# Have you sold out?



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Just a general question.

I've officially sold out. I started out seeing myself as this artist whom created masterpieces. 

And I created them. And I made nothing. No money at all. I'd read them back to front and be like ... WOW .. Holy ... WOW that was so good.

Then I started creating the writing equivalent of junkfood.

The biggest take away (pun not relevant) is that great art is worth zero dollars to me and junk, fake, manipulatively constructed pieces are the reason I'm getting 4 grand next week. That's like, no more work for welfare for me.

So who else has sold out? Or am I all alone here? Who started with what they loved, and then figured out what they loved meant nothing, but their skill as a writer was everything?


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I'm still pretty happy with what I'm doing, but I haven't been doing it that long. Maybe it would help if you took a break.

ETA: I never set out to create art, though.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Um, I don't feel like I've sold out.  I feel like I've found the right place for me right now--mostly self-publishing, mostly in a certain small genre.  

If that changes someday, I hope I'll be brave enough not to just force myself to keep writing, but explore whatever new directions there are for me.  I've written other stuff before, so maybe again in future.

I don't want to stop writing stories from my heart, that's for sure.  To me writing is the important part--the best part--and the other stuff (editing, publishing, marketing), is where it's hard.  Commercial considerations come into it on that side.

OTOH, I've never considered myself a great artist.  Just a storyteller, I guess.


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

“Writing is like sex. First you do it for love, then you do it for your friends, and then you do it for money.” —Virginia Woolf

Murphy, Derek (2014-04-02). How to Write, Format, Publish and Promote your Book (Without Spending Any Money) (p. 5). Creativindie. Kindle Edition. 

Sounds to me like selling out is ok or at least it was for Virginia Woolf


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

I don't think it's selling out - one has to eat and pay the milkman.

I don't know the difference between art and fiction - well, yes I do I suck at art appreciation so I guess I'm a junk food junkie.

As it happens everything I write is a masterpiece at the time - it's only months later when I look back and cringe a little. Even then I don't cringe much seeing as it paid well.

The money means you are writing for the masses and hitting the spot - why concern yourself as to whether it's art, or not.

To me the art, is in being read, talked about and involved in other peoples lives. You are a popular artist - nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Lydniz said:


> I'm still pretty happy with what I'm doing, but I haven't been doing it that long. Maybe it would help if you took a break.
> 
> ETA: I never set out to create art, though.


No break required. That would endanger my living. You don't tell a cashier complaining about her job, maybe she shouldn't turn up next week.

I'm not complaining though.

My job is AWESOME

But there's still a vast difference between me and someone who hasn't broken through the wall yet. Some artists believe they will never change for their audience. They will never serve them. The audience will come or not and they're apathetic to it - because of past success or lack of need for success.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

Keep in mind people read for lots of different reasons.  Some people frankly just want to read something that takes them out of their day-to-day lives and makes them feel happy for a bit.  I would far rather (as a reader) enjoy a fun story that makes me smile read than a superbly-constructed one that doesn't.  When one talks about manipulating the reader, maybe in part what is meant is focusing on the emotional aspect.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

HSh said:


> I would far rather (as a reader) enjoy a fun story that makes me smile read than a superbly-constructed one that doesn't.


This. I'm never going to win any prizes for my prose, but I _can_ produce an enjoyable piece of fluff, so maybe that is an art in itself.


----------



## Michael J Elliott (Dec 18, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Just a general question.
> 
> I've officially sold out. I started out seeing myself as this artist whom created masterpieces.
> 
> ...


Wow! That is incredible (well it is to me who only has one short Free story out atm) Shayne may I ask you what genre or type of book you were previously writing and which genre did you swap to? I'm on a disability pension and my goal is to make enough to replace my pension, which isn't a lot but I will feel so much better when I can thank the Australian Government for their help and then see my taxes help someone else. $4000 is just awesome, it's about $800 more than my monthly income, I'd be happy earning that oh and congratulations too!


----------



## John Ellsworth (Jun 1, 2014)

All notions about art and not-art flew out the window when a reader of my pop-art wrote to tell me one of my novels helped her make it through a night of chemotherapy. None of the rest of it matters to me now.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Michael J Elliott said:


> Wow! That is incredible (well it is to me who only has one short Free story out atm) Shayne may I ask you what genre or type of book you were previously writing and which genre did you swap to? I'm on a disability pension and my goal is to make enough to replace my pension, which isn't a lot but I will feel so much better when I can thank the Australian Government for their help and then see my taxes help someone else. $4000 is just awesome, it's about $800 more than my monthly income, I'd be happy earning that oh and congratulations too!


This is an excellent question, Michael.

I tried two different things initially - I had a horror trilogy, three novels about theme parks and child abuse. They were pretty disturbing books but I was more focused on the art form at that time than anything else. I was beginning. I was trying to begin a career.

IF

IF there had been some response. A few hundred readers there. Another few hundred over there.

Then maybe, I would have unfortunately, kept pursuing.

Nothing but no sales and bad reviews awaited!

Once I put out what I consider my best work ever written, a book based on my life, completely different, set in the real world, Australia, about how difficult life is for a new born adult growing up and the challenges that awaited them..

But yeah. Didn't have enough werewolves and vampires and sex in it.

So it sold like, 4 copies ever, since 2013

LOL

So now I write paranormal romance. And I'm not even that good at it. Like Chopper, I can't even spell.


----------



## Chris Fox (Oct 3, 2014)

I write to tell entertaining stories, not to create art. So in my mind I don't think I'll ever sell out, because my whole goal is to create stories people want to read.

That's one of the advantages of aiming to write popcorn fiction from the start =p


----------



## CJAnderson (Oct 29, 2014)

Shane,

I see your point and you could always consider mixing it up? Continue to produce the "junk" but also take at least some time to write exactly what you want.

I think the same can be said about all forms of entertainment. What kind of movies are "hot" right now? Music? What is selling may not necessarily be worth it in our opinion, but this is a business.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

CJAnderson said:


> Shane,
> 
> I see your point and you could always consider mixing it up? Continue to produce the "junk" but also take at least some time to write exactly what you want.
> 
> I think the same can be said about all forms of entertainment. What kind of movies are "hot" right now? Music? What is selling may not necessarily be worth it in our opinion, but this is a business.


What's the point in writing stuff that won't sell?

Not, will sell less.

But not sell at all...


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Adam Croft said:


> 'Selling out' is what jealous people say about successful people.
> 
> Harsh, but true. If what you write doesn't sell, that's fine. If you need to make money, write something else. Can't expect people to buy your book just because *you* think it's awesome.


Incorrect.

I'm jealous of the people who haven't sold out and make money at it. (Unless they had bad taste to begin with! LOL)


----------



## Michael J Elliott (Dec 18, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> This is an excellent question, Michael.
> 
> I tried two different things initially - I had a horror trilogy, three novels about theme parks and child abuse. They were pretty disturbing books but I was more focused on the art form at that time than anything else. I was beginning. I was trying to begin a career.
> 
> ...


That's an incredible jump Shayne and it goes to show that everyone finds their "sweet spot" in different ways. I'm a horror writer, I have written (and drawn gross pics) since childhood. It's a genre I feel comfotable writing but I have to see whether readers think I'm a talented horror writer. I've also got a strong interest in New Age matters and have considered writing a fantasy novel based on my knowledge but I really don't think that's my strength, it's funny but I always get woken up with ideas for horror but I never have a lightbulb moment with fantasy, maybe that's a sign. I take my hat off to you Shayne, you obviously write the sort of paranormal romance that readers enjoy and I don't think that's selling out at all, it's definitely a genre I couldn't write (probably cos I'm 53 and too cynical about love lol) Keep up the good work Shane


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I'm jealous of the people who haven't sold out and make money at it.


Can you name some of these people? I am interested to know what you view as selling out/not selling out.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> What's the point in writing stuff that won't sell?
> 
> Not, will sell less.
> 
> But not sell at all...


If you eventually link your pen names, you might get some cross-over from those among your PNR fans who are up for the occasional darker read. I know it's an extreme example, but look how many _Harry Potter_ fans picked up _The Casual Vacancy_, even though it's in about as distant a genre as you could imagine. A lot of them didn't really care for it, I guess, but a good number gave it a shot.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I'm jealous of the people who haven't sold out and make money at it. (Unless they had bad taste to begin with! LOL)


Surely, if they're successful at it, it means they are selling junk food on the pretext its art. I like my approach better - it's more honest.


----------



## Howietzer (Apr 18, 2012)

*Raises hand*

I'm in the process of creating another LLC for my new pen name. Looking to release 5 books at the end of this year in a totally different genre. I really enjoy the new stuff I've been writing, but it still feels like selling out, lol. But I don't care, as long as I'm having fun doing it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Lydniz said:


> Can you name some of these people? I am interested to know what you view as selling out/not selling out.


Lol. There's too many. If I name someone I'll sound silly.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> If you eventually link your pen names, you might get some cross-over from those among your PNR fans who are up for the occasional darker read. I know it's an extreme example, but look how many _Harry Potter_ fans picked up _The Casual Vacancy_, even though it's in about as distant a genre as you could imagine. A lot of them didn't really care for it, I guess, but a good number gave it a shot.


No....

No way.

My favorite band, is like ... Smashing Pumpkins.

If Billy Corgan does a rap album, I don't want it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

TobiasRoote said:


> Surely, if they're successful at it, it means they are selling junk food on the pretext its art. I like my approach better - it's more honest.


No, some people sell real art, and make a living.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> No....
> 
> No way.
> 
> ...


LOL. Me either. But I'm sure Corgan has some mega-fans who'd buy anything he recorded.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Michael J Elliott said:


> That's an incredible jump Shayne and it goes to show that everyone finds their "sweet spot" in different ways. I'm a horror writer, I have written (and drawn gross pics) since childhood. It's a genre I feel comfotable writing but I have to see whether readers think I'm a talented horror writer. I've also got a strong interest in New Age matters and have considered writing a fantasy novel based on my knowledge but I really don't think that's my strength, it's funny but I always get woken up with ideas for horror but I never have a lightbulb moment with fantasy, maybe that's a sign. I take my hat off to you Shayne, you obviously write the sort of paranormal romance that readers enjoy and I don't think that's selling out at all, it's definitely a genre I couldn't write (probably cos I'm 53 and too cynical about love lol) Keep up the good work Shane


Thanks Michael.

I mean, yeah, I can still get SOMETHING out of my writing this way. But of course, it's that something that is holding me back from selling more.

I don't do it for fun, but it is fun sometimes. Like all writing. Good luck with your endeavors.


----------



## 77071 (May 15, 2014)

John Ellsworth said:


> All notions about art and not-art flew out the window when a reader of my pop-art wrote to tell me one of my novels helped her make it through a night of chemotherapy. None of the rest of it matters to me now.


Books get people through hard times. They have for me. I'm glad your stories were there for her!


----------



## J.R.Mooneyham (Mar 14, 2011)

I CAN'T sell out the way you describe. Because writing is too difficult for me. It takes all the motivation I can muster to complete a novel, and if I thought I was writing crap, I'd never finish it.

I can't imagine what it'd be like to have so much extra capacity motivation-wise that you could still do it even when you abhorred what you were producing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> LOL. Me either. But I'm sure Corgan has some mega-fans who'd buy anything he recorded.


When my pen name writes the Mellon Collie equivalent then maybe they'll be interested in my bordered up dead-sellers.

Or maybe I'll write Mellon Collie 2 like Corgan should have done in the first place.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Selling out vs making art is a false distinction. You can write commercial books in a popular genre and still write great books.

Personally, I could never put out a book I don't believe in. But I feel like this in everything I do. Half ***ing and bull****ing make me feel awful.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

J.R.Mooneyham said:


> I CAN'T sell out the way you describe. Because writing is too difficult for me. It takes all the motivation I can muster to complete a novel, and if I thought I was writing crap, I'd never finish it.
> 
> I can't imagine what it'd be like to have so much extra capacity motivation-wise that you could still do it even when you abhorred what you were producing.


But you see, now my motivation meter has shifted.

I can't pick up a pen and write a murder mystery.

I can write a story about three guys on the heist of a life time.

I can't write about zombie clowns, satanic magicians, or serial killers

Because, even though I love all that, I know it won't sell.

It won't be read.

And if it is, I'd have to bleed for it. Just to make a dollar.

If they paid me 2 grand to write horror a month and 20 grand a month to write romance it would be a different story.

Just kidding - I'd still write romance


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Mona Lisa vs Soup Cans at 11.


----------



## Dactyl (Dec 27, 2014)

Chris Fox said:


> I write to tell entertaining stories, not to create art. So in my mind I don't think I'll ever sell out, because my whole goal is to create stories people want to read.
> 
> That's one of the advantages of aiming to write popcorn fiction from the start =p


This whole conversation reminds me of the quote, "There go my people. I must find out where they're going so I can lead them."


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

Dactyl said:


> This whole conversation reminds me of the quote, "There go my people. I must find out where they're going so I can lead them."


Hehehe! Yep!


----------



## jillb (Oct 4, 2014)

I don't sell art. I sell a product. I try to make it as good a product as possible but it's not art. It's a craft at best .


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

Did you really just call your first novels "great art"? IMO that is never something you should say about your own work.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

kathrynoh said:


> Did you really just call your first novels "great art"? IMO that is never something you should say about your own work.


That's the approach that was taken. You try and make some thing as perfect as it can be. And for me, they were, at the time, perfect.

Now I don't really like them much. Except for the Australian drama book. That's not so much a work of art but a true story. I've tried many approaches.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Dactyl said:


> This whole conversation reminds me of the quote, "There go my people. I must find out where they're going so I can lead them."


Nice dig there.

No, I don't think of writing what's popular to be selling out. I think it's smart. If you're good at it, then it's very smart because it makes you money. And if you ask anybody which they would prefer - writing from the heart and getting no audience, or writing what's popular and gaining fans and financial stability. ...

But here's the thing. It's important to not hate what you write. That's not good either, because it will show in your writing. There can be a sweet spot.

My chosen genre is romance. When reading, though, I gravitate towards horror and dark fantasy. Medical thrillers and Dean Koontz. I love a good mystery too. But, even though romance isn't my chosen genre to read, I still love my stories I write and the characters I bring to life. I still fall in love with my leading man in every book. So, I'm selling out in a way, but, really, I'm not, because I'm still passionate about what I do.

Off to read a medical thriller...


----------



## Z. Rider (Aug 15, 2014)

I don't create art _or_ popular stuff. I have no idea where that leaves me. 

(P.S. I didn't call myself a sell-out when I took a job I wasn't passionate about to pay my bills. I called myself lucky to get it.)


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

> That's the approach that was taken. You try and make some thing as perfect as it can be. And for me, they were, at the time, perfect.


Aha, so you mean more that they were very polished?

I think that's a good thing in early novels even if you later turn to a more "pulp" style. Like serving an apprenticeship.


----------



## Z. Rider (Aug 15, 2014)

anniejocoby said:


> My chosen genre is romance. When reading, though, I gravitate towards horror and dark fantasy. Medical thrillers and Dean Koontz. I love a good mystery too. But, even though romance isn't my chosen genre to read, I still love my stories I write and the characters I bring to life. I still fall in love with my leading man in every book. So, I'm selling out in a way, but, really, I'm not, because I'm still passionate about what I do.


I don't think of writing a different genre (or style) than you prefer to read as selling out at all. I don't think the genre (or style) you enjoy writing _has_ to be the same you enjoy reading. (I lovelovelove noir (as just one example), but I don't know that I'll ever write it--I just don't have noir stories in my head.)

I think of "selling out" as writing something you aren't all that into writing; you're doing it just for the money. But that said, I'd call that a "business decision" sooner than I'd call it selling out. If you're happier writing what you aren't invested in than you are working a day job and writing what you really love on the side, then do that!

(But if you (general "you," not "Annie" you) _feel_ like a sell-out--if you're lying awake at night bothered by it--maybe you can find a way to merge your passion, whether it's passion for a genre or a style or whatever, with what's popular and find some "best of both words" balance.)


----------



## jackconnerbooks (Nov 18, 2014)

I keep trying to sell out but they won't let me!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I guess (being an art quilter who makes things on commission to sell as well as creating work totally of my own design, hopefully also to sell) I don't see creating something that you think will sell is a sell-out. It's still going to have your voice and your style and your creative process as part of it.

I'm not an student of art, so I could be wrong, but I think most of the art we look at in museums was made to sell, most of it on commission....

http://cuttingedgeconformity.blogspot.com/2013/06/was-michelangelo-sell-out.html

But maybe I'm a sell out, so it's affected my perspective. 

Betsy


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

kathrynoh said:


> Aha, so you mean more that they were very polished?
> 
> I think that's a good thing in early novels even if you later turn to a more "pulp" style. Like serving an apprenticeship.


Not exactly. It's like.... My skill set in Horror / Thriller is way higher than what I have to offer romance.

So when I was writing that stuff, I was writing my best work.

I agree with Z Rider - it's selling out when you're just doing it for the money.

And it's great if you want to blend, and blur what that is - but as you are obscuring that act, you're obscuring the opposite as well.

