Write What You Know, or Write What Sells?

[Chessie]

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

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

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

 

[skip.knox]

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

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

 

[Ronald T.]

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

Selling books is something different than writing

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

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

 

[Chessie]

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Incanus]

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

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[skip.knox]

...the writer seems best served to take the market into consideration as part of the process of writing.

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

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe for some this means learning what will sell.

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

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

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

 

[Russ]

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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

For me: To writing salable fantasy novels.

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

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

 

[Lilly]

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

 

[FifthView]

Two interesting facets of this issue:

• The writer, with respect to his own book, is also a member of the audience. This goes without saying—because it's such a common experience, it's taken for granted! Like that old saying, we don't know who discovered water but it sure wasn't a fish. So as we write and edit, we are constantly reviewing our work: Does this work? And this? We are audience to our own writing.
  
  
• Chances are very good that the writer already shares many things in common with other members of a potential audience. The same expectations. The same favored tropes and topics. The desire for certain types of stories.

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

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

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

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

 

[oenanthe]

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

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

 

[skip.knox]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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

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

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

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