# How to not sell books



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

I figured that since we've seen enough guides on how to sell them, I'd provide a quick sheet on how to practically guarantee you won't have a literary career of any sort, other than a failed one.

1) Do not hire qualified, experienced help. Don't waste your money on editors or proofreaders. Your ability to edit is probably as good as someone with 20 years of germane experience. Ditto your ability to spot your own deficiencies, which, if you understood they were deficiencies, wouldn't exist in your final draft before you sat down to edit. And your years of sounding out TV Guide while moving your lips counts for something. Put that expertise to use.

2) Do not hire qualified cover artists. Your limited experience with Photoshop is the equivalent of someone with formal training and a long track record. There might be exceptions to this, but there are also people who have jumped out of airplanes, had their parachute fail to open, and lived. You're no doubt one of the exceptions. Because you can just feel all that specialness coursing through your veins.

3) Proofreading is for fools. Your wife or mom probably has the same skills as someone who has been paid to proofread for a decade, and has honed the ability to spot all the nits most peoples' brains just automatically fill in. Again, why waste your money when you can use your readers as your proofreaders - and they'll pay for your books while they do it! Brilliant!!!

4) Don't read. You're busy. You already sort of intuitively know how to write a book, based on your years watching TV and films, and the six fiction books you sort of remember reading a while ago, not to mention all those Nancy Drew years. Don't fill your head with all that confusing gobbledy **** that those poncy elitists have proclaimed to be the "right" way to write anything. Blaze your own trail. Grammar rules? Nonsense. Craft? Who needs it. BORING. Today's readers want a more contemporary take on writing. And since you've spent at least a year or two texting friends and communicating via twitter, you've had a lot of writing practice already - you just don't know it.

5) Don't confine your gift to any one genre. You're robbing the world of your insights if you stick to one thing. Readers love surprises. Nothing keeps em coming back like switching it up on them every book or two. They bore easily in the same genre. Plus, you're like Stephen King or something. Again, you can just feel it. So ignore any ill-advised counsel that dampens your special gift and chart your own course.

6) Selling books is like selling used cars. Your job as the seller is to get the buyer's money. You are under no obligation to provide the reader with anything approaching a competent product. Why waste your money on silliness like pro formatting or editing when some people will just assume it's been done properly? Dolts. Take the money and run. And don't worry about its impact on your career. There are millions of rubes out there - they're like buses. More coming along every minute.

7) Publishing is a right. Owning a book selling business is an entitlement. You should never feel that it's like every other business in the world, where you would be expected to save money to start it, or invest thousands of hours of sweat equity to make it successful. Saving money? Bah. That's so old school and stodgy. Besides, you've got better places to spend your limited funds than on the business you hope to make successful. Best idea is to put books out there, see how they sell, and if you make a bunch, only then consider using that moron money to do a pro job. Life's too short to risk much on something you can probably do for free just as well as someone who is squandering their hard earned savings trying to do properly. Besides, that might entail fiscal responsibility and sacrifice, and who needs that crap? Better to grab the easy publishing bucks and decide whether to waste money on all that other stuff later. 

 They taught you to reed and rite in school. Riting a buk is no diferent, LOL    Eschew the tyranny of the grammar gods. You're where it's at right now. Invest no time in improving your craft. That's for oldsters and fools. Again, world's turning faster and faster, and nobody's got the time to waste on all that junk. Besides, remember, you're an exception. Like all the other exceptions. Only they're wrong. You just know it.

9) Writing a 55K novel is way faster than an 85K novel or a 120K novel. You want a new book out every two weeks, if possible, so don't clutter your plots up with a lot of blah blah blah, and certainly don't waste valuable earning time developing anything but an appetite for twinkies.

10) Blurbs? Apply the same care to those as you do to your book. Wing it. You can always change it after you've sold a bunch. Same with your cover. Readers love the ingenuity and can-do attitude of those who bootstrap and do it themselves.

