What is Important?

[Garren Jacobsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?