The author, Shane Jeffery, would NEVER write anything remotely romancey. I have zero interest in it as a person, as a man, as anything. Further than that, I would want to write things that actually 'scar' people. I want to take them to an obscure road they've never traveled before -

I want to write in a genre that doesn't even exist yet. I want to create my own genres.

But I don't do that. Because eventually I'd have to sell out in other ways... much, much worse ways for much less money.

So I do the opposite type of writing I'd like to do.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

If you set out to create art, and expect to be paid for your art, you've pretty much doomed yourself to failure. Art (in the sense that the OP is using it) appeals to a very small minority, which makes it a much more difficult market to crack.

I'm lucky in the sense that I've never considered myself a writer, and I've never aspired to do anything but tell the stories that I myself would enjoy reading.

If I were in the OP's shoes, I would probably write what pays the bills (with a pen name) and then write what I want on the side.


----------



## Dactyl (Dec 27, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I want to write in a genre that doesn't even exist yet. I want to create my own genres.
> 
> But I don't do that.


Solve your money worries, then do that. Write something that you want to write and write it so that it'll put Harry Potter into second place.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Z. Rider said:


> I don't think of writing a different genre (or style) than you prefer to read as selling out at all. I don't think the genre (or style) you enjoy writing _has_ to be the same you enjoy reading. (I lovelovelove noir (as just one example), but I don't know that I'll ever write it--I just don't have noir stories in my head.)
> 
> I think of "selling out" as writing something you aren't all that into writing; you're doing it just for the money. But that said, I'd call that a "business decision" sooner than I'd call it selling out. If you're happier writing what you aren't invested in than you are working a day job and writing what you really love on the side, then do that!
> 
> (But if you (general "you," not "Annie" you) _feel_ like a sell-out--if you're lying awake at night bothered by it--maybe you can find a way to merge your passion, whether it's passion for a genre or a style or whatever, with what's popular and find some "best of both words" balance.)


Good advice as always. I like your posts.

I write what I like, because my brain doesn't seem to be able to do anything else. I write pretty good sexy stuff, people tell me, so I keep thinking I should write some erotica--or erotic romance, at least. But I just...can't. I can't write anything sexy until my people have known each other for half the book, and I'm afraid that wouldn't fly!

But that's OK. I write for women like I was--busy women with complicated lives, who want to escape but don't want to shut their brains down, either. I just write what I enjoyed reading for escape, and it seems to work. I don't think of it as junk food, though. I write a lot about risk and trust and second chances in life (whether that's love or a new career or a new country--big changes). The coolest things is that I've had a bunch of emails from readers who've been inspired by my books to make changes in their own lives. That can't be bad. So no, the Nobel committee isn't warming up the jet, and a lot of people dismiss what I do, because people (especially men, but women, too) love to dismiss all romance as pure fluff. But I love what I do, and I have some readers who love it, too.

I guess I'd say--if you feel like it's a sellout, as Z. Rider says, see if you can write something from your heart that will resonate enough to sell. I could make more if I wrote to the market. Maybe. On the other hand, I make a very solid mid-six figures a year writing something that ISN'T to the market a bit, other than being romance. I actually think that's why I sell--because I write something that isn't quite as easy to find, maybe. I'm serving a niche. Maybe there's wiggle room for you, too, where you could be happy writing and still sell books.


----------



## GeoffW (Dec 14, 2014)

Definitely see where you're coming from.  I don't see anything wrong in writing to make money.  Or, in plumbing to make money.  Or, slapping up stick constructed apartments to make money.  

I'm from the hippy generation (or, slightly before).  I suppose that I've "sold out" in some respects.  But, more than likely my perspective has changed.  I'll have to think about that some time.  

I'm an IT manager in order to make money.  That said, I find it enjoyable, while being perfectly happy knowing that I am not going to help startup a new Microsoft or Google.  That said, the people I help are happy, so ......... what's the big deal?

Currently my writing is done to make only one person happy.  Me.  It's a hobby (more and more I find people don't understand the concept of "hobby").  Now, if my hobby starts making me money?  Fine.  But I never start any hobby in order to make money (nor, has any hobby yet made me any money : )

I suppose if I got feedback on how my writing should change in order to bring in more money, I'd have to make a decision (or not).  So, do I make the stories (and the style) less interesting for me, but more interesting for others?  Or, should I start a different series that is geared towards making money and keep one series just for myself?

I'll cross that bridge when I get there.  But I sure as heck don't worry if others want to make money and design their books to do so.  And, if the story is still interesting to them, even better (I suppose that would be perfection).

GeoffW


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> Selling out vs making art is a false distinction. You can write commercial books in a popular genre and still write great books.


I agree. Most of those famous writers you've all heard of? They wrote whatever it took to pay the bills so they could keep writing. Read Lawrence Block's book, Writing the Novel, for example.



anniejocoby said:


> No, I don't think of writing what's popular to be selling out. I think it's smart. If you're good at it, then it's very smart because it makes you money. And if you ask anybody which they would prefer - writing from the heart and getting no audience, or writing what's popular and gaining fans and financial stability. ...
> 
> But here's the thing. It's important to not hate what you write. That's not good either, because it will show in your writing. There can be a sweet spot.


I don't see it as selling out, either, but then I think we both have different ideas about that than Shane. He seems rather disdainful of the romance genre, when it's a perfectly legit thing to write, and can make very good money for writers.

Maybe I'm lucky, but I enjoy most every genre. About the only thing I won't read is Christian/Inspirational fiction and most YA/NA (though if it's the right book, I'll be there). I figure, if I can read it, I can write it. I'm doing it now, writing for money. I know after a few months that it's not something I'll ever make big money in, and so I'm moving on, but it's nothing against that type of book, it's about me.

So, no. Not selling out. Just putting my talent for words and my love of writing to work for me.


----------



## legion (Mar 1, 2013)

*raises hand*
I have happily 'sold out'--I'm not here to be a starving artist.

I began self-publishing with a literary novel. Hahahaha! 
After over two years on the market, it has finally made $1000 (most of it somewhat recently, and due to an advertised sale and KU)--but just kidding! It's actually still in the red because of editing, cover, and other costs. I put a lot into it, and worked on it for years and years before publishing.
Then last year, for kicks, I slapped together a billionaire romance in about two weeks, put in about $1 investment (for stock photo), and voila! Made almost six grand that month.

Romance is the reason I work in my pajamas every day now, and before this, I hadn't picked up a romance book since I was thirteen. I will read one once in a while now for research, but I can barely stand it. For the most part, I just write my own version anyway. Sometimes the market appreciates my flavor, sometimes it doesn't, but I've branched out, venturing into other territories under the romance umbrella, and I have so many pen names now, my pen names have pen names.
I'll probably get back to literary/horror/dark/gritty fiction eventually (if the mood strikes), but I'm enjoying these unanticipated detours.


----------



## David VanDyke (Jan 3, 2014)

Selling out means different things to different people, but generally encompasses severely compromising your desires or your art for the sake of money. As many have noted above, if you expect to be commercially successful, you have to conform to the expectations of the readers, at least superficially.

I can personally declare that I sold out on one level. Call me a partial sellout. I work with an author much more successful than myself (and I make a living apart from that, so you can imagine what a higher level looks like) and I do a lot of the heavy lifting for novels set in his world, rather like the James Patterson arrangement. It's made me a ton of money, but I had to put my own projects on hold to do it, and more and more I find myself unhappy, because, as the cliche goes, money isn't everything. In a Maslowian sense, my lower-order needs are met by my own work and the luxuries I can buy with the extra cash are not that important to me. Once my current obligation runs out, I doubt I'll be doing any more, because my heart simply isn't in that world.

I fully appreciate how ironic or even smug that may sound to those who are struggling, but I thank God and good fortune daily for my success. I work hard, and so does my wife, who does a lot of the ancillary stuff like website, beta-reading, mailing list, etc., but I know how much is luck, and I'd never _ever_ denigrate someone for taking the money to put food on the table or gas in the tank.

It does become easier to call someone a sellout, though, when they already have millions and they seem to be grasping for more, i.e., they are already rich and could choose any project, but they seem to simply want to get filthy rich with minimum work. I can think of a few actors that have phoned it in for nothing but the payoff, when instead they could remain true to their art while still living like kings...


----------



## Kenton Crowther (Jan 5, 2012)

Maybe I did sell something down the river. Coming from a small press poetry background where you were lucky to make back your stationery and postage expenses, I feel now that I am treading in the shadows of giants. I now write to entertain, not to pass on a dubious torch. I still keep an eye on that other world though, that ‘Outrageous Lilliput’.


----------



## Sarah Scribblez (Dec 26, 2013)

I have to say that OP seems to be rather critical of the audience that are paying his bills. If I was a reader of his work and I saw this post basically blasting the genre as rubbish, I'd think twice about buying anything else from an author that thinks of his fans in that way.   In the end they're all stories being written to entertaina d provide an escape from reality. One genre really shouldn't be held in higher regard than any other if it makes the reader happy.

On the subject of selling out, I recently switched to writing paranormal romance and I'll blatantly admit it was because of the earning potential. But then again I do love paranormal romance, so it was kind of a win/win. I just needed to find somewhere to focus my writing energies so I looked for the crossover point between genres I like and what is currently hot. I'll still write my zombie novellas that I enjoy writing, just on a slower timeline while I concentrate on the new paranormal romance series I'm releasing soon.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

she-la-ti-da said:


> I agree. Most of those famous writers you've all heard of? They wrote whatever it took to pay the bills so they could keep writing. Read Lawrence Block's book, Writing the Novel, for example.


Yep. Even Mario Puzo wrote The Godfather because he was broke. He purposely set out to write something that would sell, after his other books fell flat.


----------



## Z. Rider (Aug 15, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> I make a very solid mid-six figures a year writing something that ISN'T to the market a bit, other than being romance. I actually think that's why I sell--because I write something that isn't quite as easy to find, maybe. I'm serving a niche.


I think this is key to building a loyal fanbase. If you're writing exactly what's hot in the market, following the script of what sells, you're getting readers who can scratch their itch with most any author's billionaire BDSM story (or whatever). So yeah, you can sell lots of books to those readers, but those readers are loyal fans of the script, not of you. If you want to give readers a reason to be a fan of _your books_ (which is going to move them to telling other people about your books), you have to put something of yourself into your work, not just type it out to spec.

Shane worries that doing so risks going too far away from what readers want. He'd rather take the guaranteed smaller pie than shoot for the possibility of reaching beyond the core of "readers with this specific itch." And he's right: some people have put their own twists on a popular thing and had it land on their toes like a bowling ball. On the other hand, nearly every break-out author broke out by doing writing their genre _their_ way. There are many happy authors between those two extremes, making money with loyal fanbases-including readers who don't "normally" read their genre-by lending their unique voice/view/whatever to the genre. Even if they're not writing their One True Love, they're still finding satisfaction in their writing, and it shows in their work.

I think you can sell books writing something you feel is beneath you; I don't think you can build a loyal fanbase that way, and I don't think you can break out beyond the core readership of your genre that way. You're stuck eating from that one small pie. With every book Rosalind writes her unique way, she gives herself that chance of breaking out. With every book Shane types with his lip slightly curled in disgust, he does not.

That said, I support Shane's decision to stick to exactly what he knows will sell, for the security of the income, even if he doesn't enjoy it. The best thing about being indie is getting to weigh our decisions against _our_ needs, situations, goals, and desires, then do whatever we decide is right for _us_.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> Can you name some of these people?


I'm not Shayne, but I'll give it a try. These are people I think are writing what they love and making money at it:

Rosalind James
Craig Halloran


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

Not at all. I write what I love writing. When I'm in different moods, I move to different manuscripts. I currently have WIP's in three different genres (paranormal romance, contemporary romance, and suspense).

The closest I have come to "selling out" is deciding to write the story readers keep asking about rather than one I might prefer to write just a little more. But I haven't moved to genres that hold no interest just for the sake of money. And I *don't* consider people who do that as selling out. They're just making a business decision with their art. We have to be both business people and artists to make a living of it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Stacy Claflin said:


> Not at all. I write what I love writing. When I'm in different moods, I move to different manuscripts. I currently have WIP's in three different genres (paranormal romance, contemporary romance, and suspense).
> 
> The closest I have come to "selling out" is deciding to write the story readers keep asking about rather than one I might prefer to write just a little more. But I haven't moved to genres that hold no interest just for the sake of money. And I *don't* consider people who do that as selling out. They're just making a business decision with their art. We have to be both business people and artists to make a living of it.


Yes. I do take a lot of risk. If there's a choice between doing something riskier, and doing the safe thing, I always seem to do the riskier thing! I'm risk-averse in everything except my professional life--where the stakes are highest. Go figure.

"Risky" is relative, of course. But I started writing a super-wacky thing--a historical-reenactment reality-show book that was at least half women's fiction, or general fiction, or something, and only half romance, RIGHT at the time when my first series was starting to sell really big. The thing was, I wanted to write it. I was excited to write it. I'm not professional enough to write something I'm feeling stale about and not have it show. I've also written some mystery and romantic suspense, and I'm venturing further into that territory now. I'm always doing some twist on a book, writing a book within a book, a TV show within a book (have done that twice), whatever. That's how I keep myself challenged--by pushing the limits of what I'm capable of doing, being scared I won't be able to pull it off.

As I've gone along, I've probably gotten myself more into that Women's Fiction category, or straddling the line a little, while still having a romance at the heart of the story.

My point is, you can do things that satisfy you deeply at a professional or even an artistic level, I think, and still have readers. At least if you have fairly mass-market tastes. But everybody's in this for different reasons. For me, I'm 56. I've had a lifetime of working at things I didn't love in order to make money. Now, the most important part to me is that I love it. It's why I started doing it, and when I veer off of that and start trying to think about what I "should" write, what will sell--I actually seem to get off the track of what DOES sell, for me. If I'm entertaining myself, I seem to entertain my readership, too.

But if you're in this to feed your family (or yourself), and it's your only source of income, or if what you love is not commercially viable, that is different. Still, there may be ways to write something you will enjoy that also has a good chance of selling. Life's too short to do something you don't like! At least that's my opinion.


----------



## Kathryn Meyer Griffith (May 6, 2013)

I've been writing a long time and I've discovered one thing: It isn't whether I write great fiction or junk (I've attempted to do both at one time or another)...all that matters to me is that I _touch_ my reader in some way. Make them feel something. Happiness, anger, sadness, compassion, excitement or hope. A book should take you away from reality and open other worlds to you. It's all about the characters and the story. For me anyway.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Sarah Scribblez said:


> I have to say that OP seems to be rather critical of the audience that are paying his bills. If I was a reader of his work and I saw this post basically blasting the genre as rubbish, I'd think twice about buying anything else from an author that thinks of his fans in that way.


But you don't know his pen name, so he can say whatever he likes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

John Ellsworth is creating art that is helping the world.
Can't get much better than that.


----------



## 67499 (Feb 4, 2013)

Lots of worthwhile comment on this thread but give me ShaneJeffrey's $4K/wk and show me how to sell out and I'm gone.  I'll even buy new pajamas.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

I'm pretty sure I sold out the day I started writing erotica, but I'm happy to finally see sales. I'm ecstatic that I'll likely be able to quit my day job by the end of the year, so what does it matter?


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

I don't have any sympathy for your attitude. If you have no respect for the craft of writing -- any kind of writing -- you're not doing readers any favors, and you're not doing your best work (even if you're making money at it.) 

Be happy that now you have an income that affords you time to work on your masterpieces, whatever you judge them to be.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Steven Hardesty said:


> Lots of worthwhile comment on this thread but give me ShaneJeffrey's $4K/wk and show me how to sell out and I'm gone. I'll even buy new pajamas.


He said he's getting 4 grand next week--meaning he made $4K for December, and will be getting it at the end of February. (Or I assume.)

I guess I'd say that there's a great big space between junk food and..caviar, or whatever. My favorite food isn't haute cuisine, it's really tasty everyday food made with great ingredients. Fish and rice and asparagus, chicken pot pie. Like that. I think that's what I write. I sure don't write caviar, but I don't write McDonald's hamburgers, either. Lots of room to satisfy yourself creatively between those extremes.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> But you see, now my motivation meter has shifted.
> 
> I can't pick up a pen and write a murder mystery.
> 
> ...


Every unsellable type you listed is a type that is FILLED WITH BESTSELLING NOVELS. Just because you couldn't succeed at the type of novel you consider worthy doesn't mean that type doesn't sell. It means you couldn't sell what you write. Period. So now you throw this pity party and trash the people who write romance -- the old Anybody can Write That Crap announcement. I rarely get into personal flame-talk but I write romance and big romantic women's fiction, and I know a lot of romance writers who are true artists at what they do -- which generally includes writing their Books of the Heart, as well. Whether those sell or not (and many BOTH sell beautifully.)


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I've officially sold out. I started out seeing myself as this artist whom created masterpieces.
> 
> And I created them. And I made nothing. No money at all. I'd read them back to front and be like ... WOW .. Holy ... WOW that was so good.


Maybe your "masterpieces" just weren't that good. Maybe you're a better romance novelist than anything else. It is what it is.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Oh, I didn't read the romance part. I'd assumed it was highbrow literary fiction vs. ... dunno, horror or something. (Which, yeah, in what universe is any more "literary" than romance? Huh?)

OK. Wow. I get it. Anybody can make money at that junk. Gotcha.

