# DWS with more sensible long-term thinking



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

Sometimes he just gets it right. By which I mean, I agree with him 

http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=8415

Bolding mine:
"Some factors to keep the disappointment in perspective if your numbers are very low.

- If you are a new writer, let me simply say, duh. Of course they are going to be low. *You only have ten or twenty things out* and you haven't learned how to tell a story yet that a ton of people want to read. Keep writing and keep focusing on learning, you'll get there if you keep working at it for a number of years. Realize that most of us in the old days made NO MONEY at all for years and years and years. Consider yourself lucky you have this new world and you are making even coffee money."

"If you think selling 20 books average per month of all your titles across all sites is bad and your average price is $5.99, you really need to have an attitude adjustment. Get a friend to tap you gently on the top of the head until wake you up and realize your sales are just fine and you need to keep writing and get more books out."


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

No. I see 5 pieces of bad advice for every good thing in that post.


----------



## psychotick (Jan 26, 2012)

Hi,

Only ten or twenty things out? I'm crushed! I just put out book number eleven and was feeling really good!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> No. I see 5 pieces of bad advice for every good thing in that post.


Interesting. I thought it was one of his better posts.

Would you mind saying which you disagree with? I'm probably not looking at it closely enough.

ETA: Not to start a debate which these things turn into. Often I look at his posts, first agree with them and then start seeing the holes in his logic. I rarely agree with him on pricing, but otherwise when I read this I thought he made some good points.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Count me among those who really appreciate DWS. He's helped me in several ways. I've been lucky to have my first books do better than what he posits, but that just means his get-more-books-out theory will work better too. I'm not sure I agree with him on prices. Hell would freeze over before I'd pay $2.99 for a short story, but then I don't much care for short stories. I wish I had the nerve to try his prices on novels. I don't, but I've never been a freebie or $.99 person either.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Only ten or twenty things out? I'm crushed! I just put out book number eleven and was feeling really good!
> 
> Cheers, Greg.


Every time I read something like that, I get depressed. I don't even have one out yet, and once I get this one out, it's gonna be 3 or 4 years before the next one comes out, because it just doesn't happen that fast for me. Finding the optimal visual, the optimal cadence, name, symbolism, etc..takes me time. I doubt I'll finish 10 by the time I'm dead.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> Count me among those who really appreciate DWS. He's helped me in several ways. I've been lucky to have my first books do better than what he posits, but that just means his get-more-books-out theory will work better too. I'm not sure I agree with him on prices. Hell would freeze over before I'd pay $2.99 for a short story, but then I don't much care for short stories. I wish I had the nerve to try his prices on novels. I don't, but I've never been a freebie or $.99 person either.


For a short time I had a novel priced at $7.99 (not because of his advice actually). It continued to get sales but at a lower rate. I probably made more money, but just wasn't comfortable with the price. I like keeping my novels below $5. And I would be highly unlikely to pay $2.99 for a short story. His pricing advice never felt right to me. On the other hand, I think his advice to stop TINKERING with prices (one of my vices) is very good.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

I like his summation of the year's news. I had no idea Kobo and Apple were in 50 countries, now. And four straight years of growth in indie bookstores? That really surprises me. Can it possibly last?


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

MichaelWallace said:


> No. I see 5 pieces of bad advice for every good thing in that post.


How intriguing  Care to share your thinking?


----------



## Jonathan C. Gillespie (Aug 9, 2012)

One thing about the short story pricing: do people not realize that a boatload of high quality fiction podcasts exist? And their target base is likely to be the same folks with ereaders?

I mean, I've got more than a few paid sales with fiction podcasts, and a few freebies -- and these outlets have a metric ton of listeners.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

You mean I have to write more than one book to get rich  ?

As I mentioned in my comment on that post, I haven't seen any drop in sales year-on-year after increasing the price of my most popular short story from $0.99 to $1.99. I'm tempted to try $2.99 but I think I'll leave it where it is... I have been selling a few of the longer ones for $2.99, but 4,000 words still seems too short.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Every time I read something like that, I get depressed. I don't even have one out yet, and once I get this one out, it's gonna be 3 or 4 years before the next one comes out, because it just doesn't happen that fast for me. Finding the optimal visual, the optimal cadence, name, symbolism, etc..takes me time. I doubt I'll finish 10 by the time I'm dead.


Don't sweat that guy's advice. It clearly works for some people, but there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. Stay true to yourself, dude. Believe in YOUR vision, YOUR aesthetic. I know I can't follow his advice. My books are too long, and I certainly can't slap them up as fast as I type them without considerable editing. And his pricing strategy seems crazy to me. Stephen King's 11/22/63 book is 850ish pages, and he's selling that at $3.99. I know DWS would say that's giving it away. I call that extreme value. King's strategy seems to be about taking care of the customer. DWS strategy seems to be about taking care of himself. In my opinion, the best way to take care of yourself as a writer, or in any business, is to take care of the customer, which means providing extreme value, or at least very good value. Stay on course. Make it really, really good, the best you can, then do some decent marketing for it, and move to the next one. There is value for us in volume of books, sure, but I don't think there is any value in volume of bad stuff. So if you need time, take it.


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

John Daulton said:


> Don't sweat that guy's advice. It clearly works for some people, but there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. Stay true to yourself, dude. Believe in YOUR vision, YOUR aesthetic. I know I can't follow his advice. My books are too long, and I certainly can't slap them up as fast as I type them without considerable editing. And his pricing strategy seems crazy to me. Stephen King's 11/22/63 book is 850ish pages, and he's selling that at $3.99. I know DWS would say that's giving it away. I call that extreme value. King's strategy seems to be about taking care of the customer. DWS strategy seems to be about taking care of himself. In my opinion, the best way to take care of yourself as a writer, or in any business, is to take care of the customer, which means providing extreme value, or at least very good value. Stay on course. Make it really, really good, the best you can, then do some decent marketing for it, and move to the next one. There is value for us in volume of books, sure, but I don't think there is any value in volume of bad stuff. So if you need time, take it.


John, I agree with much of what you say here, but the Kindle edition of 11/22/63 is $7.99 reduced from $19.99 (http://www.amazon.com/11-22-63-ebook/dp/B004Q7CIFI/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1358282806&sr=8-1). I doubt S&S will ever sell a King book as low as four bucks


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I like this:



> 4) Quality storytelling is everything. If you are not constantly working and learning and trying to become a better storyteller and entertainer, give it up now.


I've given myself a few notes for things I'm going to work on this year in terms of craft.



Dan Harris said:


> John, I agree with much of what you say here, but the Kindle edition of 11/22/63 is $7.99 reduced from $19.99 (http://www.amazon.com/11-22-63-ebook/dp/B004Q7CIFI/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1358282806&sr=8-1). I doubt S&S will ever sell a King book as low as four bucks


Actually, I think I saw it at $3.99. It may have been a promotional blow-out, but I saw it, and ... I think it may have triggered one of my meltdowns. We indies have had a little gold rush in the bargain aisle of books. If the heavies and dropping promos in here ... it's a whole new normal.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> No. I see 5 pieces of bad advice for every good thing in that post.


This.

Wow, wth?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Dalya, you do realize that those stats make some of us want to slap you? Yikes! Stop making me look bad.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

The non-enhanced version of King's book is temporarily on sale for 3.99 (marked down from 19.99). Glad you pointed that out, I was waiting for the price to drop below 15 before picking it up 

The new normal seems like the old normal to me. Write well, package well, put it in front of people who can pay you, rinse, repeat. Heinlein's Rules still work for me.


----------



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

JRTomlin said:


> For a short time I had a novel priced at $7.99 (not because of his advice actually). It continued to get sales but at a lower rate. I probably made more money, but just wasn't comfortable with the price. I like keeping my novels below $5. And I would be highly unlikely to pay $2.99 for a short story. His pricing advice never felt right to me. On the other hand, I think his advice to stop TINKERING with prices (one of my vices) is very good.


I was fooling around with this stuff last year too. My experiment was pretty small (one book, for a few weeks at both prices), but I made a bit more money at $5.99 than $7.99. But people were still buying even at the higher price. So I'm kind of with you on price. I think DWS' advice is too high, but $5 and even $6 prices shouldn't be out of the question.

The thing that gets me about a lot of his posts, though, is I don't believe they're at all geared toward newer writers. Building an audience _is_ important. You're going to do that a lot faster at $2.99 or even $0.99 than at $7.99. Maybe DWS is always banging on about the long term because all his strategies take ten years to bear any fruit.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

The ebook of 11/22/63 was Number 1 on the Kindle Science Fiction Best Sellers list, at $3.99, when I took a snapshot on 12/30/12, and still is. I was sad because I paid full price, never dreaming they'd drop it so low.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I debated posting about this the other day, because while I don't need to go looking for fights on the internet, DWS has become so harmful to newbies, that I just...
> 
> Ok. Here goes:


I think it is an extremely good idea to post a critical view of what he says. For me, much of what he is saying makes sense. Of course, like DWS and KKR, I don't have anything on the best seller list. (They don't claim to, let me point out and you can make good money in self-publishing without having anything there)

But I can see your points, especially his (imo) rather silly grudge against Amazon. Then again, I don't think there is anyone whose advice you can just swallow whole. I think that for many of us, especially those who have been in the business for a while, he makes some good points even though I frequently disagree.

For new authors, you may be right that it is bad advice. I'm honestly not sure.

On the subject of Pulphouse, yes, it did fail and they discuss why pretty openly. It was also very highly respected in the fantasy part of the industry, so that also should be considered. They worked with the best authors in the business. I'm not very comfortable with your bringing up and attacking them regarding Pulphouse.

ETA: I just don't see that the fact that Pulphouse, which was at first quite successful, expanded much too fast has anything to do with whether they're right or wrong about self-publishing.



> Just, please, please, please: think critically about DWS, and look at the actual evidence before you make decisions about your careers


Here I 100% agree, but not just if it's DWS or KKR (and they do get huffy if you disagree with them). The same is true with Joe Konrath or anyone on this forum. We need to look at the advice carefully and think critically about what we're told. And often we need to think about it over a period of time.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

So, by the logic of his post, my 160-ish sales per month as a complete newbie should be considered a success and I should keep writing? I certainly agree with the "keep writing" part, but I'm still unsure about whether or not I feel the beginnings of success.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

David Scroggins said:


> So, by the logic of his post, my 160-ish sales per month as a complete newbie should be considered a success and I should keep writing? I certainly agree with the "keep writing" part, but I'm still unsure about whether or not I feel the beginnings of success.


Heck, yeah, 160-ish per month is good for a complete newbie.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

Edward M. Grant said:


> If you're selling at $5.99 and making $4-ish a book, definitely. That's more than most newbie trade-published writers will be making.
> 
> Heck, I'd love to be selling 160 e-books a month.


I sell for $2.99 - $5.99 depending on the book. I usually end up with a profit of $2.08 - $3.49.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> Heck, yeah, 160-ish per month is good for a complete newbie.


That's good to know. It inspires me to keep writing. I started selling over 100 books each month in November (hit 165 in December) and it seems as though I'll be on par with those numbers this month as well. And here I thought I was doing something wrong. I have been pushing myself to the limit and beyond since I began in July because I felt like no matter how much I wrote or sold, it wasn't enough. Perhaps I should give myself a stress break.


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

I like that his advice has changed over the years that I have visited his blog.  When I started publishing, his advice was to pretty much assembly line product as fast as you could, then double dip with bundles.  Like a fast food conveyor belt spitting out $1 burgers and offering five for the price of three sales.  He has clearly moved on to finer dining, or at least pricing like it.  And keeping with the restaurant theme, quality is everything.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of creating more product to increase sales.  It's supported by that thing called Math.  If the best your book ever does is one sale a week and you want to sell more than one book a week, you need more books.  Two books, two sales, three books, three sales.  It's not that hard to calculate.  

However I don't agree with trying to cover up low sales today by projecting future revenue.  Businesses can't operate that way and self publishing is a business.  Also comparing it to speculative earnings from a traditional publisher is a fallacy as well.  I've done this.  After completing my trilogy I calculated what my copyright would be worth if sales never changed.  The number was really high I thought.  Just under $900,000 over the course of 70 years.  Looks like I'm set for retirement already.  NOT.  (but it is a fun number to look at)

His noob label is a bit off-putting, but whatever.  You will always be a noob to anyone who's been at it longer.  That's the pecking order of the internet.

Marketing is a chicken/egg problem.  Marketing works if you have an audience, but you can't build an audience without marketing so it doesn't work.  For most of us his advice is correct.  It's a waste of time to try and actively market.  However 100% of us should be passively marketing.  We already do with books in our signatures.  Sample chapters and links at the back of our books to more works.  Update your Author Central profile and collecting names for that mailing list.


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> I debated posting about this the other day, because while I don't need to go looking for fights on the internet, DWS has become so harmful to newbies, that I just...
> 
> Ok. Here goes:
> 
> <SNIP>


Excellent in-depth reply 

I think maybe I don't read his posts with my critical analysis hat on as much as I should, but here's what I've taken away:
- Write good books (duh)
- Don't change the price too regularly: set it at a reasonably value for it's length (e.g. at least 4.99 for a novel) and then leave it
- Don't go exclusive, spread your work everywhere because there's more than one retailer
- Give it a promotional kick, but don't spend ages promoting any single book
- Repeat

It helps that this is exactly what I was planning to do anyway, of course!

I have no idea how successful he is - I was under the impression he had a load of pen names, so it'd be hard to tell. But from what I've read, Bob Mayer seems to agree with pretty much everything about the above approach, too, and as we speak he has six books in the sci-fi top 20 on Amazon.co.uk. But he also had a big existing fanbase from the old days. So...

I forget what my point was.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Dan Harris said:


> Excellent in-depth reply
> 
> I think maybe I don't read his posts with my critical analysis hat on as much as I should, but here's what I've taken away:
> - Write good books (duh)
> ...


Both KKR and DWS write under a number of pennames. (Some know what at least a number of them are  ) He isn't on the BS list, but they've made a living at writing for a long time and are both highly respected in the SFF community. As I mentioned in a previous reply to Genevieve's post, I'm not on the BS list either, but I do fairly well. That is not, imo, a good way of judging an author's success.

I'm not sure if I'd quite agree with your list of his recommendations, but it's not a pretty good plan.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

If anyone's interested, I updated my predictions for 2013.

http://www.yaindie.com/2013/01/predictions-for-self-publishing-in-2013.html


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Heh.  So I think Ed Robertson made an excellent point, somewhere way upthread, that what works for newbies is really different than what works for people who've been collecting their readers for years. Initial conditions matter so so much. You gotta collect that initial bankroll of readers who will help you launch your books high enough to get visibility from somewhere. If Select gives you the tools to jump start that process on the only retailer with the algos to reward you for having that kind of reach, 3 months exclusivity doesn't seem like such a steep price to pay.
> 
> It's all in how you use it. But I would say true long term thinking starts with building that fanbase, and making sure you have a way to keep them engaged, and you can't do that without exposure.


