and I'm just, for some reason, not perceiving their quality level correctly.
B. Quality as an indie author just isn't as important as it is for a traditionally published author.

While A certainly lies within the realm of possibility given the subjective nature of discerning "quality," I think that B makes a ton of sense because indie authors and traditional authors, by and large, are following completely different strategies.

A traditional publisher makes money by selling a ton of copies of a single book.  Since a single book has such potential to bring in an enormous profit, it makes sense to pour in as much effort as possible into making it perfect.

The indie author, on the other hand, makes money from having a high volume of books out.  No one books is going to make millions of sells, but a hundred books could each sell 10000 copies.  Under this strategy, getting books out the door quickly is so much more important that making each book be perfect.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ,



> Many of the "long established views" of traditional publishing are changing. But traditional publishing is still very successful, so by your definition they must be doing something right.



In retrospect, I think you're right.

Again, I'm really focused on the self publishing side of the equation, not the traditional.  During my evening commute last night, I really tried to put myself in the shoes of a Big 5 Publisher.

Let's say I'm BWF Publishing and I have the ability to get an author's book into markets that are inaccessible to by other methods.  I've get so many manuscripts submitted to me that I couldn't possibly give each of them the attention they deserve.

In that situation, I can afford to be very, very choosy.  There is absolutely no reason for me to put my money into anyone unless that writer is the best of the best.

So that writer who wants a contract with me better freaking bring his A game, like Mr. Maas recommends.



> but I would suggest that good quality writing does not vary between indies and traditional writers. I think marketing and economics does, but I don't think quality writing does.



I'm not sure I understand this paragraph.

To be honest, I absolutely cannot stomach the writing of most independent writers that I come across.  When I first discovered indie authors, I was like, "Cool. Cheap books!"  At that point, I paid almost no attention to technique "flaws."  The problem was, however, that story after story disappointed me.  I soon (rightly or wrongly) began to equate poor technique with a lack of ability to tell a good story.  I've even encountered a couple of indie authors who exhibited good technique but did not, for me anyway, possess the ability to tell a good story.

I simply do not have this issue with traditionally published books.  When I read Pierce Brown, he blows me out of the water!  And that despite the fact that he writes in present tense (I loathe present tense with a purple passion).

It's hard to find independent books that even approach the quality of even the lower end Big 5 books. Only two indie books out of all I've read rank in my personal Top 10.

Yet there are indie authors who are making a lot of money.  So one of two things, I think, has to be true:

A. My judgment of "quality" is not accurate.  This indie authors are actually putting out books equivalent in quality to the Big 5, and I'm just, for some reason, not perceiving their quality level correctly.
B. Quality as an indie author just isn't as important as it is for a traditionally published author.

While A certainly lies within the realm of possibility given the subjective nature of discerning "quality," I think that B makes a ton of sense because indie authors and traditional authors, by and large, are following completely different strategies.

A traditional publisher makes money by selling a ton of copies of a single book.  Since a single book has such potential to bring in an enormous profit, it makes sense to pour in as much effort as possible into making it perfect.

The indie author, on the other hand, makes money from having a high volume of books out.  No one books is going to make millions of sells, but a hundred books could each sell 10000 copies.  Under this strategy, getting books out the door quickly is so much more important that making each book be perfect.


----------



## Heliotrope

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb and explain why this bothers me so much. This is not a personal attack against Foster, because ultimately he can do whatever he wants and I don't disagree with him that many indie authors are making money because they just have to sell books. But this mentality sort of hurts my stomach a bit and here is why. 

Respect for quality and respect for the reader. 

Lets pretend I have spent the last 30 years building houses. I have a respected contracting company and people know that I build quality homes. My homes are built to last. I have spent the last 30 years ensuring that my homes are built well, and to code and will stand the test of time. My homes are a bit more expensive, but my clients know that they won't cave in in an earthquake (I'm a west coaster). 

There is another contracting company building a subdivision down the street. All they care about is building as many homes as absolutely possible as quickly as possible. They cut corners. The wiring is shotty and the plumbing is leaky. They don't care. They just have to market and sell the houses as fast as they can. They spend more money on the exterior and the finishes because people will be sucked in by granite counter tops and not realize that the foundation has some serious cracks in it. Again, the contractor doesn't care about this. He just wants to make as much money as quickly as possible by selling as many cheap homes as he can. 

As a contractor who has spent 30 years honing my craft, with a business built on integrity and respect of the profession and the consumer, this really upsets me. 

I can see the attitude…. I can see why it makes sense, but ultimately the consumer is going to figure it out, don't you think? Ultimately the homes are going to fall apart and people are going to move away and not buy from that contractor again. So I just don't see how it can be a long term plan? 

Explain to me if I am way off base.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Explain to me if I am way off base.



I think you're off base in the assumption that everyone wants the highest possible quality.

To make the best possible widget costs a lot of money.  Therefore, I have to charge more money for that widget.

Some consumers want to go buy only the best widget.  But other consumers simply don't need/desire that level of quality.  They either make the decision that spending less money is more important than the quality or they decide that the quality just isn't all that important to them.

Is the company that makes the cheaper widgets morally or ethically inferior to the company that makes the expensive widgets?  Not in my eyes.  Both are simply fulfilling a demand in the market.

I truly believe that these indie authors are satisfying their readers the same way that the traditional authors are.

Take me for example.  I stated earlier that I do not rate almost any of the indie books I've read as highly as the traditionally published ones.  Yet I still look for and purchase indie books.  I do that because I feel that paying less for the book makes the slightly lower enjoyment worth it.  If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't continue to purchase indie books. And truly, I think I'm a much greater snob when it comes to quality that I expect as a reader than the vast majority of people reading books.  I really think that some of the "quality" issues that you and me and Maas and Big 5 editors bemoan simply does not matter to most readers.

EDIT: Note also the huge flaw in your analogy: in your example, the consumer is being tricked into purchasing an inferior product, making the seller of poor merchandise a crook.  In my example, I have two companies who both ethically present their products.  I think my example is more on point to indie publishing.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yes, that is a good example and a good analogy. I'm seeing it a bit better now from your side. I went to home depot yesterday and bought the cheaper furnace filter because I didn't need the allergy filter that was 3 times the cost. 

Ok, so based on that analogy I think you do make a point. So i wonder where the balance is then? Is that what you are asking? What is the basic request of the consumer that they would be willing to pay for, without having to be 'the best'… 

hmmmmmm, good question.


----------



## Heliotrope

Ok, so I just looked up the 100 most successful books on Amazon. I guess if you really want to make it big as an Indie author, and appeal to the masses with a formula for success it would appear that you need to get into the Romance/Erotica/Sci-fi genre. Hopefully with a half naked man on the cover. He should be a doctor, or someone in a position of authority.


----------



## kennyc

I think you are both right and it comes back to what I said before. Why are writing? Is it to make money, is it for posterity, is it for yourself, is it for acknowledgement....

These are not mutually exclusive, but do have some contradictions.

Writers write for many reasons. To each his own, eh?


----------



## BWFoster78

> Ok, so based on that analogy I think you do make a point. So i wonder where the balance is then? Is that what you are asking? What is the basic request of the consumer that they would be willing to pay for, without having to be 'the best'…



Actually, what I'm asking is this:

I'm a guy who has worked on his writing for the last four and a half years in pursuit of a dream.  Now that I've decided to become a self publisher, I need to figure out the business side of this thing. Since this is the writing questions forum, I posed the question, what is most important (from a writing perspective) for me to become a commercially successful?

My hope for the thread was twofold:

1. I've come up with some theories on what I need to do.  I'm using those theories to make real life decisions about how to proceed with my self publishing career.  If I'm wrong on any of those theories, I need to know as soon as possible.  Thus far, I have not heard any factual or logic-based arguments from anyone that would lead me to change my theories.
2. Presumably, there exist others on this forum that have already taken the leap into the business side of things or will one day do so.  Hopefully, those individuals will find the arguments on this thread useful in shaping their own careers.

Back the the direct question of quality:

I think it's important to reiterate this - I started from a viewpoint much like I think yours is. My belief was, "Quality is one of the important factors in my future success."

Recent research into the business side of self publishing kinda clarified that for me.  I think a revised belief is more along the lines of, "Getting your quality high enough to deliver a certain reader expectation is crucially important. That level, however, seems to lie below the level of most Big 5 (in comparison to someone like Baen. I really don't see a difference between the quality of some of their stuff versus most successful indies) traditionally published authors."

So I'm asking:

A. Is the belief stated directly above accurate?
B. How in the world does one go about figuring out exactly what level of subjective quality is needed?


----------



## kennyc

Heliotrope said:


> Ok, so I just looked up the 100 most successful books on Amazon. I guess if you really want to make it big as an Indie author, and appeal to the masses with a formula for success it would appear that you need to get into the Romance/Erotica/Sci-fi genre. Hopefully with a half naked man on the cover. He should be a doctor, or someone in a position of authority.



Ha! Exactly!


