# Content removed, please delete all quotes of my words



## Medea is not a victim type (Jan 22, 2015)

Content removed. Please delete all quotes of my words.


----------



## hunterone (Feb 6, 2013)

LilyBLily said:


> I've come here to whine. I just bought a 99 cent book as research despite slogging through misspellings, incredibly wrong comma use, and massive info dumps--all in the Look Inside.
> 
> Come to find out, this author is a #1 bestseller and has lots of books out, and her indie career is doing quite well. Of course I can't post a review of a fellow author, let alone one slamming her unprofessional level of editing, and it would be stupid to write her with a gentle suggestion that she find an editor--when her books appear to be selling a lot better than mine are at the moment.
> 
> ...


This is my 2 cents.

1. Yes, crap sells. Even what people call classic has people who hate it. It's all perception.

Look at the Beatles. People loved them. I don't like their music and find most of their stuff crap. Is it crap? No, but to me it is.

2. You can sit there and edit until the cows come home. A few spelling errors and such will slip through, even if you a traditional publishing house with a gazillion people reading it before it goes out. So do your best, publish and move on.

3. Some of what i consider my worst stories sell better than the ones i slaved over, plotted out and analyzed to death. Go figure!


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

What I've figured out after watching all this for a while is that many readers aren't as hung up on those types of issues as writers are.  I too have bought books that were doing really well as research and wondered how on earth the book had done so well but as a writer I now have a different standard than a casual reader does. 

Obviously that writer is doing something right whether it's writing compelling stories or mastering advertising.  And truth is that a really interesting story trumps perfect writing any day of the week.  (And what qualifies as really interesting is different for each reader.)


----------



## harker.roland (Sep 13, 2014)

Talk with your wallet. Return it.

I've picked up a couple of bestsellers myself over the years and had to return them for some of the reasons you cited. I will say however that sometimes mistakes just slip through the cracks. I finished Words of Radiance (Brandon Sanderson and absolutely terrific) and noticed a handful of wrong words. It happens, especially on a 1000+ page epic, but when it is egregious, I return it.


----------



## Erratic (May 17, 2014)

Yes, I've found these books too. One such book was _so_ bad...oh god, I don't even know if I can accurately recall how bad it was. It was definitely high school level, the characters would stutter on every sentence whenever they were "nervous" or slightly excited. And punctuation? Sheesh, what's that? This book had 35-ish reviews and a 4.5 star average. I wish I could say the reviews were fake, but I checked. They're legit. Furthermore, a couple of those same reviewers have reviewed _my_ books.

All I can say is that if people are forgiving the awfulness, there's a reason. In this case, the person wrote a wonderful adventure romance, and there's not too many of those on the store. I couldn't finish the book, but there was _something_ there. I think we writers tend to be perfectionists and we forget that our books are supposed to just be for fun.

And let's face it, all that good writing advice comes from other writers. I've never been told how to write from a reader. I don't think they care as much as we think they do.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

I don't think OP should return the book.  She bought it for research, and she got her money's worth out of it.  Let that one go.


----------



## CLStone (Apr 4, 2013)

Is the book you picked up his or her bestselling book? I wrote a couple of books before my current series, and one I released only because the story was funny (to me?) but I'd written and rewritten it a billion times and I was just so tired of it. It was really my learning book, and I just felt it was a waste to stash it away with my other learning books.  

It doesn't sell well at all, but it is out there. Barely anyone has read it, I just can't get myself to go and edit it. 

The series that has done really well, I started with *me* and no one else because I couldn't afford an editor. The good part about just starting and putting your books however you can out at whatever level you could afford, I managed to do really, really well and have hit USA Today, etc.

The *bad* part is, I can only ever go back and fix grammar or certain actual errors. I can't change the story at all. Too many people love it the way it is and if I tinker with it, I'd split people from those who like the new vs. old editions. So I'm limited. 

Just throwing it out there from being on that side of the tracks. Sometimes you just do your best and you get so lucky with understanding readers, especially as an indie.


----------



## JTriptych (Aug 23, 2015)

As a terrible writer, this thread gives me hope.


----------



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

#1 bestselling author in what category? Being #1 in a small category means very little.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Ayup. I figured that out a couple years ago. I read a lot of books and a lot of indie books and there are plenty of books out there with great/good covers and blurbs and not-great prose inside. But they sell. I just focus on making my books as good as I can make them and don't worry about what other authors are doing. If they release crap and still find success, hey, more power to them.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

Comparing a few mistakes in a trade published book to a badly written indie published book is not an appropriate comparison.


----------



## ThrillerWriter (Aug 19, 2012)

My question is, why do they sell? What in them is attracting fans?


----------



## The Bass Bagwhan (Mar 9, 2014)

Kristen Painter said:


> #1 bestselling author in what category? Being #1 in a small category means very little.


Yep, gotta ask... At least give us the genre.


----------



## blubarry (Feb 27, 2015)

Most readers care about story. If you do that well, they'll overlook all but the most egregious spelling and punctuation issues. I've read many indie books where I could nitpick about the prose, about the spelling, or the grammar, but the story hooked me and I kept reading. In the end, I think that's what really matters.


----------



## tommy gun (May 3, 2015)

I don't know how strong or poor a writer I am.  That comes from the family side.

On the reader side I'm selling some of my new series and there is follow through.  I was screaming at myself because of a misspelled word in the back of the book.  

Long term I'll shrug and accept it.  I can see how authors want to be perfect.  Won't matter.  Write a good story with twists and turns (maybe) and people will forgive a spelling mistake or two.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Based on the OP I'm thinking the book in question is non-fiction? Else why have to read it for some specific piece of information.

My concern would be that, given lack of professional presentation, how sure am I that that piece of information is accurate?  I think I'd seek a second opinion!

And I'd have no problem returning the book for a refund citing the, apparently, numerous errors. It's dead easy to do if it's been less than a week and if it's been more than a week, if you contact Amazon and point out the errors and ask, they'll probably refund.

At the least, I'd use the reporting feature at the bottom of every book page and report that the book has numerous errors.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

I've seen the opposite, too. Well written books with atrocious plot and characters. Some of those are traditionally published...


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Here's the big, dark secret: readers don't care about the things that English teachers care about.

Yes, if the spelling and grammar are bad enough to make the book unreadable, they won't read it. But, beyond that point, all that really matters to most readers is the story. I hate Dan Brown's writing and his laughable 'research', but if I start one of his books I have to read to the end because he's so good at hooking me in... I'd much rather have that skill than be able to write prose that my English teacher would have rated A+.


----------



## Lou Harpr (Nov 5, 2014)

Personally, I find Stephen King's horror books unbearably bloated.  (His shorter, non-horror works are good though.) 

I would never return a book I already read. It's like going to a restaurant, eating the food, then refusing to pay because it wasn't good.


----------



## writemore (Feb 3, 2016)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Here's the big, dark secret: readers don't care about the things that English teachers care about.
> 
> Yes, if the spelling and grammar are bad enough to make the book unreadable, they won't read it. But, beyond that point, all that really matters to most readers is the story. I hate Dan Brown's writing and his laughable 'research', but if I start one of his books I have to read to the end because he's so good at hooking me in... I'd much rather have that skill than be able to write prose that my English teacher would have rated A+.


This.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

LilyBLily said:


> I've come here to whine. I just bought a 99 cent book as research despite slogging through misspellings, incredibly wrong comma use, and massive info dumps--all in the Look Inside.
> 
> Come to find out, this author is a #1 bestseller and has lots of books out, and her indie career is doing quite well. Of course I can't post a review of a fellow author, let alone one slamming her unprofessional level of editing, and it would be stupid to write her with a gentle suggestion that she find an editor--when her books appear to be selling a lot better than mine are at the moment.
> 
> ...


It sounds like despite some shortcomings in the technical department to writing, the author has a story readers want to read and must tell it in a way they find enjoyable. I've read books that had quite a few typos but in spite of that, I enjoyed the story, so I can totally see that happening.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

David Beers said:


> ...What in them is attracting fans?


My opinion Readers be like:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Cover
[*]Blurb
[*]Characters
[*]Story
[*]...
[*]...
[*]grammar, punctuation, prose
[/list]

Writers be like: 
[list type=decimal]
[*]Grammar, punctuation, prose
[*]Price
[*]Reviews
[*]...
[*]...
[*]... 
[*]Cover
[*]Blurb
[*]Plot
[*]Characters
[*]Story
[/list]

ANd that's why a lot of books don't sell. YMMV etc


----------



## cleopatraa (Apr 10, 2016)

As a reader rather tan a writer, I would like to say the following: the plot is more important than the writing. I have read wonderfully written stories that had extremely bad plot, those I put down. I have read bad written stories that had fantastic plot, those I continued. Despite the writing style and the mistakes, the plot, the characters, the worldbuildimg and the like hooked me in and that ensured that I kept reading.


----------



## sela (Nov 2, 2014)

This should be a lesson to all indie authors: the most important factor in success is the ability to tell a compelling story. 

Readers are willing to forgive the odd typo and grammatical mistake if they are unable to put a book down and are compelled to keep turning pages. 

Take Home: A poorly told story in terms of plot and pace and character will not turn into a bestseller on the basis of editing alone. A page turning plot with a great premise and memorable characters that is poorly edited may get slagged in reviews by other writers or by editors, but if the plot and story and characters are great, and the way the story is told is compelling, readers don't care nearly as much as writers do.

Story rules. Storytelling chops rule. Everything else is gravy.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Yes, bad books sell.

1.) A large percentage of the population doesn't understand things like proper grammar. If they don't know they're reading a bad book, well, it won't affect sales.

2.) Quality has nothing to do with sales. Contrary to what self-publishing cheerleaders tell you, if you actually have skill as a writer, you'll have a better chance of success looking for a trade-publishing deal than actually selling anything as a self-published writer.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

David Beers said:


> My question is, why do they sell? What in them is attracting fans?


The same things that sells all books - visibility.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

JTriptych said:


> As a terrible writer, this thread gives me hope.


LMAO! best response ever!

As for the crap sells thing, yeah quite true. Fair? Yes. People like what people like, even when it's crap. How else do explain shows like the real house wives of butterbean county or Jersey Shore and the like? Whatever this person has written has resonated with people. You (and likely many of us as well) don't have to like it, but reality is reality ... which is kind of disturbing when you spend so much of your time crafting fictional worlds! It can be quite vexing though when you read something that makes you want to puke and see that it's a bestseller. Of course I've no doubt there are those that read my stuff and want to puke as well. (sometimes that person is me  )

PS: no offense was intended to those of you who like any of those real housewives shows or jersey shore, I just never understood the appeal personally


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2016)

Briteka said:


> Yes, bad books sell.
> 
> 1.) A large percentage of the population doesn't understand things like proper grammar. If they don't know they're reading a bad book, well, it won't affect sales.
> 
> 2.) Quality has nothing to do with sales. Contrary to what self-publishing cheerleaders tell you, if you actually have skill as a writer, you'll have a better chance of success looking for a trade-publishing deal than actually selling anything as a self-published writer.


Love this.


----------



## MN_Arzu (Jul 15, 2016)

A while ago, I joined a writers group that had a scale from well-established authors to total newbies. Fast forward two years and I met one of the newbies at the time, who had written a novel on Wattpad that had become so popular she got a contract. 

I was genuinely happy for her, but all I could think about was, "what's wrong with readers?" And then it dawned on me that, despite what I remember of her atrocious grammar and spelling, she was telling stories her audience wanted to hear. So, even if I wouldn't be able to read through one of her novels, a lot of people would. 

Keep in mind a lot of people are also avid fanfic readers, and you learn to forgive a lot if the story is good. It's not a stretch to get used to bad writing but good story in one form and just take that lesson when you buy books. Alas, I would be embarrassed to open a book of mine and see glaring mistakes!


----------



## Peter Spenser (Jan 26, 2012)

Lou Harpr said:


> Personally, I find Stephen King's horror books unbearably bloated.  (His shorter, non-horror works are good though.)


I glad that somebody other than me thinks this! Especially his "recent" ones, the last 20 years or so. He is SO in need of an editor and is SO allowed by his publisher(s) to just throw out anything and have it published.

I have really, really liked only a very of his fiction books: _Eyes of the Dragon_ from 1987, and the books that he published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman. His non-fiction is some of the best out there, especially his observations on pop culture. His _Danse Macabre_ from 1981 is one of the best books I have even read. His advice on writing, however, needs to be taken with a _huge_ grain of salt.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> My opinion Readers be like:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Cover
> [*]Blurb
> ...


YES. Omg, so much this!

I've come across books like the OP speaks of. Truthfully? It is depressing. But at the same time, my books were doing awful because I didn't have the right covers down, interesting blurbs, the story line was off somehow, etc. Only myself to blame. If anything, poorly written books give me hope that if I at least give mine a head start by packaging them correctly (which seems to be what readers look at first), then the fact that I give a damn about prose and editing should speak for itself.

So, OP, just continue doing the best you can. Give your readers a polished script because that will stand on its own. I know you've been around these parts for a while so maybe there's something to learn from this. Of course there is. Story trumps structure. Always.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

I recently read a cozy mystery (trad-pubbed, I read the paperback) that in parts read like a first draft submitted by a newbie author to a critique group. Or a fiction-writing class; rather unpolished. It wasn't terrible, but but it was unimpressive... _to me. _ But apparently cozy mystery readers enjoy the book, as it apparently sells well and is part of an ongoing series. I was also surprised to learn that the author has been published for almost 15 years, with about 18 books under her belt. And contrary to my original impression, the book I read was _not_ one of the early books, but one of her most recent offerings. 

So yeah, sub-par writing _can_ sell well, or even very well. Which can be frustrating to some of us who do spend a lot of time on grammar, punctuation, the best, most exact phrase, etc. But..... oh well, that's what we deal with.


----------



## Spin52 (Sep 6, 2015)

Jena H said:


> I recently read a cozy mystery (trad-pubbed, I read the paperback) that in parts read like a first draft submitted by a newbie author to a critique group. Or a fiction-writing class; rather unpolished. It wasn't terrible, but but it was unimpressive... _to me. _ But apparently cozy mystery readers enjoy the book, as it apparently sells well and is part of an ongoing series. I was also surprised to learn that the author has been published for almost 15 years, with about 18 books under her belt. And contrary to my original impression, the book I read was _not_ one of the early books, but one of her most recent offerings.
> 
> So yeah, sub-par writing _can_ sell well, or even very well. Which can be frustrating to some of us who do spend a lot of time on grammar, punctuation, the best, most exact phrase, etc. But..... oh well, that's what we deal with.


Wonder if it's the same one I read. I have dipped into a couple of cozy mystery series recently that left me wondering how they ever got published. As noted, a good plot or interesting characters can excuse a lot of shortcomings, but these didn't even have those redeeming factors.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> My opinion Readers be like:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Cover
> [*]Blurb
> ...


so true

as for whoever said King is bloated (sorry I'm not sure who said it) I agree to an extent. Often times I feel as if his books could be told in 2-400 less pages, but I still love his work. Now Tom Clancy, there is another that drives me nuts with bloat. He has fantastic stories but I always get lost in the technical stuff. I don't need 45 pages on how the submarines engine works, I'm not looking for a tech manual! Just tell me it's a silent drive and be done with it!


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I don't see any reason to chide the OP or remind her of things she already knows. She said she was whining.

It's frustrating seeing books with terrible prose do well. I'm not talking a lack of copyediting. I can take a few grammar errors or typos here and there. I can't type for sh*t and my books are riddled with typos until the proofer gets through them. I'm not even talking average or, as my one writer friends calls it "basic" prose (she was making fun of herself). I'm talking about prose that makes me scratch my head, prose that makes me work hard. I recently saw a book selling very well, with great reviews, that had a terribly written look inside. The sentence structure was repetitive. That, I can handle. But every other sentence was written with things out of order (for ex: As I climb the stairs, I throw the bedroom door open-- how can you open the bedroom door as you climb the stairs? That doesn't make any sense). I passed on the book because I knew it would be too much mental work. I could see why people wanted it-- I almost bought/borrowed it, even with the subpar prose--but I still felt frustrated. Because I wanted to read the book. The bad prose was in the way.

That same writer friend told me to "turn off my inner editor and enjoy the trash." Sadly, my inner editor doesn't turn off. It's part of why I don't read as much as I used to. I watch TV more than I read, because I can tolerate mediocre TV more easily (and pretty much everything that is made by a major network, cable or otherwise, has good production values).


----------



## Wired (Jan 10, 2014)

blubarry said:


> Most readers care about story. If you do that well, they'll overlook all but the most egregious spelling and punctuation issues.


THIS.


----------



## Bbates024 (Nov 3, 2014)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> My opinion Readers be like:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Cover
> [*]Blurb
> ...


LOVE IT!


----------



## J.J. Fitch (Jun 17, 2015)

I feel ya, OP.

I was also reading a book for research - a book by a highly successful million dollar Indie author.  It was awful.  The story was skimmed over, the characters cliche and flat, and there were many errors.  Yet, this author is able to draw tons of readers through this first book in a long series.  I came away learning something very important:

Readers want to be INDULGED.

While the book itself might not have been very good, it hit certain tropes (mostly romance tropes) that the readers craved.  It set me out on my next series with that idea in mind.  If I can indulge my reader, I might hit a small portion of the same success.  

But I understand you.  It's hard to see something like that when we spend a lot of time and money to make our books perfect.


----------



## JaclynDolamore (Nov 5, 2015)

The thing that always perplexes me is when I read a book that sells really well and is just...boring. I read one recently that had an entire chapter of a character going to a store and buying something mundane. It really didn't do a thing to forward the plot. The whole book was like that. It was such a snooze. The characters were totally generic and the writing was fine, but like, not more than fine. That's when I am just baffled.

But a lot of books that sell are really scratching an itch, especially in indie. Some people just want to read about space battles and all they care about is whether said space battles are exciting-ish even if the rest of the plot blows. Some people just want an alpha were-bear firefighter and all that matters is whether said alpha were-bear firefighter is sexy.

This sounds so cheap, but I've been thinking about reality shows. Most of 'em suck, but people watch them because of one of a few reasons: something that is really on-trend anyway, freaks and weirdos, sexy stuff, an setup with automatic tension like Survivor or the Bachelor, or they just really, really like the people in the show (like a minor celebrity who is more interesting as a person than as what they actually do). Books that sell usually have at least one of these things too.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

Well, I used to have a review on Good Reads saying that Wolves, the first in my I Bring the Fire series was the "Worst Book They'd Ever Read." Sigh. (They took it down. I was kind of proud of that review, at least I was #1 at SOMETHING.) I make a living primarily on a series written in 3rd person present tense, so I'm probably not one to talk about good writing. However ... I'm going to put something out there.

All of what you're hearing is good BUT  ...

Was that writer in KU? Because there are words on the winds about some KU borrowing circles where everyone borrows each others books and flip through (or not.) Ditto for circles of 99-cent buyers. It's completely against Amazon's TOS, but ummm ... yeah, it happens. And even if the author is completely honest, they may get a lot of "ghost borrows" based on a cool cover and maybe another more popular book written later.

I've been really fortunate to connect with some writers who don't do this crap and have been surviving off their writing incomes for a lot longer than me. They tell me that these authors tend to flame out, and in fact, I've seen a few authors do it in the past year. 

I know we're supposed to read a lot, but read stuff you enjoy. Don't believe the rankings. They lie.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Interesting comments from Stephen King:

_"The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."

People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it's very clear that she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because they're not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."_

(source)


----------



## PeterKnyte (Jul 21, 2016)

The BIG question is whether you'll ever read another book by this author.

If the answer is NO, then they may have gained 70 cents by doing a poor job this time, but they've lost a future reader and customer, and that could've been worth hundreds of dollars to them.

I've come across 'best selling' authors before now whose typos alone were so numerous I didn't finish the book and will never buy anything by that author again.

All the best
Peter


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

It's all about getting the algo (algorithmic) love on Amazon. In popular genres it seems to be algo love + some base level of mediocrity, but in smaller genres, there is no bottom and it doesn't take many sales, over a short time, to get on the first page in the genre.


----------



## Maggie Brooke (Jan 30, 2016)

Briteka said:


> The same things that sells all books - visibility.


Totally true. If you can get that book to show up in the first five pages of your genre or sub-genre on my KU account, you've won, regardless of whether or not the book is the best written. If I can't find it, I can't read it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 18, 2015)

> "The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can't write worth a darn. She's not very good."
> 
> People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it's very clear that she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because they're not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that's a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."


I've said this about a million times:

There are two types of drivers in the world - idiots who drive slower than you and maniacs who drive faster.

In writing, we're all someone's idiot and someone else's maniac.

Regarding the quote above, I'm not even close to being a teenager or a girl; I love _Twilight_ (yes, I did write that!). _Harry Potter_? I can take it or leave it.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Erratic said:


> I think we writers tend to be perfectionists and we forget that our books are supposed to just be for fun.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Lorance (Sep 26, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> Sadly, my inner editor doesn't turn off.


Me too! I hate my inner editor. He has ruined many books for me.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

BWFoster78 said:


> _Harry Potter_? I can take it or leave it.





Edward M. Grant said:


> Yeah, I read the first two books last year, mostly because I wanted to see how well the animated images worked in the ebook. They really didn't leave me with any desire to read the third.
> 
> Though maybe if I was still eight...


I thought I was the only one. And I usually don't vocalize the opinion because... well, you know. I thought the first book was okay, a good yarn for kids or tweens to enjoy. When the series took off so hugely, I assumed then what some have said here: must be the _story_ that appeals to the readers, rather than the writing. **I'm going to retreat back into my hermit cave now. I've already said too much on the subject.**


----------



## Maggie Brooke (Jan 30, 2016)

Yeah, I mean as a reader I didn't know a thing about filtering and show/tell distinctions. Now that I do (after online crit groups supposedly set me straight) I notice it all the time in self-pubbed and traditionally published works. I'm not really under the impression that removing these things from my prose will make it sell any better, but I still do it when it warrants it.

I'm agnostic about all the rules, though I would prefer to be a writer who consciously breaks them rather than a writer who doesn't even know they exist. 

In some respects, I'm a weird reader, though. If I'm honest, I would rather read a well-written boring story than a badly written white-knuckled story with lots of twists and turns. Why? Because I like pretty prose. But I am admittedly a fan of literary fiction in which very little happens sometimes.   If the internal monologue pops and the writing is beautiful, I rarely consider something boring, even if not much happens.  

I would much rather read a book with no plot that somehow illustrates universal themes than a plot-based book with no resonance. I'm not implying these things are mutually exclusive, just where my priorities and preferences are. 

Good writing is a must, though. If the first 25 pages are hyperbolic or cliche-ridden, I'm out.


----------



## Maggie Brooke (Jan 30, 2016)

Cherise said:


> Quoted for truth.


I see your point that books are for fun but don't necessarily agree that this is universal.

I read because I want to feel and experience and learn. Yes, this is entertaining for me, but reading is different for different people. It has served a different purpose in various stages of my life. For a while in grad school, I read fiction so that I could turn my analytical/thinking side off. For that reason, quality wasn't as important. I wanted fluff.

Now, I don't. I want a book that challenges me. For that reason, it has to be well written and well constructed. If it isn't, I stop reading, even as I recognize that other readers don't feel the the same way, in large part because they are possibly reading for different reasons.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

Jena H said:


> When the series took off so hugely, I assumed then what some have said here: must be the _story_ that appeals to the readers, rather than the writing.


I think it was. Most of the readers were still at school, and Hogwarts was a much more exciting school than the places most attended.