You're right and I have always disagreed with DWS's advice about Select. He has a real grudge against Amazon which he doesn't seem to be able to get past. Staying in Select forever? Probably not. But it is a TOOL like any number of other things such as a mailing list. If you use it carefully, it can give you a boost in the right direction.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Others have jumped in with more coherent criticisms than I had, but there were a few other things that jumped out at me.



> 2013 is the first year of the new normal.


Oh, so NOW it's stabilized. Thank goodness for that, because they were changing like crazy just three weeks ago.



> "Think ten years or more. For every project. Why? Do the math. You want to make $10,000 on your book."


Uhm, no I don't. I'm not writing for that kind of money, I'm writing to make a living. I want to find a way to sell thousands of books early on, and then maybe long tail it. But I don't know what the next ten years are going to look like. I'm quite certain we're not in a "new normal" as he says. The market is different from a year ago and radically different from two years ago. Who knows what ten years will bring? I need to sell my books now. And that means promotion and all the other things he dismisses.



> *Some factors to keep the disappointment in perspective if your numbers are very low.*
> 
> - If you are a new writer, let me simply say, duh. Of course they are going to be low. You only have ten or twenty things out and you haven't learned how to tell a story yet that a ton of people want to read. Keep writing and keep focusing on learning, you'll get there if you keep working at it for a number of years. Realize that most of us in the old days made NO MONEY at all for years and years and years. Consider yourself lucky you have this new world and you are making even coffee money.
> 
> If you have been writing for a a number of years and your numbers are still low and you have between 50 and 100 things published, check these questions:


You have to wait until you have 50-100 things published before you worry about your numbers? Holy crap, I have 18 different things for sale on Amazon and I'm writing 3-4 novels a year. It's going to take me a decade or longer until I am supposed to worry about my numbers, according to this. Meanwhile, I've sold over 320,000 books with my "of course they are going to be low" list of books.



> 4&#8230; Make sure you learn how to do professional book design for all your covers and professional interiors on paper books. (It is not that hard, honest.)


I agree with this. However, many of Dean's covers are not that great.










And if you look at that book in the store, you'll see that the ranking is 457,268 and he violates his own pricing advice. The book is 99¢!


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

The useful thing I took from this recent DWS post was his discussion of how much a beginning, traditionally published author gets for a book, versus what indies think makes a book successful. I think he was pointing out that if, over the years, your book has brought in $5000-10000 in profit, you've made as much as you would have with a contract most places. And if your book continues to bring in money after that, you're that much further ahead.

And then, of course, comes the point about continuing to publish more, so that you have multiple streams of income. I think everyone here would agree with that advice, even though us slow writers will gets there later than the rest of you.


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> I'm not sure if I'd quite agree with your list of his recommendations, but it's not a pretty good plan.


...second 'not' intended? I've just never seen the phrase 'not a pretty good plan' before 



JRTomlin said:


> You're right and I have always disagreed with DWS's advice about Select. He has a real grudge against Amazon which he doesn't seem to be able to get past. Staying in Select forever? Probably not. But it is a TOOL like any number of other things such as a mailing list. If you use it carefully, it can give you a boost in the right direction.


I might give Select a spin at some point. The reason I haven't is by the time I got to publishing last year most folks here seemed to say the post-free-day bump magic had worn off. We'll see!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Dan Harris said:


> ...second 'not' intended? I've just never seen the phrase 'not a pretty good plan' before
> 
> I might give Select a spin at some point. The reason I haven't is by the time I got to publishing last year most folks here seemed to say the post-free-day bump magic had worn off. We'll see!


Definitely not intended. Now you know why I pay an editor. 

I meant that it's a pretty good plan.

As far as Select, my own take is that the post-free-bump has substantially reduced. With a good free run, I still get some bump. But I am in a position where I no longer need Select to give me that initial push. It's hard to find another tool that will do that for you initially (that is when you're a noobie), even if it's much less than it used to be.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Maybe. That's such a weird bench mark to me, though. I don't care what any of my books would have made selling them to trad publishers, because I have no intention of doing that.* I care about what kind of money I can make self-pubbing now, in today's marketplace. I guess I could compare my results to what I would have made, in, like, the 19th century, too, but that wouldn't be any more relevant to me.


Isn't that exactly why so many trad pub writers go indie in the first place? It's not because it's easier, it's because the numbers are so much easier to manage.

There was a time a few years ago I would have been happy with pocket money. But I'm doing this full time now, writing four full length novels a year, and I need to make more than 10K spread over a decade per book or I'll be back looking for a job sooner, rather than later.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I debated posting about this the other day, because while I don't need to go looking for fights on the internet, DWS has become so harmful to newbies, that I just...
> Just, please, please, please: think critically about DWS, and look at the actual evidence before you make decisions about your careers.


Genevieve, suffice to say I just love everything about that post. Everything.



SBJones said:


> There is nothing wrong with the idea of creating more product to increase sales. It's supported by that thing called Math. If the best your book ever does is one sale a week and you want to sell more than one book a week, you need more books. Two books, two sales, three books, three sales. It's not that hard to calculate.


But what if SMART marketing can sell 3 copies a week? Then you either don't need to write 2 more books if that's your goal, or you can write 1 more book, give yourself a bonus and have time left to play with the dog. It's NOT an either-or proposition, but a synergistic one.



> However I don't agree with trying to cover up low sales today by projecting future revenue. Businesses can't operate that way and self publishing is a business. Also comparing it to speculative earnings from a traditional publisher is a fallacy as well.


I totally agree with this.



> Marketing is a chicken/egg problem. Marketing works if you have an audience, but you can't build an audience without marketing so it doesn't work. For most of us his advice is correct. It's a waste of time to try and actively market.


...while this I can't agree with. A lot of marketing IS a waste of time. But marketing also means understanding not only your audience but your distributors and vendors and actively working in a SMART way to optimize income. Smart can be many things - some that work great for some personalities and some that work great for others.

As for DWS' post:

Seriously? I mean, _seriously_?

I'll leave the store and industry predictions to others who have a better handle on those numbers than I do. I'll just say he and I have differences in the way we analyze the marketplace. What I will do is address the "more writing means more money" philosophy being espoused.

Look, KKR and DWS have blinders on. If they think $10K for a book is the optimum to strive for and that it's OK to not make that amount for another 10 years, then let them keep on doing what they've been doing. But it doesn't mean you need to be dragged along with them. They seem to see one path and one path alone: The need to have more and more product out. What they fail to see is how much cash they're leaving on the table by ignoring the data they sniff their noses at and by ignoring -- and downright sneering at -- product placement and product marketing.

I handle a growing catalog of backlist titles, in addition to a few new ones. These bestselling titles were epubbed by the author's agent-publisher when the publishers reverted rights and have been offered at all outlets available since 1999. Were they earning money for the author and agent? Yes. Were they earning what they could have been? No. These were books originally published by many of the same publishers as KKR's books. These were backlist books - many nice, thick historical romances - with $20 price tags for the paperbacks and $7-9 tags on the ebooks. These were books together earning maybe $3K or $4K total per month. Sound familiar? Pretty much like KKR's backlist sales and prices. For passive income for books that had "sold" once to trad publishers, that's okay income. Some folk are apparently satisfied with it.

To completely ignore books that have been written in favor of writing more, though, is, imo, folly. That backlist can work hard at providing income without the need to produce 10K words per day. If you want to write that much, great. It's not necessary, however, if you couple writing with SMART promotion. Why NOT let what you've already written work FOR you?

We don't yet have our complete backlist inventory out, but in November and December, we quadrupled the $4K per month the titles had been earning. (E-book rights to 37 novels were reverted in June; we began publishing them out in July.) We don't have the print rights, so sales are all on the digital format.

Strategic marketing plus pricing for the market is what made the difference. In the comments, DWS mentions their second-best-selling title last month was a 10-year-old book. Our best-selling title was a set of over 20-year-old books. We sold over 10,000 copies. It hit the Top 100 on Dec 21 and is still in the Top 100 today. Total sold since Dec 1: over 22,000.

DWS mentions the great sales KKR's new release had in December. Six weeks later, that new release is sitting at a #55,000 rank. Even if Amazon is only 40% of its sales, how many copies do you think it sold? And it sold "great?" I truly believe DWS and KKR have no real concept of what ebook sales and indies are capable of.

But it's a marathon - think long term, DWS admonishes newbies. To that I answer, "No - think short and long both. If you must think in terms of the marathon analogy, think of it as a marathon made up of a bunch of sprints." That title that made $10,000 in 6 weeks will still be selling in 10 years, just like their title will be. Ours just has a jump start of a few thousand dollars that is in our pockets TODAY.

Of course, not all our titles sold 10,000 copies in December. One sold 4500, another sold 3600, two others sold 1100 apiece, and another sold 1000. The rest sold fewer; some - those we turned our eye from promoting - sold a lot fewer (don't worry, they'll get their day!). In all, we sold almost 30,000 ebooks in December. We sold 21,000 in November and we've sold 17,000 in January, on track for, I hope, 40,000 sales this month. And that's all on Amazon, where we concentrate our marketing efforts. And that's mainly backlist titles. And that's for only a part of the inventory that we're still publishing out.

As for pricing, well, I'm an advocate of the promoted loss leader. DWS says:

"Check your electronic book pricing. If you are still buying into the garbage of the discount 99 cent book or story, you are causing your own bad sales. Wake up. That was so 2010."

I apologize for buying into this garbage. I apologize for only making $20,000-25,000 per month by undervaluing our authors' works and pricing our books at 99c and $2.99, with no individual title over $3.98. And you know what? I look at what those books WERE priced at in 2010 - the $7.99-and-up ebooks, the $20 paperbacks - and how they were languishing, unpromoted, getting by on a few sales each month at prices I wouldn't pay, and I apologize for not leaving them with someone who had a finger on the real pulse of the market.

So yes, keep putting more product out without promotion, do the "spaghetti-at-the-wall" throw with the titles, slap them up in all stores without understanding customer buying behavior or how the stores work (or don't work) to help market your books to their customers. Don't watch sales or adjust your marketing plans according to the seasons or other market influences.

Will you sell? Probably. Will you sell to your books' fullest potential? Most likely not. Will those books still be selling 20-30 copies per month 10 years from now? Honestly, without active marketing if you remain a midlister, I doubt it, but who knows what the market will be like then? Still, if you prefer simply writing and leaving money on the table to actually using the work you've already produced to provide an optimized income, then go ahead and follow the DWS/KKR way. And don't forget to drop a dollar in their tip jars on the way out. Apparently, they need the extra cash...


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Reading's never been more convenient than it is now. From what I can tell, about half of my readers are reading from their phones. And I know I read a heck of a lot more since getting an ereader, because it's just...easier.
> 
> I love this.


Thanks, GC.

I notice from the webstats of my e-rom name that most people are viewing the site on mobile devices.

Anecdotally, many hadn't read a book outside high school until 50 Shades, then they got hooked on the high-octane stuff. One thing about "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is it did not convert new readers. 50 Shades and Twilight did.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Yizzurp. I don't see this mentioned very much, but if you use DWS's numbers, _you cannot make a living with your writing._ 10k per book over 10 years? Seriously?
> 
> Maybe his advice is for the hobbyist.


Not if you have as many books out as he says you must to be a professional. I still think a lot of what he says makes sense. You just have to pick and choose the advice. 



Dalya said:


> Thanks, GC.
> 
> I notice from the webstats of my e-rom name that most people are viewing the site on mobile devices.
> 
> Anecdotally, many hadn't read a book outside high school until 50 Shades, then they got hooked on the high-octane stuff. One thing about "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is it did not convert new readers. 50 Shades and Twilight did.


To be utterly selfish about it, none of those "converts" will buy anything I write. But I do think that the ease of buying and reading will help us all. Amazon has long said that those with ereaders buy much more than they did previously and I assume the same applies to those with Fires.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

I take DWS's advice with a grain of salt just like KKR's, Joe Konrath's, Bob Mayer's and everybody else's. And I definitely don't agree with everything in this particular post, though I agree with a lot of it.

However, claiming that DWS and KKR harm new writers, because they advocate a different approach than the Select, freebies, promote approach favoured by Phoenix, Genevieve and others here is just plain rude. Never mind that DWS is not against Amazon itself, but against KDP Select, which is a completely different thing. 

It's okay to look at what others are doing, but in the end everybody must find their own path. My approach is pretty similar to what DWS and KKR are doing, because much of it makes sense to me. Others prefer to stick to the Select, freebies, promote path. And there also are writers for whom the DWS/KKR path simply isn't viable, because they are slow writers or writers who need multiple drafts/revisions (which is something that DWS - unfairly IMO - is very much against). Every writer is different. Find out what works for you.

And regardless of which path you follow, it does make sense not to panic when sales are down for a day, a week or a month (which could be due to all sorts of things), but check whether they are rising year to year. If they are, you're on the right track.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Dalya said:


> Anecdotally, many hadn't read a book outside high school until 50 Shades, then they got hooked on the high-octane stuff. One thing about "Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is it did not convert new readers. 50 Shades and Twilight did.


How do you know that _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_ did not convert new readers? Scandinavian crime fiction suddenly got a lot hotter in the US and UK after the _Millennium_ trilogy became such a big hit than it had previously been. Henning Mankell, Camilla Lackberg, Jussi Adler Olsen, etc... certainly aren't complaining. Never mind that _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_ is a lot more high octane than either _Fifty Shades_ or _Twilight_ (and I like _Twilight_) unless "octane" is a euphemism for sex. And the _Millennium_ trilogy has quite a bit of that, too, some of it even consensual.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> I take DWS's advice with a grain of salt just like KKR's, Joe Konrath's, Bob Mayer's and everybody else's. And I definitely don't agree with everything in this particular post, though I agree with a lot of it.
> 
> However, claiming that DWS and KKR harm new writers, because they advocate a different approach than the Select, freebies, promote approach favoured by Phoenix, Genevieve and others here is just plain rude. Never mind that DWS is not against Amazon itself, but against KDP Select, which is a completely different thing.
> 
> ...


A balanced response, Cora. Thanks.

As you say, there are a number of paths and they're not all right for every author.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

What is this?! Critical thinking in the WC?! The word of the gods not taken as gospel?! This cannot be! It must be stopped! Stopped, I tell you!!!

On a more serious note I have nothing to add (well, "told you so" maybe). Just thought I'd commend the commendable.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> No, it is not inherently rude to point out that their advice is harmful. It's possible I was rude in the way I did it, though I tried to balance sarcasm and rhetoric with fairness as much as possible.
> 
> To go back to the emperor example: everyone might be embarrassed when they realize the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, but the person who pointed it out was not being rude by doing so, unless you adhere to a radically conformist definition of the word. They were telling the truth.