----------



## BWFoster78

kennyc said:


> I think you are both right and it comes back to what I said before. Why are writing? Is it to make money, is it for posterity, is it for yourself, is it for acknowledgement....
> 
> These are not mutually exclusive, but do have some contradictions.
> 
> Writers write for many reasons. To each his own, eh?



I don't think that anyone disagrees with these statements.

The original purpose for the thread, however, was to figure out what is most important to help indie authors become commercially successful.  Considering that goal, I'm unclear how saying "to each his own" is helpful ...


----------



## kennyc

BWFoster78 said:


> Actually, what I'm asking is this:
> 
> I'm a guy who has worked on his writing for the last four and a half years in pursuit of a dream.  Now that I've decided to become a self publisher, I need to figure out the business side of this thing. Since this is the writing questions forum, I posed the question, what is most important (from a writing perspective) for me *to become a commercially successful*?
> ...



By using that last as the criteria, you've already screwed the pooch in a manner of speaking. What does it mean to become commercially successful?  Sell the most books? Make the most money? Have the most readers?

There are a bazillion factors which play into a writing career, some of which you have control over, some of which you don't (see the recent Konrath 'luck' postings).

The real answer is, It all Depends....


----------



## kennyc

BWFoster78 said:


> I don't think that anyone disagrees with these statements.
> 
> The original purpose for the thread, however, was to figure out what is most important to help indie authors become commercially successful.  Considering that goal, I'm unclear how saying "to each his own" is helpful ...



Nor is anyone going to be able to help you with goals any more than they have already in 17 pages of posts. You yourself have to decide what your goals are, you have to define specifically what that means instead of relying on terms like indie author and commercially successful. 

As I said there are a million/gillion/bazillion factors including luck which play into it. The bottom line which I keep seeing from successful authors over and over is to Write, Write the best stories you can, keep at it, improve your craft. No one else can do it for you.


----------



## BWFoster78

> By using that last as the criteria, you've already screwed the pooch in a manner of speaking. What does it mean to become commercially successful? Sell the most books? Make the most money? Have the most readers?



Huh?

You said this:



> Why are writing? Is it to make money, is it for posterity, is it for yourself, is it for acknowledgement....



The whole purpose of listing the criteria was to define the debate as being about making money instead of any other reason that people may be writing. In essence, to avoid being sidetracked by posts like yours.


----------



## kennyc

Well as I also said there are much better ways to make money than writing fiction. If the sole purpose is to make money then you're in the wrong business or writing the wrong thing. 

Technical manual writers make much more money as an example. If the idea is to make money and damn the writing then you need marketing. 

A good marketeer can cell ice to Eskimos. 

I say focus on marketing selling. 

And I'm far from sidetracking this thread so don't you dare try to put my posts off to that. If you look back on page one you'll see that most everything that needed to be discussed was.

You'll note the subject of this thread is 'What is Important' and it's in the Writing Questions subforum. All the responses I've read have attempted to address this question, but you continue to push back. 

I tried to summarize above and tried to get you to clarify ... which you did ... yer in it for the money ... so you have your answers in the previous seventeen pages. 

Carry on.


----------



## BWFoster78

> The bottom line which I keep seeing from successful authors over and over is to Write, Write the best stories you can, keep at it, improve your craft. No one else can do it for you.



Truthfully, I think this advice is somewhat outdated. Again, the context of the discussion is how to succeed financially as a self publisher, so let's look at that piece by piece:

1. Write - abso freaking lutely.  The more you have on the market, the more sales you'll make.  Not only that, but their seems to be an almost logarithmic progression as you add books. I can live with this being the number 1 factor.

2. Write the best stories you can - I think this is sub-optimal for maximizing profits.  Instead, I'd say, "Write the stories that readers want to read."

3. Keep at it - Yes! Persistence pays off.  Definitely in the top 10 in the list of importance.

4. Improve your craft - Once you reach a certain level, I'm not sure how much improving craft helps you. (Prior to reaching that level, though, it's pretty darn important.)  I think your craft will naturally improve as you continue to write and work with editors.  I don't think you should dedicate a lot of your limited resources of time and money to it (assuming you've reached that minimum level, of course).

In the context of a thread on writing, your advice isn't horrible, but I don't think you were limiting yourself to that parameter. In that case, what bothers me most about your advice is the things you've left off.  Learning to write is only half the battle.  Once you've got something to sell, you have to figure out all the business crap.  Marketing. Promotion. Email lists. Formatting. Hiring freelancers. The optimum scheduling of releases. The ins and outs of KU2 so you can make that decision. The list is endless.


----------



## kennyc

No that advice is not out of date. It is as true as it ever was and applies well beyond writing. It's true of any creative field.

But as I've already said, and will not say again is that it all depends on your goals. You seem to already have the answers so I'm not sure what the actual purpose of this thread is and I'll leave it with you. 

If you want to know how to sell and market in order to increase your profits, that has little to do with writing.

Bye.


----------



## Heliotrope

BWFoster78 said:


> 2. Write the best stories you can - I think this is sub-optimal for maximizing profits.  Instead, I'd say, "Write the stories that readers want to read."



Ok, so now that I think I know what you are getting at (I hope), lets talk about this. 

There are two things I'm assuming here based on your previous posts: 

1) You are aiming to achieve as much success as possible as an Indy author. 
2) Your strategy is to write what you hope readers want to read. 

Ok, so lets look at those two things. 

You want to sell a lot of books so you can make money (or at least be able to live comfortable off of selling books.) 

You need, then, to write books that readers want to read. 

Lets look at the clientele of the Amazon Indie market. Who are buying those books? 
I'm guessing people who are looking for some element of escapism but don't care too much about quality. They want escapism cheap and fast. So who are these people? 
Children - no. They can't purchase books over the internet unless their parents are purchasing for them. I imagine this is a fairly limited market. 
Teenagers - possibly. I teach High school. I can think of perhaps four kids/32 who would be reading their kindle in the evening or at school instead of watching tv/playing video games/texting/face timing with their friends. Also, they need money and access to credit cards. So again, limited market. 
Adults - From what I can see on the Amazon top 100 list the adults buying Indie fiction tend to be mostly women looking for high romances/soft core porn. There are some sci-fi books in there, again with a high romance plot line. 

I think that people buying books from Indy writers are people who: 
- Are looking for something that is not offered in the bookstore (cheap soft core porn/erotica or highly specialized erotica like the dinosaur woman we saw earlier.) 
- fast action sci-fi/thrillers that are easy to get into, chew up, and discard. 

I'm sure some fantasy sells OK to a small margin of nerdy boys/men who are into that sort of thing, but if you are looking for the highest number of sales I think you need to be looking to the biggest market, which appears to be women between 18-65 who are too embarrassed to buy their soft core romance novels from the lady at the checkout counter. 

So what does this mean for you becoming the MOST successful as an Indy author? I think, if you are correct about writing books that people want to read, you are in the wrong genre and selling to a very limited market. 

Lets look at your newest release "Repulsive" for example. Who is this book going to be marketed to? Based on what I have read, and seen of the cover I would imagine boys between 12-25? Maybe? 12-18 year olds are not buying books off the indy list on Amazon. At least not a ton of them.I'm going to estimate maybe 5% of teenagers actually get their parents credit cards and buy books. Only a small percentage of those will be boys specifically looking for superhero books.  Men between 20-25, maybe, but how many men between 20-25 are reading books about comic book heroes? Again, limiting your market down to maybe 10%? There is a reason that the fantasy-sci/fi section at the book store is a tiny section, off to the back and there are very limited super hero books coming out. It has been done to death. Marvel has taken over the genre. Unless you can compete with Marvel, or offer something new in the Super hero genre you are taking on Goliath, basically. 

I mean no offence to you or your book. Again, like others have said, you can write what you are passionate about, and if it is a good book it WILL sell. However, you are asking how to make the MOST success as an indy author. My response to that is to sell to the largest market.

Same goes for Rise of the Mages. May see some moderate success. If it was: 

"I was a virgin sacrifice who slept with the mage who was going to kill me" then you would have a best seller.


----------



## BWFoster78

Heliotrope,

When I first started reading up on the concept of self publishing, I read the advice to learn who your reader is and market to them.

Truthfully, I was never able to fully grok that advice.  I have no idea how to figure out who is reading my book. So far, women seem to like it better than men, but I certainly don't want to exclude the male audience.

Assuming I decided "Okay, my target audience is women aged whatever to whatever," I'm not sure what to do with that information. 

Recently, I've encountered a whole new source of advice, and none of it tells me to figure out what demographics my readers are.  The promotion sites are based on genre, not demographic. If I'm doing a FB ad to build my email list, every piece of advice that I've read is to target similar authors, not base it on demographics.

You may be right, however, that I should try writing romance.  My fantasy already tends to be more relationship based than most in the genre.  Truthfully, I may try dipping my toe into that market when I finish the Repulsive trilogy.

