# It's normal not to sell a lot



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

A lot of people talk about their success here. About their loads of sales. I'm pleased about this, as it has shown me it's possible to earn a real wage as an indie writer, and gives me a goal to reach for.

But I wish it was clearer that having loads of sales is NOT normal. That it's the minority of writers who sell hundreds or thousands of books a month. Again, I'm pleased that the people who are this successful mention it, but I get worried that people will think this is NORMAL, and look down on themselves for selling less than that.

I used to sell barely anything and am doing better now, but I'm nowhere near as successful as those who sell hundreds or thousands a month. And that's okay. I do get swept up in all the stories of success and start to feel a burden on myself, like I'm not selling like them so I must be doing something wrong. But I work hard, and try, and what else can I do? You can't do better than your best. All you can do is try, and if what you achieve isn't the same as someone else, that's fine. You can only do what you can do.

Seriously, it's NOT NORMAL to sell loads, so for those of us who sell a few books a day, or a week, or a month, don't stress. We're in the MAJORITY, it's just that no one's really going to post, "Hey I sold two books this month! Woohoo!" Of course you're likely to post about success, not when things are normal and ordinary. But not selling much IS normal and ordinary. It doesn't mean your books aren't good. Sure, maybe you need to do more to succeed. But these things happen over time, usually. Hell, if you sell one book a month for ages, this happens. You're not alone. You're not even remotely alone.

Those with big success? Great. Good on them. I value their contribution and hope to be like them one day. I hear their stories and think, "That could be me!" I could hopefully earn a real living from this eventually.

But for now I'll try and remember that I'm doing okay, I'm doing my best, and I'm doing the same as most indie writers. Some do better. But most of us are in the same boat. The boat isn't sinking. It just hasn't reached the shore yet.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

The big numbers can actually be discouraging for many writers, because despite giving lip-service to the amount of work sales requires, the general vibe almost always boils down to: great cover+permafree and/or Select+Bookbub=SUCCESS. Which is actually detrimental in the long run. It's wonderful when someone sells thousands of copies, but that needs to be tempered a little with reality. The average self-published book will sell less than 200 copies in its lifetime. 

But here is the thing. That isn't a BAD thing! Because how many of those books that sell 200 copies or less never would have been published at all? Maybe a book only sells a few hundred copies. Why is that a failure? I never started self publishing to sell thousands of copies a month. I started self-publishing because I'm a project junkie and I love the process. I have published books I knew had limited commercial value, but I did it because I felt those books deserved to be published. And the beauty of digital publishing and POD is that books that never would have seen the light of day because of the high cost of traditional offset printing now can be printed. I cater to a rather niche audience (I publish RPGs and literary speculative fiction). But these are niches that I am good at and that there are readers for. And while I'm not on the Amazon bestseller list, I recover the cost of each project in 3 months and can afford to pay for the next project with the profits of the last project. I pay my people on time. I give my readers what they want.

There is a little coffee shop around the corner from my sister-in-law's old apartment. Whenever we would go to visit her we would stop there for coffee because they had the best coffee. But it is also a fun little shop, where the patrons sit around and talk about Dr. Who and geek stuff instead of having their faces buried in their smartphones or iPads. The cashiers actually have conversations with you, and nobody gets bent out of shape waiting in line while a patron is showing the cashier pictures of her new baby. It's an awesome little place that has been there for years and supports its owner. It will NEVER sell as much coffee as Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts. But it doesn't have to. 

I never got into this to be the Starbucks of indie publishers expecting to move tens of thousands of copies. I got into this to be the quirky little coffee shop on the corner. That IS my success. I don't need to flash $50,000 advance offers or NY Times status at people to show I am successful. I have achieved the success I set out to do. 

Success is how you define it. It isn't a sales number or a dollar sign.


----------



## Flopstick (Jul 19, 2011)

I would add that, in my experience, sales will be a relative trickle for the first year or so after publication. Don't expect them to perform a vertical take off. They take time to build momentum and come to the attention of potential readers. Don't expect steady sales from the word 'go'.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

Great post, and I love your covers btw.

For the record: I sell hundreds of thousands every month -- of WORDS, not books 

Cheers!


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The big numbers can actually be discouraging for many writers, because despite giving lip-service to the amount of work sales requires, the general vibe almost always boils down to: great cover+permafree and/or Select+Bookbub=SUCCESS. Which is actually detrimental in the long run. It's wonderful when someone sells thousands of copies, but that needs to be tempered a little with reality. The average self-published book will sell less than 200 copies in its lifetime.
> 
> But here is the thing. That isn't a BAD thing! Because how many of those books that sell 200 copies or less never would have been published at all? Maybe a book only sells a few hundred copies. Why is that a failure? I never started self publishing to sell thousands of copies a month. I started self-publishing because I'm a project junkie and I love the process. I have published books I knew had limited commercial value, but I did it because I felt those books deserved to be published. And the beauty of digital publishing and POD is that books that never would have seen the light of day because of the high cost of traditional offset printing now can be printed. I cater to a rather niche audience (I publish RPGs and literary speculative fiction). But these are niches that I am good at and that there are readers for. And while I'm not on the Amazon bestseller list, I recover the cost of each project in 3 months and can afford to pay for the next project with the profits of the last project. I pay my people on time. I give my readers what they want.
> 
> ...


This is all so true! It is very easy to think success is about how much you sell, how much money you bring in. I almost forget about the stories themselves, what I was trying to convey when I wrote them. I forget about the joy and fun of creating something, of putting your vision and your ideas and creativity into something. I think about sales and income, and it makes me sad and dries up my creativity. I think about deadlines, like if I'm not releasing books as fast as possible I'm a failure. Why does that make me a failure? My readers haven't complained, haven't yelled at me for being a slow writer.

I like the story about the coffee shop. A place that's lovely and inviting, that doesn't bring in millions of dollars but doesn't need to. I like those sort of places! They make me happy  I've got to get sales figures and money out of my head, and remember the stories, the joy of writing, the burning desire I use to have to write when I was younger. I couldn't not write back then. It was my heart, my soul, how I expressed myself. I miss the passion. Have to get it back.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

johnlmonk said:


> Great post, and I love your covers btw.
> 
> For the record: I sell hundreds of thousands every month -- of WORDS, not books
> 
> Cheers!


Thank you


----------



## Carol Davis (Dec 9, 2013)

Excellent post, Kitten!  And yes, it's very much something that we laborers down in the trenches need to remember.  If you look at it closely, even a few sales is a remarkable thing.  Someone PAID for your story!

Personally, I believe that massive success brings with it a variety of pressures and demands, not least among them the need to keep that momentum going.  I'd rather be the Little Engine That Could, and chug along generating small but respectable numbers.  I read the other day that 25% of ebooks never sell a single copy, and by that measure, anyone who sells half a dozen copies has already beaten out 500,000 competing titles!

I do extend congratulations to those who are enjoying huge success.  But very much YES: there are many definitions of "success."  Racking up sales of 5 or 6 or 7 figures is just one of them.  I've only sold 1,500(ish) copies to date, but my dad is massively proud of me.  I count that as a "win."


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

You're right.  There are loads of factors that dictate how successful a book will be or can be.  Genre is a huge one, so people writing in less popular genres need to  temper their goals to match what's possible given the size of the potential audience for their book.  If you're not writing romance or thriller, you really shouldn't set a goal of thousands of sales per month...it's virtually unattainable.  Even among the more popular genres, not everybody is going to get outlier-level sales, for a variety of reasons.  Maybe because of other commitments in your life, you can't devote enough time to the right kind of marketing/promotion, for example.

It's easy to forget that one's goals are one's own.  You don't need to measure your own success by somebody else's yardstick.  Sometimes it seems there's a lot of pressure to do that around here, but it's simply not necessary.  Measuring your own success begins with having a good understanding for what's possible to achieve within your genre, and then looking hard at what kind of sacrifices you're willing to make, or what kind of sacrifices you are realistically able to make.  

Most of all, I think it's important to remember that whether you're talking about traditional publishing or indie publishing, MOST writers are not outliers.  Most writers who continually publish are solid but not spectacular performers.  They are not any less writers because of it.


----------



## Moist_Tissue (Dec 6, 2013)

It can be discouraging when other authors give off the vibe that the reason you are only selling a few dozen books a month is because you simply aren't doing it right. Then we over-analyze what the right way is, thinking that following specified steps will bring great rewards. For me, I went the independent route because I write in a very narrow niche that will appeal to a rather small demographic. I would love for my work to appeal to a broader audience, but if I am realistic about the situation, then I must acknowledge that a sizable group of readers won't like what I talk about. And, I am okay with that.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm usually derided as Mr. Buzz Kill when I point out that the vast, vast majority of books don't sell.

But those are the numbers. The odds say you won't sell.

Which is why doing everything you can to narrow those odds is critical. And why I value posts on these boards that offer insight into the process of others who are selling well. Yes, the odds are extremely long. They've always been long. That's the gig. If it depresses you or you don't like it, that's fine, but it doesn't change reality.

I tend to just suck it up, hunker down, and work harder. That's my response to seeing the odds. "I better do something different, if I want to have a result that's different."

It can be depressing, or motivating. Depends on whether the glass is half full...


----------



## Lisa Scott (Apr 4, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I'm a project junkie and I love the process.


 My name is Lisa and I just realized I am a project junkie, too! Good to finally have a name for it.


----------



## lee27 (Mar 3, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I never got into this to be the Starbucks of indie publishers expecting to move tens of thousands of copies. I got into this to be the quirky little coffee shop on the corner. That IS my success. I don't need to flash $50,000 advance offers or NY Times status at people to show I am successful. I have achieved the success I set out to do.


I like that analogy. Since I started self-publishing, I discovered several of those little coffee shops -- other indie authors whose work I enjoy and look forward to reading more of. I am in the little coffee shop business myself.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I know what you mean. I see people in my genre who make thousands a month after a few months publishing, and I think I'm failing because I'm not. I have to tell myself that this is a marathon not a sprint. I've had some success, but it could take a few years to get to full time income status. I'm okay with that. Looking at the numbers and other factors, I've decided to stop following a certain technique I learned here for my genre, and begin producing more polished work. I might even put more energy into my SFF pen name. It doesn't get nearly as many downloads or sales, but that could be because I've published a fraction of the word count with that pen name. It does, however, have more dedicated, engaged fans and a five times higher read-through rate than any of my free titles in this pen name. 

There is more to life than making tons of sales. I want to think about the legacy I'm creating with my work. I don't want to produce a bunch of short titles just because I think it will make me money. Even thought it works for other people. I don't feel resentful or judgmental or jealous about it. And I'm not saying other's work isn't good. I just think mine could be better. Part of the change in mindset is spending more money on my books and writing full length novels.  I don't want to have pages and pages of serial parts with no reviews and freebies that get tanked.  The technique does make money, but I want something more than that. I want to put out work that feels authentic. I want to be proud of myself. I want to express myself as the writer I believe myself to be. My older titles aren't horrible. I'm not saying that, but they do leave me open for criticism by nature of the way I'm working. I have to admit, I'm too sensitive to deal with being dogged. Anything I can do to avoid that, and keep writing, is well worth it.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

I think the truth may be more like... THERE IS NO NORMAL.

Most writers need to be able to do two simultaneous things that seem sorta contradictory:

1-Make peace with the fact that they can't control the buying public.

2-Strive to improve their chances of selling books.

Now, I say *most,* because there are people out there who seriously don't care if their books sell or not. I'm not one of them, and I imagine most writers aren't, because most people write in order to be read. But there are people who really don't give a crap one way or the other. And those people are just all right with me. (Oh yeah! do doo do do do doo doo doo. Come on, guys? Doobie Brothers? Anyone?)

The reason these things seem contradictory is because it seems, when you first glance at it, that if you admit you can't control the buying public, then everything you do is useless and pointless, so why bother?

But the thing is, you can *influence* the buying public. You can't be sure how much you'll influence them or what precise effect you'll have over them. The degree and the results are unpredictable. But you *can* do *something.* And so, if you want to sell books, you have to keep trying stuff.

Sometimes, you get to a point where you feel like you've tried everything and nothing is working, and you get disheartened. That's okay. 

There's a difference between a writer making a lot of money and writer who's not. The writer making a lot of money hit on a something that worked at that time and under those circumstances. It's not *pure* luck, and it's not *pure* skill. It's both, because without the work they did, they'd never have made the money, and without the right combination of factors lining up for them, they never would have made it either. 

Anyway, the point is that we all have individual journeys to take, and what happens to you will never happen exactly the same way to any other author, just as you and another author will never write the same book. There is no normal. There are no rules. Celebrate diversity and listen to more of the Doobie Brothers!


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Wow! You must be in my head! Thanks so much for so bravely stating what so many of us feel. I can't tell you how many times I have felt inferior or less-than because such and such is selling 1000 books of their debut without lifting a finger to promote, or so and so hits the top 500 without doing a whole lot. It's nice to give voice to those of us who do have to promote to get our works known, who write multiple books, and still sell less than those who make it look like the entire thing is a walk in the park. I try to feel happy, but mostly I feel that I must be doing something wrong.

Again, thanks!


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> It can be depressing, or motivating. Depends on whether the glass is half full...


Right.

I think one of the most important aspects of motivating yourself is figuring out exactly what your real, actual goals are. And not being afraid of or ashamed of those goals. (For example, if your goal is to make a buttload of money, please don't listen to the threads that yak about how if your primary goal is to earn as much money as possible, then you are Not Making Real Actual Art. That's baloney. If your goal is to create a beautiful work of art that will be lauded someday, maybe not until after you're dead, and you don't care whether it sells well right now or not, then please don't listen to the threads that yak about how if you're not selling like hotcakes then you and/or your book suck. That is also baloney.)

Your goals are your goals, whatever they may be. They don't need to be approved, tacitly or overtly, by anybody else.

Once you know what your goal really is, look hard at what you're doing, and whether it's likely to get you to that goal. And yes, be aware that most books don't sell well (or, in some cases, at all.) It's perfectly okay if some of yours don't. Adjust what you're doing (either with writing or promoting) to align yourself better with _your _ goal, and keep going. Even when you have dozens of books out, some of them will sell like crap compared to the others. C'est la vie.


----------



## SLGray (Dec 21, 2013)

This is a beautiful post, and very much what those of use just starting the climb (or who have been climbing for a while) to where we want to be.

So thank you. 

I like the little coffee shop analogy too. I think I'll go start another pot brewing...


----------



## LKWatts (May 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The big numbers can actually be discouraging for many writers, because despite giving lip-service to the amount of work sales requires, the general vibe almost always boils down to: great cover+permafree and/or Select+Bookbub=SUCCESS. Which is actually detrimental in the long run. It's wonderful when someone sells thousands of copies, but that needs to be tempered a little with reality. The average self-published book will sell less than 200 copies in its lifetime.
> 
> But here is the thing. That isn't a BAD thing! Because how many of those books that sell 200 copies or less never would have been published at all? Maybe a book only sells a few hundred copies. Why is that a failure? I never started self publishing to sell thousands of copies a month. I started self-publishing because I'm a project junkie and I love the process. I have published books I knew had limited commercial value, but I did it because I felt those books deserved to be published. And the beauty of digital publishing and POD is that books that never would have seen the light of day because of the high cost of traditional offset printing now can be printed. I cater to a rather niche audience (I publish RPGs and literary speculative fiction). But these are niches that I am good at and that there are readers for. And while I'm not on the Amazon bestseller list, I recover the cost of each project in 3 months and can afford to pay for the next project with the profits of the last project. I pay my people on time. I give my readers what they want.
> 
> ...


AMEN to this  And your original post Kitten. You speak wise words here


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Great thread! 

Sure, I'd love to be selling thousands of books (lol, JohnLMonk) not words, a month. But I am building a terrific reader base, and I'm thrilled with that.

I get awesome reader emails from people who love my books and can't wait for the next one. That's exciting, and why I write. I always wanted to be a published author (when I was five that was my big dream) and I am. Not just one book, but five so far, with three more almost ready to be published. 
These are wonderful achievements for me. I'm so greatful for the ability to self publish and build up my own little worlds with readers who love to spend time in them.

I have one book, my poor little flash fiction anthology, which only sells one to two copies a month. That's the breaks of writing in an unpopular sub sub sub sub genre.


----------



## Jarrett Rush (Jun 19, 2010)

> The average self-published book will sell less than 200 copies in its lifetime.


Then I'm above average, Huzzah! Took me almost three years to get there, but it's good to know.

I haven't read this entire thread, but wanted to tell the OP that it was a great one to start. I think it can be incredibly defeating when you start out and don't see great numbers, average numbers even. Nice reminder that these big sales are great to aspire to, but they don't indicators of quality.


----------



## Istvan Szabo Ifj. (Dec 13, 2013)

The question is never that how many you sell, but who will remeber for your books. Personally I rather sell less all around the world, a story what for people will remember and treasure, than selling something in the number of thousands what for no one will remember after a year or two. This is the reason why I aim to sell less.


----------



## Katherine Roberts (Apr 4, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> I think the truth may be more like... THERE IS NO NORMAL.


So true!

Another thing to remember is that sales figures usually ignore ignore price/profit. Attempting some maths here... 100 sales at 99 cents equals about $35 for the author (35% royalty), whereas a mere 10 sales at $9.99 brings in about $70 at 70% royalty, or $35 at 35%... i.e. at least as much profit for the author, despite the less impressive figure. I think the trick is to find a balance between profit and sales/visibility.


----------



## Elodie (Jan 28, 2014)

Lisa Scott said:


> My name is Lisa and I just realized I am a project junkie, too! Good to finally have a name for it.


My name is Elodie and I strive on projects


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Maybe I need to dig up my indie prawn thread...


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The big numbers can actually be discouraging for many writers, because despite giving lip-service to the amount of work sales requires, the general vibe almost always boils down to: great cover+permafree and/or Select+Bookbub=SUCCESS. Which is actually detrimental in the long run. It's wonderful when someone sells thousands of copies, but that needs to be tempered a little with reality. *The average self-published book will sell less than 200 copies in its lifetime.*
> 
> But here is the thing. That isn't a BAD thing! Because how many of those books that sell 200 copies or less never would have been published at all? Maybe a book only sells a few hundred copies. Why is that a failure? I never started self publishing to sell thousands of copies a month. I started self-publishing because I'm a project junkie and I love the process. I have published books I knew had limited commercial value, but I did it because I felt those books deserved to be published. And the beauty of digital publishing and POD is that books that never would have seen the light of day because of the high cost of traditional offset printing now can be printed. I cater to a rather niche audience (I publish RPGs and literary speculative fiction). But these are niches that I am good at and that there are readers for. And while I'm not on the Amazon bestseller list, I recover the cost of each project in 3 months and can afford to pay for the next project with the profits of the last project. I pay my people on time. I give my readers what they want.
> 
> ...


Can you back that up, Julie? I very seriously doubt it with anything substantial.

Considering how short a time, as such things go, that e-books have been available, what do you consider 'their lifetime'? How can we even know what 'lifetime' sales for ebooks might mean? Moreover, considering the number of ebooks and the unavailability of sales figures from Amazon, it could -- on an average -- be a lot less than that or for that matter a lot more.

I do agree that we all have to define our own success though. It can be hard to shrug off the demands that if we are to consider ourselves successes we have to make 10,000 sales a month. But that isn't my definition of success for me. And my definition doesn't have to be the same as anyone else's.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Lisa Scott said:


> My name is Lisa and I just realized I am a project junkie, too! Good to finally have a name for it.


Odd, but this phrase resonated with me, too! It's what got me into self-publishing in the first place--that whole take it from beginning, to middle, to end thing. Love it!

When I started self publishing, I wasn't thinking past that. I was just doing what had to be done. Write, edit, cover, upload--you know the drill. Then I contracted a serious case of unrealistic expectations--kind of like a hubris tumor in the brain--so I took some meds (a mixture of wine, chocolate, garlic, and tarragon) to calm myself down, and I'm good now.