Leaving now.


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

A. Kelly said:


> Sellout?
> 
> I want to quote Jason Newstead from about 10-15 years ago.
> 
> ...


LOL, I thought of Newstead too. And he bought his way back into his art, he could afford to by then 

Isn't horror a popular genre? I don't read that genre but I've heard of Stephen King. He's famous, right? Shane, maybe look into marketing/ads for your horror trilogy. If they take off, it's win-win.

Cheers...


----------



## Guest (Feb 21, 2015)

I don't have disdain for romance writers / readers.

It's more just about points of view. Back when I was writing the horror, I thought they were masterpieces. I definitely don't think that now. There's a lot wrong with them. And they're unsaleable.

I'm not... looking for sympathy. It's my choice where I am right now, and I'm the happiest I've been in years.

I just find the shift interesting. How you start one place and wind up somewhere else. 

And it was ... seeing someone else who has never sold out, basically saying 'I'm going to to what I'm going to do, and I don't care if the audience follows me or if they don't'. And there was a real passion when they said it, you know, having that integrity. Of course they're supersuccessful but my approach once was the same. I had that arrogance. And now I'm the opposite. I go to the audience ask them what they want, then come back with my best effort at it.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Not sure I care about writing 'art', just telling great stories with great characters that an audience wants to read. Which is an art in itself. But I wouldn't want to write something I wasn't happy or interested in. So you find a way to do both.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I don't have disdain for romance writers / readers.
> 
> It's more just about points of view. Back when I was writing the horror, I thought they were masterpieces. I definitely don't think that now. There's a lot wrong with them. And they're unsaleable.
> 
> ...


Are you talking horror as a genre or your horror? 
What do you mean by sold out?
Please tell me I read that wrong. It reads like you think every so successful person only cares about the money. 
It also sounds like you don't really care about your audience but as long as they are throwing dollar bills at you, you will pretend to like them.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> What's the point in writing stuff that won't sell?
> 
> Not, will sell less.
> 
> But not sell at all...


To satisfy your inner writer. As long as your money is taken care of with the stuff you don't like, what does it matter if the one book you put out a year that you are invested in doesn't sell? You're not doing it for the money, you're doing it to satisfy yourself. You can write for other reasons than money.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Hey Shane, very brave post. Thanks for sharing.

I think a lot of people get hung up (or even offended) by the term sellout. Here's my take on it:

Author A can write a pulpy romance, be very passionate about it, love their work, and NOT be a sellout.
Author B can write the SAME EXACT BOOK and be a sellout. Why? Because Author B hates romance, or thinks it's silly, or wishes they could write horror, etc., but they just write to market to pay the bills.

The important distinction is: being a sellout is subjective and means that you have compromised _your personal principles_.

Here's another thing about the term I don't get: if you're fine with being a sellout, there's nothing wrong with that. It just has a negative connotation for people so they never like to hear the word, even when it applies. (Reminds me of a quote I once saw on kboards: "It's not gaming the system, it's using every possible trick you can to get an advantage!" ... I was thinking... "uh... that's the definition of gaming the system.") It's amazing how many people will rationalize away a bad label but have no problem adhering to the definition!


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

I believe this to be a worthwhile discussion.

Shane has been on this board for quite awhile, and, up until recently, I know that he has struggled, because he's been pretty open about it. I, for one, believe that he's now doing well. And more power to him.

_edited to remove quoted post.--Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I'm not... looking for sympathy. It's my choice where I am right now, and I'm the happiest I've been in years.
> 
> I just find the shift interesting. How you start one place and wind up somewhere else.


Life is a funny b*tch. It gets its kicks throwing us all kind of curve balls. But it's great that you're happy. Ultimately, that's what it's all about.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

If you call what you're writing now "junk food," that certainly does imply disdain for what you're doing and its readers.

I don't know what you're writing now that feels so empty-calorie, but maybe you can use the talent that you have to write something that would be more satisfying--and more profitable, too, even in the romance genre. It's a HUGE genre with all kinds of readers and all kinds of subgenres and styles--most of which I would personally have zero interest in writing in. 

I'm sure--I know--there are lots of writers who don't like what they do and still do great at it, but I have to believe there's some real synergy when you enjoy what you do, feel it's worthwhile to write, feel passionate about it, AND can sell it. $4K a month is nice, but it ain't the top of the heap. 

Maybe romantic suspense, if you wrote darker things before. Plenty of room to explore the darkness there.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> If you call what you're writing now "junk food," that certainly does imply disdain for what you're doing and its readers.
> 
> I don't know what you're writing now that feels so empty-calorie, but maybe you can use the talent that you have to write something that would be more satisfying--and more profitable, too, even in the romance genre. It's a HUGE genre with all kinds of readers and all kinds of subgenres and styles--most of which I would personally have zero interest in writing in.
> 
> ...


I agree with this. I started out writing thrillers in 2011. I sold like eight copies the whole year, partly because I didn't even know about Kboards so I learned very little about promoting on my own. Now I write erotica and have definitely sold more than 8 copies, but I'm starting to put out short thrillers under a different pen name. I'm sure they won't touch my sales in erotica, but I'll be doing what I love the most, so it won't matter as long as my erotica makes up for it in sales. I should also add that I've discovered I rather enjoy writing erotica as well, so maybe I'm not a sell out after all.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

katrina46 said:


> I agree with this. I started out writing thrillers in 2011. I sold like eight copies the whole year, partly because I didn't even know about Kboards so I learned very little about promoting on my own. Now I write erotica and have definitely sold more than 8 copies, but I'm starting to put out short thrillers under a different pen name. I'm sure they won't touch my sales in erotica, but I'll be doing what I love the most, so it won't matter as long as my erotica makes up for it in sales. I should also add that I've discovered I rather enjoy writing erotica as well, so maybe I'm not a sell out after all.


Did you say short thrillers? I'm not short but I like thrillers. Hint hint.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I don't put anything out there I don't believe in, that I wouldn't personally read, or that contributes to trends I don't like seeing no matter how much bank I could make off it.

Writing to 'market' is all well and good, but what about the people who aren't in that market? Where are they going to get the books they can love when the 'market' doens't see them as fertile enough money farms?

Me, that's who. I do this to entertain them. To give them the kinds of stuff they're normally denied. In the scale between 'artiste' and 'business person', I pick 'entertainer' and I pick the niches to entertain.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

I can't speak for Shane, but I didn't see anywhere that he disparaged the romance genre, romance authors, or romance readers.

He has stated that he personally has no interest in romance and that he quite actually prefers the opposite - hurting and scarring people.
He stated that he thinks he is better at writing true to his heart (horror/ thrillers) and that his romance writing isn't even that good.
But, at the end of the day, he says romance it what makes him money, so he keeps doing it.

I don't think there's anything offensive in those statements. I think *most* of the discussion in this thread has been very mature, and I hope it can continue that way.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Nope. I haven't. I still see myself as an artist first and foremost. I will not change to appease an audience. And I'm doing and writing what I love full time. If I had to write something I wasn't passionate about to make a living then I'd get a desk job, I'd be equally miserable and itd take less mental energy. Just my opinion


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> If you call what you're writing now "junk food," that certainly does imply disdain for what you're doing and its readers.
> 
> I don't know what you're writing now that feels so empty-calorie, but maybe you can use the talent that you have to write something that would be more satisfying--and more profitable, too, even in the romance genre. It's a HUGE genre with all kinds of readers and all kinds of subgenres and styles--most of which I would personally have zero interest in writing in.
> 
> ...


Junk food is a big business industry. No shame in it.

I have a long way to go with getting ahead in the genre. I'm not in the top 100 authors. My reviews aren't great. I'm working really hard to make each book better than the last (though this is almost impossible at times).

My sales and borrows have gone up this month as well.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2015)

Domino Finn said:


> I can't speak for Shane, but I didn't see anywhere that he disparaged the romance genre, romance authors, or romance readers.
> 
> He has stated that he personally has no interest in romance and that he quite actually prefers the opposite - hurting and scarring people.
> He stated that he thinks he is better at writing true to his heart (horror/ thrillers) and that his romance writing isn't even that good.
> ...


Thanks man


----------



## Goulburn (May 21, 2014)

Shane, why not see that what you do for a living as your bread and butter money and your art and from the heart writing as your jam and cream, the extra, not the essential to live income? That takes the commercial pressure off some of your writing. Try to feel good about both the commercial and the work you do for the love of writing--if they cannot be the same. When I had an art gallery, I also made pottery to sell along with fine art. I never saw that as selling out. When I toured Australian with the collection and found the pottery too heavy to tour with, I changed it to teddy bears. I raged inside at how well they sold and people calling me the teddy bear lady. I can totally understand the selling out feeling. I never want to look at another teddy bear. 

I wrote commercial ghostwriting for many years. I didn't feel it was selling out, I did it for needed income. I set limits. I refused to write about diet, tobacco, adult only products nor promote gambling. I lost no income for having the no adult content in my commercial for sale writing as there was as many people who commission writers who had a will not engage an adult writer rule in their selection criteria. I'm not stating adult wring was wrong, only that it was outside of my comfort are to write--so I did not. Setting limits that work for you, in commercial writing, assist you to live with yourself doing it.

My family, all creative people, instilled in me when I was young, to not do what they called, 'prostitute my art.' Meanwhile my mother took in drycleaning, and sewing alterations, as well as being a leading dress designer. My sister is a highbrow music critic, and secretively (undivulged pen name) I think she writes bodice rippers.  We all make commercial decision.

The world doesn't owe artists a living (I include writers as artists); you have to do what it takes to support yourself. Some of the happiest combinations are when you choose a popular line for the bread and butter income that assists you to craft the skill you need for for that if it happens, but I cannot count on it, income from what you see as your higher art form--your best writing--the writing you do with a creative passion. Musicians teach music. Painters learn to make and sell picture frames--or (speaking for myself) get their husbands to do it, they also teach, and uh--(loathed doing it) paint kitsch teddy bear ribbons. Fiction writers can get work in adverting, proofreading, non-fiction and other forms--you draw the line to support your principles. I don't write anything I consider encourages harmful practices. By setting the limit that felt right for me I was able to, in the past, write commercially. I don't do it now. Those wise business decisions concerning supporting myself through my creative arts when I was young, paid off. I'm now retired and don't need to write for commercial reasons.

I waited fifty years to write--what I had always wanted to write. I waited until I was secure on my retirement income, and had no commercial pressure, before writing my novels. That was because I'm an all or nothing sort of person. I knew that once I began those novels I'd not be able to divide up my time and also write the bread and butter writing at the same time.

Shane, you are a creative artist at heart, and I totally empathize with what you are going through. Only you can find the balance that will give you creative satisfaction and acceptance of the commercial aspects of your work. I could not combine them, as others can. I needed to keep them separate--my commercial work will never be what I see as my best work.

I have a sign on my computer, the same sign I had on my painter's easel. It reminds me to be true to the part of me that brings me satisfaction, even while doing what I've needed to do to earn a living. It simply says, _"Do what I do best and let the others do the rest." _
If I slide away from that, I still make money, but I'm mortified by what I've created. That sign has pulled me out of more false moves (for me) that I'd have not been able to live with (even if they had made money) than anything else. I am impressionistic, and so easily influenced by others, I need blinkers on to what others say is successful for them, when selecting what I want to write.

Maybe there is a large part of you, Shane, that needs to ignore what might work commercially and take a portion of your time to reclaim the write for the sheer love of it. Split the commercial and the creative writer, give each their piece of your day. I wish you fulfillment, I wish you creative and your commercial success in writing; they don't need to be achieved in the same author names. No-one knows my former commercial writer name; it was just a job I went to, it paid bills, and I don't see it as being who I am as a writer.

I admire a creative person who can earn a living at humane creativity even when it's not their first job choice. I don't judge other writers for no being in a position to write in their true author's voice as their main income source--that is a job choice and not who you are nor does it reflect the greatness your creative drive will take you to.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> I'm jealous of the people who haven't sold out and make money at it. (Unless they had bad taste to begin with! LOL)


I think this is where I fall. I had bad taste to begin with. I've always hugely enjoyed light-hearted romance. I have zero interest in books that "challenge" me or are full of trauma and suffering. So I guess you are not jealous of me, but I have not "sold out" either. I happen to be happy writing what I am writing, I've never really had aspirations to do anything a bit more deep and meaningful, I write exactly what I like to read. But I'm sure to the literary writers it would be considered pure pulp...


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Did you say short thrillers? I'm not short but I like thrillers. Hint hint.


Cool because I already have one I unpublished. It didn't sell well back in 2011, but it got great reviews. I'm editing it this weekend and will send it to you maybe tomorrow night. I'd like you to read it first before I publish anyway. I find I can learn a lot from your brutal honesty, lol


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

JV said:


> Nope. I haven't. I still see myself as an artist first and foremost. I will not change to appease an audience. And I'm doing and writing what I love full time. If I had to write something I wasn't passionate about to make a living then I'd get a desk job, I'd be equally miserable and itd take less mental energy. Just my opinion


Me, too. I'd go back into advertising sales. A hell of a lot more money and less time. BUt soul-sucking. I feel what I'm doing is art, but I also realize there are different kinds of arts. For instance, in painting there is a Campbell's Soup can, a Mona Lisa, a cubist painting, a landscape. Therefore, I feel genre writing IS an art.

I write books I love. I did branch out into gay m/m romance with a pen name because I found I enjoyed writing the last book of the Gastien series. And all of my books have at least side gay characters, so it wasn't a huge leap. WHat worried me was that I might not like writing romance. However, more chances seem to be taken in gay romance, less rigidity, and I have found I absolutely LOVE writing it. (I also love writing gay fiction that isn't romance. I don't know why and I don't really care, it just flows from me.) Even better, it does make some money. My other books are starting to do much better, too, and I'm glad I didn't give up on them. It is who I am. I am not that special, so I had to assume there were other readers just like me. It just took a long time to find them, and getting my books in hands that weren't necessarily the right hands was also part of it.

SO, I write drama (thriller, family saga, historical, gay) and short gay romance. I did write some hardcore erotica under yet another name but it bores me to continue it so I am wrapping it up to complete a series and making the first perma-free, letting it sink or swim and moving on.

Am I a sell out? Hell, no. But I'm more of a Campbell's Soup can or a Cubist than a Mona Lisa so maybe a lot of more mainstream people would think I am. WHo knows? And, more importantly, who cares?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Stepping in here...

I read Shane's posts (and I've read through the thread twice now) as talking about his own writing, not making sweeping generalizations about genres.  You may or may not agree with how I read his posts...but please be sure to read what he said rather than rely on others' characterizations, thanks!

Betsy


----------



## CJAnderson (Oct 29, 2014)

"A master chef may have to cook cheeseburgers if that is what the majority wants to eat."  - Anonymous  Ancient Proverb


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2015)

CJAnderson said:


> "A master chef may have to cook cheeseburgers if that is what the majority wants to eat." - Anonymous Ancient *Chinese* Proverb


There, fixed that for ya


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Stacy Claflin said:


> The closest I have come to "selling out" is deciding to write the story readers keep asking about rather than one I might prefer to write just a little more.


This is a good point. I _do_ do this ^. Every time I finish a book I go through a mini crisis on which one I should start next. Should it be the one nagging at my brain or the one I had planned to do because it made good business sense. Sometimes I make one decision, sometimes I make the other... I guess door no.2 is selling out on a small level


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Domino Finn said:


> Author A can write a pulpy romance, be very passionate about it, love their work, and NOT be a sellout.
> Author B can write the SAME EXACT BOOK and be a sellout. Why? Because Author B hates romance, or thinks it's silly, or wishes they could write horror, etc., but they just write to market to pay the bills.
> 
> The important distinction is: being a sellout is subjective and means that you have compromised _your personal principles_.


Ah ha, I think Domino might have gotten to the heart of the issue in this thread! Smart cookie


----------



## MikeDavidson (Oct 5, 2013)

I write what I love and make a killing doing it. Had to tweak my writing to satisfy customer likes and dislikes. But that's about it.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Sold out? No. Occasionally compromised between what I want and what the readers want? Yes. I write for them, as well as for myself, so I like to please both of us. There are a few things I don't see myself ever doing, no matter the feedback (such as my stubborn refusal to write above a certain length). But for the most part, I'm one of those lucky writers who can be happy writing anything, 'cause it's all words and words are good.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

CJAnderson said:


> "A master chef may have to cook cheeseburgers if that is what the majority wants to eat." - Anonymous Ancient Proverb


Wait... But wouldn't a master chef be cooking for a high-end restaurant or for a few wealthy clients?

And also, couldn't they still cook like free-range blue cheese Angus Kobe gourmet burgers?

Or are they at a cookout with friends?

I'm not sure what this proverb means what it's supposed to mean. Actually, the extraction is pretty good advice:

Even the humble cheeseburger can be cooked with mastery


----------



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

Did Shane say something insulting about writing romance?

Or is there something insulting about writing romance unless you really love it?

Or is there something insulting about writing any genre unless you really love it?


----------



## Goulburn (May 21, 2014)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Did Shane say something insulting about writing romance?
> 
> Or is there something insulting about writing romance unless you really love it?
> 
> Or is there something insulting about writing any genre unless you really love it?