11) You're an artist. Your muse is an elusive sylph. Don't get all discipliny about writing, or you'll make it no fun. Do what you can, but don't push yourself. The world will eventually discover your rare gift, and if it doesn't, it's their loss.

12) Marketing is for carny hucksters and con men. You're above that. Again, readers are desperate for brilliant content like yours, and will scour Amazon to find it. Just write more of your gems. They'll come to you. You'll see.

13) Surround yourself with a coterie of yes men and kindred spirits. You don't need haters criticizing you or bringing you down by being all negativo. You want positive thinking, and high hopes. Mean people suck, especially if they think your book blows. You don't need that.

This is not an exhaustive list. You may feel free to contribute your own counsel on how to not sell books. I hope this helps anyone interested in not selling, as I've seen far too many of these self-important, know-it-all, "How to sell more books" threads, and I'm sick to death of them.

You're welcome.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

- I believe word processing is taking the magic out of writing, so I'm publishing a novel written entirely in cursive. 

Jokes aside, I'm worried about point 5...my first book is more of a supernatural mystery, my second is a caper story, with mystery, about a thief. I don't want to spin up a brand to publish it.  Some folks have suggested publishing it as "J.L Monk" and somehow linking them, but letting the change in the name sort of explain that it's more traditional. 

Would appreciate your comments


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Wow, somebody's a bear with a sore head today.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

Heh, I like how he laid it out.  It reminds me of a great book on writing: "How not to write a novel".  It essentially does the same thing, it shows you what you need to do not to be successful.  It's looking at it from the other side of the telescope.  He could have written something like, "Hey, here's what you do if you want to be successful" and then laid it all out, but there a million threads/books/articles on that   All good fun, yet informative.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

John, here's my opinion, and it's only that. An opinion.

I've found the vast majority of readers confuse easily, and have little time. So the clearer you can be, the more on point, if you will, about what it is that you do, what you're all about, the better. The easier you've made it to trust you and buy your other books.

The more genre hopping you do, the less clear you are about what you are all about, and the greater the barrier for the reader to grasp, and then trust, what you do.

As an example. I was told this over and over by seasoned authors - some big name trad pubbed legends, others indies who are big names. But I didn't like it. I thought I was different. So I wrote by pet biography, and my writing guide parody. But here's the thing. That took time. And thank God they were both non-fiction. I was able to differentiate my offerings as fiction, and non-fiction. As fiction, I'm known as a suspense author. I've expanded that a bit, nudging into action/adventure and mystery, but it's sort of all the same thing for my readers. They know what they're getting. I've built a brand based on that idea - a certain approach to prose, a certain sensibility, a certain pacing and plot intricacy. 

I think when you're just starting out, and by that I mean before you've got a substantial backlist in the same genre, any genre jumping you do serves only to confuse readers. Those that loved your horror mystery might not really dig a police procedural. It's too different. One's horror. That makes you a horror writer in their mind, and if you want them to buy more of your books, you need to write more horror. Or if they loved your police procedural, and then your other book is paranormal, they're like, WTF? I'm not interested in that, or I would have been looking for that. So they now don't know what your third book is likely to be, and you lost both audiences, because they'll move on to a safe buy that's clearly branded as whatever it is they're looking for.

Once your name is used alongside Dan Brown and Clive Cussler, you can take a detour and try something a little different. Until then, my advice is pick a genre and stick to it. I mention those two names because you instantly know what to expect when you hear the names. They're well branded, and that makes it simple for the reader looking for whatever it is they purvey.

The big caveat is, unless it isn't working. If you write a trilogy of sword and sorcery books, for instance, and you could have sold more standing on a street corner, or the reviews basically say you suck, then you might want to switch genres and start anew. Can't hurt. You aren't risking anything. You don't have sales to risk.

That's my advice. It's not what most authors want to hear. BTW, it's also the exact advice you'll get if you ever get an agent. "Stick to what you're known for. We can sell what you're known for." In other words, create your own path of least resistance, and then stick to it, if it's a successful one.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Lydniz: "Never apologize, never explain."