Like Kitten, I do the best I can, and _slo-o-wly_ some very fine readers are discovering me (Note: all readers are "very fine!). I felt so much lighter when I shed those unrealistic expectations. It is said, to be creative you need an available brain. A brain isn't very available if it's stuffed with fret and worry, or occupied with manufacturing failure feelings when you don't hit X sales per day. I had to clear that dross out, because I need that brain for writing. (Eff, If I'm going to worry, I'd rather it be about comma placement than numbers. )


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

You know what made me feel better about my low sales, and tone down my expectations? I looked up a couple of well-established trad-pubbed authors in the Kindle store, people who have written books I've enjoyed. They may sell more on other platforms etc., but some of them have fairly low sales rank, down in the 100,000 range which is where my latest book seems to be hanging out (on a good day!). 

Most authors, self-published or Big New York published, don't sell a ton of books, but many of those authors find their audience and make a career of this writing thing anyway (through teaching, writing non-fiction, or whatever).


----------



## horse_girl (Apr 9, 2010)

Kitten said:


> This is all so true! It is very easy to think success is about how much you sell, how much money you bring in. I almost forget about the stories themselves, what I was trying to convey when I wrote them. I forget about the joy and fun of creating something, of putting your vision and your ideas and creativity into something. I think about sales and income, and it makes me sad and dries up my creativity. I think about deadlines, like if I'm not releasing books as fast as possible I'm a failure. Why does that make me a failure? My readers haven't complained, haven't yelled at me for being a slow writer.
> 
> I like the story about the coffee shop. A place that's lovely and inviting, that doesn't bring in millions of dollars but doesn't need to. I like those sort of places! They make me happy  I've got to get sales figures and money out of my head, and remember the stories, the joy of writing, the burning desire I use to have to write when I was younger. I couldn't not write back then. It was my heart, my soul, how I expressed myself. I miss the passion. Have to get it back.


I'm glad you started this thread. For much of last year, as sales slowed (market maturity, saturation of books/ereaders, etc.), I was living in a depressive state. I was thinking too much about sales/income/paying bills as a full time writer and not enough about the reason I did this and it was a slog. You're where I was then, but in the last month, I finally just accepted that what happens happens and started enjoying writing again. I was worrying too much about what I should write instead of what I wanted to write. I'm writing what I want to write the way I want to write it. I'm not worrying about words-per-day but am managing 1000 words a day or more, sometimes less but most often at least that, _because _I'm just letting the story be what it wants and not letting the internal editor or news about other author successes weigh me down. Granted, that means ignoring certain headlines, subjects, and/or writers' posts, but I'm happier for it.

We all need to remember that what will happen will happen. We can have temporary spikes from promotions, but at some point, we need to quit worrying about those things and just focus on writing the stories we love in the best way we can. Editing can be done afterwards, so just write!


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

Kitten, this is a great thread and a great reminder for us to support each other in the trenches! 

Self-publishing is such a head game! But it's something that I totally love, and am completely impassioned about. It is discouraging to not sell. So far, in the 17 months, since I've entered the arena, I've had no sales, and modest success. For me, even the modest success was heady

I adore the whole set-up of self-publishing, i.e. we produce the best works we can and allow the readers to decide. IT IS HARD. It's like so frickin hard to write, do the covers ( ) the blurbs, then the marketing! But I have never done anything in my life that has challenged every single aspect of who I am, i.e. my brain, my body (sit in that chair too long without moving and the back hurts!), my soul, my emotions, my identity … you get the point.

And I thrive on it. Yes, sometimes I feel like Rocky getting pounded against the ropes, but I don't know, it seems worth it! We look back and see how the printing press altered the history of mankind. Self-publishing/ereaders are an equally big wave, I'm pretty sure. It's so exhilarating to be right in the middle of it.

When I get discouraged, I really try to re-trench and just ask: what can I do to make my stuff better? How can I be smarter about all this? It is hard. I often find myself saying: "This is harder than I thought it would be." But I like who I am today, better than who I was when I published my first book. I can't help but believe that along the way the intangible payoffs are going to translate into more tangible payoffs. Patience is not my forte. Perhaps its one of my greatest life challenges. (My husband might say so if he were to weigh in!) January was all about recalibration for me. On every single level, I need to dig in and be more patient. And that's a lesson, that I've probably run from my entire life  It keeps making me think about that d*mn accounting professor who downgraded my exam over a transposition error because I was the first one to turn in the test!

I was never very emotionally invested in my accounting/CPA career though. I'm very emotionally invested in my career as an indie author. I'm going to hunker down and be patient. I'll just have to find ways to sustain myself, while I'm on the ropes!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Also, even for people who sell pretty well--I know for myself, and I'm betting I'm not the only one, I don't tend to post, "Man, my sales took a dive this month. They're half of what they were last month." Even though that's happened. It's all up and down, and when it's down, you tend to think, "This is it. Back to the basement for me." Maybe some people's graphs look like a lovely straight line going up, up, up. Not mine.

It's really hard to stay focused on what you're working on now, on making your plans for the coming month or week, or to focus on writing today, especially when the sales part isn't going so great. When I start spiraling into that, I use my blocking software and get back to work. That way, at the end of an hour, at least I've done an hour's work. That's all I can do--write the book in my head the way that works for me, present it and market it to the best of my ability. I can't control how it's received. I can't control how many people buy it. 

It's a really tough business to be in, since by its very nature you're in it all by yourself. And other people don't really understand how hard and scary it can be. But we do! That's the beauty of it!

Great thread.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

I've been at this for years. (Traditional) My largest royalty check was in the hundreds, and that was after the publisher took his cut and without my doing anything that I'm doing now. I'm confident that, OVER TIME, I can do better than that with my indie life and without having to deal with a publisher.

Big numbers don't discourage me, they encourage me. And when I start indie publishing in June, if I hit big numbers, I'll let the newbies know. If that upsets people who don't hit big numbers, I'm not making it my problem. Sorry.

And for those indie writers who do hit big numbers, PLEASE don't feel like you can't report them here. Some of us want to hear your good news. (Please PM me if you don't feel comfortable sharing your big numbers on this board.  *I* want to hear about your success.)

Jolie


----------



## Jason Halstead (Mar 18, 2011)

I don't accept that.

Mind you, I used to be there and I understand the feelings. But I didn't accept it then either. If that's enough for someone, than that's enough and that's great for them. Seriously - I mean it! If anybody has hit a level where they are happy and content, than that really is a wonderful and awesome thing. I haven't done that yet.

Because I know I can do more. I haven't hit my best yet, not by a long shot. Somebody else mentioned you can't be better than your best and I agree with that. But I haven't hit my best yet - I'm still learning, growing, evolving, and getting better. Heck, in 2009 I almost tore my arm off training for a powerlifting meet. Now, in 2014, I've decided to get serious about training and compete again this year. I can't bench anymore after the surgery to repair all the damage, but I can still deadlift.

Most people don't understand powerlifting. That's cool, I get it. Most people don't understand writers either. There's a lot of crossover in the dedication, self-discipline, and determination needed for both though. Another similarity between the two is the competition - I'm always trying to do better than I did before. It's not about other people, it's about me against myself. I'm past my prime for picking up heavy things but I don't feel I've hit my best yet there either.

My January sales beat my January sales by several hundred. Not an epic gain, but enough to make a very noticeable difference. That's great, but it means I have to keep trying harder so that February can beat January - especially given that it's a shorter month! I'm not trying to knock anyone else down and I'm not comparing myself to anyone. I'm comparing current me to past me and knowing that I will try harder. And when I do peak, in writing, heavy lifting, or anything else, I'll keep pushing myself to do as much as I can. After all, what else is there?


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

Jason Halstead said:


> I don't accept that.
> 
> Mind you, I used to be there and I understand the feelings. But I didn't accept it then either. If that's enough for someone, than that's enough and that's great for them. Seriously - I mean it! If anybody has hit a level where they are happy and content, than that really is a wonderful and awesome thing. I haven't done that yet.
> 
> ...


Jason,

I LOVE everything you wrote!!

I'm not only a full-time writer, but I also pole dance for fitness, run at least three miles a day (five days a week) and weight-lift. I'm not a powerlifter, but I can relate to that mindset!! 

Jolie


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

Thinking of self-publishing in terms of the eRace can be a good reminder of how it's a marathon rather than a sprint.


----------



## MorganKegan (Jan 10, 2013)

Your covers are gorgeous. I just had to say that.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> Can you back that up, *****? I very seriously doubt it with anything substantial.


*sigh*

eBooks have been around for decades, as has self-publishing. Current technologies have increased the overall number of self-published, but not overly changed the actual averages.

Until such time as Amazon gives us the two magic numbers (total number of self published books available for sale and total number of self published books sold) we can only extrapolate Amazon's average based on the industry averages. So you have to look at the data available from other sources. You have to hunt and peck through the different sites to find the two magic numbers.

Authorhouse has 65000 titles according to its fact sheet. They sell on average 2,500,000 books a year. That averages 38 sales per title.

Xlibris has around 23500 titles and sells around 3,000,000 books a year. That works out to 127 sales per title.

Bob Young of Lulu.com had in the past come out and said the average book sold under a 100 copies a year. And to paraphrase, most publishers want ten authors selling 10,000,000 books. He wants 10,000,000 authors selling 100.

If you track down the total sales volume and the total number of authors from each service provider, you will continue to find the same information. You are looking at around a 100 books sold a year. But then be honest. Most of that will be from books first printed that year. Because as people get discouraged they drop out and stop promoting. As much as we talk about ebooks being on sale forever, the reality is if you don't constantly promote a title the sales taper off quickly. Which is why we always talk about writing the NEXT book, because you can't hope to pay the bills on one book forever.

Further, averages are disproportionately impacted by outliers. One or two authors selling 500,000 each fundamentally shifts the average. So you would actually need to be looking at a median by removing the outliers from the formula. Which means the median will be much lower per year.

I know, I know. You can name more people selling lots of copies today over the number of people selling lots of copies 10 years ago. But there are also more people publishing today. If we assume 10% of self-publishers are huge sellers, and there were only 10,000 self publishers in 2004, then you would only have 100 big sellers. If you have 500,000 people self publishing and maintain the same 10%, then you have 5000 big sellers. YES there are mathematically more people who are big sellers, but as a percentage of all people self publishing the percentage hasn't fundamentally changed. Bowkers reported NEW 391,000 self published titles last year based on ISBN purchases through POD and indie service providers. That doesn't even include ebooks. Just print.

I don't understand why people take this figure as a bad thing. It is actually a positive. It means people like Kitten have no reason to look at themselves as failures. Insisting that the average MUST be higher is actually counter-productive because it creates an artificially inflated barometer of success (thus threads like this). It is also that inflated barometer that drives people to desperate behavior because they think they are failing. If you come to believe the average self published book sells thousands of copies and you've only sold a 100, you may start to think things like buying reviews or paying money for expensive services that promise results is the answer. But if you stop fighting with the math it takes the pressure to perform off. The inflated numbers are what vanity presses use to justify their predatory prices to people. When you think the average book sells 5000 copies, spending $2000 on a "professional marketing package" seems like a good value. When you realize the average is much, much less, you are actually LESS likely to fall for the predatory schemes.

So stop fighting with the math. Embrace the fact that you are above average!


----------



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

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The big numbers can actually be discouraging for many writers, because despite giving lip-service to the amount of work sales requires, the general vibe almost always boils down to: great cover+permafree and/or Select+Bookbub=SUCCESS. Which is actually detrimental in the long run. It's wonderful when someone sells thousands of copies, but that needs to be tempered a little with reality. The average self-published book will sell less than 200 copies in its lifetime.
> 
> But here is the thing. That isn't a BAD thing! Because how many of those books that sell 200 copies or less never would have been published at all? Maybe a book only sells a few hundred copies. Why is that a failure? I never started self publishing to sell thousands of copies a month. I started self-publishing because I'm a project junkie and I love the process. I have published books I knew had limited commercial value, but I did it because I felt those books deserved to be published. And the beauty of digital publishing and POD is that books that never would have seen the light of day because of the high cost of traditional offset printing now can be printed. I cater to a rather niche audience (I publish RPGs and literary speculative fiction). But these are niches that I am good at and that there are readers for. And while I'm not on the Amazon bestseller list, I recover the cost of each project in 3 months and can afford to pay for the next project with the profits of the last project. I pay my people on time. I give my readers what they want.
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



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

Good post, Kitten. When my first book was published (small press, about four years ago), I was thrilled if I sold a dozen copies per month. There's no shame in a number like that. It's a dozen readers who enjoyed my words enough to plunk down hard-earned cash for them. A major step above leaving my book gathering dust under the bed.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> *sigh*
> 
> eBooks have been around for decades, as has self-publishing. Current technologies have increased the overall number of self-published, but not overly changed the actual averages.
> 
> ...


In effect, ebooks have not been around for decades. They were not really ebooks until e-readers (and their semi-equivalent in tablets, iphones) existed.

I am not 'fighting the math'. I can't 'fight' math that you simply do not have. Or maybe Jeff Bezos sent you the Kindle ebook sales figure and didn't tell the rest of us. You don't know whether the changes in technology has changed the averages or not because Amazon isn't releasing the numbers. "Extrapolating from the industry averages' is meaningless. It is nothing more than a guess based on leaving out Amazon--which is nonsense. You simply don't know nor does anyone else except Amazon.

You give me some math that includes Amazon sales and we'll have an actual discussion going on this that isn't someone with an ax to grind one way or the other making stuff up.

And where, pray tell, did I say that they 'MUST be higher'? (ETA: They might be lower and YOU might be unnecessarily discouraging people with that 200 book number although I *still* don't know what 'the lifetime' of an ebook is and note that you didn't enlighten me) Please quote those exact words in the post you responded to. I do want to see them.


----------



## Glenn Wood (May 7, 2013)

Great post.  My books were best sellers in New Zealand when released about ten years ago.  Sounds flash eh, but in reality that's only 4000 copies because the market is so small.  Kindle has given me access to a worldwide audience so I count every sale as a blessing.  So far I'm getting a relatively small cheque from Amazon every month (couple of hundred dollars, though December Jan are looking iffy) and am stoked with that.  I'm probably slightly above average I guess but won't be retiring any time soon!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

To expand on my previous comments, it is probably the average (rather than 'normal') not to sell a lot although no one really knows what 'not a lot' is nor what 'average' is. Normal for some of us is selling a few thousand a month, for a few it's a few thousand a day, for most... less than that. However many one sells, it's more than they would if the novel sat on our hard drive and no one should feel bad about their sales numbers.


----------



## MatthewBallard (May 21, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> There's a difference between a writer making a lot of money and writer who's not. The writer making a lot of money hit on a something that worked at that time and under those circumstances. It's not *pure* luck, and it's not *pure* skill. It's both, because without the work they did, they'd never have made the money, and without the right combination of factors lining up for them, they never would have made it either.


I think there's a lot of truth in this statement. As an undiscovered writer you have three things that can make your reader press 'Buy Now'.

1) Your cover. This has been discussed many times on this board and rings with oodles of truth. It and the blurb combine as the gateway drug to your actual writing.

2) Your blurb. How do the blurbs read for books selling lots of copies in your genre? How are they structured? What kinds of words are they choosing? Don't use static sentences in your blurb. Make them work for you.

The above two I see discussed all the time, but what more can you do to attract a reader in the ten seconds during which they are reading your sample?

3) Your sample is the third element and as equally important. It's the third leg in your milk stool and brings you across the finish line. As an unknown, this is where you HAVE to close the sale. But how?

As an undiscovered or unknown author, what are you doing with your first chapter that sets you apart from the last five samples they've read? Your book has to be well edited of course. This means no spelling errors or grammatical issues. But what about the content? What are you doing to pull your reader? Do you open with a giant block of narrative? Maybe a few paragraphs of setting? Did you establish a scene goal in your first two or three paragraphs? (you should) Did you introduce your POV character? Is something exciting happening that allows him or her to react? If there isn't, why would a reader choose your story to spend their precious time with?

I'm a complete unknown. I have no following and no readership prior to mid December 2013. I've published no short stories, written no novellas, and did virtually zero writing in my first 44 years of life. I queried no agents. I solicited no publishers nor do I have the first scrap of desire to do so. I've been a lifelong reader, and decided to give writing a try for fun and profit because working in corporate America sucks balls. I don't read short stories or novellas. I only read novels, so that's what I wrote. I read many books on craft during the writing process that taught me a LOT. By the time I'd written 119,000 words I knew my opener sucked and immediately tossed my first 10,000 words upon the first draft's completion.

My only explanation for my success lies in the three points above mixed with a nice scoop of luck. I've sold 1,400 books in the first six weeks my book's been available. I don't think my writing is any better than the next guy's or gal's, but people ARE buying my book. And the only reason I can think of as to why that's happening is the sample. The cover and blurb will draw your reader like a mosquito to a bug zapper, but the sample sells your book. It's your closer. Write a strong opening and use writing techniques that draw your reader in from the first word.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> Also, even for people who sell pretty well--I know for myself, and I'm betting I'm not the only one, I don't tend to post, "Man, my sales took a dive this month. They're half of what they were last month." Even though that's happened. It's all up and down, and when it's down, you tend to think, "This is it. Back to the basement for me." Maybe some people's graphs look like a lovely straight line going up, up, up. Not mine.


I kinda wish people would, but I know most people won't, because they don't want to appear as if they're ungrateful for their success or upset over numbers that others would be happy about. But I do sometimes wonder how wildly others' sales fluctuate from month to month. Personally, my average month is about 300-500 sales (over 30+ titles). The only way I'm able to keep paying my bills is that I have occasional months in which I sell a craaaazy amount of books and then I save that money to make up for the low months. It would be interesting to me to know how typical that is or not. (Does anyone else sit around going, "Okay, I've got enough money in the bank to last me until March, and if I put the money I made in December together with the money I made in January, that should cover a month's income. And since January sales come at the end of March, that means... yeah. I'm okay for April"?) Maybe, deep down, I just want to be NORMAL--even though I just got done arguing that THERE IS NO NORMAL. I'm a very complicated person. *dramatic sigh.*

We did used to have a sales thread at the end of every month where people reported their totals, but now it seems the trend is to start the sales thread the first day of the month, and then everyone updates as they go along. Which is probably cool for morale and whatnot, but as a way to sort of get an idea of people's total sales, it's a bit more unwieldy, since there's more to wade through.

Anyway, as usual, I think I'm wandering off the beaten path in terms of what this thread's about. Carry on, all.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

Useful reminder. Thanks!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> I kinda wish people would, but I know most people won't, because they don't want to appear as if they're ungrateful for their success or upset over numbers that others would be happy about. But I do sometimes wonder how wildly others' sales fluctuate from month to month. Personally, my average month is about 300-500 sales (over 30+ titles). The only way I'm able to keep paying my bills is that I have occasional months in which I sell a craaaazy amount of books and then I save that money to make up for the low months. It would be interesting to me to know how typical that is or not. (Does anyone else sit around going, "Okay, I've got enough money in the bank to last me until March, and if I put the money I made in December together with the money I made in January, that should cover a month's income. And since January sales come at the end of March, that means... yeah. I'm okay for April"?) Maybe, deep down, I just want to be NORMAL--even though I just got done arguing that THERE IS NO NORMAL. I'm a very complicated person. *dramatic sigh.*
> 
> We did used to have a sales thread at the end of every month where people reported their totals, but now it seems the trend is to start the sales thread the first day of the month, and then everyone updates as they go along. Which is probably cool for morale and whatnot, but as a way to sort of get an idea of people's total sales, it's a bit more unwieldy, since there's more to wade through.
> 
> Anyway, as usual, I think I'm wandering off the beaten path in terms of what this thread's about. Carry on, all.


I do this all the time. In fact, last year when I had my first really great month, my husband told me, "Look. If you don't sell another book for six months, you're fine. Now all you have to do is write to enjoy yourself. It's all gravy." (Best Man In The World.) I love always being paid 2+ months in arrears. I love knowing that I can weather the down months. I'm betting most authors' sales fluctuate a lot, particularly if they are on only one platform, as am I.