But you are positing that he is completely wrong, which I am not by any means sure is correct. He is wrong for you. To some extent he is wrong for me, but I assure you that when I started out the advice that I could look at the "long tail" and that the fact that I wasn't selling many books THIS month didn't mean that I should give up meant a huge amount.

So is his advice harmful to new authors? I can understand your thinking, but you may or may not be correct. Or let's say if someone believes every single word he says it might be harmful, but taking his advice as someone who has been in the business for a very long time alongside the advice of other self-published authors and choosing what seems to make sense for oneself is not harmful. I think we tend to see some over-reaction to DWS's posts just because he does tend to be a respected figure in the SFF world. I can believe part of what he says (which I do) without believing he is completely right. 

Hopefully, so can those new authors.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

CoraBuhlert said:


> How do you know that _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_ did not convert new readers? Scandinavian crime fiction suddenly got a lot hotter in the US and UK after the _Millennium_ trilogy became such a big hit than it had previously been. Henning Mankell, Camilla Lackberg, Jussi Adler Olsen, etc... certainly aren't complaining. Never mind that _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_ is a lot more high octane than either _Fifty Shades_ or _Twilight_ (and I like _Twilight_) unless "octane" is a euphemism for sex. And the _Millennium_ trilogy has quite a bit of that, too, some of it even consensual.


By "new readers" I mean people who weren't interested in reading books. Dragon Tattoo was huge and probably converted readers to the Scandinavian crime fiction, along with the freaky (?swedish) vampire book/movie. But these people were still readers, switching from one genre to try another.

When I was starting writing YA, I considered getting into the "reluctant reader" category. There are guidelines, and there are some Canadian presses I considered submitting to. That was a different lifetime, of course.

Still, I think this market is growing now. Reading an ebook novella on the bus makes more sense than watching a movie or TV on your phone.

It's freaky how fast things are moving. When I first moved to Vancouver, in 1995, the people in coffee shops were writing in journals. Laptops were expensive and rare. Nowadays, you walk into a coffee shop in the evening and there'll be an Open Mic night, and everyone in the audience will have a blue face from their laptop's glow.

At first, public transit was quiet. Then in the late 90s, everyone started talking on cell phones, everywhere. And then, within the last few years, it got quiet again. Everyone switched to texting. You saw people tap-tapping at blackberries and then iphones.

And now, I see people reading and scrolling. No more tap-tap.


----------



## Soothesayer (Oct 19, 2012)

> You only have ten or twenty things out and you haven't learned how to tell a story yet that a ton of people want to read.


When I read this, I thought Dean was talking about shorts for the most part, NOT novels. Twenty short stories/novellas/novelettes, etc. in the range of 10k words each, not 50k word novels.

Novels obviously sell more because the market is bigger, and the algorithms favor them since the price is higher for the word count.

For me to write ten shorts, that would take about 8-10 weeks.

Anyone else think this is what Dean meant?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Soothesayer said:


> When I read this, I thought Dean was talking about shorts for the most part, NOT novels. Twenty short stories/novellas/novelettes, etc. in the range of 10k words each, not 50k word novels.
> 
> Novels obviously sell more because the market is bigger, and the algorithms favor them since the price is higher for the word count.
> 
> ...


He didn't make it clear, but since most of us know that he writes and publishes a lot of short stories, this was my assumption.


----------



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

What I don't get is that he says it's stabilized. Where? 

It still looks like a roller-coaster on steroids from where I'm sitting. He even mentions that there are a multiplicity of opinions on what is and is not happening in the world of publishing, which is a sure sign that the whole thing is a roiling mess.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I didn't actually say he is completely wrong-there are some things I think he's right about. Writing good books and working on your craft until you're such a bad*ss storyteller that people love your books is probably the easiest to get behind, but I won't categorically say he's wrong about everything. I do think he's wrong and misleading with enough frequency that a newbie would have to spend so much time unpacking everything he says that it might not be worth it.
> 
> And yeah, I do think his advice, on balance, is incredibly harmful to new writers. I also think it's worth remembering that using the numbers and expectations he talks about, it would be a long, long time before those newbies made a living with their writing. So...
> 
> Yeah. Big ol' caution sign.


Well, your "harmful" comment sounded pretty all-encompassing. We'll agree that writing good books is pretty decent advice though. 

I'm less down on him than you are but a caution sign is in order. Where I think he is wrong is on pricing and that things have stabilized. I think he's just plain wrong on both counts. Other advice, such as that you can make good money never reaching best seller status but with steady sales over a number of books, is exactly correct imo.

ETA: I would agree with that, wouldn't I? It's what I do.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> Back in the 90's there were lots of business management books. Lots of business people bought them and then decided which parts they wanted to implement. Individual business management philosophies are rarely a buffet. It is almost always all or nothing, because all of the various aspects create a synergy that yields results.
> 
> DWS and KKR (et al) are consistent with their philosophy (and it is just a business philosophy). And they don't say not to market or many of the things mentioned here. Thinking like a long term publisher is very different than trying to make money off of one title as fast as possible. One isn't better than the other, they are just different (apples and oranges really).
> 
> And, marketing IS NOT promotion. Promotion is only one small aspect of marketing, and not the most significant at that. Marketing is a huge discipline and not that simple to understand, especially for the book market.


Not all business books and business strategies have merit. Some work for almost everyone, some haven't worked work for anyone, and some can't work at all. That's the problem in this case. DWS's fans always defend him by saying his method doesn't work for everyone. But I can't find a scrap of evidence that his strategy works for anyone, _including for him_. That's the problem with assuming that all advice is relative to the person. It's not. Some is just bad.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

When I read either Kris or Dean I am always aware that they are coming from a background deeply entrenched in the ways of traditional publishing. I think that affects how they approach indie publishing as well. Not that it's bad or wrong, just that it informs their point of view in many ways.

Think of the iconic story that I think Kris wrote first, about self-publishing one short story and having that story sell $5 or $10 worth of copies one month. And that set them on fire because they have cabinets full of shorts and if they all made $5 or $10 a month, that's a ton of money. Especially when you think of writers trapped in the old system, where $5,000-10,000 was a really good deal for a novel, and you weren't allowed to sell more than one a year (there's a reason why they have so many pen names). Or a short story might make a couple hundred bucks, and then nothing forever after. Making thousands of dollars a month publishing backlist, while still writing and publishing new work, was like a dream come true to anyone who had been stuck in that system.

That's the world they lived in, and I admire them for the work they've done. This new world of publishing is new for them as well as the rest of us. I don't assume they have all the answers, but I do think they are reporting their experience as clearly as they can. I listen to them carefully. I hope to take some of their workshops some day, and I'll read their blog posts as long as they're willing to publish them, even though I won't take their advice as some kind of gospel (and I don't think they encourage me to).


----------



## Hopeful Writer (Jul 24, 2012)

Phoenix, I'll admit I'm a stalker for your posts


----------



## Aaron Pogue (Feb 18, 2011)

As far as the business advice goes...has anyone around here actually tried his paperbacks-to-indie-bookstores technique? The man does a good job making it sound like an exciting opportunity, but I just can't put any faith at all in paper. 

On the other hand, my sales and marketing guy thinks it's a really good idea and wants to try it out.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

All of the arguing... Perhaps DWS knows that saying inflammatory things is a great way to ensure link bait goes viral? Better to be seen for something than not seen at all?


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

50% of fiction is still sold in paper or hardback. That's a lot of readers.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> He doesn't go on to say how much of that market share is indie, but I assume it's a minority of that 35%. So it would be more like 17% of the market. But again, given distribution constraints... not worth it for me, at all.


That's the problem. Even if you knew that you could sell 100,000 books if you got into those big honking piles of books at Costco, that doesn't mean it's easy to do so. If your goal is a lot of print sales, you're still better off going the traditional route. Not even the Amazon imprints can manage to sell much in the way of print.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jnfr said:


> When I read either Kris or Dean I am always aware that they are coming from a background deeply entrenched in the ways of traditional publishing. I think that affects how they approach indie publishing as well. Not that it's bad or wrong, just that it informs their point of view in many ways.
> 
> Think of the iconic story that I think Kris wrote first, about self-publishing one short story and having that story sell $5 or $10 worth of copies one month. And that set them on fire because they have cabinets full of shorts and if they all made $5 or $10 a month, that's a ton of money. Especially when you think of writers trapped in the old system, where $5,000-10,000 was a really good deal for a novel, and you weren't allowed to sell more than one a year (there's a reason why they have so many pen names). Or a short story might make a couple hundred bucks, and then nothing forever after. Making thousands of dollars a month publishing backlist, while still writing and publishing new work, was like a dream come true to anyone who had been stuck in that system.
> 
> That's the world they lived in, and I admire them for the work they've done. This new world of publishing is new for them as well as the rest of us. I don't assume they have all the answers, but I do think they are reporting their experience as clearly as they can. I listen to them carefully. I hope to take some of their workshops some day, and I'll read their blog posts as long as they're willing to publish them, even though I won't take their advice as some kind of gospel (and I don't think they encourage me to).


Well put and a good explanation of their point of view.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> All of the arguing... Perhaps DWS knows that saying inflammatory things is a great way to ensure link bait goes viral? Better to be seen for something than not seen at all?


Inflammatory? While his opinion, like anyone's, is debatable, I don't see anything inflammatory there. He says very little he hasn't said or implied before.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I'd only challenge two points in his article. 

1. The expectation of $10,000 in ten years should be a function of the discount rate used. If he says $10,000 now, when we have very low interest rates, it should rise as interest rates return to the patterns we have seen over the past 60 years.

2. Nobody knows what the new normal is. We know what it has been, but not what it will be. 

The rest of the article is interesting reading. It's something to think about.


----------



## zzzzzzz (Dec 6, 2011)

Well, as someone who just finished his first year by more-or-less following DWS's pricing advice and only engaging in passive marketing, I'm pulling in a low four figures a month, the bulk of it from Barnes & Noble for some godawful reason. WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME AMAZON?

Take that for what it is: Almost enough to live off of. I guess if I was more disciplined I'd be making a comfortable living.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

BrianKittrell said:


> All of the arguing... Perhaps DWS knows that saying inflammatory things is a great way to ensure link bait goes viral? Better to be seen for something than not seen at all?


Wait. Are you implying that authors like getting attention for the things they think or say?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Mcoorlim said:


> Well, as someone who just finished his first year by more-or-less following DWS's pricing advice and only engaging in passive marketing, I'm pulling in a low four figures a month, the bulk of it from Barnes & Noble for some godawful reason. WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME AMAZON?
> 
> Take that for what it is: Almost enough to live off of. I guess if I was more disciplined I'd be making a comfortable living.


Because Amazon is for bargain hunters. That's where you put your bargains (as well as other stuff). I put up my trilogy omnibus (three books for the price of two!!) and that was a good decision. Amazon buyers love that stuff. Other sites not so much, so I keep the regular pricing structure there.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Inflammatory? While his opinion, like anyone's, is debatable, I don't see anything inflammatory there. He says very little he hasn't said or implied before.


I know, but everyone likes to go round and round every time he says it again.



Dalya said:


> Wait. Are you implying that authors like getting attention for the things they think or say?


Yes, but I think we're better served with fresh content. Lol


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Dalya said:


> And now, I see people reading and scrolling. No more tap-tap.


FYI, scrolling is now passe too:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/youve-been-scrolling-wrong-the-whole-time


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Mcoorlim said:


> Well, as someone who just finished his first year by more-or-less following DWS's pricing advice and only engaging in passive marketing, I'm pulling in a low four figures a month, the bulk of it from Barnes & Noble for some godawful reason. WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME AMAZON?
> 
> Take that for what it is: Almost enough to live off of. I guess if I was more disciplined I'd be making a comfortable living.


Well, here's one major difference between you and DWS. Your books all have professional-looking covers and they're all branded. All your books have similar motifs and typeface, and they're typical or at least consistent with the genre. You've disobeyed him. You should've slapped cheap, off-putting images unconnected to the conventions of your genre that signal nothing about the kind of books you write. But disobedience has probably done you good.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Yizzurp. I don't see this mentioned very much, but if you use DWS's numbers, _you cannot make a living with your writing._ 10k per book over 10 years? Seriously?
> 
> Maybe his advice is for the hobbyist.


I don't think you're far off. I don't think he believes that more than a handful of people--maybe just outliers--can do better than his $10,000 a book over 10 years idea.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

I experienced no strong visceral reaction while reading this article. Am I doing it wrong?

B.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

MichaelWallace said:


> No. I see 5 pieces of bad advice for every good thing in that post.


What do you see as bad advice?


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I think his advice is great for new writers, because it tells them to focus on the craft - writing. Why? I assume because this is the single most important aspect of marketing - the product. New writers should spend less time trying to work angles and figure out new gimmicks to boost short term sales. Long term business success is rarely sustained by a series of promotional gimmicks.
> 
> *Some writers here are doing things differently and having great success. And I continue to maintain it is because they are writing great books first and foremost. * Wool's success is not about gimmicks, it is an outstanding book (product). I've been wrong before, but I would wager the writing has had far more impact then any promotion, blog post or gimmick.


This is the core of what I agree with. For me. Right now. At this stage in my writing career. Once I've got 15-20 books out, I'm sure I'll act more like a publisher - semi-regularly promoting each book in a good-sized backlist. Until then, I'm just going to concentrate on writing books, hopefully good ones, whilst being ready to take advantage of promos that people say work (Bookbub and ENT right now, for example).

Good chat, everyone. I think I'll change the subject line.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> I also think it's worth remembering that using the numbers and expectations he talks about, it would be a long, long time before those newbies made a living with their writing. So...
> 
> Yeah. Big ol' caution sign.


But isn't that how it's *always* been in the writing business? Given that, how is this line of thought out of the box?


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I'm not defending anyone per se. The failing most people make in using business books is that they don't understand business and therefore can't understand the methodologies and strategies discussed in such books, or more importantly - how to apply those strategies. Or, the reader doesn't understand what business they are in and what management books apply to their industry. Some are universal and some are industry specific.
> 
> DWS is business model/industry specific. I still see this thread as discussing apples and oranges. If you look at the complete DWS business model, it makes perfect sense. He doesn't dwell on the success of a single title. He writes Star Trek Fiction; as far as I know he isn't trying to pen the next Silence of the Lambs or international bestseller. He uses lots of pen names, publishes novels and shorts and has a large catalog. His advice fits a publisher. He pretty much says to write a lot and in several years you'll have the catalog to act and plan like a publisher.
> 
> ...


