# First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

It seems like we're about done with the first three stages of self-publishing.

Just saying.

There's still some fight left in the old guard, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that you can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.

Lawrence Block just appeared on national TV, told the host of the talk show that he was self-publishing his latest novel, and when asked what that meant, he said, "It means I get to keep all the money." (I paraphrase, but it was a good appearance and I'd had a cocktail when I watched it on Youtube, so it's close)

Nobody's really laughing any more. And all the snarky articles in the world haven't broken our bones or hurt us.

I'm thinking we're rapidly approaching the part where we win. If we haven't already.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2013)

For some strange reason I don't think there's going to be many dissenting voices on this one.


----------



## MrPLD (Sep 23, 2010)

We went through this with the Open Source Software world from about the mid 1990's.  All the arguments were essentially the same, and while there's still a few skirmishes, for the most part the war is over and acceptance has come about.


----------



## MitchHogan (May 17, 2013)

It'll be interesting to see if he signs a print only deal with traditional publishers. I'd wager this will become more and more the norm in the future, then the deals the top selling authors push for will filter down to the mid-listers.

I also think we'll hear about more deals the top selling authors sign with increased royalty % on ebooks above the 'industry standard' 25% from the big 5, and I think this will come very soon.

Keep up the good fight people


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

I know from our representative at the Society of Authors (a U.K. organization) that trad publishers are scared to death of self-publishing.

As well they should be.

Our ElHawk had that nice article that said something like, hey, trad publishers, if you can bring something valuable to the table, by all means tell us about it; otherwise, get the hell out of the way.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

MitchHogan said:


> I also think we'll hear about more deals the top selling authors sign with increased royalty % on ebooks above the 'industry standard' 25% from the big 5, and I think this will come very soon.


I expect so. After all, small publishers are already giving their authors 30-40% of eBook royalties. If the Big 5 don't follow suit, they might lose authors to smaller publishers who actually don't need agents to broker the deals.









Source: http://www.pinterest.com/pin/251709066645271107/


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Perhaps benign neglect is the best policy.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

JanThompson said:


> I expect so. After all, small publishers are already giving their authors 30-40% of eBook royalties. If the Big 5 don't follow suit, they might lose authors to smaller publishers who actually don't need agents to broker the deals.


They can't follow suit. Publishers have contracts with big-name authors that guarantees the same max royalty rate as any new author signed. So if one author is given 40%, Grisham and Brown get 40% retroactively. I've seen this clause in a contract offered to me. I said I would never be a part of this mutual blackmail.

The way publishers pay more than 25% is through large advances that they know the author will never earn out. I don't know what the workaround would be for this situation, but it's why they will not and cannot negotiate on royalty rates.

As for Blake's original post, I completely agree. We are moving into a new phase for self-publishing. It spins my noggin to see how far this has come so fast. It makes me want to go and revisit threads elsewhere from two years ago, just to let the hate wash over me.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

It's also interesting to hear from the people who matter -- the readers. When you speak to them it becomes clear that most don't pay much attention to who publishes the books they like to read. To me that says a lot about the position indies are in.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

I agree completely with Blake and Hugh, with the caveat that I think the corpse has a few twitches left in it. Publishers are still doing well financially, and they're going to have to face utter ruin before there is even a chance they will cut the fat and create overhead structures that work in the new world. For now, there are plenty of uneducated authors to feed the beast. I think we forget on here how little most people, even in the industry, really know about self-publishing.


----------



## MT Berlyn (Mar 27, 2012)

Lady Vine said:


> It's also interesting to hear from the people who matter -- the readers. When you speak to them it becomes clear that most don't pay much attention to who publishes the books they like to read. To me that says a lot about the position indies are in.


So very, _very_ true.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2013)

Mutual blackmail, heh. That's a good way to put it. The old 'divide and conquer' trick, finally made transparent.

I also think we've gotten through the first three stages. And yet ... how much are publishers feeling it really? They seem to be profiting greatly from all those ebook rights they've bought, and plenty of writers still seem willing to hand them over to them. How quickly is that going to change? We all say that the traditional publishers are way behind the times, but so are tons of writers.


----------



## Willo (May 10, 2013)

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

#Yes


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

1001nightspress said:


> I know from our representative at the Society of Authors (a U.K. organization) that trad publishers are scared to death of self-publishing.


I was looking at their website the other day and had to laugh at one disapproving paragraph in which they said they didn't recommend self-publishing. They seem to have updated their website now and I can't find much about self-pubbing at all, although they do grudgingly let you join if you've made a certain number of sales off your own bat.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Russell makes a good point, but until a really "big hitter" ... and I mean Stephen King or James Patterson-level big -- the old guard still will find a way to hold on.

But if you're Stephen King, can you even begin to imagine what you might earn by going indie?


----------



## P.A. Woodburn (May 22, 2010)

I'm not sure why you want everyone to self publish. Isn't the competition bad enough already?


----------



## jjfoxe (Apr 24, 2013)

Lady Vine said:


> It's also interesting to hear from the people who matter -- the readers. When you speak to them it becomes clear that most don't pay much attention to who publishes the books they like to read. To me that says a lot about the position indies are in.


This.

I'm about to hit publish on my first story - sometime this week - and I was talking about it to a guy who is: (a) pretty clever, and (b) reads 50 plus novels a year (mainly SF/fantasy).

And he asked how it worked with Amazon in terms of self publishing. He had absolutely no idea that ANYONE can self publish. When I told him that you only needed a book, a cover, a blurb and an Amazon account to publish your own stories he was bowled over.

Remember this is a guy who reads a lot. And he had no idea. I would say the only people who pay attention to who publishes specific books are people in the industry (whether trad or indie).


----------



## SeanBlack (May 13, 2010)

Lawrence Block interviewed by my countryman, Craig Ferguson. It's a pretty entertaining interview.






Not sure I agree with Russel or Hugh. Big publishing is doing just fine.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win


Sounds like how I met my wife.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I agree there's been some horrible mud slung at indie writers - the least of which has been, 'We're not thinking about you.' But those people have been left with mud on their faces.
I think there's still lots of editors and agents who are enthusiastic about books and will adapt and change. Everything's changing rapidly, and with writers like Hugh out there in front, it's changing faster than anyone could have anticipated. Trade publishing is still doing well. Profits increased for most this year - not decreased, so it's not as though indie publishing has knocked trade out of the water, and I think that's a good thing.



jjfoxe said:


> This.
> 
> I'm about to hit publish on my first story - sometime this week - and I was talking about it to a guy who is: (a) pretty clever, and (b) reads 50 plus novels a year (mainly SF/fantasy).
> 
> ...


In YA lit, readers absolutely do know whether a book is indie or trade (not all, of course, but a huge amount) It might be because YA bloggers and readers tend to get together to discuss books a lot online. And there are thousands of YA book blogs out there. Many will not read an indie YA book. Many won't review them either. Which is just the way it is.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

I wouldn't be so quick to claim victory. The battle may be dying down for the moment but the big six (five?) are still standing and my guess is that they will find other ways to fight back. They need to reclaimmarket share from indies for their own writers, and they may be a bit slow to react to the change in the publishing world, but they will react.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

SeanBlack said:


> Not sure I agree with Russel or Hugh. Big publishing is doing just fine.


I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me, then! 

I'm talking about the end of the stigma, the acceptance of self-publishing, and the ability for authors to thrive in this environment. I've also been quick to point out that publishers are making a lot of money off ebooks. Where publishers start hurting is when B&N goes under and bookstores become difficult to find. It happened to music shops, and recording labels got pinched, leaving Apple to clean up. I think the same thing will happen with publishing. No part of me looks forward to this.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> I'm not sure why you want everyone to self publish. Isn't the competition bad enough already?


That also came to my mind, but I'm still pre-coffee. 
I think by nature many authors (especially here) are altruists. There is also the stigma issue around self-publishing which will fade if people like Stephen King or John Irwing decide to self-publish.

Also, the numbers of books are the same, whether a publisher loads up Amazon or the author does.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I just deal with all the stigma by being a recluse, haha.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

ChrisWard said:


> I just deal with all the stigma by being a recluse, haha.


I no longer have to deal with that. Once I understood that I'm an introvert, everything started to make sense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/introverts-signs-am-i-introverted_n_3721431.html


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Haha, I get forced out sometimes! It helps that I live in Japan, so its rare that I find myself in situations where I'm asked about it. Most of my friends don't care and I don't bring it up (unless I'm really drunk). I'll just let the money talk. At the moment it's whispering really damn quietly, but fingers crossed it'll start shouting soon!


----------



## Chris P. O&#039;Grady (Oct 28, 2013)

I had this discussion yesterday with a well known editor, from the perspective of a reader who buys 100+ e books a year. Nearly all of what I buy are indies. Definitely see the old guard in their (the editor/publishers) world view. They dismiss self publishing as lower quality, low results, basically the wrong way to go about becoming a writer. 

This troubled me not so much because of the opinion, but rather the facts. The best buggy whip companies felt the same way I am sure   the fact as I see it as a reader is that I have a huge appetite for books. More so than ever before. I am no longer willing to wait for the machine to churn out a new book every year from my favorite author. IMO the big name publishers are going to have to change their business process to meet the demand. 

Over simplified it means that they need us (indies and readers of course) and have to figure out how to harness all of this energy and the sales. Do or Die time. It may take a few more years, but you don't have to look far to see the change coming. It wasn't 5 years ago that many of us were perusing book stores. Where are they now? Record stores? Small retailers of all kinds? Sure they exist but they have become marginalized, you can't stop change.

Final thought. I really do appreciate what most publishers and editors bring to the table. Mainly in the higher quality, more consistent product.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Quiss said:


> Also, the numbers of books are the same, whether a publisher loads up Amazon or the author does.


Quiss, as so often happens, you came up with the perfect reply here, so that I didn't have to!  Thanks!


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I can't wait to hear the laminations of their women.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Anya said:


> In YA lit, readers absolutely do know whether a book is indie or trade (not all, of course, but a huge amount) It might be because YA bloggers and readers tend to get together to discuss books a lot online.


True, very true. But I'm not so sure it matters. We've been able to find a core readership in YAlit regardless as being known as Indie and quite frankly out sell new & mid-ranking YA authors frequently.



Anya said:


> It might be because YA bloggers and readers tend to get together to discuss books a lot online. And there are thousands of YA book blogs out there. Many will not read an indie YA book. Many won't review them either. Which is just the way it is.


Here's the kicker. A lot of YA bloggers that have a refusal policy on their blogs for Indie writers are just as happy to pick up a copy through book blog tours or Netgalley or Edelweiss. I think it's because they think either the price of doing such promotions or the forum itself lends a vetting capability. They don't want to have to slog through YA material submitted through their personal emails - check out author bios, goodreads ratings, amazon + barnes & noble reviews/rankings and they don't have to if it comes from another trusted source. Just my thoughts.


----------



## kwest (Mar 16, 2013)

People who ask me about my books are always really, really surprised that I've self-published. They always seem to think that self-pubbing is what you do when a "real" publisher won't publish you. I think it'll still be a few years before this mentality kicks the bucket.

And maybe the trads are fighting back. I see A LOT of books in the top 100 that I was very surprised to see priced so low. Sanderson's The Way of Kings is listed for $1.26!

Either way...I think the environment might get a lot tougher to sell in a year from now as the trads adapt, especially for new people trying to get in.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

kwest said:


> And maybe the trads are fighting back. I see A LOT of books in the top 100 that I was very surprised to see priced so low. Sanderson's The Way of Kings is listed for $1.26!
> 
> Either way...I think the environment might get a lot tougher to sell in a year from now as the trads adapt, especially for new people trying to get in.


The thing is, with their overhead, the trade publishers can't afford low prices on long term, or at least, they would have to have large amount of books to sustain the same system that they have now. I think that this is the reason for why they are creating digital-only imprints. But even in that case, their investment in the book would have to be minimal, and the percent of authors royalties even smaller than they are now. The other things is that, where bestseller lists are concerned, their book are competing with self-publishers. The last Mrs. Rusch's article in The Business Rusch: Unintended Consequences explains the consequences of that for trade publishers very well.

I never worried about the trade publishers. I have stories to tell and that's what I'm doing, glad that I don't have to waste my time with trying to find a publisher to reach readers. So, the stigma of self-publishing never bothered me, nor did the articles that look down on self-publishers.


----------



## jvin248 (Jan 31, 2012)

When I did a search on youtube for LB, I saw he has been on Ferguson's show quite a lot. A regular promoter on there.


----------



## kwest (Mar 16, 2013)

elalond said:


> The thing is, with their overhead, the trade publishers can't afford low prices on long term, or at least, they would have to have large amount of books to sustain the same system that they have now.


Very good point, and one I hadn't considered.

As indies, we can outsource any jobs for a few hundred dollars. For even higher quality, we can spend $1,000 to $2,000 per book. With their payroll/production costs, trads can't compete long-term with low prices, so their only chance at success is convincing readers that self-pubbed books are lower quality.

So far, most readers aren't buying it. There are too many indies releasing books that are at trad pub quality, or even better.

The only person on the self-pubbing payroll is the writer, and anyone that writer contracts for covers, editing, and so forth. Production costs are low. For the talented, hard-working, and savvy writer, there is much opportunity indeed.

If I had gone the traditional route, my books, if accepted by an agent and or publisher, would still be waiting in line. Now I have four out and have made my money back on production costs, and I've made more than any advance I might have received as a first-time writer.

This era is AWESOME for writers, and I'm glad to be a part of it.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

To clarify, I am not sounding a death knell for Trad Pubs. Quite the opposite, I'm of the view that they do bring substantial value to the table for readers, in many cases. 

Rather, I'm saying that the stigma associated with self-publishing finally appears to be falling away. Rather than traditional or self, I see increasingly a world that doesn't really differentiate between self-pubbed books and those the large publishers release.

I've said in prior posts that trad seems to be doing just fine. I believe that will continue. True, there will have to be changes in their operating model, but they'll adjust eventually, or fade away. How they adjust is a matter of debate. I happen to think that they'll increasingly do deals with promising self-pubbers who have established themselves firmly in the mid-list and are making nice livings, and try to take them the extra distance to become huge. My sense is that's a win-win for everyone. The mid-lister gets a shot at becoming Dan Brown, and the trad publisher gets a proven performer with an established fan base to cushion their risk.

But trust me. Nowadays, what I'm seeing is not so much the divide between trad and self, but rather the divide between competent and not so much, between amateur and professional, as I've alluded to so often before.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

I recently glanced at an article in, I think, PW, in which it was predicted that ebooks would top out at 30% of the market (or roughly what it is now) instead of the 50% widely predicted by forecasters. If that's true then I don't think B&N is going anywhere much less big publishing. But then I'm not sure that it is true.


----------



## SeanBlack (May 13, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me, then!
> 
> I'm talking about the end of the stigma, the acceptance of self-publishing, and the ability for authors to thrive in this environment. I've also been quick to point out that publishers are making a lot of money off ebooks. Where publishers start hurting is when B&N goes under and bookstores become difficult to find. It happened to music shops, and recording labels got pinched, leaving Apple to clean up. I think the same thing will happen with publishing. No part of me looks forward to this.


You're quite correct, but where's the fun in agreeing?


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Eric: I can predict 90%. Predictions are worth whatever the weather man's wearing that day.

Also, I suspect that prediction is skewed in favor of all the hard copy textbooks that are produced for academic consumption.

My hunch is within 3 years the market for genre fiction is more like 40-50% ebooks. Which I'm fine with. It's a better way to read, and as a voracious reader, I wouldn't even consider hauling ten novels on vacation when my kindle has 600. It's simply a better delivery system.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Trade publishers prefer a sure thing. Or as near as they can get to it. We can experiment, evaluate, regroup and start over. We can turn on a dime. Trade publishers can't.

They wouldn't touch my books with a ten foot pole anyway, so I'm not even going to try.

I think it is a huge advantage that self publishing allows us to cater to readers that are left in the cold by trade publishers. We're unbeatable in the mini-niches, and we're making inroads into the mainstream genres. And this is only the beginning.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

I think publishing is going to be really interesting in the next few years. Here's how I suspect things may play out (not so bold as to call it a prediction...but call it my hunches).

PRINTED BOOKS

Physical books are not going anywhere anytime soon...lots of people still love physical books, just as lots of CDs are still sold. (Honestly, it's a great container for media content -- durable, lasts decades or centuries, relatively cheap, no technology required beyond your eyes and light.) I think physical books will stay, in sales volume, roughly where it is now to about half what it is now (replaced by ebooks).

Trad publishing will still own the physical bookstore space (and Walmart, Target, Costco) for obvious reasons -- distribution. Trad publishers will print and ship books to stores on credit and a steep discount, just as they have for 50 years.

CreateSpace is great for on-demand books, but there's no credit and no returns (which honestly, if for the best for authors), so traditional bookstores are simply not going to carry them in inventory no matter how popular they are -- not when they can order books that are_ just as good_ (in their eyes) on credit and that they can return.

Any authors who wants a book in stores will have to go to a traditional publisher, either one of the big six or the multitude of smaller presses that can get into stores because honestly, not many of us have the clout or, more importantly, the desire to spend our time dealing with sales reps, fulfillment, returns, accounts receivable, marketing co-op and all the nuts and bolts behind the scenes that make physical publishing work.

EBOOKS

Here, the trad publishers are really in a tight spot.

I think ebooks will continue to grow to be at least 10 times what they are now -- so, in terms of units, physical books will be stagnant but still a BIG market...just ebooks will be a HUGE market.

As for where the growth is coming from, there are still lots of people who don't buy any ebooks or buy only a few. There are lots of people who don't have capable devices, plus you have the potential of opening up to world-wide distribution (opening up markets that have been entirely closed to authors), the prospect of REALLY cheap readers ($25 or so) in the next few years and the fact that avid readers are simply going to buy a lot more books when they have access to EVERYTHING, instantly and cheaply, instead of just the limited selection at their local store.

Most readers don't know or care about the self-publishing phenomenon. I have a friend who is a school teacher and an avid reader -- he had no idea that just anyone could publish a book. It amazed me because I am immersed in self-publishing culture, but many, many readers have NO. IDEA. Astounding.

Self-publishers have proven that they can produce a quality product that is competitive with the best the Big 6 can produce. That is no longer even a debatable point. (Sure, there's lots of "crap" in self-publishing because the barriers to entry are so low...but I argue that lots of trad published material is no better than the self-published stuff that is criticized.) Regardless of how you want to spin it, there are some amazing books being self-published.

As an author, self-publishing makes a lot of sense because you get to keep the lion's share of the money (instead of 15%) and you actually have creative control with the writing, marketing, etc. You still have a sense of ownership of your book, whereas with trad publishing, authors often feel like "what have they done to my child?" when a book is just not taken care of.

The Big 6 are going to be tightly squeezed in the marketplace that matters most (ebooks). As Hugh pointed out, they can't budge on royalties because of "matching terms" contracts with other authors. They tied that anchor around their neck and now they are going to ride it all the way to the bottom of the sea.

Where I see the role and potential for the Big 6 going forward (or any publishing house) is marketing (awareness) and distribution -- for an author, they can do physical books, they can do publicity blitzes and media.

The thing that chills me is the obvious thing:

Knowing their days of dominance are numbered and that their whole business model is at risk, the Big 6 are going to push the big vendors, Amazon, B&N, Kobo, etc. with media buys, co-op and buying prominent positioning on their websites to squeeze the Indie authors out of visibility, just as the big record labels control what gets radio airplay.

I see them using all kinds of moves -- buying prominent placement, promotion everywhere, paying the ebook vendors to ensure that none of the "also bought" referrals ever point to anything but a trad published book, creating an indie ghetto that the rest of us are banished to, basically cutting off all visibility to Indie authors, using sock puppet buyers, reviews and creating artificial buzz on blogs and message boards.

I see them as trying to push the ebook vendors to lock down their devices and apps so you can't sideload your own content, just as B&N's new Nook has 4 Gigs of storage (and no memory slot) but only 500 megs is allowed for non-official B&N content. Just as Kobo no longer allows you to buy and download non-DRMed Epubs, you MUST be running a Kobo app or device to download. I think this is just the surface of the kind of control that big publishers (and perhaps even the ebook retailers) are going to try to force on readers -- for the Big 6, it is about marketplace control and for the ebook vendors, they want to lock you into their eco-system and force you to stay their customer forever.