It just doesn't work so well when you've been out of school for twenty years.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

On the list of things that can move you forward, "sneering at other writers' work" ranks pretty low IMHO. 

Not putting roadblocks into the way of readers (with poor editing, etc.) is always a good idea. A book that sells well with poor copyediting/proofreading would sell better with good editing, and would also spur more readers on to read the next books.

If you don't think J.K. Rowling, Stephen King, Dan Brown, whoever, write well, then perhaps a helpful thing would be to ask yourself WHY, given their poor (O_O) writing, they sell? There's a reason, and it's not just "marketing." Marketing will get readers to look at a book initially, and even to buy the book. Marketing won't make a reader FINISH a book, and it certainly won't spur him/her to buy the author's next book. That's hookiness, enjoyment, and word of mouth. 

If that were not true, I would have made it past Chapter 1 of many literary fiction novels, including Pulitzer Prize winners. They were well written, I just didn't enjoy them or find that they grabbed me. And my life can be depressing at times, so my tolerance for depressing books tends to be low. 

That doesn't mean those books sold only because of "marketing," and it doesn't mean that a light chick lit or romance or thriller or suspense novel--or a novel about a boy wizard--is inferior. Different books meet different needs for different people.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Anarchist said:


> Interesting comments from Stephen King:
> 
> ...in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it's very clear that she's writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It's exciting and it's thrilling and it's not particularly threatening because they're not overtly sexual... a shorthand for all the feelings that they're not ready to deal with yet."[/i]
> 
> (source)


Many Twilight fans are women over 30. I posit that if you don't like a piece of popular fiction, then you simply are not the intended audience for it. Mr. King, I have enjoyed some of your fiction, but that does not make you an authority on all fiction, and glibly explaining away why those who do like books you pass on will not endear you to them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1290980/Twilight-mums-Why-middle-aged-women-falling-big-screen-vampire.html


> My friend Sarah looked me in the eye with an intensity I have rarely seen in the many years I have known her.
> Then she confessed: 'I have a secret. I am in love with a 17-year-old vampire called Edward Cullen. I think about him . . . dream about him. I have his photo on my desk, and his picture is my computer screensaver.'
> Worryingly, not only did I immediately know who she was talking about, but I heard myself declaring (several octaves higher than my normal speaking voice): 'I know! How amazing was it when he growled at the werewolf and protected Bella from the red-eyed vampire?'


http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/11/16/older.twilight.fans/index.html?iref=nextin 


> Lisa Hansen, for example, thought she had lost her mind the first time she read "Twilight." Partly because she's 36.
> "I was absolutely worried that something was wrong with me," the Utah mother of two said. "I just couldn't put it down -- I was obsessed completely."
> She picked up the first of Stephenie Meyer's vampire novels -- recommended by a teen neighbor -- with few expectations. After devouring it, she couldn't get the images of doomed love between a vegetarian vampire, Edward, and an awkward teenage girl, Bella, off her mind. Hansen thought about the books so much she seriously wondered if she was experiencing some sort of midlife crisis.
> "I thought I was the only woman in the world who was my age and was just obsessed..." she said.
> In reality, far from it.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

A brilliant story and strong emotional journey will trump spelling and grammatical errors (assuming of course the book isn't so bad as to be unreadable).

Many authors like to moan and whine about FSOG being "badly written" but they completely overlook that that series had a compelling emotional journey that sucked readers in and kept them turning the page. Readers couldn't get enough of the emotional payoff in that book and overlooked what many authors saw as "bad writing".

I'm one of those women over 30 who devoured the Twilight series. I read all 4 books in under a week and even now, several years later, I'll still trying to figure out what hooked me and simply didn't let me go.

Personally, I'd rather craft a story that readers cannot put down, and that they talk about to all their friends, than be lauded for my superior use of a semi-colon.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Rosalind J said:


> On the list of things that can move you forward, "sneering at other writers' work" ranks pretty low IMHO.
> 
> Not putting roadblocks into the way of readers (with poor editing, etc.) is always a good idea. A book that sells well with poor copyediting/proofreading would sell better with good editing, and would also spur more readers on to read the next books.
> 
> ...


I didn't read any 'sneering.' Puzzlement, to be sure, even some incredulity. But as has been said by many, sometimes a good story is told with uninspired prose. Or a dull story takes life with the help of great prose. *shrug* There can be a lot of variables. (Also, did I miss a discussion of marketing, as I don't recall anyone crediting these best-sellers to clever marketing.)


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Call it something less loaded. "Dismissing the writing ability" of bestselling authors by insisting that something other than the writing makes the books sell.

Hookiness is part of writing. Character development is part of writing. Eliciting emotion is part of writing. Plots and settings and clever ideas are part of writing. And there isn't only one style of writing that is "good." 

And yes, people have said that "visibility" is the only reason books sell, or that quality of writing has nothing to do with indie success.

I will say that I know many bestselling indie authors. They have wildly varying styles and write in many genres, but they're all putting out polished work. Whether it's to an individual's taste is another matter. But there is a reason they sell well on an ongoing basis. They are satisfying their readership. 

A good use of a writer's time, if a writer wants to be more successful, is probably to ask HOW that perennially bestselling author is satisfying their readership. If you don't admire the writing style or the editing is lacking--what is it that's working for the reader and keeping them reading book after book? Because there is something.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

I think reading level plays a big part in book popularity. If you've spent any time at all perusing the comments section on Youtube, you'll realise that a lot of people just don't have a good grasp of basic spelling and grammar. And if you consider the popularity of reality television, you'll see that many people just want to switch their brains off when they're being entertained.

It is what it is, I guess. I will say this, though: badly written books don't generally tend to rank high in the charts on non-Amazon platforms.


----------



## Lou Harpr (Nov 5, 2014)

Edward M. Grant said:


> Try screenwriting sometime. I can typically predict the twists in Hollywood movies half an hour before they happen.


They get predictable, don't they? Sometimes I can predict the big twist two minutes in.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I think it was. Most of the readers were still at school, and Hogwarts was a much more exciting school than the places most attended.
> 
> It just doesn't work so well when you've been out of school for twenty years.


I guess it depends on who you are. I'm 57. Wasn't much younger when I read the books for the first time  . . . . NORMALLY, I wouldn't go near YA -- figure I'm way past that -- and there were some 'teen angst' things, especially in Order of the Phoenix that made me want to puke , but in general, I thought the stories were very well plotted and after the first few I was on the list for early delivery of each new book.

So, I guess, generalizations about what one should like based on age or whatever aren't always accurate.  



Rosalind J said:


> Not putting roadblocks into the way of readers (with poor editing, etc.) is always a good idea. A book that sells well with poor copyediting/proofreading would sell better with good editing, and would also spur more readers on to read the next books.


This makes complete sense to me!


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

You can have a well written book _and_ an engaging and compelling story. I don't see the reason to complain, if you've done everything right marketing wise(engaging, trope filled cover, amazing blurb, etc.), then maybe you just didn't write an engaging book, your commas, semi colons, and periods could have been in the right place. You could have used just the right word in just the write way in the perfectly structured sentence, but if it's boring then who cares.

Of course, your book could be all those things and it could actually do with Amazon's algorithms placing the book in the right place and all I said could be moot.

My first novel I released was filled with errors(A combination of uploading a bad version and not getting a proofreader after a line edit and not knowing shit really) and people who read it still loved the story. Even the ones that hated the errors said they loved the story. It didn't sell much because as I had just joined kboards during its release and it's what I believe a unique story that is across a few genres.

This fall i'm rereleasing the series, but this time i'm going to have an mostly error free, well written book and a engaging story. (And written in past tense to get rid of the rest of the detractors.)


----------



## Rachel E. Rice (Jan 4, 2014)

AliceW said:


> A brilliant story and strong emotional journey will trump spelling and grammatical errors (assuming of course the book isn't so bad as to be unreadable).
> 
> Many authors like to moan and whine about FSOG being "badly written" but they completely overlook that that series had a compelling emotional journey that sucked readers in and kept them turning the page. Readers couldn't get enough of the emotional payoff in that book and overlooked what many authors saw as "bad writing".
> 
> ...


I read and write in most genres because I enjoy all types of books. I for one loved FSOG, and when I gave my 5 star review, I was attacked verbally by a few readers. I will say what I said then, "One man or woman's trash is another man or woman's treasure."


----------



## locker17 (Apr 20, 2012)

Edward M. Grant said:


> I think it was. Most of the readers were still at school, and Hogwarts was a much more exciting school than the places most attended.
> 
> It just doesn't work so well when you've been out of school for twenty years.


Harry Potter came out after a was an adult and I loved it. Twilight left me feeling meh not for me. If you ever check out the site the Oarmeal they had a cartoon about twilight that echoed my feelings.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

JalexM said:


> You can have a well written book _and_ an engaging and compelling story.


Yup. It's not an either/or proposition.

Start with a fantastic story and you're looking at a 4 or 5 star rating from me. But if the 'technical' aspects are poor, that's going to drop to a 3 or even a 2. Assuming I can get through it at all. I've been known to skim to find out what happens without really reading. If they're too bad it's a 1 -- and I don't even finish it.

Start with a technically perfect novel and, if I'm bored silly pretty quickly, I may acknowledge those aspects, but I'm almost NEVER going to give it higher than a 3 and will likely drop it sooner or later -- so it's back to a 1.

So if the story's no good, no amount of technical correctness will fix it. But if the story IS good, having it well produced technically helps a LOT!

One other thing: there are a LOT of books out there . . . . if I can't get past the first 10 percent or so because of EITHER the story or the 'production value', I'm likely to give up and move on. So the best practice is to maximize both. 

In case it's not clear: this is my opinion only.  And I do know there are a lot of folks for whom the technical aspects are pretty invisible as long as they can get the gist of what the writer's saying. It doesn't bother them in the least if the spelling and punctuation are all wrong! Sometimes I envy them. 



Edward M. Grant said:


> That was part of the problem for me, though. Because they were very well plotted, I found them quite predictable (see my screenwriting comment up above).


Guess we'll agree to disagree. While I was pretty certain from the first page that the good guys were going to win in the end, even as every problem they 'solved' just seemed to cause 3 more, it seemed to me there were a LOT of twists and turns along the way I didn't see coming -- deaths of favorite characters, etc. I didn't find them predictable at all in the 'micro' sense. I've re-read the whole series several times over and each time I find new clues in earlier books to things that happen later. So, for me, they're just really really well put together.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

JalexM said:


> You can have a well written book _and_ an engaging and compelling story.


Absolutely. But on the flip side of the coin being technically correct with your grammar isn't going to compensate for lack of story ability.

I've seen authors with brilliant technical ability, but zero idea about plot, pacing, characterisation or how to write emotion.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Regarding the quote above, I'm not even close to being a teenager or a girl; I love _Twilight_ (yes, I did write that!).


You wrote _Twilight_? That's pretty cool. But is the criticism why you've switched a pen name for the books in your sig?


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

JalexM said:


> You can have a well written book _and_ an engaging and compelling story.


You can also fail at both which is why I'm switching my focus to botany.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Rosalind J said:


> Not putting roadblocks into the way of readers (with poor editing, etc.) is always a good idea. A book that sells well with poor copyediting/proofreading would sell better with good editing, and would also spur more readers on to read the next books.


Why do you think this? Amazon's system does not push quality. A new reader is not buying your book based on what is in it. They're buying it based on potential. Look, me, you, and almost everyone with a large fanbase could push any piece of crap to a 4.5-5.0 rating through legitimate means. We can also push huge initial sales of anything, giving books great initial visibility. That high visibility and high rating will turn into sales, no matter what is in the book.

I sometimes feel like people go along with these platitudes. "Good books will always rise" and all that stuff. I just don't believe that's true. Almost no book published actually makes it, and of the ones that do, quality is the least important factor because Amazon's system does not reward quality and readers really have no way to even decide quality before buying the book. I also think that people are wrong about people not buying a second book from a bad author. Honestly, I know several romance readers that couldn't even tell you if they read a book two years ago, let alone an author.


----------



## inconsequential (May 4, 2016)

> I don't know what to think of it all anymore. Good and bad is subjective, and I don't judge other author's writing too harshly, but I read samples from book after book after book of an author who writes in my preferred genre and, well, I wonder what I'm doing wrong. I don't know. I'm exhausted trying to figure this thing out. I'm burnt. Publishing is making me hate writing.


This. I've had almost equal numbers of people saying my writing sucks vs. my writing is great. Same with plot, characters, etc. So who do you believe?

I have reached the point that I'm doubting the good reviews and having panic attacks over the negative reviews. And it's affecting my writing.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Briteka said:


> Why do you think this? Amazon's system does not push quality. A new reader is not buying your book based on what is in it. They're buying it based on potential. Look, me, you, and almost everyone with a large fanbase could push any piece of crap to a 4.5-5.0 rating through legitimate means. We can also push huge initial sales of anything, giving books great initial visibility. That high visibility and high rating will turn into sales, no matter what is in the book.
> 
> I sometimes feel like people go along with these platitudes. "Good books will always rise" and all that stuff. I just don't believe that's true. Almost no book published actually makes it, and of the ones that do, quality is the least important factor because Amazon's system does not reward quality and readers really have no way to even decide quality before buying the book. I also think that people are wrong about people not buying a second book from a bad author. Honestly, I know several romance readers that couldn't even tell you if they read a book two years ago, let alone an author.


Sorry . . . . perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Mostly I'm feeling frustration from you but it almost sounds like you're saying that there isn't really a point in working to get the technical aspects right.

I think Rosalind is conceding that, yeah, books that are poorly edited can do well because of the story, and because there's a certain percentage of readers who just won't care. Her contention, though, is that they might do even BETTER, if there weren't a lot of obvious errors.

And I think she's right about that. I think you maximize your odds by making both the story AND the technical stuff quality.

And I can't see any good reason to finish writing and jump straight to publishing without the in between proofing/editing/formatting steps. 

Rosalind, if I've misread your comment, my apologies.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

AliceW said:


> Absolutely. But on the flip side of the coin being technically correct with your grammar isn't going to compensate for lack of story ability.
> 
> I've seen authors with brilliant technical ability, but zero idea about plot, pacing, characterisation or how to write emotion.


Then there's no helping those people.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Sorry . . . . perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Mostly I'm feeling frustration from you but it almost sounds like you're saying that there isn't really a point in working to get the technical aspects right.
> 
> I think Rosalind is conceding that, yeah, books that are poorly edited can do well because of the story, and because there's a certain percentage of readers who just won't care. Her contention, though, is that they might do even BETTER, if there weren't a lot of obvious errors.
> 
> ...


Right, but I'm asking how they would do better? What in Amazon's algo takes into account editing? I guess word of mouth could increase sales of good books, but is word of mouth really a factor? I'm not sure.

There is almost a frustration on my part. I spend a lot of money on editing. I spend a lot of money of proofreading. It's frustrating to do that when readers don't seem to reward it at all. It's frustrating to watch book after book rise to the top spots when they've obviously not been edited.

It's also frustrating that Amazon (and other market places) refuse to implement a system where quality is a bigger factor because this hurts self-published writers. As more and more readers find it impossible to wade through the crap, they'll just give up on self-published authors all together and go back to reading only trade-published books. The thing is that it is an easy fix. Amazon could ban ARC reviews. Amazon could do something to solicit more generic reviews for books. Amazon could do something (more) to penalize the rankings of books that get their sales from outside advertising.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> You can also fail at both which is why I'm switching my focus to botany.


I'm a fruit person myself


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Briteka said:


> Right, but I'm asking how they would do better? What in Amazon's algo takes into account editing? I guess word of mouth could increase sales of good books, but is word of mouth really a factor? I'm not sure.
> 
> There is almost a frustration on my part. I spend a lot of money on editing. I spend a lot of money of proofreading. It's frustrating to do that when readers don't seem to reward it at all. It's frustrating to watch book after book rise to the top spots when they've obviously not been edited.
> 
> It's also frustrating that Amazon (and other market places) refuse to implement a system where quality is a bigger factor because this hurts self-published writers. As more and more readers find it impossible to wade through the crap, they'll just give up on self-published authors all together and go back to reading only trade-published books. The thing is that it is an easy fix. Amazon could ban ARC reviews. Amazon could do something to solicit more generic reviews for books. Amazon could do something (more) to penalize the rankings of books that get their sales from outside advertising.


I agree it's frustrating to see bad books rise. It's more frustrating when you personally know romance authors who brag about [email protected] their work and doing anything they can to make a buck, but I don't think reader ratings are the way to solve this. As said upthread, many people don't know grammar rules (I get reviews complaining of grammar mistakes in books that have been through proofing and ARCs-- books I know have no grammar issues. I was an SAT tutor. I know my grammar rules).

I'm glad readers are less picky than I am. It's comforting. And it's nice that people who don't appreciate my stylized prose still enjoy the story and charcters (I get a fair helping of reviews like that). Most of my bad reviews are more visceral and more matters of taste-- the FMC was a b****, OMG another virgin book, 50 Shades knock off, too much sex, etc.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm both indie published and trad published via APub.

My indie books have sold more.  They have about equivalent review averages. 

My quality's the same on all my four series, I'd say, although the series have different tones and are in different subgenres. I believe the subgenre/hookiness of concept/tone is what's made the indie books sell better. 

I achieved my sales with no ARC readers for first two years, no mailing list, and no special push. It was all about word of mouth. People talked about the first series, and it sold. It went from there.

That's anecdotal, I realize, but it's my experience, so it probably colors my view. 

Others are free to believe what they want. I'm just saying that, if other authors are selling better than you (or I) are, probably best to ask why. Writing in a hot genre? NOT writing in a hot genre, but with a hooky, unique concept? (I think that's one reason I sold at the beginning.) Engaging characters? Humor? Engaging voice? Kick-butt sexytimes? Page-turning writing? There's some reason. There's probably a bestselling author with similar strengths to you (or me). Maybe look at what they do and think, hmm, what I could I take from this? I'm just saying that I think that's a more profitable exercise than concluding that quality or writing doesn't matter, because then where are you? What can you do with that belief system to be proactive about your sales? That's a pretty hopeless spot. 

I'm sure not the most bestselling writer out there. I've done pretty well, and it's been helpful for me to finally be able to pinpoint some reasons (with the help of my editors and readers) why that is. Very scary also to think that success is a total fluke or luck, because then it could all vanish. Instead, although different books and series perform differently, they do all sell despite their different tones, subgenres, hookiness, etc. Which tells me that SOMETHING about my writing does satisfy my readers. A much safer-feeling place to work from, and a place from which I can say--OK, let's try to do that even better. Let's try to improve. 

P.S. There's no part of the algo for quality, I don't believe. Maybe there's something about review average--who knows? Amazon will never tell. But quality (which doesn't necessarily mean error-free prose--call it "satisfying writing") is what drives word of mouth, and word of mouth is what sells books BEYOND the initial marketing push. If a book or series is sticky--that's the career builder, and that's going to be about word of mouth and a satisfying reader experience. The stickiness is where the algos come in. 

All the marketing in the world isn't going to sell a book or author LONG-TERM if that author or series doesn't satisfy readers and meet their needs. 

(And by the way: I was a GMAT tutor (the business school entrance exam) who got a perfect score on the "sentence correction/grammar" part of the test. That's because I was a copyeditor/editorial supervisor for 10 years. I have a pretty fair knowledge of grammar and word usage.)

I get MANY reviews that comment favorably on the lack of typos and grammatical errors. There certainly are readers, even in romance, who care. I also get many comments about the quality of the prose. So, yes, I do think those two things are a factor in my success, although there are also some negative reviews that say I can't write! You have to look at the "preponderance of the evidence," I think.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I think Rosalind is conceding that, yeah, books that are poorly edited can do well because of the story, and because there's a certain percentage of readers who just won't care. Her contention, though, is that they might do even BETTER, if there weren't a lot of obvious errors.
> 
> And I think she's right about that. I think you maximize your odds by making both the story AND the technical stuff quality.


To play devil's advocate..... this argument makes a couple of assumptions. One, that the writers are even aware that their books fall short in the copyediting/proofreading area. They went to the trouble to go ahead and publish, so it's reasonable to believe they thought the book was "as good as it was gonna get." And Assumption Two, that these writers, who are apparently already successful and presumably earning good money, would be interested in taking the time to improve the quality of the books, not to mention, in effect, possibly changing their writing habits. If a writer can publish three or four or six books in a year and be successful, why gum up the works and add weeks/months to their production schedule by adding an (additional?) editing phase or taking more time to write each book? (The phrase that comes to mind is 'dance with the one that brung ya.') So, in a nutshell, if these hypothetical writers are even aware of their shortcomings, do they have sufficient incentive to 'improve' their writing?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Jena H said:


> To play devil's advocate..... this argument makes a couple of assumptions. One, that the writers are even aware that their books fall short in the copyediting/proofreading area. They went to the trouble to go ahead and publish, so it's reasonable to believe they thought the book was "as good as it was gonna get." And Assumption Two, that these writers, who are apparently already successful and presumably earning good money, would be interested in taking the time to improve the quality of the books, not to mention, in effect, possibly changing their writing habits. If a writer can publish three or four or six books in a year and be successful, why gum up the works and add weeks/months to their production schedule by adding an (additional?) editing phase or taking more time to write each book? (The phrase that comes to mind is 'dance with the one that brung ya.') So, in a nutshell, if these hypothetical writers are even aware of their shortcomings, do they have sufficient incentive to 'improve' their writing?


As I said--my indie books sell better than my APub books. My APub books get a LOT of editing scrutiny: 3-4 rounds of developmental and a round each of copyediting and proofreading. I get very little feedback about grammar/style.

I work all the time to make my writing smoother and better. However, my first books sold just fine. I think there is an argument one could make that after a certain level, better-quality writing does not necessarily equate to better sales. I didn't have typos or any kind of evil grammatical errors in those early books--didn't have roadblocks to people enjoying the story. That is, I think, the most important thing, and anything above that will be appreciated by some readers but not even noticed by some others.

On the other hand, smoother writing is, again, something readers aren't necessarily going to NOTICE. They'll just say a book is an "easy read." You aren't thinking, wait, what? as you read it. You aren't jarred by clunkiness. But you may not notice the absence of those things. You may just think it's an easy read.

Very hard to know. But I wouldn't say that anybody is going to sell LESS because their books are smoothly written and well edited. Plus, I want to put out my very best work, just for myself. So I'll always polish to the best of my ability.

Whatever works for you.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm commenting so much on this, by the way, because that is one of the main points in that "Indies Who Sell" podcast that I was fortunate enough to be part of recently. A bestselling writer and a developmental editor who's had a hand in some very good-selling books are looking at, well, indies who sell, and asking why. What about those books is appealing? The other nice thing is that they're looking at books in a variety of genres. 

One thing the author (Sylvia Frost) said that resonated with me, I've--well, sort of appropriated above. That saying, "Oh, this piece of dreck, how could this sell" isn't very helpful, either to our psychological well-being as authors or on a practical level. It's much more helpful to our souls and our careers to say, "WHY does this author sell despite clunky writing/grammatical errors/my objections?"


----------



## Justin Jordan (Feb 15, 2011)

This is may be the first time I've ever encountered the idea that bad grammar makes a bad book.

Bad grammar is often found in bad books, but that's correlation rather than causation. If I liked a book in every other respect but it was filled with grammatical errors I wouldn't call it a bad book. That's not even hypothetical. There are books written, intentionally, phonetically that violate every grammatical rule and are, to me, damn near unreadable. But they're not bad books. 