I did not read that into anything that he wrote. I did read into it the age old struggle of most creative people to balance passion for their creative form with the realism of earning a living from it. I read that Shane had a desire to hear if others had their own version of 'having sold out--or not, while balancing these two connected although different things. That was my interpretation. I might be wrong. 
Something is only a 'sell out' if it feels that way to the person doing it, if for example you fear that you lost your authors voice and regret that, (I did not hear Shane say that) and not by virtue of the genre.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Perhaps I misunderstood. He said that what he was writing was "junk food," which certainly SEEMS insulting to those who write and read romance, and don't consider what they do (or enjoy) to be junk food. We're probably a little sensitive, because we get that a lot.

I asked him what subgenre of romance he wrote, thinking that perhaps he was writing something that felt more paint-by-numbers. I thought that maybe if he wrote something more compelling for him, but still within the genre, he might be able to do well financially and feel better about his work. But he hasn't answered with what it is he's writing that feels so junky, so I don't know if that's it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2015)

Ryn is correct. I wanted to see how many others sold out or if it doesn't happen much.

I do try to bring certain elements that might be darker or ... just more inclined to my writing, but unfortunately the feedback says that these are the parts that hold the stories back. 

I see what I do as junk food ... sort of the same as youtube videos... Like, it's disposable, uncomplicated, formulaic etc. They are tasty treats. As opposed to, well, in the past, and this includes works I never published from my younger days, when I wrote something it was always 'my message to the world'. I even believed for many years that ever story should be written as though it was the last one I would ever tell. There was that much of 'me' in there. Bit different to what's happening now.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

I write fun fiction - stories that are fun to read. Escapist, heroic fantasy and science fiction.

Some folks would consider that selling out.

I think about it as writing stuff people love to read.

I'm a storyteller. In another era, maybe I would have sung ballads in some mead hall. Today, I tell stories and upload them to websites where people download them to digital reading devices. It's a strange world. But storytelling really hasn't changed. The storytellers who get fed are the ones who tell stories people like to hear - or read, or watch, or whatever. If you're NOT telling stories people enjoy, then you're almost certainly not going to eat.

Eating is good. 

But here's the crux of it, Shane. People buy your work because they LIKE READING IT. That's not selling out. It's not a failure. It's not giving up - it's giving people the stories they want. It's not junk food, for crying out loud.   It's adventure, and escape from the mundanity of life. It's magic. It's giving the gift of imagination and wonder, for at least a little while.

It is a precious gift.

If you write the most erudite and wondrous of novels, you might get lauded by academia and plastered with awards. But most REAL readers won't give two flying farts about reading your work. Writing stories people love is not selling out. It's being true to your craft.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I tried "selling out" but the results were underwhelming, mainly because I don't have the energy to spread myself across various pen names, and I rather just be myself.

Fortunately, the stuff I like to write is now starting to sell OK.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't think Shane was trying to insult anyone. Nor do I think comparing genre writing to junk food is particularly insulting. I can't remember the exact quote, but way back when someone called Stephen King a hack and he agreed, replying he was the McDonald's of fiction and was happy to go to the bank with it or some such thing.

I can understand being sensitive about it, just like I'm sensitive when people make remarks about those of us who consider ourselves artists (even if we write genre fiction) believing we are special snowflakes. That gets real tiresome, too. Just like hearing, well go ahead and do art but *I'd* rather make money, as if nothing remotely arty can make a profit.

What we have to remember is no one can insult or belittle us unless we allow them to do so. I try to remember and don't alwasy succeed. But, as far as Shane goes, I do believe his heart was in the right place and he meant no insult. He was simply expressing the frustration of wanting to write something that isn't commercially popular versus something that is but doesn't feel as soul satisfying to him. It's a valid feeling some writers have, while others may not.


----------



## KevinMcLaughlin (Nov 11, 2010)

Lots of hacks out there in the past. Oddly, of the writers whose work is remembered by anyone outside academia, mostly it's the hacks who make it more than a hundred years.

It is possible that "hack" is the greatest compliment one can pay a writer, since it basically means "person who writes stories that people like to read".


----------



## NoBlackHats (Oct 17, 2012)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Just a general question.
> 
> Then I started creating the writing equivalent of junkfood.


. No reason you can't create books that sell, and also feed you passion for glorious art, especially since your income has increased.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Caddy said:


> What we have to remember is no one can insult or belittle us unless we allow them to do so.


Huh? Sure they can. When somebody says something homophobic, you sure as heck are insulted. (And so am I, don't get me wrong.)

Yes, I do and will continue to take offense when somebody calls romance "the literary equivalent of junk food." In what universe isn't that insulting to those who read and write it? I don't understand why that's hard to see. I really don't. I've asked Shane over and over to explain WHAT is so "junky" about what he's doing, in hopes that he isn't actually saying that, and in hopes that we could perhaps steer him towards some areas of romance that might be a better fit and more interesting to him, but he hasn't answered me, so I have to conclude that, yes, he thinks romance is the literary equivalent of junk food. As opposed, to, say, horror. (Huh?) Or mystery. Or thrillers. Or...whatever other genre somehow ISN'T junk, because it isn't romance.

Is there pulpy, junky romance? You bet there is. We all know there is. There are also plenty of pulpy, junky thrillers, sci-fi novels, fantasy, mystery, horror, historical novels--any genre you care to name. But none of those genres HAS to be junky or pulpy. It's possible to write good, solid commercial fiction that has something to say in any of them.

I also have to conclude that he doesn't want to get answers, but just to complain that he has to write romance. Which is OK, I guess, since yeah, he's saying he just wants to complain. But I'd rather get answers, myself. If I'm finding that something I'm writing isn't quite satisfying, I'd rather try to find something that would be more satisfying. Why not? This is my one and only life. I get to write in it, and that's pretty fantastic, but I sure as heck want to write what I like. I spent ten years writing things I didn't care about. As others have said, if that were my choice, I'd go back to writing marketing copy. Less soul-draining than pretending something I didn't feel.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2015)

I did answer you, Rosalind. Junkfood is a term I use for my current writing - not anyone elses. 

I'm not here to complain at all. What is my supposed complaint anyway? That horror / thriller / weird literary stories don't sell as well? So what. Seriously, those types of things are much harder to write and much more work. 

But you know it's not supposed to be about romance vs anything else. I'm just talking about selling out. Sharing your experience.

That's when you realize that what you think is the best, isn't the general consensus. I don't have commercial taste. I can't be the only one who has made this journey.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Rosalind James said:


> Yes, I do and will continue to take offense when somebody calls romance "the literary equivalent of junk food."


Shane has answered for himself, but I want to point out again after re-reading the entire thread, that Shane, in every instance, has addressed his own writing, not a genre.

In the first post, he said:



 ShaneJeffery said:


> Then I started creating the writing equivalent of junkfood.


That's talking about his writing, not a genre (he didn't even mention the genre he was writing in until asked).

Again, others may read that differently, but I don't see it addressing a genre.

Betsy


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

I write what I like to read. I wouldn't know how to write otherwise. Yes, that includes erotica. I like to read it. I also like to read cozy mysteries, dystopian, paranormal, young adult, romantic suspense, procedural mysteries, fantasy, etc. I don't like reading serials, so I don't write them. Others have found success with them, but they're just not my thing. A lot of people don't like what I write. It's not high-end fiction. I'm never going to win awards. I don't expect to. I don't seek them out.


----------



## meowbiscuit (Jul 17, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Oh, I didn't read the romance part. I'd assumed it was highbrow literary fiction vs. ... dunno, horror or something. (Which, yeah, in what universe is any more "literary" than romance? Huh?)
> 
> OK. Wow. I get it. Anybody can make money at that junk. Gotcha.
> 
> Leaving now.


FWIW, I just read your Paradise book and enjoyed it. It seemed obvious that you put a lot of work coming up with the scenarios for the show based on what they would have had to do in that era. And the bits with Jeff were inspired.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Huh? Sure they can. When somebody says something homophobic, you sure as heck are insulted. (And so am I, don't get me wrong.)
> 
> Yes, I do and will continue to take offense when somebody calls romance "the literary equivalent of junk food." In what universe isn't that insulting to those who read and write it? I don't understand why that's hard to see. I really don't. I've asked Shane over and over to explain WHAT is so "junky" about what he's doing, in hopes that he isn't actually saying that, and in hopes that we could perhaps steer him towards some areas of romance that might be a better fit and more interesting to him, but he hasn't answered me, so I have to conclude that, yes, he thinks romance is the literary equivalent of junk food. As opposed, to, say, horror. (Huh?) Or mystery. Or thrillers. Or...whatever other genre somehow ISN'T junk, because it isn't romance.
> 
> ...


I think we just see it differently and perhaps I didn't type it right. People can say petty things, even cruel, but we can choose whether or not to let it hurt us personally. There is a big difference between me choosing not to allow someone who tries to insult my seeing myself as an artist and someone saying homophobic things. One is petty, the other is bigotry. Someone can call me a fatass and it's much different from calling me a racial slur. I should have made it more clear that I am talking about petty statements or what we take as petty statements. And, actually, I wasn't directing my post to you in particular, just saying I know I have taken things personally on here when perhaps I shouldn't have. I think you know I have no quarrel with you, Rosalind, and never have. In fact, I've always liked you and looked up to you and your success.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

FWIW, I read Shane's original post as saying that, previously, he wrote because he had something to say. Something from his heart. 

And now he feels that with romance, it isn't from his heart. Perhaps junk food wasn't the right words, but I got his meaning. I write romance, too, and I wasn't offended a bit. I think that Shane feels that, with his romance, he isn't putting a message out into the world. But that's okay. Romances aren't necessarily written to put serious messages out into the world. They can be, but, really, mostly they entertain. They're written to make the reader fall in love and turn the pages.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I did answer you, Rosalind. Junkfood is a term I use for my current writing - not anyone elses.
> 
> I'm not here to complain at all. What is my supposed complaint anyway? That horror / thriller / weird literary stories don't sell as well? So what. Seriously, those types of things are much harder to write and much more work.
> 
> ...


Oh, I'm sorry. I totally missed that. 
Seriously, you might think about romantic suspense. I love thrillers. They're my favorite thing to read. Romantic suspense is nearly as popular as contemporary romance, and much less crowded, partly because it's hard to write both satisfying suspense and satisfying romance within the same arc. You might find it more artistically rewarding.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

meowbiscuit said:


> FWIW, I just read your Paradise book and enjoyed it. It seemed obvious that you put a lot of work coming up with the scenarios for the show based on what they would have had to do in that era. And the bits with Jeff were inspired.


Thanks! Sorry, clearly I took this post much differently than others. I apologize.

Interesting what Annie says, too. I actually DO write romance to try to say something serious, partly. I mean, not like literary fiction, but to say something real about life and relationships and families. Romance is an interesting genre that way. A bit like mystery. It's a framework that can be used in so many ways, for so many different things. Except ending unhappily! Also like many genres. A mystery has to be solved, the bad guys have to be defeated in a thriller, and a couple has to find happiness together in a romance. Other than that, there's all the latitude in the world.


----------



## Michael J Elliott (Dec 18, 2014)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Thanks Michael.
> 
> I mean, yeah, I can still get SOMETHING out of my writing this way. But of course, it's that something that is holding me back from selling more.
> 
> I don't do it for fun, but it is fun sometimes. Like all writing. Good luck with your endeavors.


Thank you Shanye,
your post has actually inspired me (at some stage lol) to write dark fantasy under a pen name and see how I go sales wise (I've had one idea based on the four elements for years) Having said that I still respect that you do write novels that aren't the kind that put a fire in your belly, I know I definitely couldn't do it because
(a) I have to be really fired up and enthusiastic over my ideas
(b) I'd find numerous excuses to put of writing something that doesn't interest me each day
(c) I can tend to be impatient and would be thinking "God when will I finish this" which wouldn't make for a good book and wouldn't be fair on readers.
With your paranormal romance fan base you may find the opportunity to write what you really love, it worked for James Caan in Misery lol


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Nope. I write exactly what I want to write. Sure, it's probably the literary equivalent of poprocks and crack, but I *love* poprocks and crack. 

Telling a story readers can't put down is, to me, the ultimate goal of my craft and what I work toward. I don't need to shine some brilliant light into the dim mind of the universe and teach someone something great, I just want to write books people can't stop reading. That's it.

It's harder than it sounds, though. I figure I'll spend the rest of my life learning this skill.


----------



## CJAnderson (Oct 29, 2014)

I have heard the advice to "write what you know" but I see this may not always be possible.  For example, I have experienced a lot of darkness in life.  I also love Sci-Fi. So logically I wrote Dark Sci-Fi. But how much interest is there in reading that genre compared to something like romance? If the goal is to sell books and write full-time, I may have to write in other genres.


----------



## Joel R. Crabtree (Aug 6, 2012)

My take away is that there are times that you feel what you do is disingenuous. [general you, not specific singular] Not being able to be true to the art, or being true to yourself, or being true to the audience. Those who have a deep passion for a certain genre can feel this way when they decide to learn to write to the market and find that the market keeps things afloat, but not being able to even given the market audience what you feel they deserve.

You don't feel that you write well to the market (your junk food) versus the culinary masterpieces of those you feel can be more true to the market or genre.

But writing/storytelling is fluid. Our visionary impulse today may be changed tomorrow. And the audience rides on similar tides. If you have faith that your story is an under-appreciated masterpiece, find the time or branding to bring it forth in a new life.

How about those books Stephen King had that he couldn't sell before he became THE name in horror? They didn't get better just sitting in a drawer. They got due appreciation after a perspective change. And just like him, keep writing them ad infinitum. I remember him writing 'junk food' stories for a kiddie magazine in 6th grade. Total sell out, that King.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Michael J Elliott said:


> With your paranormal romance fan base you may find the opportunity to write what you really love, it worked for James Caan in Misery lol


There's suffering for your art and then there's amputating a limb. I'd save that one till all other avenues have been exhausted, personally.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Well I haven't even published my first book yet, so I don't know how it will do commercially, but it's not romance or erotica. Those two genres have MASSIVE readership and erotica sells like crazy. I actually like both genres and would love to be able to write in them and make good money but I can't because I suck at it! I just don't have the skill and I wish I did. Do you have any idea how quickly I would publish something like "Held by the Highlander"? So fast! Now I wouldn't consider myself selling out because I have a genuine love for the genre. But it sucks that at this time I don't even have the OPTION of writing in such a lucrative field. I'm still trying to figure out how to blend my style with the expectations of the romance genre's readership.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

I kinda don't agree that writing what people will buy, but that you yourself aren't as keen on, is 'selling out'. It's just writing to make money, which is fine. Just needs a bit of recalibration in the way you view the work that earns money, if earning a full time wage off your writing is what you want to do. Think of that as the money making 'day job' (and hey, i do a day job to pay the bills that I'm not interested in) and slowly, quietly, build up an audience, no matter how tiny, with the addition of the works you are interested and invested in.

If just sticking these works up on Amazon doesn't bring people in, think outside the box a bit more.


----------



## doolittle03 (Feb 13, 2015)

The most important takeaway I got from Shane's post was (paraphrased) "What (I) loved meant nothing, but (my) skill as a writer meant everything."

Very interesting subject and I'm glad it came up.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

doolittle03 said:


> The most important takeaway I got from Shane's post was (paraphrased) "What (I) loved meant nothing, but (my) skill as a writer meant everything."
> 
> Very interesting subject and I'm glad it came up.


It is interesting. It reminds me a bit of a conversation I had with a distraught student many years ago. She said something to the order of, "I love the books we're reading, and I worked so hard on this paper. [This other student in the class] wrote it the night before. And she hates your class. But she got an A on the paper, and I got a C." I had to explain that, in the world of grown-ups, product is generally all that counts. (I phrased it less patronizingly, of course.) In this case, the student who reportedly hated the material and blew the paper off 'til the last minute was an outstanding writer, and that made all the difference. Perhaps it's unsettling to realize that someone who loathes or scorns a particular genre -- college literature papers, for instance -- might nevertheless produce very good work in it. Them's the berries, though.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

KevinMcLaughlin said:


> I think about it as writing stuff people love to read.
> 
> I'm a storyteller. In another era, maybe I would have sung ballads in some mead hall. The storytellers who get fed are the ones who tell stories people like to hear - or read, or watch, or whatever. If you're NOT telling stories people enjoy, then you're almost certainly not going to eat.
> 
> ...


_

<3 _


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

FYI: I haven't read the entire thread.

You're only selling out if you are knowingly not producing the best product that you can. The art is in the creation of the product, no matter what that product might be. Just because you are writing a story that you wouldn't chose to read doesn't mean you're selling out. I don't read romance, or fantasy, or erotica, or historical fiction, or zombie tales, or detective stories...( the list goes on ), but that doesn't mean everything in those genres are not art. Granted many of them might be garbage by most people's standards, but the are not garbage because they are in a particular genre.

'Art' is in the eye of the beholder. 'High Art' is the same, however in most cases I find such claims to be on the pretentious side.

To be proud of your work only requires that you give it your absolute best effort. As long as you're doing that, you're not selling out.


----------



## josephfranciscollins (Jul 7, 2014)

I write what I like to read working towards being able to make an eventual living at it. (Thriller/Suspense/Mystery)

May attempt an SF book sometime as I also like to read them but need to get the current projects out of the way first. 