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

johnlmonk said:


> - I believe word processing is taking the magic out of writing, so I'm publishing a novel written entirely in cursive.


I think I'll go make my own parchment using recycled dryer lint and write everything in calligraphy backwards. The printed book will come with a complimentary mirror so the reader can read the murder mystery left to right. In Sanskrit.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Sad thing is: I have seen too many books like blakebooks described.
Though I think he did forget one.
Just because you are an expert (or think you are an expert) in one field means you should write a book following all of the other ideas that the OP said.


----------



## johnlmonk (Jul 24, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> John, here's my opinion, and it's only that. An opinion.
> ...
> ...
> That's my advice. It's not what most authors want to hear. BTW, it's also the exact advice you'll get if you ever get an agent. "Stick to what you're known for. We can sell what you're known for." In other words, create your own path of least resistance, and then stick to it, if it's a successful one.


Thank you so much!

What do you think of this plan:
I publish it under a completely different pen name, but put the pen-named book on my blog and say "this isn't the same thing as that other thing I wrote under my real name, see the different name?" Maybe not that condescending, but you follow. That way I can benefit from the fans I have, but they can clearly see it's this side thing I'm working.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

justsomewriterwhowrites said:


> The problem is, what if you're selling and you don't follow the advice implied in this list? Do you assume that if you change things up you'll do even better? Seriously, this is a question that I'd like answered.
> 
> My 50,000 - 65,000 word books sell really well for me and keep my mortgage paid and my kids fed and provide the money I need to do what I want for the most part, with the covers I've created and the proofreading I do for myself. I have yet to have one reviewer anywhere that I've dug up complain about proofing or typos. So do I spend the money that would have gone into my pocket and assume I'll sell even more or do I hedge my bets by sticking with what's working? On a per book basis, those costs can run pretty high. My market is niche enough that I wasn't even sure I could earn a living in it when I started publishing and it's not the kind of niche you can broaden without almost changing genres. And of all the things you've ever said, that I do agree with wholeheartedly. One should stick to a genre for the sake of your readers.


This means that you are the exception and do know what you are doing. The exceptions are few and far between.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Mr. Blake - I'm having a left-brain right-brain issue trying to digest your list -- are these satirical points do's or don'ts? If I read them correctly, I agree with most of your points except one glorious one, and I have a question after that.



blakebooks said:


> 5) Don't confine your gift to any one genre. You're robbing the world of your insights if you stick to one thing. Readers love surprises. Nothing keeps em coming back like switching it up on them every book or two. They bore easily in the same genre. Plus, you're like Stephen King or something. Again, you can just feel it. So ignore any ill-advised counsel that dampens your special gift and chart your own course.


I think that there are authors who have 2-3 genres bursting at the seams of their laptops. Hence pen names. I see your point about focusing on your best genre, and take it to the next level. I am all for that. However, you yourself write in 2 genres: action thrillers and non-fiction, IIRC. What of that?

[Updated: Well, as I'm proofreading this, I see that you have responded to John regarding the very thing of genre hopping, but anyway...]

Having said that, I see what you mean. When I write in one genre, my mind is all focused on that one genre. If I switch gears and toggle back and forth among the 3 genres, I'm spinning plates, and they all fall down. I've been there, done that, so I know of what I speak. That is one of the reasons I'm not published yet. I had 4-6 genres going for years, which bogged me down. The old adage is true: "Jack of all trades, master of none."

So what I've done this year is narrow down my genre focus to just 2-3 that I can manage. I have a non-fiction in the works that is a super-small-niche book, and that's derived from my experience in my day job as educator (I'm on lunch break now so I'm typing super fast before my timer goes off and I have to get back to school). And I have my long full-length thriller series that I love to write, which I'll get back to as soon as I get the non-fiction mss to my editors. Once I get my thrillers done, I want to get to my women's contemporary.