People want stories that engage them. How they engage them is up for grabs. I think Dan Brown has the most utilitarian writing imaginable and yet, his books used to hook me*. At the other end, I love James Lee Burke. But he's got a couple novels I love that I could not, under threat of gunfire, tell you what the plot was about. But his use of language and his characters are so good I didn't care. 

* I realized with The DaVinci Code that he was literally using the same plot with every book. I'd read his earlier books first, and was able to tell you what was going to happen in DVC because it's written as if he had an outline of plot and just switched details.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Rosalind J said:


> That saying, "Oh, this piece of dreck, how could this sell" isn't very helpful, either to our psychological well-being as authors or on a practical level. It's much more helpful to our souls and our careers to say, "WHY does this author sell despite clunky writing/grammatical errors/my objections?"


The OP admitted this was a 'whining' post, a way to vent. But underlying the whine is also the exact question posed above: WHY does a sub-par (or clunky, or error-riddled, whatever) book sell?


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

I have written this post before. Here's what I have learned. The things we think are good as writers are not actually what readers think are good. Readers don't care about info dumps or as-you-know-bobs or boring descriptions or saidisms or even story structure (depending on the reader. Some readers seem to really latch onto characters and will literally five-star a book that is nothing more than a litany of some chick going to school and having lunch and then coming home and then going to soccer practice and then doing it again the next day and no, i'm not going to tell you what book that was, but it has a LOT of five star reviews, and this was before the advent of massive mailing lists, so they are organic, I'm sure of it).

Here's the thing. You can write what *you* want and try to make yourself happy, and maybe you get lucky and what makes you happy also makes a bunch of other people happy. But if not, then you'll either have to suck it up and deal or change how/what you write. Them's the breaks. 

As for what is "good" and what is "bad," that's all relative and not much worth thinking about, I've come to realize.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

It seems to me that there was, not terribly long ago, a thread on the subject of the cost-effectiveness of editing.

There was a time when the idea of not using an editor was completely abhorrent to me.  It goes back to the first book I published on Amazon.  I wanted to make sure it was of publishable quality and hired an editor that had a background in traditional publishing.  Prior to that experience, I was reasonably confident in my ability to self-edit.  In fact, I had some experience providing editing services to others.  My primary concern, as I recall, was that the book be good enough to be published.  It's entirely possible to have something 100% grammatically correct that has no substantive value whatsoever.  I wanted to be sure mine was publishable in that regard.

Fortunately, it was and I published it.  What I learned, however, largely steered me away from self-editing, so each subsequent book (all two of them) made use of a hired editor.  I also stopped offering editing services, not that I had had any clients in a while but I didn't solicit for more.

It became obvious to me that having an editor was and is a good idea.  You want to put your best work out there and an editor will help ensure you do that.

But then I read that thread on the cost-effectiveness of it.  I don't think I commented on it--maybe I did but I don't recall doing so--and it still seemed unfathomable to not use an editor.  It appears that thread has taken root in my subconscious and given me something to mull over since its initial posting.  Of course, if there was no such thread and I am simply imagining that there was, that would be a concerning development.  At any rate, I now have questions regarding the cost-effectiveness of a hired editor.  It's one thing if you can say, well, my professionally edited books outsell my self-edited books by two to one or maybe some percentage more.  Then you can analyze costs to see if the difference pays for the editing or not.  It's an entirely different thing if you say, well, my editor makes more money on my books than I do because, in that case, the only available analysis is that a paid editor is not cost-effective because you're in the red.  Throw in a professionally designed cover and you might as well learn to play guitar and find a busy subway.

So, is it cost-effective?  Some authors basically sell their draft and let readers do the editing.  Maybe if the sales justify it, they'll take that money and then have it edited--a system which has always seemed entirely backwards to me.  But then I am left to wonder if, in the case of slower selling authors, paid editing amounts to shooting yourself in the foot.  That is, if we are supposed to treat this like a business, does it make sense to "invest" in something (editing) which will not recoup that investment and which does not increase sales?

Were it not for my predilection for the misuse of commas, I'd seriously consider going without a professional editor and relying on self-editing and a pool of beta readers who would willingly identify typos and grammatical errors.  Then again, maybe growing tomatoes might be the most cost-effective plan of all.

People buy tomatoes.


----------



## Kelly Clayton (Mar 5, 2016)

RedAlert said:


> I don't think OP should return the book. She bought it for research, and she got her money's worth out of it. Let that one go.


Actually, I think this is the key. There is apparently a whole new e-market that don't seem to care too much about grammar. spelling, show-don't-tell, plot arcs, pacing etc BUT they love a good story. To be honest, I've also picked up ebooks that I thought could have done with a thorough edit but I loved what they were saying.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Justin Jordan said:


> This is may be the first time I've ever encountered the idea that bad grammar makes a bad book.


I don't think the OP specifically mentioned grammar. Grammar is only one part of prose. And I don't think OP is complaining about a great book that simply needs a proofread to fix a few errors and/or typos. A book can be poorly written and totally free of technical errors.

Good prose and good storytelling are not in competition. Good prose makes it easier for readers to experience the story and the characters. Some people prefer certain things (I like present tense. Other people loathe present tense. I don't like reading books in third person, etc), but at the end of the day, the prose should be clear and interesting. It should get out of the way, so readers aren't noticing problems.

I agree that whining about bad books selling isn't productive. But sometimes you need to vent. I look at it as one of those _accept the things you cannot change_ deals. I can't change that bad books do well. I can't change what other authors do. I can make sure my books are great in terms of prose, story, and characters. I can make sure I have a great hook, compelling characters, and enough tropes to please readers in my niche.

It is easier to take bad books (by your definition of bad) doing well when you are selling well.

(as a side note: The Amazon algos are actually quite straightforward. Confusing but not mysterious. Read_ Let's Get Visible_. It's the best $5 I've spent in my entire career. Basically, you need sales to get sales. It's tricky if you're a new author without a marketing budget. Visibility is almost exclusively from the bestseller lists, the pop (popularity lists, the HNR (hot new reads), and also-boughts, all of which are weighted based on how much you're selling. The more you sell, the more visibility you get. That is why authors with big lists and/or marketing budgets are able to do much better and why success tends to have a snowball effect. The HNRs are a big deal, which is why so many authors try to pump all their visibility into the first 30 days. Your visibility does drop after 30 days, assuming you were on the HNR, which have a bestseller list and a pop list of their own.)


----------



## G.L. Snodgrass (Aug 12, 2014)

I believe "Word of mouth" is extremely important. After all. 10 books a day can get you onto the top 100 list for some sub-genres. I also believe very few readers recommend a book to their friends by saying. "You've got to read this book. The editing was beautiful and there wasn't a typo in the book." Even if they did. Most people wouldn't buy the book. No. Instead, you hope they say, "You've got to read this book. I was almost late to work because I was up half the night reading it. I cried/laughed so hard I woke up George. He told me to turn off the light and go to sleep but I couldn't put it down. You need to read it so we can talk about it. I can't wait until her/his next book."

Readers read hoping to feel an emotion. They select the books they do because they expect that book will meet their needs. Those authors that meet those expectations and provide that emotion sell. 

People are desperate to find a story they want to read. A story that pulls them in and won't let go. They use a myriad of ways to find those books. The most often used methods are as follows:

- Word of mouth. A trusted agent has told them it will meet their needs.
- Prior positive experience with that author. The reader has experience  that the author will meet their needs. Voice, genre, tropes, characters, setting, etc.
- Cover/Blurb. The cover and blurb convince them there is a good chance this story will meet their expectations.

If the book does as promised. Delivers that emotion the reader is looking for. They will tell their friends and their friends will tell their friends. And the book will climb up the charts. I really believe this. It is the story and how it is told that sells most books.

Marketing, Editing, Pricing and other things help. But they rank way below the top three" Word of mouth, prior experience, cover/blurb.


----------



## Justin Jordan (Feb 15, 2011)

Crystal_ said:


> I don't think the OP specifically mentioned grammar. Grammar is only one part of prose. And I don't think OP is complaining about a great book that simply needs a proofread to fix a few errors and/or typos. A book can be poorly written and totally free of technical errors.


She didn't, but a whole lot of people in the thread went straight to grammar.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Justin Jordan said:


> She didn't, but a whole lot of people in the thread went straight to grammar.


The grammar discussion gets in the way of talking about bad writing. A book with lots of grammar issues is annoying, especially because authors who sell well can more than afford copyediting, but it's not the same as a book with flat-out bad prose or other sorts of bad writing (bad dialogue, poorly done exposition, lack of subtext, confusing action sequences, overly repetitive language, overly flowery language, etc).


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> The grammar discussion gets in the way of talking about bad writing. A book with lots of grammar issues is annoying, especially because authors who sell well can more than afford copyediting, but it's not the same as a book with flat-out bad prose or other sorts of bad writing (bad dialogue, poorly done exposition, lack of subtext, confusing action sequences, overly repetitive language, overly flowery language, etc).


I tend to agree. Bad style is one thing. Annoying to many readers (not all, clearly), annoying to all writers probably.

But I think most "bad writing", at least in readers' eyes, is stuff that is flat out boring. And it's usually flat out boring because it's confusing, it's telling (not that readers are conscious of this necessarily), it's not believable, etc. So I think the "badly written" books that sell are probably actually very good/enjoyable unedited books.


----------



## Lisa Blackwood (Feb 1, 2015)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> My opinion Readers be like:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Cover
> [*]Blurb
> ...


This. OMG. A thousand times this.

I'm still a reader at heart--not an author. I just want to be told a fun, entertaining story. Gasp! If I like the cover, blurb, characters and STORY...I don't give a rat's *ss about a few misplaced commons or misused words. I have, however, found a few books in my travels that are so, so bad that I do wince upon occasion. But I always download a sample before buying, so I'm not out any money.

Edited to add: I've also read (or stopped reading, actually) a few well polished lumps a pure boredom.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

Just a question for the purposes of research. If the author of the book in question had spent say $1000 on editing and proofreading then put it on sale at $9.99 instead of 99c, would anyone, or the OP have bought the book for the purposes of research?


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Jane_Dough said:


> I've always used an editor. The books that sold that the most for me, I didn't use an editor. Not sure what to make of that, but I'm there with you. Is it worth it?


Have you ever thought that, that simply the book that is doing better is more appealing to readers?
It could have nothing to do with the edit.
It's hard to use anecdotal evidence on something so subjective as a story.


----------



## katherinef (Dec 13, 2012)

Badly written? Nah, you just don't like it. I don't think there are any badly written fiction books out there, just ones that don't follow the rules.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

> I've come here to whine. I just bought a 99 cent book as research despite slogging through misspellings, incredibly wrong comma use, and massive info dumps--all in the Look Inside.
> 
> Come to find out, this author is a #1 bestseller and has lots of books out, and her indie career is doing quite well. Of course I can't post a review of a fellow author, let alone one slamming her unprofessional level of editing, and it would be stupid to write her with a gentle suggestion that she find an editor--when her books appear to be selling a lot better than mine are at the moment.
> 
> But, golly, it makes me want to throw out all the "show don't tell" and "ditch all your backstory" rules, and all the rest, and just put up all my unrevised, unedited, unproofread books on Amazon this week and let the chips fall where they may. We work really hard to write well, and we pay good money to make sure our books are properly edited, and then someone comes along who clearly isn't ready for prime time and still sells. It's depressing.


If the book is a #1 best seller then it stands to reason that it was a well written book whether you hated the prose, editing, grammar, style, or anything else. It seems a lot of other people liked it just the way it was. Maybe it's time for a little introspection and questioning of all the rules you're following. They might not be doing you any favors.



> A large percentage of the population doesn't understand things like proper grammar. If they don't know they're reading a bad book, well, it won't affect sales.





> I think reading level plays a big part in book popularity. If you've spent any time at all perusing the comments section on Youtube, you'll realise that a lot of people just don't have a good grasp of basic spelling and grammar.


I don't think it's an issue of people's understanding of spelling and grammar so much as people not needing to anymore. Most people today are well enough educated, and have a broad enough experience, that they can understand most basic concepts and constructs well enough that poor grammar doesn't get in the way of understanding. So it's not that people are stupid, thus they don't notice poor grammar. It's that they're smart enough that they don't need precise language to understand what's being conveyed.



> It's also frustrating that Amazon (and other market places) refuse to implement a system where quality is a bigger factor because this hurts self-published writers.


Amazon is in the business of making money. As a result, books that sells gets more visibility. Period. Full Stop. To Amazon, a quality book is one that sells.



> I've had almost equal numbers of people saying my writing sucks vs. my writing is great. Same with plot, characters, etc. So who do you believe?


If you can't trust anyone else to tell you the truth then you might as well believe what you want. -- Mycah


----------



## Maggie Brooke (Jan 30, 2016)

Not Lu said:


> I don't think it's an issue of people's understanding of spelling and grammar so much as people not needing to anymore. Most people today are well enough educated, and have a broad enough experience, that they can understand most basic concepts and constructs well enough that poor grammar doesn't get in the way of understanding. So it's not that people are stupid, thus they don't notice poor grammar. It's that they're smart enough that they don't need precise language to understand what's being conveyed.


Your underlying argument here is...what? That people in earlier eras weren't as smart and thus needed more precise language to understand concepts? I'm trying to understand your argument and am coming up short.

I don't think proper grammar and spelling will ever be rendered unnecessary, regardless of text-speak and internet shorthand. Call me an optimist, but the written word will endure. It has for this long. What makes you think it won't in the future? Sure, grammatical rules and spellings change over the centuries, but the concept of certain conventions and rules that facilitate understanding will never go away.

I remain unconvinced that if you used poor grammar and spelling in even normal professional email correspondence that you would be able to progress very far in your field.


----------



## amdonehere (May 1, 2015)

I absolutely understand OP's frustration. I just want to tell OP that as a fellow writer, I sympathize and I am all ears if you ever need to vent. I won't tell you why the poorly written books are deserving, etc. Feel free to PM me. 

For myself though, whenever I found myself feeling this way, I say the Serenity Prayer.  Because getting upset about it is as good as getting upset over someone else winning the lottery and not me. 

I doubt I'll ever hit it medium size, let alone hit it big. But I love my entire team of editors, proofreaders. betas, and everyone who contributed in some way to my end product. I know that I have a quality story that stands up to any professionally published book out there. And I go to sleep at peace at night knowing that.

Also, poorly written books being best sellers isn't the wrost thing on Amazon IMO. The warrior "publishers" OTOH....ok, no comment.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Lisa_Blackwood said:


> Edited to add: I've also read (or stopped reading, actually) a few well polished lumps a pure boredom.


Exactly. Making the grammar perfect almost always ruins the STYLE of prose in fiction. Using incorrect grammar is one of the best tools a storyteller has.

I write bad books. Certainly, some of them are what most writers would call bad. They're intentionally bad. I try to write the sort of books that readers of a particular genre will enjoy. For some genres, that means writing worse than I CAN write. My lyrical, literary prose would be unwelcome to readers of my simple genre fiction. So I don't do it. I use bad grammar. I tell sometimes where I could show. I get plenty of one-star reviews for it - from WRITERS. And always, these are writers who don't sell many books. Being correct about something doesn't necessarily make us right - there's a big difference.

That said, my books are professionally edited, rewritten, then proofread. Even "bad" books should be easy to read, and only annoy maybe 20% of readers - and perhaps, almost all writers. But the annoyance should usually be because of a reader's personal preferences, not quality issues. Lovers and haters - that's what I hope for when I write. And if a book's full of typos, the haters will hate it for all the wrong reasons.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

TellNotShow said:


> Exactly. Making the grammar perfect almost always ruins the STYLE of prose in fiction. Using incorrect grammar is one of the best tools a storyteller has.
> 
> I write bad books. Certainly, some of them are what most writers would call bad. They're intentionally bad. I try to write the sort of books that readers of a particular genre will enjoy. For some genres, that means writing worse than I CAN write.


There's a big difference between intentionally choosing a style that is not technically correct and bad writing. Some people won't like your style if you write more stylishly, but that doesn't make your writing bad. There are many, many acclaimed books that ignore certain technical grammar rules. When it's well done, it feels intentional.


----------



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

Yeah, lots of bad books sell. Yet "bad" is subjective, and good god has anyone read those Pulitzer Prize books? I can't get past the first chapter in "The Road". 
I relate to the op. Sometimes it's mystifying trying to see what makes some books sell vs others. I guess if we could figure out the secret, we'd all be nyt bestselling, pulitzer prize winning, amazon all star authors.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

This was exactly my point many threads ago. Hiring an editor, I think, is a cost that is not required for most writers of genre fiction. It's not worth the investment when you think of running your business as efficiently and streamlined as possible to achieve maximum profit. There's little to no, ROI to be discerned, and if you're not selling you simply don't know if the lack of editing is the cause over say, problems with other areas related to your product(s), i.e. cover, blurb, marketing.

I've long thought it detrimental to tell new authors ad nauseum that they "must" spend on editing prior to publishing. To me, that creates a false impression that only well-edited, grammatically correct stories are the ones that sell when...all evidence to the contrary.

It's a business, and being smart with your money matters. I think the advice on spending on covers makes some sense (up to a certain point), and yes, I also think quality blurbs and spending on marketing are important too. And I must say, I'm not demonizing anyone in particular for suggesting to others that they "must" pay an editor. I think what happens on forums for writers and the like is we get into a feedback loop of information that matters to us personally as persnickety wordsmiths forgetting that a decent chunk of the general public can't even spell infinitive.

The market is a bell curve - if I aim for the middle of it, I should be alright. And in my opinion the fat part of the bell curve doesn't give a dang about adverbs.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Virtually (95%?) every bestselling indie I know (and I know a fair few of them) pays an editor. Often multiple editors. Just tossing that out there FWIW.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Thank you authors that put the best work forward and are using editors. 

I have to have a certain trust in authors when I pick up their books to read. English is not my first language, I never went to school in an English speaking country, so I do not know how to call things, properly. You know the thingies you guys keep talking about.   Its my favorite word for a reason, thingies. 
I have read enough though that I am able to tell something is off, but I won't be able to say why. Don't mess with my head please. 

I tread a bit more lightly now in the kindle store, than I had to do years ago. 

Signed, trusting reader. She, who wants to reward authors that are deserving of that trust.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

TellNotShow said:


> Exactly. Making the grammar perfect almost always ruins the STYLE of prose in fiction. Using incorrect grammar is one of the best tools a storyteller has.
> 
> I write bad books. Certainly, some of them are what most writers would call bad. They're intentionally bad. I try to write the sort of books that readers of a particular genre will enjoy. For some genres, that means writing worse than I CAN write. My lyrical, literary prose would be unwelcome to readers of my simple genre fiction. So I don't do it. I use bad grammar. I tell sometimes where I could show. I get plenty of one-star reviews for it - from WRITERS. And always, these are writers who don't sell many books. Being correct about something doesn't necessarily make us right - there's a big difference.
> 
> That said, my books are professionally edited, rewritten, then proofread. Even "bad" books should be easy to read, and only annoy maybe 20% of readers - and perhaps, almost all writers. But the annoyance should usually be because of a reader's personal preferences, not quality issues. Lovers and haters - that's what I hope for when I write. And if a book's full of typos, the haters will hate it for all the wrong reasons.


Wut?? Well, I can't see it, really. Look, a new standard! Now, we have to deliberately produce poorly written books, to cater to certain segments of the readers. Huh? I don't get that. Are you basically saying that you dumb down your books?


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Ken Ward said:


> This was exactly my point many threads ago. Hiring an editor, I think, is a cost that is not required for most writers of genre fiction. It's not worth the investment when you think of running your business as efficiently and streamlined as possible to achieve maximum profit. There's little to no, ROI to be discerned, and if you're not selling you simply don't know if the lack of editing is the cause over say, problems with other areas related to your product(s), i.e. cover, blurb, marketing.


For my last book, I spend about $600 total on editing. At this point in my career, I don't write a book if $600 cuts into my profits. I'm confident the editing is worth the money. It means I'm not losing readers who care about typo-free work (as mentioned upthread, I'm the queen of typos). That means I get more KU pages and better sellthrough. I also have pride in my work. I want to put out a good product. That's part of a long-term business strategy.


----------



## JeanetteRaleigh (Jan 1, 2013)

> Look, a new standard! Now, we have to deliberately produce poorly written books, to cater to certain segments of the readers.


I think I can respond to this. I had a stickler for an English teacher who went line by line through the Elements of Style, basically teaching us every single rule of grammar and how to apply it. I then took a Creative Writing class from the same teacher. He actually tried to tell me to break the very same rules, but I wasn't having it. I couldn't start a sentence with And or But. Everything I wrote read like a school paper until I learned that I could break the rules.

I guess my point is that there are rules that should be broken for style. There's a huge difference between producing a poorly written book with mistakes in grammar and punctuation across the board, and producing a well-written book that breaks the rules that fiction writers habitually break.


----------



## msnovakedits (Mar 29, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> I'm commenting so much on this, by the way, because that is one of the main points in that "Indies Who Sell" podcast that I was fortunate enough to be part of recently. A bestselling writer and a developmental editor who's had a hand in some very good-selling books are looking at, well, indies who sell, and asking why. What about those books is appealing? The other nice thing is that they're looking at books in a variety of genres.


Thanks for the mention, Rosalind, and I'm glad the discussion stayed with you. For the podcast, Sylvia and I try to read at least three books by the featured author, and we're trying to survey genres widely.

There are a few concepts that I'm still trying to get my arms around as a result of that reading. One is: it's useful to think of readers in terms of "the kind(s) of people who like this book" and "the kind(s) of people who don't like this book." The other is: I think that the people who love a book, love it because they happen to love its top 3-4 qualities, and mostly ignore its downsides.

When I read a book I don't like, I go to the 1-2 star reviews. Those reviews usually single out the exact same problems that I had. The one-stars and me are not the kind of people who like that book. We have different needs that weren't satisfied, even though the 4-5 star readers found what they wanted.

Some readers are looking for, say, a fast-paced easy read. They will love a book that puts off lovers of artful immersive description.

Some of the people who love a fast-paced read don't care about grammar at all. They may be a market for a book like the OP describes. If there are enough of them, the writer can make a good living even though fast-paced lovers who also love grammar will not enjoy the book.

Basically, I'm working on a theory that what authors can do, is look at their 3-4 best writing qualities (while working to be sure that "good storytelling" is among them). Build on those best qualities. Focus on what works for you, and make it even better. Those are your particular selling points as a writer.

My take on the editing question is similar to Rosalind's, I think. Some people can make a good living selling books to "the kind of people who love a fast-paced story and don't care about grammar." But improving the grammar would still extend their market to "the kind of people who love this kind of story, but care a lot about grammar."


----------



## Jon Stuen-Parker (Jun 26, 2014)

RE:EDITORS
Creating something original makes other opinions harmful. Almost 20 year ago, I self-published "Letter to Norman Mailer: From Jail to Yale." Two months ago, "'Gaga': The Real ****** Bulger/Irish Mob Story" went live on Amazon. Both books have original forms of writing. _Gaga _book most difficult to write. Unlike _Jail to Yale _(Yale section contains no articles except within quotations), _Gaga_ book adheres to specific numeric code. Gaga is a master storyteller. 160,000+ of this Irish mobster's words rise and fall in sing-song manner. Except for occasional same-sized sentences going back and forth, sentences rise by at least one letter, and fall by at least one letter (most times two letters).


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> For my last book, I spend about $600 total on editing. At this point in my career, I don't write a book if $600 cuts into my profits. I'm confident the editing is worth the money. It means I'm not losing readers who care about typo-free work (as mentioned upthread, I'm the queen of typos). That means I get more KU pages and better sellthrough. I also have pride in my work. I want to put out a good product. That's part of a long-term business strategy.