I've posted in that sales thread, but not with my numbers except the first time. It feels very braggy, if you're doing reasonably well. (All right, braggy isn't a word. Can't help it. That's how it feels.) Like "La la la la la, look at wonderful ME." And like tempting fate to give you a smackdown.


----------



## kyokominamino (Jan 23, 2014)

Kitten said:


> A lot of people talk about their success here. About their loads of sales. I'm pleased about this, as it has shown me it's possible to earn a real wage as an indie writer, and gives me a goal to reach for.
> 
> But I wish it was clearer that having loads of sales is NOT normal. That it's the minority of writers who sell hundreds or thousands of books a month. Again, I'm pleased that the people who are this successful mention it, but I get worried that people will think this is NORMAL, and look down on themselves for selling less than that.
> 
> ...


*standing ovation*

Thank you for making this post. This is exactly my problem. I've been published for six months and literally January is the first time I've read a post where an author admits they don't sell two/three/four/five hundred copies a month. Forums are flooded with posts about everyone swimming in cash like Scrooge McDuck and every one of them I read made me feel worse and worse about myself and my novel. It wasn't until Kboards that I found out I'm not a horrible failure (at least to others anyway.)

We need this thread. We need more people admitting that they aren't living the high life because all of the newbie authors like you and me don't see them until WAY down the line, and by then, we're crushed and gnashing our teeth at why we're not selling books despite trying every single thing we've heard works. Selling books consistently takes time, but hardly anyone talks about that sucky period BEFORE they get to a hundred books a month. I'm still in double digits, and not even on the higher side of 100. I need posts like this to remind me I'm not the worst writer ever, and I hope your post inspires others to be honest and remember to help out the little guys behind us on this journey. You're awesome. So, so awesome.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

The biggest complaint I get on my stories is that they're not illustrated.  My husband and I discussed it, and rather than going for more books (other than the stories I have written already), we're going for illustrations. I can't afford full-page illustrations, but I like the idea of a spot illustration here and there.  I'm tentatively budgeting for 3 per story (remember, these are mostly 1500 word stories), but if one story turns out to need something more or special, I'm open to that.

When I have more illustrated stories out,  I'm going to go for PoI or BookBub (although I don't think I qualify) or some of the bigger marketing vehicles.

I don't pretend that I'll ever make my money back on the illustrations, but it's quite true that the stories need them.

That's the advantage of being a free-lance technical writer. I can include the cost of art and covers in my taxes, which will help offset the occasional high-paying tech writing project.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

Don't forget on your list to pick a popular genre, preferably one that is under-served (sweet Western romances, for example).

Selling 1400 romances may be the equivalent of selling 10 fairy tales, given the respective sizes and popularizes of the genres.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

I LOVE your post, OP.

Oh man, do I hate it when people state, 'Most books don't sell' when it comes to indie books. 'Don't sell' is such a negative phrase. Even if you sell a few, you're selling. Your books are SELLING.

We're creative, right? If we produce, basically, something out of nothing that gives other people entertainment, that's pretty cool in itself. It's my number one reason to write instead of doing something else.

It's not all about the numbers.


----------



## Mike_Author (Oct 19, 2013)

Great post & great topic (also great post from Julie)

Whenever I see an outlier author talking about selling hundreds of thousands of eBooks I have a moment where my brain doesn't know whether to be motivated or discouraged by this information. Should I take it as a sign that you can make it as an author or a sign that I am underperforming? It's psychologically complex!

This means that now that I earn a grand or two each month I can gradually lose my gratitude for self-publishing. "Keeping up with the Jones's" is a real phenomenon. Give someone a $1000 pay rise and they are happy. Give their co-worker a $1100 pay rise and they are unhappy. Your happiness is often determined not by absolutes, but in comparison.

I have to keep reminding myself that only 10 years ago, even earning a couple of hundred bucks a year from books would have been exceedingly unlikely. Every dollar we get from Amazon or the other stores should be cherished.

These "overnight success" stories are a kind of survivorship bias. Media focuses on the sensational. A story about someone selling a few copies a month doesn't make it into the news. It's like day traders on the stock market. You hear about the 1 guy that made a million but not about the other 99 that lost all their cash.

The OPs post is bang on and an extremely important point. <thumbsup>


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

I believe your numbers, Julie. But those averages you quote of a 100 or 127 or 200 are the average of all writers, very much skewed by the fact that the massive sellers sell such huge volumes. The sales of the average writer is to be found in the median, the number that appears most often, and that is likely to be less than five and may even be zero. That, incidentally, is true for traditionally published writers as well as indies. For those who make a career of arguing on KB, Nielsen and others publish numbers annually from which my conclusions may be derived; go look them up.

To summarize: the average sales of all writers (a hundred or two copies) is deceptively skewed upwards by the James Pattersons of this world, but the sales of the average writer is the median which is likely to be 5 copies or below and in indieland may conceivably be zero.

To reassure the OP: If your book sells more than five copies in its lifetime, you're doing better than the average writer, whether indie or trad published.

Counterpoint: I'm disappointed, again, to read in this thread that the sole way to break into higher sales is more promotion. Not a single mention of learning to write better...


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Andre Jute said:


> Counterpoint: I'm disappointed, again, to read in this thread that the sole way to break into higher sales is more promotion. Not a single mention of learning to write better...


I'm disappointed to see the thread was high jacked by mentions of higher sales. The initial post wasn't about/asking about how to get higher sales.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> You give me some math that includes Amazon sales and we'll have an actual discussion going on this that isn't someone with an ax to grind one way or the other making stuff up.


Ok, I'm going to take at shot at this one, only because I've tried to figure this out before (late one night, when I was supposed to be writing books). Someone on KBoards supplied this formula, derived from numbers that other KBoarders offered up:

Amazon Rank = 175625.63126691 / (daily sales)^1.1252673308641 (caret = exponent)

I've tested the formula out with my books and others who gave sales & rank numbers, and it seems to be pretty darn accurate. Based on that, I extrapolated out how many books are sold on Amazon in a day, and in a year. Granted, this is totally seat-of-pants and back-of-envelope, but I came up with this:
Total Kindle books available on Amazon.com: 2.5 million
Total Kindle books sold on Amazon daily: 1,151,593
Total Kindle books sold on Amazon annually: 420,331,351

Simple division shows that the average Kindle book sells 168 copies per year. As mentioned, we have no idea right now what the lifespan of a Kindle book is, so it's anybody's guess how that translates to lifetime sales.

So, that was my geeky moment for the day. Now back to writing...


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Andre Jute said:


> Counterpoint: I'm disappointed, again, to read in this thread that the sole way to break into higher sales is more promotion. Not a single mention of learning to write better...


I think you may have missed Matthew's detailed post, where he stated that he has done no promotion at all and is a new author. It's worth looking back and finding because there's some great info there. Specifically, he talks about the important of learning the craft and making the writing as strong as it can be, and having an opening chapter that is compelling&#8230;so after the strong cover and interesting blurb get their attention, the sample pages close the sale.

"I don't think my writing is any better than the next guy's or gal's, but people ARE buying my book. And the only reason I can think of as to why that's happening is the sample. The cover and blurb will draw your reader like a mosquito to a bug zapper, but the sample sells your book. It's your closer. Write a strong opening and use writing techniques that draw your reader in from the first word."


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> In effect, ebooks have not been around for decades. They were not really ebooks until e-readers (and their semi-equivalent in tablets, iphones) existed.


I've been reading ebooks for decades. Certainly the late 1980s was a great time for PDAs and such.

And self publishing has been around since publishing has been around.

I can't particularly vouch for Julie's data, but I've seen enough other data to believe it. You can track quite a lot via rankings, if you really want to know more.

The real wildcard is... how many people are realistically trying to make money? (With "realistically" being a key word here.)

How many books were written by people who thought it was a way to get rich ("Scribble down a book, publish, reap a fortune!") and then realized it wasn't easy, and it didn't make them rich... so they stopped before they got very far? How many people are out there struggling because nobody ever told them how to do it right? How many are diligently working in the thrall of some guru who takes their money and gives them bad advice? How many people are doing it for fun or ego? How many did it for a lark, or because they got extra credit in a class?

We don't know the answer to those questions.

But, you know... it seems to me that the Indie community gets thrown off course in this kind of discussion.

We all believe -- I'd even say _know_ -- that writers generally do better under indie publishing. I think, though, that we forget what that means. We get wrapped up in the big successes, and suddenly, anybody who isn't a best seller is a loser....

But if that were true, then it would mean that we are worse off under indie publishing. Because there can only be 100 books on the Top 100 best sellers list. And if there are way more books out there, then a smaller percentage of writers will make it.

But it isn't true. The fact is, most indie writers are _winners_ because we're making more than we would have if we hadn't started self-publishing. Some who never would have made a penny are now making pocket change. Those who made pocket change are now making folding money. Those who managed folding money are now paying some bills. Etc. etc.

So the fact that most people aren't going to be millionaires from this -- whether because it's not "normal" or because they don't try or because they're unlucky -- is kinda beside the point. Everybody is doing better than they might have.

As for whether you can make a conscious effort to be a millionaire.... yes, of course, you more than likely can. But you have to make that your central goal. You have to sacrifice other things. You can't just do whatever it is you love to do, and then expect to be rewarded for it. What you love to do may not be lucrative. Or you may have to do things you hate to push it into making money.

If lots of money is important, you may have to make a choice.

And it's perfectly okay not to make the choice everyone else things is best.

Camille


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Kitten said:


> Those with big success? Great. Good on them. I value their contribution and hope to be like them one day.


I don't want to be like them, I want to be better. Just competitive that way. And until I am, they have every right to smirk at my measly numbers and know that, even though I'm trying my hardest to eclipse their numbers, trying my hardest to put everything into my books I can to make the readers love them more than they love every other book they've ever read, I ain't there yet, and they've bested me in a fair duel. And to answer whoever the hell it was that said there's not enough talk about improving the writing, and too much talk about marketing, I haven't even started thinking about marketing yet. Every night. Every day. Every commute to work, Every lunch break. Every trip to the toilet, I think about how to make my books better. I search my mind. I study others. I test the waters and gauge the results. That's all I do.


----------



## 57280 (Feb 20, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> I don't want to be like them, I want to be better. Just competitive that way. And until I am, they have every right to smirk at my measly numbers and know that, even though I'm trying my hardest to eclipse their numbers, trying my hardest to put everything into my books I can to make the readers love them more than they love every other book they've ever read, I ain't there yet, and they've bested me in a fair duel. And to answer whoever the hell it was that said there's not enough talk about improving the writing, and too much talk about marketing, I haven't even started thinking about marketing yet. Every night. Every day. Every commute to work, Every lunch break. Every trip to the toilet, I think about how to make my books better. I search my mind. I study others. I test the waters and gauge the results. That's all I do.


Well said, friend!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Re: talking about marketing vs. talking about writing, vis-a-vis "success."

(All right; is this continuing the thread hijack/derail? Maybe. Skip if you like.)

Gosh, if it's hard to dissect what "worked" about somebody's marketing, surely it's even harder to dissect what "worked" about somebody's writing (in terms of, exactly what is it about the way this person writes that has made his/her books sell?). Personally, I come here to hear about marketing stuff. Writing is what I do from the back of my head. I work and work and work at it, just listening with my ear for when I've got it right, letting the story play out in my head. I am a complete perfectionist about it, but it's not something I come here and listen to other people tell me how to "do." Lots of people, I am very sure, are "better" writers than I am by somebody's measure. I don't know, writing-wise, why my books sell pretty well. Frankly, I'm still amazed that they do. I sure wouldn't know how to begin to tell somebody else how to improve their "craft" in order to sell better (except, don't be boring), and I'm not really interested in anybody telling me generically how to improve mine. I AM improving mine with every book, I'm sure of that. Just writing and reading and listening and learning.

Marketing-wise--that's what I do from the front of my head, pulling things out from the filing cabinets in the nice, orderly, neat way I've worked all my life. I think it's easier to break things down there and say, these techniques have worked for me. Hmm, this has worked for somebody else. Should I try that too? Does it align with my goals? Or, could my blurb be better? Could my cover be grabbier? 

That may be why there's more discussion of marketing here. Just a thought.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

PamelaKelley said:


> I think you may have missed Matthew's detailed post, where he stated that he has done no promotion at all and is a new author. It's worth looking back and finding because there's some great info there. Specifically, he talks about the important of learning the craft and making the writing as strong as it can be, and having an opening chapter that is compelling&#8230;so after the strong cover and interesting blurb get their attention, the sample pages close the sale.
> 
> "I don't think my writing is any better than the next guy's or gal's, but people ARE buying my book. And the only reason I can think of as to why that's happening is the sample. The cover and blurb will draw your reader like a mosquito to a bug zapper, but the sample sells your book. It's your closer. Write a strong opening and use writing techniques that draw your reader in from the first word."


Thanks you for reminding me, Pamela. I did see Matthew's post, and he doesn't mention writing better, merely polishing a sample of his already written book to sell. His aim, from the beginning, is marketing. But I'm not picking on Matthew in particular; I enjoyed his well-written post. I'm merely stating in general that I'm disappointed by the constant barrage of marketing advice, most of it of extremely doubtful provenance, which in turn leads to the OP's complaint that sales numbers are here taken as the end-all and be-all of a career as a writer. They aren't. The quality of one's work is far, far more important.


----------



## MatthewBallard (May 21, 2013)

Maybe you have my post confused with another? I've done no marketing and the work was entirely my own. I didn't polish somebody else's writing. My post was about craft and its importance especially to the writer without an audience.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> I've been reading ebooks for decades. Certainly the late 1980s was a great time for PDAs and such.
> 
> And self publishing has been around since publishing has been around.
> 
> ...


I didn't say that self-publishing hadn't been forever, but statistics before five years (such as they are) ago have absolutely nothing to do with Indy publishing today. And I never, ever (and I was very much a tech user in the 80s) saw people selling anything they called an ebook back then. You could find a few books in pdf or doc files online in fanfic sites and that was about it. Saying that had any relationship to the industry we have today is really stretching a point.

Where I agree is that we know very little. I believe that we have no clue how much the average Indy author will make on the 'lifetime' (whatever that may mean) of their books. Maybe it's very little. With the number published it could be ten dollars for all I know as an overall average.

I'm not sure that the average matters. None of us are that average and what our ambitions are varies wildly.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I believe I talked about writing better, more authentic books based less on short term sales and more on my long term goals as a writer. However, I don't regret any of the work I've written or sold so far.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Andre Jute said:


> The quality of one's work is far, far more important.


To you.


----------



## Jason Halstead (Mar 18, 2011)

Carradee said:


> Thinking of self-publishing in terms of the eRace can be a good reminder of how it's a marathon rather than a sprint.


In my younger days I paid a lot of money to fitness junkies that were working a pole as their sole means of exercise... ahem. Right, so moving on now... ;-)


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Jason Halstead said:


> In my younger days I paid a lot of money to fitness junkies that were working a pole as their sole means of exercise... ahem. Right, so moving on now... ;-)


I'm laughing!


----------



## Jack Zavada (Aug 21, 2013)

Kitten,

I discovered Kboards several months ago and this may be the most worthwhile thread I've read so far.  Thanks so much for starting it.

We often see a remark on the Internet, "Haters gotta hate."  Well, writers gotta write.  If you've got that bug in you and stories to tell, you have this urge to do it no matter what.  Now we'd all like to be big time bestseller successes.  Nothing wrong with that.  But as you so adroitly pointed out, most of us are selling waaaaayyyy below that 1,000, 500, or even 100 mark per month.  I'm one of those folks.  Yeah, pretty far below 100 for me.  Below 10, even.  

It's good to know the giganto sales figures we read about here and in other places are NOT the norm.  If they were, then we'd all be even more depressed than we are.  

There's some great wisdom in this thread that puts the whole Kindle-writing biz in perspective.  I can't remember the exact quote, but it's something like, "It only took him 20 years to become an overnight success."


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> The average self-published book will sell less than 200 copies in its lifetime.


Yeah&#8230;is that even true?

If memory serves, it's a leftover stat from the days when self publishing meant printing a bunch of books and trying to sell them from your garage. Maybe it was accurate then. Dunno. Folks still fling that stat around like it's gospel, but I don't think the assumptions behind it apply any more. And it always brings up a question whenever I hear/read it: in what timeframe? The folks who assert that prediction/statistic never seem to answer that. The timeframe for a book to be sold is one hell of a lot longer now than it used to be.

ETA - Just got through the rest of the comments, and it looks like JR Tomlin and others have already made that point. So&#8230;yeah! What they said!


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> I'm laughing!


Me, too!

Rosalind, I just read your first book, and what made it work for me was exactly what you said in another thread: it hit a nerve. I think because we hear your heroine's hopes and dreams beyond getting the hero. We know her life plan and her history. She feels like a real person, not just someone's love interest. Same for the hero. I loved it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Cherise Kelley said:


> Me, too!
> 
> Rosalind, I just read your first book, and what made it work for me was exactly what you said in another thread: it hit a nerve. I think because we hear your heroine's hopes and dreams beyond getting the hero. We know her life plan and her history. She feels like a real person, not just someone's love interest. Same for the hero. I loved it.


Wow. Thank you!


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

One thing this forum has taught me is you have to play your own game.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> The quality of one's work is far, far more important.


There's no objective way to measure quality.

Sales numbers and income, however, are finite things with numbers and stuff.

So, while quality is probably more important to all of us in our heart of hearts, it's really hard to talk about.

Rosalind says she writes "from the back of her head." I'm not so much that kind of writer. Sure, there are aspects of what I do that come from my muse and my creative brain and from places I don't understand. But I had to struggle to understand story structure, and all of that comes from outside teachers (primarily Holly Lisle, Morgan Hawke, Orson Scott Card, and Stephen King--whose stuff on how to write I have devoured). Because of that kind of study, I have a vocabulary in which I can talk about story structure, and I have metrics that I use to decide whether stories are structured well. However--I'm willing to admit that some of the best storytellers sort of... play by ear, to borrow a musical term. There are aspects of writing I do "by ear," but by and large, I've needed to learn to "read music" (or read story structure) to write. Anyway, what I've found is that a lot of writers who "play by ear" really have no interest in discussing the process of writing beyond sort of telling everyone what it is that they do. It works for them, so they don't want to change it. And because they're so immersed in it, they don't seem to want to talk about what makes quality. Maybe they're afraid that a more prescriptive approach will choke their creativity. (Maybe they're right.) Anyway, for what it's worth, if anyone wants to start an analyzation thread, where we take really well-done stories and pick them apart and figure out why they work, I am *so* in. But if you ask me if the WC will ever focus much on how to write great stories, I gotta say, I don't see it happening.

(How's that for a derail, huh? )


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> Anyway, what I've found is that a lot of writers who "play by ear" really have no interest in discussing the process of writing beyond sort of telling everyone what it is that they do. It works for them, so they don't want to change it. And because they're so immersed in it, they don't seem to want to talk about what makes quality. Maybe they're afraid that a more prescriptive approach will choke their creativity. (Maybe they're right.)


Yes. That's exactly how I feel. Which doesn't mean it's wrong to talk about it, just that that's not for me.

I don't even want to tell everyone what it is I do. Because I really don't know what I do.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Quality is a matter of taste. Really. We're all different and value different things. This is why 3,527 people can review _The Catcher in the Rye_ by J.D. Salinger and have wildly differing opinions that stretch from "A Brilliantly Unique Look at a Universal Problem" to "A Classic Snooze-Fest."


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> I'm merely stating in general that I'm disappointed by the constant barrage of marketing advice, most of it of extremely doubtful provenance, which in turn leads to the OP's complaint that sales numbers are here taken as the end-all and be-all of a career as a writer. They aren't. The quality of one's work is far, far more important.