So on a practical level, I agree with you re: being pulled in many directions if you're trigger-happy with genre jumping jacks. OTOH I think that if a writer has it in them, they should be free to write in however many genres they want. Who am I to stop the freedom of speech?

And the question. I don't get what you're saying here:



blakebooks said:


> 9) Writing a 55K novel is way faster than an 85K novel or a 120K novel. You want a new book out every two weeks, if possible, so don't clutter your plots up with a lot of blah blah blah, and certainly don't waste valuable earning time developing anything but an appetite for twinkies.


I'm trying to flip over the statement so I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that we should or should not write 55K novels? From what I know, tradpub wouldn't even look at a 60K novel (too short) and they want 80-90K even for historical fiction and suspense, and 100K for thrillers. As a newbie indie writer, I keep reminding myself that my competition is not fellow indie writers, but tradpub veterans...


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Justsomewriter: I think you need to look at your product with cold, clinical eyes. I have no idea whether your books are brilliant, mediocre or terrible. I have no idea whether they're well edited (I do know one person who seems brilliant at self-editing) and whether they would do far, far better if edited professionally (assuming they're not). 

I just take the road that I expect what I buy to be pro. If you can get there doing it yourself, bless you. If your books are just good enough, but could sell a lot more if done professionally? I can't answer that. Only you can. You're obviously doing something right. The question is, are you doing everything right, and if not, can you hire pros to do what you can't do right, better? If so, I always err on the side of hiring pros. Because the reader wins in the end, and I want to be doing this for a long time to come. And I can't think of too many literary careers that lasted very long where the author did it all themselves. I've seen one year fads, and those are great. But a decade? Can't think of any.

That's why I recommend the approach I do. Doesn't mean it's the only way. But it is a better way, I believe.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> As an example. I was told this over and over by seasoned authors - some big name trad pubbed legends, others indies who are big names. But I didn't like it. I thought I was different. So I wrote by pet biography, and my writing guide parody. But here's the thing. That took time. And thank God they were both non-fiction. I was able to differentiate my offerings as fiction, and non-fiction. As fiction, I'm known as a suspense author.


You hit the nail in the head. The greatest commodity that we lose if we genre-hop is TIME TIME TIME! (I know this personally -- I've lost years fooling around with genres when I should be focusing on just 1-2 that I know well.)

This quote below has a missing apostrophe but the point is there:









http://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483190662874/


----------



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

I think I need to bookmark this and just send it to everyone who emails me asking for advice on how to self-publish...


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> The question is, are you doing everything right, and if not, can you hire pros to do what you can't do right, better? If so, I always err on the side of hiring pros. Because the reader wins in the end, and I want to be doing this for a long time to come. And I can't think of too many literary careers that lasted very long where the author did it all themselves. I've seen one year fads, and those are great. But a decade? Can't think of any.


I am so sorry I have so many questions today. But one more, Mr. Blake. You mentioned in a previous thread on KB that you budget $1,000 for each book. I am not able to keep inside that. Cover is $495, copyeditor wants $1,600 for a 400-page book (not including proofreading), macro editor is TBD... My dollar-store calculator is smoking. I'm pushing $2,000 just trying to get one book out. I don't have that kind of money at the moment. But I keep hearing: pro, pro, pro. But my checkbook says: no, no, no.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

I don't know about you, but I know who I want leading my army against the Saracens.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Jan: Quick response, and then I must go write.

I recommend using pen names for different genres. Let it be well known it's your pen name, if you believe your core readership might like it. If they're interested, they now know it's you. But you aren't confusing the readers who like your core work. I'm all for clarity. Genre hopping makes for a lack of clarity about what your next book is going to be. It's not a good idea.