I think this is all great, and you are a success - so I don't want to undercut what you are saying, because clearly you've figured out a model that works for you. 

But I will say, in my opinion, for most newer authors, there is no tangible number out there that says there are 'x' many readers out there in the market place who expect typo-free work and will not buy from them again should they produce typos/grammatical errors. Likewise, there is no statistic that can tell them how many readers who care about typos will A: Comment either negatively or positively about said typos in their review. B: Even after said review(s) will or will not purchase from this author again, one, two, three times or more.

Then there are the even deeper variables to consider - will your work even reach the hands of a reader that cares enough about typos/grammar to actually comment or make/unmake a future buying decision pertaining to that author. When/if it does, will that reader act as they customarily do? Then there's a reader's mood on a given day/hour/minute they happen to finish a book. There are hundreds, or more, of these kinds of variables to account for when mulling whether or not editing can deliver a positive ROI for new genre fiction authors.

It's a similar thing to working in a customer service department for a company. Sometimes people who usually never complain about anything will complain about a certain something, and there's no accounting for why - so, there's no knowledge to be gleaned on what investment to make in satisfying what could or could not be a complete outlier.

Then there are those people who have a propensity to complain and make their voice heard over a problem with a product (and sometimes for some reason that has nothing to do with said product), yet they don't act 'in character' and instead on a given day or time they say nothing - and we're none the wiser as to why this happened or didn't happen, and have no clue as to what investment we should or should not make to try modify this outcome. And sometimes, someone who usually complains about a certain thing does not and we're none the wiser at all that an investment we have made is actually a waste of money because 8 or 9 times out of 10 it has no impact at all on a customer's decision making process and/or behavior.

In my opinion (and that's all that it is), the lack of such statistics (because to my mind we're talking about hundreds of virtual unknowns), and the lack of raw data makes any financially challenged author's expenditure(s) on ridding their work of typos and grammatical errors, a gamble - and often an expensive one at that, in money and time. There may be other areas of an author's business that fit this description as well. It's worthy of further investigation when for many newer/financially strapped authors every dollar is precious.

Don't get me wrong, I want to put out a good product just as everyone else does, and I work hard to create clean copy even if just to satisfy my own standard, but am I willing to spend out of my own business's pocket to scratch that very personal itch? No. In most areas, I cannot justify expenses based on the immeasurable.



msnovakedits said:


> My take on the editing question is similar to Rosalind's, I think. Some people can make a good living selling books to "the kind of people who love a fast-paced story and don't care about grammar." But improving the grammar would still extend their market to "the kind of people who love this kind of story, but care a lot about grammar."


The "extend their market" point is one I'm reading a lot of, but in my opinion is unknowable - and the idea of it (again, in my opinion) can potentially be financially damaging advice to author startups. Which is not to say that I think what you've said above is purposefully malicious - not at all - to me I read that comment above as coming from your heart very much being in the right place.

I respectfully offer a differing narrative, and everything I'm about to say is offered and intended to be without judgement, truly...

So, that said...as you and everyone here knows, readers/people are not all one thing all or perhaps even some of the time. Sometimes we care about something we say we care a lot about. Sometimes we don't. Sometimes it's the exact opposite and then it changes with the weather. Sometimes we make purchasing decisions or leave comments about purchases about a certain "thing" or pet peeve, but then for whatever reason at any given date and time we don't. Sometimes someone who would or would not do this 9 times out of 10 will or won't do it 7 times out of 10 or even 1 or 2 times out of 10 or just the opposite, lol - or maybe it's even 50% of the time. Maybe it's 33% of the time. Maybe it's 0.

My point is - in my opinion, we're talking about almost complete unknowns, and things that are largely immeasurable.

In my opinion, I think I would be doing harm to new/cash strapped authors by selling them a narrative that by paying for professional editing they may be opening or extending their businesses into new/better markets when really there's little to no statistical data to support that notion. I cannot get behind the idea of advising others to spend $10, $50 or $100 or more of their initial investment(s) on what is essentially anecdotal evidence or constitutes confirmation bias.


----------



## E.M. Cooper (Feb 27, 2015)

I find the highlighted pieces of text in Kindle books curious. Often the same sections of writing are highlighted hundreds of times in popular books, but I can't always fathom why. I wonder if you could use these extracts to gain a better appreciation of what 'most people' seem to want, or is it a case of anxious authors highlighting the same sections in an attempt to research what it is the mass of readers want?


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Personally, I think that if an author is writing to make money then they should look at it as a business expense, if you can't afford an editor then don't release a book unless they're writing specifically for fun.
Nobody should expect to start a business for free. 
There are cheap good editors out there.


----------



## T E Scott Writer (Jul 27, 2016)

Obviously I'm a total newbie, but if I might presume to offer an opinion.

Readers only care about mistakes when they take them out of the story.  Little typos, nah.  And 'alright'?  Well, that's just fine by me.  

I remember reading an article the author I wrote my PhD about wrote in around 1920.  It was a six page diatribe on modern writers and their terrible use of language.  It was largely about them not using the hyphen in 'to-day'.  Those modern writers?  Hacks like Joyce, Elliot and so on.  Anyway, on that day I swore I would never be that guy, the 'to-day' guy. 

Just my tuppence worth.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Whilst I agree it is incredibly frustrating and infuriating to see something like that sell, I wouldn't sacrifice my own standards to compete. Although I would like the money that comes with selling well, I prefer my readers to be intelligent enough to know good writing from bad.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

JalexM said:


> Personally, I think that if an author is writing to make money then they should look at it as a business expense, if you can't afford an editor then don't release a book unless they're writing specifically for fun.
> Nobody should expect to start a business for free.
> There are cheap good editors out there.


This is horrible advice just horrible.

I can count numerous successful indies who started on zero.

FYI, my grandfather started a successful business on Zero back in the stone age. A lack of money doesn't equal a lack of ingenuity.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

I recently picked up Ender's Game, the award-winning classic by Orson Scott Card, because I watched the movie a while back and loved it. It contained so many semicolons that my editor would have fainted just looking at it, thoughts weren't in italics and some dialogue didn't have dialogue tags, and some paragraphs started with 'then'! I didn't care. I loved the book.

p.s. I love me some semicolons. I don't care that they're supposed to be exclusive to nonfiction.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

C. Rysalis said:


> I recently picked up Ender's Game, the award-winning classic by Orson Scott Card, because I watched the movie a while back and loved it. It contained so many semicolons that my editor would have fainted just looking at it, thoughts weren't in italics and some dialogue didn't have dialogue tags, and some paragraphs started with 'then'! I didn't care. I loved the book.
> 
> p.s. I love me some semicolons. I don't care that they're supposed to be exclusive to nonfiction.


I use semi colons where necessary. I don't think they should be confined to non-fiction at all; they have a use. I don't like to see more than one in a sentence and I don't like to see them used where a full stop is more appropriate. Word wants to put them in some places where I use commas and they seem very inappropriate.

Thoughts don't have to be in italics. Dialogue doesn't always need a dialogue tag.

E.L. James has made a fortune out of Fifty Shades of Gray and at least half the 4,000 reviews say how badly written it is.


----------



## KaiW (Mar 11, 2014)

LilyBLily said:


> ignorant use of commas chops up sentences and makes them hard to read.


In your opinion.  A few 'ignorant' commas won't deter readers from enjoying a book if the story is great. It's always pretty easy to tell when negative reviews have come from other writers, as they inevitably point out only technical things and rarely comment on the plot/story.
Seriously OP, don't bend yourself out of shape about such things - readers generally don't.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

C. Rysalis said:


> I recently picked up Ender's Game, the award-winning classic by Orson Scott Card, because I watched the movie a while back and loved it. It contained so many semicolons that my editor would have fainted just looking at it, thoughts weren't in italics and some dialogue didn't have dialogue tags, and some paragraphs started with 'then'! I didn't care. I loved the book.
> 
> p.s. I love me some semicolons. I don't care that they're supposed to be exclusive to nonfiction.


Absolutely zero reason that semicolons should only be in nonfiction. Sounds like one of those rules where bad writers messed up semicolon usage, so someone decided to make a 'no semicolon in fiction' rule.

I have read lots of writing books and never seen that rule. Maybe your editor just doesn't like them. All those things you pointed up above are perfectly fine and don't make Ender's Game any less well-written at all.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

David J Normoyle said:


> Absolutely zero reason that semicolons should only be in nonfiction. Sounds like one of those rules where bad writers messed up semicolon usage, so someone decided to make a 'no semicolon in fiction' rule.
> 
> I have read lots of writing books and never seen that rule. Maybe your editor just doesn't like them. All those things you pointed up above are perfectly fine and don't make Ender's Game any less well-written at all.


With lack of dialogue tags I meant no " " for some dialogue, which made it look like thoughts even when it wasn't. It was a little hard to follow at times. I wonder if the ebook version suffered from formatting issues - I haven't seen the print version.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

As others have said, 'bad' and 'good' is entirely subjective. 

Some of my favorite films of all time have been labeled 'bad' by critics. Hell, my favorite film of the year, Batman v Superman, was shredded by critics. But the quality is subjective, for me it's one of the best I've seen in years. Same with Cloud Atlas and Spring Breakers; minor masterpieces in my book.

My favorite books of all time are Shantaram and its sequel. Many dismiss it as bloated and pseudo-intellectual. I've read countless books and it's top of the list for me.

Meanwhile I find Casablanca and Citizen Kane unwatchable and Pride and Prejudice unreadable.

So yeah...when it comes to the arts, it's pretty much all subjective, top to bottom, and it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make a case for the objective.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

C. Rysalis said:


> With lack of dialogue tags I meant no " " for some dialogue, which made it look like thoughts even when it wasn't. It was a little hard to follow at times. I wonder if the ebook version suffered from formatting issues - I haven't seen the print version.


Ah; they are quotation marks. Dialogue tags are 'he said' and words to that effect. No, that would not be good.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

Doglover said:


> Ah; they are quotation marks. Dialogue tags are 'he said' and words to that effect. No, that would not be good.


Right. Quotation marks. I'm a little scatterbrained at times


----------



## CW Scott (Jan 6, 2016)

I'm not sure if its possible to determine how many lost sales are due to a poorly edited book, but I bet in the long run it will cost more in lost sales than having an editor give it the once over. There are amazing editors out there that won't break the bank.

For me, as a new author, if I've got 10 reviews and a couple of those are about poor editing, its going to hurt. Maybe not enough that the cost of an editor would have paid off, but I'm trying to build a brand. I agree with what was said earlier about word of mouth. Just remember that amazon is not the only place where reviews of your books are popping up.

Sure, there are horribly edited books out there that're really selling, but I believe they would do so much better, and have more stickiness if they were edited. I'm not talking style, but horribly clunky sentences. I slide right over most misspelled words, but awkward sentences throw me out of a story. Doesn't matter if my inner editor is switched on or off.


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

Briteka said:


> It's also frustrating that Amazon (and other market places) refuse to implement a system where quality is a bigger factor because this hurts self-published writers. As more and more readers find it impossible to wade through the crap, they'll just give up on self-published authors all together and go back to reading only trade-published books. The thing is that it is an easy fix. Amazon could ban ARC reviews. Amazon could do something to solicit more generic reviews for books. Amazon could do something (more) to penalize the rankings of books that get their sales from outside advertising.


I'm not sure why books that are advertised should be penalized? I mean, trad-pubbed books are advertised too, right? Trad books also utilize ARC reviews so why should Amazon ban them?

I guess I don't see how -- in a system where you seem to be saying trad=quality and indie=shoddy -- banning ARC reviews and penalizing advertising will improve quality.

Both traditional and indie authors do the same thing so they can't be evidence of quality (or lack thereof) for one group or the other.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

ebbrown said:


> Yeah, lots of bad books sell. Yet "bad" is subjective, and good god has anyone read those Pulitzer Prize books? I can't get past the first chapter in "The Road".
> I relate to the op. Sometimes it's mystifying trying to see what makes some books sell vs others. I guess if we could figure out the secret, we'd all be nyt bestselling, pulitzer prize winning, amazon all star authors.


Such a valid point. The Snow Child was a Pulitzer and I absolutely loved it. But I just went and looked through the reviews, and others hated it. Subjective, yes. [I also couldn't get into The Road]


----------



## J.A. Pipes (Jul 3, 2016)

Peter Spenser said:


> I glad that somebody other than me thinks this! Especially his "recent" ones, the last 20 years or so. He is SO in need of an editor and is SO allowed by his publisher(s) to just throw out anything and have it published.


I tend to agree with your last statement. Once an author reaches those lofty heights, I think they are allowed to get away with a lot.



Peter Spenser said:


> I have really, really liked only a very of his fiction books: _Eyes of the Dragon_ from 1987, and the books that he published under the pseudonym Richard Bachman.


Disagree here. Eyes of the Dragon is awesome. The Bachman books are all great as well. But he has had a lot of others that I've liked.



Peter Spenser said:


> His advice on writing, however, needs to be taken with a _huge_ grain of salt.


I'd be interested to hear why you say that. I thought _On Writing_ was a great book. I just finished rereading it a few weeks ago.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Kay Bratt said:


> Such a valid point. The Snow Child was a Pulitzer and I absolutely loved it. But I just went and looked through the reviews, and others hated it. Subjective, yes. [I also couldn't get into The Road]


All art (books, paintings, music, TV/movies, etc.) is _very_ subjective. Two products that are very similar can have wildly different levels of success, sometimes understandably so, and other times for no discernible reason.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

RedAlert said:


> Wut?? Well, I can't see it, really. Look, a new standard! Now, we have to deliberately produce poorly written books, to cater to certain segments of the readers. Huh? I don't get that. Are you basically saying that you dumb down your books?


No, we don't HAVE to do anything. I'm only saying what I do - which is do my best to write the sort of prose preferred by readers of whichever genre I'm writing at that time. And that, from my own research into what sells, the bulk of readers in some sub-genres prefer their books written at, say, 4th grade level - while other sub-genres (even within that same genre) need to be written at, say, 7th grade level.

Simpler prose doesn't mean they're dumbed down - the plot may well be complex and challenge a reader's mind. But people like what they like, and what some people like in their books is characters who speak the way THEY do - which is grammatically incorrect, for one thing.

One could make an argument that BREAKING grammar rules actually does the OPPOSITE to dumbing books down. The writer is trusting the reader to understand something that's fluid and inexact. (Which is what language truly is.)

So, to answer your question, no - I'm definitely not saying I dumb down my books. And I don't think anyone else should either.


----------



## CaitD (Jun 16, 2016)

I'm firmly in the camp of having your book edited before it goes out into the world. Just have to say that up front.

Now, how much of an impact does editing have on a book? As evidenced by this (and so many, many, _many_ other conversations in the publishing world about editing) who really knows? It's just easier to point to editing, grammar and punctuation in particular, when discussing this topic because they are concrete topics. What's more abstract are the concepts of characterization, theme, arcs, voice, etc. And even more nebulous are things like a writer's attitude and emotional state of mind when they pen their work.

I've been thinking a lot about this since making the decision to move from trad to indie. When I first started writing I wrote because I LOVED writing. I loved my stories and my characters. I wrote what I wanted to and didn't worry about the business side of it. But over the years that love has disappeared because I was more worried about sales and numbers and marketing and writing "persona" than I was about my stories. I'm trying to get back to that excitement, to falling in love with writing again.

I think (and this is just my opinion) that the most successful writers, regardless of genre, ability, visibility, etc. are the ones who are able to correctly balance the act of writing and the business of writing. They don't overthink their books and they don't go nuts over numbers. They are consistently dialed in to all aspects of publishing. They figure out what works for them and don't waste time doubting or sabotaging themselves. Not saying that doubt doesn't come up, but it doesn't affect them as much because they've found their publishing rhythm. Some writers figure it out right away, for others it takes time. Being balanced allows you to be flexible and relaxed, which in turn shows up in your writing on an intangible level. If I approach my next book with the attitude that "THIS is the one that will make it big or allow me to quit my day job or whatever" then I've already set myself up for failure and put unbelievable pressure on myself. That bleeds into the spirit of the story.

I think there's a lot to be said for authentic writing and an authentic writer--in both writing and marketing/promo. Being true to self and story is a bigger key than typos and grammar.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> This is horrible advice just horrible.
> 
> I can count numerous successful indies who started on zero.
> 
> FYI, my grandfather started a successful business on Zero back in the stone age. A lack of money doesn't equal a lack of ingenuity.


For most, their businesses will fail even if they do put money in it. Putting no money into your work will just make it harder to succeed in an already difficult marketplace.
Sure, you can try to be the one percent who make it from literal zero, but I'd rather save all I can to make a product I worked months on to be the best there is. I was below the poverty line up until 2015, I wouldn't had dreamed of releasing a book until I was able to afford to. If you can't save up a few hundred dollars for an adequate editor and premade cover and your goal is the make money, then I believe you should just wait to release. There's a reason so many writers keep their day jobs until they sale thousands.
It's near impossible to start a business on no money. Your grandfather was an outlier and it was a different time.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## George Donnelly (Mar 5, 2012)

OP, I empathize with your post.

It's not about grammar or punctuation or any other minor or technical matter. It's not about the story being to my particular tastes or not. It's not about art being subjective. And it's definitely not about whether to use an editor or not.

It's about [crappy] stories gaming the system.

There are a recognizable number of [crappy] stories out there that are selling well and it is incredibly befuddling and discouraging to those of us who want to produce quality stories - not sentences or paragraphs or even scenes but quality stories with great characters, pacing, concept, subtext, theme, plot, covers, blurbs, the whole thing.

Examples of what I'm talking about:

- Author copied large chunks of plot from popular TV shows, so much so that all of the top reviews mention it!

- On the nose dialog. Dialog without subtext. It hurts.

- Generic story. Generic star cruiser in generic battle with generic captain saying generic things. Boring.

- Total telling. So little showing, I feel like I'm a million miles away from the story watching it through the Hubble Telescope.

- Story that does not advance the plot. Nothing happens. Just people talking to no purpose. On and on.

- Kitchen-sink stories where everything happens and none of it fits together.

I try to ignore this but I inevitably find it over and over again as I attempt to discern the secrets of successful authors. I keep doing my thing because I can't learn anything useful from these Gamey Authors.

But, OP, I totally feel you! And thanks for this opportunity to rant.


----------



## mojomikey (Apr 9, 2014)

Cassie Leigh said:


> Obviously that writer is doing something right whether it's writing compelling stories or mastering advertising. And truth is that a really interesting story trumps perfect writing any day of the week. (And what qualifies as really interesting is different for each reader.)


This. Some in my writers group still don't get it. I don't care how much you polish (edit) that turd, it's still a turd.

Writers aside, most readers want a compelling story with interesting characters.


----------



## Lu Kudzoza (Nov 1, 2015)

> Your underlying argument here is...what? That people in earlier eras weren't as smart and thus needed more precise language to understand concepts? I'm trying to understand your argument and am coming up short.


I'm saying they weren't as educated and had a limited world view (which is different than smart), thus the need for more precise language in writing. 150 years ago many people had never seen a live elephant. Precise language was needed to describe an elephant's lumbering and thundering movement. Today most people have seen an elephant move in real life, have seen video of many elephants thundering across a tundra. As a result, it is easy to imagine the concept from fewer and less precise words. Poor grammar doesn't ruin the experience as much today as it would have 150 years ago... so readers are much more forgiving of poor grammar.



> I don't think proper grammar and spelling will ever be rendered unnecessary, regardless of text-speak and internet shorthand. Call me an optimist, but the written word will endure. It has for this long. What makes you think it won't in the future? Sure, grammatical rules and spellings change over the centuries, but the concept of certain conventions and rules that facilitate understanding will never go away.


I didn't say that proper grammar and spelling will be rendered unnecessary. Only that it is less necessary today than it used to be.



> I remain unconvinced that if you used poor grammar and spelling in even normal professional email correspondence that you would be able to progress very far in your field.


Unless of course you're a brilliant writer that that expands the language. Good writers adhere to the language. Great writers expand it.


----------



## Maggie Brooke (Jan 30, 2016)

Not Lu said:


> Unless of course you're a brilliant writer that that expands the language. Good writers adhere to the language. Great writers expand it.


You'll get no disagreement from me on that point. Certainly great writers push the envelope, but is that the type of writer we've been discussing in this thread? I presumed that the original book the OP described was not written by a ground breaking author, just a lazy one.


----------



## Joseph Malik (Jul 12, 2016)

When I talk about a badly written book, I'm not talking about a book I don't like.

I mean for all intensive purposes when an author doesn't know, there not supposed to change your "point of view" and etc. than it effects me as a reader and I loose interest.

And if that last sentence reads fine to you and you can't see what the big deal is with all this, we're probably talking about you.

You have to have your stuff edited. Publishing a book without hiring an editor is like stepping into the ring when all you've done is shadowbox. In order to avoid getting hurt and embarrassing yourself, you need a coach and at least one good sparring partner who knows all your tricks. Your editor should be both.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

TellNotShow said:


> No, we don't HAVE to do anything. I'm only saying what I do - which is do my best to write the sort of prose preferred by readers of whichever genre I'm writing at that time. And that, from my own research into what sells, the bulk of readers in some sub-genres prefer their books written at, say, 4th grade level - while other sub-genres (even within that same genre) need to be written at, say, 7th grade level.


I always run my output (non-fiction) through a Flesch-Kincaid tool to measure readability. I want to hit a score of 9.0 (ninth-grade reading level), which is sometimes difficult since I'm covering complex concepts. If my output is above 9.0, I rewrite it. Easier readability translates to better engagement in my niche.


----------



## ♨ (Jan 9, 2012)

Trade published books are edited and errors still slip through.

When reading a book, without looking at the title page or acknowledgments, can you tell if it has been edited by a paid, professional editor?

If there are a large number of problems or errors with a book, you can probably determine that it was not edited or that it was edited poorly.

But if you find few or no problems, can you say with certainty that it was edited by a paid, professional editor?  Or could it have been self-edited?

If someone posts on this board and you can find no errors in their post, is it because they paid to have it edited prior to clicking the "Post" button?

If writer A spent $1000 to have his novel edited and the editor spotted 15 errors and writer B spent $1000 to have his same length novel edited and the editor caught 100 errors plus suggested certain chapters be reworked entirely, noticed that a specific subplot was dropped entirely halfway through and found one character was still present two chapters after his death (despite not being a zombie or anything where that might be logical), then did both writers make an equally sound investment in editing services?  Maybe all writer A needed was a proofreader for fifty bucks?

Sure, if writer A is raking in tens of thousands of dollars from each book release, it may be worth spending that $1000 on a editor to make sure the book is as high quality as possible, but if writer A is a relatively new author not making tens of thousands of dollars, should he really spend that $1000 on editing?  Should he really stick his novel in a drawer until he has $1000 to spend on it?  What if the novel was topical and would be out of date before he had a thousand bucks saved up?  Or maybe the writer shouldn't write anything at all until he has editing money set aside?  Or should he just spend $50 on a proofreader before publishing it?

Would anyone advise a 16-year-old with a paper route to buy a minivan to make his deliveries when a bicycle would suffice?  One could certainly argue the minivan would be a good investment in his newspaper delivery business, especially if he has any intentions of growing and expanding his business.  But, if he already has a bike, it wouldn't make much sense for him to wait until he can afford a minivan before starting his newspaper delivery business, would it?