Let me repay the favour with my long story in the fewest words. I'd never heard of DWS before I read his blog. Naturally, I read his blog because he's highly regarded in the indie community. What struck me were two things: (1) his advocacy of Heinlein-style fast writing/fast publishing and (2) the success he was (apparently) having with bargain bin covers. Number 2 really surprised me because it cut against conventional wisdom as far as packaging goes, namely, people do judge books by their covers.

But the more I investigated the more I realized that he wasn't selling many of these books and that the quality of the product left something to be desired (e.g., samples with typos). On top of that, I couldn't find anyone else that was making money this way either. He claims-like a few of his followers-that he has secret pens names that sell like hotcakes. Of course, I'd become sceptical of this claim by the time I'd heard the line for the third or fourth time. So what exactly is he selling, I wondered?

Then it hit me. Like so many other writers who'd enjoyed some publishing success, he's selling writing courses to newbie writers. And that's what his _real _ business model is. The blog, the advice-even the books probably-are all promotional material for his courses. Needless to say, that's why I'm a little cynical about his writing and publishing advice.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Heh. That would be consistent with the delusion theory, since there are already much more than a handful doing just that.


Every half-competent study I've seen concluded that a few thousand writers were making a living from trade-published fiction in America, and Dean himself has made fun of the whole 'but only a dozen writers make a living from their work' meme.

But for every one of those there are probably a hundred who published one or two books and vanished. And for every one of those there are probably a hundred who set out to write a novel and either gave up or were rejected when they submitted it.

Many of those millions of newbies are now self-publishing their books, sure that they're going to be the next '50 Shades' or 'Harry Potter', and all they have to do is buy some ads and give away their book for free to do so. Most will sell a handful of copies and quit when it doesn't happen that way; you only have to look at old posts in this forum to see how many posters have vanished over the last few years after releasing one book that now sits in the million-plus range on the Amazon rankings.

Sure, some newbie will write the next '50 Shades', but they're the exception. Dean's approach seems much more sensible for the vast majority who won't.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I read a lot about the idea of people making a living writing fiction. That would be nice, but consumers don't care if an author writes full time or part time. They don't care if an author makes a living writing. The market could do just fine if there were no full time writers. I wish the best to those who aspire to it, but it's not a standard that's necessary for a healthy market.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I think his advice is great for new writers, because it tells them to focus on the craft - writing. Why? I assume because this is the single most important aspect of marketing - the product. New writers should spend less time trying to work angles and figure out new gimmicks to boost short term sales. Long term business success is rarely sustained by a series of promotional gimmicks.
> 
> *Some writers here are doing things differently and having great success. And I continue to maintain it is because they are writing great books first and foremost. * Wool's success is not about gimmicks, it is an outstanding book (product). I've been wrong before, but I would wager the writing has had far more impact then any promotion, blog post or gimmick.


Thank you for that. Honestly, I was getting seriously depressed.


----------



## Michael Kingswood (Feb 18, 2011)

genevieveaclark said:


> Because it's not true anymore-unless you listen to DWS.


Really? It's not. For everyone? Or even for the majority?

I'll grant a lot of the people who actually report their sales on here are doing pretty well. But that's what, a few dozen? Compared with the thousands of writers who are going indie? Seems like the more successful (I say more successful because IMHO anyone who puts their stories out there in the market is a success, at least in a moral sense. Maybe that's because my own income is paltry by any scale  ) writers here are themselves outliers.

There are a lot of faults to be found in last year's Taleist survey, but one thing it did show is that a lot - a whole lot - of indie writers aren't making much. Right now. That does not speak to how much they'll be making in 5 or 10 years, if they keep at it, though.

I dunno. I'm still a relative newbie (just been writing for 2 years, and pub'ing for 1.5). I'm not expecting much yet. From my perspective, DWS' posts and insight are very encouraging. And his Character Voice and Setting Workshop, which I attended last year, kicked ass and taught me a lot. But the main thing I've learned since starting this writing gig and talking to professional writers is to give up the fantasy of the overnight success. Because the more I look into even the big indie "overnight" successes, the more I find a number of years slaving away earning very little until, for some reason the author cannot explain, some title of theirs takes off.

So I guess I'll say I'll agree to disagree with you, at least in part. For sure I agree with your statement to take all advice with a grain of salt while comparing it with your own experience and insight. But I'm not sure DWS' thesis is as toxic as you seem to believe.

But hey, honest individuals can disagree, even on the most heated of subjects, so it's all good.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> He doesn't go on to say how much of that market share is indie, but I assume it's a minority of that 35%. So it would be more like 17% of the market. But again, given distribution constraints... not worth it for me, at all.


I bet it's less than 17%, given how much of the paper market moves through Costco, Walmart, Target, drug stores, supermarkets, etc. Which is why I have trouble understanding how indie bookstores are increasing in number.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Which is why I have trouble understanding how indie bookstores are increasing in number."


We hear about the number of bookstores, but not the shelf space. I'd love to see data on total feet of bookshelf space by year. And while I'm wishing, I'd like it broken down by B&N, independents, Walmart, etc. And maybe sales per bookstore shelf foot for the last ten years?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

jnfr said:


> When I read either Kris or Dean I am always aware that they are coming from a background deeply entrenched in the ways of traditional publishing. I think that affects how they approach indie publishing as well. Not that it's bad or wrong, just that it informs their point of view in many ways.


This. I think the advice they hit dead on is: keep writing, get better at your craft, learn the publishing side of things, and build a fan base. I love reading their blogs. However, I do think their advice is very colored by their past experience in traditional and they still haven't grasped how quickly indies can start receiving decent paychecks right away if their writing is good, and they market a little.

The advice where they're wrong? Lots of stuff.


How about building a brand, and doing some marketing. They advocate no marketing. No wonder titles only sell one or two a month. If I hadn't done any marketing, I wouldn't have gotten my books optioned, I wouldn't have become the recommended alternative to Twilight in an article written about the ALA's most banned book list, etc.

They hate Select. How many writers here have made a decent living off of the extra visibility Select provides? They can't see that if it tanks, those authors can sell in other venues at the drop of a hat.

 While they give away free fiction on their blogs, I don't think they see the value of how giving away a novel across all channels can lead to more sales, quickly.

 They are not open to the realties fairly new indies are having. Instead, they write off anyone who doesn't have twenty+ full length books out as if these authors' experiences with the market now are less valid than theirs. It reminds me of how IBM and some of the big computer companies would write off all these new tech geniuses who went out and did things their way and became successful anyway.

Their opinions are working for them, but newbies may get discouraged thinking they have to work as hard or long as Dean and Kris did, when in reality-they don't have to. If newbies write well, they can start publishing, do some minor marketing, and have sales start rolling in, right away. Shoot, we have several right here on Kindleboards who are doing just that.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I think his covers look pretty good by and large, although he "claims" to be redoing covers.
> 
> At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if this is working for him or not, it is still sound business practice based upon the history of business and comparative analysis with other industries.


Here's why I disagree that his business model works. His publisher-style mass production with minimal investment doesn't fit with any success I've seen. The writers enjoying success here in the WC are not following his method. Some may be writing fast, but they're not fast writing. All of their books are planned-they often write series-and they put out polished products with good covers and there's always branding involved. All of them do some marketing, whether through freebies, blogs, ads or other forms of promotion. Even those who claim to be following his method aren't especially religious about it. In fact, it's hard to tell how they differ from anyone else not following his method.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> That was long, sorry.


It was also quite well done.



genevieveaclark said:


> I think you have to read many of them, then try to gently refute the most obvious errors in the comments only to be met with dismissive handwaving, and then watch other people who are far more qualified to talk about self-pubbed ebook sales than DWS or KKR get the same bizarro treatment, over and over again, to get the full effect.


I've read everything DWS has written on his blog for two years running now, and I have extracted a great deal of useful information. As C.C. Kelly describes so well in his/her post above, if you examine Dean's principles holistically, what he says makes a reasonable amount of sense.

That said, I don't follow Dean's business model, because I could not produce the volume of work my calculations say would be required and be happy with what I was doing. But other authors like Tattooed Writer swear by DWS system. They have posted their sales figures on KB, and you can take them or you can leave them.

I don't follow Phoenix's or Ed's principles, either. I cannot fathom running my business their way. But both seem pretty darn happy, so I certainly can't claim that they're somehow doing it wrong.

There is only one author on these boards who's word I take as absolute gospel. That's because she's executing my business plan far better than I am. But even between the two of us, you can observe a significant amount of disagreement. I cannot stomach Select, while she is having great success with it.

What we all have to remember is that in any single marketplace, there are a myriad of smaller niches that have distinctive characteristics. Not all of them can be approached with the same set of marketing methods. Not all of them can sustain the career that you want. But you still have to pick one--or the market will pick one for you. Thus, you cannot just go wander off and look for any old guidance. You have to decide what kind of career you want, first. You have to define your niche.

Only then can determine what is acceptable. Only then can define your goals.

So put down your dreams on paper--and put down your nightmares right next to the them. Set high and low end thresholds. Create an escape plan and define what will trigger it. Try to anticipate future rainy days, but also try not to fret too much about the Impending Cowpocolyse. And last, but most importantly, try to envision what long-term success will be for you.

Do you have to be the next Michael Crichton?

Is it Hollywood blockbuster or bust?

Or would you be more than happy to be a nameless commercial failure that kept a certain eight-year-old reading eyes wide open until dawn?

Once you know these things you will come to realize that nobody but you has the right answers. You'll look at all the advice on the internet and see it through a healthy prism.

B.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I read a lot about the idea of people making a living writing fiction. That would be nice, but consumers don't care if an author writes full time or part time. They don't care if an author makes a living writing. The market could do just fine if there were no full time writers. I wish the best to those who aspire to it, but it's not a standard that's necessary for a healthy market.


With all sincerity, Terrence, so?


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

I like to think of the DWS method as the worst case scenario as long as you're putting new product out regularly.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Here's why I disagree that his business model works. His publisher-style mass production with minimal investment doesn't fit with any success I've seen. The writers enjoying success here in the WC are not following his method. Some may be writing fast, but they're not fast writing. All of their books are planned-they often write series-and they put out polished products with good covers and there's always branding involved. All of them do some marketing, whether through freebies, blogs, ads or other forms of promotion. Even those who claim to be following his method aren't especially religious about it. In fact, it's hard to tell how they differ from anyone else not following his method.


Where does DWS or KKR say not to put out a series? Where do they say not to plan your novels? In fact, they do put out series and if you think her writing--her product--isn't polished, I very much beg to differ. So do quite a number of awards. And as far as branding, she has a very good brand--a couple of them.

I have no problem with arguing with them. I've done it often enough and disagree at least in part with that particular post, but how about you argue with what they say instead of what you make up?


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> They don't say don't promote at all, just sparingly as not to limit writing new books. And I thought I read him discussing branding before, but I could be mistaken. (Each pen name is a new brand and product line.)
> 
> Select limits distribution, therefore it conflicts with proven retailing strategies (most non-boutique industries).
> 
> ...


Awww, thank you. Where's the favorite button?

I'm fairly sure both Kris and Dean have said not to waste any time marketing. 
They have so many brand names, and I truly don't believe that is necessary now for most writers, unless they want to write erotica, too. It's hard enough marketing just one brand.

Several writers have done better just going with Select, like Debra Geary. It is a valid way to make a living. 
Offering the first in my series free is not a gimmick (it is a free book). Right now, one out of every nine downloaders goes on to purchase Book 2, and a 100% of those who purchase book 2 go on to get book 3. It's a valid business strategy. My only complaint is: I can't get Amazon to set the book free in all the foreign stores, only in the US. I'm not sure if Apple is offering it free everywhere either.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

C.C. Kelly said:


> $90k isn't life changing, that's a job. A good job, but still a job.


Kinda depends on where you were before you started making $90K, doesn't it? I could use $90K to change my life. 

Betsy


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "With all sincerity, Terrence, so?"


I often see the full time writer status offered as a standard by which various business tactics are accepted or rejected. If we drop that standard, then those tactics may deserve serious consideration. The part-time writer might want to reject the full-time standard when considering tactics.

Someone who wants to be a full-time writer might consider that rejecting some tactic gives a competitive advantage to the part-timer.


----------



## 41413 (Apr 4, 2011)

Deanna Chase said:


> I like to think of the DWS method as the worst case scenario as long as you're putting new product out regularly.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I tend to think of the DWS method as an excuse for people who don't like marketing--selling their stuff--as an excuse to point to for why they don't have to do any marketing.

Sure, you can get lucky, but your chances are bigger if you try some stuff. To that extent, Select is just one marketing tool that you can use. It may not work for you, but hey, why not try it?

What gets me a bit about his posts is the assumption of continuously increasing sales. This is BS. Sales go up and down like a yoyo. There are writers (on this board) who used to sell really well last year and are scraping the bottom of the barrel this year, despite having more books out.

I dislike his advice that increasing sales are a given. They are not.

You are exposed to the raw vagaries of the market, and the only thing certain about the market is that there is nothing certain about the market.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

I read the post the day it came out and actually formulated my 2013 plan using it as a source of ideas.

1 flash piece every 4 weeks (free on my site)
1 short per 2 weeks enrolled in select (except every 4th does not use free days ever)
1 bundle every 4 shorts plus one flash bonus piece and the other flash piece, making 4 shorts and 2 flash. (maybe or maybe not enrolled in select, no free days)
1 collection every 6 months with the 6 flash and 12 shorts, plus 2 bonus shorts (not enrolled in select, published across the net and in paperback)
1 novel every 6 months (not enrolled in select, published across the net and in paperback)

That's 34 products, and 42 discrete stories in 2013.

So far I'm a bit behind schedule (writing-wise) because of all the initial work involved in getting the plan running. But I am on track for publishing. (1 website flash and 1 short. Next short comes out on the 25th. It's about 40% written.)

My takeaway, if you didn't notice, is to make a LOT of content available. (He's not talking about having 20 novels out. He's saying get a lot of different things out.) I will do this with shorts, and "double dipping"--while offering bonus materials in bundles and collections which are priced attractively. I will also give readers two novels, since for some readers an actual novel is needed to entice, and for others they will only read novels.

I am also doing this all in one coherent series. As in, every single story is relevant to the others. I believe this is a stronger value proposition to those who pick up on the stories. Because they're not sitting waiting a year for me to write another piece of fiction that has to do with the story they liked. Yes, it narrows my pool to those who like what I am writing (which is at least cross genre) but it means I satisfy those people's desire to have a regular fix.

They are, after all, never more than two weeks away from a new story.

As far as pricing? $0.99-$1.99 shorts, $2.99-$3.99 bundles, $3.99-$7.99 novels and collections depending on how it goes. I can play with things as I need.

Do I like all of the advice DWS throws out? No. But I'm not dumb enough to ignore the advice that I think will work for my business just because he puts some out that probably won't. (I'm not going to write with a dozen different pen names. That's not a piece of his recurrent advice I'm choosing to follow.)