Well, marketing advice is easier to discuss on message boards because the strategies lend themselves far more to universal rules than quality of writing does. Suggestions to improve the quality of writing are given all the time here, but they're usually confined the typical "get an editor" prodding. Because, every writer's "flaws" and "weaknesses" are unique. Advise of that nature really needs to be administered on a case-by-case basis. Telling one writer they need to make their characterization stronger by delving into introspection may be to exact opposite advice to an author who already delves too deeply. Telling an author not to include too much backstory might be the wrong advice to someone who needs a little backstory to clarify motive. So the typical advice comes out as "get just the right amount of characterization, the right pace, a good plot, etc.." There are sites out there where people critique each other's work. There's no password protected place to do that here, so you're not gonna see a lot of it. In short, this really isn't the place for the kind of interaction writers need to improve their craft. This is a place where they predominantly come with a finished product, and discuss how to sell it. I seriously doubt there's anybody on this board who thinks their writing can't be improved, and who isn't trying to do just that.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Well, marketing advice is easier to discuss on message boards because the strategies lend themselves far more to universal rules than quality of writing does. Suggestions to improve the quality of writing are given all the time here, but they're usually confined the typical "get an editor" prodding. Because, every writer's "flaws" and "weaknesses" are unique. Advise of that nature really needs to be administered on a case-by-case basis. Telling one writer they need to make their characterization stronger by delving into introspection may be to exact opposite advice to an author who already delves too deeply. Telling an author not to include too much backstory might be the wrong advice to someone who needs a little backstory to clarify motive. So the typical advice comes out as "get just the right amount of characterization, the right pace, a good plot, etc.." There are sites out there where people critique each other's work. There's no password protected place to do that here, so you're not gonna see a lot of it. In short, this really isn't the place for the kind of interaction writers need to improve their craft. This is a place where they predominantly come with a finished product, and discuss how to sell it. I seriously doubt there's anybody on this board who thinks their writing can't be improved, and who isn't trying to do just that.


I'm always agreeing with you! But, yep, yep, yep.

Plus--taste. Objective standards. Nah. I was reading about somebody recently who was doing a lot of criticism of other authors' work. I took a look at his own "look inside," and . . . Oh my flippin' GAWD, if I'd had to read any more, I'd have gouged my eyes out with a dull spoon. Torture City. So is his work "better" than mine? It's more literary. But what can I say, I hate it.

I think I'll stick to talking about blurbs. I don't rite gud enough to talk about riting.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

MatthewBallard said:


> Maybe you have my post confused with another? I've done no marketing and the work was entirely my own. I didn't polish somebody else's writing. My post was about craft and its importance especially to the writer without an audience.


Congratulations on your sales and rankings, Matthew.

I've edited my post to add a possessive 'his' in the place of an indefinite 'a' so your ownership of the material is clear. What has happened here is that you and I have entirely different ideas of the demarcation between marketing and literary craft. There's nothing wrong with what you wrote (quite the opposite -- it's good marketing advice), but it is about marketing, as I shall demonstrate.

Here's your post, with several snips. It is all about marketing to attract a reader. The first two items, the cover and the blurb, in trad publishing are always created by a specialist other than the author, and often not even shown to the author; everyone understands they're elements of marketing. That's two-thirds of your post already, about marketing as defined by an entire industry



MatthewBallard said:


> As an undiscovered writer you have three things that can make your reader press 'Buy Now'.
> 
> 1) Your cover. This has been discussed many times on this board and rings with oodles of truth. It and the blurb combine as the gateway drug to your actual writing.
> 
> 2) Your blurb. How do the blurbs read for books selling lots of copies in your genre? How are they structured? What kinds of words are they choosing? Don't use static sentences in your blurb. Make them work for you.


What has a cover and a blurb to do with literature? Nor is the rest of it about improving your book as literature. It is about attracting a reader and making him buy your book, in your own words "close the sale".



MatthewBallard said:


> ....what more can you do to attract a reader in the ten seconds during which they are reading your sample?
> 
> 3) Your sample is the third element and as equally important. It's the third leg in your milk stool and brings you across the finish line. As an unknown, this is where you HAVE to close the sale. But how?
> 
> ...


What has "your closer" to do with literature? Again, this is marketing advice. I've heard you say twice now that you "did no marketing" (and Pamela also repeated it) but this is all marketing, pure and simple.

If you want to discuss it further, open another thread so that we don't keep hijacking Kitten's thread.

Once more, Matthew, congratulations on the speedy start to your career as a writer; may it last a long time.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Rosalind James said:


> I'm always agreeing with you! But, yep, yep, yep.
> 
> Plus--taste. Objective standards. Nah. I was reading about somebody recently who was doing a lot of criticism of other authors' work. I took a look at his own "look inside," and . . . Oh my flippin' GAWD, if I'd had to read any more, I'd have gouged my eyes out with a dull spoon. Torture City. So is his work "better" than mine? It's more literary. But what can I say, I hate it.
> 
> I think I'll stick to talking about blurbs. I don't rite gud enough to talk about riting.


*claps*


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> So stop fighting with the math. Embrace the fact that you are above average!


I thought this was a great post. I like the breakdown of the numbers, and the reality check. I don't see why people want to dispute the data that shows the average title selling less than 200 copies. That's been my experience so far and it's kind of comforting to know that in the grand scheme of things I'm not a colossal failure with those numbers, just average.

I come here mostly for marketing advice and to procrastinate on the actual writing, and I enjoy the HOW TO SELL MORE BOOKS!!! threads, but I think that looking at the other end of the spectrum is also important to developing a realistic game plan. Ideally, that would be a game plan that doesn't lean too hard on the fantasy of striking gold in them thar hills, that acknowledges the reality that not everyone is going to be a bestseller, and that most of us won't sell millions of even tens of thousands of books.

I understand why people don't want to talk about the quality of books here, but that's where I know I need to focus my own energy -- on improving my own books, and finding a way to go on writing that doesn't rely on get-rich-quick fantasies. The temptation to check sales numbers 5 times a day and develop marketing plans takes away from all that. Oh, heck. Maybe I should slouch back over to AW.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

My writing is pretty much where I want it to be. I'm told my stories are adorable, magical... I get lots of good reviews in proportion to the bad ones (not that I get many reviews). I have 4 devoted fans in Italy who are just charming. I realize for my market that they have to be illustrated, and that's in my plans for this year and next.

But I know I'm writing for a small demographic (in more ways than one!).  The stories have to please children, but they also have to attract the adults who buy the books, so I'm really writing for two audiences.

So yeah, every sale, every borrow is a success for me. When I write for money, I write about computer forensics. When I write my fairy tales, I'm writing both for me and for the children who may get them as bed time stories.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

Could I just point out the obvious to all you guys. You are not normal. Normal people don't write books - they say they can, they tell you its easy, but in the end they simply don't.

You are published authors - that's a big thing, so stand up take a bow and be proud. You have done what "normal people" simply don't seem to be able to do.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

I'm sure it's also a genre question.
As a romance writer (I write historical romance with another pen name), I think it may be easier because the (mostly) female romance readers seem to actually devour the stuff by the dozens a week and the demanded standards are not too high as long as they get the sizzle kick and they always need new fodder. When you look at some people's goodreads accounts you actually start to wonder how and when these people eat or sleep, they read and review so many books.
But with other genres, where the bar is much higher because there are such fantastic, high quality best seller writers out there, like in Fantasy, Espionage, Crime and Historical Fiction, it will be much harder for an indie to get a foothold and sell more than a few copies.

EDIT: SORRY, I do not mean to say romance is a "lower" art form, but in romance you are allowed to repeat plots and tropes as many times as you like and that's what the audience wants.
You don't have to come up with a groundbreaking, never heard of story to be able to sell. Great if you do, of course, but not necessary to sell indie books.


----------



## rjspears (Sep 25, 2011)

I love this thread.  

I'm a relatively newbie and have seen anemic sales in the past year.  Those are the facts, sad or happy.  The numbers are the numbers.  I find posts stating a ga-zillion sales both motivating... and demoralizing.  I ask myself what am I doing wrong?  The reality is that I'm doing what is the normal.  The breakouts are abnormal.  

So, when my head is on straight and my eyes are clear, I look to those that are successful and take their example as motivator. 

The more I write, the better I get and the better my sales are.  It's been stated by many that the best marketing strategy is writing another book.  And that's what I'm going to do.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

DashaGLogan said:


> I'm sure it's also a genre question.
> As a romance writer (I write historical romance with another pen name), I think it may be easier because the (mostly) female romance readers seem to actually devour the stuff by the dozens a week and the demanded standards are not too high as long as they get the sizzle kick and they always need new fodder. When you look at some people's goodreads accounts you actually start to wonder how and when these people eat or sleep, they read and review so many books.
> But with other genres, where the bar is much higher because there are such fantastic, high quality best seller writers out there, like in Fantasy, Espionage, Crime and Historical Fiction, it will be much harder for an indie to get a foothold and sell more than a few copies.


OK, I have to get serious for a minute and reject a thought here.

Of course you're right--it's easier to sell in a huge genre with voracious readers. (Although I wonder if the ratio of writers to readers is actually any different. It's also the biggest genre in terms of authors and books, and Contemporary Romance is by far the largest subgenre. You could also argue that it's HARDER to get a toehold in such a huge genre, and that authors who succeed probably have something going for them.) But I flatly reject the idea that good-selling romance novels are of lower quality than novels in other genres. It's that same old argument, but that it's made by such a novelist herself disappoints me.

Writing a good sex scene, providing a "sizzle kick," isn't that easy. Not any easier than writing a good action scene. Every word and phrase has to work to create the mood, because in a really good sex scene, it's the emotions that drive the reader's response. You can't just say "he touched her nipple" and bam, you're done. (Well, you can if you're writing for guys, I guess.) Those scenes are the ones I craft the most carefully and edit the most obsessively. Sigh. It's a tough job, but somebody's gotta do it.

How is a well-written romance novel any "lesser" than a well-written thriller or mystery--or fantasy, for that matter? The best-selling ones, I would argue, are best-selling because they ARE very well-written. Is Georgette Heyer or Jane Austen a "lesser" writer than William Faulkner? I know which ones I'd rather read.

Looking back over your post, you aren't exactly saying that. But dangerously close to it, and that argument really upsets me. I think, all kidding aside, the reason I sell is my ability to tell a clear story with a powerful emotional arc, and most of all, my characterizations and dialogue. I'd put those up any day against those in the dozens of "meh" cozy mysteries I've read in my life. If a romance novelist is well-respected and selling a lot, she probably IS a fantastic, high-quality writer, just like the ones in literary fiction or fantasy or crime or espionage, although her style is different. She is probably doing something very right. Although the Nobel Committee isn't likely to be warming up the plane for either Bella Andre OR Lee Child.

Edited to more eloquently make my awesome point.
Oh, and yay for the pole-dancing picture. You go, Jolie.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2014)

Jason Halstead said:


> In my younger days I paid a lot of money to fitness junkies that were working a pole as their sole means of exercise... ahem. Right, so moving on now... ;-)