EDIT: Note however that, as far as I can tell, fantasy is not a bad ebook market.  It's not on the level of Romance, but it's not orders of magnitude lower.


----------



## Chessie

Fantasy does just fine in the Indie market. One of my favorite fantasy authors is self-published (Lindsay Buroker). Her quality is great, and on the plus side she writes Steampunk which is difficult to do--and she does it well. But on the topic of writing romance, I may have briefly mentioned it either in this thread or another, but this is a shift I've made in my journey. Fantasy adventure was what I wrote most of until several months ago, when I realized that the only ghosting jobs I was getting were for romance of some sort. This changed the type of books I write to sell, most of which are now mythical fantasy with shapeshifter romances. It's a good thing I'm really enjoying it, because I can't see myself investing time and money into writing stories I hate. But if you can do romance, then it's worth giving it a try, especially if you're trying to make more than chump change.

EDIT: I hit the submit button too soon. I'd like to comment on Heliotrope's post about mass production not being equal to quality. I don't think that's always the case. If you can get to a place where your writing habit becomes a regular thing, your word counts will increase and so will the quality of your words. It also depends on the length you're writing. I write mostly novelettes and novellas, so I have several that will be going up for sale within the next few weeks. It's easier to produce those and I like writing shorter stories anyway. So getting various titles under an author name isn't that hard, depending on your time availability, how fast you type, and the length of your books. 

These days, I view Indie publishing like the art world. I live in a town where everyone is either a musician or an artist of some sort. Every other person has a studio, cd, or First Friday show coming up. I see pieces for sale in the hundreds or thousands that are like "what?" and have gone to several music shows that don't compare to Tool, for example, but were still fun. No matter how you slice it, writing is an art, and everyone likes something different when it comes to that. I think people get too caught up in the need for perfection when it comes to publishing books. Yes, they should be professional, but looking for books on my Kindle now is like walking into a First Friday show, deciding I don't like what I see, then going to the next venue and buying a piece there. And I prefer obscure anyway.


----------



## BWFoster78

> But if you can do romance, then it's worth giving it a try, especially if you're trying to make more than chump change.



Just a thought for other readers: I don't think it's super easy to change genres.  I think that most of us tend to write what we read; part of my biggest reluctance to even try penning a single romance novel is that I don't read the genre. Thus, I don't understand all the expectations that the readers have.


----------



## Chessie

That's true, Brian, which is why I still write fantasy related romance. A werewolf love affair is much easier to write than, let's say, gold rush romance. I've done it, and it's hard for me because my brain doesn't think in the real world. If you catch my drift.  So if you're thinking about getting more romantic with your game, then still keep the fantasy elements in. That's my suggestion.


----------



## Heliotrope

Chesterama said:


> These days, I view Indie publishing like the art world. I live in a town where everyone is either a musician or an artist of some sort. Every other person has a studio, cd, or First Friday show coming up. I see pieces for sale in the hundreds or thousands that are like "what?" and have gone to several music shows that don't compare to Tool, for example, but were still fun. No matter how you slice it, writing is an art, and everyone likes something different when it comes to that. I think people get too caught up in the need for perfection when it comes to publishing books. Yes, they should be professional, but looking for books on my Kindle now is like walking into a First Friday show, deciding I don't like what I see, then going to the next venue and buying a piece there. And I prefer obscure anyway.



yes. I agree with this 100% and tend to be an Indie girl myself, especially in regards to art and music. I think, though, that that is what is throwing me off about Fosters perspective. Indie is almost always smaller scale than mainstream. When I go to an Indie concert, just like you are saying, it is in a small venue with low ticket sales compared to a mainstream concert. This is great, I love intimacy… however, Foster is asking how to be as successful as possible as a writer in an indy market… I think, from what I can see, the answer would be write romance?


----------



## Addison

After I finished the first draft of my story I did all kinds of research. Into the deeper caverns of the craft itself to the many roads, detours and traps of every publishing venue. It was confusing and everything new that I'd learned, basically everything that was in the first post and beyond, plagued me. It affected me to such a degree I threw out my story and started writing a new one based on everything I'd learned. Write for the readers, wide niche, marketability etc. I gave the new story to my beta readers (family and strangers) they all came back with the same message. "We liked the first one better." 

So after that I only read the articles and pieces that helped with the process of publishing. Copyright, format, agents and all that. Everything else I've ignored. When it comes to the readers I just make sure my story stays in the target audience range and I don't go back to rewrite anything incase they don't get it because I, like the books on the writing craft say, know to trust the readers. The important thing is to write the story that you want to write, the one you want to tell. If it's a small niche so what, it's not the niche you're telling but how you're telling it that will make a difference. 

I confess, my story is not published. But my kid siblings, who hate reading (they're half-siblings), have read the entire story and have shared it to their friends. The most they've shared are pudding cups after losing arm wrestling, sick bugs, homework and instagram. So the fact that two pint-sized Literature-nazis read cover to cover and shared it is all the proof I need that I'm doing it right. So allow me to re-state two key facts; Write the story YOU want to write and tell, trust your readers. 

Happy Writing.


----------



## BWFoster78

Another important item from a writing standpoint (that's hopefully less controversial):

I think I might have figured out a disconnect that I was having.  I've read in thread after thread that "editing" is crucially important.  On the other side of the equation, every time quality is discussed, I get the impression that there is no objective standards being utilized.

So for me, this situation creates a disconnect. If there are not objective standards, why is editing important?

I think I've finally figured it out (I feel kind of slow on this issue; perhaps it was obvious to everyone else): editing is crucially important regarding the objective standards of grammar/punctuation/typos.

In the beginning, I assigned only a little bit of weight to these factors.  Based on the recommendations of those who have gone before, however, perhaps they should be higher on my list.


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> So for me, this situation creates a disconnect. If there are not objective standards, why is editing important?
> 
> I think I've finally figured it out (I feel kind of slow on this issue; perhaps it was obvious to everyone else): editing is crucially important regarding the objective standards of grammar/punctuation/typos.



Ease-of-reading would seem to be a very important consideration within the rest of your strategy, so creating few stumbles in this area would be important.

There are other potential pitfalls to keep an eye on:  Chekhov's gun, dangling plot threads, inconsistency (of many types), and so forth.  These are structural in nature, like grammar/punctuation/typos, and although they might affect quality broadly, the stumbles and irritations they might cause could impact ease of reading.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Ease-of-reading would seem to be a very important consideration within the rest of your strategy, so creating few stumbles in this area would be important.



Agreed! Easy to read seems to be a very important quality to achieve in order to sell books.

I think of my stuff as easy to read, but truthfully, I have no idea if it is or not.  If anyone who has read my stuff has thoughts on this, I'd love to hear it.



> There are other potential pitfalls to keep an eye on: Chekhov's gun, dangling plot threads, inconsistency (of many types), and so forth.



It's hard for me to ascertain which of these are important to readers and which are important to writers.  Recent data mining to find reviewers led me to read a lot of reviews.  I saw a lot of complaining about stuff accompanied by, "But I can't wait for the next one."

Basically, I'm not sure how much that stuff impacts a reader's emotional experience.  If you can engage the reader throughout the book and give him what he's looking for from an emotional standpoint, he'll forgive a whole heckava lot of other issues.

So are those pitfall really important? I don't know.


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> It's hard for me to ascertain which of these are important to readers and which are important to writers.  Recent data mining to find reviewers led me to read a lot of reviews.  I saw a lot of complaining about stuff accompanied by, "But I can't wait for the next one."
> 
> Basically, I'm not sure how much that stuff impacts a reader's emotional experience.  If you can engage the reader throughout the book and give him what he's looking for from an emotional standpoint, he'll forgive a whole heckava lot of other issues.
> 
> So are those pitfall really important? I don't know.



I think they fall in the category of "impediments to immersion."  Obviously, minor occurrences might be overlooked if the rest of the story is engaging.  Possibly the reviews you have read covered books that had been edited for these things, so that the larger foibles were removed.

I read a review on a blog recently that seemed odd.  I don't remember the blog or the book or the author, only that the author has published a large number of novels.  The reviewer had a negative reaction to the book, on the whole, and commented something to the effect that, paraphrasing, "If the author can't even be bothered to spell the main character's name the same way for each occurrence [there were three different spellings used] then that's a sign of some serious issues with this book."  So maybe these issues in isolation might not be a problem, but a large number of them within a book could destroy immersion.


----------



## BWFoster78

> "If the author can't even be bothered to spell the main character's name the same way for each occurrence [there were three different spellings used] then that's a sign of some serious issues with this book."



But this is a very objective "mistake" that is easy for a reader to find.  Same with typos and punctuation/grammar issues.  The sentence is either objectively punctuated the way the CMOS tells you to do it or it isn't (granted, that's not the only standard, but most stuff is pretty straightforward).

I really think these issues are in a different category with readers than anything at all that authors and editors consider.  Sure, some people will point out plot inconsistencies and character inconsistencies, but if you've done your job otherwise, I don't think those things will lose you readers as easily as other factors.