He is right about enough things that you really can make a plan that works for you based on some of his advice. The key is ignoring what's not aimed at you, either because your situation is unusual, or because you're not capable of writing in a specific way. (Some people cannot bring themselves to write a specific format of fiction. They just can't. In that case, suggesting getting a huge number of individual stories out might not work, or the advice to try and get novels out to entice those readers who only read that format might not be right.)

Anyway, that's my two cents. If/when I have time I may say something about how the plan is shaking out. If nothing else it's ambitious.  (Or insane.)


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I seem to recall him talking at length about *quality writing, professional covers, compelling blurbs and professional formatting*. So I'm not following on this minimal investment thing. He writes Star Trek fiction, so I don't think he has a problem with the concept of a series. I'm not really defending his "method", like the short fiction thing, just saying that his overall business model as a publisher is both consistent in his posts and a valid perspective.





JRTomlin said:


> Where does DWS or KKR say *not to put out a series*? Where do they say not to plan your novels? In fact, they do put out series and if you think her writing--her product--*isn't polished*, I very much beg to differ. So do quite a number of awards. And as far as *branding*, she has a very good brand--a couple of them.
> 
> I have no problem with arguing with them. I've done it often enough and disagree at least in part with that particular post, but how about you argue with what they say instead of what you make up?


Here's a real prediction and strategy: "The value of commodities will rise over the next 18 months, so buy commodities." Here's useless mush: "Buy low and sell high." That's not a strategy because it's just a fact about how people make money in the stock market. When I read and talk about DWS I pick out the real strategies and I discount the qualifiers and platitudes. I give him credit for saying something of substance, even if I think there's no evidence for it.

You think it's fairer and more accurate to throw all those qualifiers back in-and at me. But you're not really defending him; you're turning what he says into mush of the "buy low and sell high" variety. For example, I characterize him as saying write fast, don't revise, get it out the door; and I juxtapose this with careful planning. You respond with "He doesn't say not to plan!" Well, you can't prioritize careful planning and getting it done and out the door. The same goes for what he says about covers, branding, and marketing, etc. These are all tradeoffs and it's clear to me where he stands. You can't really defend him on this by saying he embraces both sides of these tradeoffs because, again, that's mush.

The only thing really relevant is his strategy. We should be sticking to that instead of helping him save face.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Here's a real prediction and strategy: "The value of commodities will rise over the next 18 months, so buy commodities." Here's useless mush: "Buy low and sell high." That not a strategy because it's just a fact about how people make money in the stock market. When I read and talk about DWS I pick out the real strategies and I discount the qualifiers and platitudes. I give him credit for saying something of substance, even if I think there's no evidence for it.
> 
> You think it's fairer and more accurate to throw all those qualifiers back in-and at me. But you're not really defending him; you're turning what he says into mush of the "buy low and sell high" variety. For example, I characterize him as saying write fast, don't revise, get it out the door; and I juxtapose this with careful planning. You respond with "He doesn't say not to plan!" Well, you can't prioritize careful planning and getting it done and out the door. The same goes for what he says about covers, branding, and marketing, etc. These are all tradeoffs and it's clear to me where he falls. You can't really defend him on this by saying he embraces both because, again, that's mush.
> 
> The only thing really relevant is his strategy. We should be sticking to that instead of helping him save face.


Writing fast has nothing to do with whether or not you plan your writing. Writing fast has to do with how many words of polished work you can finish per day or per week, not how much time you spend planning, which is not part of the writing process.

That has nothing to do with anything such as whether or not "their" work is polished. (The "they" was yours, let me remind you). When you attack someone's work, you need to be prepared to stand behind that. You attacked KKR's work and I will continue to defend it.

That I am somehow "saving their face" has nothing to do with it. I took issue with a couple of your comments. I'm not concerned one way or the other with whether or not it saves their face. However, I very much doubt that DWS and KKR who have been in this industry for decades care one way or the other.

As far as not revising, he was hardly the first to say it and I happen to agree with him--or rather I agree with Robert Heinlein who said it first.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Every time I read something like that, I get depressed. I don't even have one out yet, and once I get this one out, it's gonna be 3 or 4 years before the next one comes out, because it just doesn't happen that fast for me. Finding the optimal visual, the optimal cadence, name, symbolism, etc..takes me time. I doubt I'll finish 10 by the time I'm dead.


Don't worry. You can always be an outlier; write one smashingingly successful book, retire on the proceeds, and move to a cottage on the beach to write the second--at your leisure.

Everybody walks a different path.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> As far as not revising, he was hardly the first to say it and I happen to agree with him--or rather I agree with Robert Heinlein who said it first.


I actually wrote a blog post about that rule (actually, all five of them) not too long ago when DWS brought them up.

They are to some extent out-dated. DWS has actually walked back a little since he (and then I) posted, noting that for self-publishing "keeping it on the market" just means not taking it down once you publish it.

But as to revisions, this is how I do it, and how I stand by doing it for myself:

I write. 
I go back and I revise ONCE, removing bad writing, and clarifying my prose.
I solicit feedback from my betas.
I incorporate what I find useful from that feedback.
I spell check.
I lay out.
I spell check.
I publish.

Now, for people who are not as clean in the first place, or who are learning, I think that more than one revision can be a good thing. When you work on changes to your own writing you learn things. These things can make it so you need to revise less in the future. They can also make it so that you understand who you are as a writer more.

The rest of my process I don't believe counts as revision. Certainly Heinlein already gives a pass to editorial (beta in this case) revision. Spell checking is hardly revision.

So what we're dithering over in my case is, does Heinlein believe that a single pass for elimination of cliches, repetitive wording, etc. is wrong? Did his editor catch all of that for him, and was it thus included in his caveat?

Times change. I think we need to do what it takes to be good writers. For some of that it means writing and never touching the piece again. For most of us, however, it means going back (at least, depending on skill) once to fix any glaring issues.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> I agree with this. However, many of Dean's covers are not that great.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Note that you've taken something he published in 2009 as your example. He was doing things differently then and he's changed his advice, admitting that many of the covers from that time period were not good enough, and that he was not diligent enough about typos. (He has hired a cover artist and proofreader since.)

He's also following his own "don't look back" advice by not touching it.

I don't agree with all of his advice, and I still am not all that fond of many of his covers, but they're primarily on short fiction where I fully understand the needs to keep the budget low even if that means skimping on cover imagery.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Patty Jansen said:


> I tend to think of the DWS method as an excuse for people who don't like marketing--selling their stuff--as an excuse to point to for why they don't have to do any marketing.


I'm willing to admit this describes me. I don't like marketing. I'm not going to do it. (Yes, I have a website and blog and post in KB and some other forums, and that's minor marketing, but tweeting, ads, soliciting reviews, uh uh.)

While I'm not going to price as high as DWS recommends, I've never done free or $.99 (except for a short story) and am one of those who thinks the flood of freebies is hurting everyone.

So I was already doing some of what DWS recommends before I discovered him, but what he did was give me confidence I wasn't alone in outer left field.

He also made me realize I waste too much time tweaking old words instead of writing new ones.

He also posted in a comment to his current blog post recently: "But the key to all this is one thing. Ignore all the stuff that doesn't apply to you as a writer. No writer know it all, and thus a ton of information won't fit you. Ignore it, find the bits you can use, lap that up, and move on."

The fact is discussing all this is fun, but in the end, we're each going to do what we think is right in our individual case -- and if it turns out wrong maybe do something else. Those who are convinced DWS isn't trying to help other writers but only to line his own pockets can ignore him. Those of us who believe otherwise can read his blog regularly. Fortunately there are no Writer Police. Yet.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Not wanting to do marketing, marketing not being your style or not fitting you is a valid argument. I'm cool with that.

But he is never going to convince me that his titles wouldn't have done better with a bit of judicious marketing.

I also don't buy his "don't touch" advice. I think if someone visits my Amazon page and sees a whole bunch of clearly outdated covers that are not good enough by today's standards, that would affect readers' opinion of me negatively.

I think that once you put books out there, you need to keep loving them and maintaining them. Fix errors you happen to find, update your bio, blurb and cover.

Love your books, because at times you feel that no one else does.


----------



## Midnight Writer (Jan 4, 2011)

*deleted*


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

There are different ways of approaching a writing career. These boards got quite unpleasant when Select first launched, because posters who decided to jump in or stay out wanted to defend their decisions. Nobody knew at the time what the right decision was - and people were getting quite nasty when it came to justifying (to themselves) the decision they had made. Mostly, from my perspective (and I wasn't published at the time), the people who joined Select were shouting down the ones who hadn't.

Everybody has to look at what is best for them. What fits the way they write and the way they want to run a business. Just because somebody does things differently - it doesn't mean that they are automatically wrong.

I'm seeing posts on here that are willfully misinterpreting stuff that Dean said in that blog post and in others. Translating "Don't go exclusive" into somehow hating Amazon. I've seen several requests from him on blog posts for commenters NOT to go off on anti-Amazon rants, because that's not the topic of the discussion. People are also taking "The new normal" out of context and ignoring the previous line "Stop thinking of this as a gold rush" - which puts it into context. He's not saying that the market is now stable, he's saying that the gold rush days are over.

I've seen him address the criticism of older titles with weaker covers - they have hundreds (literally) of titles each. Plus they are constantly putting out new stories. It is not worth their time financially to go back and fix the cover or pricing on old short stories when they could be writing new material. Also, why would they spend the time promoting titles that they could spend producing others? There's no way they could dedicate time to promoting each title. So - their approach makes sense for them.

Does it make sense for an author with literary aspirations? One who spends four years writing each book and is aiming for critical acclaim? Probably not. But then - that type of writer will swiftly recognise the disconnect between their way of writing and Dean's way of writing. It's common sense to look for people who are successful writing in a similar way to you, or a similar genre, and learn from them. If you passionately believe about publicity for every title - why would you be trying to learn from someone who passionately _doesn't_?

There are authors on here who are successful using a similar approach to Dean. I've seen them occasionally speak up about what they're doing - and I've seen them get criticised and attacked in the same way that posters are having a go at Dean in this thread. Not everybody does the same thing - but there is definitely a majority way of doing things, one that attracts less criticism from other posters and makes it easier for the writers in question to make posts about what they are doing without getting a boatload of negative responses from others. In reality though, there are a whole variety of valid approaches that you can take to a writing career. Just because somebody takes a different approach, it doesn't make them wrong or dangerous.

I'd also suggest that anyone who follows ANYBODY'S advice blindly is doomed to failure anyway! I don't follow all of Dean's advice, but you can bet that I listen to it and decide what fits in with how I want to do business. I'm not going to discount 35 years of writing experience just because of the areas where I disagree with him. His way of speaking is very emphatic - but I've just finished my second course with him and he repeated "Do it _your_ way." several times as part of his advice. He told us what he'd recommend, he gave us some alternatives, but he stressed that we needed to figure out what worked _for us_.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I really don't know since when disagreeing with someone's methods translated into "attacking" them. Really don't. I've been to a workshop held by KKR and I have a lot of respect for what they're doing. However, there are things I don't agree with, and yes, I do happen to think that Dean is a bit careles with the quality of his output. If that works for him, fine, but does that mean I can't say anything about it?


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

Patty Jansen said:


> I really don't know since when disagreeing with someone's methods translated into "attacking" them. Really don't. I've been to a workshop held by KKR and I have a lot of respect for what they're doing. However, there are things I don't agree with, and yes, I do happen to think that Dean is a bit careles with the quality of his output. If that works for him, fine, but does that mean I can't say anything about it?


I wasn't referring to you. 

There's disagreeing and there's attacking. I've had at least one poster in this thread shout me down in the past for questioning the wisdom of putting all books up on free promotions. (And, for what it's worth, I wasn't saying that they were wrong - I was just saying that it didn't make sense to me - so they shouted me down and told me *I* was wrong.)


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

J. Tanner said:


> Note that you've taken something he published in 2009 as your example. He was doing things differently then and he's changed his advice, admitting that many of the covers from that time period were not good enough, and that he was not diligent enough about typos. (He has hired a cover artist and proofreader since.)
> 
> He's also following his own "don't look back" advice by not touching it.
> 
> I don't agree with all of his advice, and I still am not all that fond of many of his covers, but they're primarily on short fiction where I fully understand the needs to keep the budget low even if that means skimping on cover imagery.


Exactly. How useful is his advice not to look back? This story is actually pretty good and was nominated for a Nebula. It's ranking is in the 400,000s. Most of my stuff is novels, but I do have two novellas, one of which is ranked in the 20,000s and the other in the 40,000s. Not super impressive, but they're selling something. Are they as good as Dean's Nebula-nominated story? Well, I'm proud of them, but they haven't won anything or been nominated for anything.

So it's not a stretch to say that with a better cover and a better blurb, Dean could sell at least as many copies of Slowboat Man as I am selling of Blood of Vipers and Trial by Fury. So how on Jeff Bezos's green earth is it helping Dean not to go back and do a little touch up work?


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Zelah Meyer said:


> There's disagreeing and there's attacking. I've had at least one poster in this thread shout me down in the past for questioning the wisdom of putting all books up on free promotions. (And, for what it's worth, I wasn't saying that they were wrong - I was just saying that it didn't make sense to me - so they shouted me down and told me *I* was wrong.)


I don't see attacking, I see a passionate debate. That's healthy, I believe. And given how much writing means to most of us, important as well. It's worth suffering a few intemperate remarks.

And for what it's worth, I think Dean (and even more so Kris) have a lot of value to add to the debate. They have some great perspective on craft, the traditional marketplace, editors, agents, etc. However, I find their advice on the indie market has some flaws.

I once attended a workshop from a pro novelist (not Dean or KKR, although I have also attended their workshop), that was about how to write the bestselling novel. It turned out that the only bestselling novel this person had written was a big media tie-in. However, there was talk that the writer's next book was about to break out in a big way. It did not. So I was getting advice about how to write a bestseller from someone who had not successfully written a bestseller.

Similarly, if I want to know how to become a successful indie writer, would I be better off looking at Debora Geary's method or Dean Wesley Smith's method? How many books is each writer selling? How many copies per title?


----------



## Christian Price (Aug 3, 2012)

I think the overall spirit towards one individual is uncalled for and inflammatory to be honest.  One post referred to DWS as "dangerous".  Zela is right.  I'd like to say if this is the overall attitude of fiction writers... the world of fiction is crossing over into reality.  One mile from my home stands a memorial for a 24 year old police officer that was shot and killed in 2007 trying to back up several officers en route to arrest a man that had just murdered his girlfriend.  The ego's in this forum are truly appalling.  