I differentiate my fiction from my non-fiction. My pet book has sold approaching 10K copies, but I've seen almost no cross-over from that to my fiction. It's a good dog book, so it's sold okay, but it did me no good in terms of building my core readership. And if you look at it, you'll see that it's clearly branded as non-fiction, and a dog book, so I'm not confusing readers (is his next book a dog book? WTF! I'm out!)

I'm responding to the trend that I see where authors are spurting forth a short novel every month with very little character development, plot, or anything else, simply to increase their virtual shelf presence. I think that's a bad trend. A bunch of crap books won't help an author sell books. A bunch of short crap books blurted forth for the sole reason of trying to appear to have a big backlist is a negative trend, I think. Hence my comment.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Jan: I pay $125-$150 for my covers. I can get you names if you pm me. I pay $600 for my first edit, $250 for my second, $180 for my proofing. Most would probably be fine with my first edit and a solid proof. Again, PM me for referrals. I still have to pay close attention, but my readers seem happy, and this system catches about 99.9% of the nits. There are always a few that sneak through, but not many.

You should easily be able to turn out a pro product, assuming you can write well, for $800-$1200. Just as most should be able to save that amount if it was really important for them. But many don't. In my estimation, that's a mistake, because the loser is always the reader, and readers are extremely hard to come by and very easy to lose. Readers also determine whether you have a long career, or a few books that sell and then a decline into obscurity. I want to have a long career, so I view, and have always viewed, that cost per book as an investment in my future. Apparently many aren't willing to invest in their own futures. That's fine, but it puzzles me why they feel anyone else, like readers, would want to if they are unwilling to themselves.

Not that I have an opinion.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

I tend to side with Kris Rusch and Dean Wesley Smith's argument on the pen name issue:

Branding and clarity comes from the cover, title, blurb and categorisation rather than just the name of the author. If you communicate the genre of the book well then there's no issue. The readers of your fantasy books won't buy your crime and vice-versa, doesn't mean they're going to abandon you altogether. There's a number of authors who do just well in different genres. So it's a personal choice and I don't think one is necessarily a better way than the other. The pen name is a hangover from traditional publishing. Marketing one name as a brand likewise. Still works though, but it's not the *only* choice that works. 

Personally, I've decided against a pen name. My genres aren't too far apart on a spectrum and I'll be releasing them in blocks of books rather than hopping back and fourth with each book. 

But as I say, it's all a case of your personal choice, and this doesn't take away from an excellent original post which I agree mostly with.


----------



## Ethan Jones (Jan 20, 2012)

A lot of good insight here. Thanks everyone for sharing it.

Ethan


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> That's my advice. It's not what most authors want to hear. BTW, it's also the exact advice you'll get if you ever get an agent. *"Stick to what you're known for. We can sell what you're known for." * In other words, create your own path of least resistance, and then stick to it, if it's a successful one.


I did just this. My very first book, Silent Tears, is a memoir based on my time in China and has sold a lot of books. So it was only clear to me that when I wrote my first novel, it should be a story about China. My agent declined to rep it, saying it was too small-niched. Then my publisher declined it. But I was determined that I'd put so much into marketing my memoir, that darn it, I was sticking to China.

So I wrote another book based in China. This time I didn't bother sending it by my agent. I felt she didn't believe in me any longer. But my publisher accepted it. A few more stories later, I finally hit a huge milestone for an annual take on basically five books. All set in China. All in my small niche. All during this time I continued to involve myself in building a reputation as someone knowledgeable about China.

Last year I wrote a novella that turned into a novel and a 3-book deal. (You can read about it here: [URL=http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2013/09/guest-post-by-kay-bratt.html]http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2013/09/guest-post-by-kay-bratt.html [/url] )

For some, Blake's advice is spot on. Pick a genre. Become an expert. But to those who genre-hop, I respect that as well because you have more courage and patience than I. And believe me, I've struggled because part of me wants to write a breakout best-selling New Adult book. But the logical part of me reminds me to keep my head down and stay where I know I'll find success, not where I *might* find it. But that's just me.