----------



## AveryCockburn (Jul 5, 2015)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> It's not about grammar or punctuation or any other minor or technical matter. It's not about the story being to my particular tastes or not. It's not about art being subjective. And it's definitely not about whether to use an editor or not.
> 
> It's about [crappy] stories gaming the system.
> 
> ...


*applauds*

I recently picked up a book in my genre with 100+ 5-star reviews, a book that came highly recommended, a book I was told was beautiful and emotionally gripping. Unfortunately my emotions never had the chance to be gripped because the first half of Chapter One read like an executive summary of the main character's Life Thus Far. No dialogue, no action, just endless backstory. I got bored and never returned to it.

This is the kind of thing that bewilders me, because we're told readers have short attention spans and need to be drawn in on Page One. Or that they don't like long scenes filled with pointless dialogue.

It could be that those who read very quickly are used to skimming anyway. So a non-engaging passage might even be a bonus because the book can then be finished faster. I'm a slow-to-average reader, so when my entire Kindle screen is filled with a single paragraph, or when characters decide out loud which restaurant to go to and what time to meet, or when dialogue and narrative overexplain things, it drives me mad.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

TellNotShow said:


> No, we don't HAVE to do anything. I'm only saying what I do - which is do my best to write the sort of prose preferred by readers of whichever genre I'm writing at that time. And that, from my own research into what sells, the bulk of readers in some sub-genres prefer their books written at, say, 4th grade level - while other sub-genres (even within that same genre) need to be written at, say, 7th grade level.
> 
> Simpler prose doesn't mean they're dumbed down - the plot may well be complex and challenge a reader's mind. But people like what they like, and what some people like in their books is characters who speak the way THEY do - which is grammatically incorrect, for one thing.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your response. It's one thing to have characters who break rules or speak in a stylized manner, and another to have an author who deliberately writes in a poor manner. I just wasn't sure which you meant. I don't believe that any book should be deliberately busted. It's a separate argument as to writing for an age level.

I personally am not skilled enough to set out to hack down a story for the benefit of a perceived reader. When I publish, my poor fans will have to slog through whatever is there. I won't be everyone's cup of tea. And, I intend to have two editors--at least, that's today's plan. When I run out of money, I'll do it myself, and hope my readers will like it, anyway.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> Trade published books are edited and errors still slip through.
> 
> When reading a book, without looking at the title page or acknowledgments, can you tell if it has been edited by a paid, professional editor?
> 
> ...


Anybody can be a paperboy, but not everyone can write. A bicycle can get you down the road, but an editor can steer you in the right direction.
I spent 900 to get 3 books edited. The last book cost me 200. All books are over 100k words. 1000$ is bunk.
A proofreader isn't a proofreader if he/she gets a book that needs more work because an first time 'author' thinks they are the 1% who writes and edits error free work.
There's a difference between a few errors slipping through and a grammatical mess.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

JalexM said:


> Anybody can be a paperboy, but not everyone can write. A bicycle can get you down the road, but an editor can steer you in the right direction.
> I spent 900 to get 3 books edited. The last book cost me 200. All books are over 100k words. 1000$ is bunk.
> A proofreader isn't a proofreader if he/she gets a book that needs more work because an first time 'author' thinks they are the 1% who writes and edits error free work.
> There's a difference between a few errors slipping through and a grammatical mess.


I think it's important to look at the ROI as well. If those books don't make that money back, it probably wasn't the wisest decision.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

NeedWant said:


> I think it's important to look at the ROI as well. If those books don't make that money back, it probably wasn't the wisest decision.


True, but if it's your first book, you can't really plan for ROI. For people with multiple books out, I see it differently. 
On your first book, get a good editor and learn all your vices and work on them so by the time you finish the second, third, and fourth book, you can only get a proofreader as you know what you need to fix. (That's not to say that in fixing your common writing quirks, that others won't show up.)
If the first book doesn't do well, then adjust the cost of the next ones so it doesn't hurt the bank.
But if you're already planning for failure by cheaping out on editing, then I don't see why you would try to write to make a profit.
Once again, if you release a book just because you wanted to, is different.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

I wrote a blog post about this a while back. It was about Dan Brown, who is often sneered at because of 'bad writing'. I think my post explains it all. It's about the STORY when all is said and done. readers want a good yarn, never mind the grammar or rules.

https://susannefromsweden.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/how-dan-brown-does-what-others-cant-or-are-allowed-to-do/


----------



## Joseph Malik (Jul 12, 2016)

NeedWant said:


> I think it's important to look at the ROI as well. If those books don't make that money back, it probably wasn't the wisest decision.


No. It definitely was. Because how is the author going to learn if they don't have someone sit them down and tell them what they're doing wrong? A couple of thousand bucks for a couple of tough edits is cheaper than an English degree. Call the edits of the first few novels -- especially if it's the author's _first_ few novels -- a loss leader, or even an educational expense.

And again, I'm not talking about writing a book that people don't like, or a narrative convention or storyline with selective (or, for that matter, mass commercial) appeal. I'm talking about reckless and criminal murderizin' of the King's English.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Dan C. Rinnert said:


> Trade published books are edited and errors still slip through.


Doesn't Diana Gabaldon's Outlander have an error right in the first paragraph, maybe the first sentence? I haven't checked, but if memory serves, it was a semicolon (which most writers shouldn't use in fiction because they don't understand how). Errors aren't that big of a deal. It's the patterns of errors that I think are going to screw most people up.

I do think, unpopular opinion, that most people shouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on editing unless they have the money to burn on their fun writing hobby and don't care. There are various reasons for this, like they're not ready for an editor, because they haven't learned to write yet, or the book is going to be packaged so poorly it won't sell, leaving them hundreds in the red.

Don't skip the light bill to pay an editor. You can get your writing whipped into shape enough that you will earn money that can be used for editing in the future, if money is an issue, and if you still want to pay hundreds to an editor at that point.

As far as "bad" books selling well, such is life. The grammar may be atrocious (this is objective) and the prose pedestrian (kind of objective), but the story obviously connects with people. If a genie came down and said you will start a novel tomorrow that tens of thousands, perhaps millions of people will read and enjoy and remember all their lives, but with one catch--it will be filled with mistakes and cliches and the kind of prose you haven't written for a decade, I'd take that deal.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

Shelley K said:


> I do think, unpopular opinion, that most people shouldn't spend hundreds of dollars on editing unless they have the money to burn on their fun writing hobby and don't care. There are various reasons for this like they're not ready for an editor, because they haven't learned to write yet or the book is going to be packaged so poorly it won't sell.


This ^

The thing I am seeing consistently is people rushing to publish, when they simply aren't ready. Just because anybody can self publish these days, doesn't mean they should. An editor can't fix basic craft issues with things like plot, pacing, characterisation and POV. I'm old fashioned, I wrote for years when the only option was trad. You joined writers groups, formed critique circles, read widely and put in the work *hoping* that one day you would be good enough to attract an agent. In the olden days, you wrote numerous novels as practice, learning about your voice, and your strengths and weaknesses. I did all those hard miles away from public view, sharing online with my critique circle.

These days people rush and publish the first draft of their first book and then turn up on the k-boards asking for feedback and for people to pay to critique their work. It doesn't matter how much those people throw at an editor, it's not going to alter the fundamentals that haven't yet grasped.

Some people also tend to focus on the negative. They'll look at a break out success like Twilight or FSOG and focus on what they personally think is "bad" about it and completely over look what those novels did absolutely brilliantly, which is what contributed to their success.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

JalexM said:


> True, but if it's your first book, you can't really plan for ROI.


I did.

This is a business. As such, I planned every step of my first book, from first draft to launch, with sales in mind. I wrote it to market before the practice was cool; it was in the black by the end of the third week.

I'm not saying everyone can or should use that approach. But in my opinion, everyone _can_ plan to generate a positive ROI on their first book.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

Anarchist said:


> But in my opinion, everyone _can_ plan to generate a positive ROI on their first book.


Totally agree, it just takes a bit of time and effort. I was also in the black by the end of week one and I achieved it by doing my research, having a budget for production costs, and polishing my work BEFORE I published it. Four books and one year later, that series now generates a full time wage for me.


----------



## Peter Spenser (Jan 26, 2012)

AliceW said:


> Just because anybody _can_ self publish these days, doesn't mean they _should_.


Big, big Bingo!

Way too many dilettantes conflate the two.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

AliceW said:


> I was also in the black by the end of week one...


Show-off.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

Anarchist said:


> Show-off.


Ha! Sorry, slip of the fingers, I meant *month *one. Where's an editor when you need one...?


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

AliceW said:


> Ha! Sorry, slip of the fingers, I meant *month *one. Where's an editor when you need one...?


I connected with the story. An editor was unnecessary.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

JalexM said:


> True, but if it's your first book, you can't really plan for ROI.


As others have said, I do. I wouldn't bother publishing a book if I didn't think I could make some money from it. This is a business after all.



Joseph Malik said:


> No. It definitely was. Because how is the author going to learn if they don't have someone sit them down and tell them what they're doing wrong? A couple of thousand bucks for a couple of tough edits is cheaper than an English degree. Call the edits of the first few novels -- especially if it's the author's _first_ few novels -- a loss leader, or even an educational expense.
> 
> And again, I'm not talking about writing a book that people don't like, or a narrative convention or storyline with selective (or, for that matter, mass commercial) appeal. I'm talking about reckless and criminal murderizin' of the King's English.


I think if you're using editors/proofreaders as a way to make for not having a basic understanding of the language you're writing in, maybe taking a couple of classes would be more beneficial. I think writers should be able to self-edit no matter if they end up using other editors/proofreaders or not. Sending your first draft off to an editor/proofreader would be criminal IMO.

I look at publishing as a business and I would never just put something up just to see what happens or just as a learning experience. If I publish something, I expect it to make money. If it doesn't then I did something wrong.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> OP, I empathize with your post.
> 
> It's not about grammar or punctuation or any other minor or technical matter. It's not about the story being to my particular tastes or not. It's not about art being subjective. And it's definitely not about whether to use an editor or not.
> 
> ...


Yes. Oh, my goodness, yes! I've downloaded books in my genre that leave me scratching my head, as well. And since the OP mentioned this is a thread to whine, yeah, I'll just say that it makes me feel like a turd when I download best selling books in my genre that have the following:

-opening with backstory
-poorly crafted sentences and paragraphs
-changing povs on the same page, like really?
-misspelled words like loose vs lose, or than vs then
-NO character names! I'm thinking of one specific series in general where the main character's name is basically only on the book's blurb
-no real direction of plot or problem

Just a few to throw out there, but that crap angers me. Why? Because I've spent years honing my craft and have had my manuscripts thoroughly edited. I'm not saying that alone should make me a best seller, but damn. At least I care enough to give readers a manuscript that's professional and polished. However, I've missed the mark on cover and blurbs in the past, so this has definitely hurt me. Does it make sense to me, though, that books in the same genre that are written like a first grader's essay sell like hot cakes? No. And it never will. Also, surely I could learn something from these books but why would I make an effort to learn anything from an author that clearly has the funds to edit their books and straight up doesn't? I'll never get it. Sorry.

Errors slip out here and there in all our books. That happens. I've found errors in my books after hitting publish when those manuscripts were edited to death. We can't catch all the mistakes, but damn, at least we can try.


----------



## Maggie Brooke (Jan 30, 2016)

Boyd said:


> The really bad negative reviews on my books, even now when I pay for 2-3 rounds of edits, proofing etc? It's writers. Readers don't care if they find 2 - 3 errors in a book. Trad pub often has as much or more than indies who use editors. Why? Because we're used to being the under-dogs and want to overperform so we can make a mark and be remembered.


People say that all the time about traditionally published books having as many or more errors than self-published books, but as a reader I have not found that to be the case. Sure, I encounter minor errors once in a while, but not very often. Two to three max in a book. I'm an editor and a writer, so I do notice these things.

I have had to stop reading many self-pubbed books due to too many errors, though I have no idea if they were professionally edited or not. Note, I would never leave a negative review on these books. I just return it and move on. And many, many self-pubbed books are well-edited and clean.

Have other writers really given you a bad review for just 2-3 errors in a book? If so, how petty.


----------



## J.A. Pipes (Jul 3, 2016)

Joseph Malik said:


> I mean for all intensive purposes when an author doesn't know, there not supposed to change your "point of view" and etc. than it effects me as a reader and I loose interest.
> 
> And if that last sentence reads fine to you and you can't see what the big deal is with all this, we're probably talking about you.


Yeah, I was like, what the? Joe suffered a head injury today.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Boyd said:


> If I followed this advice when I started, I wouldn't be writing for a living now. Take my words with a grain of salt, but no... this quote... no.
> 
> The really bad negative reviews on my books, even now when I pay for 2-3 rounds of edits, proofing etc? It's writers. Readers don't care if they find 2 - 3 errors in a book. Trad pub often has as much or more than indies who use editors. Why? Because we're used to being the under-dogs and want to overperform so we can make a mark and be remembered.


Never said editing was to take the place of a good story. Also never said it had to be error free.
I don't know why everyone are stating things as absolutes. Just stating an opinion. 
There's also plenty of people who plan and strategized to make positive income in books and mostly failed. People forget that most of the authors on kboards are outliers and most who plan, write to market, and release, don't make any money on their first book. It just increases the chances.


Boyd said:


> If I followed this advice when I started, I wouldn't be writing for a living now. Take my words with a grain of salt, but no... this quote... no.
> 
> The really bad negative reviews on my books, even now when I pay for 2-3 rounds of edits, proofing etc? It's writers. Readers don't care if they find 2 - 3 errors in a book. Trad pub often has as much or more than indies who use editors. Why? Because we're used to being the under-dogs and want to overperform so we can make a mark and be remembered.


Did you release your first boom without it going to an editor?


----------



## Joseph Malik (Jul 12, 2016)

NeedWant said:


> Sending your first draft off to an editor/proofreader would be criminal IMO.


As opposed to sending it off for publication? People are going to publish first drafts anyway.

There's this American Idol, insta-fame, participation-trophy mindset, especially among beginning writers, that writing a book constitutes enough writing to write a good book. They wrote it, mommy says it's great, and they hit UPLOAD. And now cruising new releases sometimes feels like going to the museum and having to wade through exhibits of hand-outline turkeys and macaroni art.

Meanwhile, writers who have put the time in and gotten their work professionally edited are getting buried by the signal-to-noise ratio.

Amazon is not remotely the worst of this, BTW. Go a couple of pages deep on SW.


----------



## Joseph Malik (Jul 12, 2016)

Jerry Pipes said:


> Yeah, I was like, what the? Joe suffered a head injury today.


Not today.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Boyd said:


> yup.


Well. You're an outlier through. I like many others planned and studied to make money on books and failed. It's a one percent kind of situation.
Sure, it's possible to do so, but don't get down if the first book doesn't do gang busters.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

"Jalexm said:


> Did you release your first boom without it going to an editor?


[quote author=Boyd"]
yup.
[/quote]

"Heathen!" she says, squinting and making the sign of the cross.


----------



## SomeoneElse (Jan 5, 2016)

Maggie Brooke said:


> Have other writers really given you a bad review for just 2-3 errors in a book? If so, how petty.


I agree. There's a huge difference between a book riddled with errors (and often a lack of understanding of certain areas of grammar) and a book where a few mistakes slipped through. I think most of us have found (or had readers point out) small mistakes after a book has gone live. In my experience, almost all readers are forgiving of a typo or two - and I personally feel they should be. How much do 3 mistakes in 90K words really ruin the reading experience?

It's a whole different thing if the author didn't even run spell check.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> OP, I empathize with your post.
> 
> It's not about grammar or punctuation or any other minor or technical matter. It's not about the story being to my particular tastes or not. It's not about art being subjective. And it's definitely not about whether to use an editor or not.
> 
> ...


Er ... with the exception of the plagiarism, the things you listed are totally subjective. Dialogue that makes one reader think, "Jeez, this is so on the nose! Does the author think I'm dense?" will make another sigh with relief that this author -- unlike all those confusing ones -- has kindly made things clear. Same thing with showing not telling. Writing teachers have been trotting that one out for decades, but some readers seem to appreciate being told. Maybe they don't read because they want to figure stuff out on their own but rather want it served up in a easy, digestible form. A book that strikes some readers as utterly generic and, therefore, boring will strike others as deeply satisfyingly: they went looking for "a space opera just like _Their Favorite Book_," and that's what they got. And one person's incoherent mess will be another person's varied and exciting tale.

One thing the indie revolution has done, I think, is show that a lot of the Great Truths held dear within the publishing industry aren't actually true. It was assumed that readers wouldn't tolerate X, Y, or Z because everyone knew those equaled bad writing. And because they were considered unacceptable, no one published books with X, Y, or Z, which means the validity of these assumptions went untested. Then indie writers came along and started publishing books that transgressed them, and what do you know? A substantial number of readers don't actually care about X, Y, and Z. Or A, B, or C. Or L, M, or N. This includes a certain level of mechanical error: it's a deal-breaker for some readers, sure, but there's pretty clearly a bunch of others out there who don't notice or do notice but don't much care.

These stories are not "gaming the system." I mean, _gaming_ how, exactly? Amazon puts all the books up there, and the ones readers like best sell most. Authors who have some money to buy good covers and promotion obviously have an advantage, but that's just the way the world works, eh? Being able to buy advertising is an advantage in most businesses. Buying a good cover is not gaming. Paying ENT to advertise your book is not gaming.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

JalexM said:


> Well. You're an outlier through. I like many others planned and studied to make money on books and failed. It's a one percent kind of situation.
> Sure, it's possible to do so, but don't get down if the first book doesn't do gang busters.


Boyd is very successful.

But I think the real outliers are people who write a cracking story that barely resembles English. Let's face it--most people who can tell a story that sells can write well enough (or at least _correctly_ enough) that the prose isn't going to hold them back. There might be a handful of books at any given time that make bank and are embarrassments to proper language, but they're few.

Most people who hit on a story that grabs people and a cover that gets their attention are going to see some success with that book whether it's grammatically perfect or whether it's not. And if it flounders, it's almost certainly not the grammar. It's because they're not promoting and need to do a better job getting the word out about their books. As long as a writer who can tell a story and has a few books out has $500 to sink, unless the whole book reads like dialogue out of A Clockwork Orange, it would be far, _far_ better spent on good promotion than an editor. That probably made some people clutch their pearls, but I know in my bones that it's true.

Joe had it right earlier. Grammar's at the bottom of the list, let alone gorgeous prose. If a book has a true shot at being a breakout because it's simply great, expensive editing is unnecessary for that to happen. It's more likely that it'll cost a lot of money and produce something that wasn't edited very well anyway because somebody who threw up a shingle with no freaking clue cashed the check and let his Dunning-Kruger delusions crap all over the pages. Editing isn't going to make any book a success, is what I'm saying.

Anybody who really wants to hire an editor should do so. But for those who feel they must because that's some sort of a rule, it's worth considering that it's an opinion, not a fact, no matter how often it's repeated as one.


----------



## 75845 (Jan 1, 1970)

For those who like to pronounce on grammar I've news for you: English has no grammar rules. For centuries it didn't even have spelling rules. It was a language of the people that got promoted to the national language because it was no longer politically expedient for the powerful to speak French. The establishment control brought more standardisation, but its historic roots were preserved in the sense that English never became a fully controlled language like French or Icelandic would go on to become.

Those style guides have the clue in the name. They are guides as to best common practice and there are a lot of style guides so the style is not as common as you think. The thing that changes most through history is comma practice. The comma went from viral overload in the era when printers were becoming publishers and writing in-house style guides (at the same time as formal education was moving down the social strata) through to present style guides that amount to if it isn't confusing without a comma then it doesn't need a comma. At present a lot of professional writing still focuses on the age of print, but the screen dominant age will mean more change and like web design will turn to minimalism based on what is easiest to type with an on screen keyboard. This is before we even get into the issue of the dialectisation of English through its use around the world. The UK has been pushed into third place by India in terms of English speakers and Indian English is not British English.

If commas are taking you out of the story if suggests that, to you, the story was not enticing. 

Arguing that no one should be allowed to publish until they can afford an expensive editor is just a form of social control to keep out the riff-raff. Reducing the pool of writers by disposable income will harm writing quality as it means that you get more untalented writers succeeding because they had the money or the contacts. Reading the depressing writing standards of British journalism in the "quality" media should make anyone shudder at what happens when you let the wealthy take over the writing pool.


----------



## George Donnelly (Mar 5, 2012)

Becca Mills said:


> Dialogue that makes one reader think, "Jeez, this is so on the nose! Does the author think I'm dense?" will make another sigh with relief that this author -- unlike all those confusing ones -- has kindly made things clear.


LOL, this is satire, right?

The gaming part comes in when you find obvious shlock with dozens or hundreds of 5-star reviews, among other indictators. Something is fishy there. Things have been fishy before with Kindle bestsellers, and someday soon we'll discover how the latest rounds of fishiness are being carried out.

I don't care about it that much. It's plain as day to me. But since OP found the courage to say something, she inspired me to put my 2c in as well.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Boyd said:


> I need to come to kboards more to play. I do miss your posts Shelley
> That's the meanest thing I've heard all year
> 
> Seriously, what I do is not all that special. I found the intersection of my interests and what I wanted to write with what readers want, and I give it to them. I am no Hemingway by any means. I think a compelling story, characters that readers love and the proper marketing (not to be confused with ADVERTISING) makes chances of a breakout story line jump up, by an order of magnitude. Not everyone holding a lightening rod is going to get zapped, but if you aren't holding it at all...


Never said what you did was special. Just saying the way you did it had less of a chance of succeeding than if you went the more conventional way. I've been falling you for awhile and I would never take away from what you've done. I've even attempted and failed to write serials like you did(for reasons I don't want to get into). But, you released your first book in 2013. It was a very different publishing environment. Once again not trying to take away from your success.


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

Mercia McMahon said:


> Arguing that no one should be allowed to publish until they can afford an expensive editor is just a form of social control to keep out the riff-raff. Reducing the pool of writers by disposable income will harm writing quality as it means that you get more untalented writers succeeding because they had the money or the contacts. Reading the depressing writing standards of British journalism in the "quality" media should make anyone shudder at what happens when you let the wealthy take over the writing pool.


For the last time, never said you had to get an expensive editor. But people are writing to make money, and in this instance, it is a very smart idea to spend money on a _*good cheap*_ editor to help make the best package you can for your audience. 
Also never said an editor can fix a [crap] story.

On that note, since it's me against the world apparently I'll just continue to dig my grave.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> LOL, this is satire, right?
> The gaming part comes in when you find obvious shlock with dozens or hundreds of 5-star reviews, among other indictators. Something is fishy there.


Again you are being completely subjective. *YOU *think it is shlock, but if the title has dozens or hundreds of 5-stars then obviously *other readers* really enjoyed the story. People are quick to cry scam or gaming the system because they simply aren't the target audience. So many of the posts in this thread smack of sour grapes.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

AliceW said:


> Again you are being completely subjective. *YOU *think it is shlock, but if the title has dozens or hundreds of 5-stars then obviously *other readers* really enjoyed the story. People are quick to cry scam or gaming the system because they simply aren't the target audience. So many of the posts in this thread smack of sour grapes.


Yup, exactly.

Tons of people think Oliver Stone's films are awesome. He's won a bunch of Oscars and Golden Globes. I won't see his movies anymore because I feel like he's constantly hitting me over the head with the moral-of-the-story sledgehammer, and it bugs the heck out of me. A chacun son gout, and all that.

One reader might appreciate sophistication and complexity, another may prefer simplicity and clarity. Railing against the latter group for liking what they like is pointless. And, you know, sort of obnoxious.