Note that I'm not arguing that these things aren't important at all, just, perhaps, not as important as we think they are when it comes to reader enjoyment.

Then again, maybe they are, especially, as you wrote, in high quantities.

I can say confidently, however, that I notice stuff like we're discussing a lot more now that I understand the "right" way to write.  Back before I started really getting into technique, an author had to hit me over the head with an inconsistency to get me to notice.  And even now, I will gladly put aside such problems if I'm into the characters and story otherwise.

I think we have to remember that everyone has pet peeves.  Just because you step on a pet peeve of a single reader does not mean that, overall, you're hurting your book in any meaningful way.


----------



## Heliotrope

BWFoster78 said:


> Note that I'm not arguing that these things aren't important at all, just, perhaps, not as important as we think they are when it comes to reader enjoyment.
> 
> Then again, maybe they are, especially, as you wrote, in high quantities.
> 
> I will gladly put aside such problems if I'm into the characters and story otherwise.
> 
> .



This reminds me of steerpike's post in the publishing forum about the big 5 and how technical skills are not as important as providing an engrossing story. 

I also read this from Erik Bork:

"CONCEPT AND STORY FIRST.  People tend to think writing is about the words on the finished page, the surface product that others will read (and possibly use as a blueprint for production).  But those words on the page are the final and least important step in a process that begins when you start thinking about what your story is going to be about.  The invisible underlying choices behind the words are what really matter, and the bigger the choices are, the more important to the success of the work.  The first decisions about basic premise matter the most, and have by far the most leverage in determining whether your work will "work," or not.  The secondary choices in turning that premise into a story (and ultimately outline) come next.  The final choices of specific description, action and dialogue come last.

This is reflected in the way Hollywood does business.  Concept is king, in both film and television (as well as commercial fiction), and it is the basic idea for your story or series that sells it - the "logline," if you will."


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> I can say confidently, however, that I notice stuff like we're discussing a lot more now that I understand the "right" way to write.  Back before I started really getting into technique, an author had to hit me over the head with an inconsistency to get me to notice.  And even now, I will gladly put aside such problems if I'm into the characters and story otherwise.
> 
> I think we have to remember that everyone has pet peeves.  Just because you step on a pet peeve of a single reader does not mean that, overall, you're hurting your book in any meaningful way.



Two points.

First, you seem to be assuming that many readers are plain dumb and easily entertained.  Perhaps you are right; or at least _some_ readers will not notice inconsistencies or not be bothered by them, maybe even enough to buy those 6-11 copies/day of each book put on the market.  I've read my share of comments on YouTube–too many, probably, since it's something of a hobby–and no doubt there are many reviewers who can effusively praise some movie I thought was horrible or, conversely, despise some movie I thought was great.  But also, picking out inconsistencies in movies seems to be a fairly common attribute among the whole lot of them.  It's not terribly difficult to observe that, "Wait a minute, these characters mentioned how magical fire doesn't affect wood at all, but here 10 chapters later the hero saved everyone by burning down a pirate's ship with it!" or else that, "Hey, they spent 2 chapters hunting for this magical artifact that would help them in their fight, but now they've forgotten they have it and don't know how they are going to win!"  Maybe some readers will chuckle and move on to Book 2, as long as Sir Hero dispatches Mr. Villain in an extremely bloody knife fight by the end of Book 1.

Second, today's debate seems to have arisen because you found a quick answer to the quality vs edit dilemma; and, you're not going to edit your solution one iota.  Any other considerations in the editing process must necessarily be trivial, forsooth.  I do think that in your case, such noob mistakes as those already mentioned above are probably naturally edited out (i.e., never included in the manuscript from the beginning, or corrected during the second or third draft), so you are probably safe.  I am somewhat flaggergasted that even a cursory examination of a manuscript to find inconsistencies and dangling plot threads–anything but misspellings and typos–would be considered such a waste of the "sell soon, sell often" author's time, however.


----------



## BWFoster78

> First, you seem to be assuming that many readers are plain dumb and easily entertained.



No!  This is absolutely false. You have completely misunderstood the situation if you're saying this.

I'm saying that they noticed discrepancies but that the discrepancies didn't matter all that much to them.  That's not dumb. That's not easily entertained. That's the writer engaging them with character and story and them not caring all that much about plot issues.

Take the end of Finding Nemo.  What sense did it make, in the whole wide Sydney harbor, that Marlin and Dora would somehow end up in the exact spot where Nemo came out of the pipe?  None.  No explanation is given for that.  It makes no sense that they would have found him.

I see that inconsistency.  I even gave enough thought to it to voice the opinion here.  But I still loved the movie and will take my kids to see the sequel.

Are you saying the story would have been better without that "inconsistency?"



> Second, today's debate seems to have arisen because you found a quick answer to the quality vs edit dilemma



Okay, understand this: I am trying to figure out what I need to do to become a successful self published author.  To that end, I read a lot of posts from people who are successful self published authors and try to glean from them what I need to do.

Based on the information I read, I drew conclusions.  Again, that data:

Successful self published authors say that editing is crucial.
Successful self published authors actively discourage any commentary of a book being "not good quality" based on any objective criteria.  The only measure of quality is: do readers like it?

Is it not logical to draw the conclusion that I have drawn?




> I am somewhat flaggergasted that even a cursory examination of a manuscript to find inconsistencies and dangling plot threads—anything but misspellings and typos—would be considered such a waste of the "sell soon, sell often" author's time, however.



I don't understand your reasoning.

Is it that readers care about these things?
Is it that readers should care about these things?


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> Take the end of Finding Nemo.  What sense did it make, in the whole wide Sydney harbor, that Marlin and Dora would somehow end up in the exact spot where Nemo came out of the pipe?  None.  No explanation is given for that.  It makes no sense that they would have found him.
> 
> I see that inconsistency.  I even gave enough thought to it to voice the opinion here.  But I still loved the movie and will take my kids to see the sequel.
> 
> Are you saying the story would have been better without that "inconsistency?"



I would say that's not an inconsistency.  It's an improbability.  Improbabilities are easier to buy, simply because, in this wide world of ours, coincidences happen.  Sure it might be a stretch.   But then again, an ocean of talking fish is also a stretch.  In for a dime, in for a dollar.  

An inconsistency is something different.  It's the author drawing the world and then contradicting himself.  It's building the parameters for a story–promises made to the reader–and then inexplicably stepping outside those parameters–breaking those promises.



> Okay, understand this: I am trying to figure out what I need to do to become a successful self published author. To that end, I read a lot of posts from people who are successful self published authors and try to glean from them what I need to do.
> 
> Based on the information I read, I drew conclusions. Again, that data:
> 
> Successful self published authors say that editing is crucial.
> Successful self published authors actively discourage any commentary of a book being "not good quality" based on any objective criteria.  The only measure of quality is: do readers like it?
> 
> Is it not logical to draw the conclusion that I have drawn?



You have said to me directly, and also in at least one other comment, that you yourself have not liked the indies you've encountered:

To be honest, I absolutely cannot stomach the writing of most independent writers that I come across. When I first discovered indie authors, I was like, "Cool. Cheap books!" At that point, I paid almost no attention to technique "flaws." The problem was, however, that story after story disappointed me. I soon (rightly or wrongly) began to equate poor technique with a lack of ability to tell a good story. I've even encountered a couple of indie authors who exhibited good technique but did not, for me anyway, possess the ability to tell a good story.​ 
Is there not a paradox here?  If you, the reader, don't like most indies you've read, then by that measure of "quality" those authors have failed.  But then again, they (or others like them) are offering you the advice that you want to follow.  You have said that you are somehow outside the pool of readers being targeted (you are also a writer, and writers see things most readers do not), but I suspect that most readers on average are not terribly dumb or easily entertained.  For every handful of readers who buy and like one of those indies that you did not like, perhaps 10 or 20 disliked them; but we do not know the actual numbers.

Look, this extremely long thread has left me mostly buying into your premise.  11 copies of each book sold per day, and many books on the market, will eventually lead to a decent number of sales and adequate monthly $$$.  Minimal necessary quality, the right marketing, and so forth, will be adequate.  I also think that anyone reading this long thread who finds your strategy unattractive should instead take heart because, if these things work for you, then the effect will be multiplied considerably for self-published books written with much higher standards of quality in mind–albeit, with success slower to come.


----------



## spectre

I think when an editor, analyst, or critic picks up a book just because of their career motivation they will find something inadequately explained, technically incorrect, or offer some appropose. Readers are more extreme. Opinions are either favorable or not and inconsistencies and promise or consistency and flaw are what attracts and repulses them. There are genres where technical ability makes the cake like espionage, sci-fi, or psychological thriller, legal thrillers or some crime drama and books with industrial caveats but as long as grammar and a general logic compound and honestly, for some audiences certain morals aren't plundered or even conversely are, you can get readers to buy and complete reading your book. Maybe even review it as well and I think getting to that critical point means creating something enyhralling and at least have a facet of your story remain so because readers can become disinterested in one plot line and curious or avid for another. It doesn't have much to do with attention span but audience. I tired over the childish themes and lessons I'd seen in film as a child but loved Dory, the inventive hurdles, sharks and so on. At the same time kids ate the moral lessons up because that was applicable fresh material to them as an audience. Some people don't like computer animation but prefer vintage cartooning. So audience is important most of all.

Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk


----------



## spectre

Oh also, is miracle an archetype because it's under the improbability/inconsistency umbrella.

Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk


----------



## BWFoster78

> I would say that's not an inconsistency. It's an improbability.



Now we're parsing words.  It's still a fundamental structural problem with the plot.

In the movie Source Code, Jake Gyllenhaal is a soldier - can't remember if he's paralyzed or dead - using memories to try to learn why a train crash happened.  We're told time and again that he cannot impact the train crash.  In the end, SPOILER ALERT, he does. Complete inconsistency with the setup of the world.  The movie was pretty popular.



> Is there not a paradox here? If you, the reader, don't like most indies you've read, then by that measure of "quality" those authors have failed.



As you stated, I am an author and find stuff important that readers just don't really care about.

For example, I abhor the use of italics to artificially emphasize words.  Recently, I've chosen not to purchase books for that reason alone. 

I can't imagine, however, many readers feeling the same.

It's all fine and good for us to talk theory, but in the real world, what really makes a difference as far as sales go?



> But then again, they (or others like them) are offering you the advice that you want to follow. You have said that you are somehow outside the pool of readers being targeted (you are also a writer, and writers see things most readers do not), but I suspect that most readers on average are not terribly dumb or easily entertained. For every handful of readers who buy and like one of those indies that you did not like, perhaps 10 or 20 disliked them; but we do not know the actual numbers.



I can't help but feel you have completely missed the point.

As a business owner (which is what a self published author is), you only have so many resources.  If you've got $150, do you spend it on promotions or on editing?  A better cover artist or a writing workshop?  These are real choices that indie authors face daily.

It's not about what I want to do; in fact, most of the conclusions I'm drawing run completely counter to what I thought a couple of years ago.  I can't stress that enough.  Two years ago, I was exactly where you seem to be, thinking that my best chance of real success was to be a really good writer.

That's not what I'm seeing in the market, though.


----------



## spectre

What are you seeing in the market BWFoster78?

Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk


----------



## BWFoster78

spectre said:


> What are you seeing in the market BWFoster78?
> 
> Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk



My perception is that works are selling well even though the technical quality of the piece isn't exactly what a professional editor would endorse.


----------



## spectre

BWFoster78 said:


> My perception is that works are selling well even though the technical quality of the piece isn't exactly what a professional editor would endorse.


I don't know the books that captivate younger audiences are very endorseable. Everyone knows what sells in the media, I'm stuck on classic writing. That's my hangup. The enneagram's perfectionist personality. I think debating literary "inconsistency" is unpromising from fantasy authors also. Piers Anthony had clothes growing on trees. Jordan's Ogier sing to wood and so on. Target audience. Important.

Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> Two years ago, I was exactly where you seem to be, thinking that my best chance of real success was to be a really good writer.
> 
> That's not what I'm seeing in the market, though.



Not where I am.  Without laws against it, snake oil sells.  I concede this point.  I also think that I've made clear, already, that I believe your premise will work–although I am still wondering what scale of success we are talking about and whether one can aim a little higher without incurring unreasonable costs.  A _little_ higher, emphasis intentional here, because accepting only an either/or premise, or two extremes rather than a continuum of possibilities, might mean letting potential profits slip through your fingers.


----------



## BWFoster78

spectre said:


> I don't know the books that captivate younger audiences are very endorseable. Everyone knows what sells in the media, I'm stuck on classic writing. That's my hangup. The enneagram's perfectionist personality. I think debating literary "inconsistency" is unpromising from fantasy authors also. Piers Anthony had clothes growing on trees. Jordan's Ogier sing to wood and so on. Target audience. Important.
> 
> Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk



Sorry; I guess I should have clarified again: I'm speaking specifically about self published authors.


----------



## BWFoster78

FifthView said:


> Not where I am.  Without laws against it, snake oil sells.  I concede this point.  I also think that I've made clear, already, that I believe your premise will work—although I am still wondering what scale of success we are talking about and whether one can aim a little higher without incurring unreasonable costs.  A _little_ higher, emphasis intentional here, because accepting only an either/or premise, or two extremes rather than a continuum of possibilities, might mean letting potential profits slip through your fingers.



Again, the overall concept is in the realm of, given limited resources, where do you put them?

I think that any author who is open to the concept of improving will naturally improve as a part of the experience of writing and working with editors.  I'm not saying, "Don't improve, darn it."  I'm saying, "Once I've reached a certain level, concentrating on other things makes more sense."


----------



## spectre

BWFoster78 said:


> Sorry; I guess I should have clarified again: I'm speaking specifically about self published authors.


I'm scared to self publish. Not only is it a technical venture formatting wise but Amazon alone has different world markets which means translation and then there is understanding SEO from specific online stores to get a no name book at the top of the results. Hard copies? I had it priced for only 100 copies from a printer and it wasn't feasible profit to expenditure but that's way off topic. Therein lies my two cents and what change you can make from it too.

Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk


----------



## BWFoster78

spectre said:


> I'm scared to self publish. Not only is it a technical venture formatting wise but Amazon alone has different world markets which means translation and then there is understanding SEO from specific online stores to get a no name book at the top of the results. Hard copies? I had it priced for only 100 copies from a printer and it wasn't feasible profit to expenditure but that's way off topic. Therein lies my two cents and what change you can make from it too.
> 
> Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk



There is no question that self publishing is not for everyone and that there are definite challenges.


----------



## Steerpike

There's a continuum along which self-published authors seem to fall. Some discrete points along the continuum:

1. You're happy enough putting out complete dreck, as long as you think you can make a few bucks off it; 
2. You're not going to publish something unless you're personally satisfied that it is top-notch quality and representative of your art, and you'd rather do that and sell less than do #1.
3. Somewhere in the middle, where you decide a certain minimum level of quality is necessary before you're comfortable putting a work out there, but at some point you hit a point where even if it could be better it's "good enough."


----------



## PaulineMRoss

spectre said:


> I'm scared to self publish. Not only is it a technical venture formatting wise but Amazon alone has different world markets which means translation and then there is understanding SEO from specific online stores to get a no name book at the top of the results. Hard copies? I had it priced for only 100 copies from a printer and it wasn't feasible profit to expenditure but that's way off topic. Therein lies my two cents and what change you can make from it too.



This is where a little bit of research goes a long way, because self-publishing isn't at all as you might imagine. Formatting an ebook is technical to a degree, but it's nothing a computer-savvy person can't tackle. I've formatted the interiors of my ebooks and print versions, and it wasn't difficult to get a reasonable result. A professional will come up with something slicker and more elegant, of course, but it's not hard to do yourself. 

Translation? You really don't need to worry about that. The big markets are the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and I sell well in Germany, for some reason - in English. Very, very few self-pubbers put out translated versions. 

Getting a no-name book to the top of the results? You don't need SEO wizardry, you need to write an appealing book, and then tell people about it. If your book is well-targeted, it will sell itself (as Brian's is doing). There's a certain amount of algorithm tweaking needed to get to the next level, but there's a heap of information out about that. Self-pubbers share their knowledge.

Hard copies? Print on demand, which costs nothing at all. You don't even need to pay for a proof copy, if you don't want to.

For anyone who wants to know the nitty-gritty of this from the experts who've been through it, I recommend David Gaughran's two books, Let's Get Digital, about why and how to self-publish, and Let's Get Visible, about marketing. For the latest insider information, go to the Writers' Cafe forum on Kboards.

Self-publishing isn't an easy option. There's a lot of work involved to do it properly (ie with a chance of making money from it). But it's a hell of a lot of fun.


----------



## PaulineMRoss

Steerpike said:


> There's a continuum along which self-published authors seem to fall. Some discrete points along the continuum:
> 1. You're happy enough putting out complete dreck, as long as you think you can make a few bucks off it;



I don't think anyone thinks they're putting out complete dreck. On the contrary, there are a lot of beginner authors who think they've written a masterpiece and are shocked at complaints about typos, poor grammar, cardboard characters, plot holes and the like. I've come across a LOT of self-pubbers who ended up pulling their early work or extensively revising, because they didn't have a clue at first. That's (in my view) the biggest problem with self-pubbing - that authors do their learning in public view.

But I don't think anyone in this forum falls into the 'complete dreck' category.



> 2. You're not going to publish something unless you're personally satisfied that it is top-notch quality and representative of your art, and you'd rather do that and sell less than do #1.



And on what criteria do you measure what is  'top-notch quality and representative of your art'? You can decide not to publish until a work meets your own quality standards, sure, but (as I mentioned in point 1, above) many authors are self-deluded about their own ability. Getting an outside opinion is better - whether by submitting to agents/publishers, or putting the work through a critique group or beta reading.