----------



## Wansit (Sep 27, 2012)

Genre hopping just isn't my thing; personally it's hard for me to write what I don't read, so young adult fantasy is perfect & doing well for me so far. Just need that backlist to magically appear.


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

One of the things I see from time to time is new authors with a book to sell but no budget to have it edited, proofread, etc. I think it's a HUGE mistake to try to do these things yourself (unless you are truly that good at it; I know I am not).


----------



## Lyndawrites (Aug 7, 2011)

Lord love you, Russell. I've not laughed so much in ages. Thank you   Thank you for being spot on


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Kay: Congrats on your success.

I tend to advise what works best from the reader's perspective. Because as a reader, when I go shopping, I know if I want a thriller, I look to certain authors, if I want a mystery, I look to others, and if I want literary fiction, I look to still others. And I remember being disappointed by authors who I'd followed and purchased with confidence, and then they threw me a curve - writing a western, in one case, instead of a conspiracy thriller. I was VERY hesitant to try anything more from that author. That was when I was in my late teens, but I still remember it.

We tend to want to do what we want to do as authors, for self-fulfillment. I perfectly grasp that. I also understand that what we should do in order to have viable careers might be different than whatever strikes our fancy. That's the part about being an adult that can suck. Acting responsibly, being the stewards of our careers.

A successful literary career is a gift, plain and simple. A gift that can disappear at any time. Readers don't have to buy our books. They can find a new flavor and simply choose to pass on our next one, for whatever reason. I think as authors we need to safeguard that relationship with our readers jealously, with the protectiveness of a mama bear for her cubs. One of the things I think is prudent is to give the readers more of what they like and want. In my case, that's thrillers. I know I have a Golding style literary fiction novel in me. But that's not what puts food on the table. I'll write it when I get around to it, once I'm established and can clearly communicate that it's a complete departure for me, so to please be warned. But that's not at this point in my career, as I build a readership.

If I were to write in another genre alone, I would use a pen name and clearly communicate that it's really me. If I write in another genre with another author, I will use my name, but clearly communicate that it's a new genre, which will be obvious from the cover treatment, the other author's name, and the blurb, as well as every way I can communicate it via the media and my blog. My hunch is that a co-authored novel is enough of a difference that readers will stop and consider what the hell it is they're buying, and thus, not be disappointed if they want my usual. I take all these pains because I'm respectful of the reader, and the trust they've placed in me. I don't want to confuse them. I want them clear on what I'm delivering, and I want to deliver that, every time, as professionally as I possibly can.


----------



## Duane Gundrum (Apr 5, 2011)

#5 is the one that gives me the most trouble. I totally understand the justification for it, but I'm one of those writers that writes based on the story that feels it needs to be written far more than the business model of being a successful writer. It's been my crutch ever since I first started professionally writing, and 20 some years later, 14 novels of variously different genres have become my background, which only makes it that much worse.

The other comment on this thread is the editor part. Having an editor is a no brainer; finding a competent one is always the struggle. When I first started out, I had a dedicated editor who worked on all of my writing, and she did a wonderful job. Now, I keep trying to find an adequate editor but there's almost no way of figuring out if someone is good or bad until you hire someone, and so far I've gone through far more bad editors than good ones, or ones that just didn't mesh well with my style of writing. I've never been able to come up with a solution to that one (which obviously would be met by actually finding someone who worked cause then I'd use him or her all the time). The point being: Not always is it money that creates the editing problem.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

14. Pummel anyone you can with social media, twitting at least twice an hour with "Buy my book because I said so," content and spamming Facebook with a constant barrage of high velocity crap. Even though your friends already know you're the next Hemmingway, it doesn't hurt to remind them now and then. P.S. This is not marketing, this is merely communication with future fans.

15. Don't create audio books or paperbacks. You've created a better mousetrap, and the readers will come to you and figure out a way to read your tome on their PC... or smartphone... or whatever.

