What is Important?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.