DWS isn't "dangerous" for giving out "bad advice" it's your /his opinion and we are all entitled to such.  There is no fiduciary relationship between a wanna be writer and some obscure writer on the internet...I learned my lesson when I was 8 years old and bought a pack of sea monkeys in the back of a comic book.  "Buyer beware"

Trail lawyers, Oncologist treating leukemia in a pediatric patient, Trauma surgeons, combat infantry and infantry, firemen crawling across a burning rooftop and police officers have a fiduciary relationship to the public.  If they give bad advice, perform sub par...people get hurt.  I mean hurt.  Not a writer that follows DWS and after several years sees no "fruit"... Is the world a better place because of the books you publish?  The world doesn't care because its entertainment.  

I have two threads book marked where writers here politely shared the results of their DWS methods and seemed to enjoy solid results. I saw a smashwords thread and there were post calling Mark names.  I was pleasantly surprised when he took time out of his day to respond to the thread...the post were uncalled for and they turn personal.  Honestly if you think DWS is dangerous you should take a step back and look at the world  and the reality of 2013.  People are really hurting...if a guy can make a couple of bucks to help feed his kids after following DWS methods while he is unemployed...than DWS actually did a good thing and contributed in a positive way.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Christian Price said:


> I think the overall spirit towards one individual is uncalled for and inflammatory to be honest. One post referred to DWS as "dangerous". Zela is right. I'd like to say if this is the overall attitude of fiction writers... the world of fiction is crossing over into reality. One mile from my home stands a memorial for a 24 year old police officer that was shot and killed in 2007 trying to back up several officers en route to arrest a man that had just murdered his girlfriend. The ego's in this forum are truly appalling.


I'm pretty sure "dangerous" was the poster's way of saying "not necessarily healthy for one's career," not "let's go out and shoot cops."


----------



## Christian Price (Aug 3, 2012)

MichaelWallace said:


> I'm pretty sure "dangerous" was the poster's way of saying "not necessarily healthy for one's career," not "let's go out and shoot cops."


No. I didn't say that.

The discussion became personal when someone said another writer was dangerous. No one said anything, I thought I would. I wanted to point out that most people here write make believe worlds with make believe people...entertainment. DWS isn't capable of actually harming anyone. There is a difference between the reality of what real world advice and responsibility gone awry does and what another person that draws a living making up fictional worlds and characters. The issue is on the first page the discussion went inflammatory when another writer said another was dangerous. That was unnecessary and I wanted to simply say, it was out of line. But, it isn't just this thread...I have been an outsider and obviously need to go back to being one...but I can remember discussions a year ago and beyond that many times turn into this. For a group of people that are paid to money to share ideas, I am dismayed that the discussions turn so hostile...


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

It's reasonable to say that a discussion is turning to hyperbole, although I disagree a bit with your assessment. Going back to read that earlier post, it seemed clear that the poster thought the advice was dangerous from a career standpoint, and not physically dangerous, or purposefully malicious.

Having said that, I admit I was confused by what you wrote about the guy murdering his girlfriend and then killing a cop. I'm still not sure what you meant, to be honest.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Christian Price said:


> I think the overall spirit towards one individual is uncalled for and inflammatory to be honest. One post referred to DWS as "dangerous". Zela is right. I'd like to say if this is the overall attitude of fiction writers... the world of fiction is crossing over into reality. One mile from my home stands a memorial for a 24 year old police officer that was shot and killed in 2007 trying to back up several officers en route to arrest a man that had just murdered his girlfriend. The ego's in this forum are truly appalling.


I'm pretty sure the postulate was that his advice can be dangerous to a new writer's career. Not that someone's going to go postal or die.  Complete non sequitur.



> Trail lawyers, Oncologist treating leukemia in a pediatric patient, Trauma surgeons, combat infantry and infantry, firemen crawling across a burning rooftop and police officers have a fiduciary relationship to the public. If they give bad advice, perform sub par...people get hurt. I mean hurt. Not a writer that follows DWS and after several years sees no "fruit"... Is the world a better place because of the books you publish? The world doesn't care because its entertainment.


I don't try to make the world a better place through publishing. I just want to entertain a reader for a few hours. So?

It's as if you think because there are bad things going on that are of more public import, a writer's career doesn't matter? I'll bet it matters to him. People go to jail, die of cancer, die in battle, get shot in the line of duty . . . and because people get hurt due to other people's mistakes, writers should just scoff about their own careers and the advice given, which are of no importance. What?



> I have two threads book marked where writers here politely shared the results of their DWS methods and seemed to enjoy solid results. I saw a smashwords thread and there were post calling Mark names.


If someone actually called him names, I must have stopped reading that read before the insults were hurled. If it's true, it's unfortunate. I don't see what that has to do with this, however. I also find myself irritated that almost anytime a debate gets really interesting, several people decide it's a hostile conversation. People disagreeing with one another, even heatedly, is not necessarily people attacking one another. Disagreements and in-depth discussion about them, criticisms, those are not hostility.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

C.C. Kelly said:


> I seem to recall him talking at length about quality writing, professional covers, compelling blurbs and professional formatting. So I'm not following on this minimal investment thing. He writes Star Trek fiction, so I don't think he has a problem with the concept of a series. I'm not really defending his "method", like the short fiction thing, just saying that his overall business model as a publisher is both consistent in his posts and a valid perspective.


Okay, so his advice is not to re-write too much so you get as much product out there as possible, but make the writing quality.(Uh, okay, thanks) Don't go overboard thinking up ways to market, package and promote the product, but make sure your covers are professional and that your blurbs and formatting are good, and write the next thing. Well, *no duh*. So what's so "unique" about his "business model"? Not going exclusive? Higher prices? What am I missing here?


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Becca Mills said:


> I like his summation of the year's news. I had no idea Kobo and Apple were in 50 countries, now. And four straight years of growth in indie bookstores? That really surprises me. Can it possibly last?


Same here - love the news on Indie bookstores!

His posts are always educational. Mind expanding - because he brings up things I never would have thought about on my own.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

MichaelWallace said:


> Exactly. How useful is his advice not to look back? This story is actually pretty good and was nominated for a Nebula. It's ranking is in the 400,000s. Most of my stuff is novels, but I do have two novellas, one of which is ranked in the 20,000s and the other in the 40,000s. Not super impressive, but they're selling something. Are they as good as Dean's Nebula-nominated story? Well, I'm proud of them, but they haven't won anything or been nominated for anything.
> 
> So it's not a stretch to say that with a better cover and a better blurb, Dean could sell at least as many copies of Slowboat Man as I am selling of Blood of Vipers and Trial by Fury. So how on Jeff Bezos's green earth is it helping Dean not to go back and do a little touch up work?


We all want/value different things.

Dean very obviously values the volume of his oeuvre. The easiest way to get that volume is for him to use his BIC time to produce new works.

You may (and likely do) value quality.

I personally think you can have quantity and quality as an author, but you have to be willing to strike a middle ground. You may have a few more typos than others if you dedicate less time to quality. But you may get out a few more stories. Neither the former nor the latter should make or break a career. It's when you go to extremes that you have issues.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

jljarvis said:


> Really! But it takes longer to write historical fiction (at least that's my excuse). Every time I have to stop and spend time looking up things like how often, to whom, and how rent was paid in the late 17th century Scottish Highlands, I lower my word count for the day.
> 
> Even so, it's much easier to blame Dalya.


My hat is off to anyone who can write historical fiction. I grew up reading it, but there is no way I could write it. I would just be way too unsure of myself. As it is, I have to do research on recent history and even then, I wonder if I got it right. If you want to say it takes longer to write historical fiction, I, for one, believe it!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

One way of looking at a business strategy:

A mission is a single, comprehensive, desired state.

An objective is subsidiary to the mission and describes a specific, ongoing state.

A goal is a defined and measurable achievement done by a specified date.

A strategy is a plan to achieve an objective. Unless the objective is clearly stated, there is no strategy. Strategies are a function of the objective. A business can have multiple objectives, and multiple strategies to meet them. However, those strategies have to be congruent with each other.

Tactics are implemented to achieve goals.

Discussion of strategies and tactics means little unless one defines the mission, objectives, and goals they support.

If authors wrote down their mission, objectives, and goals, we would probably see lots of variety. If they wrote down the strategies and tactics supporting the mission, objectives, and goals, one could evaluate them in those terms.

Discussion of strategy or tactics without stated mission, objectives, and goals is meaningless.

Nobody has standing to define someone else's mission, objectives, and goals.

I applaud anyone who succeeds by doing things I consider icky. I'd rather have you prove me wrong than persist in my own error.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Exactly. How useful is his advice not to look back? This story is actually pretty good and was nominated for a Nebula. It's ranking is in the 400,000s. Most of my stuff is novels, but I do have two novellas, one of which is ranked in the 20,000s and the other in the 40,000s. Not super impressive, but they're selling something. Are they as good as Dean's Nebula-nominated story? Well, I'm proud of them, but they haven't won anything or been nominated for anything.
> 
> So it's not a stretch to say that with a better cover and a better blurb, Dean could sell at least as many copies of Slowboat Man as I am selling of Blood of Vipers and Trial by Fury. So how on Jeff Bezos's green earth is it helping Dean not to go back and do a little touch up work?


Seems like moving the goalposts of your initial criticism... 

I'm not sure an 11 page short is ever going to pull in great numbers even at 99 cents no matter how great the cover is. FWIW, he's sort of doing what you mention while still "moving forward". That cover artist and proofreader I mentioned he hired are going back and fixing up his older stuff as time permits. It's just they've got a LOT of stuff up. (I admit it's entirely possible they like this cover and have chosen to leave it as is.) He's still personally moving forward with writing (or so he says--I'm not seeing him making obvious progress on his public "challenge".)

Anyway, I think his basic advice is still valuable while quibbling with the details and tendancy toward absolutes. There's no one true path, but I think his chosen path is viable.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> I don't see attacking, I see a passionate debate. That's healthy, I believe. And given how much writing means to most of us, important as well. It's worth suffering a few intemperate remarks.
> 
> And for what it's worth, I think Dean (and even more so Kris) have a lot of value to add to the debate. They have some great perspective on craft, the traditional marketplace, editors, agents, etc. However, I find their advice on the indie market has some flaws.
> 
> ...


But there are very different definitions of success. Dean is NOT talking about how to become a "breakout" best selling indie author but how to eventually sell enough work to make it worth one's time, perhaps even make a living.

Most of us will_ never _ write that breakout novel. I won't. I don't care. So Debra's advice would not be appropriate for me. Dean's _might._

ETA: Well, you know me. I'm likely to listen to neither of them since I'm a bit opinionated. But I see a lot of people posting pretty rudely about DWS and KKR simply (imo) because of who they are and that they are respected rather than arguing what they do or don't say. There is a lot of exaggeration involved. They are not the most dangerous thing for new authors since frag grenades. They are not totally wrong by a long shot.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

jljarvis said:


> Really! But it takes longer to write historical fiction (at least that's my excuse). Every time I have to stop and spend time looking up things like how often, to whom, and how rent was paid in the late 17th century Scottish Highlands, I lower my word count for the day.
> 
> Even so, it's much easier to blame Dalya.


Oh, it does take longer. I'll testify to that.

I also blame Dalya. That works.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Exactly. How useful is his advice not to look back? This story is actually pretty good and was nominated for a Nebula. It's ranking is in the 400,000s. Most of my stuff is novels, but I do have two novellas, one of which is ranked in the 20,000s and the other in the 40,000s. Not super impressive, but they're selling something. Are they as good as Dean's Nebula-nominated story? Well, I'm proud of them, but they haven't won anything or been nominated for anything.
> 
> So it's not a stretch to say that with a better cover and a better blurb, Dean could sell at least as many copies of Slowboat Man as I am selling of Blood of Vipers and Trial by Fury. So how on Jeff Bezos's green earth is it helping Dean not to go back and do a little touch up work?


I don't know. That would be a reasonable question to ask Dean if you really want an answer.

(I happen not to agree with him on that but then again I don't have his hundreds of stories out)


----------



## Soothesayer (Oct 19, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> Okay, so his advice is not to re-write too much so you get as much product out there as possible, but make the writing quality.


That is not what he was saying. He was saying don't rewrite because it removes your "voice" from the writing when you rewrite. If you absolutely have to, redraft it from memory. Resist the urge to start sticking in sentences and removing them from already written paragraphs and chapters, otherwise you'll have something that is voiceless and dull.

This also stems from his belief that your writing will be the same on days when you feel like crap, versus days you feel on top of the world. The writing quality will still be there and fans won't know the difference. That's what he was trying to say.

Rewriting = writing from the critical side of your brain (English teacher) vs. the other half (creative).

I have found this to be true in 95% of my own trials with writing. Often, I see people here taking a year to write two, maybe three books. Why?? It shouldn't take that long to write 50-70k words. Are they rewriting it to death?

He doesn't say it is impossible to rewrite effectively, but only that you have to be a damn good writer to do it without removing your natural voice from it (i.e. Koontz, Barker, King). I recall King saying in On Writing that after he let his work rest for awhile, he came back to it and saw that it had an "archaic and odd foreign feeling", and was tempted to tweak and rewrite it. He said "you must resist the urge to do this at all costs".

If its good enough for Stephen King and DWS, it will be good enough for me as well.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Soothesayer said:


> That is not what he was saying. He was saying don't rewrite because it removes your "voice" from the writing when you rewrite. If you absolutely have to, redraft it from memory. Resist the urge to start sticking in sentences and removing them from already written paragraphs and chapters, otherwise you'll have something that is voiceless and dull.
> 
> This also stems from his belief that your writing will be the same on days when you feel like crap, versus days you feel on top of the world. The writing quality will still be there and fans won't know the difference. That's what he was trying to say.
> 
> ...


It was also good enough for Heinlein who probably expressed the idea in an essay on writing first.

My experience is that they are right. We tell the story basically right the first time we do it. I do "edit" for a tendency to go over the top with adjectives which I have acquired after an overdose of GRR Martin. And we all have to proofread for outright errors. But if we are writers then what we write is probably what we meant the first time. I have seen so many writers spend YEARS tweaking and re-tweaking the same novel. I have no doubt whatsoever that Dean and Kris have as well. If editing WOULD improve it--how many of us are editors? The writer is generally the LAST person to know what would improve a story. But they still keep tweaking. Or even worse workshopping it to death. And taking their own voice right out of the novel.

Do NOT do this. Finish it. Go on to the next thing. (My opinion and that of Heinlein and DWS. Yours may differ and that's fine too)


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

It's struck me as slightly ironic that here we have a thread criticising Dean for having a strategy other than the KDP Select/Promote/Boost yourself up the lists one - and we also have a thread today about the danger of bigger name writers taking over the best seller lists by splitting their work into parts.  Now, I doubt that Amazon would let anybody monopolise their best seller lists for too long - it's not good business.  However, it does serve to illustrate the risks of taking an approach that is centered around trying to get a particular book or group of books as high up the rankings as possible, the rankings of only one store.