----------



## George Donnelly (Mar 5, 2012)

AliceW said:


> Again you are being completely subjective. *YOU *think it is shlock, but if the title has dozens or hundreds of 5-stars then obviously *other readers* really enjoyed the story. People are quick to cry scam or gaming the system because they simply aren't the target audience. So many of the posts in this thread smack of sour grapes.


I understand there is a large contingent of folks who want to reduce OP's complaint to petty whining about grammar and editing. This is strawmanning.

I also understand that many of you want to wipe the chalkboard clean of all ideas of quality: it's all subjective you want to say. You want to obliterate standards.

But the fact that different people like different things does not mean that there are no standards. It doesn't erase thousands of years of development of the art of story. It doesn't change the fact that certain stories work better than others, for reasons that can very frequently be identified.

But if you want to say that all art is subjective, keep in mind that's a claim of objective truth that, at the very least, implies self-contradiction.



AliceW said:


> if the title has dozens or hundreds of 5-stars then obviously *other readers* really enjoyed the story


To shake your head feverishly at the idea that gaming is occurring right now is naive, at best, since we know for a fact it has happened before - many times.



AliceW said:


> So many of the posts in this thread smack of sour grapes.


Instead of imputing the worst intentions to people, why not take us at our word when we say that it confuses and discourages us and we would like to understand what is going on?

The opposing opinion seems to be that there are a lot of lowbrow readers who love to read low-quality fiction. It's plausible but I still think there's more to it than that.



Becca Mills said:


> One reader might appreciate sophistication and complexity, another may prefer simplicity and clarity. Railing against the latter group for liking what they like is pointless. And, you know, sort of obnoxious.


That's your subjective opinion. It's pointless to rail against people for not liking what you like. Not to mention obnoxious. 

BTW, that's not even what I'm talking about. You can write a great story that has an interesting concept, great premise, real characters and subtexty dialog without getting "sophisticated and complex." Likewise, you can crank out pure bullpucky with simple, clear words. It's not about the prose.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> That's your subjective opinion. It's pointless to rail against people for not liking what you like. Not to mention obnoxious.
> 
> BTW, that's not even what I'm talking about. You can write a great story that has an interesting concept, great premise, real characters and subtexty dialog without getting "sophisticated and complex." Likewise, you can crank out pure bullpucky with simple, clear words. It's not about the prose.


I wasn't talking about prose quality. I was talking about the issues you raised: showing instead of telling (requires readers to analyze events in order to discern important information the story and characters), including subtext in dialogue (requires readers to analyze dialogue to extract both a literal and a secondary meaning, and then to remember both), dialogue that's not on the nose (leaves key information to be extrapolated by the reader, based on what's said and what's left out), uniqueness (asks readers to engage with something new and different rather than sinking into the full familiarity of genre). These are all ways of demanding a more sophisticated and complex engagement with the text than many readers of genre fiction seem to want to give.

I haven't railed against people who like what I don't like. My tastes are probably similar to yours. I prefer books with the characteristics you mention. And I'm also pretty exacting when it comes to prose correctness, FWIW. But I recognize many readers are not like me. I can choose the group of readers I want to write for. Some groups are larger than others.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

Joseph Malik said:


> As opposed to sending it off for publication? People are going to publish first drafts anyway.


Then they'll get some lovely reader feedback and probably won't move many copies. If they sell like hot cakes I don't think they'll care either way. Though other writers might. 



JalexM said:


> For the last time, never said you had to get an expensive editor. But people are writing to make money, and in this instance, it is a very smart idea to spend money on a _*good cheap*_ editor to help make the best package you can for your audience.


You get what you pay for. I'd rather save the money and do the work myself.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Jane_Dough said:


> Sour grapes, huh? I wish you could be inside my head right now. I've been writing my whole life, writing toward publication for over fifteen years. During that time I've stood behind and promoted amazing, well-deserving authors who've made it. Jealousy never entered into it. I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole, not just SP, because let's face it, there are lot of trad pubbed books out there that make me wonder as well. When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged. What you call sour grapes some of us call something else. Some of us might even call it the end of a dream we've been working on for decades. It's the ending of a relationship. It's a death in the family. That's how hard it is for some of us. And on that not, I'm done. Good luck to all of you.


Jane, if you're at the point of quitting writing/publishing, why not reveal your books and ask some of the very successful authors here for feedback and help? If you're feeling your dream is ending, there's not much left to lose. There's little point in continuing to protect your work by remaining incognito, a position that means no one here can try to help you in any concrete way. I'm sure you've gotten lots of writing feedback from other sources in the past, but honestly, KB is probably your best source for feedback on self-publishing specifically.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

GeorgeDonnelly said:


> I understand there is a large contingent of folks who want to reduce OP's complaint to petty whining about grammar and editing. This is strawmanning.


Where did I say anything about spelling and grammar? I have said, *repeatedly*, that people who point to books as being "bad" by their standards, fail to see what that story is doing really well. Usually these so called bad books are giving readers exactly what they want, delivering a strong story and making an emotional connection. Story will aways trump perfect but flat prose.



GeorgeDonnelly said:


> To shake your head feverishly at the idea that gaming is occurring right now is naive, at best, since we know for a fact it has happened before - many times.


Again, I've never said gaming doesn't happen. We all saw the scam KU books that were claiming All Star bonuses by using closed loop click farms (which resulted in the recent payment adjustment). But your premise is that any book you deem "bad" and that had lots of 5-star reviews must automatically be "gaming the system." I've looked at the top 100. Where are all these scam books? I see books where authors have worked hard to build relationships with readers, send out hundreds of ARCs and put in the hard mileage to get all those early reviews. I see books that are hitting the market bang on and shooting up the charts. Or does working hard and writing to market equal "gaming the system" to you?


----------



## JalexM (May 14, 2015)

NeedWant said:


> You get what you pay for. I'd rather save the money and do the work myself.


I don't believe that, but to each there own.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

Jane_Dough said:


> I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole... When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged.


So instead of being jealous you have a sense of entitlement? That you've "done the work" therefore the industry owes you success? It doesn't work like that. I've been writing for years, I queried for years. I have numerous full requests all telling me I was talented, but all eventually passed. I didn't sit back and go but _I've put in x number of year, therefore I'm owed a contract._ I took a different path. I studied the market and looked at what successful authors were doing.

There are lots of reasons a book sinks. K-boarders always recommend starting with the top 3 - cover, blurb, story. There's also a far less popular factor at play - market. If you write whatever you want without any regard whatsoever to market, it doesn't matter how beautiful and lyrical your story, there is a high chance the book will fail. The majority of people doing well, know their market. They know what readers want, the tropes, what is expected and they deliver that while keeping their own unique voice. Are their authors who write the story of their heart and do outstandingly well? Yes there are. But they are a teeny percentage of total authors out there. You can either complain about not being the exception, or knuckle down and figure out what is the potential problem holding you back from whatever goal you want.

Can you honestly say that you studied your target category? That you know the size of your chosen market, so you can reasonably predict if it can sustain your goals? Do you know exactly what your readers want? Do you know the expected tropes in your category? Have you delivered on that? 
If you answer "no" then maybe you need to stop being depressed/disappointed/jealous and reevaluate your goals to be realistic about the potential of your books. Or if you really want to be a bestseller (which it sounds like you do) pick a market that gives you the best chance of achieving that goal, find out what readers want, and deliver it.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

JalexM said:


> I don't believe that, but to each there own.


It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of what you're capable of doing yourself. I do my own covers as well o).

At the end of the day it's all about the money. I'm making a profit on my books at the moment and that's all that matters.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Jane_Dough said:


> Sour grapes, huh? I wish you could be inside my head right now. I've been writing my whole life, writing toward publication for over fifteen years. During that time I've stood behind and promoted amazing, well-deserving authors who've made it. Jealousy never entered into it. I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole, not just SP, because let's face it, there are lot of trad pubbed books out there that make me wonder as well. When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged. What you call sour grapes some of us call something else. Some of us might even call it the end of a dream we've been working on for decades. It's the ending of a relationship. It's a death in the family. That's how hard it is for some of us. And on that not, I'm done. Good luck to all of you.


I'll just put a hand out and echo what others have said. If editors and agents have said your writing is great, there's a reason your books are sinking. Nobody EVER said my stuff was great. Bloggers don't like it, even--not to market enough. I got turned down by everybody (publishers & agents)--38 times. NOW, people say my writing is good. Nobody sure said so at the beginning (except my friends, God love 'em).

The reason I've sold is that I hit a chord with some readers. So--if your writing is really good and you're telling compelling stories but not selling, something is off. I don't think you have to write to trend to sell, but you do have to write to market--to meet your readership's needs, to hit that chord. Could be the presentation that's off. Could be what you're writing. I suggest as others have--if it's not working now to the point of giving up, why not ask? People will tell you.

I primarily write to be read. I'm guessing you do too. It's pretty heady stuff. So--if people here can help you get your stuff read by more people, why not give it a shot before giving up?


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

RedAlert said:


> Thank you for your response. It's one thing to have characters who break rules or speak in a stylized manner, and another to have an author who deliberately writes in a poor manner. I just wasn't sure which you meant. I don't believe that any book should be deliberately busted. It's a separate argument as to writing for an age level.
> 
> I personally am not skilled enough to set out to hack down a story for the benefit of a perceived reader. When I publish, my poor fans will have to slog through whatever is there. I won't be everyone's cup of tea. And, I intend to have two editors--at least, that's today's plan. When I run out of money, I'll do it myself, and hope my readers will like it, anyway.


You're right - you won't be everyone's cup of tea. But then, no one is, ever. The first book in my best selling series has over 100 one-star reviews. Partly because it's free, and some of the free-peoples love to bash. Partly because writers who can't sell books drop one-stars on a lot of more successful books and give the better-selling writer "advice," presumably to make themselves feel better. But also because, that book annoys a lot of people. The writing's too simple - "Did a ten year old write this?" Or the reader was looking for something completely different - "Not what I expected." Or the story went in a different direction than they hoped it would - "I wanted the Whoever to Whatever the Otherever." Or it was too short. Well yes, it was.

So don't worry about being everyone's cup of tea RedAlert. You're a thinking, intelligent person - if you write down the story you're driven to write, and market well enough to get readers, your books will be the right flavour of tea for YOUR readers.

I will say though - assuming your books are basic fiction, and don't need extensive fact checking - if by Two Editors, you mean anything other than an editor and a proofreader, I'd advise against it. When I've tried two editors I've found myself with a less coherent book. Find one good editor you can work with, someone who's focused on story, and stick with them. And that person is probably not a proofreader, so you'll need one of them too. (Although, if you don't make lots of errors when you write, you MAY be able to get away with a diligent computer check for proofreading - and if money is an issue, I'd forego a human proofreader and pay a good story editor instead. Because grammar "rules" are bullsh*t, and by being diligent, you'll find almost every error yourself. I pay for both, but if money was short, I'd keep my editor, she's the gold.)

And also, RedAlert, very much this.



AliceW said:


> K-boarders always recommend starting with the top 3 - cover, blurb, story. There's also a far less popular factor at play - market. If you write whatever you want without any regard whatsoever to market, it doesn't matter how beautiful and lyrical your story, there is a high chance the book will fail. The majority of people doing well, know their market. They know what readers want, the tropes, what is expected and they deliver that while keeping their own unique voice.


I'd add that, your "own unique voice" can change from genre to genre, and possibly should. By reading a good book aloud to yourself - performing that book, character voices and all - you can slip into a rhythm that will be a mix of your own natural voice with the flavour of that book. Then just start writing, and don't read anything else in that genre till you've got that book done.

And here's several grains of salt to go with all that.. . .. . .. ... .. . I hope you succeed beyond your wildest dreams.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

AliceW said:


> So instead of being jealous you have a sense of entitlement? That you've "done the work" therefore the industry owes you success?


Wow. That's what you got out of Jane_Dough's comment?


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Jane_Dough said:


> Sour grapes, huh? I wish you could be inside my head right now. I've been writing my whole life, writing toward publication for over fifteen years. During that time I've stood behind and promoted amazing, well-deserving authors who've made it. Jealousy never entered into it. I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole, not just SP, because let's face it, there are lot of trad pubbed books out there that make me wonder as well. When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged. What you call sour grapes some of us call something else. Some of us might even call it the end of a dream we've been working on for decades. It's the ending of a relationship. It's a death in the family. That's how hard it is for some of us. And on that not, I'm done. Good luck to all of you.


Hugs. I've been here. I wrote my 47th novel and published it, and I told my 1000+ mailing list about it, and I sold 2 copies and that was that.

I was used to it by then, so I had all that devastation you're going on about here completely behind me. My thoughts were basically that other people could get lucky, but not me. I sometimes caught small waves, but they petered out quickly and they never amounted to much.

I remember when I tried *really* hard to write a book like Gillian Flynn, and I worked on the tropes and I tried so, so hard to make it work and it totally crashed and burned, and I went back to romance with my tail between my legs and wrote more really visceral romance novels that no one wanted.

So.

Here's how I changed it:
-Found a genre that I liked that was also selling well and that INDIES were doing well with. (Indies are only now getting any success in psychological thrillers. It was a trad world then and that's why my novel failed). 
-Wrote something that didn't push the boundaries (well, I tried to tone down all my boundary-pushing tendencies, anyway. I wasn't utterly successful, and if I had been, I probably would be doing even better, but, well) and fit within the genre.
-Did a little promo right out of the gate 
-Started a new pen name
-Put the new pen name in KU since I had no audience to launch it to

I published that 1st book in March. Now, I'm wrapping up my second five-figure month in a row, and I've got four books out in that series. I have over fifty novels out, but those four books are making me money right now (well, we won't talk about the little bookbub I did today on my mystery books, though) and NOTHING ELSE that I wrote before is.

If it's killing you to fail at writing, then maybe it's worth dusting yourself off and trying it a different way. If my saying that to you triggers a desire to tell me all about how you've already tried *so hard,* then wait. You're not ready yet. Mourn it. Grieve it. Rail against the universe for not loving you just the way you are. And when you get all that out, and there's nothing left, search for a spark of hope somewhere. And then pick yourself up and go for it. It's worth it.


----------



## Zaitsev (Feb 21, 2016)

valeriec80 said:


> If it's killing you to fail at writing, then maybe it's worth dusting yourself off and trying it a different way. If my saying that to you triggers a desire to tell me all about how you've already tried *so hard,* then wait. You're not ready yet. Mourn it. Grieve it. Rail against the universe for not loving you just the way you are. And when you get all that out, and there's nothing left, search for a spark of hope somewhere. And then pick yourself up and go for it. It's worth it.


That's beautiful -- what you said. Kind -- helpful. And true, as I see it.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

Jena H said:


> Wow. That's what you got out of Jane_Dough's comment?


Someone complains they have been writing/publishing for x number of years and that they should be successful. What is that, if not a sense of entitlement?

We're not all standing in a queue waiting for our number to be called to step up to the counter and collect our bestseller status. I've seen people slog for years over numerous novels and never succeed (by their definition). I've seen new authors publish their debut and skyrocket. It's not like a regular job where if you put in fifty years you get a gold watch. Yes there are things that will give you a much better shot of hitting your goals (like WTM, knowing reader expectations etc) but there's no guarantee.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

valeriec80 said:


> If it's killing you to fail at writing, then maybe it's worth dusting yourself off and trying it a different way.


What a great post. Thank you for sharing


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

AliceW said:


> Someone complains they have been writing/publishing for x number of years and that they should be successful. What is that, if not a sense of entitlement?


A fellow writer (hmmm, the phrase "there but for the grace of God...." just popped into my head for some strange reason) comes here, to a writer's forum, and 'vents' about discouragement and disillusionment, or whatever other words of frustration come to mind, and she's accused of being 'jealous' and 'entitled.'  Who here HASN'T griped about something from time to time. Who here DOESN'T get frustrated or discouraged from time to time? If we can't safely express those thoughts HERE, then where?

Oh, and the word "should" does _not_ appear anywhere in Jane Dough's comment. The way I read her post, it's not "I've done the work and I should be successful." Instead, it's "I've done the work and I'm not successful." The difference being that it's a disheartened venting, a blowing-off-steam kind of post... expressed to peers who _should_--theoretically, at least-- be able to sympathize... if not empathize.

So, NO, I did not get a 'sense of entitlement.'


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## devalong (Aug 28, 2014)

Here's one thing having a bunch of books in different genres helps with - years ago I wrote a book under a different pen name that has never sold well. Never. I love that book it, took me years and years to write and I paid more for editing than it ever made. Reviews have always been great - but like 5-10 per year. But the genre was not a great one for me, it never moved more than 1 copy a month maybe, no matter what I did. 

A few weeks ago I sheduled a free day for it because it's in KU and why not (the book was at like 1.5 m.) Suddenly it's burning up the free charts with no promo, no mailing list, no social media, just a lame blurb and cover - wtf? I'm writing another one in that category which is suddenly apparently hot. Tells me that you just really never can predict what way the winds will suddenly blow, but it helps to have more books published. Each one tells you something you wouldn't otherwise know.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

AliceW said:


> Someone complains they have been writing/publishing for x number of years and that they should be successful. What is that, if not a sense of entitlement?


Alice, the consistency with which you have this furious DOWN WITH ENTITLEMENT reaction is striking. You seem actually to think someone who perceives herself as having failed over and over and over, despite giving her all, is not allowed to feel grief, shame, hopelessness, or any other emotion. If someone expresses _anything _ in the face of failure other than unflagging, can-do optimism and profound self-effacement, boom, they're one of those entitled types and must be castigated in the harshest terms you can get by with on a moderated board. Certainly, there are some pompous fools out there who need an ego-puncturing reality check, but assuming every single disappointed person fits that description is both weird and, well, sort of cruel.


----------



## moxie2 (Jul 5, 2016)

I just read through this entire thread. Message to OP:none of the posts here gives you the answer because members of Kboard are in a totally different category of book sellers than the one that you were venting about. With this myopic vision, everyone here ignores the fact that there is an entirely different category of book sellers. If you want to know why an indie writer trying to build a platform sometimes can't compete with what you perceive to be "badly written books" (and yes, there are badly written books -- sometimes this board can't seem to admit that) here's why. Below is a direct cut and paste of a post from a FB group where this other category of book sellers. The person who posted this is a guy who you would never imagine to be a romance author. He was selling different kinds of books before and decided to go into Romance because it's what sells. Sorry to say, it is tough for someone starting out trying to build a platform, and following the advice given on Kboard, to compete with this:

__________

Weekly Update:

I have never even read a Romance novel before. I know that I am diving into something new, but I cannot stand the fact that I know so little about what makes a good Romance book. So I took the whole week to study the Romance genre. 

I made up a customer avatar on who my target audience is (Dewan's advice from some videos). I always thought this was a silly practice but I couldn't be more happy that I did this. It really gave me a lot of info I needed to know how I want to run my business. I learned a lot about who is going to be reading my books. My Target audience has helped me figure out my next direction. Picking an actual niche. 

Once I figured out what my niche was, I set out to collect as many reviewers emails as I possibly could. I am doing this now even before I have wrote a single word! The reason I have set so much stock into collecting all those emails is simple. A week or so before launch, I am going to email all of those reviewers a copy of my book. I am going to ask them to review it honestly for me. I have around 1,200 email addresses in my niche. I will send out three or so emails before the launch and three or so after launch to remind them to leave a review. I am also going to send them a link to opt into my ARC team. I want to build up an ARC team of around 500 to 600 to insure I get around 200 reviews. 

By doing this, I should get around 100 to 200 reviews on my book, build an ARC team and as well as boost up my downloads while the book is on free promo. Now I am going to send copies with the emails, but I am sure a lot of them will download through the Amazon link I give them after The book launches. This being my first book, I need to get people onto my ARC team and land reviews. I am less worried about the free download count because I have other means I can promote the book. 
I have also started reading a Romance book. I wanted to see what success looks like. I picked a top author who had a book on free promo. I learned some very valuable things from this book. 

I learned to build a series. The book I had read focused on one character. This was the first book in the series and looks like it was on a free promo again seeing as it was first published in march. The group of friends from the first book each had their own book later in the series. This is something that really interests me. I want to build up multiple series. I seen one series that had 31 books in it. I thought that was ridiculous until I seen that all 31 books were in the top 5,000 PAID books on kindle (I checked each one!) 

Finally I started writing out an outline. I think the first book that I release is going to be simple 10,000 word book to get people a taste and to set up the series. 

My next steps are going to be to actually start writing the book! I need to get in line with a good fiverr book designer.
Things are starting to really move faster and faster now. I have set myself up for success and now I just have to follow through. 

_________

I can't confirm but I suspect he is a member of the Warrior forum. People may jump in to pick apart his plan, but while they type, he's probably laughing his way to the bank.

Back to lurking.....


----------



## JessieVerona (May 10, 2013)

Isn't his plan pretty much exactly what KBs tells newer authors to do to build up their base? What am I missing?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Where did he say he's making money at his plan? Are you sure he's laughing all the way to the bank?

He wouldn't be the first person to find that successfully writing that stupid romance isn't as easy as he thought it was.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

JessieVerona said:


> Isn't his plan pretty much exactly what KBs tells newer authors to do to build up their base? What am I missing?


It's an attempt in that direction, but you can see some potential problems. First, he's only read one book in his target genre. Ever. That's not enough research. He hasn't picked the genre because he likes it AND there's a market for it, but just because there's a market. Also, 10,000 words is a short story. Also, he's not likely to get 100-200 reviews from emailing 1,200 reviewers. And a Fiverr cover might not do the trick. And so forth. It's like the person he mentioned (Dewan, the video maker) has taken the writing-to-market advice and made a super-quickie-shortcut version that's easier to sell but less likely to bear fruit.


----------



## ......~...... (Jul 4, 2015)

moxie2 said:


> I can't confirm but I suspect he is a member of the Warrior forum. People may jump in to pick apart his plan, but while they type, he's probably laughing his way to the bank.


I was expecting to read about a guy using some blackhat/dubious strategies. This guy...isn't it. Maybe the part about spamming reviewers? Otherwise, his plan doesn't seem that sophisticated or even that well thought out. Why are you so worried about this and why do you think he's making actual money operating like this?



Becca Mills said:


> He hasn't picked the genre because he likes it AND there's a market for it, but just because there's a market.


Is there a law against this?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

NeedWant said:


> Is there a law against this?


Nooo, but it's not the advice given by the main writing-to-market advocates around here, and I was addressing Jessie's suggestion that "his plan [is] pretty much exactly what KBs tells newer authors to do."


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

JessieVerona said:


> Isn't his plan pretty much exactly what KBs tells newer authors to do to build up their base? What am I missing?


If he pulls off a winner with 10,000 words, after reading one romance for research purposes, I'm going to start doing brain surgery. I'm sure there are a lot of brains out there that would benefit from my imprecise scalpel.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

P.J. Post said:


> _Example time:_
> 
> *Ex Machina*: 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, amazing film, by every measure except one - sales. Worldwide gross, $36 million.
> 
> ...


I'd rather be known as the guy that made Ex Machina all day long out of those two example,but that's just me.

I'm of the Viggo Mortensen mindset, "I never want to look back on my career and see a project I did for the sake of a paycheck." We're talking about a guy that could have gone anywhere after LoTR, but has instead chosen to lay low and do small films, with scripts that he believes in. Films that come with relatively minor paychecks. That's the kind of artist I'll always strive to be. Not that a large paycheck can't come from doing things you believe in, quite the contrary. It's just never going to be a first consideration for me.