I've given myself sort of a deadline to see if what I'm writing works and how. If not, I'm prepared to change as I can read anything and everything. 

I don't know if that would be considered "selling out," but there aren't many poets out there making a full time living writing poetry. At some point you need to compromise on something to be able to eat. 

Joe


----------



## rjspears (Sep 25, 2011)

I sent my first novel out to beta readers and I had spent a lot of time on that one -- nearly 8 years.  They trashed it saying it was too arty and the writing was too florid. 

I sulked for awhile, then changed my genre and went to create a compromise of art and saleable product.  It's a compromise that I can live with because I have to.


----------



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

I think what is rubbing some folks the wrong way is that the title of the original thread is: "Have you sold out?" and then the OP goes on to describe that he "sold out" by writing what he thinks is the equivalent of "junk food" and he is writing romance. I get it, the OP is venting that some of his books don't sell and he feels like he personally "sold out." But he specifically asked "Have you sold out?", and I can completely see why other posters were upset given the junk food + romance genre context.

That's how I took it, and yeah, it does rub me the wrong way. To answer_ the OP's original thread title question_, no, I have not "sold out", and no, I don't write "junk food." I can't see how writing any particular genre is considered "selling out." Because it sells? I think that is really simplistic, and of course, the topic of a much bigger discussion.
I write romance and I am darn proud of it.


----------



## legion (Mar 1, 2013)

Stephanie Marks said:


> Well I haven't even published my first book yet, so I don't know how it will do commercially, but it's not romance or erotica. ... I actually like both genres and* would love to be able to write in them and make good money but I can't because I suck at it! I just don't have the skill and I wish I did.* Do you have any idea how quickly I would publish something like "Held by the Highlander"? So fast! Now I wouldn't consider myself selling out because I have a genuine love for the genre. But *it sucks that at this time I don't even have the OPTION of writing in such a lucrative field.*...


No, please don't say you don't have the option. Just try it! I'm not great at writing romance, but I do it anyway, because if there's one thing I realized, it's that no matter what I put out there or how much time/effort I've spent on it, someone will love it, and someone will hate it. So what's there to lose? Give it a shot! Give yourself an experimental pen name or something.


----------



## Michaelploof (Feb 14, 2014)

If you want to ruin something, just add money. Art is no different. I started writing because I wanted to, it was fun. When I sold a boatload of books on a fluke I realized I could do it for a living. I now write 4-6 books a year, (that first one took me 8 years). If not for money I wouldn't be writing nearly as hard or as fast. I imagine my "art" pays the price, and the books might not be as great as they could be, but they're still good. I haven't yet had to resort to writing about pedophile vampires that go to highschool, or Alpha werewolf bikers with ripped abs, so I count that as a plus. Using your skills to make money isn't selling out. Selling out is whoring yourself for something you don't believe in.


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

I'm not sure I understand the OP's question.

I love writing and I love everything I write.  If I didn't, I'd never finish it, to be honest.  My best selling books are my SF/F books.  I've tried erotica, but it didn't sell.  I still enjoyed writing it.  My new Immortal Chronicles is a cross-over of my SF/F character with romance--it's called Regency Immortal--which I had a blast writing.

I love writing and I love finding ways to take a genre and make it my own.  I don't know where "selling out" comes into the equation.


----------



## meowbiscuit (Jul 17, 2014)

Stephanie Marks said:


> Well I haven't even published my first book yet, so I don't know how it will do commercially, but it's not romance or erotica. Those two genres have MASSIVE readership and erotica sells like crazy. I actually like both genres and would love to be able to write in them and make good money but I can't because I suck at it! I just don't have the skill and I wish I did. Do you have any idea how quickly I would publish something like "Held by the Highlander"? So fast! Now I wouldn't consider myself selling out because I have a genuine love for the genre. But it sucks that at this time I don't even have the OPTION of writing in such a lucrative field. I'm still trying to figure out how to blend my style with the expectations of the romance genre's readership.


I actually think we hold ourselves to nearly impossible standards when it comes to writing the things we love to read. We look at our favorites and think, "There's no way I can do THAT!" I do the same. I read Gaiman, King and a slew of contemporary fantasy authors and think, "They're so good! I can't be that good." But part of me knows it's me talking and not reality. Sure, I may never be as good as Gaiman or King, but I won't know for sure until I really give it a shot.

I guess what I'm saying is -- you might be surprised what you can do once you let go of expectations of yourself and don't compare your writing to others.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

Lydniz said:


> Can you name some of these people [I'm jealous of the people who haven't sold out and make money at it.]? I am interested to know what you view as selling out/not selling out.


A famous exception to the rule is Iain Banks. It is often assumed that he wrote science fiction to fund his literary fiction, but his literary fiction sales far excelled his science fiction totals.

Selling out is a phrase I associate with music fans complaining that their favourite band brings out an album that is different to the earlier ones (e.g., U2's disco phase). Writing something that you are succeeding financially in is just about succeeding financially, even when like Iain Banks it is the literary fiction that makes bank. Many auteurs of the movie world go turns about on making something that pleases the studios (and their bank manager) and doing something that is in their heart (but will make little or no money).

I am working on some science fiction and fantasy projects despite once seeing myself as only able to write literary fiction. It was being reminded while in Seattle that I came to love science fiction because of Andre Norton, who used SFF genres to tell a message. I have plenty of projects to choose from so where I do get commercial is to choose some of the more saleable projects to focus on and maybe one day I too will write myself out of welfare.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

meowbiscuit said:


> I actually think we hold ourselves to nearly impossible standards when it comes to writing the things we love to read. We look at our favorites and think, "There's no way I can do THAT!" I do the same. I read Gaiman, King and a slew of contemporary fantasy authors and think, "They're so good! I can't be that good." But part of me knows it's me talking and not reality. Sure, I may never be as good as Gaiman or King, but I won't know for sure until I really give it a shot.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is -- you might be surprised what you can do once you let go of expectations of yourself and don't compare your writing to others.


Thank you. But I see it as simply an awareness of my current skillset. Not to say that I won't ever get better but at the moment I simply do not do the genre justice. And sure maybe I could write something and finish it and publish it because with indie publishing I have the option to do whatever I want. But I won't, simply because right now my work on romance DOESNT reach those standards. It's not a matter of comparing the work to someone else's, but to my own. If I write something that I don't feel meets my own personal standards and that I don't feel proud of then I can't possibly publish it. I refuse to release anything that I don't feel confident and proud enough to put my own name on. So until I am able to write a romance novel and feel the same sense of a job well done that I do when I write urban fantasy I won't release it.

But this is a sense of personal standard that I carry with my in ALL aspects of my life. I know that I can be hard on myself but it allows me to always be able to stand behind my choices 100%.


----------



## bberntson (Oct 24, 2013)

Michaelploof said:


> Selling out is whoring yourself for something you don't believe in.


Well said.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2015)

ShaneJeffery said:


> Just a general question.
> 
> I've officially sold out. I started out seeing myself as this artist whom created masterpieces.


Maybe what you thought was "great art" was merely pretentious drivel, and you have finally matured into the great writer you were supposed to be instead of emulating something you thought you were supposed to be.

I see this all the time as an editor. Writers who are far too witty for their own good and get in the way of their own story in some effort to "prove" they are writing great art. And what they are really doing is trying to emulate writers they read when they were kids; writers who were writing decades ago and catering to a completely different audience. But Shakespeare wrote for the common man. He wrote about sex and violence and witches and sleazy politics. And the only reason we consider him a genius today is because those stories were entertaining enough to stand the test of time. If Shakespeare was alive today, he'd probably be writing paranormal romances and political thrillers. 

The job of a writer is not to convince the reader how brilliant you are. _The job of a writer is to tell a story people want to read_. If you are doing your job, then all is well. It isn't about selling out. It is about doing your job.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Maybe what you thought was "great art" was merely pretentious drivel, and you have finally matured into the great writer you were supposed to be instead of emulating something you thought you were supposed to be.
> 
> I see this all the time as an editor. Writers who are far too witty for their own good and get in the way of their own story in some effort to "prove" they are writing great art. And what they are really doing is trying to emulate writers they read when they were kids; writers who were writing decades ago and catering to a completely different audience. But Shakespeare wrote for the common man. He wrote about sex and violence and witches and sleazy politics. And the only reason we consider him a genius today is because those stories were entertaining enough to stand the test of time. If Shakespeare was alive today, he'd probably be writing paranormal romances and political thrillers.
> 
> The job of a writer is not to convince the reader how brilliant you are. _The job of a writer is to tell a story people want to read_. If you are doing your job, then all is well. It isn't about selling out. It is about doing your job.


  We're not worthy! We're not worthy! *kneeling bow*


----------



## A_Writer_ (May 22, 2011)

Not singling out the OP, but the thing I don't like is this attitude of: "My books aren't selling, so I'll write romance instead."

That attitude, in itself, denigrates romance readers and writers.


----------



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

How so? Who's allowed to write romance, then?


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2015)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> How so? Who's allowed to write romance, then?


I think she means the attitude that people think romance readers have no real taste and that writing romance is easy money.


----------



## A_Writer_ (May 22, 2011)

Because it means the romance genre ends up with 2 types of writers: those who want to write romance and love the genre, and those who want to make a buck after their horror/sci fi/whatever novels fail.

It's saying: "I can't sell my horror books to horror readers so I'll churn out some romance to make $$." The implication being that romance readers aren't discerning.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

A_Writer_ said:


> It's saying: "I can't sell my horror books to horror readers so I'll churn out some romance to make $$." The implication being that romance readers aren't discerning.


I think you're choosing to be offended here. The _real_ implication is that romance is the largest ebook market. More customers = more potential sales. Same reason some authors try out erotica if their books aren't selling. And same reason authors who start out in the literary genre might move to thrillers or something more mainstream. It's about moving to where the money is if the money isn't coming to you.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

A_Writer_ said:


> Because it means the romance genre ends up with 2 types of writers: those who want to write romance and love the genre, and those who want to make a buck after their horror/sci fi/whatever novels fail.
> 
> It's saying: "I can't sell my horror books to horror readers so I'll churn out some romance to make $$." The implication being that romance readers aren't discerning.


In truth, romance readers are quite discerning. They leave brutal reviews.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

A_Writer_ said:


> Because it means the romance genre ends up with 2 types of writers: those who want to write romance and love the genre, and those who want to make a buck after their horror/sci fi/whatever novels fail.
> 
> It's saying: "I can't sell my horror books to horror readers so I'll churn out some romance to make $$." The implication being that romance readers aren't discerning.


Amen. I've written romances of various kinds for twenty years. I also publish romances through my small press. The notion that readers aren't picky is soooo not true. The road is littered with more failed romance novelists than successful ones. Just because a skilled writer can craft an acceptable romance in certain market niches that are hungry for cheap content doesn't mean said writer would be competitive in the genre overall, or that his/her success is on a par with the standard for the genre's leading authors. I know how to dissect any genre or sub-genre of fiction and mimic its elements. I could probably sell some books in those arenas, maybe even a lot of books. But I doubt I'd be anything more than a low-level imposter, compared to the true believers.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Deborahsmith author said:


> Amen. I've written romances of various kinds for twenty years. I also publish romances through my small press. The notion that readers aren't picky is soooo not true. The road is littered with more failed romance novelists than successful ones. Just because a skilled writer can craft an acceptable romance in certain market niches that are hungry for cheap content doesn't mean said writer would be competitive in the genre overall, or that his/her success is on a par with the standard for the genre's leading authors. I know how to dissect any genre or sub-genre of fiction and mimic its elements. I could probably sell some books in those arenas, maybe even a lot of books. But I doubt I'd be anything more than a low-level imposter, compared to the true believers.


Actually, a lot of people might be surprised to hear the same can be said for erotica. A lot of readers are fanatical about that genre. They actually expect you to write like you care if you want them to sign up for your mailing list. Even the pure smut takes some skill, more than some might think. I"m not saying I have oh so much skill. I'm saying both romance and erotica writers often get underrated for what they do, at least the ones who do it right.


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Maybe what you thought was "great art" was merely pretentious drivel, and you have finally matured into the great writer you were supposed to be instead of emulating something you thought you were supposed to be.
> 
> I see this all the time as an editor.


Amen. I see that frequently, both in the queries I receive as an editor and as a judge in writing contests. The author thinks he's too good to follow the genre conventions, and/or that his "masterpiece" is truly that. In almost every case, the masterpiece was a windy bloviation, short on craftsmanship and long on arrogance. I've got no patience with writers who want to follow their hearts but then complain because readers don't want to fund that journey. Publish your BotH. Fine. No one's stopping you. But don't insult readers (and fellow authors) with the insinuation that we're just not smart enough or sophisticated enough to enjoy it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2015)

Salvador Mercer said:


> "Writing is like sex. First you do it for love, then you do it for your friends, and then you do it for money." --Virginia Woolf
> 
> Murphy, Derek (2014-04-02). How to Write, Format, Publish and Promote your Book (Without Spending Any Money) (p. 5). Creativindie. Kindle Edition.
> 
> Sounds to me like selling out is ok or at least it was for Virginia Woolf


This attitude about sex may be one reason Woolf put rocks in her pocket and waded into the river, drowning herself.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

Deborahsmith author said:


> Amen. I see that frequently, both in the queries I receive as an editor and as a judge in writing contests. The author thinks he's too good to follow the genre conventions, and/or that his "masterpiece" is truly that. In almost every case, the masterpiece was a windy bloviation, short on craftsmanship and long on arrogance. I've got no patience with writers who want to follow their hearts but then complain because readers don't want to fund that journey. Publish your BotH. Fine. No one's stopping you. But don't insult readers (and fellow authors) with the insinuation that we're just not smart enough or sophisticated enough to enjoy it.


I read an article once where a top editor at random house listed 5 things that will get you rejected. One was thinking you are the exception, so good you don't need to follow the basic fundamental elements of the genre you're writing in.


----------



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

Domino Finn said:


> I think you're choosing to be offended here. The _real_ implication is that romance is the largest ebook market. More customers = more potential sales. Same reason some authors try out erotica if their books aren't selling. And same reason authors who start out in the literary genre might move to thrillers or something more mainstream. It's about moving to where the money is if the money isn't coming to you.


Uhm, we are all writers here. If someone gets an "implication" from a post, then the writer of the post did a poor job of conveying his intention to that reader. The "real" implication has apparently _*not*_ been clear. Telling us we are "choosing to be offended" is dismissive. It's like telling a reviewer who gives you a bad review that she didn't really understand your book, so her review is invalid.

Plenty of us have read this thread and have come to the same conclusions. The only thing that is clear is that "Have you sold out?" means a lot of things to different people, and many of us find it offensive when it is used in reference to writing our chosen genre (in this case, romance/erotica).


----------



## Deborahsmith author (Jul 23, 2013)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Did Shane say something insulting about writing romance?
> 
> Or is there something insulting about writing romance unless you really love it?
> 
> Or is there something insulting about writing any genre unless you really love it?


I think he made a pretty clear link between "writing romance" and "writing junk." Plus complaining about how no one appreciates his fine whatevers in other genres. I looked up his books on Amazon and they appear, for the most part, to be mysteries (genre fiction.) He's got very few reviews and they include more than an average share of bad ones. So I'm not sure how he's gone from writing non-junk to writing junk simply by moving to some romance niche that he can sneer at. His attitude is a serious sore point for romance authors, who know how tough the competition for readers truly is. We hear the "Anyone can write that crap" comments A LOT, and often from male writers who then proceed to mansplain to us how they can do it better. 99.9 percent can't, don't, and know they're blowing it out their smoke hole when they say so. Then there are the ones who try to rip-off the genre's audience by tossing something vaguely romance-like into their SFF or mystery or action-adventure novel then labeling the book as "romance" in the BISAC codes. This happened recently with Semi-big Author. He showed up at a couple of major romance writing conferences, grilled the little ladies as to how he could write "those" books (but not "smut," he pointed out,) then he pumped out a SF with something resembling a love story inside it, and is selling it as Romance.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2015)

Have you sold out?
Could have been better worded... did/have you commercialized?

I write junk food
Could have been written... I write entertaining, easy to digest stories.

Those are just examples. Sure, some may still take offense to that, but I think it's _less_ offensive.

The choice to use words/phrases that have negative connotations _implies_ disdain. But could it be just a poor choice of unedited forum speak instead of ill will? _After_ subsequent clarification posts, possibly.

Cheers!


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Can someone define art as it applies to their own writing? Do you mean you are writing what you want to write, or do you think your work is up there with Tolstoy and others just can't see that yet?


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

ebbrown said:


> Uhm, we are all writers here. If someone gets an "implication" from a post, then the writer of the post did a poor job of conveying his intention to that reader.


Come on. I could just as easily counter with: "Uhm, we are all readers here, so the reader did a poor job of grasping the intention." The question of OP's meaning of "junk food" has been asked and answered. He's explicitly stated that the romance he writes is derivative, uninspired, hacky, and even not that good. That's not an indictment of the genre as a whole. Mainly, it's not what he wishes he could write and make money from.



Deborahsmith author said:


> I think he made a pretty clear link between "writing romance" and "writing junk." .... I'm not sure how he's gone from writing non-junk to writing junk simply by moving to some romance niche that he can sneer at.