I see this kind of thing as inevitable because that's the only move they have left. It may seem paranoid and conspiracy-ish, but these are big media conglomerates that are really threatened by this outside force, indie authors. They have a vested interest in making sure that most readers have no idea that these little tiny Indie authors even exist.

That or they can just try to compete by having the best books...but most big corporations don't really think that way.

The question is, will Amazon, B&N and Kobo go along...do they make more money on indie authors (and are we less hassle)? Or is there more to be made selling out to the Big 6? And for us indie authors, what options do we have if this does happen? (That's why I see services as Draft2Digital being a short-term play...because ultimately, they are entirely dependent upon the big ebook vendors; they need their own store, IMHO.)

Which indie-focused book stores and services are going to enable readers and authors to find each other? That's what gets me thinking that places like Smashwords, Gumroad and the smaller ebook stores like Weightless, Rebellion (Solaris) and others are going to be much more important to most of in the future than they are now.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> It seems like we're about done with the first three stages of self-publishing.
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> ...


Dang! Thanks for the truth, Lawrence Block! (And Russell.)


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

elalond said:


> The thing is, with their overhead, the trade publishers can't afford low prices on long term, or at least, they would have to have large amount of books to sustain the same system that they have now.


That's true with new books -- they spend a lot more money bringing a new book to market than an Indie does.

But they have incredible backlist they ought to be able to trot out at not much cost and sell FOREVER. They have the potential to make a fortune bringing back all the books they already own that haven't been widely available for decades -- if they have the ebook rights, that is. There have been numerous squabbles between authors, agents and the publishers over vague contract clauses that leave ebook rights unsettled.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

1001nightspress said:


> Our ElHawk had that nice article that said something like, hey, trad publishers, if you can bring something valuable to the table, by all means tell us about it; otherwise, get the hell out of the way.


Oh, hey, I got quoted.

for those who missed my fifteen seconds of fame back in June or whenever I wrote this...


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Eric C said:


> I recently glanced at an article in, I think, PW, in which it was predicted that ebooks would top out at 30% of the market (or roughly what it is now) instead of the 50% widely predicted by forecasters. If that's true then I don't think B&N is going anywhere much less big publishing. But then I'm not sure that it is true.


Well...they also predicted a few years ago that ebooks would NEVER account for more than 12% of sales, and that was touted as a very generous estimate.


----------



## polecat (Oct 18, 2013)

> I see them as trying to push the ebook vendors to lock down their devices and apps so you can't sideload your own content, just as B&N's new Nook has 4 Gigs of storage (and no memory slot) but only 500 megs is allowed for non-official B&N content. Just as Kobo no longer allows you to buy and download non-DRMed Epubs, you MUST be running a Kobo app or device to download. I think this is just the surface of the kind of control that big publishers (and perhaps even the ebook retailers) are going to try to force on readers -- for the Big 6, it is about marketplace control and for the ebook vendors, they want to lock you into their eco-system and force you to stay their customer forever.


They may try that but technology already beat them. Portable tablet computers that will read everything, and larger smart phones from companies that have no interest in content like Samsung. If B&N, Roku et al want to lock their systems, they just wont sell very many of them.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Russell makes a good point, but until a really "big hitter" ... and I mean Stephen King or James Patterson-level big -- the old guard still will find a way to hold on.


Good for them. I hope they do find a way to hold on. I see no benefit to the market from their demise. There is certainly no benefit to consumers. And I see no benefit to the economy.

The market will adapt as it always has, with producers coming, going, and changing. I prefer a mix of producers rather than dominance by any single type of producer.



> But trust me. Nowadays, what I'm seeing is not so much the divide between trad and self, but rather the divide between competent and not so much, between amateur and professional, as I've alluded to so often before.


1. Competent professionals
2. Competent amateurs 
3. Incompetent professionals
4. Incompetent amateurs

* * *

Re the future of publishers:

We might monitor the success of the new eBook ventures the publishers have recently launched. That is an attempt to adapt, and their success will be a good indicator of the publishers ability to change. Follow the money.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Quiss said:


> I no longer have to deal with that. Once I understood that I'm an introvert, everything started to make sense.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/20/introverts-signs-am-i-introverted_n_3721431.html


  Love this! There's a reason why it's called a writing *cave*.

As far as the topic at hand - YAY!

We have come a long way. I think there are still some viable markets that traditional publishers dominate and one is YA SF/Dystopian. Almost all the popular books in that genre are traditionally pubbed. I'm not saying they are the best sellers all the time, but they get the most attention from blogs _and_ Amazon. (The 5th Wave, Divergent, Altered, Black City etc)

On the other hand, I refuse to read a traditionally pubbed NA - they are so far behind in that genre it's sad. Only the indies are putting out anything groundbreaking in my opinion.

Those are really the only two genres I pay attention to, so if anyone else sees this pattern with say, thrillers or mysteries, I'd love to hear about it. I'm toying with a Big Book bio-thriller next year. Under a pen name probably. A man's pen name.  Since I was practically handed an agent (with no contract) this year by a friend, I might ask her to shop it. I'd like to have her shop my upcoming SF/dystopian too, but not sure she's into those.

I'm personally not attached at the hip to self-pubbing. I write fast. I'm going to put out ten books next year. If some publisher wants to buy my Rook and Ronin series, which is being shopped, and give me a nice advance, I'm in. I realize that eboosk are forever, but I've made that money. those books make money the first month, then when you put them on sale a few months later to release the next one. That's the pattern in NA, anyway. So as far as I'm concerned, one month after publication they are back list. Panic is back list for me now, and it came out three weeks ago,. i got an omnibus out tomorrow and a new book out December 2.

I can always write more books and earn that two week post-release money.

Now, if they want to buy FUTURE books, that's another story. Because then you lose that post-release money and the risk is higher.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Ebook sales rates come from traditional publishers, who are reporting their ebook vs. print sales. They don't take into account Amazon's sales, because Amazon doesn't report them! To anybody!

So forget every PW and DBW and whoever else stat you see on ebook sales rates. Self-published authors aren't included in these rates. And the numbers are confused by lumping non-fiction and textbooks in there, which I will grant are books, but are read in a very different way by (often) different people. Fiction is more "disposable" and better suited to ereading habits and self-published authors (and I realize there are a few offensive things in that sentence, but they're true).

This is very much like using Bowker's stats to inform us on published books, when most books probably don't go through Bowker's ISBN system before being published anymore.


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> I can't wait to hear the laminations of their women.


Joe - It's your fault - I've spent all morning trying to visualize laminated women...


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Janne: My JET series has sold almost 100K, mas o menos, over the last year. It still continues to be my biggest seller. So in the thriller/action-adventure genre, that "backlist after a few weeks" phenom isn't hitting, at least for a decent series. Could be something related to your genre, because for series novels, I've seen little fade even after 12 months on that series, and my second most popular series, the Assassin series, continues to sell steadily as well (albeit at a lower rate than JET).


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Janne: My JET series has sold almost 100K, mas o menos, over the last year. It still continues to be my biggest seller. So in the thriller/action-adventure genre, that "backlist after a few weeks" phenom isn't hitting, at least for a decent series. Could be something related to your genre, because for series novels, I've seen little fade even after 12 months on that series, and my second most popular series, the Assassin series, continues to sell steadily as well (albeit at a lower rate than JET).


Yeah, but I don't sell like that. It makes sense for you big sellers to keep your rights. I'm firmly mid-list in every sense of the word. So for me, it would make sense to sell a series and then use that sale to negotiate better deals, or just get my name out to more people so they buy my upcoming books. But yeah, if I were you, I'd keep it all.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Ebook sales rates come from traditional publishers, who are reporting their ebook vs. print sales. They don't take into account Amazon's sales, because Amazon doesn't report them! To anybody!
> 
> So forget every PW and DBW and whoever else stat you see on ebook sales rates. Self-published authors aren't included in these rates. And the numbers are confused by lumping non-fiction and textbooks in there, which I will grant are books, but are read in a very different way by (often) different people. Fiction is more "disposable" and better suited to ereading habits and self-published authors (and I realize there are a few offensive things in that sentence, but they're true).
> 
> This is very much like using Bowker's stats to inform us on published books, when most books probably don't go through Bowker's ISBN system before being published anymore.


Excellent point. Its a mistake to think fiction is a surrogate for the whole book market, or that the whole market is an accurate representation of the state of fiction. I can easily envision a large publisher simply backing out of the fiction market. What we are talking about is a market segment.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Hugh made a great point about % of ebook vs. % of print sales -- that number is for traditional publishers only.

As I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong), Amazon, B&N, Nook, etc do not release exact sales figures, so ALL of those indie book sales are simply IGNORED in sales estimates. 

The traditional pubs are reporting, what 25-30% of total sales are ebooks? But all of the Wools and Amanda Hockings and Joe Konraths and everybody else just don't count. Even though they are a LOT of books.

(It's kind of like how some bands like Iron Maiden are ignored by mainstream music but they are now selling more concert tickets than they ever did when they were with a traditional label.)

Add in all of the indie books that are ignored and even the tiny amounts of sales at smaller and often overlooked vendors (Smashwords, Weightless, Diesel, Feedbooks, DriveThru, etc. and small press' dedicated storefronts, and even the bundles like StoryBundle and BookBale, as well as direct download sales via PayPal and Gumroad) and I would suspect that ebooks could well already be 40-50% of all books sales (by volume)...especially if you consider a freebie a "sale." 

Dollar volume is probably a lower % simply because so many ebooks are lower priced than print...but I bet that number is still a pretty impressive percentage. 

There are a lot of places that chip into the ebook pie -- on their own, no one or two of these smaller "alternative" vendors may post impressive numbers, but add it all up and you can get some nice total sales.

Plus there is the bottom line for authors -- getting 70-80% of a smaller number of sales can still mean a lot more $$$ for an author than getting a lot of sales but only 15-25% royalties (depending on how the sales totals break).


----------



## SeanBlack (May 13, 2010)

The Bookseller in the UK has started to collate ebook/print sales from the major publishers. They made the June data available for free as a PDF and it made for interesting reading, especially bearing in mind that the UK market is likely not as advanced as the US in terms of ebooks.

The top selling title was Entwined With You by Sylvia Day. It sold 201,053 in e-book and 167,348 in print. Dan Brown's Inferno was 60,000 e-book to 120,000 in print. Gone Girl was 32,000 e-book to 50,000 print. Overall e-books seemed to run about 33 to 50% for many of the top 50 titles. Bear in mind that these are frontlist titles with serious print runs/sell in and large amounts of coop spend.

So, yes, when it comes to genre fiction over a broader range of titles/authors, and if you include indie titles, I'd estimate that we are already close to 50%.


----------



## phil.H (Oct 29, 2013)

MrPLD said:


> We went through this with the Open Source Software world from about the mid 1990's. All the arguments were essentially the same, and while there's still a few skirmishes, for the most part the war is over and acceptance has come about.


Oh there is a big one Microsoft Secure Boots. You can find out more here: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement

_When done correctly, "Secure Boot" is designed to protect against malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary programs when booting. In practice, this means that computers implementing it won't boot unauthorized operating systems -- including initially authorized systems that have been modified without being re-approved._

For your own safety mind you. That's fine if they leave their hands off of Open Source and Freeware/Shareware but can anyone really see MS not manipulating the market?

I resent that Microsoft will approve what I want on my computer.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Wansit said:


> True, very true. But I'm not so sure it matters. We've been able to find a core readership in YAlit regardless as being known as Indie and quite frankly out sell new & mid-ranking YA authors frequently.
> 
> Here's the kicker. A lot of YA bloggers that have a refusal policy on their blogs for Indie writers are just as happy to pick up a copy through book blog tours or Netgalley or Edelweiss. I think it's because they think either the price of doing such promotions or the forum itself lends a vetting capability. They don't want to have to slog through YA material submitted through their personal emails - check out author bios, goodreads ratings, amazon + barnes & noble reviews/rankings and they don't have to if it comes from another trusted source. Just my thoughts.


Oh absolutely! It's very possible to find core readerships in YA as an indie writer, such as with you and your series. I often see YA releases from trade pubs that sink soon after. So it really is all about, in the online space, whether readers connect with your books.

I do know of lots of large YA book blogs and smaller blogs where no indie book is ever reviewed - they say that there are so many books, they don't have enough time to read all the trade pub offerings, let alone the indie books. But as you said, it doesn't matter. There are more than enough readers who are enthusiastic about a good read, whether it's indie or trade.

My point was just in reference to readers not being aware of whether a book is indie or trade. It may be true that YA readers, more than any other group, are very much aware. Among those, many simply don't care either way


----------



## bmcox (Nov 21, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> Oh, hey, I got quoted.
> 
> for those who missed my fifteen seconds of fame back in June or whenever I wrote this...


Thanks for posting the link. Good article.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> But if you're Stephen King, can you even begin to imagine what you might earn by going indie?


Count the money Walter White made by cooking meth, right?


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

P.A. Woodburn said:


> I'm not sure why you want everyone to self publish. Isn't _*the competition*_ bad enough already?


I really wish authors would stop saying things like this.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

phil.H said:


> Oh there is a big one Microsoft Secure Boots. You can find out more here: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement
> 
> _When done correctly, "Secure Boot" is designed to protect against malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary programs when booting. In practice, this means that computers implementing it won't boot unauthorized operating systems -- including initially authorized systems that have been modified without being re-approved._
> 
> ...


The "Secure Boot" idea is a complete sham. Unless Microsoft controls the user's mind, a user can install any piece of malware/spyware/virus by the simple fact that he/she has administrative control of the machine. This supercedes all 'secure boot' applications (gimmicks). Users (or techs like me) can bypass any and all lockouts other than encryption. We don't even need to 'crack' passwords (and if we do, brute-forcing a UEFI/BIOS password is like beating up a kid on Halloween and taking his candy..., but we don't even need to do such a thing. It takes 10 seconds at most to wipe any CMOS settings).

As for loading unauthorized OS's, it's even more of a sham. Like any piece of software ever invented (including DRM), it takes around 30 seconds to 24 hours to crack it wide open. It takes less than 10 seconds to bypass any BIOS 'secure' options. If the BIOS is completely locked down, it takes around 60-120 seconds to crack it (usually by a hard clear of the CMOS, which requires having access to the mainboard, but if that doesn't work, there are other methods that don't require an engineering degree).

And finally, unless Microsoft is doing this secretly and no one has ever bothered to try and install other OS to their computer, this statement is old and out of date. I've already had more than twenty Windows 8 computers come through my little lab (still need to make money on the side until books begin paying the bills, right?) and on all twenty of them I have installed Windows 7 (and/or Linux in a dual-boot config), and not a single one contained the Secure Boot 'feature' within the BIOS.

I remember when this was a big uproar in the tech community. To my knowledge, MS has quietly backed completely away from it, just like they did with the Xbone nonsense they tried to slide by. If they haven't backed away from it, then they've modified it to be so worthless as to not even be considered a _feature_ anymore.

Sorry for the tech lesson interruption. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

It seems like it took a year or more to crack the ps3...


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2013)

Quote by Bill Smith Books:
"Any authors who wants a book in stores will have to go to a traditional publisher, either one of the big six or the multitude of smaller _presses that can get into stores because honestly, not many of us have the clout or, more importantly, the desire to spend our time dealing with sales reps, fulfillment, returns, accounts receivable, marketing co-op and all the nuts and bolts behind the scenes that make physical publishing work."_

Don't agree with this.
I self published a paperback and had no trouble getting it into book stores (including Barnes & Noble and Powell's) and libraries. Had a national distributor waive its listing fee for me and distributed a lot of copies.
So a self publisher can do it.

I cut the cord with the national distributor and Amazon because of my shipping costs, slow payments and low royalties (about 45%). I then listed on Amazon as an independent vendor.

Amazon now pays me about 70% plus my shipping cost in 14 DAYS.

So a self publisher can get in the book stores.


----------



## Guest (Nov 3, 2013)

The fact the cabal of publishers are all buying into Author Solutions and looking to actively steal money from writers tells me where 'they' are heading and it's not improved contracts. Even Bloomsbury have become a shill and lead-gen for Author Solutions. When the bookshop chains die and they only have a few indies and supermarkets left they'll realise that all along they should have been selling to readers and paying writers instead of selling to distributors and taking money from writers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

ColinFBarnes said:


> The fact the cabal of publishers are all buying into Author Solutions and looking to actively steal money from writers tells me where 'they' are heading and it's not improved contracts. Even Bloomsbury have become a shill and lead-gen for Author Solutions. When the bookshop chains die and they only have a few indies and supermarkets left they'll realise that all along they should have been selling to readers and paying writers instead of selling to distributors and taking money from writers.


From a social and economic perspective, the publishers did a great job getting books into consumer's hands. That's what they did, and I'd have to say thet did it very well. The whole system included authors, publishers, distributors, and retailers as major players. The publisher's task was getting content into physical form and into the hands of the retailers and distributors.

If the bookstores do close, that will mean there is no longer a need for as much paper. That also eliminates the core economic need for the publishers and distributors. The competitive advantage these folks all had depended on paper.

Note authors easily move through the transition from paper.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

JohnHindmarsh said:


> Joe - It's your fault - I've spent all morning trying to visualize laminated women...


Ya gotta love the gov-a-nator. If we made as many errors in our books as he does in his lines, we'd be drummed out of town. Maybe we should all work out a bit more and get bulked up... create book trailers showing us with machine guns and swords... maybe our reviews would be kinder.

Oh... wait... I already have a book showing me with a weapon. It didn't help. Nevermind.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Jay Allan said:


> I agree completely with Blake and Hugh, with the caveat that I think the corpse has a few twitches left in it. Publishers are still doing well financially, and they're going to have to face utter ruin before there is even a chance they will cut the fat and create overhead structures that work in the new world. For now, there are plenty of uneducated authors to feed the beast. I think we forget on here how little most people, even in the industry, really know about self-publishing.


I'm still a mod on a fanfiction forum, and the other day a writer spoke about how they are working on a novel and how they might try to get publishers interested. They said they didn't have enough money to go through one of the self-publishing outfits. They also said something about how self-publishing wasn't 'real' publishing.  I mentioned how you don't have to (and shouldn't!) go through one of those places. They came back saying how they could publish it to Amazon themselves for 75 cents and maybe sell a thousand and that might get a publisher's interest. So, I guess that is their plan.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Anya said:


> I do know of lots of large YA book blogs and smaller blogs where no indie book is ever reviewed - they say that there are so many books, they don't have enough time to read all the trade pub offerings, let alone the indie books. But as you said, it doesn't matter. There are more than enough readers who are enthusiastic about a good read, whether it's indie or trade.
> 
> My point was just in reference to readers not being aware of whether a book is indie or trade. It may be true that YA readers, more than any other group, are very much aware. Among those, many simply don't care either way


This is absolutely true - mostly because the big YA review blogs get hardcover print ARC's for these books delivered to them every week. They know. There's at least three separate meme's for book bloggers where they tell the rest of the book blogging world who sent them what in the mail each week. Some of them even do video blogs and hold up that hardcover book for the rest to drool over. 

So I have to agree with Anya - trad published books in the YA world get far more attention than indies until there's a reason for the bloggers to take notice.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

Victoria Champion said:


> At this point I am desperate enough for sales that I will sign any contract from any large trade publisher's imprint who specializes in Horror.


I'm sorry to hear that. I don't read horror but I love the feel of your covers. They do say more fantasy than horror to me - have you thought of going a bit darker with them (literally by adding a whole lot of black, or by making them grittier)?


----------



## Taking my troll a$$ outta here (Apr 8, 2013)

Lady Vine said:


> It's also interesting to hear from the people who matter -- the readers. When you speak to them it becomes clear that most don't pay much attention to who publishes the books they like to read. To me that says a lot about the position indies are in.


Agreed. There are plenty of readers out there who are completely unaware of who publishes their favorite books. This topic isn't even on the radar for them.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

MaryMcDonald said:


> They also said something about how self-publishing wasn't 'real' publishing.