> 3. Somewhere in the middle, where you decide a certain minimum level of quality is necessary before you're comfortable putting a work out there, but at some point you hit a point where even if it could be better it's "good enough."



Again, how are you measuring 'better'? See, there's a law of diminishing returns. With a first draft, there's a huge amount of improvement possible, usually. By the time you get to a third or fourth draft, not so much. Each iteration makes less difference to the finished work. You can go on tinkering for ever, and some people do, and that's fine. But if you want to publish eventually, there comes a point where each incremental improvement is less and less visible to a reader. And if you have a commercial objective in mind (which, after all, is the point of this thread), then endlessly tinkering is not cost effective. There comes a point when the time invested in another editing pass won't be rewarded by greater sales. That's when you publish.


----------



## spectre

PaulineMRoss said:


> I don't think anyone thinks they're putting out complete dreck. On the contrary, there are a lot of beginner authors who think they've written a masterpiece and are shocked at complaints about typos, poor grammar, cardboard characters, plot holes and the like. I've come across a LOT of self-pubbers who ended up pulling their early work or extensively revising, because they didn't have a clue at first. That's (in my view) the biggest problem with self-pubbing - that authors do their learning in public view.
> 
> But I don't think anyone in this forum falls into the 'complete dreck' category.
> 
> 
> 
> And on what criteria do you measure what is  'top-notch quality and representative of your art'? You can decide not to publish until a work meets your own quality standards, sure, but (as I mentioned in point 1, above) many authors are self-deluded about their own ability. Getting an outside opinion is better - whether by submitting to agents/publishers, or putting the work through a critique group or beta reading.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, how are you measuring 'better'? See, there's a law of diminishing returns. With a first draft, there's a huge amount of improvement possible, usually. By the time you get to a third or fourth draft, not so much. Each iteration makes less difference to the finished work. You can go on tinkering for ever, and some people do, and that's fine. But if you want to publish eventually, there comes a point where each incremental improvement is less and less visible to a reader. And if you have a commercial objective in mind (which, after all, is the point of this thread), then endlessly tinkering is not cost effective. There comes a point when the time invested in another editing pass won't be rewarded by greater sales. That's when you publish.


I'm not going to offer remarks on self-delusion in writing because it is an expressive art for one and often used to put things in front of you by journaling or poetry; etc. It is second nature to doing a task that there are guidelines. From an early age learning writing we know this and the development of skill is aspirational. Every aspiration is influenced and often times we invest ourselves in our literature or put ourselves into the shoes of our characters. That's work not dreck. And to the person who is comfortable just trying to turn a buck there isn't anything actually wrong with that but the only self-deluded misconception in doing anything is believing you can promote something unpresentable. Doing that shows levels of energy and many artists find themselves burned out or blocked. The point where such efforts become a decision has nothing to do with writing whatsoever. That's why I try to mix things up in my writing from points of view to pace, ambiance, everything. Has to be a fruitbowl right?


Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk


----------



## spectre

I guess I mean the starting point isn't the finish line and who crosses that is determined by the race. It's a job.

Sent from my LGMS345 using Tapatalk


----------



## FifthView

PaulineMRoss said:


> I don't think anyone thinks they're putting out complete dreck. On the contrary, there are a lot of beginner authors who think they've written a masterpiece and are shocked at complaints about typos, poor grammar, cardboard characters, plot holes and the like. I've come across a LOT of self-pubbers who ended up pulling their early work or extensively revising, because they didn't have a clue at first. That's (in my view) the biggest problem with self-pubbing - that authors do their learning in public view.
> 
> But I don't think anyone in this forum falls into the 'complete dreck' category.



This was the thing that shocked me most when self-published novels began proliferating on Amazon.  As a reader, to go from one expected standard for the books appearing there to its near-polar opposite was a surprise–and a great education.  I would imagine that many consumers learned the hard lesson and are now far more likely to read through reviews and to be influenced by the star ratings for books before taking the leap.

Concurrently, false reviews also seemed to appear early with a self-pubbed novel's inclusion on Amazon, overrating many novels that were complete dreck.  (Such reviews had been appearing for non-book items on Amazon already, although many of those items would receive far more reviews than the random self-pubbed books, and so there wasn't as much bias in the overall rating.)  I believe that many consumers became far more discerning as a result, learning to spot those cases and, often, to dismiss some glowing reviews while preferring the 3- or 4-star reviews (or worse) as a guide for whatever problems a book might have.  I know this is what I do.


----------



## BWFoster78

> This was the thing that shocked me most when self-published novels began proliferating on Amazon. As a reader, to go from one expected standard for the books appearing there to its near-polar opposite was a surprise—and a great education. I would imagine that many consumers learned the hard lesson and are now far more likely to read through reviews and to be influenced by the star ratings for books before taking the leap.



I think you really have a spectrum of readers:

Group 1 - These readers aren't all that picky about some of the stuff that you and I feel strongly about.  They simply don't care much at all about the writing prowess of the author as long as the author can deliver page turning or an emotional response or whatever it is that they are looking for.  Note that this people are not stupid for not caring about the stuff that you and I care about; they simply have different tastes.  Calling them dumb for not caring about plot inconsistencies is like calling people who like strawberry ice cream stupid because you like vanilla.

Group 2 - These readers want only the quality produced by traditionally published authors.  For the most part, they do not even consider purchasing indie works unless those works come highly recommended from a trusted source.

Group 3 - These readers are cognizant that they're paying a lower price for a product less polished than the Big 5 puts out. They're careful about their purchases - reading reviews and studying the sample first - but they're willing to take a chance due to the value proposition.

As an indie author, I have no shot at Group 2.  However, Groups 1 and 3 make up such a significant market that I don't have to sell that that other group.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> Group 1 - These readers aren't all that picky about some of the stuff that you and I feel strongly about.  They simply don't care much at all about the writing prowess of the author as long as the author can deliver page turning or an emotional response or whatever it is that they are looking for.  Note that this people are not stupid for not caring about the stuff that you and I care about; they simply have different tastes.  Calling them dumb for not caring about plot inconsistencies is like calling people who like strawberry ice cream stupid because you like vanilla.



I think your logic breaks down in here.  Writing prowess *is* the ability to deliver emotional responses and driving plots among other things, especially immersion.

Plot inconsistencies can harm immersion and lower the reading experience for all readers and thus should be eliminated.


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> Group 1 - These readers aren't all that picky about some of the stuff that you and I feel strongly about.  They simply don't care much at all about the writing prowess of the author as long as the author can deliver page turning or an emotional response or whatever it is that they are looking for.  Note that this people are not stupid for not caring about the stuff that you and I care about; they simply have different tastes.  Calling them dumb for not caring about plot inconsistencies is like calling people who like strawberry ice cream stupid because you like vanilla.



I was about to comment on this and noticed that Russ had beat me to it.

The problem with your description of these readers is that, as described, they can't easily be targeted.  I think it might be fair to say that any product imaginable, no matter how pedestrian, how odd, how disgusting, how ugly, how seemingly useless, will probably be liked by _someone_ and, if the price is right, can be sold to someone.  The question is whether a large enough group of someones exist for any given product put on the market for the producer to turn a nice profit.  For a given book, are there enough buyers who like its subject matter, who don't really care much about plot inconsistencies, good characterization, anachronistic dialogue, and so forth, to buy it?  Note:  One reader might not care about plot inconsistencies but very much care about good characterization; another might not care about either of those things but really hate anachronistic dialogue; yet a third might not care about any of those things but be really turned off by a gay character—or by a macho Everyman character, or an extremely angst-riddled character, or....The list goes on.

And then there is what Russ said.

Edit:  Ah, I forgot to add something.  My earlier comment, quoted by you, concerned the process readers take when deciding to buy a book for the first time—not whether they like the book once they have it.  Generally I meant to address some of the early barriers.  But these readers you highlight, even if they might like a book for reasons you've mentioned, might not even buy it in the first place to enjoy that story while not noticing plot inconsistencies, etc.


----------



## Heliotrope

I'm wondering…. and this is the emotional/councillor side of myself coming through… 

I wonder if, Foster, you are not so compelled to convince us, as you are to convince yourself. I think you worked really hard on your novel. Over four years I heard you say? That is a lot. That is a lot of time and effort and you should be really proud of yourself. I wonder, if perhaps Rise is not getting the reviews you had hoped for and this is stressing you out a bit? You need to know that it will still be OK? That it will still sell and you can still be successful even though it isn't perfect? 

I'm wondering now, if perhaps your Beta readers had some comments about Repulsive that have upset you, and again you are hoping to convince yourself that it is OK, and that there are others out there that will buy it and read it. 

You have forked out a lot of money on editors, cover artists, marketing etc, and I'm wondering if perhaps you are a little concerned about recouping those costs? You are hoping that if you work really, really hard producing lots of product than you will see some return?