Jason,

I complimented you for what you wrote in this thread, but your response is to diss me for being a pole dancer. Okay, I'll remember that.

~~~

If they were the pole dancers I know, they were probably stronger than you, dude.










Right, so moving on now . . .


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Rosalind James said:


> OK, I have to get serious for a minute and reject a thought here.
> 
> Of course you're right--it's easier to sell in a huge genre. But I flatly reject the idea that good-selling romance novels are of lower quality than novels in other genres. It's that same old argument, but that it's made by such a novelist herself disappoints me.
> 
> ...


THANK YOU, Rosalind. Every time someone dismisses romance novels as not having to be good quality, because all they provide is a "sizzle kick," a puppy dies.

It's the same old stigma, tied to the fact that romances are _those_ books that the _silly women_ read/write. I'm sorry to see it coming from a romance writer herself, too.

To the OP, great post, and thanks for making this thread! Julie's reply was ace. I don't want to be the Starbucks either. In a sales-obsessed world, this thread has been great at reminding me of what's most important to me.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> OK, I have to get serious for a minute and reject a thought here.
> 
> Of course you're right--it's easier to sell in a huge genre. But I flatly reject the idea that good-selling romance novels are of lower quality than novels in other genres. It's that same old argument, but that it's made by such a novelist herself disappoints me.
> 
> ...


I did not say successful romance was bad, I love reading and writing romance.
You got me completely wrong.
I'm not talking about best-sellers. I'm talking about indie romance novels selling more than 2 or 3 a month as opposed to crime, fantasy or serious fiction.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

DashaGLogan said:


> I did not say successful romance was bad, I love reading and writing romance.
> You got me completely wrong.
> I'm not talking about best-sellers. I'm talking about indie romance novels selling more than 2 or 3 a month as opposed to crime, fantasy or serious fiction.


Good writing is good writing. I don't think it's any easier for romance writers to sell than it is for crime writers. At least I haven't found that to be the case, and I write both romance and murder mysteries.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

DianaGabriel said:


> THANK YOU, Rosalind. Every time someone dismisses romance novels as not having to be good quality, because all they provide is a "sizzle kick," a puppy dies.
> 
> It's the same old stigma, tied to the fact that romances are _those_ books that the _silly women_ read/write. I'm sorry to see it coming from a romance writer herself, too.
> 
> To the OP, great post, and thanks for making this thread! Julie's reply was ace. I don't want to be the Starbucks either. In a sales-obsessed world, this thread has been great at reminding me of what's most important to me.


As I said, I read it, I write it, I love it.
Last month I gobbled down 10 mills and boons books in a day and I loved it.
Nobody said silly, you said that. I certainly read a romance novel to get my sizzle kick, don't you? Is it bad? Isn't that what they are there for? 
I did not say it did not have to be good quality, but there are no shining big names up there, blocking out the sun on everybody else. 
Sorry to be OT.

I would like to apologise again if I hit the wrong note, I certainly did not wish to declare romance was easier to write.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

DashaGLogan said:


> As I said, I read it, I write it, I love it.
> Last month I gobbled down 10 mills and boons books in a day and I loved it.
> Nobody said silly, you said that. I certainly read a romance novel to get my sizzle kick, don't you? Is it bad? Isn't that what they are there for?
> I did not say it did not have to be good quality, but there are no shining big names up there, blocking out the sun on everybody else.
> Sorry to be OT.


I'm really sorry if you feel attacked. I did sort-of get your point, it just raised my hackles. 
I would argue that somebody like Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Jennifer Cruisie writing "Welcome to Temptation--they block out the sun pretty well. There are some really, really good writers in romance, making us mere mortals quail. I'm sure others here have different authors they could name.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> I'm really sorry if you feel attacked. I did sort-of get your point, it just raised my hackles.
> I would argue that somebody like Susan Elizabeth Phillips, Jennifer Cruisie writing "Welcome to Temptation--they block out the sun pretty well. There are some really, really good writers in romance, making us mere mortals quail. I'm sure others here have different authors they could name.


Of course they block out the sun quality wise, but they won't stop ME (as an average romance reader) to try an indie romance when I like the sample well enough. 
With fantasy, I would have a problem with warmed up plots, such as "the dragon plot" the "Lord of the Rings"-theme, the "Elves".theme. There's always somebody famous who has done it with millions of editors and help.
Same with crime.
In romance, the recurring themes are not a problem. I actually like reading the same trope over and over again in Romance. You can give me a hot self-assured, dark haired man suffering from his forbidden desire a hundred times a year.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

I write erotic paranormal romance, and I also write scifi/fantasy under another name. My experience is that my romance sells well, but my scifi gets better reviews and more loyal fans. The scifi has a MUCH higher read through rate through my free titles. The fans are more likely to leave positive reviews. My free romance books get dogged, and I don't think it's because I'm such a different writer from one genre to the other. Frankly, I think romance is HARDER. The scifi takes more research and _maybe_ more thought as far as plot development, but pleasing romance fans enough to love you and remember you is tough.

I do agree that it might be easier to SELL, but I don't think it's easier to write or gain a following. Romance fans want something very specific, and if you don't deliver, you will hear about it.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

Trinity Night said:


> I do agree that it might be easier to SELL, but I don't think it's easier to write. Romance fans want something very specific, and if you don't deliver, you will hear about it.


Yes, and they want a lot of it!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

DashaGLogan said:


> Of course they block out the sun quality wise, but they won't stop ME (as an average romance reader) to try an indie romance when I like the sample well enough.
> With fantasy, I would have a problem with warmed up plots, such as "the dragon plot" the "Lord of the Rings"-theme, the "Elves".theme. There's always somebody famous who has done it with millions of editors and help.
> Same with crime.
> In romance, the recurring themes are not a problem. I actually like reading the same trope over and over again in Romance. You can give me a hot self-assured, dark haired man suffering from his forbidden desire a hundred times a year.


Perhaps because good romance is less about plot and "what happens" than it is about character development and an emotional journey?
(Good thing, because I kinda stink at plot.  )


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Trinity Night said:


> I write erotic paranormal romance, and I also write scifi/fantasy under another name. My experience is that my romance sells well, but my scifi gets better reviews and more loyal fans. The scifi has a MUCH higher read through rate through my free titles. The fans are more likely to leave positive reviews. My free romance books get dogged, and I don't think it's because I'm such a different writer from one genre to the other. Frankly, I think romance is HARDER. The scifi takes more research and _maybe_ more thought as far as plot development, but pleasing romance fans enough to love you and remember you is tough.


This is fascinating. You know, as a general rule, sci-fi is read by more men than women, and romance is vice versa. I wonder if men are more likely to give higher reviews. You know how cold and cranky you women can get.


----------



## Istvan Szabo Ifj. (Dec 13, 2013)

Andre Jute said:


> To reassure the OP: If your book sells more than five copies in its lifetime, you're doing better than the average writer, whether indie or trad published.


+1. Maybe the best point in the whole thread.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> This is fascinating. You know, as a general rule, sci-fi is read by more men than women, and romance is vice versa. I wonder if men are more likely to give higher reviews. You know how cold and cranky you women can get.


I'm not completely sure if that is the case. My scifi is very female friendly. I have well rounded female characters who are fully formed people, not necessarily "strong." One of them is actually a total basket case, but she's a genius so it makes her very interesting. It think the fan base is just different and the genre is less saturated. The fans appreciate a good, well written story and will tell you.

I'm trying very hard to find what appeals to the romance demographic, although I'm finding I have a large percentage of male fans, lol. I am admittedly more of a nerd genre reader, but the romance bug has gotten under my skin. I enjoy exploring the relationships, and I'm reading a lot more in the genre. I think I get closer with each release.


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

OK, I admit I'm a recovered report watcher. I'd fret about sales and whether I'm doing enough promotion or doing it wrong. I probably sell far less than most self-pubbers, and maybe as much as many. I didn't plan it that way. I had a business model. I'd be selling thousands within months and quit the Day Job, forgetting that it was precisely the Day Job that allowed me to write.

Funny thing happened along the way: I fell in love with writing and lost interest in the business. I took the time to learn a thing or two about the art of writing and self-pubbing (and humility) from the thoughtful people in this group right here. Today, I dream of my characters and their situations, and wake in the middle of the night scribbling down notes and dialog. I resent the time spent doing anything but writing, but the outside world feeds creativity, and I have so many ideas my only complaint now is I can't write the stories fast enough. I'm comfortable that my latest work is my best so far, and can only get better, as long as I don't get discouraged and quit because of _sales_.

Yes, I'd much prefer it if my books _would_ sell than not. And that I could retire from the DJ. But I'll never give up now. I _have_ to write these stories. Just to please me, an obsessive-compulsive project-addict. I like them, my family likes them (my toughest critics) and especially my small but loyal group of fans seem to like them as well. The occasional fan email, comment or Tweet makes my day. My _week_. And even if no one else reads them, or if I die before they get any sort of recognition, well, my work will survive me, and that's not unimportant.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

I guess it depends on what you're looking for from a message board interaction or post.

I don't want or need affirmation or encouragement from a message board. I didn't when I was selling nothing, and I don't now. It's just not the way I'm wired.

I do look for information on how those who are selling a lot of books are doing it. That's of interest to me as a book seller. That's largely why I skim this, and several other, boards. For the exchange of relevant information about my specific area of interest: how to sell more books.

I'm not interested in debates about craft, or use of language, or whether one genre is "easier" to write to than another, beyond how they affect book sales, and how I might benefit from that knowledge. 

When I share information or a perspective, it's with the expectation that there are others, like me when I was starting out, who are wondering how that guy sells a boatload of books. The threads inevitably deteriorate into philosophical debates about the meaning of success, or whether it's necessary to sell lots of books to have intrinsic value, or whatnot, which is where I generally tune out. 

Because I'm not looking for a cheerleader or a life coach or kindred spirits or validation on message boards. I'm looking for information that can help me to become the 1% that sells well, not help in feeling okay about being the 99%. That was true when I was the 99%, and it holds true now.

Some might say that's cold and unfeeling. I say it's having reasonable expectations about what I hope to glean from my hour a day of surfing.

Others may have different perspectives, and they are welcome to them. I just do what works for me, and occasionally chime in on what that is.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Everyone thinks romance is easier to sell because it has such a big market share. But the reality is that romance readers, because the pool is so large, are more discriminating. They know what they want, they are good critics, and they talk. They are not necessarily easy to please just because they read so much.



DashaGLogan said:


> Of course they block out the sun quality wise, but they won't stop ME (as an average romance reader) to try an indie romance when I like the sample well enough.
> With fantasy, I would have a problem with warmed up plots, such as "the dragon plot" the "Lord of the Rings"-theme, the "Elves".theme. There's always somebody famous who has done it with millions of editors and help.
> Same with crime.
> In romance, the recurring themes are not a problem. I actually like reading the same trope over and over again in Romance. You can give me a hot self-assured, dark haired man suffering from his forbidden desire a hundred times a year.


I think in other genres, recurring themes are not a problem either. Most people don't go looking for "never been done before," regardless of genre. I'd argue that fantasy fans are as aware of the influence of a megabestseller like Lord of the Rings as romance fans are of, say, the influence of Fifty Shades of Grey. Ultimately, in both genres some fans will be okay with the "knockoffs" (I use that term loosely), and some won't. But all genres have recurring themes, reoccurring types of characters, tried and true plot tropes, and specific reader expectations. In romance, readers are more vocal about what they love and don't love, and they are discriminating, because their "pool" of books is enormous.

That said, romance readers have really embraced the wave of indie/self-pubbed books, maybe because they're already good at sorting out the good from the bad. That network/infrastructure is already in place.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

DianaGabriel said:


> Everyone thinks romance is easier to sell because it has such a big market share. But the reality is that romance readers, because the pool is so large, are more discriminating. They know what they want, they are good critics, and they talk. They are not necessarily easy to please just because they read so much.
> 
> I think in other genres, recurring themes are not a problem either. Most people don't go looking for "never been done before," regardless of genre. I'd argue that fantasy fans are as aware of the influence of a megabestseller like Lord of the Rings as romance fans are of, say, the influence of Fifty Shades of Grey. Ultimately, in both genres some fans will be okay with the "knockoffs" (I use that term loosely), and some won't. But all genres have recurring themes, reoccurring types of characters, tried and true plot tropes, and specific reader expectations. In romance, readers are more vocal about what they love and don't love, and they are discriminating, because their "pool" of books is enormous.
> 
> That said, romance readers have really embraced the wave of indie/self-pubbed books, maybe because they're already good at sorting out the good from the bad. That network/infrastructure is already in place.


All so true! I've been astonished at the network--I had no idea. And yeah, phew, tough critics.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Romance is easier to sell because there is a huge pool of readers. An environment like that creates a great deal of competition. I think in the genre I write (erotic romance), you are more likely to have people say they hate something than say the love it. For all the books of mine that sell, if a fraction of those buyers left reviews, it would far outweigh any bad reviews. People who hate my free books are the most vocal. I have no idea what is behind that. All I can do is try to write in a way that won't be criticized. I read bad reviews of other romance writer's books, and I'm getting an idea of what this very vocal group hates. I'll avoid it like the plague.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

DianaGabriel said:


> That said, romance readers have really embraced the wave of indie/self-pubbed books, maybe because they're already good at sorting out the good from the bad. That network/infrastructure is already in place.


This is a very very valid argument.

The sheer amount of time and passion the readers give to the romances is mind blowing. They share, they review, they recommend, they blog... I really don't know how they do it! (that's what I meant earlier btw.)


----------



## spike Pedersen (Feb 2, 2014)

I sold a few the first 3 months, and nothing since. Looking to fix that. Right now I am gathering enough reviews to use Bookbub. I have been advertising on Goodreads. 2999237 views, and 1000 clicks as of yesterday, and zero sales since I started it. I continue because I want to keep the book out there.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> I don't want or need affirmation or encouragement from a message board. I didn't when I was selling nothing, and I don't now. It's just not the way I'm wired.
> 
> I do look for information on how those who are selling a lot of books are doing it. That's of interest to me as a book seller. That's largely why I skim this, and several other, boards. For the exchange of relevant information about my specific area of interest: how to sell more books.
> 
> ...


I'm picturing the "smart bug" from Starship Troopers, sucking brains dry. _Shploink. Slurp. Slurp. Slurp._


----------



## Rachel Aukes (Oct 13, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> I don't want or need affirmation or encouragement from a message board. I didn't when I was selling nothing, and I don't now. It's just not the way I'm wired.
> 
> I do look for information on how those who are selling a lot of books are doing it. That's of interest to me as a book seller. That's largely why I skim this, and several other, boards. For the exchange of relevant information about my specific area of interest: how to sell more books.


THIS. 
I'm here to steal leverage best practices and apply what makes sense to my business model. I don't spend time away from writing to be on forums for a circle jerk (pardon the crude analogy) or affirmation (like Russell far more eloquently stated). I spend time on forums for 1) access to valuable, current information that may help me and 2) to pay back with my own lessons learned. The kboards writers' forum is by far the best board I've seen for interaction, and I thrive reading what has worked (and hasn't) for other authors.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Personally, I need both. I'm just sensitive like that. We aren't all the same.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

rachelaukes said:


> THIS.
> I'm here to steal leverage best practices and apply what makes sense to my business model. I don't spend time away from writing to be on forums for a circle jerk (pardon the crude analogy) or affirmation (like Russell far more eloquently stated). I spend time on forums for 1) access to valuable, current information that may help me and 2) to pay back with my own lessons learned. The kboards writers' forum is by far the best board I've seen for interaction, and I thrive reading what has worked (and hasn't) for other authors.


Hmm, and yet you chime in on a thread like this which has not even a tiny nugget of info about advertising and marketing.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

kyokominamino said:


> I've been published for six months and literally January is the first time I've read a post where an author admits they don't sell two/three/four/five hundred copies a month.


When I hear of people who sell hundreds of copies a month, I think, _Wow, they're doing great!_ Then they complain about how low their sales are. 



A.A said:


> I'm disappointed to see the thread was high jacked by mentions of higher sales. The initial post wasn't about/asking about how to get higher sales.


Agreed. There are plenty of other posts in that vein.



beccaprice said:


> every sale, every borrow is a success for me.


Yes! Many of us will never have big sales, and money isn't the primary reason we publish.

@beccaprice: Your books remind me of the Hans Christian Andersen book I used to read as a child, with a few terrifying illustrations and lots of story. (Except your books aren't scary.) It makes me happy to hear about your books because they sound interesting. I hated children's books when I was little.



vrabinec said:


> I'm picturing the "smart bug" from Starship Troopers, sucking brains dry. _Shploink. Slurp. Slurp. Slurp._


 

I have got to add my own complaint. There really is strong pressure on others to conform to the "winning" mode of writing fast and publishing often. (This pressure comes not so much from the persons who are successful but from others who worship their success.) At least two comments in different threads have said, "Suck it up and work hard and put out lots of books fast or be a loser." (A slight paraphrase.)

When I read something like that, my internal reaction is "Eff you, I do what I want." But some writers have trouble resisting the pressure - it _is_ tough going against the Rules - and it is tedious when a few people glom on to how the big sellers work and think One Size Fits All.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> I guess it depends on what you're looking for from a message board interaction or post.
> 
> I don't want or need affirmation or encouragement from a message board. I didn't when I was selling nothing, and I don't now. It's just not the way I'm wired.
> 
> ...


I come to a message board for writers because I'm interested in talking about all aspects of the writing life: What are other people struggling with? What successes have they had? How do they handle craft problem XYZ? How do they pick a cover? And yes, what business strategies have they used, and what has worked? I come here for information, commiseration, inspiration.

So yeah, everyone is different and has different expectations -- but I'd just add that I think it's also pretty reasonable to join a social group for, y'know, social interaction!

ETA: Woah. "A circle jerk"? C'mon. Why does a community of writers socializing = a circle jerk? Why can't it be a group of people talking about something they all care about doing?

This thread was a simple reminder that our perception of "good sales" can be skewed by the many outliers and successes here on this board, which has many successful members. I wouldn't call that a circle jerk!


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> @beccaprice: Your books remind me of the Hans Christian Andersen book I used to read as a child, with a few terrifying illustrations and lots of story. (Except your books aren't scary.) It makes me happy to hear about your books because they sound interesting. I hated children's books when I was little.


I hated Hans Christian Andersen when I was little - the stories were all so sad. The romance of children dying - or at least suffering greatly - was a very Victorian attitude.

If you have Prime, why don't you borrow one? or, F&F is going to be free Feb 10, and you can download it then.


----------



## Rachel Aukes (Oct 13, 2013)

DianaGabriel said:


> ETA: Woah. "A circle jerk"? C'mon. Why does a community of writers socializing = a circle jerk? Why can't it be a group of people talking about something they all care about doing?
> 
> This thread was a simple reminder that our perception of "good sales" can be skewed by the many outliers and successes here on this board, which has many successful members. I wouldn't call that a circle jerk!


I agree. It was crude, but it's an appropriate analogy to what I've seen in writers groups (as you'll see in my earlier comment, I also mentioned how great I thought kboards was). The statement wasn't in reference to socializing. It was a blanket statement about affirmation. Socializing does not equal affirmation. They are not synonyms. Some affirmation is good; it helps build confidence, especially for new writers. But, when a group focuses entirely on affirmation, it's not focusing on _how _one can become better. Again, to make it clear, I was not talking about kboards. I was candidly stating my opinion about what I was looking for in a writers group.

My traditional published books didn't sell worth a crap, so I am intimately familiar with the fact that most books don't sell. It's a fact of life. I'd clicked on this thread to see what insights had been shared. As the topic in the thread digressed, I digressed with it. 
No offense was meant when I threw my opinion out there.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Personally, I find the psychological struggles of self-publishing to be the toughest. I'm all right on the writing and marketing fronts. It really helps me to hear that some others have the same issues I do, and I'm not just a weirdo. (All right, maybe I'm a weirdo, too. But there's more than one of us.)

Everybody's different.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> @beccaprice: Your books remind me of the Hans Christian Andersen book I used to read as a child, with a few terrifying illustrations and lots of story. (Except your books aren't scary.) It makes me happy to hear about your books because they sound interesting. I hated children's books when I was little.


Once you take Disney out of the equation, children's fairy tales, at least the old school ones, which includes rape (the original Sleeping Beauty), Bestiality, and Cannibalism (Hansel and Gretal), are really scary. Then again, was there ever really a difference between adult fairy tales and the ones for children? By the way, Becca's fairy stories are the real deal.


----------



## death wizard (Jan 31, 2014)

I'm with those who agree this is a great thread. I really do wish that it was as simple as "the better the book, the better the sales," but we all know that some fantastic books have gone relatively unnoticed while some pretty terrible ones have made millions. I'm sure that's been discussed here a million times.

So then it becomes the drive to thrive versus the drive to survive. I'm a busy family man with wife, kids, job, etc. and don't have all day to spend on promotion. So I do what I can when I can, and try to do at least 30 minutes or so every day (or more often night) in some form or fashion. Finding the time to actually write is another story.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2014)

blakebooks said:


> Because I'm not looking for a cheerleader or a life coach or kindred spirits or validation on message boards. I'm looking for information that can help me to become the 1% that sells well, not help in feeling okay about being the 99%. That was true when I was the 99%, and it holds true now.


THANK YOU.


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Once you take Disney out of the equation, children's fairy tales, at least the old school ones, which includes rape (the original Sleeping Beauty), Bestiality, and Cannibalism (Hansel and Gretal), are really scary. Then again, was there ever really a difference between adult fairy tales and the ones for children? By the way, Becca's fairy stories are the real deal.


Thank you, I think. There's no bestiality (unless you count the princess becoming good friends with her dragon), rape, or any of those other charming tropes of the real old-time pre-Grimm brother's fairy tales, though.

well, one of my dragons is gay, but since nobody reviewing the book has caught it, it doesn't matter.

Seriously, I thank you for the complement. My husband and I are putting in a lot of work on the web site today (now we have to work on SEO so people can find it), and I'm hoping to get more sales as I'm able to get more illustrations up. I think - I hope - that'll make a big difference.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

H. S. St. Ours said:


> OK, I admit I'm a recovered report watcher.


haha! I can totally relate


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

death wizard said:


> I'm with those who agree this is a great thread. I really do wish that it was as simple as "the better the book, the better the sales," but we all know that some fantastic books have gone relatively unnoticed while some pretty terrible ones have made millions. I'm sure that's been discussed here a million times.