I hear that now and then (from other writers, always) and I like to remind them that if it's good enough for David Mamet (and now Lawrence Block!) it's good enough for me.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Victoria: As one of the larger sellers here, my advice, for what it's worth: Write novels, not shorts. Readers like novels. Write a series, and make the first book perma-free once you have three out. Assuming the environment's still relatively equal by then. And if you can, pick a genre which has good sales potential.

Right now, from what I can tell, and I mean no disrespect, but you have short stories rather than novels, you have no series, you have no perma-free, and your genre is very hard to get my head around. None of those things could possibly have been recommended by the big sellers on this board. So I'd say, not to be argumentative, that you haven't in fact followed the counsel of those on the board who move tonnage of books. 

Perhaps it's worth following the counsel outlined and see how that plays. Because I would never advise anyone to write short works in obscure genres and have any real hopes of selling. Make it very easy for your target readers to understand what it is you are giving them, and give them a meal, not a snack.

Just an idea. Again, no disrespect intended. I just hate to hear a fellow scribe get down on themselves when they've done everything sort of, well, differently than most of those who have sold well. Unless your name is Hugh.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> They can't follow suit. Publishers have contracts with big-name authors that guarantees the same max royalty rate as any new author signed. So if one author is given 40%, Grisham and Brown get 40% retroactively. I've seen this clause in a contract offered to me. I said I would never be a part of this mutual blackmail.


I don't think that clause is just for "big authors." I had a similar one put in my contract. I didn't see it as a kind of mutual blackmail, more of a recognition that the industry standard today is 25%, but it won't always be. I added it BECAUSE I thought it would be raised to attract/retain top talent and I wanted to not be stuck at the old royalty rate when a new standard is adopted.



Hugh Howey said:


> The way publishers pay more than 25% is through large advances that they know the author will never earn out.


I agree that is the way they will try to get around it. I know of a few big names who have already said that if they are given such an option they won't sign as it will perpetuate a system they think is unfair to those who don't demand their types of advances



Hugh Howey said:


> I don't know what the workaround would be for this situation, but it's why they will not and cannot negotiate on royalty rates.


I think the more people who do print-only will make them seriously re-think the royalty rate.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

This was in the Guardian today:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/04/ebooks-discounts-98-publishers-closure


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Huh. Headline screams that ebooks and discounts put publishers out of business, but the article itself points to the widespread availability of used books (via places like Amazon), and also digital piracy. Not quite the same thing ...


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Victoria, have you written any full-length novels?  Before switching genres, maybe try writing longer first? From what I see out there, novels seem to be selling better than shorts or novellas, especially from newer authors.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Victoria: Readers are fickle. You can do everything right and still not get traction. Alas, there are no guarantees of success in this business, merely ways to improve your odds.

I have never advised anyone write short works, be they short stories or novellas. Take a look at the top 100. How many novellas are there? Short stories? That would be, well, virtually none. There's a reason for that.

This could be an example of doing 99% right, but not having the right length. It also could be that you just haven't hit, for whatever reason. If I were advising you, I'd tell you NOT to write anything but novel-length works (65K or longer), write them as a series, make the first perma-free, get pro editing, covers and formatting, and spend 25% of your time attending to non-writing related chores (marketing) and 75% writing. Even so, there's no guarantee that your words will find fertile soil in the fields of readers, but it narrows your odds.

Did you get pro editing? Are your covers pro? I don't know your story, so I don't know whether they are or not. If so, you've done everything right. Except, in my opinion, the book length, and perhaps, the genre.

I know nothing about erotica, except that it's really hard to sell these days (I have a friend who has a slew of erotica titles in her publishing company, and very, very few make any sort of money). There are exceptions to everything. 

If yes to all of the above, I have no other suggestions to offer other than marketing ones, which are obvious: This is a retail business. You must constantly run promotions to be visible. Books don't sell themselves. They must be found to be bought, and promotions are how you stay in front of readers.

Have you done frequent and regular marketing to stay in front of your target audience?

If so, then other than length you really have done everything right, and you're discovering that, contrary to how it seems on some of these boards, that those making decent money are less than 1%. Regardless of skill, talent, diligence, packaging, concept, execution. 

If not, and you have multiple exceptions (length, not pro editing, not pro covers, no real promotional strategy, obscure genre/lack of easy identification of genre so readers can find it if they want it), I'd say that you're making a tough gig even tougher by not doing the things you can to improve your odds.

I wish you much success, whatever the case.

On to my OP. I'm not saying that self-pubbing will win over trade. I was referring to self-pubbing earning respect as legitimate in the eyes of the mainstream. I took great pains to clarify that in a subsequent post. I have an agent. I'm currently working with a trad publisher on a project. It's no longer either/or. 

But the thing that seems to be getting lost is the buzz kill part, which, put simply, is that very, very few or either trad, or self-pubbed, authors, will make more than beer money writing. Simple. That's how it is, and how it has always been. You're in a 99% failure industry, if it comes to making money. If you can accept that, super, but if not, the business doesn't change. It's always that bad, if not worse. That's the odds. True, they're better at making money this year being self-pubbed, but that could change next year with a single algorithm tweak. 

I routinely get razzed for being a buzz kill by pointing that out. "But, success doesn't have to mean sales! Success can mean whatever you want it to mean!" Yeah. Sure. But for your purposes, and for most authors who want to make money doing this, it means selling lots of books.

I've posted plenty of counsel on what I do to sell lots of books. That doesn't mean everyone who does as I have will sell lots of books. There's no such recipe. There are merely ways to improve your odds in a thankless, unforgiving business. That's it. But the odds are still lousy. I can live with that. I knew it going in.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Victoria: Stand-alone novels don't sell nearly as well as a series. Mine tend to sell 1/10th as well as my series novels. I wouldn't go stand-alone unless you don't much care about commercial success odds. Sorry. That's just the way it is, at least from where I sit.

Now back to writing.


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I SOLD A BOOK AT B&N !

Sorry for the interruption - I just didn't want to start a new thread so I grabbed this one. It's my first sale there, as I just recently took Flight To Exile out of Select 
Very exciting.

As you were...


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Victoria -- if you're doing short erotica "Dark" anything, my experience has been you won't see very good results. I LOVE dark, don't write it anymore because there's seldom $ in it. It's super hard to sell in.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> Victoria: Stand-alone novels don't sell nearly as well as a series. Mine tend to sell 1/10th as well as my series novels. I wouldn't go stand-alone unless you don't much care about commercial success odds. Sorry. That's just the way it is, at least from where I sit.


Caveat: Self-pubbed standalone might not sell as well as self-pub series, but in tradpub, standalones have worked in these cases:
- Author is well-known (e.g. Lisa Scottoline writes a number of standalones though she's going back to her series in the next book)
- Publisher has a thematic bundle of some sort through which they commission authors to write books (e.g. Robert Ludlum line of books after he passed away)

IMO in each of the above case there is a pre-existing brand.

Just my 2 cents as a reader.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2013)

I don't know exactly how to say this, but it seems to me that most self-publishing advice, however well-informed, is at best worth very little, at worst may be completely misleading no matter how well-intended.  All this stuff about writing in popular genres, writing to a certain length, marketing in a certain way, or spending a certain amount of time/money on promotion seems to do more harm than good if it keeps you from making your own path and really owning it.  Who was that Roman general who when asked how he conquered most of Europe, answered "I simply made sure I was always acting and never just reacting." It seems to me that that's the key right there.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2013)

Quiss said:


> I SOLD A BOOK AT B&N !
> 
> Sorry for the interruption - I just didn't want to start a new thread so I grabbed this one. It's my first sale there, as I just recently took Flight To Exile out of Select
> Very exciting.
> ...


Welcome to the rest of the ebook market.  And you thought Amazon was a jungle ...


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I don't know exactly how to say this, but it seems to me that most self-publishing advice, however well-informed, is at best worth very little, at worst may be completely misleading no matter how well-intended. All this stuff about writing in popular genres, writing to a certain length, marketing in a certain way, or spending a certain amount of time/money on promotion seems to do more harm than good if it keeps you from making your own path and really owning it. Who was that Roman general who when asked how he conquered most of Europe, answered "I simply made sure I was always acting and never just reacting." It seems to me that that's the key right there.


I feel the same way. People who enjoy success tend to make two mistakes: They believe they have been rewarded in direct proportion to their talents, and they use post-hoc reasoning to divine how they got there.

We stumble through a forest blindly, going in circles, and then stumble upon a treasure. This discovery is clearly due to our expert map-reading. We shout out into the jungle, above the singing machetes of the blind others, that the way is easy. Just do what we did. And then we remember the steps we took and try to piece it all back together.

When asked for advice, I usually tell people to write because they love to write. When asked how I got where I am, I tell them it was largely luck. These seem like dodges, but they sure as hell feel like truth.


----------



## Sarah Stimson (Oct 9, 2013)

Hugh and Joe - while I agree with both of you (and it is refreshing to hear some authors say 'it's just luck, so keep writing') as a new author I always find it interesting to hear the processes other authors have gone through to become successful.  Be that how they write, or how they promote.

I think most of those authors on here at least caveat those posts with "this is how *I* did it, that does not mean it will work for you too".  Those authors who poo poo other people's methods are not worth listening to in my opinion.  Someone has to be the first to try something new, and when it works everyone else wants to try it too.

I don't think there is a formula for guaranteed success, or everyone else would be doing it.  I do think there are ways to improve the odds of success and it is worth trying those (write more GOOD books, write series, use targeted adverts, use PR, use social media etc) and I think for new authors it's worth hearing about those things.

Of course, I'm not yet published and my book is likely to sink into obscurity with the thousands of others on the self-pub slush pile, but I'll still want to read about how other people cracked the nut of success.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Sarah Stimson said:


> Hugh and Joe - while I agree with both of you (and it is refreshing to hear some authors say 'it's just luck, so keep writing') as a new author I always find it interesting to hear the processes other authors have gone through to become successful. Be that how they write, or how they promote.
> 
> I think most of those authors on here at least caveat those posts with "this is how *I* did it, that does not mean it will work for you too". Those authors who poo poo other people's methods are not worth listening to in my opinion. Someone has to be the first to try something new, and when it works everyone else wants to try it too.


Me too. I love those threads. Elle Casey is one of my heroes, not just for her writing but for letting us in on her process. It's what I love about KB.

I'm thinking more of the people who will sell you a book, telling you how to become a bestselling writer.


----------



## Sarah Stimson (Oct 9, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'm thinking more of the people who will sell you a book, telling you how to become a bestselling writer.


Ah yes. Crooks.


----------



## AngryGames (Jul 28, 2013)

> When asked for advice, I usually tell people to write because they love to write.


All of these wise old wizards that live on the top floor of the Writer's Enclave tower seem to have a lot of advice, but none of it really adds up to 'craft a great spell that peasants and commoners and merchants and peons want to cast.'

Which is why The Wizard of Wool and a few others don't live in the Enclave tower. Sitting on the top floor looking at charts and tomes and maps and all that doesn't really allow a wise old wizard to do much other than to tell the apprentice wizards on the lower floors what to do to become a wise old wizard, according to the charts and tomes and maps and experiences of the wise old wizards, who have spent their lives climbing to the top of the tower by doing whatever the wise old wizards at the top of the tower told them must be done. If all of the apprentice wizards spend all of their time listening to the wise old wizards at the top of the Enclave tower, how will the apprentice wizards have time to practice their spell crafting, so that their fresh new idea for a spell will impress the peasants and commoners and merchants and peons?

Wizards will occasionally buy a new spell from a fellow wizard, but...wizards are wizards. If they see a spell they like, they create one similar to it, if that's what they want. Peasants and commoners and peons and merchants...they aren't wizards. They go to wizards for their spells, since they can't create their own.

Now...a wise old wizard can trick a peasant into buying a spell, but if that spell turns out to be a dud spell, or it turns out to be almost identical to the previous 932 spells that the peasant has bought from the wise old wizards at the top of the tower, then the disappointed peasant isn't going to tell the other peasants and commoners and peons and merchants to seek out spells from that particular wise old wizard.

It's those darn hippie wizards that live in the forest, smoking sorcerer's grass and drinking druidshine, that get the peasants lining up in droves to buy their spells. Why? Because those dirty hippie wizards don't have time to study dusty old tomes, dusty new tomes, charts, and maps. Unwashed hippie wizards are too busy experimenting with new crafting components and crafting techniques that either weren't listed in those dusty old tomes, or were listed as NO! DO NOT DO THIS OR YOU WILL GET YOUR WIZARD ENCLAVE FREQUENT CASTERS CARD TAKEN AWAY! BAD WIZARD!

(You know, like the 'Wizards shall only be versed in one school of the arcane arts' and 'Wizards shall only use the words 'thee' and 'thou hast' when speaking' and 'Wizard spells must only be recorded on scrolls in the third-person' and such)

While all those wise old wizards at the top of the Enclave tower shout down at the peasants from upon high, instructing, begging, negotiating, or just yelling a lot to anyone below that will listen about how great their Enclave spells are, the hippie wizard simply crafts spells that he (or she, wizards can be ladies, in my worlds at least) has spent the majority of his time perfecting, instead of reading dusty tomes and charts and maps at the top of a dusty old Enclave tower full of dusty old wise old wizards who do nothing but shout instructions to other wizards, and demands to the peasants, commoners, merchants, and peons below.

These nasty little hippie wizards...they're a sneaky bunch. Their wizardry is so...wizardly...that the peasants and merchants and commoners and peons run around shouting to every peasant and commoner and merchant and peon that the hippie wizard's spell is the most powerful spell ever crafted in the known universe. And those wise old wizards at the top of the Enclave's tower? Why, those old dusty wise old wizards up in their Enclave tower have told all of the apprentice wizards everything but what the apprentice wizards really need to hear, which is to craft a spell that the peasants and commoners and peons and merchants want to cast.

(The other thing I do, besides this ^ that annoys the hell out of fellow authors, is to tell them that I don't write stories to sell to others...I write stories that I want to read that no one else is writing, that making money doesn't enter into the equation. I've had to call 911 three times now when fellow author heads exploded in a bloody, gooey mess after hearing such heretical nonsense.)


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

...druidshine...

*snickers*


----------



## sundaze (Sep 20, 2013)

.


> This could be an example of doing 99% right, but not having the right length. It also could be that you just haven't hit, for whatever reason. If I were advising you, I'd tell you NOT to write anything but novel-length works (65K or longer), write them as a series, make the first perma-free, get pro editing, covers and formatting, and spend 25% of your time attending to non-writing related chores (marketing) and 75% writing. Even so, there's no guarantee that your words will find fertile soil in the fields of readers, but it narrows your odds.


This is my plan for the next year. Beer money is good.

But I will still dream of hippie wizard status. Socerer's grass and druidshine? I'm in.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Hugh: I'm not so sure it's all luck. I look at your work, and it's high quality. Stories are engaging. The luck part might be that you didn't really know what you were doing on the marketing side when you started writing the serial, but you certainly knew the craft side. I would actually argue that this business is frustrating for three reasons: It can seem like all luck, when in fact it's the perfect confluence of time, place, preparation, and story; that success is generally not something we can easily reproduce; and we routinely confound being authors with operating a book selling business. 

I completely agree that you should write because you love to write. That's us as authors.

I disagree that operating a book selling business is all, or mostly, luck. Random House and S&S aren't telling their shareholders, "Our plan this year is to be really lucky." I don't for the life of me understand why authors who are also trying to publish act as though building a successful book selling business is mostly luck. Perhaps having your work as an author achieve mass success is luck, if you just put it out there, and it goes viral for unknown reasons. No disagreement there. But as a book seller, that is to say a commercial enterprise whose business is the selling and marketing of books, luck should play a small role. I look at those operating successful book selling businesses on these boards, and almost all of them do the same things. They have chosen markets that will support their efforts. They spend a lot of time on quality packaging. They focus their marketing efforts to reach their audiences. They tailor their offerings to match the desires of the market. They watch pricing. They get good editing and formatting and the like. They are, in other words, very sharp business people. Entrepreneurs who work long hours at being nimbler and better than their competitors.

There is still luck in business, of course. Timing, random chance, etc. And certain personality type love stories of businesses that seem or avow to have no real business strategy, because it can make it seem that they too can not do all the things the successful businesses have done, and yet can still have success. But I've found that whenever you take a hard look at a successful enterprise, you find very hard work, smart business decisions, constant adjustment to the marketplace, etc. etc. etc.

Sometimes there's an outlier that gets lucky. A lottery winner. They happen. They're interviewed, and they shrug their shoulders and thank Jaysus for their good fortune. That's certainly one approach to building a fortune. Not a particularly good one, but certainly, um, one.

People should write because they love it. People should not go into a commercial enterprise with luck as their business plan. While it's certainly possible for lightning to strike, that's a lousy plan. In my opinion it's far better to build a sound business on a stable foundation and compete in the crass world of commercial endeavor with all the business chops that any responsible business owner can muster.

Luck can be the mechanism by which you hit. It just doesn't have to be. I'm not saying luck doesn't play a role. But I've also found that hard work and business acumen go a long way toward you being luckier.


----------



## britnidanielle (Oct 13, 2013)

Victoria Champion said:


> But of course, being pragmatic and reasonable, I realize I should write bread and butter fiction since that is the tradeskill I have that I am best at -- writing. So, I tried that with the erotica. It didn't work. So now, I am considering what are the other non-saturated popular genres? And I will write my horror on the side because *everyone knows being a true artist means being a starving artist.* So if I want to eat, I have to write what the popular masses want -- which is frankly boring as hell to me, but it's better than fast food employment.


(jumping in without having read through everything, but...)

Umm...no. I reject this idea. TOTALLY.


----------



## 48306 (Jul 6, 2011)

Yes, they had to write engaging stories that resonated, but when I hear highly successful authors say that luck was part of their success...I suppose that could be a factor, but then I look at their process, and ONE thing is definitely true for every one of them; the heavy hitter indie authors are all _hard working_, not just in volume of releases but in marketing and willingness to adapt quickly.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2013)

But the thing that successful entrepreneurs are best at is breaking the rules and blazing new paths. So many aspiring writers are looking for a formula or method, a set of rules to replace the old ones like "you must have an agent" or "you can only send your full manuscript to one place at a time." They come to these boards, hear what we have to share about our success, and think "there are the new rules--thank goodness I'm not lost anymore!" But the truth is, it doesn't work like that, and all the stock they put in our supposed authority is only going to hurt them if it keeps them from doing what entrepreneurs do best--breaking the rules.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Here's the thing that people miss about luck: your talent is a part of your luck too.  The skill set and life experience you bring with you when you start writing, that's luck. (Being born in a country where your gender is allowed to learn how to read and write is also luck.)

The thing that you can do is listen to everybody and experiment.  Even bad advice can be good for you if it leads you learn something.  If you get to really know your talents and learn to understand the market and also recognize opportunities, then you can optimize your luck.

But there is still a lot more luck involved than people generally recognize.

In the meantime, I just want to point out one thing about shorts: Sure, short fiction doesn't appear in the best seller lists.  But that's because it doesn't need to.  It depends on your ability to produce different lengths.  If you can write many novelettes in the time it takes to write a novel then you don't have to sell as many of each. (This, of course, depends on the pricing.)  And your sales will be more spread out, so even if you sell the same number per title, you'd still never hit the best seller list.

Hitting the best seller list is very important if your main audience is one that finds books by browsing the best seller lists.  But for other audiences, legs and volume of titles can be more important.

Camille


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Luck can be the mechanism by which you hit. It just doesn't have to be. I'm not saying luck doesn't play a role. But I've also found that hard work and business acumen go a long way toward you being luckier.


I'll agree with that. In my case, I didn't even know that self-publishing was something that paid. Ever. There was no goal to become a full-time writer (I dreamed about it like I dreamed of owning an island and living on Mars).

I was working in a bookstore by day, writing stories in my spare time. I published a short story for 99 cents . . . I guess I'm saying there was no plan. It all just seemed to happen *to* me, not *by* me.