This is sort of what it sounds like to me. This endless post that has gone on and on and on is sounding to me like you are hoping someone will tell you it is going to be OK. 

*End councillor mode now.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> I think your logic breaks down in here.  Writing prowess *is* the ability to deliver emotional responses and driving plots among other things, especially immersion.
> 
> Plot inconsistencies can harm immersion and lower the reading experience for all readers and thus should be eliminated.



There is no breakdown in logic.

Why is it so hard to accept that some readers simply don't care all that much about plot inconsistencies?

As authors, we question everything - motivations, world building, context. Everything.

A lot of readers are simply along for the ride, ready to be led wherever the author takes them.  Even if they do notice inconsistencies, they shrug and move on.

What I'm saying is: your best bet to succeed as an author is to focus on what your readers want.  If your readers tell you, "Hey, I'm not going to buy your next book because I didn't like this plot inconsistency" you need to fix it.  I really don't think, however, that's anywhere close to the top of your list of things you need to worry about.


----------



## BWFoster78

> The problem with your description of these readers is that, as described, they can't easily be targeted.



Huh? Where the heck do you get that idea?

There are tons of promotion sites, and those sites sell to exactly these readers.  This comment really makes me think that you don't really understand the business side of self publishing. 

The existence of sites that have a proven record of positive ROI is the reason that self publishing is no longer a hail mary.



> But these readers you highlight, even if they might like a book for reasons you've mentioned, might not even buy it in the first place to enjoy that story while not noticing plot inconsistencies, etc.



That's why cover, pitch, and sample are so important, much much more important, imo, to the success of an indie author than addressing plot inconsistencies.


----------



## Steerpike

I think BWFoster's approach to self-publishing _generally_ is a valid one. It's not the only one, and you can't say it is objectively best (in my view), without defining terms precisely.

I'd like to see evidence on plot inconsistencies, though. I think that works with plot inconsistencies that nevertheless do well tend to have inconsistencies that most of the readers aren't noticing. I think if you have a glaring inconsistency that the majority of readers are going to notice, it's going to hurt you. How it'll hurt is in terms of reviews and readers remembering it and avoiding future works. 

Readers aren't stupid. If you have glaring inconsistencies, they'll notice it, and they'll figure you either rushed the work and didn't care enough to resolve the issue, or that you assume they're stupid and won't notice it. On the other hand, with minor inconsistencies, many will not notice them. Of those who do, some may assume they've simply missed something and others may not care.

It depends on what the inconsistency is and how important it is to the work. If, at the end of the book, the reader is left thinking the plot didn't make any logical sense, I think they'll be a lot less likely to buy other works from you. There are just way too many alternatives that don't have glaring plot problems.

(Note, I am speaking in the abstract. I don't know if any work discussed here has plot inconsistencies or how substantial they are).


----------



## BWFoster78

> I wonder, if perhaps Rise is not getting the reviews you had hoped for and this is stressing you out a bit? You need to know that it will still be OK? That it will still sell and you can still be successful even though it isn't perfect?



Let's be honest here: _Rise_ is on track to earn more than $1000 this month.  That's (admittedly low) four figures for my first ever release (of a novel).

Regardless of the reviews, I'm over the moon about the book's success.

As far as recouping costs, I'm getting pretty close to being there after a single month!  Let's be clear that I'm in this thing for the long haul.  I didn't expect to make any kind of profit until late 2017.  It's entirely possible, given the success I'm seeing, that I'll turn a profit with my next round of releases in mid 2016.  Maybe a big profit.

So no offense, but your theory is an epic fail.  Epic.



> I wonder if, Foster, you are not so compelled to convince us, as you are to convince yourself.



Read this next paragraph carefully because I do not know why this is so hard to understand:

I am trying to determine my best course of action in proceeding with my career.  I do not have all the answers.  If any of you present a well thought out logical or factual argument that proves me wrong, it's to my benefit to change my opinion.

Stated plain and simple: So far, I'm underwhelmed by the arguments that have been presented to counter the conclusions I've drawn based on the data at hand.

It really feels to me that the main argument against my conclusions is an emotional reaction against the concept of it being okay to not put out superior quality work.  I think the main reason I sense that as an emotional reaction is that I used to feel the same way.

From my perspective, I changed my opinion because it didn't match what the data was telling me.


----------



## Heliotrope

Ok. It was just a stab in the dark. I don't believe it is ever an epic fail to try to understand where another person is coming from and ask questions.  I'm glad for you that's its doing so well! That is awesome news! So then, I don't think you have to convince anyone. Your strategy is obviously working for you and that is great!


----------



## BWFoster78

> It depends on what the inconsistency is and how important it is to the work. If, at the end of the book, the reader is left thinking the plot didn't make any logical sense, I think they'll be a lot less likely to buy other works from you. There are just way too many alternatives that don't have glaring plot problems.



As I responded to Russ, listening to your readers is important.  If they care about the plot inconsistency (or any other problem), you need to listen to them.

At the same time, you absolutely cannot please every reader.

One of the biggest challenges of indie publishing is that you are responsible for everything, and there are a lot of really tough choices that you have to make.  Where to put your limited resources of time and money are foremost among them.  How (or if) to respond to reader criticism is another.

For Rise, I've chosen to spend $150 and a week of my writing time fixing the primary issue that the early reviews brought up.  I did this because:

1. I think it will help me sell more books in the long run and give me a positive ROI.
2. The issue was clearly a screw up on my part, and emotionally, I hate having it hang out there.
3. The issue, while impossible to completely remove, is relatively easy and low cost to mitigate.

I think what Russ, Fifthview, and Heliotrope are missing most from my posts is that self publishing is an incredibly difficult business.  There are a lot of choices that you have to make, and you can't always choose a good course; sometimes you have to choose the least bad.


----------



## BWFoster78

Heliotrope said:


> Ok. It was just a stab in the dark. I don't believe it is ever an epic fail to try to understand where another person is coming from and ask questions.  I'm glad for you that's its doing so well! That is awesome news! So then, I don't think you have to convince anyone. Your strategy is obviously working for you and that is great!



I was only trying to say "epic fail" in the sense that it wasn't accurate.  I do appreciate the attempt to understand.

Note, however, that this isn't about convincing anyone; I truly don't care what anyone else thinks.  I simply want to make sure, to the best of my ability, that I'm pursuing the right course.

Note also that Rise isn't based on any strategy on my part.  I discovered my strategy after finishing the book.  Any strategical considerations will impact future series.  Had I known then what I know now, I would have made many different choices with Rise.


----------



## Steerpike

@BWFoster

One nice thing about indie publishing is you can fix such problems and publish the new version easily. Congrats on the book sales - that's great news. You probably already know this, but remember to prepare for the tax consequences. A common mistake self-published authors make when they're selling a decent amount is to forget that they're going to get taxed on that income, and come April 15th, they're wondering how to come up with the amount owed. Not saying you're in that boat, but I make a habit of reminding anyone who is self publishing and getting more than a handful of sales.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> A
> 1. I think it will help me sell more books in the long run and give me a positive ROI.



Everytime I see someone discuss ROI and writing, I scratch my head and wonder if and how they track their time.


----------



## Steerpike

Russ said:


> Everytime I see someone discuss ROI and writing, I scratch my head and wonder if and how they track their time.



I track my time in 0.1 hour increments every day. Fun stuff, eh Russ?


----------



## BWFoster78

Steerpike said:


> @BWFoster
> 
> One nice thing about indie publishing is you can fix such problems and publish the new version easily. Congrats on the book sales - that's great news. You probably already know this, but remember to prepare for the tax consequences. A common mistake self-published authors make when they're selling a decent amount is to forget that they're going to get taxed on that income, and come April 15th, they're wondering how to come up with the amount owed. Not saying you're in that boat, but I make a habit of reminding anyone who is self publishing and getting more than a handful of sales.



That's a good reminder.  Luckily (or not?), I don't think exceed my expenditures this year by much.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Steerpike said:


> I track my time in 0.1 hour increments every day. Fun stuff, eh Russ?



Pfft, lawyers, always complaining about the billables.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> Everytime I see someone discuss ROI and writing, I scratch my head and wonder if and how they track their time.



I think of the time I've spent learning how to write as completely sunk costs.  Similarly, I don't really think much about the amount of time I'm spending to produce a new work.  Later in my career assuming I'm selling relatively consistently, those kinds of variable may very well enter into my considerations.

For the moment, I'm thinking:

I'm going to spend $150 and one week.

The week doesn't really count very much against me; it simply delays publication of another work by a week (which, at this stage of my career, is really almost a negligible consideration).

From a money standpoint: Conservatively, I'll make $14 per set for every reader who purchases books 2-4 of my to be written series.  Selling 11 additional copies based on the changes I make is a positive ROI.  Considering that I expect to put my book in the hands of over 2000 readers, I only need a .6% increase in sell through to make up that difference.

I get your point about time, though.  Really, though, considering how many hours I've spent writing the book in the first place (I don't even want to speculate!), what's another 10 hours or so?