Asked and answered. He said he believes he's more skilled and passionate about one genre, and less skilled and passionate about romance.



Deborahsmith author said:


> We hear the "Anyone can write that crap" comments A LOT, and often from male writers who then proceed to mansplain to us how they can do it better.


I'm sorry you hear those comments a lot, Deborah, but you haven't heard them in this thread. And, frankly, your comments in defense of something that hasn't happened here are more offensive. This thread is not a male versus female thread. It is not even about, as OP stated, Romance versus X Genre. It's about writing to market versus writing to your heart.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2015)

Domino Finn said:


> I'm sorry you hear those comments a lot, Deborah, but you haven't heard them in this thread. And, frankly, your comments in defense of something that hasn't happened here are more offensive. This thread is not a male versus female thread. It is not even about, as OP stated, Romance versus X Genre. It's about writing to market versus writing to your heart.


Did you actually read the same initial comment as everyone else? The OP wrote:



> The biggest take away (pun not relevant) is that great art is worth zero dollars to me and* junk, fake, manipulatively constructed pieces* are the reason I'm getting 4 grand next week.


THAT is a pretty insulting statement, both to his peers in the genre and the readers who enjoy those stories.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

thesmallprint said:


> Can someone define art as it applies to their own writing? Do you mean you are writing what you want to write, or do you think your work is up there with Tolstoy and others just can't see that yet?


It's subjective. Most people would say that it can not be defined, I agree to an extent. To me art is simply a matter of putting together words in a way that arouses the senses, communicates, and manipulates the emotions of my audience. When I refer to myself as an artist I'm speaking to my belief that what I'm doing is creating pieces that speak to our culture or the social conditions that certain classes of people face within our society and the world at large. That, to me, is what the best artists did/do, they are cultural warriors, molding the social landscape with their pens, brushes, and camera lenses.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Katy Perry started out as a country singer but wasn't successful before she switched to Pop. Ozzy Ozbourne was in a pop band, but when they saw how popular horror films were, they decided to switch to "horror-rock" (which became metal).  

And now that Lady Gaga is successful, I think she really wants to sing torch songs, which is what she's doing now. 

I think it's pretty common to end up working in a genre or discipline which isn't your first love.


----------



## Guest (Feb 23, 2015)

I'll admit I have been condescending in the past towards romance. That's not really what selling out is about, but....

The other books I wrote under my own name, were very 'special' to me at the time. I thought they were masterpieces. I was arrogant in thinking that.

Now, I have 'soft spots' for them. I'm interested by those stories. But as far as publication in a professional manner, those stories are losers. They are crap. They didn't get great reviews and didn't sell. I also did some terrible things with writing them that are just ... I mean my concepts were too abstract and off putting that they'd never reach much of an audience. If I was to write horror again I would probably start with a new name and write something that is very different from those. If I were to boo hoo complain it would be that I would still believe that judging by the market the book probably wouldn't sell. Horror is just so small. (But it's not really a complaint. It's just disappointing in the moment you realize this and then you move on)

Writing romance that sells isn't easy. Writing horror that sells I'd say is much harder but that's my point of view because I honestly don't know how to sell horror.

Writing romance that sells is difficult because if you're new and you don't read it (you have to start reading it as soon as you want to write it by the way) you're going to make a tonne of mistakes you won't even realize you're making. I didn't just start writing in December and then made 4000 dollars. I started all the way back in March. The first month I made 60 dollars. And by October I made 200 dollars that month and was about to give it up for good and just go back to Horror and get a real job. But what happenend? I had one last shot, one last attempt at giving people what they wanted. And that book shot up to 5k in the store, a rank I'd never come close to with any work before. 

So I had to continue. I was on to something. And since then I have misfired and made mistakes and put my foot in a lot of times, but still my mistakes aren't as bad or overwhelming as they were when I first started. 

Um yeah. So yeah romance is hard work, and the reason you do it is that there are so many people who want to read these types of stories whereas no one is interested in my weird niche tastes. Well, not no one, but not enough people. 

At some point it's all about business and success and achievement. And there are people who never had to lose their beliefs to achieve that so they don't know what selling out is. Then there are others who had to really just change who the hell they were to make it work.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I'll admit I have been condescending in the past towards romance. That's not really what selling out is about, but....
> 
> The other books I wrote under my own name, were very 'special' to me at the time. I thought they were masterpieces. I was arrogant in thinking that.
> 
> ...


If you have to change who you are is it really success? Is it really achievement? For me, personally, if I had to compromise my passion, it wouldn't be. But I suppose everyone has their own definition.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Did you actually read the same initial comment as everyone else? The OP wrote:
> 
> THAT is a pretty insulting statement, both to his peers in the genre and the readers who enjoy those stories.


Julie, if you're personally insulted that OP is reaping financial rewards by writing "junk, fake, manipulatively constructed pieces" then I suppose that's your prerogative. I can't tell you how to feel about that. But like Rosalind said, in any genre there is room for junk and there is room for caviar. Just because OP writes junk doesn't mean all romance authors do.



JV said:


> If you have to change who you are is it really success? Is it really achievement? For me, personally, if I had to compromise my passion, it wouldn't be. But I suppose everyone has their own definition.


I agree with you JV. It sounds like OP is happy about his finances but not about his passion. I think MANY, MANY of us can relate to having jobs we haven't liked to pay the bills. At some point, once you pass a minimum standard of living, I've learned that money is not important and I'd rather be happy and fulfilled. I think each of us needs to discover where that line is ourselves.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

NothingsShocking said:


> I have tried to make money from writing - and failed. I can't even sell out....
> 
> I read a ton of stuff about people writing and selling erotica. I read tons of things where people were saying that they were making $7500 a month just by writing two or three short stories a week. It always seems to be $7500 a month too, like it's a magical number that is made by writers of erotica.
> 
> ...


And this is where I step in to say that erotica and porn aren't actually the same thing. That like romance there are MANY different niches. And that if you really wanted to you could find a niche that appealed to you instead of assuming that being apart of the genre is one giant horror show of "how crazy and out there can you get."


----------



## Shiriluna Nott (Aug 26, 2014)

Interesting question.

I don't think I've sold out. I write YA LGBT epic fantasy, with political and social undertones. I bring up issues such as women's rights, LGBT rights, racism, slavery, and more (you know, everything you could ever imagine to get people riled up  ) and yeah, I've turned off readers by doing this. They say I have an agenda and that discussions of social issues don't belong in fiction, but I don't really care. I think it's important for us authors to write what we want and not censor ourselves due to fear of the dreaded one-star review. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Shiriluna Nott said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> I don't think I've sold out. I write YA LGBT epic fantasy, with political and social undertones. I bring up issues such as women's rights, LGBT rights, racism, slavery, and more (you know, everything you could ever imagine to get people riled up  ) and yeah, I've turned off readers by doing this. They say I have an agenda and that discussions of social issues don't belong in fiction, but I don't really care. I think it's important for us authors to write what we want and not censor ourselves due to fear of the dreaded one-star review.
> 
> Just my two cents.


If these things don't belong in fiction then where DO they belong!?


----------



## Shiriluna Nott (Aug 26, 2014)

> If these things don't belong in fiction then where DO they belong!?


Haha. According to the reviewer, such topics belong "in essays, NOT in a novel". He said my book was a social screed.  Teehee.

The review did kind of get me wondering though, is it frowned upon for an author to boldly confront such issues in fiction? I'm actually really interested to hear other people's opinions on the matter.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Riiiiiiiiight.

I wish I had known that when my grade 11 English teacher made us read Animal Farm. I would have had a solid argument against having to do it... Or noooot...


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Shiriluna Nott said:


> Haha. According to the reviewer, such topics belong "in essays, NOT in a novel". He said my book was a social screed.  Teehee.
> 
> The review did kind of get me wondering though, is it frowned upon for an author to boldly confront such issues in fiction? I'm actually really interested to hear other people's opinions on the matter.


One man's meat is another man's poison. We're all different, so you will get various answers to this depending on who you ask. I was thinking about this very thing earlier today, actually, and love the chance to ruminate in public, so here is my experience with this question.

*When I was in my teens and twenties, I LOVED fiction that boldly confronted issues.

Now that I'm in my fifties, I just want fiction to entertain me.*

I don't know if humans universally get less interested in preachy fiction the older we get, but I do remember a dinner forty years ago where my 30-year-old dad complained to me that his 55-year-old mom told him, "We don't want messages in our movies. We just want to have fun at the movies." So this trend at least runs in my family.

And yes, 'preachy' can mean your book is about global warming or child sex slavery or any number of issues besides religious ones.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

ゴジラ said:


> Is it success? Is it achievement? Will you cry as you swim through your lakes of gold doubloons like Scrooge McDuck? Will you lament paying off your mortgage and investing in retirement? Will financial security be hell on earth?


Never underestimate the abject misery of the financially secure. All that food, shelter, clothing ... it's stifling.


----------



## Shiriluna Nott (Aug 26, 2014)

> When I was in my teens and twenties, I LOVED fiction that boldly confronted issues.
> 
> Now that I'm in my fifties, I just want fiction to entertain me.
> 
> ...


Interesting. I'm in my 20's (okay, for another few months--the big 3-0 is coming soon) and I definitely like to read about "controversial" things. Maybe there's something to what you said.

I love a good story, and personally, I feel like confronting some of the issues I mentioned previously can add depth to a plot.


----------



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

A_Writer_ said:


> Because it means the romance genre ends up with 2 types of writers: those who want to write romance and love the genre, and those who want to make a buck after their horror/sci fi/whatever novels fail.
> 
> It's saying: "I can't sell my horror books to horror readers so I'll churn out some romance to make $$." The implication being that romance readers aren't discerning.


Ahh. I totally see how that would be annoying, but I think romance readers _are_ discerning. So books that were churned out, and don't deliver the goods, will probably sell very little. And sink into the ooze where no one will see them.

If a writer's hitting the spots, though, and movin' copies, I don't think I care if they're only writing that genre for the money. Do you think it matters? Honest question, I don't have the answers.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Never underestimate the abject misery of the financially secure. All that food, shelter, clothing ... it's stifling.


Money doesn't equal happiness.

Poverty doesn't equal misery

I say this as someone that has experienced both

I'd like to believe that I can find financial success doing something I'm passionate about and writing stories I'm passionate about without compromise


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

JV said:


> Money doesn't equal happiness.
> 
> Poverty doesn't equal misery
> 
> ...


Maybe you can, but not everyone can. It depends on what you're passionate about and how well you can write that kind of book.

As for poverty not equaling misery, you appear to be a one-of-a-kind sort of person. More power to you.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

ゴジラ said:


> Is it success? Is it achievement? Will you cry as you swim through your lakes of gold doubloons like Scrooge McDuck? Will you lament paying off your mortgage and investing in retirement? Will financial security be hell on earth?


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

JV said:


> It's subjective. Most people would say that it can not be defined, I agree to an extent. To me art is simply a matter of putting together words in a way that arouses the senses, communicates, and manipulates the emotions of my audience. When I refer to myself as an artist I'm speaking to my belief that what I'm doing is creating pieces that speak to our culture or the social conditions that certain classes of people face within our society and the world at large. That, to me, is what the best artists did/do, they are cultural warriors, molding the social landscape with their pens, brushes, and camera lenses.


Thanks. That's about the best definition I've read. It does seem to boil down to 'I write what I want to write, not what I believe will sell.'


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

Domino Finn said:


> *****, if you're personally insulted that OP is reaping financial rewards by writing "junk, fake, manipulatively constructed pieces" then I suppose that's your prerogative.


I neither write nor read romance, so my observation is that of a completely neutral party. But I have been a woman online long enough to know thinly veiled misogyny when I see it. Don't tell me it is "my fault" when a man makes a comment that is clearly intended to be an insult while making all sorts of excuses why his obvious insult was not. _Just don't._ And just because I am not personally insulted does not mean I will sit quietly by and allow obvious contempt for a genre read widely by women to go unchallenged. If a saw a guy catcalling another woman on the street, I wouldn't stay quiet just because he wasn't catcalling me. I'd still shout him down in defense of another woman. Because women do not need to remain quiet in the face of insults, regardless of whom they are directed at.



> that great art is worth zero dollars to me and junk, fake, manipulatively constructed pieces are the reason I'm getting 4 grand next week.


By "great art" he meant books of value to him. by "junk, fake, manipulative constructed" he was referring to a genre read mostly by women. YOU don't see the condescension and misogyny in that statement because you are a man. But frankly that statement has all the trappings of, "you silly little girls. You don't know what great writing is so let me just give you what you want."

and then he just doubled-down with:



> At some point it's all about business and success and achievement. And there are people who never had to lose their beliefs to achieve that so they don't know what selling out is. Then there are others who had to really just change who the hell they were to make it work.


He had to "lose his beliefs" and "change who he was" to write romances? Really? Am I really supposed to feel sorry for someone making $4000 a month because he is being "forced" to write "junk" for female readers too stupid to recognize the brilliance of his original masterworks?

I don't read romances myself because the genre does not appeal to me. But that doesn't mean I can't recognize when someone is insulting it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Stepping in....

Let's not put words in people's mouths...

I've been a woman online for a long time, too, Julie, and have seen a lot of thinly veiled misogyny and been the on the receiving end of a lot, thinly veiled and otherwise from members here (you don't want to see the PMs I get).  And I've seen a lot of dissing of romance and erotica on KBoards by men and women.  And reading through the thread (and I've done so several times), it still seems to me to be very clear that Shane is talking about his writing, not an entire genre.

I realize not everyone is going to agree, but I'd like us to not assume ill will...

Thanks,

Betsy
KB Mod


----------



## Evan of the R. (Oct 15, 2013)

Kurt Cobain said that Nirvana sold out with "Nevermind." (In the full quote, he adds "there's no reason to try to redeem ourselves as artists at this point.")

Despite Kurt Cobain's assessment of his own work, a number of music fans and music critics would argue that "Nevermind" was a very good album.

Sometimes the artist isn't the best judge of whether or not the work is "junk, fake" or "manipulatively constructed."

Sometimes the artist says stuff like that, and the artist is simply wrong.

YMMV.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

FWIW:

I didn't write again for 3 years after releasing Cancelled. I had some other contemporary romance ideas, but where my early 20s I was addicted to fun, spunky chick-lit, by my mid-20s my secret vice was reading Jane Austen Fan Fiction. I mean forums, PDFS, anything I could get my hands on, paperbacks at Barnes and Noble. Then when ebooks really started taking off, ebooks. There was NEVER enough good stories published starring Darcy and Elizabeth for me to be satisfied. 

I am no longer embarrassed that I am in love with those characters. I would deliciously love and read Mr. Darcy, Treasure Hunter and who knows, maybe I'll write that story. LOL. Many do not understand why I love this niche soooo much, it appears very undignified from a literature stand point. But for me, when I read for enjoyment, I want my mind candy in the flavor I want it in. 

When I started writing again, even though I LOVE the genre, I did sit down and analyze it to figure out what could I do to make sure my stories did well. I don't think there's anything wrong with aspiring to be great in your field. If that's selling out, then I have. Because it's no secret here or anywhere that I keep a keen eye on the business bottom line of my writing. I just balance passion and business.

Take what YOU love and figure out how to sell it. Someone else out there probably loves it just as much you do, you just have to find them.


----------



## eleanorberesford (Dec 22, 2014)

Julie, I'm not only a woman but a fellow feminist, and I'm not discounting your feelings about this. Women's art is so often discounted and patronized, and you're reacting from that context. Believe me that I feel sympathy.

But it did seem  to me that Shayne was not dissing a genre or saying that romance writing is all junk or passing judgement on PNR readers or writers; he was saying his *own* process is that of manipulatively constructing "fake" writing he doesn't really believe in. 

That's what working writers and other artists have done for a very long time. One of my best friends at school's father was a painter. He paid the bills by producing landscapes that sold well, without passion and using his skill to produce, yes, manipulative (but pleasant and enjoyable) junk for the market. They made his buyers happy and they fed his daughter.

And then he had the work that was his passion and truth, paid for by the landscapes.

Shayne, there is no shame in behaving like a professional and producing things that people are happy to pay money for and which give them enjoyment, making their lives that much brighter. I envy you for being able to do so.

But, if I can give you some advice, save a little of your time for your art and passion projects. A quarter of an hour a day is a book length draft.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Stepping in....
> 
> Let's not put words in people's mouths...


I'm sorry, Betsy. But there is no good way to read " junk, fake, manipulatively constructed pieces". I didn't put those words in his mouth. Those are his words. If a trade author came out and made this comment, this forum would tear him apart, and rightfully so. Whether he is talking about the entire genre or just himself isn't really the point. Even McDonald's doesn't publicly say "Yeah, we know we are totally selling you food that is going to kill you." It is simply a horrible insult to his own readers. I can't imagine the people who paid for his books would be pleased if they came across this thread and knew how he really felt about their reading tastes.


----------



## Guest (Feb 24, 2015)

eleanorberesford said:


> Julie, I'm not only a woman but a fellow feminist, and I'm not discounting your feelings about this. Women's art is so often discounted and patronized, and you're reacting from that context. Believe me that I feel sympathy.
> 
> But it did seem to me that Shayne was not dissing a genre or saying that romance writing is all junk or passing judgement on PNR readers or writers; he was saying his *own* process is that of manipulatively constructing "fake" writing he doesn't really believe in.
> 
> ...