Not right, not wrong. It's all personal preference and what you're able to live with.


----------



## JV (Nov 12, 2013)

moxie2 said:


> I just read through this entire thread. Message to OP:none of the posts here gives you the answer because members of Kboard are in a totally different category of book sellers than the one that you were venting about. With this myopic vision, everyone here ignores the fact that there is an entirely different category of book sellers. If you want to know why an indie writer trying to build a platform sometimes can't compete with what you perceive to be "badly written books" (and yes, there are badly written books -- sometimes this board can't seem to admit that) here's why. Below is a direct cut and paste of a post from a FB group where this other category of book sellers. The person who posted this is a guy who you would never imagine to be a romance author. He was selling different kinds of books before and decided to go into Romance because it's what sells. Sorry to say, it is tough for someone starting out trying to build a platform, and following the advice given on Kboard, to compete with this:
> 
> __________
> 
> ...


Hmmm...lot's of assumptions in this post, from top to bottom...you know what they say about assu---

Nevermind...not gonna even bother. You go on back to lurking.


----------



## Kristopia (Dec 13, 2013)

Jena H said:


> A fellow writer (hmmm, the phrase "there but for the grace of God...." just popped into my head for some strange reason) comes here, to a writer's forum, and 'vents' about discouragement and disillusionment, or whatever other words of frustration come to mind, and she's accused of being 'jealous' and 'entitled.'  Who here HASN'T griped about something from time to time. Who here DOESN'T get frustrated or discouraged from time to time? If we can't safely express those thoughts HERE, then where?
> 
> Oh, and the word "should" does _not_ appear anywhere in Jane Dough's comment. The way I read her post, it's not "I've done the work and I should be successful." Instead, it's "I've done the work and I'm not successful." The difference being that it's a disheartened venting, a blowing-off-steam kind of post... expressed to peers who _should_--theoretically, at least-- be able to sympathize... if not empathize.
> 
> So, NO, I did not get a 'sense of entitlement.'


This. Right. Here.

I saw discouragement, not entitlement.

And, it is discouraging to want something so badly and not seem to hit the right time, the right market, etc., when you have read what appears to be absolute drek that seems successful. While we all have our preferences, and some books that might not have the best grammar, spelling, comma placement, or basic structure, what really sticks in the craw are those stories that appear successful that are so full of cliches and obvious tropes, or just plain terrible writing. It's like dealing with modern American politics.


----------



## Kristopia (Dec 13, 2013)

Meanwhile, hey, I fully support a person's right to write dreck (drek?) in order to make a living, as long as they're enjoying it. But I support our right to be annoyed if it sells better than...well, us.


----------



## RecluseRaconteur (Apr 11, 2015)

For people who spend years and years and years on their master pieces, this must be very sad.


----------



## MCwrites (May 26, 2016)

valeriec80 said:


> Hugs. I've been here. I wrote my 47th novel and published it, and I told my 1000+ mailing list about it, and I sold 2 copies and that was that.
> 
> I was used to it by then, so I had all that devastation you're going on about here completely behind me. My thoughts were basically that other people could get lucky, but not me. I sometimes caught small waves, but they petered out quickly and they never amounted to much.
> 
> ...


This post is awesome. And helpful. Thank you.


----------



## Marti talbott (Apr 19, 2011)

So....my books were terrible in the beginning. I first published in August 2010 uploading 7 very badly written books with multiple errors, bad grammar, and I still don't know what a dangling participial is - and don't care. 

The first year I sold 770 books. The total number of books sold over my 5 1/2 year career is over 170,000.
I've gotten dozens of 1 star reviews, people made fun of my home made covers, I've gone into KU and out again, and to-date I've published 41 titles with number 42 coming next week.

Why did my books, errors, horrible covers and all keep selling? Search me. No one is more amazed than I am. In six years I've corrected errors until I'm blue in the face and changed the covers multiple times.  

The point? I'm too stubborn to give up. No one told me I couldn't, so I did.

Marti Talbott


----------



## kespano (May 11, 2016)

blubarry said:


> Most readers care about story. If you do that well, they'll overlook all but the most egregious spelling and punctuation issues. I've read many indie books where I could nitpick about the prose, about the spelling, or the grammar, but the story hooked me and I kept reading. In the end, I think that's what really matters.


This. If the story is good, readers will often be forgiving of many other things. I've read plenty of flawed books that were fun. If the story was interesting enough, and the bad writing didn't get in the way too much, I've read until the end and felt my time was decently spent.

I also think that those authors usually have good covers and a great blurb. An exciting blurb that will bring in readers is sometimes a work of art in itself. It's not just a matter of a well-written blurb. You have to hit the right emotional nerves (sense of excitement, what's at stake, etc.) to get readers interested. What I've also been learning is that you really have to know what genre fits your book best (not always easy) and then own it. Really commit to the genre in the blurb.

If those things are all solid, then it may come down to market... Not much can be done about that with a completed book, but to write more books...


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Jane_Dough said:


> Sour grapes, huh? I wish you could be inside my head right now. I've been writing my whole life, writing toward publication for over fifteen years. During that time I've stood behind and promoted amazing, well-deserving authors who've made it. Jealousy never entered into it. I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole, not just SP, because let's face it, there are lot of trad pubbed books out there that make me wonder as well. When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged. What you call sour grapes some of us call something else. Some of us might even call it the end of a dream we've been working on for decades. It's the ending of a relationship. It's a death in the family. That's how hard it is for some of us. And on that not, I'm done. Good luck to all of you.


The good news is that you know your writing is good. So what else is going on? A few questions immediately come to mind....is this book a standalone? Or part of a series? What have you done to get eyeballs on the book? What are your covers like? Do they attractively convey the genre? How are your blurbs? Does your story hit on the reader expectations for your genre? What is your pricing like? It could be that your book is great and for any of these reasons, it isn't reaching the right people. We might be able to help, if you share some more info. As someone else said, if you're about to throw in the towel, why not try a hail mary instead? Post your book here and let us make some suggestions that might be helpful?


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Briteka said:


> Right, but I'm asking how they would do better? What in Amazon's algo takes into account editing? I guess word of mouth could increase sales of good books, but is word of mouth really a factor? I'm not sure.
> 
> There is almost a frustration on my part. I spend a lot of money on editing. I spend a lot of money of proofreading. It's frustrating to do that when readers don't seem to reward it at all. It's frustrating to watch book after book rise to the top spots when they've obviously not been edited.
> 
> It's also frustrating that Amazon (and other market places) refuse to implement a system where quality is a bigger factor because this hurts self-published writers. As more and more readers find it impossible to wade through the crap, they'll just give up on self-published authors all together and go back to reading only trade-published books. The thing is that it is an easy fix. Amazon could ban ARC reviews. Amazon could do something to solicit more generic reviews for books. Amazon could do something (more) to penalize the rankings of books that get their sales from outside advertising.


Why on earth would Amazon want to penalize books that the author is spending money to advertise and that are driving sales of that book so that both the author and Amazon make more money? That is a good thing. It's a smart business decision.

I think both Amazon and readers are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. You don't have to wade through crap. The way Amazon is designed it's easy to find good books by browsing the bestseller lists. These are books that have already been vetted by readers.

Word of mouth is huge. I personally think it's bigger than anything else. I run a mystery readers group and am a huge reader, like an obsessive reader with a towering to be read pile. When I read a book and love it, I'm excited to tell people and it always results in sales of those books. If I'm doing it, loads of others are too and that drives sales. Books take off because readers love them. I start a lot of books, and love when a book sucks me in and I have to read it in one sitting. That doesn't happen as often as I would like. When it does, I'm excited to tell people about it. A book that generates that kind of enthusiasm is going to do well. It just is. There is an author I'm reading now who is brand new to the genre and has done next to no marketing other than playing with pricing. Her book has an awesome cover and is well written and is a page turner. It is in the top 100, close to the top 50, simply because people are really liking the book. It can still happen to anyone at anytime.


----------



## kespano (May 11, 2016)

I just wanted to add one last thing. Readers _do_ want good books. Readers appreciate it when they find a book with good writing. Badly written books that sell well don't take away from that. There's art, and there's fun. The two can, but don't always, go together.

Instead of focusing on the writing problems of those bestselling books, I invite you to think about why their content sells. You can learn a lot from trying to figure out why certain books resonate with readers. If you're able to craft an excellent book that also resonates with readers, then you'll have the best of both worlds. Readers will want to buy to your exciting book, and they'll also appreciate that it's beautifully written.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

Jane_Dough said:


> Sour grapes, huh? I wish you could be inside my head right now. I've been writing my whole life, writing toward publication for over fifteen years. During that time I've stood behind and promoted amazing, well-deserving authors who've made it. Jealousy never entered into it. I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole, not just SP, because let's face it, there are lot of trad pubbed books out there that make me wonder as well. When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged. What you call sour grapes some of us call something else. Some of us might even call it the end of a dream we've been working on for decades. It's the ending of a relationship. It's a death in the family. That's how hard it is for some of us. And on that not, I'm done. Good luck to all of you.


Jane, I hope you'll let us here at Kboards (or even private message me!) take a look at your books to see if we can provide any insight. That is, if you are open to constructive criticism. Like someone else said, if you are at a wall and a loss for what to do next, then you have nothing to lose except your pride. But that can be recovered if we can pinpoint a problem that can help your books see some visibility. Many of us really want to help. If you decide to post, put it in a new thread. [hugs to you]


----------



## Beth Lanier (Jul 9, 2016)

There are actually people "published" on Kindle that go to bookstores and buy old books that are not copyrighted, so they're not able to be tagged as plagiarized, and basically rewrite the story, almost word-for-word, in modern times.  I'm not kidding.  I can't remember where I saw the article about it but I was shocked.  The person who wrote the article bought a voice recognition dictation system, sat there and read the book, then went back and edited the book for modern times and changed locations and other key facts.  And they are making a ton of money.  As for romance, erotica, etc., short explicit books are selling better than full length novels. I was turned on to this fact by a very successful writer who is in my writing group. Instead of the "meet/cute" formula, it's the Meet/F/F/F formula. You can figure out what the F stands for. 

As far as punctuation and grammar - I have three editors and stuff still gets through.  I learned a long time ago not to continuously self-edit or I'd never finish writing a book. So I dump the story and let them do the cleaning up, then I read the book again. Reading e-book versions of a lot of my favorite authors, I find mistakes.  I've gotten to the point where I'm just not going to obsess over it any more. I tend to be a perfectionist but after the 3 editors, 12 Beta readers and reading it several times myself - and STILL finding mistakes - I'm done. They keys to making it, from the advice of my mentors who are highly successful, are: 1. Write an enjoyable, relatable, entertaining book. 2.  Write a LOT of enjoyable relatable, entertaining books.  3.  Market like crazy.

I'm still working on learning the best way to market on a limited budget.  

I want to write good books that leave people feeling good.  I hope to some day write a book that MATTERS. But the more I see that the marketable books - the truly marketable books - are short, hot sex books - the more I'm inclined to put out some of those myself.


----------



## kespano (May 11, 2016)

P.J. Post said:


> Plenty of great books don't go anywhere.
> 
> _Example time:_
> 
> ...


Ah. I really liked Ex Machina. That's my kind of sci-fi film. I also love the show, The Americans, which I believe has proportionally more critical acclaim than viewers. Ex Machina may not have enjoyed the same blockbuster status as some movies, but it _did_ find an audience. If someone writes a good book, I really do believe the book should be able to consistently sell, even if it's in smaller numbers. The tough part is finding the right category that can support smaller sales and still have visibility.


----------



## Peter Spenser (Jan 26, 2012)

Beth Lanier said:


> The keys to making it, from the advice of my mentors who are highly successful, are:
> 
> 1. Write an enjoyable, relatable, entertaining book.
> 2. Write a LOT of enjoyable relatable, entertaining books.
> 3. Market like crazy.


I think that this is it in a nutshell. No matter what else you may hear or read from others about what will lead to long-term success, this is it.



Beth Lanier said:


> the more I see that the marketable books - the truly marketable books - are short, hot sex books - the more I'm inclined to put out some of those myself.


Only if you're short, hot, and sexy yourself... and can write about it. If a person is tall, clumsy, and dull I'm not sure they would have the personal knowledge to create something wildly successful.


----------



## eswrite (Sep 12, 2014)

Yes, they sell anyway. Some observations:

1) This isn't news. Bad storytelling abounds. In books, on TV, at the movies... and it keeps selling.

2) We should always ask why bad stuff sells and keeps selling. We might learn a thing or two.

3) We can go with the flow, ascribe to the trends, sell to markets, or we can do it our way. Whatever floats your boat. It's your work. Take pride in it however you choose to.

4) Cursing the darkness doesn't solve anything. Turn on your flashlight instead.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Beth Lanier said:


> I want to write good books that leave people feeling good. I hope to some day write a book that MATTERS. But the more I see that the marketable books - the truly marketable books - are short, hot sex books - the more I'm inclined to put out some of those myself.


This just isn't true. Not to say that short, hot sex books aren't marketable, but the bestselling authors in contemporary romance year over year? They write long, sweeter-to-steamy-to-hot books. I keep hearing this again and again--that readers don't want books above 50 or 60 or 70K or whatever, and it isn't true. At least not MOST readers.

One way you can tell is by going to contemporary romance on Audible.com and checking the running time of the bestselling books. They tend to be 8-20+ hours. Yes, 20. My latest are 12-14 hours, and they're 105-115K.

One reason many indies write such short books in romance is that they're writing to trend and trying to get a book a month or more out. For that, most people will have to write quite short books. That is ONE route. Another route is to write longer books for a different audience, even if it takes longer. That can work, too. Certainly, I don't see erotic novellas, or any novellas, dominating in contemporary romance. Your own book is novella length by my standards. If you think the bestselling authors are consistently writing shorter than 175 pages--they just aren't, unless I'm even more out of touch than usual.

There's more than one way to be successful, but if I were giving general advice, I'd say to write the kinds of books that lots of people like to read AND that you enjoy and understand yourself, to get them edited so they're as smooth a read as possible, to put a really attractive professional cover on them that signals the genre and tone of the book, to write a killer blurb, to keep on putting books out at a rate of at least 4 long books/year (in romance, anyway), to market them according to best practices in your genre, and to read your reviews so you know what is and isn't working.

But if you think, "Only unedited, short pieces of trash sell, so I'll write an unedited, short piece of trash and it'll do better than my edited, polished work"? I don't think that's going to help. Not unless your edited, polished work really isn't satisfying to your market. Unless that's the case, I think you're a lot better off doing the above--and keeping on doing it.

Anybody can do whatever they like, of course, and have whatever opinion they like. But that's what I'd do if I weren't selling and wanted to. I started out releasing 3 books at once, and I can't believe how many people still want to tell me that's stupid--even though it worked great.


----------



## eswrite (Sep 12, 2014)

Rosalind J said:


> One way you can tell is by going to contemporary romance on Audible.com and checking the running time of the bestselling books. They tend to be 8-20+ hours. Yes, 20. My latest are 12-14 hours, and they're 105-115K.


Yes, but that assumes that works for Audio must work the same way for actual, old-school reading. It may be, but you need to offer a different set of data to support the assertion, as in, what lengths textual readers (as opposed to listeners with long commute times, etc.) prefer.

Experientially, I have found that for the stuff I write (scifi, cyber), shorter books don't work as well. For my other series, which is more character-based, it does. Neither of which proves anything one way or the other with regards to the romance market. IOW, beware of logical category confusion and non sequitur fallacies.


----------



## Maggie Brooke (Jan 30, 2016)

Beth Lanier said:


> There are actually people "published" on Kindle that go to bookstores and buy old books that are not copyrighted, so they're not able to be tagged as plagiarized, and basically rewrite the story, almost word-for-word, in modern times. I'm not kidding.


I'm going to make you even more mad. Some of these are ghostwritten. I'm a writer/editor for an agency and have had at least one of those requests cross my desk. It was an early twentieth century non-fiction book that someone wanted my agency to convert into language that would appeal to teenage readers.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

eswrite said:


> Yes, but that assumes that works for Audio must work the same way for actual, old-school reading. It may be, but you need to offer a different set of data to support the assertion, as in, what lengths textual readers (as opposed to listeners with long commute times, etc.) prefer.
> 
> Experientially, I have found that for the stuff I write (scifi, cyber), shorter books don't work as well. For my other series, which is more character-based, it does. Neither of which proves anything one way or the other with regards to the romance market. IOW, beware of logical category confusion and non sequitur fallacies.


I mention audio because you can see the lengths easily. Those authors, though, are also the bestsellers on Kindle. I am talking about top contemporary romance authors, ones whose work isn't in the top 100 because it's 99 cents and brand-new, ones who dominate the charts year after year, trad and indie.

I think my logic is normally pretty good.  I don't know many markets, but I follow this one a bit.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

kespano said:


> If someone writes a good book, I really do believe the book should be able to consistently sell, even if it's in smaller numbers. The tough part is finding the right category that can support smaller sales and still have visibility.


The first half of this doesn't seem to work at all without the second half. Problem one, many categories that should exist don't at all. Problem two, even if the category exists, visibility and the ability to support those small sales isn't there. I only base this opinion on a couple of books, published by two friends of mine, both of which are far superior to any of my own. Both have great covers and were professionally edited by top people, then proofread within an inch of their lives, then beautifully formatted. Both books have completely tanked, despite being well marketed and thoroughly earning their excellent reviews. As an aside, I'm sure both these books would sell really well if they were in physical bookstores. I make a living, but one of those authors sells maybe a copy a month (usually a paperback), while the other has given up marketing and hasn't sold a copy in six months.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2016)

eswrite said:


> Yes, but that assumes that works for Audio must work the same way for actual, old-school reading. It may be, but you need to offer a different set of data to support the assertion, as in, what lengths textual readers (as opposed to listeners with long commute times, etc.) prefer.


Author Earnings recent report at RWA specifically covering romance notes that longer reads sell better: http://authorearnings.com/2016-rwa-pan-presentation/

Smashwords annual looks at the eBook market also note the same: http://blog.smashwords.com/2015/12/SmashwordsEbookSurvey2015.html (slides 63-71)


----------



## kespano (May 11, 2016)

TellNotShow said:


> The first half of this doesn't seem to work at all without the second half. Problem one, many categories that should exist don't at all. Problem two, even if the category exists, visibility and the ability to support those small sales isn't there. I only base this opinion on a couple of books, published by two friends of mine, both of which are far superior to any of my own. Both have great covers and were professionally edited by top people, then proofread within an inch of their lives, then beautifully formatted. Both books have completely tanked, despite being well marketed and thoroughly earning their excellent reviews. As an aside, I'm sure both these books would sell really well if they were in physical bookstores. I make a living, but one of those authors sells maybe a copy a month (usually a paperback), while the other has given up marketing and hasn't sold a copy in six months.


That's definitely disheartening. I heard of someone who wrote historical fiction being able to sell decently in a small, specialized category. Maybe some types of small categories are better suited to support books like that than others. I do agree there ought to be more categories than there are.


----------



## RightHoJeeves (Jun 30, 2016)

Even if a book is good, has been edited, great cover etc, marketed, I don't think it means much if the author doesn't sell. Many authors don't start selling until later on. Certainly marketing efforts make more sense when a writer has a backlist. Of course, as we've heard, there are authors who do have a big backlist that don't sell well. But if you release one book into the wilderness and it doesn't sell, that doesn't mean anything. It's actually one of the biggest pluses about SPing, I would have thought. You don't need to have a big success right away. You can take years if you need to.


----------



## SteveHarrison (Feb 1, 2015)

Most authors don't sell many books, regardless of how good they are. It's simple math given how easy it is to publish a book and how many are doing so. There are no guarantees, no certainties. The vast majority of writers - even those who are 'good writers,' are traditionally published and do everything right (whatever that is) - are likely to fail in regards to selling their books. It's a harsh reality and something writers need to accept, particularly if their reasons for writing are purely financial.

Anyone who can make a living out of writing, regardless of ability and quality, has my admiration and I hope to join you one day. The odds, even though I consider myself as good (rightly or wrongly) as many financially successful authors, are heavily weighted against me.

And in case you think all that is negative, I find it a very powerful motive to strive for financial success on top of the personal satisfaction and joy provided by writing.


----------



## Peter Spenser (Jan 26, 2012)

Rosalind J said:


> I don't know many markets, but I follow this one a bit.


Yeah, I would hazard to guess that you have a _rough_ idea of what you're talking about.


----------



## WDR (Jan 8, 2014)

Jane_Dough said:


> Sour grapes, huh? I wish you could be inside my head right now. I've been writing my whole life, writing toward publication for over fifteen years. During that time I've stood behind and promoted amazing, well-deserving authors who've made it. Jealousy never entered into it. I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole, not just SP, because let's face it, there are lot of trad pubbed books out there that make me wonder as well. When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged. What you call sour grapes some of us call something else. Some of us might even call it the end of a dream we've been working on for decades. It's the ending of a relationship. It's a death in the family. That's how hard it is for some of us. And on that not, I'm done. Good luck to all of you.


I've tied my whole future to writing. After being laid off more times than I have digits to count on, cheated out of promised bonuses, worked without pay for months, I gave up on the corporate world. For me, I cannot and will not give up.

I was going to say that my book hasn't yet reached the seven-figure mark in the rankings, but I just took a look and as of this morning, I dropped below 1,000,000 in the rankings.  So, honestly, I'm having a damn good laugh right now.

The rankings on Amazon have little meaning to the quality of your writing. All they indicate is where you are in sales. Again, not quality. It might just mean that you have to make more of an effort in newer ways to gain the attention of readers. I print up business cards featuring the cover of my book and a link to my website. Every time someone asks me what I do for a living, I don't say that I'm a part time worker in a hardware store, I say that I'm a writer. Then I hand them one of these cards. Not as often as I'd like, after a couple of days I get a visit on my website, and I gain a sale a day or two after that. Just a single sale in a month makes my sales ranking jump above 200,000. It won't stay their for long without sustained sales, but it leaps up impressively. For every book that goes up in the rankings, another one has to go down a bit. My book jumps up and down on a regular basis as other books pass it going up and down.

If you have people who like your writing, then keep writing. A dozen people who like what you write can be a dozen-and-a-half when the next book comes out. At some point, you will reach that tipping point where there are enough people who read what you write that each time you release something new, you will have hundreds---even thousands---of sales when perhaps now you only have dozens or tens or just a few at a time.

People actually like my story! I get good reviews and I even get fan mail! And NOT from friends and family! What an amazing emotional impact that has to get a random email from out in the wild saying that the person really liked my story and can't wait for the next book to come out. It's not like I wake up every morning and my email is filled with fan letters. I may see one every month or so. But I do get them. That gives me certain hope for the future.

I enjoy writing. I love watching my thoughts appear in text in front of me. I delight in how the keys feel beneath my fingers as I tap out the words. I'm amazed watching as all this comes flowing out of me as time goes by. If nothing else, I will keep doing this. Focus on the enjoyment of writing your stories. Do it for fun. Then when you are ready to close that particular story, give it to your editor to help you clean it up.

Proofreaders are my most vital step. I DO change my story depending on their response to it. If I make a major change, it goes back to my editor for more refining. Proofreaders are the final Quality Assurance step. One group gets the first shot at reading it. If they find issues, those issues get corrected and the proof goes to the second group. Two of my proofreaders don't like the genre in which I write. They are a true litmus test; if I can hold their interest, then I'm doing something right.