Anyway, that's my perception of events. I don't think I was working any harder than the people who spend weeks and months putting together stop-motion films and wowing people on YouTube, or the people who practice dance for years and again publish their body of work on YouTube. They're doing something fun that takes a lot of work. If they make a million bucks off that, I think they'll say they got awfully lucky. If they tell other people to learn to play a guitar and post videos on YouTube and you could be Justin Bieber, too . . . well . . . I'd raise an eyebrow.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I'll agree with that. In my case, I didn't even know that self-publishing was something that paid. Ever. There was no goal to become a full-time writer (I dreamed about it like I dreamed of owning an island and living on Mars).
> 
> I was working in a bookstore by day, writing stories in my spare time. I published a short story for 99 cents . . . I guess I'm saying there was no plan. It all just seemed to happen *to* me, not *by* me.
> 
> Anyway, that's my perception of events. I don't think I was working any harder than the people who spend weeks and months putting together stop-motion films and wowing people on YouTube, or the people who practice dance for years and again publish their body of work on YouTube. They're doing something fun that takes a lot of work. If they make a million bucks off that, I think they'll say they got awfully lucky. If they tell other people to learn to play a guitar and post videos on YouTube and you could be Justin Bieber, too . . . well . . . I'd raise an eyebrow.


I don't know, Hugh. I think self-publishing is different from your examples. Then again, I've spent a fair amount of my life making a living, or sort of making a living, by writing. It isn't some myth. People have always done it. It is just how, or how great a possibility it is, that has changed.

I honestly think that if one's ambition is to make a living by writing, it is now more possible than ever. Now, I never recommend writing as a career path because it's just plain too damn hard and often painful, but if someone really wants to, it can be done.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> People should write because they love it. People should not go into a commercial enterprise with luck as their business plan.


I'd say people should write for whatever reason they choose. Love is just one reason among many. Neither love nor luck makes a business plan.

Much of what is attributed to luck is due to deliberate positioning to take advantage of potential opportunities.

There is a case for the idea that luck is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for success.



> I don't think I was working any harder than the people who spend weeks and months putting together stop-motion films and wowing people on YouTube, or the people who practice dance for years and again publish their body of work on YouTube.


I don't think authors work any harder than millions of people who bust their hump everyday at all kinds of work to support their families.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I don't think authors work any harder than millions of people who bust their hump everyday at all kinds of work to support their families.


Certainly not me. I swear, I am the laziest person I know.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Hugh: If you believe you're one of the outliers who got lucky, you might be right. Congrats. The point being that what you did isn't ever going to happen again the same way. You hit in spite of anything you were doing, rather than because of it, from what I'm reading between the lines. That in no way diminishes your success. You have a hell of a book, and you're a hell of a writer. But your visibility seemed like random chance more or less because it was, unless there's something we're both missing.

Just as your approach is atypical, akin to being discovered at the drug store by a film mogul (people love those stories, BTW), it has little to do with those looking to build a book selling business. It's brilliant and heartening as an author to hear another's work being recognized against all odds, but it's not a plan. 

I would argue that you are doing many of the things I counsel to do. Spend much of your time writing. Get good editing. Focus on the kind of marketing that interacts with readers. Write the best book possible. You also didn't do much of what I'd advise those wishing to build a viable book selling businesses to do. That's fine. There's no one right way to do anything.

But I would underscore your point, not mine. You didn't set out to create a viable book selling business. You set out to write compelling, well-written stories.

I don't pretend to advise others on how to do that. It's intensely personal, and everyone's voice and muse is different. I work in a completely different way than you do. You work differently than Elle. Elle works differently than Holly. Colleen works differently than all of the above.

Our paths as authors are all different. 

What I try to impart is the bit of my approach that I believe is sound for creating a book selling business, as opposed to how to succeed as an author. I have a friend who toiled in obscurity for eight years in the trad pub days, had a few books that sold 10K apiece, and then bam, one day, got a massive deal because one of the big houses wanted their answer to X popular author of the time. Suddenly he was a millionaire and had a #1 NY Times bestseller. Because the house made it happen with a fortune in advertising, promotion and focus - the old fashioned way. And he also had written a pretty good book. The part where luck was involved was him getting drafted. The part that luck had nothing to do with was the house investing whatever it took to get the book outsized visibility due to its certainty that he was going to be the next big thing.

One was the business of book selling, the other the luck of being an author with chops in the right place at the right time.

I think we confuse our roles a lot on these boards. I try to offer sound guidance on building a sustainable book selling business that doesn't require a lottery win. If you get one, super. But they don't happen often, and my plan never counted on one. It counted on building a viable product, again and again, in a genre that had legs, and having a lot of singles and doubles, as opposed to a home run. So far so good. Joe Nobody has much the same strategy. Elle has much the same strategy. DA Wearmouth just used my approach, to a T, to get a hell of a response, including from trad pubs. It's more of a hybrid of the author-centric "it's mostly luck" model and the "how to operate a responsible marketing and production entity" strategy. One leaves the business part of creating discovery and shifting units to chance, the other demands that you take responsibility for that and do whatever it takes to achieve it.

Neither are guarantees of success. 

Both are probably worth about what you pay for the advice. Note that I haven't authored my "Shifty Flim-Flam's Guide to Mining Self-Pubbing Millions!" book. I'm not selling anything, merely imparting what I believe is the most responsible counsel for an author who wants to increase his odds of success building a book selling business.

I'm quite sure we'll hear about the virtues of innovation, but "be innovative" doesn't really give us a blueprint for anything, does it? It's more of a rationalization for not selling than it is a recipe for doing so. "Be different!" "Put your heart and soul into it!" Fine for talent shows, but most don't win those.

I have no problem with people working away at their craft, putting it out there and hoping for the best. It in no way diminishes anything I've counseled. There are those who have taken that approach and done very well. I begrudge them nothing.

But their approach is not a recipe for creating a viable book selling business.

It's a description of how they got lucky.

I'm deeply suspicious of post hoc explanations. The value of any approach is in its reproducability. Can it generate the same result, again and again? I would argue my approach vastly improves the odds of creating a sustainable book selling business. Not becoming a bestselling author. They're almost two separate things. I mean, I could become one, but it will be for reasons other than my slow and steady approach to building a backlist and seeing handsome monthly income from a string of singles and doubles. It will be because of an event. Lightning striking. Or causing lightning to strike, in some cases (stand on the deck of a ship in a storm with a lightning rod in your hands, and you've just taken a step to improve your odds in that regard).

If we have any difference of opinion, it's probably because we're talking about different things. I 100% agree with your approach to your craft. 

And I'll gladly suck up to you for as long as you're the man.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I don't think authors work any harder than millions of people who bust their hump everyday at all kinds of work to support their families.


This needs starred, bolded, highlighted, and about everything else to emphasize the importance of this. And I'd argue many, many people put in *less* effort to writing and publishing than they do any regular job, yet still expect to see miraculous results. Because it's art, right? Special snowflakes and all that.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> This needs starred, bolded, highlighted, and about everything else to emphasize the importance of this. And I'd argue many, many people put in *less* effort to writing and publishing than they do any regular job, yet still expect to see miraculous results. Because it's art, right? Special snowflakes and all that.


Sure, we work hard, but in the same way that professional ski instructors and professional poker players work hard. It's not waiting tables or operating a backhoe or data entry hard. Being able to make a living in a creative endeavor is a gift.


----------



## robertduperre (Jun 13, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> Sure, we work hard, but in the same way that professional ski instructors and professional poker players work hard. It's not waiting tables or operating a backhoe or data entry hard. Being able to make a living in a creative endeavor is a gift.


Well, there _are_ different kinds of hard as well. For example, my day job is physically hard, but my night job is imminently more mentally taxing, which actually leaves me more drained than the "real" work I do.

Then again, my mind works at a snail's pace, and has been greatly damaged by misuse over the years, so...


----------



## donnajherren (Mar 7, 2013)

I'll second Patrice's observation--luck could have something to do with the _potential_ success of the moment, but hard work is what carries it to fruition.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I don't think authors work any harder than millions of people who bust their hump everyday at all kinds of work to support their families.



David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> This needs starred, bolded, highlighted, and about everything else to emphasize the importance of this. And I'd argue many, many people put in *less* effort to writing and publishing than they do any regular job, yet still expect to see miraculous results. Because it's art, right? Special snowflakes and all that.


This is so very true David. I can't believe how HARD many people work and many for not much money. Like minimum wage. Never had to do that myself. I can only write part time right now, time is a problem--but I can tell you that for me it is a privilege to write PT and have people pay me...usually while I'm sleeping. If your books can sell OK gotta be one of the best jobs in the world.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> And I'll gladly suck up to you for as long as you're the man.


Shouldn't be much longer, thank the gods.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Hugh: Ha! You may not get off the hook that easily. Call it a hunch.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

I love writing full time and barely see it as work. I put in a lot of hours, but it's certainly not backbreaking labor. I don't feel battered and bruised at the end of the work day. I don't get yelled at or fired if I take a day off or have an extra long coffee break. It's definitely a blessing.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I'm quite sure we'll hear about the virtues of innovation, but "be innovative" doesn't really give us a blueprint for anything, does it? It's more of a rationalization for not selling than it is a recipe for doing so. "Be different!" "Put your heart and soul into it!" Fine for talent shows, but most don't win those.


Innovation is a rationalization for nothing. It is an attitude that recognizes changing internal and external factors offer opportunity that has not been exploited in the past. The producer who strives to be innovative is open to doing things in a way that few have done before. It is often a function of the producer's risk profile.

God Bless the Innovators, for they have smitten down the timid.

Ain't this a great country?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> This needs starred, bolded, highlighted, and about everything else to emphasize the importance of this. And I'd argue many, many people put in *less* effort to writing and publishing than they do any regular job, yet still expect to see miraculous results. Because it's art, right? Special snowflakes and all that.


True, David.

And that's what I meant recently when I posted about the difference between the really successful writers, and everyone else.

People look at someone like Locke and say every bit of his success is because of buying a handful of reviews.

I look at the fact that he has to be averaging a minimum of 180K to 250K first-draft words written a year (because he averages six novellas a year), and I say, "Hold on. If it's all about the reviews, they'd have done nothing for him if he were only writing one novel a year."

Or, less controversially, people will look at Amanda Hocking and guess that it's because she jumped on the paranormal romance bandwagon at just the right moment. Yet in her first year, she released 9 books in 11 months! That's working hard, no matter how many of her manuscripts were sitting in a desk drawer when she started, because she still had to refine them.

Or look at you, writing lengthy fantasy novels and what do you average? More titles per year than most of us here, I'm sure. And you've got something like 19 of those LONG titles out since, what, 2010? That's almost 5 titles a year.

When I say "the successful folks work hard, way harder than most of us," that's what I mean. Successful indies write, and write a TON. I'm not comparing them to folks working road construction, but there's a big gulf in effort between those who gain success after pumping out a ton of content, and those of us who produce more words here than we do in our WIPs.

Of course, I say this with a guilty conscience, to a large degree. EyeCU has been taking me over 18 months at this point, and has varied in length from 101K down to about 72K or so at the moment, and it's still not done and out the door for good. But I also know that I'm not being as productive as any of the "big names" and therefore can't expect their level of success.

And I invest too many of my words here each day. There, I said it.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

britnidanielle said:


> (jumping in without having read through everything, but...)
> 
> Umm...no. I reject this idea. TOTALLY.


If you had read through you would have seen I was being bitterly sarcastic with that excerpted passage.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> This needs starred, bolded, highlighted, and about everything else to emphasize the importance of this. And I'd argue many, many people put in *less* effort to writing and publishing than they do any regular job, yet still expect to see miraculous results. Because it's art, right? Special snowflakes and all that.


I beg to differ.

You can "argue" all you want, the fact remains you don't know what the real cost to some "snowflakes" is.

What about the writer whose life is taken over by his creation? Who, without knowing, chases his friends away because he just has to finish this scene, and doesn't get invited anymore next time? Who is so obsessed by his stories that it makes watching TV or engaging in idle conversation next to impossible?

One afternoon I sat down at my table with a pot of coffee. Some time later I wanted to take a sip, and I couldn't find my cup. It took me a few seconds to realize it had become pitch dark because several hours had passed without me noticing. Effort: next to none. Word count: zero. One of my more productive days.

I've brought this anecdote to mind in another thread, some time ago, but here goes again:

A lady in a café asked Picasso to make a drawing of her. He did so on a napkin. When she asked how much it would cost, he said "Fifty francs, madame."
"What?" the lady protested, "it took you all of five minutes to make that sketch."
"No, Madame, it took me all my life," the "snowflake" replied.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Innovation is a rationalization for nothing. It is an attitude that recognizes changing internal and external factors offer opportunity that has not been exploited in the past. The producer who strives to be innovative is open to doing things in a way that few have done before. It is often a function of the producer's risk profile.
> 
> God Bless the Innovators, for they have smitten down the timid.
> 
> Ain't this a great country?


Agreed. There is definitely a blueprint for innovation. But I think most successful people innovate on some level, though it isn't always obvious. And other successful people ride on the shoulders of unrecognized innovators too.

Not all innovation is about success (or being successful), but all success is at least partly about innovation.

Camille


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I beg to differ.
> 
> You can "argue" all you want, the fact remains you don't know what the real cost to some "snowflakes" is.
> 
> ...


Preach it, baby. Picasso was right. (And I hear that kind of protest all the time in the painting world. Everyone wants an original oil for under $100.)

I'm real tired of some people deriding those of us who do consider writing an art and even more tired of being called a special snowflake because of it. Hey, I don't care if they only see it as "a business". Why does it bother them so much if some see it as art? I happen to see it as both and treat it as such. But, as an artist I have to speak my mind here.

I'm even more offended that the insinuation is there that artists don't work hard. I am not only a writer, I paint. I choose to write and try to eventually earn a living, and only paint one night a week. Let me tell you I work d*mn hard and have experienced some of the alienation Andrew speaks of. And as far as painting goes, I know MANY artists and I doubt most people who go to a 9 to 5 job work even half as hard as they do...yet they're lucky to live in a dump. Special snowflake? Whatever. Most special snowflakes don't eat cereal with water instead of milk or live in a roach infested apartment. Many artists do. I don't know why some on here find it so necessary to belittle people who live by art. It's a d*mn hard way to make a living and not only do they put their time in, they give up part of their heart and soul, too.

I'm lucky that I live in a nice house. So far. That day may be ending soon. Why? Because to give up writing and painting would kill me. Living on my husband's small income is anything but living like a special snowflake. And still I do it because after fifty some years if was time to finally do what I was always meant to do. Write and paint. If that makes me a "special snowflake" then tough shi*t.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> A lady in a café asked Picasso to make a drawing of her. He did so on a napkin. When she asked how much it would cost, he said "Fifty francs, madame."
> "What?" the lady protested, "it took you all of five minutes to make that sketch.
> "No, Madame, it took me all my life," the "snowflake" replied.


An overnight success, 40 years in the making...


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Caddy said:


> Preach it, baby. Picasso was right. (And I hear that kind of protest all the time in the painting world. Everyone wants an original oil for under $100.)
> 
> I'm real tired of some people deriding those of us who do consider writing an art and even more tired of being called a special snowflake because of it. Hey, I don't care if they only see it as "a business". Why does it bother them so much if some see it as art? I happen to see it as both and treat it as such. But, as an artist I have to speak my mind here.
> 
> ...


You would be a very hungry snowflake if you sold an oil painting for $100. Seems to me after buying paint, canvas, brushes and assorted other things one needs to paint, you would lose money. I do get your point.
People have always tried to get the creative ones to work for pennies. A thought I do not understand.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm not sure why so many of these discussions degrade into an argument over whether writing is art or business.

The answer couldn't be more clear. Writing is craft, and in some cases, art. Selling books is business.

It's really that simple. I believe all the confusion comes in because writers can't get it through their heads that operating a book selling business isn't about writing, or their efforts to do so. It's about packaging, promoting and selling a product, which happens to be books.

So again: Writing = craft/art. Book Selling = crass commercial endeavor: selling a product (books) for money.

There. Now we can eliminate the tedious discussion about whether or not writing is craft/art (it is). Book selling is definitely not art. Just as selling art in a gallery isn't art. It's about selling paintings. NOT about painting.

Creating = writing. Book Selling = Commercial Enterprise.

They are in no way the same thing, even if book selling does involve selling a product that it takes art/craft to create. Just as writing a book has little to do with having a book selling business. It's only in self-pubbing, where the artist must also become the book seller that this lack of understanding about the separation between the two disciplines come in.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Yes! You are exactly right, Blake. As I walked my grandson over to my house after posting, I was thinking that I should have said, "While I do consider writing my art, every other part of it is business. Publishing, marketing, advertising, etc. Not art in any sense." Thanks for saying what I should have. (How I WISH I only had to do the art part...)



> People have always tried to get the creative ones to work for pennies. A thought I do not understand.


I appreciate your comment...yet you are constantly encouraging indies to sell their work for free or .99. Kind of the same thing, you know?


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> I'm not sure why so many of these discussions degrade into an argument over whether writing is art or business.
> 
> The answer couldn't be more clear. Writing is craft, and in some cases, art. Selling books is business.
> 
> ...


It was when I was in the middle of learning how to use Google Spreadsheet to keep track of my projects, metadata, and sales that I thought, _oh shit, I'm a businesswoman_.


----------



## ToniD (May 3, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> I'm not sure why so many of these discussions degrade into an argument over whether writing is art or business.
> 
> The answer couldn't be more clear. Writing is craft, and in some cases, art. Selling books is business.
> 
> ...


Agree, although I'd add the corollary: to be successful in selling your book for money you need to decide if you're writing a commercial book, and understand what that requires. That is, choosing a genre, deciding how 'unique' to be within that genre. Choosing to write a short or a novella or a full-length novel-all have different commercial prospects, as you've rightly pointed out.

I'm not sure the separation between art and commerce is always clear-cut.

Perhaps that's one reason these discussions can devolve.

Anyhoo, I find them worthwhile.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Sure, we work hard, but in the same way that professional ski instructors and professional poker players work hard. It's not waiting tables or operating a backhoe or data entry hard. Being able to make a living in a creative endeavor is a gift.


*like*


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I appreciate your comment...yet you are constantly encouraging indies to sell their work for free or .99. Kind of the same thing, you know?


From an economic perspective, the ideal price is the one that maximizes revenue. That would be the price where total revenue falls if the price increases, and total revenue falls if price is decreased. There is no other price that brings in as much total revenue.

That price can be 99 cents or it can be $9.99. It will be different for each book.

There is another perspective which I see a lot. That one says the unit price reflects a non-economic value. The non-economic value includes things like respect for the author, appreciation of his work, and a general support for literature in the culture.

Under the non-economic perspective, everyone paying 99 cents is showing disrespect for the author and book. It's like a zillion insults. And everytime an author sells for 99 cents, he is showing a lack of respect for himself.

I strongly disagree with the non-economic perspective, but I recognize it and suspect it often gets mixed up with the economic perspective..


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> So again: Writing = craft/art. Book Selling = crass commercial endeavor: selling a product (books) for money.


First: there is no such thing as a conglomerate of craft/art. They're two separate things. You can perfectly create a derivative work and demonstrate great craftsmanship. Then there is art.

That's probably not the point of contention either.

It's when some (not you, if I read your posts correctly) proclaim that book selling should take precedence over art. Not over craft. Everybody agrees (I hope) that your books should be well crafted, have decent covers, enticing blurbs, and so on.

Some may want to compromise art for the sake of the crass commercial endeavor. Readers don't like the hero to die? He'll live, though the story demands he die. Some may *not* want to make that compromise. And yet they want readers and money. It's a different challenge. Calling the latter "snowflakes" and implying they want it all without any effort is an insult. On the contrary, their challenge, if anything, takes *more* effort.


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> A lady in a café asked Picasso to make a drawing of her. He did so on a napkin. When she asked how much it would cost, he said "Fifty francs, madame."
> "What?" the lady protested, "it took you all of five minutes to make that sketch."
> "No, Madame, it took me all my life," the "snowflake" replied.


Actually, that story perfectly, completely illustrates what I'm talking about. All the variations of the story basically boil down to "I spent 40 years learning how to draw that in thirty seconds/five minutes".