> 
> So then it becomes the drive to thrive versus the drive to survive. I'm a busy family man with wife, kids, job, etc. and don't have all day to spend on promotion. So I do what I can when I can, and try to do at least 30 minutes or so every day (or more often night) in some form or fashion. Finding the time to actually write is another story.


Sir, for telling it like it is without adding in any statements about giving pole dancers money, circle jerks or jokes about women 'having a price' at which they'll sell themselves - you have my sword. And my axe.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

rachelaukes said:


> I agree. It was crude, but it's an appropriate analogy to what I've seen in writers groups (as you'll see in my earlier comment, I also mentioned how great I thought kboards was). The statement wasn't in reference to socializing. It was a blanket statement about affirmation. Socializing does not equal affirmation. They are not synonyms. Some affirmation is good; it helps build confidence, especially for new writers. But, when a group focuses entirely on affirmation, it's not focusing on _how _one can become better. Again, to make it clear, I was not talking about kboards. I was candidly stating my opinion about what I was looking for in a writers group.
> 
> My traditional published books didn't sell worth a crap, so I am intimately familiar with the fact that most books don't sell. It's a fact of life. I'd clicked on this thread to see what insights had been shared. As the topic in the thread digressed, I digressed with it.
> No offense was meant when I threw my opinion out there.


Thanks for clarifying; I get what you're saying now. And no offense taken!  I agree that a writer's group that's ALL affirmation and no discussion on how to improve isn't very useful. I wouldn't want to be a part of such a group. I prefer a mix. That said, I think that if that's what people want, that's totally valid. Sometimes people just want a place to commiserate, and will find other ways to improve their work. I think commiseration and, yes, affirmation, are perfectly reasonable reasons to participate in a writer's group.

Anyway, just chiming in with the "other half" of Russell's statement. When he had low sales, he might not have wanted to commiserate, or appreciated a reminder to put his sales in perspective, but that doesn't mean others couldn't use a thread like this.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

beccaprice said:


> Thank you, I think. There's no bestiality (unless you count the princess becoming good friends with her dragon), rape, or any of those other charming tropes of the real old-time pre-Grimm brother's fairy tales, though.
> 
> well, one of my dragons is gay, but since nobody reviewing the book has caught it, it doesn't matter.
> 
> Seriously, I thank you for the complement. My husband and I are putting in a lot of work on the web site today (now we have to work on SEO so people can find it), and I'm hoping to get more sales as I'm able to get more illustrations up. I think - I hope - that'll make a big difference.


Sorry for not chiming in more. I read your "Snarls" thread and read the book before that (I'm a fan). Just happy to see a real author of fairy tales get some juice for once. It's darn near my favorite subject and whenever I see an author writing the stuff I love I go nuts!


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Because I'm not looking for a cheerleader or a life coach or kindred spirits or validation on message boards. I'm looking for information that can help me to become the 1% that sells well, not help in feeling okay about being the 99%. That was true when I was the 99%, and it holds true now.
> 
> THANK YOU.


I come to message boards to learn things. Those things can be about marketing, writers' angst and how they deal with it, slow sales, big-time sales, what people are trying, what people are feeling, spiffy new marketing ideas, the whole enchilada. I don't know what I don't know, so I pretty much listen to everyone--at least once.  Russell Blake's posts, Elle's post--so many others--are gold.

And Kitten's post as a reminder that, as independent author/publishers, we are free to define success on our own terms--and feel fine about it--is timely and worthwhile. (Also H.S. St. Ours; I think we're in the same recovery group. )


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> Sorry for not chiming in more. I read your "Snarls" thread and read the book before that (I'm a fan). Just happy to see a real author of fairy tales get some juice for once. It's darn near my favorite subject and whenever I see an author writing the stuff I love I go nuts!


That's so nice to hear. Wait til you see the illustrations for The Snarls - they're charming.

I just wish I could find more people like you.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> I guess it depends on what you're looking for from a message board interaction or post.
> 
> I do look for information on how those who are selling a lot of books are doing it. That's of interest to me as a book seller. That's largely why I skim this, and several other, boards. For the exchange of relevant information about my specific area of interest: how to sell more books.
> 
> I'm not interested in debates about craft, or use of language, or whether one genre is "easier" to write to than another, beyond how they affect book sales, and how I might benefit from that knowledge.


^^^^ This. As far as details of craft, I do go other places. However, I'm a relative publishing newbie and what I've realized is that I need to learn more about publishing.

Also, what works changes so quickly. Keeping current seems to be vital. I really love the posts from people who say they published their first book and had awesome sales. I love the posts from people who struggle/have struggled and found success. I love posts from people who have found enormous success. I love posts from people who struggle and still struggle (kind of where I'm at at the moment.)

The thing about the cover, blurb, sample: There simply has got to be some truth to that! Why would one author put up a book and not sell well and another one put up one and it goes through the roof? Or at least has a really nice start. Something is clicking with readers. I've changed covers, I've change blurbs. They affect sales.

We hired an artist to do our first cover. However,it still didn't work. We sold, I think 4 books, in the first 4 months. We changed the cover and the blurb, then put the first book on permafree, in anticipation of the second book's release. When the first book went permafree in Dec 2012, it shot up the epic fantasy chart, with no ads. I mean it went free on one night and the next day, downloads were pouring in, and it was on the first page. I was pleasantly mystified. When we released the second book two weeks later, there were sales! YAY! I hung out in the charts for a few months. And though conversions to sales happened, considering the number of total downloads over the next few months, they almost didn't make sense, i.e. so relatively small. I continued to tweak the blurb. You could almost see a direct correlation in sales from blurb changes, up or down (more accurately Amazon product descriptions.)

So, I've proven to myself that these things have a direct effect on sales.

It's not pleasant to think: My cover's not so hot. My blurb's not so hot. The opening or first installment in my series is not so hot. But I think, on the publishing side, the painful reality is that's kind of true. I'd say, in many many many ways readers are very generous. They want to find a good book/story. They want to find authors whose works they love. I mean, I don't think the average person browsing books on Amazon is there to not buy books.

Why is advertising such huge business? I guess because it works.

I think cover, blurb, sample, AND THE BOOK, is the core of advertising. I spent all last year doing other kinds of advertising. Oh, there were varying levels of success and non-success. But at the end of last year, after studying these boards, I decided to retrench and focus solely on: the cover, blurb, sample, AND THE BOOK as my advertising.

I also think, when you hit it right, you've got the "right" cover, blurb, sample, BOOK, and it's the "right" time for that STORY, success probably can't be kept from you!

OTOH traditional publishing probably has about the same ratio of success as indie publishing, i.e. a lot of traditionally published books don't' sell well either.

SO no one seems to have a concrete notion of what the right mix at the right time is. I think that's art.

BUT if we keep writing and keep learning about covers, blurbs, samples, and our BOOKs. It just seems we increase our odds for eventual success.

So not being hugely successful is no indication that a writer should stop writing, imho. And if you'd like to sell, probably, learning as much about covers, blurbs, etc. is probably really helpful!


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Lest everyone think I'm a party pooper, I was clarifying what I want out of a message board when I peruse it. That doesn't mean it's what everyone should or shouldn't want. I have no opinion on what others should/might/ought to want. I only know what I want.

I also would like to point out that I tend to take a tough love, unflinching approach to my career. That's not for everyone. Some resonate with my internal dialogue, others view it as a challenge to their perspective. I personally believe that you have to develop a thick skin early on in any business if you're going to make it, but that's just my observation. Doesn't make it the only way of doing things.

My observation was simply that what I find useful on KBoards is the sort of post I usually post here: descriptions of strategy, tactics and process. I've shared a ton on how I write, how many hours, how many words per hour, how I outline, etc. etc. etc. I've posted numerous threads on how I segment my time between writing and marketing. I've posted about sales, about my thoughts on Select, on promotional approaches, on perma-free, etc. In short, I post what I'd be interested in reading, just as I write what I'd be interested in reading in my novels.

I'm in no way denigrating those who seek to commiserate, or want validation, from or on a message board. We're all different. I just was trying to offer a glimpse into what I want out of the transaction - information on how to become one of the 1%, and to pay it forward for those who were in the same boat I was in 31 months ago, wondering how to make sense out of it all.

That is the entirety of my message. No offense intended.

Now back to editing. My 25% for today has expired, and the work doesn't do itself.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

beccaprice said:


> F&F is going to be free Feb 10, and you can download it then.


Thank you for mentioning it. Calendar marked!


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> Lest everyone think I'm a party pooper, I was clarifying what I want out of a message board when I peruse it. That doesn't mean it's what everyone should or shouldn't want. I have no opinion on what others should/might/ought to want. I only know what I want.
> 
> I also would like to point out that I tend to take a tough love, unflinching approach to my career. That's not for everyone. Some resonate with my internal dialogue, others view it as a challenge to their perspective. I personally believe that you have to develop a thick skin early on in any business if you're going to make it, but that's just my observation. Doesn't make it the only way of doing things.
> 
> ...


+1

I don't think you're a party pooper, Russell! Just pragmatic.


----------



## A past poster (Oct 23, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> I just do what works for me, and occasionally chime in on what that is.


Your chiming in is so important. Not only is it great karma, but it helps others, like me, who learn every day on this board.


----------



## death wizard (Jan 31, 2014)

A.A said:


> Sir, for telling it like it is without adding in any statements about giving pole dancers money, circle jerks or jokes about women 'having a price' at which they'll sell themselves - you have my sword. And my axe.


 

I always love it when I don't offend someone, especially when I'm not trying to.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

IstvanSzaboIfj said:


> > Quote from: Andre Jute on Yesterday at 05:05:21 PM
> > To reassure the OP: If your book sells more than five copies in its lifetime, you're doing better than the average writer, whether indie or trad published.
> 
> 
> +1. Maybe the best point in the whole thread.


Thank you, Istvan. I was wondering whether anyone would pick up the main point. Perhaps that number of _five copies_ is an unwanted truth.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Lest everyone think I'm a party pooper, I was clarifying what I want out of a message board when I peruse it. That doesn't mean it's what everyone should or shouldn't want. I have no opinion on what others should/might/ought to want. I only know what I want.
> 
> I also would like to point out that I tend to take a tough love, unflinching approach to my career. That's not for everyone. Some resonate with my internal dialogue, others view it as a challenge to their perspective. I personally believe that you have to develop a thick skin early on in any business if you're going to make it, but that's just my observation. Doesn't make it the only way of doing things.
> 
> ...


I want whatever you're having.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

The question is, are you actually working at being successful or playing at it?    

The thousand word a day thread should be re-named the forty minute a day thread. Who ever got to the top of the game working forty minutes a day? 

Yes there will be the occasional fluke to give you hope, however relying upon that is a bad business strategy. 

Just sayin'


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

heidi_g said:


> I really love the posts from people who say they published their first book and had awesome sales. I love the posts from people who struggle/have struggled and found success. I love posts from people who have found enormous success. I love posts from people who struggle and still struggle (kind of where I'm at at the moment.)


Yeah, spot on. I come to see the whole show. The writers who get depressed and drop off because it's no longer any fun. The ones who make it big and feel some newfound pressure to say the right thing because they don't want to blow the good thing they've got going on, and they feel the need to be "out there pushing the social media" because that's how they figure they'll keep their momentum. The writers who come here and fish in subtle ways to hook some pupils for their classes to generate additional streams of income to supplement the gap their own writing can't fill. The mid-listers who desperately want the attention the big shots are getting. The newbies full of bravado. It's the ultimate reality show for writers, right here.


----------



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

This reply is for Blake, of course anyone else can read it. I don't see you as a party pooper, but I hope you won't get bored with coming to the writer's café because you no longer find us interesting. I have picked up quite a bit of information from your comments recently, as well as from meeting Hugh in person in Seattle. Both of you have given me good information. I'm not spending 15 hours a day writing, but I'm spending a lot more time than I have for several months. I have been getting into more of a flow and I hope we continue to see your comments and opinions. I may never make it to that 1%, but I'm not ready to give up yet. Thanks for all of the advice given. I do read it.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

theblether said:


> The question is, are you actually working at being successful or playing at it?
> 
> The thousand word a day thread should be re-named the forty minute a day thread. Who ever got to the top of the game working forty minutes a day?
> 
> Yes there will be the occasional fluke to give you hope, however relying upon that is a bad business strategy.


Different strokes for different folks, but that's exactly how I look at it.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

theblether said:


> The question is, are you actually working at being successful or playing at it?
> 
> The thousand word a day thread should be re-named the forty minute a day thread. Who ever got to the top of the game working forty minutes a day?


1. If I could write a thousand good words in forty minutes I'd be very happy.
2. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be able to do this on a full-time basis so we have to squeeze it in where we can.


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Lydniz said:


> 1. If I could write a thousand good words in forty minutes I'd be very happy.
> 2. Not all of us are fortunate enough to be able to do this on a full-time basis so we have to squeeze it in where we can.


I give props to anyone who's out there raising a family, working a full-time job, and still finds even ten minutes out of the day to write. In fact, anyone who is raising children and trying to put food on the table and still scrapes out a few minutes each day to write is actually more of an inspiration to me than the full-timers.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that someone who puts in less hours writing than let's say Russell Blake (whose work ethic pretty much matches mine) is a slouch. That's not the point I'm making at all. But I know plenty of writers who'll do everything else BUT write. Those are the ones who I think are quite delusional in their prospects of being able to become a full-time writer when they only have one book to their name and are not doing what they can to change that for whatever reason. Because I've noticed these same individuals can find time for whatever they want (going to the movies, watching every game on TV of their favorite sports team, keeping up with the latest gossip, etc.). But when it comes to working at their craft, they're too busy to find time to write.


----------



## Selina Fenech (Jul 20, 2011)

This thread has delurked me. Hopefully I'll be able to put my many thoughts on this subject together in a way that is clear.

It is important to know that selling a lot isn't normal. And it's not important so that we can say "I'm happy where I am and I'm not going to try harder to get better, do more, or sell more". I doubt there are many people here who aren't always trying to do better, create better, and sell better. 
It's important in a different way, as I see it.
There is this general idea spread around that if you Write A Good Book, it will sell. There are variations on that, expanding it to the magical trifecter of Good Book + Great Cover + great Blurb = Sales. But what those "Sales" amounts are or should be is the misleading part. A writer will think, oh god, I'm only selling a book or two a day, or week, or month, so something I'm doing must be wrong. They can be driven to changing their covers over and over and over again (Hi Dalya), or changing their blurb, or throwing countless hours into marketing (the "Maybe my stuff is okay but people just aren't seeing it" syndrome).

And the scariest of thoughts... maybe what I've written *just isn't good*.

But the worst part is, in a community like this, it's easy for the thoughts to turn more venomous, and when people see another author who isn't taking off like the Big Guys, that equation kicks in and you subconsciously think "they probably aren't selling because their writing is bad, or they just aren't trying hard enough". It's something that can turn authors against authors.

It's important to know what the reality is in terms of average book sales numbers. Only a small percentage of books really take off. And yeah, we can all keep striving to have one of those books, but we shouldn't be hatin' on ourselves or others for not being in that club. The club we're all in is the Authors club. We've written goddamn novels and put them out into the world and many of us have sold more than that mythical (or maybe not so mythical- some awesome maths in this post!!) average figure of 200 sales over a books lifetime.


----------



## Christian Price (Aug 3, 2012)

Thank You for the comments


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> I give props to anyone who's out there raising a family, working a full-time job, and still finds even ten minutes out of the day to write. In fact, anyone who is raising children and trying to put food on the table and still scrapes out a few minutes each day to write is actually more of an inspiration to me than the full-timers.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not saying that someone who puts in less hours writing than let's say Russell Blake (whose work ethic pretty much matches mine) is a slouch. That's not the point I'm making at all. But I know plenty of writers who'll do everything else BUT write. Those are the ones who I think are quite delusional in their prospects of being able to become a full-time writer when they only have one book to their name and are not doing what they can to change that for whatever reason. Because I've noticed these same individuals can find time for whatever they want (going to the movies, watching every game on TV of their favorite sports team, keeping up with the latest gossip, etc.). But when it comes to working at their craft, they're too busy to find time to write.


+1 to your first para, +1 to your second para.

I bet you the vast majority of people could find the time to increase their output.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

I"m a strong believer in "Quality will out" --- you can only get better. I have published ten books, some indie, some trad (not im English) and I remember the first book I EVER wrote was so BAAAAAAD I would not have bought it myself. The prose was terrible!!! But I knew I had managed to finish one and all I had to do was try and try again. Nowadays I'm selling nicely and I was featured in Newspapers for my short prose and invited to readings.
The ONLY thing that will make you sell is commitment. 
No matter if you write 30 minutes a day or 8 hours a day or like myself in creative birthlike deliveries, try to be better everytime. Listen to your critics, get off the high horse (hard enough).
If you commit yourself to quality you will sell. 
Maybe if your first book only sells 5 times, it may really not be so good, which does not mean you can't do better in future.


----------



## Jason Halstead (Mar 18, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Jason,
> 
> I complimented you for what you wrote in this thread, but your response is to diss me for being a pole dancer. Okay, I'll remember that.
> 
> ...


Woah, hang on now - I'm not dissing you at all. I'm providing some humor. Settle down and don't put words in my mouth. I regularly applaud and share pictures of how impressive gymnastic routines of people that can do these things are. The performers in Cirque du Soleil, for example, can do some amazing things.

If you'll look at what I said again, maybe you'll see that I'm actually poking fun at myself for being a tasteless and stereotypical young male back in the day.

As for thinking you may be stronger than me... think what you like, it doesn't change the numbers and trophies I've won. If you're a marathon runner or in training for it - you have me beat there a hundred times over and I give you proper kudos for reaching that level.

I do apologize if my intended harmless and humorous comment was taken as offensive or demeaning.

This misunderstanding does help to remind me why I left this place a few years ago though. Trying to be helpful and socializing shouldn't be a difficult thing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Jason Halstead said:


> Woah, hang on now - I'm not dissing you at all. I'm providing some humor. Settle down and don't put words in my mouth. I regularly applaud and share pictures of how impressive gymnastic routines of people that can do these things are. The performers in Cirque du Soleil, for example, can do some amazing things.
> 
> If you'll look at what I said again, maybe you'll see that I'm actually poking fun at myself for being a tasteless and stereotypical young male back in the day.
> 
> ...


Hey Jason,

My big girl panties are on, I have a smile on my face, and it's all good.   

I can't stand whiners. So, I'm sorry for whining.

I hope you don't stay away from KBoards. I look for attitudes like yours when it comes to self-publishing. That's why I loved what you posted earlier in this thread. I don't always find attitudes like yours, but it's good when I do.

Jolie


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Selina Fenech said:


> It is important to know that selling a lot isn't normal. And it's not important so that we can say "I'm happy where I am and I'm not going to try harder to get better, do more, or sell more". I doubt there are many people here who aren't always trying to do better, create better, and sell better.


Thanks for saying this. I also am fairly sure that most people here are working as hard as they can.


----------



## Redacted1111 (Oct 26, 2013)

Kevis 'The Berserker' Hendrickson said:


> I give props to anyone who's out there raising a family, working a full-time job, and still finds even ten minutes out of the day to write. In fact, anyone who is raising children and trying to put food on the table and still scrapes out a few minutes each day to write is actually more of an inspiration to me than the full-timers.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not saying that someone who puts in less hours writing than let's say Russell Blake (whose work ethic pretty much matches mine) is a slouch. That's not the point I'm making at all. But I know plenty of writers who'll do everything else BUT write. Those are the ones who I think are quite delusional in their prospects of being able to become a full-time writer when they only have one book to their name and are not doing what they can to change that for whatever reason. Because I've noticed these same individuals can find time for whatever they want (going to the movies, watching every game on TV of their favorite sports team, keeping up with the latest gossip, etc.). But when it comes to working at their craft, they're too busy to find time to write.


My older sister, who is employed as a care taker for a property, (meaning she is employed to live in someone's house) keeps posting on Facebook that she should be a writer. Granted, this woman has a PhD in English Lit, but the simple fact is that saying, "I should be a writer!" doesn't make you a writer. Writing makes you a writer. I don't care how many degrees you have. It annoys me, and I know it shouldn't. Here I am raising a two year old full time, writing while she naps, and I've managed to write four novels in the past six months. I'm essentially a professional author because people pay me to do this $#%^. But I don't get a standing ovation every time I actually do the work.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Trinity Night said:


> My older sister, who is employed as a care taker for a property, (meaning she is employed to live in someone's house) keeps posting on Facebook that she should be a writer. Granted, this woman has a PhD in English Lit, but the simple fact is that saying, "I should be a writer!" doesn't make you a writer.


Funny. My brother-in-law is a PhD, and my every time my writing comes up in conversation, my sister announces that he'd like to write a book some day. Kinda like, "Yeah, that's cute, but some day this family might get a book writer by someone who actually can write an interesting one because he's smart." ....or, maybe I'm just projecting all that on her. I dunno. I'm feeling a little vulnerable right now.


----------



## rjspears (Sep 25, 2011)

> I give props to anyone who's out there raising a family, working a full-time job, and still finds even ten minutes out of the day to write. In fact, anyone who is raising children and trying to put food on the table and still scrapes out a few minutes each day to write is actually more of an inspiration to me than the full-timers.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not saying that someone who puts in less hours writing than let's say Russell Blake (whose work ethic pretty much matches mine) is a slouch. That's not the point I'm making at all. But I know plenty of writers who'll do everything else BUT write. Those are the ones who I think are quite delusional in their prospects of being able to become a full-time writer when they only have one book to their name and are not doing what they can to change that for whatever reason. Because I've noticed these same individuals can find time for whatever they want (going to the movies, watching every game on TV of their favorite sports team, keeping up with the latest gossip, etc.). But when it comes to working at their craft, they're too busy to find time to write.


I'm a part of the group you describe in your first paragraph. So, thanks. My only exception is that I write between 90 minutes to two hours a day and not ten minutes.

Yes, I dream about writing full-time, but that's just not realistic for me at this point in my life -- unless I want to tell my family we're selling the house, moving into a studio apartment, and then let my daughters know that any chance of me funding their college is out the door.