I love the even-handedness and love written in this post. Made me cry!


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

Since most readers are women, it's never a good idea to offend them; though, I do get the point Shane is trying to make.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

JV said:


> Money doesn't equal happiness.
> 
> Poverty doesn't equal misery
> 
> ...


I totally agree with this statement. Been poor most of my life, but not miserable. 
Then there was that crazy point in my teenage years where I was either poor or appeared to be rich. It depended on what city/which parent I was with. I didn't mind the poor because we were no longer living in Hades.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Maybe you can, but not everyone can. It depends on what you're passionate about and how well you can write that kind of book.
> 
> As for poverty not equaling misery, you appear to be a one-of-a-kind sort of person. More power to you.


Nope. I'm not one of a kind. I grew up in poverty ridden areas of South Georgia. Plenty of happy people. I interacted with them, was one of them, for more than a decade. Studies would also show I'm not alone as well. My happiness, and the happiness of others, isn't swayed by money.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

JV said:


> Nope. I'm not one of a kind. I grew up in poverty ridden areas of South Georgia. Plenty of happy people. I interacted with them, was one of them, for more than a decade. Studies would also show I'm not alone as well. My happiness, and the happiness of others, isn't swayed by money.


"Georgia. Geoooriaaaaa"."

Yup. That song will be stuck in my head all day now.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I totally agree with this statement. Been poor most of my life, but not miserable.
> Then there was that crazy point in my teenage years where I was either poor or appeared to be rich. It depended on what city/which parent I was with. I didn't mind the poor because we were no longer living in Hades.


Yes. This.

Studies show that there's a certain point below which money and happiness DO matter. When you're so worried about the necessities, have no net, and are struggling for food & shelter & medical care.

Past that point, it's more about you than it is about the amount of money. That does seem to be true for me as well as whoever-they-studied.


----------



## Bud Bane (Dec 8, 2012)

Shane, to your original post I have a almost-brief comment. I grew up with a girl who was in my opinion, and the opinions of many others, a brilliant artist with paint and canvas. She would in our teen years, make copies of great masterpieces as a way of learning her craft and had everyone from art teachers to a museum director once saying she had more talent than some of the artists she would copy.

The thing was she didn't enjoy creating any of those paintings. What she enjoyed making were wild, expressionist pieces that combined sculpting and decoupage with painting. She would literally glue pieces of garbage and junk onto her canvas sheets to "make a statement" with her work.

And then we went to college where she got a degree in art, and I recall visiting with her one day as I looked around her studio at tons of what was I'm sure truly artistic works, but I was equally sure nobody would ever purchase to hang in their living rooms, and I asked what she was planning to do with her degree now. My thinking was she'd go into teaching maybe or perhaps art restorations. 

Her response was simple but deep as well. "I'll probably be a starving artist." Twenty-something years later I can say she was absolutely correct. We're still friends and she's still making great works of art that nobody will purchase from her.

What some see as selling out, I see as missed opportunities to share your art. My friend has had decades now in which she could have been sharing her talents as an artist with many people who would have appreciated them and made a decent living for herself to boot, but by holding onto a narrow view of what her art had to be she's not only consigned herself to poverty and hard times but also denied all those people the experience of her mastery of the craft.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

ゴジラ said:


> Is it success? Is it achievement? Will you cry as you swim through your lakes of gold doubloons like Scrooge McDuck? Will you lament paying off your mortgage and investing in retirement? Will financial security be hell on earth?


----------



## Kirkee (Apr 2, 2014)

If I may put forth a rather serious inquiry here: Was there actually ever a how-to book written on How to Sell Out?
Just askin'.   

If not... To all those non-fiction scribes here...run with it, if you like. It's yours.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

JV said:


> Nope. I'm not one of a kind. I grew up in poverty ridden areas of South Georgia. Plenty of happy people. I interacted with them, was one of them, for more than a decade. Studies would also show I'm not alone as well. My happiness, and the happiness of others, isn't swayed by money.


Perhaps, like most kids, you were sheltered to some degree from the incredible stresses being experienced by the adults living in poverty around you. Even for people blessed with a generally sunny outlook, it's horribly stressful to be one car problem away from losing your job, and one paycheck away from losing your home, especially if everyone in your family is in the same situation, so there's no financially stable person to fall back on. People in that kind of position have a million sources of stress that wealthy people don't have, along with most of the stresses wealthy people *do* have -- marital conflict, stressful work environments, health problems, etc. In fact, they probably have more of the latter than wealthy people. I know poor people have higher levels of divorce and marital unhappiness and notably shorter life expectancies, for instance.

As Rosalind said, studies show that, past a certain point, getting richer does not make the average person (more than a little) happier, but up to that point, it makes a big difference.

Here's some reading on the issue, if you're interested:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-mindful-self-express/201209/is-money-the-secret-happiness
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2014/02/15/rich-or-poor-whos-happiest-and-why-it-matters/
http://killermartinis.kinja.com/why-i-make-terrible-decisions-or-poverty-thoughts-1450123558


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Becca,
Is it because they are poor or because one person is controlling the finances and lying about where the money is going?  I think it is more than just money.  But thank you for dismissing those that have been poor but not boohooing.  

If you have ever had to pay rent on a daily basis then we can talk.  Those studies are always biased.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Perhaps, like most kids, you were sheltered to some degree from the incredible stresses being experienced by the adults living in poverty around you. Even for people blessed with a generally sunny outlook, it's horribly stressful to be one car problem away from losing your job, and one paycheck away from losing your home, especially if everyone in your family is in the same situation, so there's no financially stable person to fall back on. People in that kind of position have a million sources of stress that wealthy people don't have, along with most of the stresses wealthy people *do* have -- marital conflict, stressful work environments, health problems, etc. In fact, they probably have more of the latter than wealthy people. I know poor people have higher levels of divorce and marital unhappiness and notably shorter life expectancies, for instance.
> 
> As Rosalind said, studies show that, past a certain point, getting richer does not make the average person (more than a little) happier, but up to that point, it makes a big difference.
> 
> ...


Is it the poverty or is it the stress placed on U.S citizens by our culture and our society; the fact that the government and criminal justice system seem to work off the back of the impoverished?

Don't assume I was sheltered, you assume wrong. I have lived in poverty on and off into my teens. After I got married and my wife was in medical school we lived below the poverty line for a bit. There is happiness there, our happiness was not dictated by our financial situation--there's a certain degree of choice involved. Even when I lived in worse situations, among the crack dealers and gang violence (yep, South Georgia has em') there was still happiness. We found it in each other, we found it in simple things. Some of the happiest times of my life were when I didn't have two pennies to rub together.

As I stated, I have studied the issue and I do NOT agree that there is a cause and effect relationship between happiness and wealth and unhappiness and poverty, that's shown here, there's no cause and effect relationship.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090907142345.htm

They've found, in multiple studies, that the poorest citizens in the world are some of the happiest. If there is unhappiness in poverty I think it's more to do with the culture we've created and people's mindset rather than simply not having money

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/02-01-2013/123363-poor_happy-0/

They've found in other studies that there is a rather large difference between urban and rural poverty in terms of the effects it has on one's psychological well being. The reasons for that difference should be quite obvious (crime, gangs, crowding, etc)...I've experienced both, rural poverty is definitely preferable.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Becca,
> Is it because they are poor or because one person is controlling the finances and lying about where the money is going? I think it is more than just money. But thank you for dismissing those that have been poor but not boohooing.
> 
> If you have ever had to pay rent on a daily basis then we can talk. Those studies are always biased.


Yeah, to simply try to break it down to "not having money" is an approach that is way too simplistic for such a complicated issue. There are so many layers here, so many other variables in play, it's not a matter of being poor or rich, as the studies I've quoted show.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

JV said:


> They've found, in multiple studies, that the poorest citizens in the world are some of the happiest. If there is unhappiness in poverty I think it's more to do with the culture we've created and people's mindset rather than simply not having money.


I think if you're too poor to eat or shelter yourself, or if you're constantly in stress about how you're going to do that, then you're just happier with a full belly and a roof over your head. To say differently would be kind of silly, I think.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> I think if you're too poor to eat or shelter yourself, or if you're constantly in stress about how you're going to do that, then you're just happier with a full belly and a roof over your head. To say differently would be kind of silly, I think.


It's more than that. Yes, these people have the bare essentials for survival, but that's not the source of their happiness. I think trying to boil it down to that as being the source of their happiness would be kind of silly and, from personal experience, wrong.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> I think if you're too poor to eat or shelter yourself, or if you're constantly in stress about how you're going to do that, then you're just happier with a full belly and a roof over your head. To say differently would be kind of silly, I think.


Ask me about Chuck sometime. He was one of the happiest people I ever met. He had no home (his choice). He also got $10 a day from whoever had the access to his social security at the time. 
He was offered a house but he would have had to shower and shave every day. He turned it down. The owner of the house would have even provided the products to shave and shower with.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Princess Charming said:


> I love the even-handedness and love written in this post. Made me cry!


+1000. Very heartfelt, and dang good advice too!


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Becca,
> Is it because they are poor or because one person is controlling the finances and lying about where the money is going? I think it is more than just money. But thank you for dismissing those that have been poor but not boohooing.
> 
> If you have ever had to pay rent on a daily basis then we can talk. Those studies are always biased.


Citing what thousands of poor people report about their own experience in studies like these is not "dismissive." It is _listening_. People who are poor yet intensely happy and stress-free are no doubt part of the picture, too. They just don't represent the average experience. Just like obese, sedentary, three-pack-a-day smokers who live to be 103 exist but do not represent the average health outcome. I want to hear what the majority of people have to say, not just the outliers. After all, there's the potential for dismissiveness in JV's attitude, too, isn't there? It might go like this: _I was poor and happy; therefore money has no influence on happiness; therefore poverty isn't a significant problem, and we don't need to do anything about it_. But research shows that most people don't share JV's experience of poverty. If you don't gather data and look at the big picture, then all you'll ever see is your own experience and the experience of the relatively few people you happen to know. That is not a good basis on which to make personal or national decisions because any one person's experience may be idiosyncratic.

The idea that only people who've "paid rent on a daily basis" have knowledge about or the right to an opinion about poverty is silly. This is why research and education exist -- so that people on the outside of an experience can learn about it and hopefully help with it. You don't have to have had cancer to be an oncologist; you don't have to have suffered pay discrimination to favor equal pay; you don't have to be poor to work against poverty; you don't have to be gay to support gay adoption rights; you don't have to be a soldier to have an opinion about whether we should go to war in Syria; etc. In fact, I think doing your best to educate yourself and forming positions on issues outside your direct experience is a requirement for responsible citizenship.

As for bias, studies are designed to minimize it, and they're peer-reviewed before publication to add an extra layer of filtering. Scientists want their work to be unbiased. Is it always perfect? No, of course not. Sometimes studies that were thought sound are later found have bias or statistical errors or whatever. That's why scientific work *also* needs to be repeatable. Findings that cannot be duplicated are eventually dismissed as incorrect. Scientific research has a lot of checks, and it tends to correct itself over time, as studies and knowledge accumulate. It's a pretty darned good system. That's why it's given us iPads and Mars rovers and a shrinking ozone hole and antibiotics -- testing and building knowledge in this way _works_.

Despite scientific research's lack of perfection, I'd much rather my law-makers make decisions based on studies that aggregate the experiences of thousands of people than on what the brother-in-law of their barber's best buddy says about what it was like for him when he was poor a couple decades back (or any other individual, anecdotal experience).


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

JV said:


> It's more than that. Yes, these people have the bare essentials for survival, but that's not the source of their happiness. I think trying to boil it down to that as being the source of their happiness would be kind of silly and, from personal experience, wrong.


The point is not that being rich makes you happy. People of any income status can be unhappy. The point is that living in poverty makes you unhappier, _on average_. On the "people in the poorest countries are the happiest" thing, you will find that Vancouver Sun piece I posted interesting.

At any rate, I very much understand the OP's desire to make an income from his writing, especially if he's depending on it to support himself. People like me, who have other means of support, can diddle around with writing whatever they like, but that is a luxury.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh so because someone was not invited into a study, their opinion doesn't count.    Wow, just wow.  
Where did they find these thousands of people?  
Or was it only those that were not married and therefore could get welfare?
We are not dismissing your research,  just pointing out it is not perfect.  
But you told JV that his opinion is not valid.  

I wish you all the best and may you never have to beg a stranger to help buy formula because of no income you didn't qualify for help.  Yes you have to have proof of income to get WIC.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> Citing what thousands of poor people report about their own experience in studies like these is not "dismissive." It is _listening_. People who are poor yet intensely happy and stress-free are no doubt part of the picture, too. They just don't represent the average experience. Just like obese, sedentary, three-pack-a-day smokers who live to be 103 exist but do not represent the average health outcome. I want to hear what the majority of people have to say, not just the outliers. After all, there's the potential for dismissiveness in JV's attitude, too, isn't there? It might go like this: _I was poor and happy; therefore money has no influence on happiness; therefore poverty isn't a significant problem, and we don't need to do anything about it_. But research shows that most people don't share JV's experience of poverty. If you don't gather data and look at the big picture, then all you'll ever see is your own experience and the experience of the relatively few people you happen to know. That is not a good basis on which to make personal or national decisions because any one person's experience may be idiosyncratic.
> 
> The idea that only people who've "paid rent on a daily basis" have knowledge about or the right to an opinion about poverty is silly. This is why research and education exist -- so that people on the outside of an experience can learn about it and hopefully help with it. You don't have to have had cancer to be an oncologist; you don't have to have suffered pay discrimination to favor equal pay; you don't have to be poor to work against poverty; you don't have to be gay to support gay adoption rights; you don't have to be a soldier to have an opinion about whether we should go to war in Syria; etc. In fact, I think doing your best to educate yourself and forming positions on issues outside your direct experience is a requirement for responsible citizenship.
> 
> ...


I guess you like cherry picking my posts, but whatever, you do what you gotta do. I too cited studies and have studied this topic beyond my own experience and in no way did I stop at my own experience when it came to demonstrating my view on this issue. There is no objective cause and effect relationship between poverty and unhappiness and visa versa. Now, I'm not going to keep repeating myself because the studies I cited speak for themselves and I'm confident in my position on the matter. I think it's much less black and white than you make it out to be. As I said, agree to disagree.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

Becca Mills said:


> The point is not that being rich makes you happy. People of any income status can be unhappy. The point is that living in poverty makes you unhappier, _on average_. On the "people in the poorest countries are the happiest" thing, you will find that Vancouver Sun piece I posted interesting.
> 
> At any rate, I very much understand the OP's desire to make an income from his writing, especially if he's depending on it to support himself. People like me, who have other means of support, can diddle around with writing whatever they like, but that is a
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2015)

Money helps with being happy. It never hurts. Unless you borrow that money...

You can be happy and poor for sure. It's just way harder. I really like the movie 'Into the Wild' where the don't need money philosophy was taken to the extreme. Pluses and minuses.

For me, from past experience, I can say I feel better having written books I don't like that have sold and been read vs books I liked but made no money and were hardly read. As in a lot better. That's why I sold out. And that's why I can't get motivated to write horror. A friend reminded me that fiction ebooks is a service industry and if you're just serving yourself, it's masturbation.

I'm surprised that not many people have come forward to say they sold out. I thought there would be more.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> I'm surprised that not many people have come forward to say they sold out. I thought there would be more.


It's possible that a lot of people love writing the books you would think of as "sell outs". If you love what you're creating it isn't a "sell out." To be honest, I hated the original question because it suggested if you were popular you weren't an "artiste."

I think, for some people, painting/movies/writing that isn't depressing isn't "art". Life is both sweet and sour. Authentically capturing the sweet is no less deep or meaningful than capturing the sour. And capturing the sweet can give people in difficult times something to hang on to.

I also feel like certain members of artistic community think that their audience is less intelligent than them, less accustomed to suffering, and less "deep", and that they therefore have to be force fed "depth" with depressing art. The truth is, most people have experienced sorrow, there are "deep" people in all professions. They don't need to be preached to about suffering, they've lived it--or in some cases, are living it, and need a release from it.

My worst fear is that writing is self indulgent narcissism, not that it isn't "art" or that I've "sold out." Whenever someone writes me to tell me that I've helped them deal with their reconstructive surgeries after being injured in service, or the loneliness of being a new mother at home alone in the winter, or during their end stage disease, well, I bawl. I feel exonerated. Like I'm helping my fellow humans in the best way I can (because, Lord knows, I'm not cut out to be a doctor, teacher, or well anything that requires interpersonal skills).


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> It's possible that a lot of people love writing the books you would think of as "sell outs". If you love what you're creating it isn't a "sell out." To be honest, I hated the original question because it suggested if you were popular you weren't an "artiste."
> 
> I think, for some people, painting/movies/writing that isn't depressing isn't "art". Life is both sweet and sour. Authentically capturing the sweet is no less deep or meaningful than capturing the sour. And capturing the sweet can give people in difficult times something to hang on to.
> 
> ...