Meaning he spent his whole life learning, and working on his art. He didn't go around telling people "I'm working on a painting" for six months while only adding in a few brush strokes during that time. If you think Picasso became Picasso by painting twenty minutes every now and then, and only putting in a tiny bit of effort each day, you're deluding yourself, just as you'd be deluding yourself into thinking he'd have his reputation, and skill, if he'd only painted a tiny handful of works throughout his entire life.

According to wikipedia:


> Picasso was exceptionally prolific throughout his long lifetime. The total number of artworks he produced has been estimated at 50,000, comprising 1,885 paintings; 1,228 sculptures; 2,880 ceramics, roughly 12,000 drawings, many thousands of prints, and numerous tapestries and rugs.


I have a feeling Picasso worked far harder than I ever have, not less. And I highly doubt he'd be the one romanticizing the idea of the starving artist.



Andrew Ashling said:


> Some may want to compromise art for the sake of the crass commercial endeavor. Readers don't like the hero to die? He'll live, though the story demands he die. Some may *not* want to make that compromise. And yet they want readers and money. It's a different challenge. Calling the latter "snowflakes" and implying they want it all without any effort is an insult. On the contrary, their challenge, if anything, takes *more* effort.


I'm saying time and effort are necessary, most likely lots of time, most likely lots of effort. The 'snowflakes' I refer to are people who want to pretend that somehow time and effort are not required of them because of some innate talent/magic that will allow them to skip all of it right to amazing success. And come on, go talk to someone working 12 hour shifts at a factory about how "hard" it was deciding to kill a character or not. Their reaction should be rather amusing.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> That price can be 99 cents or it can be $9.99. It will be different for each book.


This is true and that completely flies in the face of a reader encouraging every writer to sell for free or .99 just so they don't have to pay more. Some books do very well with a higher price. Why should they sell it for less, and make less, just to please some readers who expect indies to give away their work?



> And come on, go talk to someone working 12 hour shifts at a factory about how "hard" it was deciding to kill a character or not. Their reaction should be rather amusing.


There are different kinds of "hardship". The difficulty a writer goes through may be different than the physical toiling a factory worker puts in, but it still is a difficulty.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> And come on, go talk to someone working 12 hour shifts at a factory about how "hard" it was deciding to kill a character or not. Their reaction should be rather amusing.


And you were doing so good before this sentence&#8230; 

That is of course a comparison nobody in their right mind would make. It's also slightly dishonest. Although, there is a nice anecdote about Alexandre Dumas killing Porthos (of Three Musketeers fame).

The fact remains that while there may be people like you describe, there are also people who work very hard, and have worked very hard, without any pay at all (not exactly something your average factory worker does), to be able to write a decent novel. Delayed payment can be huge&#8230; or pocket money.
Factory workers work very hard and are guaranteed to get paid. Some artists work hard and take a huge risk of seeing any money ever.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Andrew: For many, writing is a craft. For some, writing is an art. Or perhaps there's some point on the continuum from craft to art where core competence develops into artistic competence. I guess what I'm trying to say is that neither craft, nor art, have much to do with the commercial enterprise of selling books.

For example, if my book selling business decides to increase its revenues by representing the works of other authors, I'm undertaking to sell their product so I can make money. That's book selling. If my book selling business decides that its revenue is fine only selling my product, that's still book selling. Neither of those have anything to do with me as a craftsman/artist. They have to do with a commercial enterprise selling a product to consumers.

And you're correct that the bone of contention isn't the difference between art and craft. It's the confounding of business and art or craft.

The truth is that my perspective is probably unique to many. I view these as completely separate endeavors. Writing, and book selling, with their own requisite and discretely different skill requirements. As a writer, I really don't need to pay much attention to fad curves, pricing models, packaging, marketing, sales channels, etc. I need to focus on the best way to articulate an idea or frame a sentence, just the right word to evoke the time, place and sensation I want. To tell a story in my unique voice, such as it may be. Book selling skills won't really help me do any of that, just as knowing what a trope or a tautology is won't help me determine which advertising tactics to use this month.

I believe they are two. Different. Things. Writing, and book selling. That's why I hammer on that over and over.

Now, it's true that the crowded place that is my brain has the book selling guy, and the writing guy, sitting across a table sometimes. And the book selling guy says something like, "Kid, look, you know we love you, right? But you're frigging killin me here. I need something I can sell. Give me a frigging series. Something they'll love. Don't kill off your protag, don't think only one book, and please, oh please, knock it off with the long sentences and the adjectives and adverbs, would ya? Just dumb it down so a monkey could sound it out." And my writer side is in there arguing, "Look, these are complex ideas, and if you dumb it down past a certain point, there's no point to me writing it - it could be anyone writing it, even a software program. My unique voice is the way I communicate ideas, the musicality of the language I use, and sometimes a run-on sentence achieves the effect I want, even if it makes the grammar nazis flinch or the people that have to move their lips to read TV guide shudder. So get off my back. I already gave you the stinking series - how many more times do we really need the protag to narrowly escape and wrench victory from the jaws of adversity?" And yes, sometimes I'll defer to the book seller, because he wants to sell lots of books, and if I want to as well, I may need to temper what I'm writing to fit his needs.

I suppose one finds one's art wherever one can. For me, the art is in the way I use language, the cadence, the setting of the mood, the atmospheric thing it is that I do. It's also about the story, but frankly I could tell a story about a broken chair and it would still be uniquely my telling, my voice's rendition. Now, I've got an editor who's been after me to be the next Golding since I started at this, and the book seller in me has rejected that suggestion, even if I believed I might be able to craft something unique and relevant. The world may well be the worse for it, but I seriously doubt it. And I may still decide to do that at some point. But not until the light bill's paid. That's my choice. Perhaps it makes me a hack. If so, that's fine. Some of the very best people are hacks.

Which is a really long-winded way of saying I think we agree on all points.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

They are two different things.  Absolutely.

My father was an incredible painter.  I mean, really.  Incredible.  He had a scary talent for rendering things in paint and making you feel like you were right there in the scene.  He could hardly sell a painting to save his soul.  When he met my mother, who has a natural intuition for business stuff, including marketing and selling, his art career exploded from barely being able to get a spot in small-town galleries to featured articles and covers in Southwest Art Magazine, regular shows at the Altermann Galleries, shows in New York (pretty big-time for a rural Idaho painter), teaching workshops alongside Sergei Bongart, his art being collected by movie stars...it went from nothing to astronomical once he had somebody on his team who knew how to sell.

Books are no different from paintings in this respect.  A writer absolutely can learn the skills needed to sell well.  If it doesn't come naturally, it will take a lot of study and focus and determination to develop those skills.  But just because you write great books, or paint great paintings, that doesn't mean anybody is going to feel inclined to give you money for them.  You need a different skill set to convince them you're worth it.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> The fact remains that while there may be people like you describe, there are also people who work very hard, and have worked very hard, without any pay at all (not exactly something your average factory worker does), to be able to write a decent novel. Delayed payment can be huge&#8230; or pocket money.
> Factory workers work very hard and are guaranteed to get paid. Some artists work hard and take a huge risk of seeing any money ever.


Nah, being an artist isn't that hard. It's difficult to do well, but that's a different thing. And yeah, it's damn hard to making a living at it. But hard? No. It's like gardening or pottery or knitting--we do it because we love it.

I once had a job where I had to work 17 hour shifts, wipe bottoms, and wear a back brace because of all the lifting. That was hard. This is not.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> My father was an incredible painter. I mean, really. Incredible. He had a scary talent for rendering things in paint and making you feel like you were right there in the scene. He could hardly sell a painting to save his soul. When he met my mother, who has a natural intuition for business stuff, including marketing and selling, his art career exploded from barely being able to get a spot in small-town galleries to featured articles and covers in Southwest Art Magazine, regular shows at the Altermann Galleries, shows in New York (pretty big-time for a rural Idaho painter), teaching workshops alongside Sergei Bongart, his art being collected by movie stars...it went from nothing to astronomical once he had somebody on his team who knew how to sell.


Soooo. About your Mom. Is she available?


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

I've worked some miserable jobs in my time. Writing is by far the easiest and most relaxing job I've ever done. Of course, that my personal experience with it. Maybe someone else is tormented by writing or working at it so hard they suffer endless migraines and depression. For me, it is simply a dream job. I don't care if someone thinks I work hard or don't work hard. I care about getting my books out to my fans in a timely manner and yes, earning my monthly paychecks.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

brendajcarlton said:


> Soooo. About your Mom. Is she available?


HAHAH. Alas, she is severely dyslexic, so she has no interest in books. If only. I'd be a gazillionaire by now.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Michael: I don't know. Coming off another year of 15 hour days, with my back hurting, carpal always only a few inflamations away, and a feeling that I've written that sentence about a hundred times before after 2.5 million words in 28 months, I'd say it can be pretty hard.

Then again, nobody's holding a gun to my head, and they don't make me wear a uniform. Or anything, really. But that's a whole nother topic...


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> From an economic perspective, the ideal price is the one that maximizes revenue. That would be the price where total revenue falls if the price increases, and total revenue falls if price is decreased. There is no other price that brings in as much total revenue.
> 
> That price can be 99 cents or it can be $9.99. It will be different for each book.
> 
> ...


This is pretty much how I feel about it. Once the book is written, the labor involved is a sunk cost. There's no getting it back whether I price at $0.99 or $99.99. All that matters--from this point on, on the business side--is finding a way to get the product of that lost time to earn enough money to keep doing this.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> HAHAH. Alas, she is severely dyslexic, so she has no interest in books. If only. I'd be a gazillionaire by now. Wink


Bummer.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Michael: I don't know. Coming off another year of 15 hour days, with my back hurting, carpal always only a few inflamations away, and a feeling that I've written that sentence about a hundred times before after 2.5 million words in 28 months, I'd say it can be pretty hard.
> 
> Then again, nobody's holding a gun to my head, and they don't make me wear a uniform. Or anything, really. But that's a whole nother topic...


I'd love to see that writing uniform. Polyester, anyone?

About the carpal tunnel, I assume you've got an ergonomic keyboard? You probably do, but in case anyone here doesn't yet, this has made a huge difference to my wrist health, so I thought I'd mention it. Takes about fifteen minutes to get used to, then you're off to the races.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> Nah, being an artist isn't that hard. It's difficult to do well, but that's a different thing. And yeah, it's d*mn hard to making a living at it. But hard? No. It's like gardening or pottery or knitting--we do it because we love it.
> 
> I once had a job where I had to work 17 hour shifts, wipe bottoms, and wear a back brace because of all the lifting. That was hard. This is not.


Well, being a sculptor can be hard. Or ask Michelangelo, who loved painting, how it felt painting the Sistine Chapel for months on end.

But yeah, we do it because we love it. That's why people who do stuff they don't like know beforehand what they're taking home each month.

We all make our choices.


----------



## Kathy Clark Author (Dec 18, 2012)

The four basic stages of change psychologically. [No all parts of a corporation move at the same speed and sometimes they back up!]

Stage #1 - DENIAL - This can't be happening / this too shall pass
Stage #2 - ANGER - Those little p*ss ants [Texas talk for we'll step on your neck later]
Stage #3 - NEGOTIATE WITH OTHERS - Maybe we can join them...like our own ereader and stuff
STAGE #4 - NEGOTIATE WITH OURSELVES - We better get in front of this issue....how about we have our own reader...we'll call it a nook...or maybe our contracts with authors should separate out the e-rights

This all rings true. Now take these four stages and apply them to Amazon as they've dealt with the growth of all the distribution channels...somewhere like #2 then skip #3 and move to #4? Interesting strategy Jeff.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Well, being a sculptor can be hard. Or ask Michelangelo, who loved painting, how it felt painting the Sistine Chapel for months on end.


Its easier to ask a welder working on his back five pipe racks up on a refinery job.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Carve your own path and see what works. Whether it is business, craft or art - write great books people want to read and try to say something new and different. Every hot new trend and every hot new genre over the last 40 years started with a single book that went against market expectations. They were written by new authors, with new voices that had something new to say in new and exciting ways. Nothing wrong with being a book seller, but for readers like me, please set some time aside to be that trend setter too. The next book might be the one that resonates.


"Well said," agreed the special snowflake.  Those that take the greatest chances fail often, but when they succeed, they usually succeed in a big way.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Caddy said:


> "Well said," agreed the special snowflake.  Those that take the greatest chances fail often, but when they succeed, they usually succeed in a big way.


God Bless the Risk Takers, for they bow to no master.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Well, being a sculptor can be hard. Or ask Michelangelo, who loved painting, how it felt painting the Sistine Chapel for months on end.
> 
> But yeah, we do it because we love it. That's why people who do stuff they don't like know beforehand what they're taking home each month.
> 
> We all make our choices.


Actually, Michelangelo did it because Pope Julius made him do it. Perhaps we can learn something from that and cut down on these protracted, esoteric declarations of art vs. craft vs. whatever. He considered himself more of a sculptor, and he only did the Sistine Chapel because the fans (the Pope) demanded it. Michelangelo the craftsman. The crass commercialist.
"
Writer A commits the unpardonable sin of paying attention to what readers want, so Writer B, in a fury of self-important righteousness, strips poor little A of the label "art," denoting it instead "craft." Or worse, "crass commercialism."

Let's forget for a minute that most of those considered great artists did what they did for money. Let's also forget that most of the portraits hanging in museums portray pimply, inbred noblemen in a, shall we say, "highly complimentary" light. Of course that was just a bunch of "craftsman" following the coarse and base guidance of his market.

It might be nice if people wrote what they wanted for the reasons they wanted and didn't feel the need to categorize and subcategorize everyone else's work based on their own personal attitudes and preferences. What makes one book "art" and one "craft?" Who do you feel is qualified to make that distinction?


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Hey, as long as everyone understands that the greater the risk, the greater the reward.

99% of all books don't sell many copies. In a year where a million books release, 990,000 won't sell many copies. Certainly not enough to make any kind of money that would buy more than a happy meal, if that.

Those are the odds. Now, you might quibble that it's a little higher, or a little lower, but those odds are as good as any I've heard.

If the question we are trying to answer is how to improve your odds of being one of the 1%, that's a different question than how to create great art, or start the next trend. That question might be deserving of its own thread. Everyone's already familiar with my views in how to go about being one of the 1%.

We've heard plenty of perspectives that argue being that 1% isn't necessary. It's not meaningful. That's fine. Being in the 990,000 and being happy about it is a skill some might have, but I've never tried to develop it. Instead, I've tried to be in the 1%. That's been the goal. I'm fortunate enough to have achieved it. Maybe not next year. But this year, certainly, as well as last year. Put simply, out of 29 months of doing this, I've been lucky enough to be in the 1% 23 of those months. For which I'm grateful.

When one of the 1% comes here and tells me what they're doing, I tend to pay attention. I love Elle's posts. I follow Joe's with interest. I like Holly's. I chat regularly with a host of the 1%, hearing about what's working and what isn't. I aspire to being in the 1% of the 1%, but that may never happen. If not, hey, it's been a better run than I'd hoped, so can't complain.

I post because some find my approach interesting. Some find it repulsive. Both are fine with me. In the end we have only ourselves to make happy, and we all must do what we must to achieve that end.

I don't post because I'm trying to recruit an army marching in lockstep following my approach to the letter, but rather because it if helps a few authors make sense out of a random and chaotic universe, then I've sort of been part of the solution, such as it is, and there are too few that are ever part of the solution, or it would be a better world. So this is my feeble attempt to offer a hand to those still fighting battles I feel like I've fought and survived, if not won. That's it.

My OP was to say, I think we're at the point where we, self-pubbed authors, have won the perception battle that many of us are legit - the real thing. That wasn't the case a couple of years ago. Even last year, not so much. I got into it on a blog with some literary types (agents, I think) who argued that because I hadn't run the NY publishing gauntlet, I was a lesser talent than someone that had, and was making beer money. Obviously, I disagreed. But the point is, as recently as a few months ago, I was having to defend my decision to be indie. I don't think that's going to be as much of an issue moving forward. That was my whole point. The rest of this is fascinating, but a bit off my OP, which is also fine.

Now I'm going to go get a big steak and have a bottle of vino to celebrate having finished my 27th novel (and my 25th to hit the shelves) in 29 months this afternoon. Cause a guy's gotta live a little, ya know?

See everyone around.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Jay Allan said:


> Actually, Michelangelo did it because Pope Julius made him do it. Perhaps we can learn something from that and cut down on these protracted, esoteric declarations of art vs. craft vs. whatever. He considered himself more of a sculptor, and he only did the Sistine Chapel because the fans (the Pope) demanded it. Michelangelo the craftsman. The crass commercialist.


...which is the way it goes when one makes a living from the arts, far more frequently than any artist or any art fan likes to admit. Dad loved to paint landscapes. What sold best, though, was landscapes that could double as "Western art," which was the hottest genre in the 80s, aside from pop art, whose collectors tended to have less disposable income anyhow, so you made less money per painting if you were selling pop art. So he put teepees in his landscapes, and voila. Success. He hated doing that, and still painted "pure" landscapes in his free time. But the Western art sold, and he had bills to pay. Artists so often have to go where the money makes them go. It's been that way for hundreds of years, clear back to the time when artists were supported by patrons who largely dictated what kind of art they produced, because without their support, there was no money to buy supplies. Or, you know, FOOD.

We are far better off as creative types today, because thanks to the internet we have a good chance of finding lots of "patrons" for any kind of book we WANT to write. Some genres have far more patrons than others, though. So whether one wants to pursue those genres in order to maximize one's chances with more patrons is just one of many book-selling decisions to make.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I'm content for literary types to think as they choose. Is there any reason to care about their perceptions and attitudes? I'd rather concentrate on the welder. He's more likely to buy.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Ah, but the Impressionists and the majority of the bohemian artists after them didn't bow to the master or money.  A few of them made it during their lifetime. Most died poor. Vincent van Gogh sold one painting during his entire lifetime. Yet, few would disagree that he is one of the greats.

They were not allowed in the important showings because they wouldn't follow "the rules" so the powers-to-be of Paris and of art banned them. They started their own showings. No one came. Then, some started to and critics ripped them to shreds. In fact, that's where the name "Impressionist" started. A critic said their work was only "impressions" of a painting. Still, they kept on. 

So, no, not all artists change their paintings to suit others. ANd those that don't generally change the world of art. Once in awhile, one even gets lucky and becomes rich. Like Picasso, during his lifetime.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> I'm not sure why so many of these discussions degrade into an argument over whether writing is art or business.
> 
> The answer couldn't be more clear. Writing is craft, and in some cases, art. Selling books is business.
> 
> ...


Even though I actually disagreed with the person who brought up Picasso (for multiple reasons) the reason this discussion always goes in this direction is that you CAN'T separate the business from its means of production.

Sure, just writing a book doesn't give you a bookselling business... but if you don't have a product, you don't have a business.

Your business is built around the product, and if you try to divorce the two, the conversation most certainly will go around and around and around. (However, you are right that it is perfectly possible to have a book without having a business, just not the other way around.)

As for arts vs. crafts:

Did you know that the root words for "Art" and "Technology" are actually the same word (both meaning art or craft) just one from Latin and one from Greek? The ancients didn't consider art and craft to be separate things. For that matter neither did William Morris (which is why the Pre-Raphael offshoot fine arts movement he started was called "Arts and Crafts"). Great artists were always craftsmen -- and business people.

Let me just point out that when Picasso said it took him a lifetime to draw that picture on a napkin -- that lifetime was spend drawing. And drawing and drawing and drawing. And selling artwork. (And, btw, $100 was a lot of money at the time of the anecdote.)

Here is where I disagree with using that anecdote as an example, however; very very few writers -- even successful and brilliant writers -- work the way painters work. Remember that painters, especially in those days, didn't earn their income from royalties. They created a work, sold it, and created another one. They didn't have backlists. They had to continually work for a living the way ditch diggers do.

And for most artists -- even commercial artists -- that's still how it is. You can license some posters here and there. But even prints are only of value to your customers when they are "limited edition." A heavily illustrated book might earn an illustrator a royalty, but a cover artist -- even a brilliant one whose originals sell for thousands of dollars -- sells the cover once, and then sells the original once, and maybe sells some limited edition prints.

But there is no backlist.

