What is Important?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.