Sometimes I feel like a slouch and I should write more. I hear Stephen King saying if you can't write 6-8 hours a day you're not going to make it as a writer. I compare myself to the full-timers all the time, but then I just let myself off the hook. I do what I can. So, I'm not going to put a book a month, but this year I'm on track to put out 3-4 novels, 1 novella and handful of short stories.

I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments of your second paragraph. With my limited writing window each day, I have to be disciplined or else nothing would get done. The words don't write themselves.

My writing slogan is: Do you want to be a writer or (fill in the blank)? The blank could be a poster on Facebook, an avid movie watcher, a person who dines out, a person who watches sports, etc. There any number of legitimate or illegitimate excuses for not writing. I just don't take them. Please know I'm not trying to put myself out there was some paragon of discipline. I watched over 100 movies last year. I watched a few sporting events, too. It's just that I got them done after the writing was finished.


----------



## dkgould (Feb 18, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Funny. My brother-in-law is a PhD, and my every time my writing comes up in conversation, my sister announces that he'd like to write a book some day. Kinda like, "Yeah, that's cute, but some day this family might get a book writer by someone who actually can write an interesting one because he's smart." ....or, maybe I'm just projecting all that on her. I dunno. I'm feeling a little vulnerable right now.


I don't know your sister (obviously) but I don't think that's what she means. I think she's just trying to build another connection between you and him, trying to find another thing you have in common. People want to participate in your life and they want to be supportive and show they empathize. Some of the things they say can seem tangential at best. Sometimes they do it awkwardly, but at least they try. Don't feel vulnerable. When she says that, think (or say if you want to), "great, when he's ready to do it, maybe I can show him the ropes, because I'll already have been there. He can come see me for help. Or just to chat about it."


----------



## SawyerPentecost (Jul 11, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> Funny. My brother-in-law is a PhD, and my every time my writing comes up in conversation, my sister announces that he'd like to write a book some day. Kinda like, "Yeah, that's cute, but some day this family might get a book writer by someone who actually can write an interesting one because he's smart." ....or, maybe I'm just projecting all that on her. I dunno. I'm feeling a little vulnerable right now.


I'd rather read a book from a 'fun' writer than a 'smart' one. So keep churning it out! At the end of the day, I prefer my fiction to be 'fun' more than 'thought provoking'. I don't know about you, but I don't have any shortage of things that provoke my thought


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

PA: While there are all kinds of writers, I generally direct my posts at folks who write full time, and are trying to make it a business - to be in that 1% that sells tonnage of books.

I don't post a lot of, "Hey, group hug, we're all beautiful in our own way, do the best you can and love yourself" posts. I leave that to others. I don't try to describe how to make a full time living working an hour a day. I can only offer my own experience, which is working at this as though my life depended on it, full time, seven days a week. I'm certainly not advising doing that, although I've found that just about EVERY author I know who is making a serious living does it like that. Maybe that's coincidence. I don't happen to think so, but hey, you never know.

My personal philosophy is that you have to have reasonable expectations. Most books do not sell. Ever. Regardless of their quality.

That's a fact. I view it as akin to a fairy tale when I hear the notion that if you simply write a quality book, the rest will take care of itself. In my experience, that couldn't be less true. My experience says you have to write a number of quality books, and be on top of your game in every way - marketing, quality, packaging, blurb - the whole nine yards, because you're playing in a market where there are people who are doing it for real, 12 hours a day. Whether people like hearing that, it's true. Look at the successful authors you could model. Take any of the self-publishing success stories. What do they have in common? They all work really, really hard at it. Elle. Holly. Colleen. Liliana. Bella. Melissa. Hugh. Amanda. And on and on. The common element I've found is that they put in superhuman amounts of effort to skew the results in their favor. Bravo to them.

I've found that some people dislike that simple truth. Because it doesn't fit their circumstance. Or their schedule. Or their ability. Or their motivation.

Is it possible to write one book and have it become a breakout hit? Sure. Anything's possible. You can flip a quarter and it could land on its edge, balancing in seeming defiance of physics. It can happen.

But the thing I've noticed is that the people who make it in the self-publishing arena tend to all have multiple titles out, tend to be fairly prolific, have herculean work ethics, and don't rest on their laurels. 

Yes, I know there are a few who have put out a book and gotten a big trad pub deal. But it remains to be seen whether that will be a career, or a fluke. Because the deal isn't the big win. It's merely a ticket into a whole different race, which is just as tough to make it in as this one is.

In my post from last year, where I laid out my approach, I made a big deal out of getting clear on your expectations. On understanding the odds of hitting big. Of writing because you love it, not because your plan is to be a vocational writer. Because the odds completely suck.

I believe that's true. Write because you love to.

If you plan to operate a book selling business, which is a commercial enterprise focused on the business of selling books, I have my thoughts on how to narrow your odds of success. That's what I generally show up here to offer. Some seem receptive, others, not so much.

It's all good. Takes a lot of different flavors to make a stew.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

blakebooks said:


> If you plan to operate a book selling business, which is a commercial enterprise focused on the business of selling books, I have my thoughts on how to narrow your odds of success. That's what I generally show up here to offer. Some seem receptive, others, not so much.


I just had to smile when I read this article, I'm sure you're familiar with it, but I loved the idea of you 12 hours at the desk each day like a steam machine and your readers running behind you.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579298604044404682

Of course you're absolutely right and when I say "work on your quality" I don't mean write one good book in twenty years and then never promote it and hope for a miracle.
But you can bust your *** off, if you don't work on your craft, you will never even get the chance of being a lucky winner at all.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I think, if somebody doesn't like commiseration threads, they might be better served not to read commiseration threads.

We all need different things at different times along our journey, because it can be a bumpy one. Sometimes it's a kick in the butt. Sometimes it's a hug. 

Personally, I'm better at hugging, so I'll participate in the hugging threads.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> I think, if somebody doesn't like commiseration threads, they might be better served not to read commiseration threads.
> 
> We all need different things at different times along our journey, because it can be a bumpy one. Sometimes it's a kick in the butt. Sometimes it's a hug.
> 
> Personally, I'm better at hugging, so I'll participate in the hugging threads.


This times a gazillion.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Kitten said:


> This times a gazillion.


Plus, I always mean to tell you, I adore your gorgeous witch covers. Extra hug for those.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Plus, I always mean to tell you, I adore your gorgeous witch covers. Extra hug for those.


Thank you


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> I think, if somebody doesn't like commiseration threads, they might be better served not to read commiseration threads.
> 
> We all need different things at different times along our journey, because it can be a bumpy one. Sometimes it's a kick in the butt. Sometimes it's a hug.
> 
> Personally, I'm better at hugging, so I'll participate in the hugging threads.


I respectfully disagree.

I do not have anything like the career that Russell Blake has and do not expect to ever have, no matter how hard I try. What I do recognize is the work ethic that he puts forward, as it was that work ethic that made me financially secure through my regular business.

It may well be that it's physically impossible for many people to devote twelve hours a day to this craft. My point is raise your sights from forty minutes, ( or an hour, whatever ).

I lay you odds there are people that spend more time reading this board every day than writing. I'm not posting to annoy people, I'm hoping someone somewhere says to themselves, yup......I can do without watching that soap opera.

ps I'm furious with myself. I've only written 120,000 words this month, my target was 150,000. I will never, ever get those 30,000 words back, yesterday is gone.

pps I like hugs too.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

theblether said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> I do not have anything like the career that Russell Blake has and do not expect to ever have, no matter how hard I try. What I do recognize is the work ethic that he puts forward, as it was that work ethic that made me financially secure through my regular business.
> 
> ...


I recognize it too.

I have it too. And it's working pretty darn well.

I'm still hugging.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

theblether said:


> ps I'm furious with myself. I've only written 120,000 words this month, my target was 150,000. I will never, ever get those 30,000 words back, yesterday is gone.
> 
> pps I like hugs too.


If they are good 120.000 words


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Russell--You state that you write 7K a day and that it might take you 12 hours to do it.

I honestly don't know what you're doing for all of those 12 hours. Please tell me that's some kind of outside crazy day where the words just aren't flowing?

I firmly believe that most writers could get 7K in half that time.

I also don't think that most writers that you're talking about (Elle. Holly. Colleen. Liliana. Bella. Melissa. Hugh. Amanda.) are writing for 12 hours a day either. Elle and Hugh I know for a fact don't. Elle's said she does about five hours a day and takes afternoons for her family. In those five hours, she gets 5-8K. I'm pretty sure Hugh writes 3-4K a day (I think I remember that). Now Liliana did say that she works 16-hour days, but she didn't specify whether she was drafting that whole time. Bella Andre only publishes like 4-5 books a year. Amanda Hocking is a binge writer who will write a book in two weeks and then take two months off.

I think you're slightly overestimating the amount of hours it takes to be successful at this. Sure, it takes effort and commitment and consistency. It takes obsessive devotion and sacrifice. Twelve hours a day, though?

I also acknowledge that you could be talking about marketing/editing/soliciting cover art/what-have-you taking up those 12 hours. But you claim and 80/20 thing, right? So that's still... what 10 hours of drafting? Are you one of those people who rewrites while drafting? I mean that might make more sense...

For everyone else (since I am a person who likes group hugs and encouragement ), I'm only saying that twelve hours a day is actually _not _typical. I actually imagine that most people who write full time actually work part-time hours. Probably 4-6 hours a day. Seriously.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

DashaGLogan said:


> If they are good 120.000 words


The readers will decide.

That's how it works, isn't it.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> I think, if somebody doesn't like commiseration threads, they might be better served not to read commiseration threads.
> 
> We all need different things at different times along our journey, because it can be a bumpy one. Sometimes it's a kick in the butt. Sometimes it's a hug.
> 
> Personally, I'm better at hugging, so I'll participate in the hugging threads.


You're my idol. I just wanted you to know that.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

anniejocoby said:


> You're my idol. I just wanted you to know that.


Awww. 
There's more than one way to succeed at this. 
(Bursts into chorus of: "I did it myyyy . . . wayyyyyy.")


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

You know, there is a lot of territory between "SELL SELL SELL" and "Group Hug."

And I'll be frank: all of those "Be A Best Seller" threads are just as much about validation as any thing. Beginners want to believe they are doing things right. And even those who aren't beginners have a natural desire to hear about people having success doing what we're trying to do -- that's validation. That's why the formula for all get rich quick books is a small amount of actual information and then a flood of validating "testimonials."

It's all a group hug.

I don't come here to see my beliefs validated. I have a very healthy ego. And I'm not here to read the same oversimplified success information repeated again and again. I don't object to those repetitions, because the newbies need to hear them... but let us move beyond that into other information.

I want to find out things I don't know. I want to hear things I've never heard before. The experiences of a more varied group of people. I also want to hear more in depth information from the gurus: not a repeat of the stuff they know for sure, but the stuff they are now learning, and maybe aren't sure about. The surprises, and deeper understanding.

But, unfortunately, those types of conversations tend to be shut down quickly by people who just want that validation -- usually the validation of what's the right path to becoming a selling star, or or a reaction against it.

We need the _information_ to meet our goals. *But our goals vary.* If your goals vary from the mainstream, the last thing you need is a pat on the head. (Generally, you need people who aren't interested in your goals to get the _bleep_ out of the way.)

Camille


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> I want to find out things I don't know.


If you're trimming your ear hair, twist it into a roll and then cut. It's easier to cut that way.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> If you're trimming your ear hair, twist it into a roll and then cut. It's easier to cut that way.


You see? I did not know that.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> If you're trimming your ear hair, twist it into a roll and then cut. It's easier to cut that way.


Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! That is the siren announcing "TMI"!


----------



## WDR (Jan 8, 2014)

To date, my first book has sold 264 copies in five months.

For the past few weeks, sales have ground to a halt. Sales were strong at the beginning-there were a lot of people who were waiting for my full-length novel after I released an excerpt of it over a year ago. The excerpt sold over 1,000 copies within just a few months. So, I admit, I had hoped that sales of the full-length book would have been better. In fact, I was counting on it. Publication Day was supposed to be my day of emancipation from worrying about how I was going to pay the bills. Okay, I'm not that stupid-I know it takes time for book sales to grow. Self-publishing is not a get-rich-quick scheme, it is a long-term business plan. I was just hoping I would be able to hit the ground running at a better pace than others.

Truth is, I have. I have sold more copies in this short a time than most of the big, indie hits did in twice the amount of time after they started. Because of this, I still feel strongly that I am ahead of the curve. I just need to reach more potential readers and let them know my book exists. Right now, at only 264 copies, I am not making a sustainable living at this. That needs to change.

I'm here on Kboards for a number of reasons:


To hob knob with fellow self-publishing writers and converse with my peers.
To find new channels to promote my book so I can unstall my sales and again move toward my goals.
Very much like Russel Blake, to learn new ways to promote and market my books. To pick up on anything I might have missed and get more intelligence on the market.
If possible, assist someone else in also reaching their goals and get off to a good start in their writing career. I don't see other writers as competitors so much as I see them as an extra set of hands to help broaden the market we are all selling to. The more writers, the more books are available for readers, and the more books available, the more readers there will be to buy our books. The circle of life&#8230;

There has been a lot of talk lately about marketing studies of self-publishing authors. But these studies have included _all_ self-publishing authors, including hobbyists and wannabes who put out in ebook five or six years ago to test the waters and have done nothing since. With these numbers, the studies report fewer than 20% of self-publishing writers make more than $1000 from their books. It doesn't sound pretty.

I'd like to see those numbers filtered and consider only those writers who have decided to go full time into writing as a profession. I'm willing to bet that the successful percentage will be considerably higher with that constraint. That there are far more Hugh Howeys up and coming than the current studies are suggesting.

If you want to make a living at writing, you do have to sell a given number of copies in order to pay the bills and put food on the table. And the best way to do that is to effectively market your book. To get word out to readers that you have a book for sale that you want them to buy and read.

To a lot of people, writing is merely a second job or a hobby by which they are making money. They have a day job they can rely on for a regular paycheck. Not me. I decided to go full in with writing professionally and I've put all my time into it. This is a very dangerous gamble, but it is one I am confident I will win over time.

But in the end, there is one thing factor that overrides all others, even how many copies I sell or how much money I make. That one factor is the fact that people are enjoying reading what I have written. I've gotten pretty much nothing but rave reviews about my first book. I know I can do even better, and I intend to deliver on the next book. And hopefully, I'll then be able to reach even more readers to enjoy my story.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

My third book's been out for a week and has been doing OK, so I thought it was a good time to tot up my sales since April 2012 when I started all this.

To date, on Kindle (which accounts for the _*vast*_ majority of my digital sales, 95% or more) I have sold 130 copies of my first book. Just 9 copies of my second book. And the new book has leapfrogged over the second by scoring 10 sales in its first week. The champagne's on ice.

While I'm not exactly sales-obsessed, it is endlessly gratifying to see a thread which suggests that my experience is, more or less, completely normal.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Rosalind James said:


> I think, if somebody doesn't like commiseration threads, they might be better served not to read commiseration threads.
> 
> We all need different things at different times along our journey, because it can be a bumpy one. Sometimes it's a kick in the butt. Sometimes it's a hug.
> 
> Personally, I'm better at hugging, so I'll participate in the hugging threads.


Rosalind, I love you. So glad you have joined KB.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

valeriec80 said:


> Russell--You state that you write 7K a day and that it might take you 12 hours to do it.
> 
> I honestly don't know what you're doing for all of those 12 hours. Please tell me that's some kind of outside crazy day where the words just aren't flowing?
> 
> I firmly believe that most writers could get 7K in half that time.


I hate these type of posts. Not everyone writes at the same pace. It seems that for some lucky writers, the words flow from their brain in a torrent, and they just type them. For others, the words don't come as easy. We have to think about what happens next, and how it happens, what the character might be thinking and doing, and what's all around, and what parts of that to describe. Then we have to figure out how to convert that efficiently into words and sentences.

Do you seriously think that Russell Blake decides to spend 12 hours a day writing, and then ends up using 6 of them twiddling his thumbs? Isn't it more likely that some writers write at a different pace to others?

When some people spend years on a book, part of it might be not spending hours every day on it, and part of it might be because they sculpt and mold each sentence, making sure each word is perfect. (I don't do this, but I can understand how it could take so long. If someone said they spent hours on one paragraph, I wouldn't assume they spent 2 minutes writing and the other hundreds of minutes staring out the window.)

I used Write or Die for a while to increase my pace. It forced me to not think and just write the first thing that came out to mind. And, yes, my writing pace increased. It was great. And then in the second draft I had to delete 90% of those words because they weren't usable. Spending more time on the first draft saves time on the second draft.

In summary, not everyone writes at the same pace.

Edit: Not implying at all that those who write at a faster pace, write at a lower quality. Just that for me (and others, I'm sure), I can't just increase my pace of writing to above 600 words per hour and expect to produce a first draft worthy of the name.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

Mmmh... this whole "how many words" concept is somehow foreign to me.
I write the chapters and when the book is done, it's done, it takes as long as it takes and it has as many words as it needs.
I have never judged a book by how long it is, neither have I asked myself how many k's the author wrote in one day or whether his sequel is up a week after the first.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

valeriec80 said:


> I firmly believe that most writers could get 7K in half that time.


Yeah, if it was straight typing. But it rarely is for me. As an example, I had a chapter I thought was slow and needed a dramatic visual, so I spent two months thinking about how to improve it. Not two months straight, but off and on, amongst thinking about other areas I'm not happy with. Assigning a number, I'd say I spent 1/2 hour a day on it, between the things I came up with and discarded until I came up with something I liked. That's 30 hours. Then I had to go downstairs and dig out my astronomy books to research what a phenomenon I had added would actually look like if it happened to a planet. That was another 5 hours or so. Once I had that ready, I started the revision. Of course, it's not just a matter of the paragraph that specifically includes this phenomenon, there's a butterfly effect throughout the chapter, and that's another three hours of typing. So, a 50 word paragraph took me 40 hours to write. A little more than 1 word per hour.

We are definitely all unique in our approaches and writing speeds, for all kinds of reasons.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Valerie: It depends upon genre. If I'm writing something "easy" like, say, a meat and potatoes romance, sure, I could probably clock around 1200 words per hour without much difficulty. On some sections of BLACK, for instance, I clocked 1500.

But here's the hitch: different sorts of prose take longer. If you're trying to use novel, evocative language, it just seems to take longer. Especially if you're writing long, complex, sometimes parenthetical sentences. So my word count drops to 600.

I'm fine with that. 

There's a place for short sentences, simple word choice, a fair number of echoes, relatively low-grade-level prose. Nothing wrong with it, and when that's what I'm after, sure, I can go faster.

I just don't particularly enjoy writing or reading it. So I tend to shoot for something a bit more complex and interesting to me. "The sun had come up and it was hot again in the field" is fine, but I would prefer spending more time on something like, "High horsetails of summer clouds marbled the azure sky as a sweltering gust wrinkled the ocean of tall grass." The second takes me a little more thinking time as I plod through it.

If you or any of the folks I mentioned can craft what I call lyrical prose faster, more power to you. I've never viewed creating interesting prose as a race, nor am I competitive about how long it takes to create something thoughtful. I'm quite satisfied with my pace, although it would be nice to knock out 7K words in three or four hours and go fishing the rest of the day. Not so on my end. I'm just a slow writer sometimes. It's how I roll.


----------



## Jason Halstead (Mar 18, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> Hey Jason,
> 
> My big girl panties are on, I have a smile on my face, and it's all good.
> 
> ...


Woot! Now that we've bumped chests and gotten past all this we can be best of buds. Or at least work out together.


----------



## RichardWolanski (Jan 20, 2014)

Like someone said on the first page, I'm _THRILLED _when someone decides my novel is worth any amount of money. I love seeing those $0.99 purchases. I'm in for the long haul and like some else phrased better than I could, "It's a marathon not a sprint."


----------



## B Sheridan (Dec 5, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> ...a meat and potatoes romance...


I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said, but I couldn't help myself. This made me laugh. I mean yeah, I get the idiom, but...lol.

What a tag line that'd be. 

/silliness


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Blake: My co-authored romances will feature that line. Practically writes itself.


----------



## B Sheridan (Dec 5, 2011)

Russell,

Plus one ingredient right?

Cue Shawn Spencer-esque wait for iiiiiiiit:

Tequila


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> I think, if somebody doesn't like commiseration threads, they might be better served not to read commiseration threads.
> 
> We all need different things at different times along our journey, because it can be a bumpy one. Sometimes it's a kick in the butt. Sometimes it's a hug.
> 
> Personally, I'm better at hugging, so I'll participate in the hugging threads.


Yep! Although I saw Kitten's post as 'this is what is normal, and we're okay and we're getting there' to let others know that this is reality (rather than commiseration).

Like you, I just don't get the posts about promotion and selling more in this thread because I didn't see a problem. I'm very much a 'fix it' person if I see a problem (often, too much so) but there wasn't one here.

There's a tsunami of posts on how to increase sales in this forum. There are entire threads devoted to it and probably most discussion here is geared to it. Such discussion is fantastic for newbies or for people seeking motivation - really. It just didn't belong in this thread. It's demotivating.



blakebooks said:


> Valerie: It depends upon genre. If I'm writing something "easy" like, say, a meat and potatoes romance, sure, I could probably clock around 1200 words per hour without much difficulty. On some sections of BLACK, for instance, I clocked 1500.
> 
> But here's the hitch: different sorts of prose take longer. If you're trying to use novel, evocative language, it just seems to take longer. Especially if you're writing long, complex, sometimes parenthetical sentences. So my word count drops to 600.
> 
> ...


You mentioned this prose: "High horsetails of summer clouds marbled the azure sky as a sweltering gust wrinkled the ocean of tall grass." being better and harder to write than this prose: "The sun had come up and it was hot again in the field". I find the first easier to write and that was the stuff I used to write. It is so hard to me to pare back and stop describing things so much - AND I thought I was doing well at cutting back. But I wasn't.
I just had my stuff edited by a group of ex Harper Collins/Penguin/Hyperion editors and the pretty descriptions were the first to go. I took time out to read 'Divergent' the other day (currently number one in Amazon) because I wanted to check if there was something in the plot line too similar to an idea I'm currently baking. The book was really good and the penny dropped (finally) as to my approach to prose and an action story. While, for some books and genres, horsetails of clouds marbling the azure sky would be great and appropriate, for others it isn't. And it can be SO.DAMNED.HARD to keep in a character's POV and not go off on a tangent in pretty description. Third might be easier, if not you're not writing in the character's voice. Few people actually think in those intricate terms when they look at a landscape. Of course, most of what I write is YA, so the pretty descriptions are just not appropriate, but as I said, might be appropriate for characters who do think in those terms.