I chose my proofreaders carefully. They are people I know and they fully understand that I absolutely need them to be critical. It is not an insult if they came back to me and say, "This isn't working for me." or "You lost me in Chapter 7---I mean seriously, WTF were you drinking when you wrote this?" (real quote). When I get their input, I go back and fix it. Then they read it again. They tell me if it gets better.

Another thing I do is read good books. Books that won awards, books that were well-edited, etc. These act as technical examples for me. I read a good book, go back and read my own crap, and then I can see my stupid mistakes. Or, I can avoid making such errors.

Sure it stings when I get the feedback and the feedback is not good; when the manuscript I poured so many thousands of hours into gets torn to shreds. But when I'm done with my upset, I reread what I wrote through their eyes and make the changes needed to make my story flow better for the reader. Their job isn't to tell me to quit, their job is to tell me to work better.

Talk to people you know and ask them to be your proofreaders. Have them alert you to the rough parts and then try to smooth out those parts.

But don't give up writing. Don't give up on fifteen years of effort. Even Stephen King threw away his manuscript and gave up. His wife saved the manuscript and told him to keep at it. He eventually did, and that manuscript turned out to be his first hit. You never know when you effort will pay off.

Focus on what you enjoy about writing and just keep doing it. Even if I have to go to my part time employer and ask for a full-time position, I'll just keep on wiring. You never know.


----------



## CassieL (Aug 29, 2013)

sstroble said:


> Will never forget one person's comment about a best-selling author's book: "I love his books. They are like cotton candy."


I like to refer to those as bubblegum books. They're nice to read on a plane or when you don't want to stress your mind but just escape. I think of the Sophie Kinsella books like that and the Tom Clancy and Brad Thor books as well. I also liked Tolstoy, but I'm not going to read him all the time. One is a light escape with no real substance to it and the other is a seven-course meal that leaves you almost overstuffed. Just depends on what you want that day. To me, all four of those are good writers.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

sstroble said:


> Your observations reminded me of a recent email from my brother, who eats a diet much more healthy than mine. It had a list of the top foods Americans eat, number 1 category was Bread, cake, cookies, crackers, doughnuts....
> The list was full of unhealthy choices that make up the bulk of calories for Americans.
> Have often wondered about the same thing that the original post asked: "badly written books selling anyway." Maybe most readers treat their souls the same way they treat their bodies? Will never forget one person's comment about a best-selling author's book: "I love his books. They are like cotton candy."
> 
> ...


Huh? Books aren't nutrition. Real people have lives filled with all sorts of relationships, good and bad, all sorts of pressures and stresses. Jobs that, even if they aren't bad, are demanding. Families. Children. Most people, when they come home after all that, want to relax. They want to have fun. I'd say that if you want to make a living at writing, coming up with stories that are a fun escape is a pretty good first step.

Sure, some readers want to enrich their souls with books, and some TV viewers want to be educated, but most readers read for the same reason most people watch TV or go to the movies: to be entertained. The Sorrow and the Pity is never going to do as well as Star Wars. Never ever ever.

Educational toys are fine, but most kids would rather have the fire engine with the flashing lights and the siren and the ladder that really goes up and down. There's nothing wrong with that, if they've been in school all day. Playing is good. Recreation is great. Fun is necessary.

I write ice-cream sundaes, personally. And I love it. I write the books I wanted to read as a professional woman and working mother with kids and a dog with cancer and a husband working in another state and not enough money and too much to think about. Sexy, sweet, sassy, fun books that made me tear up and laugh and steam up no matter how bad my day had been, and left me with a happy glow.

And zero calories! Score!


----------



## Some Random Guy (Jan 16, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> Huh? Books aren't nutrition. Real people have lives filled with all sorts of relationships, good and bad, all sorts of pressures and stresses. Jobs that, even if they aren't bad, are demanding. Families. Children. Most people, when they come home after all that, want to relax. They want to have fun. I'd say that if you want to make a living at writing, coming up with stories that are a fun escape is a pretty good first step.
> 
> Sure, some readers want to enrich their souls with books, and some TV viewers want to be educated, but most readers read for the same reason most people watch TV or go to the movies: to be entertained. The Sorrow and the Pity is never going to do as well as Star Wars. Never ever ever.
> 
> ...


Exactly! 
A good friend of mine told me, a few months ago, that she really enjoyed my books, not because they're 'great literature' - they aren't - but because they're entertaining. That made me feel I'd achieved what I set out to do - give readers whose attention is pulled into a hundred different directions every day a few hours of easily digested escape from reality. Which is what I mostly read as well.


----------



## Wired (Jan 10, 2014)

Boyd said:


> The really bad negative reviews on my books, even now when I pay for 2-3 rounds of edits, proofing etc? It's writers.


You mean other writers posting negative reviews?


----------



## BeachB (Sep 3, 2013)

Rosalind J said:


> Huh? Books aren't nutrition. Real people have lives filled with all sorts of relationships, good and bad, all sorts of pressures and stresses. Jobs that, even if they aren't bad, are demanding. Families. Children. Most people, when they come home after all that, want to relax. They want to have fun. I'd say that if you want to make a living at writing, coming up with stories that are a fun escape is a pretty good first step.
> 
> Sure, some readers want to enrich their souls with books, and some TV viewers want to be educated, but most readers read for the same reason most people watch TV or go to the movies: to be entertained. The Sorrow and the Pity is never going to do as well as Star Wars. Never ever ever.
> 
> ...


What an excellent post! And the way I feel. Ice Cream Sundaes, love it! Thanks for all you share Rosalind, you have inspired me and educated me more than you will ever know.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

sstroble said:


> YWill never forget one person's comment about a best-selling author's book: "I love his books. They are like cotton candy."





Cassie Leigh said:


> I like to refer to those as bubblegum books. They're nice to read on a plane or when you don't want to stress your mind but just


Yeah, I think I've used the cotton-candy analogy before, whether for books or a TV show, I can't remember. Sometimes I refer to these airy, "fluff" books as the Doritos of the book world, or Doritos of television shows.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Rosalind J said:


> Huh? Books aren't nutrition. Real people have lives filled with all sorts of relationships, good and bad, all sorts of pressures and stresses. Jobs that, even if they aren't bad, are demanding. Families. Children. Most people, when they come home after all that, want to relax. They want to have fun. I'd say that if you want to make a living at writing, coming up with stories that are a fun escape is a pretty good first step.
> 
> Sure, some readers want to enrich their souls with books, and some TV viewers want to be educated, but most readers read for the same reason most people watch TV or go to the movies: to be entertained. The Sorrow and the Pity is never going to do as well as Star Wars. Never ever ever.
> 
> ...


That right there.

I also feel like it's important to make a distinction between what the OP calls badly written books and what others are calling bubblegum books (which I just call books). Some are both, some are not. The most light-hearted, easy-to-read romp can be written exceptionally well.

I'm reading Kristen Painter's "The Vampire's Mail Order Bride" right now. Caveat: this is totally not a genre I read, and I really didn't expect to like it--I expected to dislike it in the extreme. I picked it up out of curiosity, because I like the things she says in forums, and this series is massively successful. I wanted to see what the hubbub was about, and figured I'd slog through it for that purpose.

First, it's well-written. But it's also freaking _delightful_, and I completely see why it's so popular. I've laughed out loud several times, and have now recommended it to several people I think might enjoy it. It's made me laugh and brought a smile to my face many times, and I'm sure will many times more. It's _fun_. I wouldn't call it candy, because candy is tasty for a second and then does not great things inside your body. This is at least a few hours of enjoyment, lowered blood pressure because laughter really is good medicine, lower stress levels, better relaxation and a vastly improved mood.

For some, maybe it's bubble gum, but for me, it's more like health food.  (Where perhaps War and Peace would be a fat camp where I'm forced to jog everywhere and eat only lettuce.)


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

Shelley K said:


> SNIP
> I'm reading Kristen Painter's "The Vampire's Mail Order Bride" right now. Caveat: this is totally not a genre I read, and I really didn't expect to like it--I expected to dislike it in the extreme. I picked it up out of curiosity, because I like the things she says in forums, and this series is massively successful. I wanted to see what the hubbub was about, and figured I'd slog through it for that purpose.
> SNIP.


I read through the "look inside" and you're right it's very catchy.
But I don't think this is what the OP was really talking about.
She was talking about poorly written carp (sic).
This seems to be a clever and potentially very funny mashup of a Hallmark mystery with a Vampire love story.

But the funniest part is the typo I found in the "look inside" (should be she'd not she's).
Should give some heart to those playing whack-a-mole with relentless typos in their own work.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Flay Otters said:


> I read through the "look inside" and you're right it's very catchy.
> But I don't think this is what the OP was really talking about.
> She was talking about poorly written carp (sic).


The lines seemed to be getting blurred, which prompted my post.


----------



## jaehaerys (Feb 18, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> Huh? Books aren't nutrition. Real people have lives filled with all sorts of relationships, good and bad, all sorts of pressures and stresses. Jobs that, even if they aren't bad, are demanding. Families. Children. Most people, when they come home after all that, want to relax. They want to have fun. I'd say that if you want to make a living at writing, coming up with stories that are a fun escape is a pretty good first step.
> 
> Sure, some readers want to enrich their souls with books, and some TV viewers want to be educated, but most readers read for the same reason most people watch TV or go to the movies: to be entertained. The Sorrow and the Pity is never going to do as well as Star Wars. Never ever ever.
> 
> ...


Completely describes my personal writing ethos in a much better way than I ever could. I might frame this and hang it above my desk!


----------



## SteveHarrison (Feb 1, 2015)

A lot of people confuse popular escapist writing with bad writing, which to me shows an unfortunate lack of understanding. It's all subjective, of course, but here's my 2 cents' worth.

Bad writing is easy to spot and is not confined to any particular genre or style. You can quickly tell from a preview page or two if the writer has a command of language and the confidence required to tell a story, or if the writing is lazy or sloppy or hesitant, padded out by unnecessary filler material and requires the reader to constantly backtrack to work out meaning (the 'Huh? Factor'). If all these elements are present, it's really bad...

Bad writing, in other words, is hard to read.

My measure of good writing is an engaging story which flows to the extent that I don't realise I am reading.


----------



## Jena H (Oct 2, 2011)

Shelley K said:


> *snip*
> I also feel like it's important to make a distinction between what the OP calls badly written books and what others are calling bubblegum books (which I just call books).
> *snip*


Yeah, I feel this discussion veered off course into "fun, fluffy popcorn books" territory. I think the OP was referring to books that are just plain badly written, in terms of sentence structure, story flow, grammar, etc. Not beach-read books, or books we pick up strictly to pass the time, or that we might be embarrassed to be seen reading; I think the OP was referring to books that read as if they're written by an 11th-grader, or like it's someone's first, rough (_very_ rough) draft that got published by mistake.


----------



## Dhewco (Apr 10, 2016)

I'm reminded of my 'former' love of William W. Johnstone's Ashes series. When I was coming up through school, I loved his pulp fiction stories of the fall of national governements and the breaking up of the U.S. into small enclaves. I read them voraciously. 

However, as I began writing more myself, reading books like 'Eats, Shoots, and Leaves', and joining critique groups...well, I started feeling differently. The books slowly lost their appeal. It began to be painful to get through them. I'm not a great self-editor (although poverty makes me try very hard) and I'm sure there are rules I've forgotten. However, those books are hard to read now. I'd have to get back into them to point out examples, but I haven't been able to pick them up in ages and I used to read the entire series from beginning to end at least once a year. 

Yeah, my internal editor really kills my enjoyment of stuff. You can't base a book's success on your internal editor's anal retentiveness. When large numbers of the population have barely high school English skills, there are bound to be books that succeed that those readers really enjoy.

My two cents,

David


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

Wired said:


> You mean other writers posting negative reviews?


It seems that many writers drop one-star reviews on other writers' books. Sometimes these are long diatribes that quote "writing rules" or "grammar rules" or just give general advice to a writer who's selling 1000 times more books than they are.

Or there'll be a vicious review on Book One that says it's the worst book they ever read, bla bla bla, and that if you want to read a good book in this genre, you should read Author A Name or Pseudonym P Name's books instead. 
Then the same "reviewer" will write a similar review on your Book Two! So, really? After reading the "worst book" they ever read, they read Book Two in the same series? No they don't. Competing authors.

Mostly, you can't get rid of those reviews either, although I've gotten rid of several. Most are still there. Your best chance of removing these reviews is to go to the reviewer's page, click on their Wish List, and SOMETIMES - usually not - they've used their author name there. Then you can write to KDP with the links to all that and have the review removed. They only remove the review if that person's books are in the same category as your own though.

I feel really sorry for these people, because it's pathetic, and couldn't be good for their self esteem.


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

Shelley K said:


> The lines seemed to be getting blurred, which prompted my post.


Got it.


----------



## RedAlert (May 15, 2015)

@ShowNotTell -

Thank you for your advice.  My current plan is to use a line editor and a proofreader, but not a developmental editor.  My entire attention right now is on plot development.  I am also hoping to have a beta reader or two to tell me if the story is just too dull to publish.  That's all I want.

I have come to realize that writing the story is only half the battle.  Who knew!  That explains all the constant movie hypes you see everywhere.  Endless commercial surges.  Putting the brand out there, and all that.  It took me the longest time to realize that the issue of writing a series versus a standalone is really all about marketing that very, first book.  All the books that follow are marketing points for the first book.

So, let's say that you write a crap book, full of typos on the first page, plot threads that trail off, logic bombs, etc. that you then have to go out and market like it's G-d'
s gift to books everywhere.  Hahaha!  I don't mind paying someone to at least spot all the typos that might crop up.  Misspelled words, words used in place of the correct word, and typos are the bumps that will grind the story to a halt.  Those are the most apparent problems that will show up first.  You have to read the book to discover other problems.

So, I don't mind having to pay someone to take a look at something I wrote.  It's something I have done all my life, having someone else take a pass over it.  I am in favor of editing.  I am in favor of other people reading it for effect.  If I run out of money, I'll do it myself.  But, I'd rather not.


----------



## Peter Spenser (Jan 26, 2012)

Dhewco said:


> When large numbers of the population have barely high-school English skills, there are bound to be books that succeed that those readers really enjoy.


This is an important point for those who study the "business" of writing as opposed to the "art" of it. If you are to understand a business, you have to understand what sells. You don't have to agree with it, or produce it yourself, or even be _able_ to produce it yourself, but you have to understand it. If you don't, you will never understand why other people's work sells a lot while yours barely gets by. Or, you will never understand why one particular book (or series) of yours is a huge success while a different one is an absolute bomb.

Writers who are consistently successful, year after year, book after book, have figured this out. Not what works for someone else, or everyone else, but what works for them. Then they make more of it.

It's not easy to do. Just look at the numbers: how many authors are there and how many of them are consistently successful financially? I don't mean "successful" in the meaning of "quit your day job." I mean how many authors consistently sell their books, for a price, any price? Any fool can give away a thousand books a month for free. A successful author has people who are willing to part with some money in order to read that author's words.

That willingness on the part of readers to repeatedly give their money to an author is the true mark of that author's success. Those readers do it because that author makes them happy, again and again. And it can happen to books that are written at any comprehension level, not just "barely high-school." If you make your readers happy, they will seek you out.


----------



## TellNotShow (Sep 15, 2014)

RedAlert said:


> @ShowNotTell -
> 
> Thank you for your advice. My current plan is to use a line editor and a proofreader, but not a developmental editor. My entire attention right now is on plot development. I am also hoping to have a beta reader or two to tell me if the story is just too dull to publish. That's all I want.
> 
> ...


@ Red Alert.

Haha, you switched my name around to the way it's been brainwashed into us all. I'm TellNotShow - and I'm not afraid to live up to it.

Unfortunately, you're right, and then some - writing the story may even be less than half the battle. Certainly I'd give up more than 50% to any good publisher who wanted my books if I never had to do anything but write them. Probably around 65% would be fair. Because I'd get three times as many books written. Not complaining though - I make a good living. Just saying, self pubbers tend to talk about publishing houses as if they add no value - the good ones add plenty.

It sounds to me like you have things well sorted. You have a plan - more importantly, a plan you've based on your OWN skill set and self knowledge. And you're willing to refine that plan based on what results you get. You're making plenty of sense. You can do this.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Jane_Dough said:


> Sour grapes, huh? I wish you could be inside my head right now. I've been writing my whole life, writing toward publication for over fifteen years. During that time I've stood behind and promoted amazing, well-deserving authors who've made it. Jealousy never entered into it. I'll tell you what I am. Sad. Devastated. Hurt. Disappointed in myself. Disappointed in the publishing industry as a whole, not just SP, because let's face it, there are lot of trad pubbed books out there that make me wonder as well. When you've worked on your craft for years and have worked with multiple editors and you've had other writers and agents tell you you've got mad skillz and yet your new book sinks to the bottom a month after its release, you get more than a little discouraged. What you call sour grapes some of us call something else. Some of us might even call it the end of a dream we've been working on for decades. It's the ending of a relationship. It's a death in the family. That's how hard it is for some of us. And on that not, I'm done. Good luck to all of you.


I read this a few times. This morning, I came back to it because it struck a chord.
I get it. I'm in the same place. It isn't sour grapes. It's just sad and heartbreaking, and makes you rethink genre selection, plot decisions, chapter order and word choice. It wears on you.
Thank you for posting this. Virtual hug.


----------



## Melody Simmons (Jul 8, 2012)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> My opinion Readers be like:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Cover
> [*]Blurb
> ...


Agree. Covers and blurbs do everything.


----------



## Mark E. Cooper (May 29, 2011)

Shelley K said:


> I'm reading Kristen Painter's "The Vampire's Mail Order Bride" right now. Caveat: this is totally not a genre I read, and I really didn't expect to like it--I expected to dislike it in the extreme. I picked it up out of curiosity, because I like the things she says in forums, and this series is massively successful. I wanted to see what the hubbub was about, and figured I'd slog through it for that purpose.
> 
> First, it's well-written. But it's also freaking _delightful_, and I completely see why it's so popular.


I have all of the Nocturne series and the spinoff in audio. They are EXCELLENT.


----------



## WDR (Jan 8, 2014)

Cassie Leigh said:


> I like to refer to those as bubblegum books. They're nice to read on a plane or when you don't want to stress your mind but just escape. I think of the Sophie Kinsella books like that and the Tom Clancy and Brad Thor books as well. I also liked Tolstoy, but I'm not going to read him all the time. One is a light escape with no real substance to it and the other is a seven-course meal that leaves you almost overstuffed. Just depends on what you want that day. To me, all four of those are good writers.


A book does not always have to be high literature. I just want a great story.

I fully appreciate the effort and skill that goes into creating high literature prose, but a great story can carry itself without all the fine-tuned workmanship. There are those great stories and characters that just suck you in and don't let go until the final page.


----------



## papawdude (Aug 8, 2016)

Amazon has added so many categories and sub-categories it's easy for anyone to find a way to get their book in the number one slot and that's all it takes for many people to promote their books as best sellers.

Take my book series for example.  It's a nonfiction documentary type series that tells the history of the Cold War using the careers of some of the veterans as the thread through time for each book. (I'm not trying to sell you my book but it's a great example here)  As you can see, the subject makes my target audience a very specific group of people right now, Cold War veterans.  There's millions of them but they're not so easy to reach.

When I released each of the three books I was able to hit the number one slot for Cold War books.  Book three just came out and I actually had all three of them in the top ten for Cold War.  The problem from my perspective is this, there are just under 100 books even on the list and most are either duds or have been out awhile.  But technically, each book has now been an Amazon Best Seller.

This doesn't sell a bunch of books by accomplishing this feat and contrary to popular belief, it doesn't kick you into the top of Amazons algorithms and grow legs on its own selling thousands of books for you.  I hit number six in military history and it had fifty-four thousand plus books in that category and that didn't pop my sales like so many people try to tell you it will. 

If you want to be able to say your book is a best seller, pick a category with a small amount of books in it and with the right promotions you can get the number one spot pretty easy.  But I write books to sell them and saying "Best Seller" isn't going to really do much for most of us Indie authors.

Find your niche and hit it.  Word of mouth remains the best marketing method and I spend a lot of time on Facebook in dozens of groups for Cold War veterans and my sales are growing.  JMHOBWDIK


----------



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

Shelley K said:


> That right there.
> 
> I'm reading Kristen Painter's "The Vampire's Mail Order Bride" right now. Caveat: this is totally not a genre I read, and I really didn't expect to like it--I expected to dislike it in the extreme. I picked it up out of curiosity, because I like the things she says in forums, and this series is massively successful. I wanted to see what the hubbub was about, and figured I'd slog through it for that purpose.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your kind words. I enjoy your forum posts too. I can tell you that one of the responses I get most from readers is that my books are like potato chips - they can't read just one. I'm more than okay with that. I love that. My mission statement is really to entertain people and that makes me feel like I'm doing my job and doing it well.


----------



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

Flay Otters said:


> But the funniest part is the typo I found in the "look inside" (should be she'd not she's).


*sigh* This tells me Amazon hasn't updated the file. That was fixed a long time ago.


----------



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

Mark E. Cooper said:


> I have all of the Nocturne series and the spinoff in audio. They are EXCELLENT.


That has to be the biggest surprise of my day. You're definitely not my target audience.  (Although I do have a good handful of male readers.)


----------



## Norman Steele Taylor (Nov 26, 2015)

Like it or not, for many consumers, books are 'mental candy.'

They focus more on whether a book fits a genre they love.

I know this drives artists mad but, hey, we have to deal with practical market realities.

Maybe instead of bashing market preferences for 'crappy' books, we can do our part in better 'educating' our genres' readers.


----------



## Lefevre (Feb 1, 2014)

I have been noticing a horrible trend. I have seen several books that adhere to correct capitalization and proper sentence structure but get poorly written negative reviews for "grammar errors." While a lot of recent books (with high rankings) I have bought (and returned) are capitalizing common nouns just because the author thinks the word is important and are using 12 sentence rambling paragraphs. Totally distracting! Unfortunately, that kind of garbage ranked at number one makes all indie publishers look bad.


----------



## Melanie Underwood (Aug 31, 2015)

Cassie Leigh said:


> What I've figured out after watching all this for a while is that many readers aren't as hung up on those types of issues as writers are. I too have bought books that were doing really well as research and wondered how on earth the book had done so well but as a writer I now have a different standard than a casual reader does.
> 
> Obviously that writer is doing something right whether it's writing compelling stories or mastering advertising. And truth is that a really interesting story trumps perfect writing any day of the week. (And what qualifies as really interesting is different for each reader.)


Not all 'casual readers' will accept shoddy standards! It's how I became an editor. There are some really good storytellers amongst the 'new generation' of indie authors, but it is incredibly distracting and disappointing for anyone with a decent command of English to be constantly faced with typos, spelling errors, misused words, and appalling grammar!! This totally ruins a story for me, and just because some readers will accept this doesn't mean that authors should consider it acceptable to publish work of such poor quality.

The reader is paying for a product and when purchasing goods, they have a right to return them if faulty. Should the same apply to badly edited novels? If it did, would authors pay more attention to the quality of their work? Do readers continue to buy an author's books if the first one they read is full of errors? If this is the case, it could be that it is excellent marketing that is the key factor, but will the author be successful in the long term with multiple novels?

Personally, I'd ask all authors to produce the highest quality work that they can. Everyone should aim high in whatever they try to achieve. As the old saying goes: "if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing well." An author's role is to be creative and tell stories - they don't need to be brilliant at writing English. However, and I know I am obviously biased, every writer should employ a good editor/proofreader before considering publishing anything.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2016)

Compelling story it is! 

Thanks for the post 

TG


----------