----------



## FifthView

BWFoster78 said:


> Huh? Where the heck do you get that idea?
> 
> There are tons of promotion sites, and those sites sell to exactly these readers.  This comment really makes me think that you don't really understand the business side of self publishing.



RE: Targeting

I only meant that the writing itself, beyond choice of language and adhering to its rules of spelling and grammar, isn't being used to target an audience if writing prowess isn't also used to target an audience.

Choice of story, plot, tropes, and so forth are pre-writing–and they might appeal to a very large swath of potential readers, in their pre-written conceptual forms.  But to target them specifically for a definite group of readers, they must be transformed into writing, which requires writing prowess of _some_ level.

Mere English, for example, with its rules of spelling and grammar, also targets a wide swath of potential readers, to the point of not really being targeted at a specific, definite audience.

Choosing _not_ to worry overmuch about plot inconsistencies and various other potential stumbling blocks is not a method of targeting an audience so much as a method of not worrying about targeting a segment of potential readers.  Perhaps what's left over will be a smaller potential audience; but one hasn't _targeted_ that audience.  So in line with my previous comment:  Some of those potential readers who actually greatly enjoy your choice of story idea, your plot, and so forth, might fall in the first group and not the group that's "left over."  But you've not targeted either.  Or maybe you've broadly targeted both, conceptually (in choice of story, etc.), hoping that at least some of them will self-identify as the intended target of the book; but are you targeting them or hoping they will self-target?

These questions, I think, will apply to pretty much any book written, whether the author spends a great length of time fretting over plot inconsistencies or does not.  Reader "self-targeting" is always going to happen, regardless of how much effort an author puts into the book; one can't please everyone all the time. But choosing to fret over, and fix, potential stumbling blocks to immersion seems to me to be a slightly surer aim than simply not bothering. 

Post-production methods of targeting–promotion sites, book cover design, other marketing–can create a more appealing target (for the self-targeting reader) or at the least a visible target.  Hence the caution about not judging a book by its cover.  Or its blurbs.  Or the wildly raving reviews that appear immediately after a self-pubbed book appears on Amazon.  But sometimes such things can be fortuitous for a reader and author both.  And marketing can work for anyone, for any book, not just those which have lots of plot inconsistencies and other foibles.


----------



## BWFoster78

> I only meant that the writing itself, beyond choice of language and adhering to its rules of spelling and grammar, isn't being used to target an audience if writing prowess isn't also used to target an audience.



To me, the important thing about audience targeting as it relates to self publishing, is to determine what the readers of your genre want. Doing so is most commonly accomplished by analyzing indie best sellers in your genre.


----------



## FatCat

You can aim for mass-appeal and lose, or you can write something ingenious and adventuress and still lose. I guess what I'm trying to say is that to focus on mass-market success is betting against the odds. there is no formula to study that diagnosis literature trends, it's whatever happens to catch the eye of a major publisher. Better to write because you want to tell a story for yourself, at first. If commercial success follows more power to ya.


----------



## BWFoster78

FatCat said:


> You can aim for mass-appeal and lose, or you can write something ingenious and adventuress and still lose. I guess what I'm trying to say is that to focus on mass-market success is betting against the odds. there is no formula to study that diagnosis literature trends, it's whatever happens to catch the eye of a major publisher. Better to write because you want to tell a story for yourself, at first. If commercial success follows more power to ya.



FatCat,

There is absolutely nothing you wrote in this paragraph that makes me believe you have any understanding of my points in this thread.

Let's consider three paths to success (not trying to be comprehensive as there are a lot of possible paths):

1 - Traditional

If you want a Big 5 publisher to dump loads of money in your bank account, your best bet is probably to swing for the fences.  You have to wow the editors with your concept.  Putting out something that is like what everyone else is writing isn't going to make you stand out.  The problem is that it isn't easy to put out something exceptional.  If all 79 people (as of this posting) who have viewed this thread each wrote their best ever work, would any of those qualify as truly exceptional enough to make a Big 5 editor take serious notice? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.

2 - Self Publishing as I've advocated in this thread

The key to succeeding at this path is to work hard and work smart.  You need to be putting out lots of books.  Aim for what the readers want.  Pay attention to the feedback you're getting.  If readers aren't buying it and you're not getting sell through, you're doing something wrong and need to make changes.  Promote.  Treat writing like a business.  I truly believe that just about anyone on this site can, depending on your definition of success, succeed following this path.  Not talking about buying a Ferrari for each day of the week or anything, but making a solid side income where each book you put out pays back a lot more than you financially invested in it.

3 - Build an audience before publishing

This is what Hugh Howey and Andy Weir did.  They posted a lot of free stories on websites, used the experience and the feedback  to get better at delivering what their audience wanted, and built a huge following.  When they finally published, there was such a demand for their work that it shot to the top of Amazon's chart where more and more people discovered it.  I think that, if you have patience and you have the ability to learn from the feedback you receive, this path is very doable as well.

Of the three paths, I really believe that the traditional path that you advocate is the least likely to happen.


----------



## Gospodin

<-- Knowing the underlying _why_ of my story.  

Having a _why I am writing this thing_ doesn't mean it needs to be a polemic.  Yeah, that can definitely happen, but it's not obligatory.  I recently read Jeff Vandermeer's _Southern Reach_ trilogy and it was a strange read indeed and it was also very clearly about the concept of communication.  In the tell of the tale he touched on some very profound ideas that aren't normally found outside the rarified climes of academia within the linguistics department, and certainly not usually to be found within what is ostensibly a bit of almost-Science Fiction.  China MiÃ©ville's _Embassytown_ was the same.  A Science Fiction novel that was also a lesson in linguistics, language acquisition, and a story about how language shapes thought as much as thought shapes language.  Both stories by these authors were deeply enthralling to me because that was my field of study at uni.  Do I think every reader is going to grok that underlying framework?  No.  Not without the educational background to recognize the theories and ideas in play.  But that doesn't really matter.  The fact that there is an underlying framework, an ideological scaffolding, makes these works compelling to any reader because it kept the writer in a true course.


----------



## FifthView

Brian,

Have you worked out how many copies/month sales you need to target per book, perhaps an algorithm to account for number of books you have on the market?  I'm suddenly curious if there's a baseline target.


----------



## BWFoster78

FifthView said:


> Brian,
> 
> Have you worked out how many copies/month sales you need to target per book, perhaps an algorithm to account for number of books you have on the market?  I'm suddenly curious if there's a baseline target.



Not really. At this point, I'm so far away from sustainable sales that it's kinda pointless to think about.

But since you asked ...

Let's say that I have all 3 of the Repulsive trilogy out. If the first book is free and the others are 3.99 ea, I'd get $5.50 per set sold, and $3 per set read.

Let's say that I've published my 4th Rise book with the first free and the others at 4.99 (10.5/set sold and $9/set borrowed).

That's an average of $7/set sold or borrowed.  To get $2000/mnth, I'd need to sell/loan around 10 sets per day.


----------



## Heliotrope

BWFoster78 said:


> FatCat,
> 
> If all 79 people (as of this posting) who have viewed this thread each wrote their best ever work, would any of those qualify as truly exceptional enough to make a Big 5 editor take serious notice? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.



I'm just putting a shout out to the 79 people who are working their butts off, writing, reading, studying, attending workshops, participating on forums, and generally beating themselves up. There is no reason why you cannot, in time, be truly exceptional. I have read a ton of posts here on this forum and have met a lot of very talented people who I'm sure will be traditionally published (even by one of the Big 5).


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> If all 79 people (as of this posting) who have viewed this thread each wrote their best ever work, would any of those qualify as truly exceptional enough to make a Big 5 editor take serious notice? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.



I would be willing to make you a bet, that either my wife or I, will have sold to a big five publisher within the next 3 years.  While my wife has not read this thread, she is more talented than I am and  has more time to write than I do. 

Care to take me  up on it?  It only increases the number to 80 from 79 which is an insignificant change in the odds...




> but making a solid side income where each book you put out pays back a lot more than you financially invested in it.



What a carefully worded comment.  It specifically avoids the value of your time...


----------



## Chessie

I'm sorry to say--and everyone has a different journey in mind--but at this stage, I'm not attempting to get traditionally published.  I gave up on that ages ago. And now, 20 years later, the opportunity with a local publisher has been presented to me and I've held back because, really, why give anyone my rights when I can make my own way? Sure, there are benefits to being traditionally published...none of which I can really think of at the moment.


----------



## Russ

Steerpike said:


> I track my time in 0.1 hour increments every day. Fun stuff, eh Russ?



I do almost exclusively contingency work.  Have not docketed in about 20 years or so...thank God...


----------



## brokethepoint

For my day job their big failure is not looking at supposed short term savings against long term costs.

So the question is, do you write for short or long term financial success.

For long term financial success (which is how I see financial success) it will require a quality to the writing.  The characters, the story and the style are all factors in if I keep reading and keep buying books by an author.  Are there things I can over look, yes.


----------