So again, different strokes for different folks, which is the point of this thread.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

SM Reine said:


> Am I the only one who finds romance obscenely difficult to write, relative to everything else? All these fully developed characters and feelings and compelling drama that yank at the heart strings and loins?
> 
> Yes?
> 
> Okay, forget I said anything.


No, you're not alone. I often use romantic subplots, but I could never have romance as main plot.


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Valerie: It depends upon genre. If I'm writing something "easy" like, say, a meat and potatoes romance, sure, I could probably clock around 1200 words per hour without much difficulty.


Uh oh. Unless that was sarcasm, you're probably going to take some flack for implying, with air quotes, that romance novels are easy to crank out. In the past many were formulaic with a fill-in-the-blanks canvas, but today's novels easy? No. It would be interesting to know if Melissa, Bella, Liliana and other KB romance writers feel the same.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

SM Reine said:


> Am I the only one who finds romance obscenely difficult to write, relative to everything else? All these fully developed characters and feelings and compelling drama that yank at the heart strings and loins?
> 
> Yes?
> 
> Okay, forget I said anything.


I find it obscenely difficult to write too. I've just been poked and prodded to insert far more romance into my book by my editors. I bow down to those romance writers who do it so effortlessly.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Harriet Schultz said:


> Uh oh. Unless that was sarcasm, you're probably going to take some flack for implying, with air quotes, that romance novels are easy to crank out. In the past many were formulaic with a fill-in-the-blanks canvas, but today's novels easy? No. It would be interesting to know if Melissa, Bella, Liliana and other KB romance writers feel the same.


I don't see why it should bring flack any more than it does when I say that fight scenes are easy to crank out.

Love scenes or romance scenes are a struggle for me and not for others. Fight scenes are easy for me but not for others. We're all different but there's no point in getting our panties in a twist about it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Jason Halstead said:


> Woot! Now that we've bumped chests and gotten past all this we can be best of buds. Or at least work out together.


Sounds perfect!!

I look forward to more of your posts here at KBoards, Jason!


----------



## Harriet Schultz (Jan 3, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I don't see why it should bring flack any more than it does when I say that fight scenes are easy to crank out.
> 
> Love scenes or romance scenes are a struggle for me and not for others. Fight scenes are easy for me but not for others. We're all different but there's no point in getting our panties in a twist about it.


Just checked...my panties are not twisted.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> there's no point in getting our panties in a twist about it.


I'm sure this is just an oversight, JR, and you don't actively mean to offend anyone by exclusion, and you intended to render your remark as the more politically-correct/gender-neutral "there's no point in getting our panties/y-fronts/power-briefs (according to choice and personal trainer influence) in a twist about it".


----------



## Guest (Feb 3, 2014)

Harriet Schultz said:


> Uh oh. Unless that was sarcasm, you're probably going to take some flack for implying, with air quotes, that romance novels are easy to crank out. In the past many were formulaic with a fill-in-the-blanks canvas, but today's novels easy? No. It would be interesting to know if Melissa, Bella, Liliana and other KB romance writers feel the same.


Imagine what they say about zombie novels. Ha Ha!

But, whatever. If you're confident in what you write and you love what you write, does it matter?

As long as I have readers, it doesn't matter to me.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Valerie: It depends upon genre. If I'm writing something "easy" like, say, a meat and potatoes romance, sure, I could probably clock around 1200 words per hour without much difficulty.


Is this an assumption? Or is it your truth? I'm always amused by how many people assume that it's easy to 'crank out' a romance. In my experience, to get it right, writing romance is not easy at all. Not if you want to be considered a 'keeper', a book that romance readers will love and tell their friends about. I find it very difficult to write romance well.

If they are in fact easy for you to write and people love your romances, then I'm impressed! And a bit envious.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

SM Reine said:


> Am I the only one who finds romance obscenely difficult to write, relative to everything else? All these fully developed characters and feelings and compelling drama that yank at the heart strings and loins?
> 
> Yes?
> 
> Okay, forget I said anything.


Yes. They're like anything else. Easy to write badly, not so easy to write well.
I'm still learning, myself.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

A.A.: Well, depends on your audience. I don't write NA or YA, so that's not my target. I enjoy reading books by authors like James Lee Burke and Frederick Forsyth and, yes, even old Robert Ludlum and Nelson DeMille. I completely understand the trend of, er, simplifying prose for the less discriminating reader, or more precisely, the reader targeted by prose written at a lower grade level. I don't write those kinds of books for that audience, so what might be appropriate when editing something geared for the Hunger Games crowd absolutely wouldn't be for James Lee Burke's crowd. I write what I enjoy reading, and I enjoy prose with some heft to it - all the arguments in favor of simplification notwithstanding, I'd far rather read Burke or David Foster Wallace or Ben Fountain, to name just a few, than Twilight or HG any of the YA/NA stuff. More's the pity, as I could probably make a lot more money if I wrote to a different crowd. I just can't do it. And I don't want to. Different strokes. For the record, I could probably write well over 2000 words an hour of that second example of prose - it's just extremely easy, monosyllabic stuff that to me has no charm and requires zero art. I feel okay judging it because I wrote it. Now, I'm sure there will be those who prefer easy, monosyllabic prose, or who write that because that's their preferred voice, and that's fine. I just am not a candidate for their books, nor do I write what they do. By deliberate choice. The latter example would be at home in a Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew book. And frankly, I have no desire to write Nancy Drew books, no matter how well they sell. Again, my choice, and if someone else can make that dog hunt, I say, bravo, have at it.

JR: Exactly. I find romance easy to write. I also find fight scenes relatively easy. Ditto for chases. I've written so many fights/chases/gun-battles that it's almost second nature. I also find dialogue easy. Good descriptive prose, much harder. 

That's not a slam at those who write romance or fight scenes or chases or dialogue, any more than declaring oneself to be right handed is a slam at lefties. Seems like some romance authors are touchy about the subject because there's a view that it's just easy to write, period. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I couldn't say what it is for others, just what it is for me.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Let's not forget what Mark Twain said. (And I admit, I am paraphrasing here):

"I don't have time to write a short letter, so you'll have to make do with a long one."

Different genres are easier to write.  Different styles are easier to write.  Some plotting styles are more complex than others. Some voices require more subtlety.  Sometimes, as Mark Twain noted, it takes longer to write something shorter and more concise.  We all have different skills and backgrounds.

Furthermore our skills change as we age.  As we get older, we might find it's easier to come up with the exact right twist or clue or image to say something in a new way.  But we may also have a harder time laying our minds on the right word.  (Our brains are full. Sorting through the junk takes time, after all.)

Sometimes, we can write an amazing amount in an hour, but it takes the story off the rails a bit, and we have to slow down before we find ourselves turning a tragedy into a high comedy, or vice versa. (A little layer of one or the other is good, a complete diversion in plot and tone is not.)

Sometimes the best thing we ever wrote comes out in a burst of white light, and we hardly have to rewrite.  Sometimes you have to saw and poke at it to make it sensible.  But sometimes we write junk in that blinding flash of energy and sometimes we craft something wonderful slowly and carefully.

And a long day will have a different output per hour than a short day, but the prose will be more cohesive or better edited, or you'll have less waste time overall easing in and out of the mode.  Or you might just enjoy losing yourself completely in a day of writing, just writing, and more writing.

And sometimes you have a migraine.  (Which, ironically for some, might make plotting and imagining easier, but hard to write because whole rafts of vocabulary disappears.)

Never criticize another person's hourly output unless they have asked for help in figuring out how to do better.

Camille


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

blakebooks said:


> A.A.: Well, depends on your audience. I don't write NA or YA, so that's not my target. I enjoy reading books by authors like James Lee Burke and Frederick Forsyth and, yes, even old Robert Ludlum and Nelson DeMille. I completely understand the trend of, er, simplifying prose for the less discriminating reader, or more precisely, the reader targeted by prose written at a lower grade level. I don't write those kinds of books for that audience, so what might be appropriate when editing something geared for the Hunger Games crowd absolutely wouldn't be for James Lee Burke's crowd. I write what I enjoy reading, and I enjoy prose with some heft to it - all the arguments in favor of simplification notwithstanding, I'd far rather read Burke or David Foster Wallace or Ben Fountain, to name just a few, than Twilight or HG any of the YA/NA stuff. More's the pity, as I could probably make a lot more money if I wrote to a different crowd. I just can't do it. And I don't want to. Different strokes. For the record, I could probably write well over 2000 words an hour of that second example of prose - it's just extremely easy, monosyllabic stuff that to me has no charm and requires zero art. I feel okay judging it because I wrote it. Now, I'm sure there will be those who prefer easy, monosyllabic prose, or who write that because that's their preferred voice, and that's fine. I just am not a candidate for their books, nor do I write what they do. By deliberate choice. The latter example would be at home in a Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew book. And frankly, I have no desire to write Nancy Drew books, no matter how well they sell. Again, my choice, and if someone else can make that dog hunt, I say, bravo, have at it.
> 
> JR: Exactly. I find romance easy to write. I also find fight scenes relatively easy. Ditto for chases. I've written so many fights/chases/gun-battles that it's almost second nature. I also find dialogue easy. Good descriptive prose, much harder.
> 
> That's not a slam at those who write romance or fight scenes or chases or dialogue, any more than declaring oneself to be right handed is a slam at lefties. Seems like some romance authors are touchy about the subject because there's a view that it's just easy to write, period. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. I couldn't say what it is for others, just what it is for me.


Yep, different strokes. The successful YA and NA authors aren't hurting for readers. And Stephenie Meyer and Suzanne Collins definitely aren't hurting for readers. So I would be surprised if any of these folks stay awake at night worrying about the people who don't like their books.

They don't have to worry.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Jolie: Actually, the successful any kind of writers aren't staying up nights worried about those who don't like their books. I know if I wind up selling millions, I won't sweat the 10-20% of people who review my tomes and think I'm a talentless hack.

Then again, the odds are so distant of anyone selling a million books, it's sort of a pointless discussion unless it's between million sellers, and even then, I doubt you'd get a concensus.

I write what I'd like to read. Everyone should do the same. Someone else's approach to craft in no way will impact mine. I just do what I do.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> A.A.: Well, depends on your audience. I don't write NA or YA, so that's not my target. I enjoy reading books by authors like James Lee Burke and Frederick Forsyth and, yes, even old Robert Ludlum and Nelson DeMille. I completely understand the trend of, er, simplifying prose for the less discriminating reader, or more precisely, the reader targeted by prose written at a lower grade level. I don't write those kinds of books for that audience, so what might be appropriate when editing something geared for the Hunger Games crowd absolutely wouldn't be for James Lee Burke's crowd. I write what I enjoy reading, and I enjoy prose with some heft to it - all the arguments in favor of simplification notwithstanding, I'd far rather read Burke or David Foster Wallace or Ben Fountain, to name just a few, than Twilight or HG any of the YA/NA stuff. More's the pity, as I could probably make a lot more money if I wrote to a different crowd. I just can't do it. And I don't want to. Different strokes. For the record, I could probably write well over 2000 words an hour of that second example of prose - it's just extremely easy, monosyllabic stuff that to me has no charm and requires zero art. I feel okay judging it because I wrote it. Now, I'm sure there will be those who prefer easy, monosyllabic prose, or who write that because that's their preferred voice, and that's fine. I just am not a candidate for their books, nor do I write what they do. By deliberate choice. The latter example would be at home in a Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew book. And frankly, I have no desire to write Nancy Drew books, no matter how well they sell. Again, my choice, and if someone else can make that dog hunt, I say, bravo, have at it.


Not sure you're getting it. It's not about 'simplifying prose for the less discriminating reader'. And it's not about writing for YA/NA. It's about keeping your writing razor sharp and about writing in a realistic POV. For any genre. For thriller, crime, horror - anything. It's about story, rather than drawing attention to prose.

Many readers of any genre are very discriminating - so discriminating that they cringe if they read purple prose. (http://www.copyblogger.com/purple-prose/) Lots of very well-read, well-educated people would disagree with you on "it's just extremely easy, monosyllabic stuff that to me has no charm and requires zero art." While to you it has no charm and that can't be argued with, as that's your personal taste, it's untrue it's easy or requires zero art. It's extremely hard to write in a believable POV and it's hard to write with a knife. Far too many people write extravagant, purple prose from a character's POV when it is way out of place.

At the same time, purple prose is fine for many markets. I've read and loved lots of Ludlum and Forsyth and don't mind the prose - can't remember how purple it was as it was many, many years ago that I used to read those. But when writing third person omniscient, it doesn't matter about a character's individual voice because you're not writing in it. So, pretty prose is fine and many readers like it/love it - and if you like it and your readers like it, there's absolutely no reason to stop or change.

But it's not true at all to say that anything less than that kind of prose is easy and is just the author simplifying for the less discriminating reader.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

blakebooks said:


> I write what I'd like to read. Everyone should do the same. Someone else's approach to craft in no way will impact mine. I just do what I do.


I read everything, but I write in the zombie genre.

And I agree.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

This is interesting. My new book has a hero who is a stoic and a man of few words. Portraying his character in those few words was HARD. So very much harder than the book before, which was about a highly verbal, bantering couple, and was just pure fun and zippety-do-dah to write. Even when I described Joe's thoughts, I had to pare, pare, pare them down, because he doesn't think "purpley," let alone talk it. I was really proud of the result, with creating a sympathetic, believable character with so few brushstrokes, but it was HARD. It was all "showing, not telling."

I certainly think it CAN be harder to write spare prose than the more flowery variety.


----------



## chrissponias (Sep 22, 2013)

Selling depends on marketing. This means that authors are not really free to write what they want. They have to get adapted to the demand.

If they write stories that are not commercial, that are intellectual, different, and don't look like what is being sold, they won't be as successful as those who write what their readers want to read.

If they write nonfiction they don't have the same opportunities given by fiction. If they write fiction but they don't have the talent and they ignore various writing techniques, their work won't impress the public. There is fierce competition. 

This is why most authors are not selling many books per month.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

No, AA, I totally get it. I understand the movement that eschews well-crafted, complicated prose, deeming it purple.

I can write spare prose all day long. It's not hard for me. I just choose not to. That's my preference. If you prefer spare prose, by all means, indulge your preference, and have at it.

Some will hate my take on this. That's their prerogative. 

And of course, there are countless one star reviews on virtually all bestselling novels, damning them for their crap prose - because everyone's got an opinion, and by god, they will make it known.

In the end, readers will vote with their wallets for what they prefer. Those who want spare prose will reward authors who create that product. Those who prefer more involved prose will do the same. 

As I've said before, it takes all kinds of flavors.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

vrabinec said:


> It's the ultimate reality show for writers, right here.


totally! and since I'm a writer...it's completely totally fascinating...popcorn gif


----------



## heidi_g (Nov 14, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> Probably 4-6 hours a day. Seriously.


Me, when I'm all plugged in. That's about 3-5K a day. My challenge NOW is achieving that 5 days a week, on most weeks...


----------



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

valeriec80 said:


> Russell--You state that you write 7K a day and that it might take you 12 hours to do it.
> 
> I honestly don't know what you're doing for all of those 12 hours. Please tell me that's some kind of outside crazy day where the words just aren't flowing?
> 
> ...


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

C.C. Kelly said:


> But yes, there are as many flavors as there are literary palates, so no one is right and no one is wrong, that is, as long as someone else likes the confections you're serving up.


Amen to that


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> No, AA, I totally get it. I understand the movement that eschews well-crafted, complicated prose, deeming it purple.
> 
> I can write spare prose all day long. It's not hard for me. I just choose not to. That's my preference. If you prefer spare prose, by all means, indulge your preference, and have at it.
> 
> ...


There are some very highly rated authors whose prose is about as far as you can get from spare. Now I tend a bit toward the spare, although a lot less than I did when I first wrote fiction when I was heavily influenced by authors such as Dashiell Hammett and Hemingway. But try reading any novel by for example T. C. Boyle who at least at times has been a bit of a darling of the literary world. Sentences like this show plainly that 'spare' writing isn't all there is out there:

"Outside, beyond the gray frame of the window, the weather was dreary, funereal clouds strung from the rooftops like laundry hung out to dry, and so cold even the dirty gray ratlike pigeons were huddled against it, dark motionless lines of frozen feathers and arrested beaks blighting the eaves as far as she could see down both sides of the block."

(I'm not sure Boyle ever met an adjective he didn't like) Seriously. That is from Boyle's novel _The Women_. Ok, that sentence made me roll my eyes, but there are people who love it.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2014)

JRTomlin said:


> There are some very highly rated authors whose prose is about as far as you can get from spare. Now I tend a bit toward the spare, although a lot less than I did when I first wrote fiction when I was heavily influenced by authors such as Dashiell Hammett and Hemingway. But try reading any novel by for example T. C. Boyle who at least at times has been a bit of a darling of the literary world. Sentences like this show plainly that 'spare' writing isn't all there is out there:
> 
> "Outside, beyond the gray frame of the window, the weather was dreary, funereal clouds strung from the rooftops like laundry hung out to dry, and so cold even the dirty gray ratlike pigeons were huddled against it, dark motionless lines of frozen feathers and arrested beaks blighting the eaves as far as she could see down both sides of the block."
> 
> (I'm not sure Boyle ever met an adjective he didn't like) Seriously. That is from Boyle's novel _The Women_. Ok, that sentence made me roll my eyes, but there are people who love it.


I prefer this:

_Outside, beyond the gray frame of the window, funeral clouds strung from the rooftops like laundry hung out to dry, and so cold even the ratlike pigeons were huddled against it. Dark motionless lines of frozen feathers and arrested beaks blighting the eaves down both sides of the block._

But that's just me.


----------



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

blakebooks said:


> PA: While there are all kinds of writers, I generally direct my posts at folks who write full time, and are trying to make it a business - to be in that 1% that sells tonnage of books.
> 
> I don't post a lot of, "Hey, group hug, we're all beautiful in our own way, do the best you can and love yourself" posts. I leave that to others. I don't try to describe how to make a full time living working an hour a day. I can only offer my own experience, which is working at this as though my life depended on it, full time, seven days a week. I'm certainly not advising doing that, although I've found that just about EVERY author I know who is making a serious living does it like that. Maybe that's coincidence. I don't happen to think so, but hey, you never know.
> 
> ...


Russell, thanks for your reply. I think it's good that you don't give people false expectations about how easy it is to be successful at writing. If they are really trying to make lots of money they may switch to something else that is easier, and some do.

Because I'm 70 I'm limited in jumping into new careers. I have a huge list of things I don't like doing, so I'll stick with writing. Whether I make money or not, I'm enjoying the challenge of trying to improve and although there are things about writing that I find quite difficult there are other parts that I like. I still have the stamina to work 12 hours per day, but I'm not sure that I have enough ideas. Either I have too much in my head and it's hard to sort it out or things don't always flow that easily. It's more interesting than sitting knitting or playing cards for hours. I seem to need breaks where I go for a drive and people watch or have my Saint Bernard drag me around for a while. It's usually when I'm spaced out that I get new ideas, so I'm not sure that writing non stop for twelve hours is a good idea for me.

One of the things I really like is that although you may work hard, if you want to take a day off and do something else you can.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> I can write spare prose all day long. It's not hard for me. I just choose not to. That's my preference. If you prefer spare prose, by all means, indulge your preference, and have at it.


Nowhere did I say spare prose was my preference? I did say I've read and enjoyed Ludlum and Forsyth. All I said was that my writing wasn't fitting my book and market as well as it could have, and I needed to take out the purple and pare it back. I said that pretty prose has its place and readership and in no way should all writing conform to any standard.

You said that anything less than what you write is easy, requires zero art and belongs in a Nancy Drew book. That's all I was responding to.

But we both agree to each their own - so that's where I'm going to leave it. 



JRTomlin said:


> "Outside, beyond the gray frame of the window, the weather was dreary, funereal clouds strung from the rooftops like laundry hung out to dry, and so cold even the dirty gray ratlike pigeons were huddled against it, dark motionless lines of frozen feathers and arrested beaks blighting the eaves as far as she could see down both sides of the block."


I like that. The sentence is unrelenting, like the lines of pigeons she can see. Jolie's version is good too.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> No, AA, I totally get it. I understand the movement that eschews well-crafted, complicated prose, deeming it purple.


I'm a big fan of so-called 'purple' prose. Though I've pared down my style a little in recent years, I firmly believe that any book that doesn't even try to have fun with language, challenge a reader's vocabulary, and generally have a bit of fun, well, it might be profitable, but it starts to feel more like a piece of corporate communications than literature.

I've read 'spare prose' where I've been left thinking: "This isn't a book that's taking me on a journey. This is just keeping my engine turning over."


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I haven't read more than a few posts across the last nine pages and don't intend to, but my own opinion on the use of purple prose is that I liken a writer to a car. If you drive everywhere in fifth gear you tend to get used to it, but if you drive in a lower gear and then step up once in a while it becomes much more noticeable. In my writing I tend to stay in fourth most of the time, telling the story as it happens in a solid but unspectacular way. Every once in a while though, when something major happens or particularly at the end of chapters, I'll go up that extra gear to make that section really stand out. The masters among us, however, work in that fifth gear most of the time, but have an extra sixth they can choose, one that most of us can only dream of. Something like that. A lot of indies I've come across tend to write in reverse though haha. As someone who likes all kinds of genres including literary, I have no issue with purple prose as long as it doesn't bog down the story. A beautiful turn of phrase at a key moment is divine, but paragraph after paragraph of ornate description is like wading through a swamp.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Joliedupre said:


> I prefer this:
> 
> _Outside, beyond the gray frame of the window, funeral clouds strung from the rooftops like laundry hung out to dry, and so cold even the ratlike pigeons were huddled against it. Dark motionless lines of frozen feathers and arrested beaks blighting the eaves down both sides of the block._
> 
> But that's just me.


I prefer this:

_Outside, beyond the gray frame of the window, funeral clouds strung from the rooftops like laundry hung out to dry, and so cold even the ratlike pigeons were huddled against it. Dark motionless lines of frozen feathers and arrested beaks blighting the eaves down both sides of the block. Their tiny sphincters puckered pinhole tight, it was inconceivable that they'd defile my car, but they did. They did. The little bastard bombardiers payload painted a racing stripe across the fresh wax to their mocking accompaniment of coos, that sounded suspiciously like "poos." It was them I knew I had to climb, shimmy that pole, gain the high ground on them, and deliver a payload of my own on their heads. This was war._


----------