Plus marketing is one-on-one. It's intensive and almost always involves travel and lots of physical activity. If you've ever whined about the cost of a cover -- that may be what it costs to prep and ship artwork to ONE show, where it will be sold to ONE customer. Or, most of the time, NOT sold to a customer and shipped back.

When Picasso said he'd spent a lifetime preparing that little sketch, he was NOT talking about staring at the wall and thinking, planning or plotting (which is what most writers mean when they say that they spent much more time on the work than just the actual writing). He was talking about actually painting and drawing and sketching and creating hundreds of other works.

So... if you want to defend how hard writers work, don't bring artists into it. I've met some very hard working writers in my time. Writers with a legendary work ethic... but none of them work as hard as the average artist.

Camille


----------



## donnajherren (Mar 7, 2013)

Caddy said:


> So, no, not all artists change their paintings to suit others. ANd those that don't generally change the world of art.


Orrrrrrr we only recognize and remember the ones who did, so it becomes a self-affirming conceit. I'm sure there have been countless thousands of artists who said, "Eff you, I'm gonna do this my way" that sold for crap *and* that history has completely, utterly forgotten.

In other words, simply refusing to bow to commercial interests doesn't necessarily equate with being ahead of one's time, or with changing the face of art as we know it.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Caddy said:


> Ah, but the Impressionists and the majority of the bohemian artists after them didn't bow to the master or money. A few of them made it during their lifetime. Most died poor. Vincent van Gogh sold one painting during his entire lifetime. Yet, few would disagree that he is one of the greats.
> 
> They were not allowed in the important showings because they wouldn't follow "the rules" so the powers-to-be of Paris and of art banned them. They started their own showings. No one came. Then, some started to and critics ripped them to shreds. In fact, that's where the name "Impressionist" started. A critic said their work was only "impressions" of a painting. Still, they kept on.
> 
> So, no, not all artists change their paintings to suit others. ANd those that don't generally change the world of art. Once in awhile, one even gets lucky and becomes rich. Like Picasso, during his lifetime.


Yeah, but van Gogh probably would have much rather sold more paintings during his lifetime. Without Theo supporting him, he wouldn't have been able to afford paints or canvasses. Or rent. Or food.

I agree that those who do their own thing and stick to their own vision tend to change their art, and aren't we all glad those people existed and did their thing! Those who do what the patrons prefer live better but usually don't make a long-term impression on the art as a whole, after they're gone. So it all comes down to what one wants to achieve with one's writing: success now, or possible success and maybe big influence later. For myself, I like the idea of achieving both (maybe...what happens after a writer is dead and gone is largely out of their control.) That's why I write in two genres: one commercial, and producing what I hope will please my patrons, the other doing whatever the hell I feel like and really giving it my all. If I play my cards right, I'll have money now and maybe be remembered after I'm dead. Time will tell. And I guess I won't know the outcome anyway, because I'll be dead. So hey, good times.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Caddy said:


> They were not allowed in the important showings because they wouldn't follow "the rules" so the powers-to-be of Paris and of art banned them. They started their own showings. No one came. Then, some started to and critics ripped them to shreds. In fact, that's where the name "Impressionist" started. A critic said their work was only "impressions" of a painting. Still, they kept on.


Same thing with folk art and folk pottery. They just kept making what they made, even though they were not mainstream pottery and eventually they became their own niche. Most people might not like it, but folk pottery is prized in antique circles.

I'm not saying indies are like potters (even though I do wheel pottery ocassionally), but I'm agreeing that eventually indie will be heard one way or another.



daringnovelist said:


> Here is where I disagree with using that anecdote as an example, however; very very few writers -- even successful and brilliant writers -- work the way painters work. Remember that painters, especially in those days, didn't earn their income from royalties. They created a work, sold it, and created another one. They didn't have backlists. They had to continually work for a living the way ditch diggers do.


I happen to do wheel pottery and pastel/oil painting and sketching in my rare spare time, so I don't know if I want to be compared with a ditch digger although I'm sure that both professions take their art/craft seriously, and although ditch diggers are paid way more than I get paid as a part-time potter, part-time writer, part-time painter.

Well, instead of backlists, artists do have their reputation and evidence in paintings that they have done and sold that are on display somewhere. So their past work advertised for them. Although I'm not in that boat. So far nobody has paid me a dime for my pottery, painting, or novels.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Caddy said:


> Ah, but the Impressionists and the majority of the bohemian artists after them didn't bow to the master or money. A few of them made it during their lifetime. Most died poor. Vincent van Gogh sold one painting during his entire lifetime. Yet, few would disagree that he is one of the greats.
> 
> They were not allowed in the important showings because they wouldn't follow "the rules" so the powers-to-be of Paris and of art banned them. They started their own showings. No one came. Then, some started to and critics ripped them to shreds. In fact, that's where the name "Impressionist" started. A critic said their work was only "impressions" of a painting. Still, they kept on.
> 
> So, no, not all artists change their paintings to suit others. ANd those that don't generally change the world of art. Once in awhile, one even gets lucky and becomes rich. Like Picasso, during his lifetime.


This really is a mischaracterization, though. Those artists were NOT refusing to bow to money. In fact, some of these artists made a living doing commercial art -- things that were considered to low to recognize. A few of them became famous for it, such as Toulouse-Lautrec. But the thing they were actually refusing to bow to was the Academy -- the gatekeepers of _fine_ art.

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Sure, just writing a book doesn't give you a bookselling business... but if you don't have a product, you don't have a business


.

Sure. The production process is just as much a part of business as the marketing.

I suppose I can produce what people want to buy, or I can ask them to buy what I want to produce. If I take the first option, there is no question the production is part of the business.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

JanThompson said:


> I happen to do wheel pottery and pastel/oil painting and sketching in my rare spare time, so I don't know if I want to be compared with a ditch digger although I'm sure that both professions take their art/craft seriously, and although ditch diggers are paid way more than I get paid as a part-time potter, part-time writer, part-time painter.
> 
> Well, instead of backlists, artists do have their reputation and evidence in paintings that they have done and sold that are on display somewhere. So their past work advertised for them. Although I'm not in that boat. So far nobody has paid me a dime for my pottery, painting, or novels.


Jan, I was comparing artists to ditch-diggers in a positive way. We're not talking about value of work done. We're talking about how hard writers work compared to ordinary working people. And someone brought up Picasso as an example of how artists work harder than it appears. Well, yeah, but that is irrelevant to writers. Artists work significantly harder than writers. Artists work as hard as anybody who does physical labor. And writers simply do not. Writers are simply not in the same league.

As for backlists: A writer can continue to make money from a backlist without doing _any_ more work. An artist cannot do this. No matter how great their reputation is, they still have to do more work to make more money.

So if you want to prove how hard writers work, don't compare them to artists.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> .
> 
> Sure. The production process is just as much a part of business as the marketing.
> 
> I suppose I can produce what people want to buy, or I can ask them to buy what I want to produce. If I take the first option, there is no question the production is part of the business.


And if you take the second one you have a business too -- just with a different business model.

But you don't have to try to find customers at all -- and if so, you don't have a business.

Camille


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I suppose I can produce what people want to buy, or I can ask them to buy what I want to produce. If I take the first option, there is no question the production is part of the business.


Ideally what I want to produce and what people want to buy are one and the same. Win-win. That would be nice.

I just read a blog by one of the lit agents and she talked about craft vs cash:

"Where Your Passion Meets the Market" by Rachelle Gardner
http://www.rachellegardner.com/2013/11/passion-meets-market/

In the comments, James Scott Bell said this (I'm assuming "buyers" meant "acquisition editors" speaking of tradpub):

"The buyers say they want a 'fresh voice.' But they also want something they can sell, that is 'commercial viability.' Freshness of voice comes from passion. Commercial viability comes from thinking, objectively, like a publisher. Make a Venn diagram for yourself where those two circles meet for YOU. That's the sweet spot." - James Scott Bell


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> An artist cannot do this. No matter how great their reputation is, they still have to do more work to make more money.


WHile I agree with much of what you say regarding how hard artists work, this is not really true. Many, many artists never sell their original painting. They make prints or giclees. So, in a way they do have a backlist. As they paint more paintings, they can still sell those reproductions of old originals. In fact, some artists make a living doing this. (I'm sure you know this, but probably didn't think about it as similar to a backlist, but it certainly is. You mentioned even prints are only valuable in limited editions. That is only true if the prints are quite expensive. Some artists reproduce popular paintings over and over again. I'm not saying that's good or bad, I'm just saying it is.)



> This really is a mischaracterization, though. Those artists were NOT refusing to bow to money. In fact, some of these artists made a living doing commercial art -- things that were considered to low to recognize. A few of them became famous for it, such as Toulouse-Lautrec. But the thing they were actually refusing to bow to was the Academy -- the gatekeepers of fine art.


Ah, but they WERE refusing to bow to money, as in what the wealthy class wanted. The very fact the Toulouse-Lautrec did commercial art speaks of the fact that some made it in spite of refusing to do that. His paintings of the Moulin Rouge women were certainly not done according to how Paris art schools wanted him to paint. In spite of that, and in spite of him not bowing to realism and making money that way, someone saw value in the way HE painted and hired him. Certainly it isn't wrong to accept a job, most especially when they don't tell you what style to use. He was part of the new wave of art during the bohemian art era.

I would imagine both you and I know quite a bit about this era and would agree about 90% of the time. I'm just saying, accepting a commercial job isn't copping out, when that job allows you to paint in YOUR style.

As far as the artists a few centuries earlier, let's remember that artists before the nineteenth century (and some during it) were hired by families to paint their history. The church did the same. Once the camera was invented, that was no longer necessary. Now, all of a sudden, artists had the freedom to paint whatever they wished. But no rich family to support them. Bam. Creativity caught fire.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> Jan, I was comparing artists to ditch-diggers in a positive way. We're not talking about value of work done. We're talking about how hard writers work compared to ordinary working people. And someone brought up Picasso as an example of how artists work harder than it appears. Well, yeah, but that is irrelevant to writers. Artists work significantly harder than writers. Artists work as hard as anybody who does physical labor. And writers simply do not. Writers are simply not in the same league.


Thank you for clarifying! Yes, that makes sense.

Do you also think that maybe it depends on the artist/writer? For example, I enjoy art, and it's not a lot of work for me. It's like therapy to paint still life or do pottery. Maybe it's because I don't do them with the intention of making sales. But writing, I am trying to get some ROI on it, so I sometimes feel it's like physical labor esp. when pressured to produce. Hmmm.... Maybe if I treat writing like I treat my art...



daringnovelist said:


> As for backlists: A writer can continue to make money from a backlist without doing _any_ more work. An artist cannot do this. No matter how great their reputation is, they still have to do more work to make more money.


Good points. What about prints? Prints are cheaper and they are not the real thing but if the artist sells prints, he has some sort of repeated income too. Maybe?


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> Jan, I was comparing artists to ditch-diggers in a positive way. We're not talking about value of work done. We're talking about how hard writers work compared to ordinary working people. And someone brought up Picasso as an example of how artists work harder than it appears. Well, yeah, but that is irrelevant to writers. Artists work significantly harder than writers. *Artists work as hard as anybody who does physical labor. And writers simply do not. Writers are simply not in the same league.*
> 
> As for backlists: A writer can continue to make money from a backlist without doing _any_ more work. An artist cannot do this. No matter how great their reputation is, they still have to do more work to make more money.
> 
> ...


Okay, I wasn't going to get into this but I cannot just sit back and let this be perpetuated.

I am sorry, this is absolutely *untrue* that a writer does not work as hard as an artist.

I am a writer and an artist, *both*.

Not just a software graphics one who does book covers but I am a *fine artist in the physical world*. I work with oil on canvas, pen and pencil, and a variety of other media. As a fine artist I have won juried art competitions and been exhibited in real galleries in major cities. I have shipped canvases to exhibitions. Basically, been there done that.

Here are a couple of my large oils:










and










My point is, I have worked very hard as an artist, for decades, and I have been an artist long before I began to consider myself a writer. However -- the sheer level of *insane concentration* required to paint one of the oils above (about five to seven days of non-stop daily concentration for about 16 hours a day, while forgetting to eat or drink, and then dropping off to sleep in complete exhaustion), for each of these paintings does not even come close to the kind of *unholy impossible focus, effort and concentration* that is required for me to produce my written work when it is at its best.

Yes, I am a word and sentence-level stylist and I work painstakingly on my written craft (*as I know so many of you here do too!*), and when I write for about 4-5 hours on my *least* commercial and most literary fiction, I find I have lost track of day and night and the world around me and my own breathing... and the effort I expend in the process of such writing is *far more intensive* than when I do my art.

Just had to say this, not to brag but to say that I am at least one person who can give you evidence through my own direct experience in both fields.

Writing is d*mn difficult.

*Writing is the single most difficult activity I have ever performed* (yeah, even compared with laying huge garden stones and digging, which I have done), because when you do back breaking physical work you are focused on the pain in your body, you remain "in the world," and you never for a moment forget where you are or how much it's killing you. But when you do writing (or art) you are lost completely in the act of creation, you dissolve, and *you become nothing but your creation.*

Now *that's* work.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> But when you do writing (or art) you are lost completely in the act of creation, you dissolve, and you become nothing but your creation.


Who does?


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Who does?


I do.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Vera Nazarian said:


> I do.


Good. Best of Luck. I suspect there are lots of different experiences among lots of different authors.


----------



## Vera Nazarian (Jul 1, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Good. Best of Luck. I suspect there are lots of different experiences among lots of different authors.


Agreed, absolutely.

As I said, the only reason I even brought any of this up is to respond to the blanket statement that writers should not be compared to artists, or that they can never work as hard as artists... or plumbers, or bricklayers, etc...

They can and they do. They don't always, just as with any other job. But they CAN.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Hey, as long as everyone understands that the greater the risk, the greater the reward.
> 
> 99% of all books don't sell many copies. In a year where a million books release, 990,000 won't sell many copies. Certainly not enough to make any kind of money that would buy more than a happy meal, if that.
> 
> ...


Great post. And great thread.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> And come on, go talk to someone working 12 hour shifts at a factory about how "hard" it was deciding to kill a character or not. Their reaction should be rather amusing.


Usually.

But I've also met folks like that who understand that churning out a high word count each day to publish at the rate some of us do is hard work of a type they wouldn't want to try.

Just as it would be hard for me to attempt, say, big-rig driving. (I have sleep apnea... I'd be taking not only my own life in my hands, but the lives of others as well.) And I've seen enough of Ice Road Truckers to know that when you have sleep apnea, big-rig hauling is the last thing you want to do.

If I fall asleep at my desk, the worst thing to happen is I don't reach 2,000 words that night and I wake up with a crick in my neck and need to down a Tylenol PM before I can drift back to sleep when I actually do lay down. In that sense, what I do is easy.

If I fall asleep behind the wheel of a big rig, I could kill myself, others, wreck a rig, destroy a load worth huge money, etc., all at the same time.

As much as I can admire what folks like Lisa Kelly, Hugh Roland, and Alex Debagorski do, I'd never want to even attempt it.

In the same way, I've been some hard-labor folks who've told me, they'd never want to attempt to try and tell a coherent story for anywhere from 300 to 500 pages.

My feeling there is, from my perspective, I still think their work is harder, but that's through my lenses. We all end up hopefully doing whatever it is we're best at, right?

I mean, I know plumbers make great money, and there's aspects of their job they hate, like the messes they deal with: on the same token, the ones who really know what they're doing? They wow me to the point that I never entertain the idea of "I can fix it myself." 

Or look at Gold Rush. Mining is back-breaking physical work. (I've never met them, but I live within an hour of the Hoffmans.) Sure, it looks like a big fun adventure on Discovery Channel or History or whatnot, but would I want to be driving a D-9 10-14 hours a day, just to wash dirt and hope a couple ounces of gold washes out each day?

I shudder at the prospect, but admire those who can do it.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Yeah, but van Gogh probably would have much rather sold more paintings during his lifetime. Without Theo supporting him, he wouldn't have been able to afford paints or canvasses. Or rent. Or food.


I'm sure he would have loved to sell paintings, too. But, obviously it didn't matter enough that he changed his style in order to do so. And, yes, he had Theo. However, many painters didn't have family support. Renoir and some other Impressionists took their work door to door at times, trying to sell their work for any amount because they couldn't pay rent or buy food. Renoir (and some of the others) did end up selling and making a decent living eventually, but-again-it wasn't because they bowed to the expectations of what art always had been. Instead, people finally noticed that the way they painted was beautiful, interesting, and different. Now many look at a Renoir or a Degas and the work seems like a "normal" painting, but we have to remember that, at the time, those paintings broke all kinds of rules regarding brushstrokes, style, etc.



> Agreed, absolutely.
> 
> As I said, the only reason I even brought any of this up is to respond to the blanket statement that writers should not be compared to artists, or that they can never work as hard as artists... or plumbers, or bricklayers, etc...
> 
> They can and they do. They don't always, just as with any other job. But they CAN.


Exactly. Some people think it's bullcrap that my characters write the story. They don't understand that when I'm writing, "I' go away. It's like you said, dissolving into the work and the fingers just type. I am there, but I'm not. You know what I mean. 

And, yes, some of these artists came from families with money. Of those, some were disowned for either continuing to paint in a "noncommercial" way or because of choices in women.  Some continued to get support. We also have to remember that there were many, many artists breaking "rules" at the time that none of us hear about, and some that some of us hear about that are interested but the general public doesn't know about them because they never "made it". For example, Suzanne Valadon always got good critical acclaim but never sold much (and, yes, for a time she was married and lived quite comfortably, but she never sold a lot of paintings. Finally she sold enough to continue to live okay...but how many remember her?). When she IS mentioned, it is usually because of her wild lifestyle instead of her paintings because women artists weren't often considered important. Or how about her son, Maurice Utrillo? He painted from the time he was a teenager. Museums have paintings by him, buy many times don't put them on display because most don't know him. Yet he was the only true Montmartre artist, meaning that he was born in Montmartre and spent most of his life there. He painted a ton, but certainly never achieved anything close to popularity.

Anyway, I could go on and on because we're on my favorite subject.  El, I believe we are in agreement on this topic, but used your mention of van Gogh as a jumping off point.

I


> agree that those who do their own thing and stick to their own vision tend to change their art, and aren't we all glad those people existed and did their thing! Those who do what the patrons prefer live better but usually don't make a long-term impression on the art as a whole, after they're gone. So it all comes down to what one wants to achieve with one's writing: success now, or possible success and maybe big influence later. For myself, I like the idea of achieving both (maybe...what happens after a writer is dead and gone is largely out of their control.) That's why I write in two genres: one commercial, and producing what I hope will please my patrons, the other doing whatever the hell I feel like and really giving it my all. If I play my cards right, I'll have money now and maybe be remembered after I'm dead. Time will tell. And I guess I won't know the outcome anyway, because I'll be dead. So hey, good times.


Yes, indeed. I completely agree. Still, a writer who isn't interested in popular genres still DOES have a chance. For instance, besides literary fiction you write historical. Historical fiction is no walk in the park, either, as far as gaining readership goes. It just happens to be more so than lit fic.  We're on the same page in regard to that. I'm hoping for the same things you are, even though for my next series I move out of historical. I stay in dramatic fiction, though, and possibly contemporary. I have to hope the dramatic aspects of my stories catch on. I don't want to write cute, cozy stories and can't. It wouldn't ring true for me.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

No man is a prophet in his own village.  And a woman even less so.  Your own contemporaries call you eccentric, odd, and a special snowflake.  If you are shooting for a different 1%, meaning high literary achievement, the classics of the future, you are swinging for the fences and it will be a goddamn big whiff when you miss.  It's the chance you take, which is fine if you are willing to accept those odds.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

All this lofty talk of art and artists and invoking the names of Michelangelo and Picasso is pretty strange to me. I mean really picking two of the greatest artists ever is sort of dubious and educational and ridiculous. They are such outliers. Are you thinking you're similar? Or something?

Why? They were each child prodigies and each had powerful friends who saw to their sales. Neither of them was hawking their works on the street or internet. Michelangelo apprenticed to Donatello and Ghirlandiao, two of the greats of their era. Donatello for sculpture and Ghirlandiao for painting. He was apprenticed early at 11 when his budding talent was noticed. He became a master of his craft before he became a great artist. He learned the craft. 