If techniques for jumping up in the lists for visibility suddenly fail or are taken away - a strategy that looks at higher revenue per book and gradual sales on a variety of outlets can start to look a lot better.  That's why I don't let myself forget that Dean and Kris have weathered a number of industry changes over the years.


----------



## RuthNestvold (Jan 4, 2012)

jljarvis said:


> Really! But it takes longer to write historical fiction (at least that's my excuse). Every time I have to stop and spend time looking up things like how often, to whom, and how rent was paid in the late 17th century Scottish Highlands, I lower my word count for the day.


I'll latch on to that excuse! I call my Arthurian novels historical fantasy, but I did at least as much research for them as actual writing.



> Even so, it's much easier to blame Dalya.


That works too. *g*

And I'll leave the picture in, just 'cause it's so cool.



>


And for my own part, I'm not a big fan of the Kris and Dean method, because no matter how I try, I can't seem to become a fast writer. Thus, it will not work for me. As a result, I have to spend more time promoting and polishing the things I do actually finish.

So very simply, my skills and temperament do not fit with their strategy.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Soothesayer said:


> He doesn't say it is impossible to rewrite effectively, but only that you have to be a d*mn good writer to do it without removing your natural voice from it (i.e. Koontz, Barker, King). I recall King saying in On Writing that after he let his work rest for awhile, he came back to it and saw that it had an "archaic and odd foreign feeling", and was tempted to tweak and rewrite it. He said "you must resist the urge to do this at all costs".
> 
> If its good enough for Stephen King and DWS, it will be good enough for me as well.


This makes the assumption that anyone's voice is just as good as another person's.

This is not the case. Some people are flat out more naturally adept, and write things which are more readable in their first draft.

Others are prone to write the same word five times in two paragraphs, which even to the untrained eye looks stupid.

If a writer's prose is good enough in its natural state to avoid the common pitfalls (poor or excessive pronoun usage, too many indefinite references, regularly repeated words/lack of variety or vocabulary, etc.) then nothing more than a spell check/grammar check might suffice.

But if, like the vast majority of writers, one is not a natural talent (or consummate veteran?) with an innate sense of all of these things, one will simply produce works which have a "voice" that is grating, and not worthy of garnering a readership.

For my money a single rewrite to clean up the ugliest constructions is needed by most. I'm not Stephen King. I'm not Heinlein. I'm not even DWS.

But by being aware of *not* being those people I can accept that I have issues which can, without killing my voice, be sorted out.

So I revise. Once. And the results are worth it.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Soothesayer said:


> Resist the urge to start sticking in sentences and removing them from already written paragraphs and chapters, otherwise you'll have something that is voiceless and dull.


Really. People actually give this advice?

I have to go through three or four drafts just to get something coherent. I go by the 'first drafts are always crap' philosophy. The more I rewrite the better my prose and the stronger my voice. I wouldn't give my first drafts to my dog to eat, never mind publish them.


----------



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

David J Normoyle said:


> Really. People actually give this advice?
> 
> I have to go through three or four drafts just to get something coherent. I go by the 'first drafts are always crap' philosophy. The more I rewrite the better my prose and the stronger my voice. I wouldn't give my first drafts to my dog to eat, never mind publish them.


If often slop through first drafts myself. Sometimes I read them aloud to my wife before I get a chance to revise (as she mostly looks for plot flaws), and they sound embarrassing to my ears--so I tend to try to correct them even as I read to her. I have to have at least one strong revision before I publish, and it's usually more like three or four. The voice actually gets stronger and more vivid from the revisions. Nothing distracts from voice like sloppy, wordy sentences and paragraphs. However, I applaud those who can get away with a first draft.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Ditto. Here's the problem, or at least MY problem with first and second drafts, the first draft is ALWAYS stilted and disjointed because I'm not really sure where I'm going with the thing yet, so I write a sentence, stop, think about what comes next, write three or four, stop, think, etc...And THAT comes out rough, even if there's nothing particularly wrong with any of the individual sentences. The second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth and sixth time through, I'm still adjusting the plot, setting, etc for whatever I've cut out, names I've changes, characters I've eliminated, etc...I HAVE to go through the thing about ten times for it to sound like I want it to sound. I have to be able to read through the thing nonstop and not have some tongue twister in there, or repetitive sentence structure (unless it's on purpose), or anything that doesn't flow as if I was telling the story natural as can be, sitting around a campfire with my buddies. There is no way in HELL I can achieve that with one revision.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

My point exactly. I can get to where *I* need to be after one revision, others cannot. I am sure that some writers CAN manage a great piece of work without more than a spell/grammar check. But this is the issue I have with Heinlein's rules. They only work for those people.

That's a tiny subset of writers. I write relatively cleanly, and I can't manage that. I've seen first drafts from other people, and they're unintelligible. (And un-publishable.)


----------



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

Mathew Reuther said:


> My point exactly. I can get to where *I* need to be after one revision, others cannot. I am sure that some writers CAN manage a great piece of work without more than a spell/grammar check. But this is the issue I have with Heinlein's rules. They only work for those people.
> 
> That's a tiny subset of writers. I write relatively cleanly, and I can't manage that. I've seen first drafts from other people, and they're unintelligible. (And un-publishable.)


Well, my first drafts aren't that bad. My writing is almost always coherent, even after a first draft. But coherent is not nearly good enough. There are extra words and sentences to be cut, passive writing that needs to be enhanced, little touches to add in for the sake of atmosphere or whatever, and so on.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Robert E. Keller said:


> Well, my first drafts aren't that bad. My writing is almost always coherent, even after a first draft. But coherent is not nearly good enough. There are extra words and sentences to be cut, passive writing that needs to be enhanced, little touches to add in for the sake of atmosphere or whatever, and so on.


I often find that the point I'm making and the things I am describing are not clear enough in my first drafts. The language is good, but small pieces which explain to the reader what is going on are missing.

Then there's the repetition/lack of variety in vocabulary. When I get moving in my draft I will sometimes use weak and repetitive descriptors to keep myself moving. Those need to be cut or changed.


----------



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

Mathew Reuther said:


> Then there's the repetition/lack of variety in vocabulary. When I get moving in my draft I will sometimes use weak and repetitive descriptors to keep myself moving. Those need to be cut or changed.


I do that as well. Throw it in, get the chapter written, then go back and fix it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> Really. People actually give this advice?
> 
> I have to go through three or four drafts just to get something coherent. I go by the 'first drafts are always crap' philosophy. The more I rewrite the better my prose and the stronger my voice. I wouldn't give my first drafts to my dog to eat, never mind publish them.


Heinlein gave it and I hear he wrote and sold a few novels.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> Heinlein gave it and I hear he wrote and sold a few novels.


I hear he had actual editors.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I hear he had actual editors.


You don't? Why not?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Only the final product matters, not the number of drafts in the process.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> You don't? Why not?


I don't even really want to dignify that with a response, but I'll bite.

Heinlein's rule has a caveat for "editorial" rewrites. Now, Heinlein sold his fiction to people who then suggested changes to it. He wrote the changes (or didn;t and told them why) and then they published the works.

In our age we have a lot of different methods for getting editorial advice, but as self-pub authors the one thing we do NOT have is what he did.

Ergo, we are trying to follow rules written by a man who had no idea what the future would actually be like.

Curse of all Sci-Fi authors.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I don't even really want to dignify that with a response, but I'll bite.
> 
> Heinlein's rule has a caveat for "editorial" rewrites. Now, Heinlein sold his fiction to people who then suggested changes to it. He wrote the changes (or didn;t and told them why) and then they published the works.
> 
> ...


I hire a "real" editor. I suggest you do the same. His were no more real than ours. The nature of editing is one thing that most certainly has not changed.

ETA: If you actually believe that you can improve your own work by re-writing it innumerable times, that's your choice. I suggest stopping with the insults to people who don't believe that.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

vrabinec said:


> Ditto. Here's the problem, or at least MY problem with first and second drafts, the first draft is ALWAYS stilted and disjointed because I'm not really sure where I'm going with the thing yet, so I write a sentence, stop, think about what comes next, write three or four, stop, think, etc...And THAT comes out rough, even if there's nothing particularly wrong with any of the individual sentences. The second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth and sixth time through, I'm still adjusting the plot, setting, etc for whatever I've cut out, names I've changes, characters I've eliminated, etc...I HAVE to go through the thing about ten times for it to sound like I want it to sound. I have to be able to read through the thing nonstop and not have some tongue twister in there, or repetitive sentence structure (unless it's on purpose), or anything that doesn't flow as if I was telling the story natural as can be, sitting around a campfire with my buddies. There is no way in HELL I can achieve that with one revision.


Depends on how you write, or more exactly when you start writing, I guess.

Before I type the first letter of a scene I already have played it out several times in my head. (Tip: don't visualize racy scenes while cuing in the supermarket. Especially when you're a male.) I've heard every bit of dialogue several times. I've seen the room, the landscape, whatever.

I just put down what I saw and heard.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2013)

My version of a rewrite is usually just to add some more sentences about the thoughts and emotions of characters, of detail, and more moves in fight scenes, and to fix technical errors (he rolled into a "crotch" instead of a crouch...)

My prose is so simple though, you probably couldn't rewrite it to be more understandable unless you turned it into a children's book. They're basically comics in written form, easily followed by anyone over the age of 13.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Depends on how you write, or more exactly when you start writing, I guess.
> 
> Before I type the first letter of a scene I already have played it out several times in my head. (Tip: don't visualize racy scenes while cuing in the supermarket. Especially when you're a male.) I've heard every bit of dialogue several times. I've seen the room, the landscape, whatever.
> 
> I just put down what I saw and heard.


Pretty close to my own writing process, except for the male part.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> I hire a "real" editor. I suggest you do the same. His were no more real than ours.


My point is that a "real" editor isn't what it used to be. Publishing houses had people they vetted, just as they vetted their authors.

I make the assumption that your "real" editor does not actually work at a publishing house?

We're in a different space. That's all I am saying.

As for your "innumerable" edit: I've been exceedingly clear that I rewrite *once* for specific weaknesses I know I have. I don't compromise my voice in doing so. I solidify it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> My point is that a "real" editor isn't what it used to be. Publishing houses had people they vetted, just as they vetted their authors.
> 
> I make the assumption that your "real" editor does not actually work at a publishing house?
> 
> ...


Actually, my REAL editor retired from a very large publishing house. Such editors, laid off from or retired from publishing, are not that hard to find.

ETA: And I made it clear that I don't assume that what works for me (or for Heinlein or DWS) works for everyone. But there are a lot of people it does work for. You were the one who went on the attack by saying that no one could give such advice. In fact, it is advice that has been around for many years. Of course, Heinlein also said no one would take it.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Depends on how you write, or more exactly when you start writing, I guess.
> 
> Before I type the first letter of a scene I already have played it out several times in my head.


I do, too. And I STILL have to re-write. Oh well. Sucks to be me sometimes.



Andrew Ashling said:


> (Tip: don't visualize racy scenes while cuing in the supermarket. Especially when you're a male.)


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2013)

Mathew Reuther said:


> As for your "innumerable" edit: I've been exceedingly clear that I rewrite *once* for specific weaknesses I know I have. I don't compromise my voice in doing so. I solidify it.


And what about the weaknesses that you don't know?

We all know what we meant to say. Few of us have the skill and ability to objectively see what we actually wrote. Beta readers are not editors, not unless you are recruiting your beta readers from a pool of editors, and then paying them to actually edit. Beta readers are great if they are versed in the genre you work so that they can give you general advice on the norms of the field, but beta readers aren't a replacement for a skilled editor who can articulate what is wrong and how to fix it. Beta readers don't read like editors. Editing is WORK. Glorious, difficult, invigorating, frustrating work.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> And what about the weaknesses that you don't know?
> 
> We all know what we meant to say. Few of us have the skill and ability to objectively see what we actually wrote. Beta readers are not editors, not unless you are recruiting your beta readers from a pool of editors, and then paying them to actually edit. Beta readers are great if they are versed in the genre you work so that they can give you general advice on the norms of the field, but beta readers aren't a replacement for a skilled editor who can articulate what is wrong and how to fix it. Beta readers don't read like editors. Editing is WORK. Glorious, difficult, invigorating, frustrating work.


Or you come up with a new weakness or can't identify where you weakness comes up. I know I sometimes have a problem with pacing. That doesn't mean I _see_ where the problem crops up. I must say even real editors don't always either.

When it comes to editing, I am convinced that Heinlein was right that that we should leave it to editors.

Frankly, proofing is as much of a challenge. Finding a good proofreader is harder than finding a good editor.


----------



## Gregory Lynn (Aug 9, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I don't even really want to dignify that with a response, but I'll bite.
> 
> Heinlein's rule has a caveat for "editorial" rewrites. Now, Heinlein sold his fiction to people who then suggested changes to it. He wrote the changes (or didn;t and told them why) and then they published the works.
> 
> ...


If your editor isn't willing to tell you when whole chunks of your story need to be tossed into the deepest darkest fathoms of trash bin you can find, you need to find a new editor.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> Actually, my REAL editor retired from a very large publishing house. Such editors, laid off from or retired from publishing, are not that hard to find.


So you have a FORMER "real" editor. So as I pointed out, NOT like Heinlein. 

I'm not saying your editor is bad. I'm not saying your process is bad. I'm not saying ANYONE'S process is bad. I'm saying that we don;t live in Heinlein's reality, and we have to take what remains good advice (WRITE and FINISH tend to be good 99% of the time) and consider what options we have for the rest.

I'm just saying that regurgitating advice given by x, y, or z author is fine as long as you always leave yourself open to the understanding that there are quite simply "no rules" . . . (Recently endorsed by Neil Gaiman, and for the irony, Joe Hill . . . LOL)



> ETA: And I made it clear that I don't assume that what works for me (or for Heinlein or DWS) works for everyone. But there are a lot of people it does work for. You were the one who went on the attack by saying that no one could give such advice. In fact, it is advice that has been around for many years. Of course, Heinlein also said no one would take it.


Please find where I say that and quote (not paraphrase) me saying that. You have me confused with someone else. That's pretty easy to do in this thread.

I personally write by a modified set of Heinlein's rules. I listened insofar as it matters to me at this time. Just as I have listened to some of what DWS has said. Some of what Steven King has said, etc. So hey, I listened to Bob. SST and Friday were two reasons I got into writing, after all. 



> And what about the weaknesses that you don't know?


For that I take a page from DWS, and move forward, getting better as I go. Besides, at a certain point "weakness" is a word for "not my cup of tea" . . .

Case in point, and something I suspect most of us can see: if you are prone to description of your scene to the last detail, some readers will shower you with adulation. Others will declare you banal.