*applause*


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2015)

C. Gockel said:


> It's possible that a lot of people love writing the books you would think of as "sell outs". If you love what you're creating it isn't a "sell out." To be honest, I hated the original question because it suggested if you were popular you weren't an "artiste."
> 
> I think, for some people, painting/movies/writing that isn't depressing isn't "art". Life is both sweet and sour. Authentically capturing the sweet is no less deep or meaningful than capturing the sour. And capturing the sweet can give people in difficult times something to hang on to.
> 
> ...


I don't define anyone's books as sellouts. The author would have to do that themselves. The original question did NOT suggest that if your work is popular you're not an artist. OF COURSE many writers, in all genres, write popular books whilst remaining true to themselves. Apparently, that's the majority of authors.

I do not belong to that category.


----------



## a_g (Aug 9, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I'm surprised that not many people have come forward to say they sold out. I thought there would be more.


Actually, they do. They do that when they talk about how they understand how to write to the market, how to write to what _readers_ want versus writing what _they, the author_ want.

They just do it without using inflammatory language. It's really not necessary to come on a writing board and talk about how 'easy' it is to write a genre that you have gone on record as having previously expressed disdain for in the not-so-distant past.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> It's possible that a lot of people love writing the books you would think of as "sell outs". If you love what you're creating it isn't a "sell out." To be honest, I hated the original question because it suggested if you were popular you weren't an "artiste."
> 
> I think, for some people, painting/movies/writing that isn't depressing isn't "art". Life is both sweet and sour. Authentically capturing the sweet is no less deep or meaningful than capturing the sour. And capturing the sweet can give people in difficult times something to hang on to.
> 
> ...


I'd try to say this, but I can't possibly say it any better than this, so I'm just going to quote it.


----------



## Kirkee (Apr 2, 2014)

C. Gockel: Beautifully said. Kudos.


----------



## Guest (Feb 25, 2015)

ShaneJeffery said:


> I don't define anyone's books as sellouts. The author would have to do that themselves. The original question did NOT suggest that if your work is popular you're not an artist. OF COURSE many writers, in all genres, write popular books whilst remaining true to themselves. Apparently, that's the majority of authors.
> 
> I do not belong to that category.


Maybe you are being true to yourself. You consciously made the choice _not_ to be poor. Is it possible you wish you were something you're not? I mean, I wish I was a pro tennis player, to bask in the applause when I hit that amazing passing shot, but I do not have enough talent in it, so I "sold out" and got a day job instead. I could be slogging it in the courts and work a telemarketing job to keep my dream alive, but I sold out instead? No, I realized that my priorities are to take care of myself and my family. I realized that I don't need the fame/praise/recognition. It doesn't matter that people don't get to see my awesome serves and volleys. That is the true me.

Probably why not many think that they've "sold out".

Cheers!

PS. I'd rather play football for the Spurs but thought the tennis analogies were cooler


----------



## Michelle Mulford (Aug 14, 2013)

Thank you all for such an interesting discussion. Shane, you say that you're happier making a living, but your posts still come across as wistful to me. 

I wanted to tell you that this thread has jolted me out of a trap I'd fallen into. I need money, and my primary motivation in writing is to pay ongoing medical bills. But I can't put that kind of pressure on the writing I truly love. So I've been agonizing over how to make it more appealing, or possibly writing something to market. 

But I realize now that I don't have to. One genre or pen name doesn't have to do all the work - it's like pursuing mutiple streams of income, only they're all writing-based. So thank you all again. 

I'm going to add my voice to those suggesting that you open yourself up to alternatives, Shane. I bet your romance novels have helped you learn to tell better stories. The music analogy was really freeing for me. Bands could be accused of selling out because it was their names and faces on the album. As writers, we can have as many names as we want. Even bands nowadays change their names when they want to experiment with a different sound. 

I guess I just can't see any genre of writing I could do that would fundamentally change who I am. There are certain things I can't write because I'm not skilled enough, or because I haven't taken the time to do my research. But as long as I can tell a story, I have somewhere to start. 

I sincerely believe, Shane, that by virtue of continuing to finish novels, you are now a much better storyteller. Probably faster as well. And you've been publishing, what, almost two years now? That's really not very long. You have time to expand your catalogue, try new genres. You have strengths, assets that you didn't have starting out.


----------



## skyle (Oct 13, 2014)

Redacted


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

skyle said:


> I have not read most of the posts, especially as the thread seems to have totally derailed from the original post, which I thought was merely curious about how people felt about the books they were writing because the OP felt a bit of a "sell out" with what he was doing.
> 
> Which is basically, an interesting query to ask.
> 
> ...


That's what I said. I'm very happy to write enough erotica to save for a house and write thrillers that don't sell on the side.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

I would love to write humor all day, every day, but it's one of the toughest markets out there--especially for my weird sense of humor.

So I guess I'll just sell out and write erotica.

Wait, my erotica doesn't sell either...

Well, then I guess I should just stick with children's books.


----------



## jackiegp (May 18, 2013)

ShaneJeffery said:


> This is an excellent question, Michael.
> 
> I tried two different things initially - I had a horror trilogy, three novels about theme parks and child abuse. They were pretty disturbing books but I was more focused on the art form at that time than anything else. I was beginning. I was trying to begin a career.
> 
> ...


Shane, you've so intrigued me! Please PM me and direct me toward on of your Paranormal Money Makers! I'd love to read. I'm betting they're pretty good!


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm trying to sell out.
Just not very well.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

ebbrown said:


> > Quote from: Domino Finn on February 23, 2015, 02:24:08 PM
> > I think you're choosing to be offended here. The real implication is that romance is the largest ebook market. More customers = more potential sales. Same reason some authors try out erotica if their books aren't selling. And same reason authors who start out in the literary genre might move to thrillers or something more mainstream. It's about moving to where the money is if the money isn't coming to you.
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I've yet to see any other genre called junk, unless it's erotica.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> > Quote from: Domino Finn on February 23, 2015, 07:59:57 PM
> > Julie, if you're personally insulted that OP is reaping financial rewards by writing "junk, fake, manipulatively constructed pieces" then I suppose that's your prerogative.
> 
> 
> ...


Right, Julie. And like another of your comments, don't we just love it when a man has to explain something to us? First we are insulted by being told writing other stuff is hard, but romance is easy, and then we need mansplaining to tell us we weren't being insulted, we just didn't understand.



a_g said:


> > Quote from: ShaneJeffery on Today at 06:26:21 AM
> > I'm surprised that not many people have come forward to say they sold out. I thought there would be more.
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you! This is not the first post from the OP that has been dismissive of romance. It's why some of us have responded the way we have. I've yet to see a post about, say, thrillers, where someone is so dismissive of the genre. But let it be romance or erotica, and boy, the attitude comes out!

The reason people haven't flocked to the thread to say they've sold out is because they don't feel they have. I don't consider writing to market as selling out, so long as you learn the market and write the very best books you can, just as you would for the genre you love.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

[Not directed necessarily at Shayne, because I accept that he's talking about how he feels about his OWN work]--I feel strongly enough about the dismissive thing about romance, have heard and seen the disdain of it so much during my couple of years as a published author in this genre, that I put it into my upcoming book. It was just about as satisfying to write that as it was to write the chapter in my fourth book where my heroine tells her jerk boss to take his job and shove it up his a$$. Gosh, I love writing.

All readers of romance can tell you about this, about the dismissal. There is some really, really terrific work in this genre. Eva Ibbotson: A Song for Summer, The Morning Gift, A Countess Below Stairs, or, well, anything--now, there was a woman who could WRITE. Jennifer Crusie, Welcome to Temptation, to steam you up and make you smile and make you laugh out loud. Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Dream a Little Dream. If that book doesn't make you cry, you might want to check that you're still breathing, and still have a heart. Georgette Heyer's books on the Napoleonic Wars were used at one of the military schools in England for years. She was that good of a researcher and writer about strategy and tactics, that meticulous an historian. And her work sparkled. Lord, it did. It sparkled then, and it sparkles 75 years later. She gets new fans every day, and she's been dead for decades.

I love thrillers. I love mystery. I love many things. But romance, terrific romance, is right up there with any genre you care to name in terms of talent and staying power. So there.

If it feels like selling out to you to write to the market, if writing billionaire vampires or billionaire anythings or shapeshifting alpha wolf packs or whatever makes your soul shrivel--that's not all of romance. It's what's hot now, and one thing about what's hot now, it won't be what's hot tomorrow. Luckily, romance is a great big genre, full of incredibly talented people writing breathtaking work--including in paranormal romance. Find something in it that inspires you--or if not, Lee Child would probably tell you that thrillers don't pay too badly, either. Want to talk about emotional manipulation? Or maybe just, you know, reflecting emotions well enough so people are moved. Maybe go for that.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Right, Julie. And like another of your comments, don't we just love it when a man has to explain something to us? First we are insulted by being told writing other stuff is hard, but romance is easy, and then we need _*mansplaining*_ to tell us we weren't being insulted, we just didn't understand.


Mansplaining? Seriously?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Donald Rump said:


> Mansplaining? Seriously?


Don't get your tighty whiteys in a twist. We already know yours stinks. Take this thread for what it is.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Donald Rump said:


> Mansplaining? Seriously?


It's ridiculous, but it's clear that anyone making this a gender thing has issues outside this thread.



Rosalind James said:


> [Not directed necessarily at Shayne, because I accept that he's talking about how he feels about his OWN work]--I feel strongly enough about the dismissive thing about romance...


This is a great post, Rosalind! What did you put in your book?

I totally understand the willingness of romance authors to defend their genre. Erotica authors have it worse even. And let's not discount SFF authors either, whose work can often not be taken seriously compared with "real" literature. I was just reading an article (can't find it) about how SFF movies don't win Best Picture Oscars.

So I think we can all agree that snubbing certain genres is ignorant (in fact, "genre author" has a stigma). I mean, we're all writers here (sans Cin). We all know how much work goes into our books. There's no reason to assign tiers to genres here.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Excuse me, hello.
I just do not have any books on Amazon.    But I am sitting here looking at a hardcover book that has a short story of mine in it.  (That would be a lesson on things not to do as far as rights and payments.)  
But yes, I know what you mean Domino.


----------



## Donald Rump (Dec 10, 2013)

> Don't get your tighty whiteys in a twist. We already know yours stinks. Take this thread for what it is.


Careful, you might wind up in one of my books.


----------



## B&amp;H (Apr 6, 2014)

Lets face it folks, to the self-appointed doyens of literati culture in the village, anyone who doesn't spend 11 years writing an inexplicably long triumph of style over substance a la The Goldfinch is a genre hack.

It doesn't matter if its crime, thrillers, romance, billionaire shapeshifter erotica; as far as the 'proper' book people are concerned it doesnt't matter if you're Lee Child, Stephen King, or Danielle Steele you are churning out pulp fiction for the great unwashed who don't 'get' literature like what they does.

So Shayne's mock offence at being forced to write boy meets girl, boy fiddles with girl's underwear genre and demeaning his art is quite ironic. 

We're all in the same boat of hack writing folks. Unless your name is Donna Tartt, floating above the ocean on a cloud of self-importance.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Domino Finn said:


> This is a great post, Rosalind! What did you put in your book?


Here you go. Nowadays, I don't have to fight, because I can write!

(This is from "Just in Time," my book that's going into Brenda Novak's new "Sweet Talk" boxed set, coming out May 1. Super-fun book to write, and, fingers crossed, the one that's going to get me those NYT initials at last. (You can't hit lists if you're only published by Amazon, alas.))
****

Will snorted. "Good stories. Right. Is that really what women want? Some fella to tie them up and whip them?"

"Nobody is whipping anybody," Faith said. "I told you."

"Of course not," Lelei said at the same time. "It's fantasy, not reality. Do you think women can't tell the difference?"

Will looked at her in surprise. "You read it? It doesn't bother you? How unrealistic it is?"

"How wonderful is realism, though?" Lelei asked. "Real life is hard. Maybe it isn't in New Zealand, but here where I live, real life is bad bosses and car trouble and wondering whether your baby can wear those shoes for another month, because your January gas bill is going to be way too high. What's wrong with wanting to escape for a little while?"

"Doesn't it set unrealistic expectations, though," he asked, "of what your average bloke actually is?"

Faith answered that one. "Well, let's see. What does a man think, if he reads some thriller about a guy who's six-five and two hundred fifty pounds, going around the country righting wrongs and beating up six guys with one hand tied behind his back? Sleeping with the best-looking woman in town, who happens to be single, and just happens to be looking for a quick, no-strings hookup with a mysterious drifter? Does he imagine he's that guy? No," she answered for him as Lelei nodded emphatically across from her. "He knows he works in an office, and he really should hit the gym more often, and if one guy punched him once, he'd probably be in the hospital. But he enjoys reading about it anyway, doesn't he? And somehow, because he's not a total idiot, he's able to discern that it isn't his reality."

"Although," Lelei put in judiciously, "maybe if more men actually read those books, they might get some ideas, make a little more effort, and their ladies wouldn't have to escape quite so much. Not speaking from personal experience," she added hurriedly. "I'm all good there."

"I'm not touching that," Will said. "But is that what women actually want? Somebody to...hurt them? Push them? I've been going about this all wrong, then."

"Of course not," Lelei said, sounding a little exasperated now. "But the fantasy? Sure, it's a filthy-rich dude who's absolutely crazy about you, who can't imagine anything better than spending all Saturday morning in bed making delicious love to you, no matter who's playing in the bowl game. He might even come on pretty strong, because he's so overwhelmed by how much he wants you. He can afford to make all your problems go away, and show you a really good time, too, and what's wrong with that?"


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

C. Gockel said:


> I think, for some people, painting/movies/writing that isn't depressing isn't "art". Life is both sweet and sour. Authentically capturing the sweet is no less deep or meaningful than capturing the sour. And capturing the sweet can give people in difficult times something to hang on to.
> 
> I also feel like certain members of artistic community think that their audience is less intelligent than them, less accustomed to suffering, and less "deep", and that they therefore have to be force fed "depth" with depressing art. The truth is, most people have experienced sorrow, there are "deep" people in all professions. They don't need to be preached to about suffering, they've lived it--or in some cases, are living it, and need a release from it.
> 
> My worst fear is that writing is self indulgent narcissism, not that it isn't "art" or that I've "sold out." Whenever someone writes me to tell me that I've helped them deal with their reconstructive surgeries after being injured in service, or the loneliness of being a new mother at home alone in the winter, or during their end stage disease, well, I bawl. I feel exonerated. Like I'm helping my fellow humans in the best way I can (because, Lord knows, I'm not cut out to be a doctor, teacher, or well anything that requires interpersonal skills).


<3


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

cinisajoy said:


> Excuse me, hello.
> I just do not have any books on Amazon. But I am sitting here looking at a hardcover book that has a short story of mine in it. (That would be a lesson on things not to do as far as rights and payments.)
> But yes, I know what you mean Domino.


Ha, ha. Sorry, Cin. It was just a joke and I was trying to include you. But I never knew you had a short story published. Have you ever shared the details?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

A couple of times domino.  Message if you want the details.


----------



## DGS (Sep 25, 2013)

I view selling out the point where you give up control of what you're trying to say and let others/money bend it to where it no longer looks like what you wanted to say. I always have certain "themes" that I try to convey through, and as long as I am in the channel I see it as legit. I don't think I could ever sterilize my stuff to fit the formula exactly, too much pride and ego. So no, although I really have no business writing romance, as long as readers say it helps them through their days and I get to keep it personal, I don't think I'm selling out. I am just entertaining. 

Now going to a dance you don't want to do just for the money  - well, some folks don't have problems with that either.


----------



## Dom (Mar 15, 2014)

Nice social commentary, Rosalind. I enjoyed it.


----------



## katrina46 (May 23, 2014)

DGS said:


> I view selling out the point where you give up control of what you're trying to say and let others/money bend it to where it no longer looks like what you wanted to say. I always have certain "themes" that I try to convey through, and as long as I am in the channel I see it as legit. I don't think I could ever sterilize my stuff to fit the formula exactly, too much pride and ego. So no, although I really have no business writing romance, as long as readers say it helps them through their days and I get to keep it personal, I don't think I'm selling out. I am just entertaining.
> 
> Now going to a dance you don't want to do just for the money - well, some folks don't have problems with that either.


I think lots of people go to their jobs everyday not wanting to. As long as my job can be writing I don't care. Writing is writing, I can learn to love any genre. It's not a bad thing as long as I'm still giving it my best.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2015)

katrina46 said:


> I think lots of people go to their jobs everyday not wanting to. As long as my job can be writing I don't care. Writing is writing, I can learn to love any genre. It's not a bad thing as long as I'm still giving it my best.


Yeah this is way better than being a corporate slave. It seems like everyday on the news they're always talking about cutting back worker's rights, the minimum wage etc. People get laid off for no good reason, and years of service in a position putting 110 percent into the job can just be taken for granted. There's no feeling of powerlessness that compares to the feeling of being used and exploited by your government and the supervisors you work for.


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

DanaE said:


> This attitude about sex may be one reason Woolf put rocks in her pocket and waded into the river, drowning herself.


"...I begin to hear voices, and I can't concentrate..." (Last letter to her husband)

Being a Behavioral Science major I think this is much more indicative of her state of mind coupled with prior life experiences set upon the destruction of her home and the start of WWII.


----------