Sales? He had the Popes and the Medici's. Patronage. Pope Julius gave him the great canvas to the Sistine Chapel and Popes Leo and Clement gave him even more opportunities. The patronage of the Medici's provided him with everything.

Picasso? Even at a young age his great talent was obvious, especially to his artist father Ruiz who was both a painter and professor. In his early teens Picasso could easily duplicate the brushstrokes of El Greco and other Masters. He grew tired of the great Masters of art and forged his own producing 5 or 6 works per day. Again, he had learned the craft very well.

Sales? He didn't have to worry about sales either. In Paris the famous art dealer Paul Rosenberg saw his work he immediately handled sales for Picasso.

I just don't know how they begin have any relevance in Blake's thread. Van Gogh? I dunno? He sure was poor and had problems. Renoir? He was paid quite well and lived the bourgeois life in Southern France.

Art? First you have to learn the craft. Or as Picasso said, "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child."


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

I think this thread was hit by a bowling ball, because it's all over the place. First there was stuff about snobs sneering at self-publishers and finally bowing in humble defeat. Now we're talking about the glory and passion of true artists versus the crude knuckle-dragging money seekers (or something).


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Robert E. Keller said:


> I think this thread was hit by a bowling ball, because it's all over the place. First there was stuff about snobs sneering at self-publishers and finally bowing in humble defeat. Now we're talking about the glory and passion of true artists versus the crude knuckle-dragging money seekers (or something).


Welcome to kboards and the writers cafe. Please enjoy the free coffee and pastries over on the left side buffet table.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Robert E. Keller said:


> I think this thread was hit by a bowling ball, because it's all over the place. First there was stuff about snobs sneering at self-publishers and finally bowing in humble defeat. Now we're talking about the glory and passion of true artists versus the crude knuckle-dragging money seekers (or something).


"_We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true._" Bandar-Log; Kipling


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Welcome to kboards and the writers cafe. Please enjoy the free coffee and pastries over on the left side buffet table.


I never pass up a chance at free coffee.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> "_We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true._" Bandar-Log; Kipling


And don't forget: "We are the people that can find, whatever you may need" according to Guns N' Roses.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> All this lofty talk of art and artists and invoking the names of Michelangelo and Picasso is pretty strange to me. I mean really picking two of the greatest artists ever is sort of dubious and educational and ridiculous. They are such outliers. Are you thinking you're similar? Or something?


Somewhere along the line a poster mentioned that some people consider their writing art. The posts moved from there, talking about different kinds of art, and the difference between artists doing what was a sure thing and being bold.

I don't know what your animosity is about it. Certainly I don't consider myself a Picasso. However, if you want to talk about the backgrounds of Picasso, Michelangelo, or a myriad of others, please know I, too, have a solid background regarding their histories. I think you missed the point of some of these posts. And, had you read carefully enough I mentioned "what about the many artists during that period who didn't see greatness"? People had commented that being different *sometimes resulted in greatness. Therefore, examples of painters that did so were brought up.*

No one is attacking Blake. The conversation, like many on here, has taken several turns and curves. If that bothers you the rest of us can't help that. When a poster (not Blake. Did you even read the other posts?)sneers at writers who consider themselves "artists" I take umbrage to it. So do some others. In addition, many of us also paint, so it's only natural that we would see correlations that we share.

Now, I'm usually quite polite on here. But when someone jumps on and attacks me, insinuating that I think I'm Picasso, that riles me. There is no reason to barge in and rudely accuse people of such. And, by the way, Renoir had money later. There was a time he went door to door begging people to buy his paintings.


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

jackz4000 said:


> All this lofty talk of art and artists and invoking the names of Michelangelo and Picasso is pretty strange to me. I mean really picking two of the greatest artists ever is sort of dubious and educational and ridiculous. They are such outliers. Are you thinking you're similar? Or something?
> 
> Why? They were each child prodigies and each had powerful friends who saw to their sales. Neither of them was hawking their works on the street or internet. Michelangelo apprenticed to Donatello and Ghirlandiao, two of the greats of their era. Donatello for sculpture and Ghirlandiao for painting. He was apprenticed early at 11 when his budding talent was noticed. He became a master of his craft before he became a great artist. He learned the craft.
> 
> ...


The point (my point, at least) was that even an artist like Michelangelo was compelled to do what his market demanded. Given his choice, he would have been off someplace sculpting a block of marble, probably. He only did the Sistine Chapel because his market/patronage demanded it.

So, reading some of the posts on here, that is not really art. It is just bending to the will of the market. Of course that is foolish.

The over-romanticizing of art that goes on often gets silly. Michelangelo's art has stood the test of time because he was enormously capable, not because he thumbed his nose at his market and was able to indulge his every whim without regard to other considerations.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

My take on art: If you wish to be an artist, more power to you. Being commercially successful as an artist is one of the hardest feats on the planet. Understand you're on a path that is likely oblivion and commercial failure. If you can handle that, by all means, go be artistic. Create great art.

When I get together with other authors who have managed to achieve commercial success, we never sit around and discuss craft or art. Just doesn't happen. Everyone's competent. It's sort of like having a graduate degree in some arcane field - the market as attested to our core competence, so it's just not even worth discussing.

What successful authors generally discuss are two things: How so and so is a complete hack and nobody can understand how his/her dross sells anything, and sales/marketing related stuff. Really. That's the truth. Because getting paid for being good at something as ephemeral as writing fiction is far more interesting to us than discussing craft issues we already all understand. 

That's not to in any way denigrate those who consider themselves artists. Or those who are convinced their work is art. Perhaps it is. Art is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm not qualified to speak to matters artistic, although I've been fortunate enough to know some fine artists who are acknowledged as being at the pinnacle of their disciplines.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jay Allan said:


> The point (my point, at least) was that even an artist like Michelangelo was compelled to do what his market demanded. Given his choice, he would have been off someplace sculpting a block of marble, probably. He only did the Sistine Chapel because his market/patronage demanded it.
> 
> So, reading some of the posts on here, that is not really art. It is just bending to the will of the market. Of course that is foolish.
> 
> The over-romanticizing of art that goes on often gets silly. Michelangelo's art has stood the test of time because he was enormously capable, not because he thumbed his nose at his market and was able to indulge his every whim without regard to other considerations.


Agree. He also had to make the Medici's look good in their portraits and kow-tow to the Popes. That was the market at the time. There were fewer career choices. Usually great artists learned their craft first, spending many years. I don't think visual art/craft and ebook comparisons work too well.


----------



## FMH (May 18, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> I feel the same way. People who enjoy success tend to make two mistakes: They believe they have been rewarded in direct proportion to their talents, and they use post-hoc reasoning to divine how they got there.
> 
> We stumble through a forest blindly, going in circles, and then stumble upon a treasure. This discovery is clearly due to our expert map-reading. We shout out into the jungle, above the singing machetes of the blind others, that the way is easy. Just do what we did. And then we remember the steps we took and try to piece it all back together.
> 
> When asked for advice, I usually tell people to write because they love to write. When asked how I got where I am, I tell them it was largely luck. These seem like dodges, but they sure as hell feel like truth.


And this - dear Hugh - shows you to be an excellent wordsmith, with a delicate and swift turn of phrase... I'm sure that has something to do with your success.

I read Stephen King's "On Writing" and loved that he said that as writer we should write a lot, and read more. Those are the best ways to success, through improving your talent by exposure to experience, your own and others.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> That's not to in any way denigrate those who consider themselves artists. Or those who are convinced their work is art.


For me personally, it's not that I consider my writing art but not others. What I am saying is writing is an art. Like you said earlier. That is the art part. After we have done the art, we have to switch hats and become a business person IF we want the art to sell.  Certainly I don't think my writing is fine art and others isn't. Just the fact that someone is talented enough to put a story down on paper is, to me, an art. Now, craft comes in with following rules to make the art readable...but the art of storytelling is just that: art.

Some people's art (I'm speaking about writing here) is in genres that don't sell well. Some people can move to a genre that does sell well because they enjoy the craft of putting together any story more than the story that may move their soul inside. And that's cool. Others have no interest in writing in a genre they aren't moved by. And that's okay. There are still readers for those genres. The writer just has to struggle more to find them and be a very savvy business person. And, let's not forget: genres that are popular today may/will not be popular tomorrow. For those who only want to write in a genre that isn't extremely popular right now, there is future hope. That is the beauty of self-publishing. The book is there forever, as long as you don't pull it down. Unfortunately, writing in less popular genres can also mean you only find fame after you're no longer here...or not at all. (And some of us don't want fame. We simply want to make a living. That can be done in any genre, if you're savvy enough and catch a bit of luck.)


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> That's not to in any way denigrate those who consider themselves artists. Or those who are convinced their work is art. Perhaps it is. Art is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm not qualified to speak to matters artistic, although I've been fortunate enough to know some fine artists who are acknowledged as being at the pinnacle of their disciplines.


Oh, ye gods&#8230;

Just speaking for myself: I never pretended to be anything else than a story teller. I usually don't even call myself an author. I do call myself a writer because that's the medium I use to tell my stories. I'm not even pretending to be a professional, let alone an artist. In fact, what I mainly objected to were the snide remarks that if I wasn't a commercial beast, then I surely had to be an artist (also called "arty" type).

You certainly need some mastery of craft to tell a good story. Art? Nice if you can achieve it. I prefer to let others decide what to them is art and what not.

For me the story that needs to be told (according to me, of course) takes precedence over all other considerations. That does *not* mean I don't want to sell as many copies of them as I can.
And I object to being called lazy, a free-loader who wants it all without putting in the hours, or just plain stupid because some advice here doesn't apply to me.

I write Epic Fantasy (actually Pseudo History), minus the magic and dragons and whatnot, with gay main characters - which Fantasy readers don't like - and plot lines heavy with political intrigue and warfare (including tactics and strategy) ­- which Gay Romance readers don't like. How can I solve this? Simple. Add a confuzzled magician, half a dozen chattering dragons, and make armies disappear with magic formulas. Add a MacGuffin or two. Then make one of the MCs a straight male and the other a straight female. Tone down on the tactics and strategy and dumb down the political intrigues. Hm&#8230; maybe add a damsel in distress.
This is what I should do to please a lot of/most/more readers. 
Not going to do that. The story remains what it is. Why? Because the story is actually a result of the interactions of the characters (who are even more important than the story) and it's about them I want to write.

So, no, I won't write to please readers. But I do want to find as many readers as I can who would be pleased with my stories. Different problem. Different challenge.

We all have different standards and different goals in writing what we write. Maybe we could make an effort to respect each other's choices. Oh, and disagreeing with a cherished theory is not disrespecting the person who champions it.

_(What follows is not meant for you, Russel.)_

Snarky remarks like "do it my way because it worked for me, or risk being called a lazy, stupid fool" are not very helpful.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Adding beer, wine, tequila and rum to the side buffet.  Please enjoy.
Oh and at Vera, loved your artwork.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> What successful authors generally discuss are two things: How so and so is a complete hack and nobody can understand how his/her dross sells anything. Really. That's the truth.


Interesting. I hear all the time that people talk about me at conferences, that my name is forever popping up. Nice to finally understand the context.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Just speaking for myself: I never pretended to be anything else than a story teller. I usually don't even call myself an author. I do call myself a writer because that's the medium I use to tell my stories. I'm not even pretending to be a professional, let alone an artist. In fact, what I mainly objected to were the snide remarks that if I wasn't a commercial beast, then I surely had to be an artist (also called "arty" type).
> 
> You certainly need some mastery of craft to tell a good story. Art? Nice if you can achieve it. I prefer to let others decide what to them is art and what not.


Ah, but you are painting a mental picture with your words. That is art. It's just in another medium. Granted, some books paint better pictures than others.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Show of hands...  Who here writes art?

I'm don't.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> When I get together with other authors who have managed to achieve commercial success, we never sit around and discuss craft or art. Just doesn't happen. Everyone's competent. It's sort of like having a graduate degree in some arcane field - the market as attested to our core competence, so it's just not even worth discussing.


See, this is interesting to me, because I've got a couple screenwriter friends. Now, of them, I'm the only one making a living writing, and, of course, we work in different mediums. But one of the guys has had contracts and stuff and sold things in Hollywood, but I don't understand any of that. Anyway...

Thing is, whenever I run into either of these guys, and we get into a writing conversation, we never talk about money, we always talk about storytelling. We talk about... craft. Not like, how to string words together, per se, but... you know how to move people, how to evoke emotion in our audiences, how to get characters from one point to another. And it's always really fun.

But whenever I try to have conversations like that online, they don't work for some reason. Like, all people on writer's forums have enormous chips on their shoulders and/or just want to argue and be right. (Me included. Mea culpa, mea culpa.) I think it's the medium or something.

Gotta say, I love having a few beers and talking about how to craft stories. Not as one-upping each other. Not as, "Here's how you do it." Just shooting the breeze, sharing ideas... it's a blast. I wish there was more of that in my life, honestly.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

> Show of hands... Who here writes art?
> 
> I'm don't.


I don't see what's so terrible about trying to write art. Whether you succeed or not is another question. But Michelangelo, to extend the painting analogy a bit further, did not set out to paint bulldogs playing poker and accidentally create the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Isn't intent a necessary ingredient? Furthermore, art does not necessarily mean neurotic New Yorkers transposed into other settings. Art can be about people that the people who judge art are not particularly interested in. Making it even more impossible to sell, of course.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Hugh: If they're conferences for successful writers, they're probably pretty small gatherings, so I wouldn't worry about it. The best revenge is always living well. And after a certain age, just living, period.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Hugh: If they're conferences for successful writers, they're probably pretty small gatherings, so I wouldn't worry about it. The best revenge is always living well. And after a certain age, just living, period.


Oh, I was being facetious. Now I'm a bit embarrassed. You were being serious!


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Show of hands... Who here writes art?
> 
> I'm don't.


I didn't say say people wrote art. I said the writing of the story itself is an art.
Hence., "The art of story telling" But, whatever.

See, a discussion board is really for, well, discussions.



> Gotta say, I love having a few beers and talking about how to craft stories. Not as one-upping each other. Not as, "Here's how you do it." Just shooting the breeze, sharing ideas... it's a blast. I wish there was more of that in my life, honestly.


Me, too! And you're right. You probably won't find it online.  It can be done in emails, but usually can't be on a forum. And emails aren't as much fun as slamming a few beers and elaborating!


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Hugh: Doh!


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Show of hands... Who here writes art?


I always like to say that I have high-brow sensibilities and low-brow taste. Don't know what that means about what I write, exactly. I might be trying to throw around some ideas about nature vs. civilization and what makes people human, but I'm doing that with werewolves bumping uglies, so... yeah. I like the common denominators about the human race. I like raw, primal emotions like jealousy and lust and anger. I like car chases. I like sex. But I refuse to acknowledge that some kinds of human expression are lower or baser than other forms. I guess in a lot of ways I feel that art is an, er, artificial designation. The best way to define what art even _is_, is to say that art becomes art when someone decides to treat it like art.

If I decide to do a doctoral thesis on dino-erotica and talk about the implications of women in a privileged cultural situation fantasizing about domination by extinct beasts, then dino-erotica becomes art, as far as I'm concerned.

So, yeah, I'm an artist. I write art. Get used to it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, folks, take a breath...

There have been a couple of reports and I've got to get back to fixing dinner.

I've been following this thread since the beginning, and really, I think people are taking things personally that weren't directed at them.  If you are not a special snowflake, then David's comment was not directed at you.  As he has subsequently explained.  But there are, without a doubt, because I've seen them, people who throw stuff up on Amazon and expect it to sell because they have a wonderful story.  Things like grammar and editing don't matter.  I've seen those people.  They've been members here.  They don't usually last very long, at least not with that mindset.

As for the turns this thread has taken, well, that's KBoards (and the Internet in general).  Threads often take surprising turns here.  It's one of the things I love.

So, let's all chill, I'm going back to my roasted cauliflower, and this evening I'm going to be working on my commercially viable (hopefully) user's guide...

And no more personal attacks.  Some posts have been edited and I'm going to go over it again with my personal attack detector after I get the cauliflower in the oven....

Peace!

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

brendajcarlton said:


> I don't see what's so terrible about trying to write art. Whether you succeed or not is another question. But Michelangelo, to extend the painting analogy a bit further, did not set out to paint bulldogs playing poker and accidentally create the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Isn't intent a necessary ingredient? Furthermore, art does not necessarily mean neurotic New Yorkers transposed into other settings. Art can be about people that the people who judge art are not particularly interested in. Making it even more impossible to sell, of course.


I agree there is nothing terrible about trying to write art. Fine with me.

I doubt intent matters. Wouldn't art have to stand on its own? If we are presented with a book, do we have to know anything about the producer to determine if it is art? Lots of stuff from the past is considered great art, but the producer is unknown.

I am content for neurotic New Yorkers to be overlooked in any endeavor. Not sure what they add to anything.



> But I refuse to acknowledge that some kinds of human expression are lower or baser than other forms. I guess in a lot of ways I feel that art is an, er, artificial designation. The best way to define what art even is, is to say that art becomes art when someone decides to treat it like art.


Well put. Reminds me of creativity. Some see creativity as limited to a small class if creatives. I prefer to just look around me. There is evidence if creativity everywhere. This iPad in my hands is the product of a zillion creative folks. Their creativity is far beyond any story I cold tap out on it. There's electric light, a fan turning in the ceiling, paned glass, concrete, a miracle fabric jacket I'm wearing, and coffee some creative folks figured how to get from the highlands if Columbia to me.

God Bless the Creatives, for they bring electric light to us all.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Terrence,

I see Betsy has edited out most of my post to you. Actually, I'm glad she did. I don't know if you read it or not, but I want to apologize if you did. It was snarky and I usually don't do that. I don't know why I got so angry, other than I have one he*l of a headache today (and did 2 days ago). So, I'm sincerely sorry I was rude to you. That's not generally how or who I am. Once in awhile I do get worked up and today was one of those days.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Caddy,

thank you for understanding and for the apology to Terrence.  That is very gracious of you.

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Caddy said:


> Terrence,
> 
> I see Betsy has edited out most of my post to you. Actually, I'm glad she did. I don't know if you read it or not, but I want to apologize if you did. It was snarky and I usually don't do that. I don't know why I got so angry, other than I have one he*l of a headache today (and did 2 days ago). So, I'm sincerely sorry I was rude to you. That's not generally how or who I am. Once in awhile I do get worked up and today was one of those days.


May the road rise up to meet you, Caddy.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Speaking of artists and art, if I ever meet any of you in the meatworld, remind me to tell you my family's tale about Thomas Kinkade, the Painter of Light.  It's pretty funny, but probably not appropriate for a public forum.  And too bad, because it would be a perfect cap to this discussion.  I'll share it with anybody who buys me a glass of wine, though.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

In my art quilt lists, Thomas Kinkade is known as "He who shall not be named."  Invoking him starts the same passionate discussion as invoking John Locke here....

Betsy


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

You guys and gals are all crazy. Talk about topic drift!!


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> In my art quilt lists, Thomas Kinkade is known as "He who shall not be named." Invoking him starts the same passionate discussion as invoking John Locke here....
> 
> Betsy


So quilting is not unlike painting, I see....

This tale involves a fat doob (_not _smoked by Thomas Kinkade, never fear) and a mysterious phone call in the middle of the night. Someday, my friends. Someday.


----------



## donnajherren (Mar 7, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> This tale involves a fat doob (_not _smoked by Thomas Kinkade, never fear) and a mysterious phone call in the middle of the night. Someday, my friends. Someday.


This right here is, like...the perfect writing prompt. LOLOL


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Adding beer, wine, tequila and rum to the side buffet. Please enjoy.
> Oh and at Vera, loved your artwork.


I need some, after spending time in this thread.


----------



## Blerch (Oct 17, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> Speaking of artists and art, if I ever meet any of you in the meatworld, remind me to tell you my family's tale about Thomas Kinkade, the Painter of Light. It's pretty funny, but probably not appropriate for a public forum. And too bad, because it would be a perfect cap to this discussion. I'll share it with anybody who buys me a glass of wine, though.