Once you reach a certain point, if you are technically writing well, the rest is preference. It's voice. It's style.

No editor can give you a great deal more guidance at that point than can a reader.

So, I am happy to be imperfect, but not so happy that I'm willing to skip the one pass revision.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> Frankly, proofing is as much of a challenge. Finding a good proofreader is harder than finding a good editor.


Hmm how so? I guess this would at least partially depend on how complex your prose is?


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

glutton said:


> Hmm how so? I guess this would at least partially depend on how complex your prose is?


I find that the difficulty in proofing is directly proportional to how close to the manuscript you are. As a general rule someone who is competent with English who has not seen the work at any point will be able to proof it.

Editing is a different story, but for flat out proofing the required skills are a strong command of the language and a fresh eye.


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> This makes the assumption that anyone's voice is just as good as another person's.
> 
> This is not the case. Some people are flat out more naturally adept, and write things which are more readable in their first draft.
> 
> ...


Then you might not fall into their definition of rewriting to avoid. Dean has said his process includes the first draft, some minor cleanup by reading from the beginning of the chapter/story to get back into the flow after breaks, rewriting to fix any issues brought up by his first reader, and then a pass for typos. So that level of rewriting isn't likely what he's advising people to avoid.

What I find interesting about their rewriting advice is why they give it. It's from their workshops with new writers. They had writers bring stories with them to the workshops--their very best in their own opinions--the ones they'd rewritten to perfection. And then they had the authors write a new first draft at the workshop. And they found in every workshop that 9 out of 10 had better stories (perhaps not prettier sentences) in their first drafts. Novice writers were _tending_ to damage their stories through rewriting. And so they started advising writers who _were not happy with their current results_ to try this alternative. The nuance seems to have been lost over time and when paraphrased.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

J. Tanner said:


> Then you might not fall into their definition of rewriting to avoid. Dean has said his process includes the first draft, some minor cleanup by reading from the beginning of the chapter/story to get back into the flow after breaks, rewriting to fix any issues brought up by his first reader, and then a pass for typos. So that level of rewriting isn't likely what he's advising people to avoid.
> 
> What I find interesting about their rewriting advice is why they give it. It's from their workshops with new writers. They had writers bring stories with them to the workshops--their very best in their own opinions--the ones they'd rewritten to perfection. And then they had the authors write a new first draft at the workshop. And they found in every workshop that 9 out of 10 had better stories (perhaps not prettier sentences) in their first drafts. Novice writers were _tending_ to damage their stories through rewriting. And so they started advising writers who _were not happy with their current results_ to try this alternative. The nuance seems to have been lost over time and when paraphrased.


And this is the distinction I try to make with people. It's why I consider Heinlein's rules a good start, but not 100% relevant any more. The problem is when it is repeated as gospel by people (and I am not sying you, or anyone in specific here, just in general writing circles . . . I have had someone to my face say they never rewrite ever . . . I read their draft and almost died) and gets out there as the way to be a success.

My main concern with rewrites is that unless I am redrafting (which I am in the middle of with one piece right now) I do not want to fundamentally change the way I wrote the piece. I want to add clarification where needed, cut or add description as suits the pacing, and work to ensure that I am cycling pronouns and my vocabulary. I use a thesaurus off and on as I do this. I check my characters names to be sure they are not being hammered consecutively.

None of this is designed to take away the soul of the piece. THAT is where rewriting goes wrong in *my* eyes.

First draft is often not terrible for reasonably skilled writers. First revision can tighten it. In some instances more revisions can help, but my suggestion is that unless you are a student and are trying to deconstruct your own language for the purposes of digging deep into your habits, you should not be touching it more than three or four times. In addition, keeping every single revision on file and then looking at them, you can see when you revise in cycles. This alone is enough to help people understand when they are likely to need to stop.

For me, that's one.

I think we're trying to say similar things in the end. We both want to preserve what makes the writing good. We both want to avoid wasted work. We both want to help others figure out what works for themselves.

I'm subscribed to DWS and KKR and read each post they make (that is relevant) because I respect their time in the industry. I do not have to agree with every last sentiment to be smart enough to consider my elders.


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2013)

Mathew Reuther said:


> No editor can give you a great deal more guidance at that point than can a reader.


Have you ever actually WORKED with an editor?

A good editor knows more than just grammar and the fundamentals of creative writing. Good editors KNOW their genres. A good editor knows the difference between editing for a horror novel and editing for a literary drama. A good editor gives concrete reasons for recommended changes and can back it up with relevent examples from your genre and style of writing. A good editor can effectively articulate the reasons that a change is recommended. The average reader can't articulate the nuances of a novel, so all you are ever going to get out of the average reader is "this wasn't for me" or "needed editing" but they won't be able to put their finger on specifics.


----------



## Writerly Writer (Jul 19, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Have you ever actually WORKED with an editor?
> 
> A good editor knows more than just grammar and the fundamentals of creative writing. Good editors KNOW their genres. A good editor knows the difference between editing for a horror novel and editing for a literary drama. A good editor gives concrete reasons for recommended changes and can back it up with relevent examples from your genre and style of writing. A good editor can effectively articulate the reasons that a change is recommended. The average reader can't articulate the nuances of a novel, so all you are ever going to get out of the average reader is "this wasn't for me" or "needed editing" but they won't be able to put their finger on specifics.


Agreed.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Have you ever actually WORKED with an editor?


Yes.



> A good editor knows more than just grammar and the fundamentals of creative writing. Good editors KNOW their genres. A good editor knows the difference between editing for a horror novel and editing for a literary drama. A good editor gives concrete reasons for recommended changes and can back it up with relevent examples from your genre and style of writing. A good editor can effectively articulate the reasons that a change is recommended. The average reader can't articulate the nuances of a novel, so all you are ever going to get out of the average reader is "this wasn't for me" or "needed editing" but they won't be able to put their finger on specifics.


We have lived in a world where the people who "know the genres" had a chokehold on them until recently. Now we live in a world where that genre knowledge is being shown to not always have been "correct" . . .

People who have struggled to get past those editors who knew their stuff are selling. Some of them are selling very well.

We've ALL read a traditionally published book at some point in our lives that was a disappointment. We've all seen the "thanks to my wonderful editors" bit in the back.

Having an editor is not a guarantee of anything. It is not a guarantee that they will steer you in the correct direction. It is not a guarantee that they will be the right editor for you. It is not a guarantee of anything other than someone will be looking at your work and they have knowledge which exceeds a lay person.

For my part, from my experiences, with the people I have worked with, I have identified some areas where I have (in the past, my last few stories haven't been as troubled) had some issues. And identified the things that I naturally do as a part of my draft process. (Placeholder language: easily spotted and revised out.)

But I wouldn't trade having worked with the people I have worked with in the past. I wouldn't say that I'd never work with them or anyone else in the future.

All I am saying is that for certain things people but too much stock in editors. At the end of the day they are well-read, capable professionals, but I have an aunt whose collection would put most of them to shame who has read about a sci-fi book a day for her entire adult life. I'd take her insights over plenty of the professionals I've met as for what works and doesn't in that genre.

I do not have anything against editors. I have not had a single bad experience with one. But I have, in the course of my writing, reached a point at which I am comfortable with my own process. So for now I see no reason to modify it.

Just as I see no reason to encourage someone who feels good about theirs to make any modifications. Be that writing on alternate tuesdays with a bucket of KFC nearby, or whetever else they may choose to do.



EDIT: I really should clarify what I am referring to as a reader as well. I don't mean someone who likes books. I mean someone who loves them, and preferably who happens to be educated and capable of discussing them. Not all human beings make good beta readers. They can be fans of your work, but that doesn't give them the necessary critical insight to be a beta reader.

I don't want people to believe that I am advising the use of random friends and family who will tolerate sitting through one's work. That is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

glutton said:


> Hmm how so? I guess this would at least partially depend on how complex your prose is?


The difficulty of proofreading has very little to do with the complexity of the prose. It is simply a skill that very few people can develop to pick out misused homonyms, typos, and other proofing problems. Most people, no matter how conversant with spelling and grammar, will read right over many errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and that is true of many people who try to proofread.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> And this is the distinction I try to make with people. It's why I consider Heinlein's rules a good start, but not 100% relevant any more. The problem is when it is repeated as gospel by people (and I am not sying you, or anyone in specific here, just in general writing circles . . . I have had someone to my face say they never rewrite ever . . . I read their draft and almost died) and gets out there as the way to be a success.
> 
> My main concern with rewrites is that unless I am redrafting (which I am in the middle of with one piece right now) I do not want to fundamentally change the way I wrote the piece. I want to add clarification where needed, cut or add description as suits the pacing, and work to ensure that I am cycling pronouns and my vocabulary. I use a thesaurus off and on as I do this. I check my characters names to be sure they are not being hammered consecutively.
> 
> ...


I consider much of what you do proofreading (for spelling, punctuation, grammar and word choice). Editing for content is something else entirely.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> The difficulty of proofreading has very little to do with the complexity of the prose. It is simply a skill that very few people can develop to pick out misused homonyms, typos, and other proofing problems. Most people, no matter how conversant with spelling and grammar, will read right over many errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar, and that is true of many people who try to proofread.


I've got an excessive number of linguists and educators in my circles, I suppose. My personal perception of how simple a task it is may very well be skewed as a result.

But I've also not read a tradpub book in years (and I know they still bother to proof things for their big names) that didn't have an error or two in it, so perfection is far from simple. 



> I consider much of what you do proofreading (for spelling, punctuation, grammar and word choice). Editing for content is something else entirely.


And that is a fair enough assessment. The majority of what I touch falls under those categories. Only me dealing with pacing and plot detailing/obfuscating or tinkering with characterization through reactions is likely to be considered content editing. That is admittedly a minor portion of what I tend to do.

I maintain that I do revise once, however. Bob be damned.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I maintain that I do revise once, however. Bob be damned.


Fair enough. No one has to agree with anyone else. 

ETA: By the way, I still disagree on 'real' editors. When I pay an editor, what they are doing is editing just as much as when a certain Big 6 publisher paid them. So no, she is not a former editor. 

Otherwise, I suspect we're arguing over semantics.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> Fair enough. No one has to agree with anyone else.


On the plus side at least we agree on DRM.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> On the plus side at least we agree on DRM.


Good to hear since I'm right about DRM too.


----------



## DarkScribe (Aug 30, 2012)

Robert E. Keller said:


> If often slop through first drafts myself. Sometimes I read them aloud to my wife before I get a chance to revise (as she mostly looks for plot flaws), and they sound embarrassing to my ears--so I tend to try to correct them even as I read to her. I have to have at least one strong revision before I publish, and it's usually more like three or four. The voice actually gets stronger and more vivid from the revisions. Nothing distracts from voice like sloppy, wordy sentences and paragraphs. However, I applaud those who can get away with a first draft.


No one can get away with a first draft. Even God couldn't - the Bible is full of errors.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

DarkScribe said:


> No one can get away with a first draft. Even God couldn't - the Bible is full of errors.


Ok, I had to laugh.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Sigh...


Dark Scribe, don't start.  Let's please leave the Bible out of this discussion.

Thank you.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Sigh...
> 
> Dark Scribe, don't start. Let's please leave the Bible out of this discussion.
> 
> ...


In Dark Scribe's defence, we've managed to drag everything else in. Why not the Bible?


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> In Dark Scribe's defence, we've managed to drag everything else in. Why not the Bible?


I haven't seen a kitchen sink.

Shall we discuss the virtues of proofreading store circulars? I had one come through last week with the word "SAEL" at the top of it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I haven't seen a kitchen sink.
> 
> Shall we discuss the virtues of proofreading store circulars? I had one come through last week with the word "SAEL" at the top of it.


I recently received a store flier offering me "Fleece Hoody's". 

I'll go looking for a kitchen sink.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> I recently received a store flier offering me "Fleece Hoody's".
> 
> I'll go looking for a kitchen sink.


That just makes me think of fuzzy nuts because of the peanut brand.

I used to do a lot of freelance work when I lived in The Netherlands correcting the English signage and menus for restaurants. It didn't pay that well, but it was very amusing, and it doesn't take long to correct a tri-fold.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> That just makes me think of fuzzy nuts because of the peanut brand.
> 
> I used to do a lot of freelance work when I lived in The Netherlands correcting the English signage and menus for restaurants. It didn't pay that well, but it was very amusing, and it doesn't take long to correct a tri-fold.


Maybe you could take it up in the US? Some here are pretty horrible.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

You all...


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

J. Tanner said:


> What I find interesting about their rewriting advice is why they give it. It's from their workshops with new writers. They had writers bring stories with them to the workshops--their very best in their own opinions--the ones they'd rewritten to perfection. And then they had the authors write a new first draft at the workshop. And they found in every workshop that 9 out of 10 had better stories (perhaps not prettier sentences) in their first drafts. Novice writers were _tending_ to damage their stories through rewriting. And so they started advising writers who _were not happy with their current results_ to try this alternative. The nuance seems to have been lost over time and when paraphrased.


This seems so reasonable and yet so off to me, because they're comparing apples and oranges in a way.

Yes, some new writers write all the life of out something in an effort to perfect the prose. They edit and polish and remove all the uniqueness. Some, maybe. But unless they're comparing the original first draft with the "first draft" written from scratch at the conference, they don't know that the editing has been the problem.

The original first drafts could be awful. And in the process of tinkering and editing (without skill), they've come to know the story better even if their edits don't reflect that. By starting over with another draft, it goes down better beginning to end. The attempts at editing still could have helped improve that story greatly.

If anything, it's a cautionary tale about editing stuff that shouldn't be there in the first place. You can polish a turd.... By the time they write a full draft from their brains rather than looking at the prose that's there, the story comes out more organically without the idea that this sentence isn't quite right and that one needs to be changed yet again.

I think writing a whole new draft of something is certainly a technique to try when you're learning, maybe even later for a particular story. But learning what to edit and how, and what just needs to go and be completely redone, is probably a much harder skill to learn (and teach). Suggesting minimal editing is probably a summarized way of saying "edit wisely," but so many new writers have to learn what that means first.

It doesn't help that there's a ton of bad information out there about what good editing is. I've seen too many absolute beginners work on one sentence, rewording it and rewriting it in multiple ways, all of them bad, when that sentence, that paragraph and that entire scene needed to go.


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

I'm glad I started this thread 

I'm just waiting for the topic to segue into cartoonists lampooning the prophet Mohammed, then Betsy can lock it up and we can all go home.


----------



## John Daulton (Feb 28, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Sigh...
> 
> Dark Scribe, don't start. Let's please leave the Bible out of this discussion.
> 
> ...


I lol'ed. I probably just drink too much, but that was funny.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

John Daulton said:



> I lol'ed. I probably just drink too much, but that was funny.


I need to drink more and I laughed.


----------