I'm actually from Seattle, may have to shoot ya an email next time I'm up visiting family. If only to hear that story, because I know people that are obsessed with his artwork.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/jeff-bennett-star-wars_n_4228130.html










Stormtroopers just blew up this thread.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Stormtroopers just blew up this thread.


 Heheheh.



> In my art quilt lists, Thomas Kinkade is known as "He who shall not be named." Invoking him starts the same passionate discussion as invoking John Locke here....


OH, yeah. Most artists can't stand his work, but he sure made a lot of money. It kind of reminds me of all the writers who can't stand 50 Shades and say that is was written poorly. Maybe so, maybe not. I didn't read it so I don't have an opinion (although I do re: Kincaid. For the sake of not starting any battles, my opinion willbe kept a guarded secret). EIther way, she's laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Caddy said:


> Heheheh.
> OH, yeah. Most artists can't stand his work, but he sure made a lot of money. It kind of reminds me of all the writers who can't stand 50 Shades and say that is was written poorly. Maybe so, maybe not. I didn't read it so I don't have an opinion (although I do re: Kincaid. For the sake of not starting any battles, my opinion willbe kept a guarded secret). EIther way, she's laughing all the way to the bank.


I have no opinion, actually, on Kinkade, or, for that matter, on whatshername who wrote 50 Shades. If I could get someone to pay me an unimaginable amount of money for my work, I'd take it and also laugh all the way to the bank, whether I deserved it or not.  And I AM a artist. Maybe not very good, but whatever...



Betsy


----------



## Lady TL Jennings (Dec 8, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I write Epic Fantasy (actually Pseudo History), minus the magic and dragons and whatnot, with gay main characters - which Fantasy readers don't like - and plot lines heavy with political intrigue and warfare (including tactics and strategy) ­- which Gay Romance readers don't like. How can I solve this? Simple. Add a confuzzled magician, half a dozen chattering dragons, and make armies disappear with magic formulas. Add a MacGuffin or two. Then make one of the MCs a straight male and the other a straight female. Tone down on the tactics and strategy and dumb down the political intrigues. Hm&#8230; maybe add a damsel in distress.
> This is what I should do to please a lot of/most/more readers.
> Not going to do that. The story remains what it is. Why? Because the story is actually a result of the interactions of the characters (who are even more important than the story) and it's about them I want to write.


This is one of the best comment I've ever read.
(*Off to check you website*)


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> This is one of the best comment I've ever read.
> (*Off to check you website*)


Andrew tells a story better than ANYONE I know. I often tease him that I always disliked knights on horses with swords, but now I find myself in love with a teenage knight wielding a sword who is gay.  Seriously, I read everything the man writes. More people should. He breaks some rules that will make some authors foam at the mouth, but it doesn't matter. The story is everything.


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

Victoria Champion said:


> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/06/jeff-bennett-star-wars_n_4228130.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now I would hang one of these on my cave wall...


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Caddy said:


> After we have done the art, we have to switch hats and become a business person IF we want the art to sell.


That about sums it up.

Speaking of Picasso, someone had to market this painting or nobody would know it exists:









Source: http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=78311


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Caddy said:


> OH, yeah. Most artists can't stand his work, but he sure made a lot of money. It kind of reminds me of all the writers who can't stand 50 Shades and say that is was written poorly. Maybe so, maybe not. I didn't read it so I don't have an opinion (although I do re: Kincaid. For the sake of not starting any battles, my opinion willbe kept a guarded secret). EIther way, she's laughing all the way to the bank.


All artists inspire reactions, some more dramatic reactions than others.

Toss in a little success and those opinions are sure to be louder.

Mentioning Thomas Kinkade to artists is like mentioning John Locke or James Patterson in the Writer's Cafe. Maybe not for the same reasons, but not too far off, either.

My position is the same on Kinkade as it is on Locke and Patterson: as long as the buyer is happy with what they've bought, that's what counts.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

@Lady TL Jennings & Caddy

I've never mastered the art of grace under praise… but, thank you.


----------



## BillSmithBooksDotCom (Nov 4, 2012)

Boy, this thread has been all over the place since I left last Sunday 

Re: Art, craft, business and "real" work --

Writing is *challenging* work.

I'm not going to compare it to the truly exhausting and dangerous occupations out there. It's very different than being someone who labors in a farm field picking vegetables for 12 hours a day, or who stands on an assembly line or digs ditches, or who races into burning buildings to save peoples' lives...that's absolutely hard, demanding, difficult work.

But writing is very mentally challenging and it is very tiring. And rarely are there any guarantees of a return on that time, so it's a gamble.

So, not to diminish the contributions of people who have very demanding or dangerous jobs. But also, not to diminish how challenging and draining writing and any other creative task can be.

Personally, I don't even have that art vs. craft vs. business debate internally. I write the stories I want to, need to, am called to write. Period.

But I have confidence that there is a market, a readership for them. If you write good or even great stories, you will *eventually* find your audience.

I'm a lot more interested in the craft discussions than the business ones, although the business angle is essential and interesting. I find that subject challenging, too, in the sense that I want to know better ways of finding the readers who will genuinely enjoy my stories...what bothers me are the scammy/spammy types that try to con readers, trick them into buy products under false pretenses or who don't care about giving the reader good value for their money...that's not good for self-pubbers, but those types of shysters have always been in every business. There are always people looking for a quick buck.

Most writers secretly want success even if they don't want to come out and admit it. We would all love to have huge income streams, adoring fans and all that. But, at least for me, I write because that is who I am. That is what I love to do, that is what makes me happiest. And if I can sell enough stories to pay the bills, well then, that's freaking awesome.

If you're writing purely for the paycheck and writing doesn't make you happy, well sometimes it's best to reevaluate if there are better ways to earn a living (and sometimes the best business answer is to keep doing what you're doing, which is writing). But for me, I write because it is what I love to do. It is challenging and tiring and exhausting and it is real work to me, a job I take seriously even if I have to fit it into the part-time nooks and crannies left over in real life...but it is something I have to do to keep me sane.

Re: Success envy --

I think success envy is human nature -- "Hey, I worked really hard on my books and that other guy, whose writing or personality I don't like, is being really successful and it just doesn't seem fair." But human nature or not if you let that kind of mentality take root, it can destroy you.

Here's how I look at it -- if this author (movie/show, music artist, whatever) that I really don't like can make it, well, if I keep at it and write the best stories I can and be honest with myself, I really ought to be able to "make it" sooner or later.

A classic example I feel safe bashing publishing is Justin Bieber...arrogant marginally-talented kid with a huge sense of entitlement who "got lucky" and became a superstar. But he started off as a nobody in his hometown in Canada who posted videos on YouTube. And out of nowhere he found an audience that has made him a top popstar. That's the kind of world we live in these days.

Granted, for every Bieber who makes it there are thousands who don't. But it has *always* been that way. Before, you had to get agents, tour and hope a studio took a liking to you and would sign and promote you. Now, you can be anybody, anywhere and if you produce something that people want to enjoy, you can be immensely successful.

Getting envious benefits me in no way at all. Taking inspiration from the success of others...that can really benefit me. Sitting down and getting back to work doing the best stories that I can will help me a whole bunch.

There are always big hits that I won't understand ... but the fact is, those creators are connecting with a big audience. A lot of it is timing, good fortune, have the right product at the right place and time...but a lot of it is also working really hard to have that product available.

There is room for countless voices in the arts. For every successful artist I don't enjoy, there are great guys like Ray Bradbury, Neil Gaiman, Stephen King, J. Michael Straczynski, Joss Whedon, Rush (the band, not the blowhard), and countless other creative artists who I really enjoy and who have had enormous success. There is a big enough audience to support all of them.

I think that's inspiring...because hey, if I keep doing what I love and do it well, eventually I will find my audience.


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> When I get together with other authors who have managed to achieve commercial success, we never sit around and discuss craft or art. Just doesn't happen. Everyone's competent. It's sort of like having a graduate degree in some arcane field - the market as attested to our core competence, so it's just not even worth discussing.
> 
> What successful authors generally discuss are two things: How so and so is a complete hack and nobody can understand how his/her dross sells anything, and sales/marketing related stuff. Really. That's the truth. Because getting paid for being good at something as ephemeral as writing fiction is far more interesting to us than discussing craft issues we already all understand.


But what about the authors who have a solid handle on the craft aspects of writing (with some artistic ability thrown in) yet haven't totally figured out the marketing angle yet? Do they even enter into the discussion?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

MGalloway said:


> But what about the authors who have a solid handle on the craft aspects of writing (with some artistic ability thrown in) yet haven't totally figured out the marketing angle yet? Do they even enter into the discussion?


Sure they do. There are lots of them here. People have written good books and their sales are all over the place.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

It's funny, but I've hung out with professional, working writers all my life, and they always talk about craft all the time. They don't talk about it the way newbies talk about it. Not obsessively, and "how to" discussions are generally restricted to when mentoring newbies. But they talk about what they're doing what they're experimenting with. But mostly when they talk about craft, they're talking about what's being published out there in the world. Other authors who are taking risks or doing really interesting things.

Actually, the best analogy is that pro writers used to talk about writing the way pro golfers talk about golf and professional farmers talk about farming.

It has only been since the coming of the "indie revolution" that you find so many pros who don't like to talk about craft. Or at least, they claim they don't. (But there really is a lot of craft talk hidden in the business talk around here. When you talk about what is selling, about how to be more productive, etc. You're talking about craft.)

Why is this? I think it's for two reasons.

One is because the indie community has so many different kinds of writers. We're drawn together by an interest in the platform: self-publishing. What we're working on is not something we hold in common. A sweet romance writer is not going to be interested in talk about how that horror bestseller is pushing the envelope on how gory you can get. Also, people get offended when the attitudes of one genre clash with those of others.

The other is just that so many indies are really _indies_. There are a lot of people in publishing now who were never in publishing. They didn't grow up with others who were as deeply interested in books as they were -- so it's just plain unnatural. It's like talking about bodily functions -- you only talk about that to your doctor when you need help, not to your buddies.

But for the most part, I don't know that indie pros really don't talk about craft. Newbies want to learn and have one idea of what "craft" talk is. But as people mature and move on, they talk about craft in different ways and that a lot of that talk goes on right here, totally unrecognized.

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> The other is just that so many indies are really indies. There are a lot of people in publishing now who were never in publishing. They didn't grow up with others who were as deeply interested in books as they were -- so it's just plain unnatural. It's like talking about bodily functions -- you only talk about that to your doctor when you need help, not to your buddies.


Good point. My speculation is that Amazon KDP drew in lots of writers who didn't have the patience or inclination to go through the work necessary to be published in paper prior to KDP.

These folks could write, but didn't think the non-writing work necessary to get published in paper was worth it. They also might have thought the financial deals offered by the publishers weren't worth their time.

So the pool of KDP authors might reflect lots of types that were not too well represented in paper days.

Many forces were released when the gatekeepers fell. Some of them might be reflected in attitudes that are relatively new to tha class of authors. I see this in many of the clashes we have here.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> The other is just that so many indies are really _indies_. There are a lot of people in publishing now who were never in publishing. They didn't grow up with others who were as deeply interested in books as they were -- so it's just plain unnatural. It's like talking about bodily functions -- you only talk about that to your doctor when you need help, not to your buddies.





Terrence OBrien said:


> These folks could write, but didn't think the non-writing work necessary to get published in paper was worth it. They also might have thought the financial deals offered by the publishers weren't worth their time.
> 
> So the pool of KDP authors might reflect lots of types that were not too well represented in paper days.
> 
> Many forces were released when the gatekeepers fell. Some of them might be reflected in attitudes that are relatively new to tha class of authors. I see this in many of the clashes we have here.


Both good points.

There are also those who hadn't a snowball's hope in hell to get trade published. They have stories to tell, but they're too far out of the mainstream for trade publishers to warrant taking a risk on them.

A lot of these people don't want to replace the old gatekeepers with an inner gatekeeper. While they don't write for the market, they're (more or less) happy to let the market decide what their stories are worth.

That could very well be the true beauty of self-publishing


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Both good points.
> 
> There are also those who hadn't a snowball's hope in hell to get trade published. They have stories to tell, but they're too far out of the mainstream for trade publishers to warrant taking a risk on them.
> 
> ...


One of the more interesting things to follow is the spontaneous efforts among some eAuthors to self-identify into preferred classes. This demands a large pool of lower level folks against whom their superiority can be demonstrated. We have professionals vs amateurs. Ethicals vs unethicals. Real writers vs writers. Those who refrain from responding to reviews vs those who do. Those who can pronounce a book good vs those who can't. And of course, those who condemn the adverb vs the lumpen who gleefully use it.

But, best of all, we have the class that defies self-identification. Those who make money vs those who don't.

God Bless the status seekers, for without them we are all nothing.


----------



## AutumnKQ (Jul 27, 2013)

Joe Vasicek said:


> I don't know exactly how to say this, but it seems to me that most self-publishing advice, however well-informed, is at best worth very little, at worst may be completely misleading no matter how well-intended. All this stuff about writing in popular genres, writing to a certain length, marketing in a certain way, or spending a certain amount of time/money on promotion seems to do more harm than good if it keeps you from making your own path and really owning it. Who was that Roman general who when asked how he conquered most of Europe, answered "I simply made sure I was always acting and never just reacting." It seems to me that that's the key right there.


This.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

No, not this. 

Everyone has an opinion. 

In other words, choose your models based on how the world has rewarded their thesis, not on how you feel about what they said.


----------



## AutumnKQ (Jul 27, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> No, not this.
> 
> Everyone has an opinion.
> 
> In other words, choose your models based on how the world has rewarded their thesis, not on how you feel about what they said.


I agreed with him because it's been true for me. I've found in my other entrepreneurial endeavors (under my real name) that I do much better when I get clear on what I believe, what I want and what I stand for and then work from that place. It's smart to try what others have done before (get a mailing list, etc.), but for your business plan- you should be bringing something into the world that no one else is offering - or that no one is offering in quite the way you're offering it- You can't do that if you are busy trying to follow someone else's path to success.

------------
And--- I finally read through the whole thread:
Anyone can paint, draw, sing, write, etc. Seriously. My two year old can make crayon art on a napkin at dinner. It counts as art. She's creating something new in the world from something she thought up.

Anyone can do these things, but it's the hard work that ends up separating the amateurs from the professionals. I remember meeting up with people when I was getting started in music- I'd show up to record, they'd record for 30 minutes and then get drunk or high. They seriously believed they were artists or whatever, but I think they liked *thinking of themselves as artists* more than they liked actually working their butts off to improve and take their skills to the next level. A lot of people say they want to be writers / singers / producers/ etc., but never actually *work* on mastering their chosen art form.

Some people are born with more talent than others, but even people with talent have to work to get better. Most people I've met don't have the patience and perseverance it takes to get really good at something that doesn't have an immediate monetary pay-off. They want a sure thing. And that's fine. But I see this argument as more of the difference between amateurs and pros.

We're all telling stories that come from deep within us- it's all "art".


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> No, not this.
> 
> Everyone has an opinion.
> 
> In other words, choose your models based on how the world has rewarded their thesis, not on how you feel about what they said.


This.

I put a lot more stock in the marketing advice of someone who's successful. I look at both the method and the messenger.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

AutumnKQ said:


> I agreed with him because it's been true for me. I've found in my other entrepreneurial endeavors (under my real name) that I do much better when I get clear on what I believe, what I want and what I stand for and then work from that place. It's smart to try what others have done before (get a mailing list, etc.), but for your business plan- you should be bringing something into the world that no one else is offering - or that no one is offering in quite the way you're offering it- You can't do that if you are busy trying to follow someone else's path to success.


I was just thinking about my uncle, a serial entrepreneur. He kept starting restaurants, building them up to be highly successful and selling them. (Also did this with fruit markets and all sorts of other things. He did big things and small things. He did everything.)

He didn't look at what other restauranteurs did. That's a formula for failure. He looked at the traffic: the audience. He fit what he did to the situation he saw.

And that's true of all entrepreneurship -- it's really about being aware and adaptable. (And also being very very aware of different measures and outcomes for different situations.) It's a very different situation than succeeding in a corporate environment, where you need to follow formulas.

I think the problem is that people want a formula. So the advice that gets passed around, no matter what spirit it was originally given in, is always changed into the wrong lesson. (As the zen folks say, when the student is ready, the teacher appears? It also goes the other way, when the student is not ready, everything is transformed into what he _thinks_ he wants.)

The advice to study those who went before is not bad advice. It's information. The bad advice is to _do_ as others have done. Then people do it and fail and everybody says "Oh, but you forgot to click your heels together three times first...." No, it's just that you can't step into the same river twice: you aren't that other person, you have to adapt for your own situation.

Camille


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> No, not this.
> 
> Everyone has an opinion.
> 
> In other words, choose your models based on how the world has rewarded their thesis, not on how you feel about what they said.


We should probably look at both success and failure for any given model. If we hear how a model has succeeded for some, we should likewise ask how it has failed for others. What are the results ratios? If 20 have used it, and 15 have succeeded while five have failed, then the success index is 15/20=.75. The failure index is 5/20=.25.

However, we don't know how an innovative idea compares to a tried idea if the innovative idea has never been tried. Saying it hasn't yielded reward doesn't really tell us much.

Innovative success always starts with an opinion and untested idea. Its just as easy to form an opinion from reports of success without considering reports of failure.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

I agree that you have to look at the advice and the person giving the advice to evaluate its validity, but that doesn't mean that successful people will always give good advice. They might not really know _why_ they've been successful and misattribute the source of their success. Or they might be misleading, unintentionally or otherwise. Or their advice might not apply to you. (General you, not _you _you.) Also, people that some authors regard as "unsuccessful" may just be "less successful," because there's really no hard line where you're like a nobody and then suddenly a somebody, and you have to reach the point where you're a somebody. I wouldn't necessarily disregard the advice of budding authors is what I'm saying there.

I think authors would generally be well-advised to keep their minds and ears open, experiment a lot, and be willing to abandon anything that isn't working for them. It would probably make your (again, general your) life easier to start by experimenting with things that the most successful people suggest, of course, but don't treat their words as law just because they're doing well. I think a lot of authors wasted time hunting down book blogs because it worked for Amanda Hocking, when book blogs only ever worked for a couple of genres, for instance.

So yes, that thing up there.

Aaaand I'm pretty sure I just added nothing to this conversation, so I'm going to go make a grilled cheese sandwich and mix a drink and write about gay werewolves on my treadmill desk while twerking to Lady Gaga, as one does on a Saturday night.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

smreine: I thought I was the only one twerking on my treadmill desk. Long sigh.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> smreine: I thought I was the only one twerking on my treadmill desk. Long sigh.


Hey! That's my special thing! Of course, with a luscious booty like yours, I can see how you wouldn't be able to resist. Great buns twerk alike I suppose.


----------



## Gennita Low (Dec 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> smreine: I thought I was the only one twerking on my treadmill desk. Long sigh.


Yes, yes, I'd like to watch Blake twerk to Lady Gaga after throwing back a few.


----------



## Nebula (May 29, 2013)

smreine said:


> Great buns twerk alike I suppose.


^^^
   This made my morning.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> <beatnik finger snap>


  You made my day.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> Blake and many others have made it clear they are book sellers and this is probably by far the wisest definition.
> 
> Personally, I'm in the business of connecting with my readers and hopefully enriching their lives one by one with my stories.


Your dichotomy doesn't fit Russell Blake since he's posted recently about the value of treating his readers well and prioritizing those relationships over immediate sales. You can't say that he doesn't care about connecting with his readers and, presumably, enriching their lives with his stories.

In any case, if you do well at "book selling," it's likely that you'll have more readers to connect with.

_Edited to remove stuff about me taking things personally that aren't about me. I need more chocolate and Mark Darcy on the BBC I think. Ye gods, I am brittle this week._


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Many of the people here are new to publishing, but not new to business in general, or other endeavors, which means they have valid opinions.


And those who do have lots of experience are probably going to subject the models proposed here to the same rigorous analysis they use in the rest of their business. Books aren't special. No economic model gets a pass.


----------