16. Spend your time on author websites trying to sell other starving writers your book. Even though your skill level doesn't require reading anymore, those lower on the rung's of greatness still could use help.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

One size doesn't fit all. I made a good living as a writer breaking all those guidelines and retired early to play piano in saloons. Now I write for pleasure, still break the rules, and do okay. The only two rules I try to adhere to are (note I said _try_):

Write good books that people want to read
Don't p**s potential readers off with controversial online rants and debates about polarizing issues


----------



## beccaprice (Oct 1, 2011)

you forgot one: write in an obscure genre. <g>


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Joe: Good additions.

Al: If it weren't for controversial online rants, I'd have to work on my WIP, which I've obviously been trying everything to avoid this morning...


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

I'd like to add one to the list.

Find an experienced writer who has had the type of success you desire for yourself. Then ask them dozens of questions about how they reached their level of achievement. Once done, ignore everything they told you. I mean, really...what do they know? If they knew everything, they'd be you, wouldn't they? 

Love the post by the way.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

I'd add to the list: Write only one novel and expect it to break through and establish your deserved fame and fortune. After all, it worked for Harper Lee and Margaret Mitchell.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Find an experienced writer who has had the type of success you desire for yourself. Then ask them dozens of questions about how they reached their level of achievement. Once done, ignore everything they told you. I mean, really...what do they know? If they knew everything, they'd be you, wouldn't they?


Have you been reading my emails? I just went through this over the weekend. Someone emailed me going on and on about how much they loved one of my books and since they were writing a similar book would I read their opening chapter and give them a critique. I KNEW BETTER. But he caught me at a weak moment when I was feeling generous. After I offered my critique, I was told I was "just jealous" of him and that I better not steal his idea...


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Have you been reading my emails? I just went through this over the weekend. Someone emailed me going on and on about how much they loved one of my books and since they were writing a similar book would I read their opening chapter and give them a critique. I KNEW BETTER. But he caught me at a weak moment when I was feeling generous. After I offered my critique, I was told I was "just jealous" of him and that I better not steal his idea...


Now THAT's funny stuff.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> Jan: I pay $125-$150 for my covers. I can get you names if you pm me. I pay $600 for my first edit, $250 for my second, $180 for my proofing. Most would probably be fine with my first edit and a solid proof. Again, PM me for referrals.


I just sent you a PM. Those numbers, esp. editing, are a fraction of what I've been quoted. Stunning proofreading quote I got for my non-fiction book is $5/page for 370 pages = $1,850 just for proofreading. Thank you!



blakebooks said:


> I recommend using pen names for different genres. Let it be well known it's your pen name, if you believe your core readership might like it. If they're interested, they now know it's you. But you aren't confusing the readers who like your core work. I'm all for clarity. Genre hopping makes for a lack of clarity about what your next book is going to be. It's not a good idea.
> 
> I differentiate my fiction from my non-fiction. My pet book has sold approaching 10K copies, but I've seen almost no cross-over from that to my fiction. It's a good dog book, so it's sold okay, but it did me no good in terms of building my core readership. And if you look at it, you'll see that it's clearly branded as non-fiction, and a dog book, so I'm not confusing readers (is his next book a dog book? WTF! I'm out!)


I'm 99.99% sure there will be no crossover from my non-fiction book to fiction either. I am not going to heavily promote my non-fiction because it's a niche book that will have a small audience by nature. So it's a one-book thingy. I do have 2 more books to follow up, but all I really want to say is going into this one book, and then I'm done. So why am I writing it? Fire in my bones. Only I didn't know it was going to cost me $2,000 to keep the fire burning. 

So maybe because of that I may be able to use my own name for both my non-fiction and thriller genres. But I see your point and I'm going to rethink my aversion for pen names for my women's fiction line down the road. I am quite sure that there is no crossover there either. Maybe some, but I have noticed that most people who read women's cozy beach-read fiction don't necessarily read edgy technothrillers.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Al Stevens said:


> I'd add to the list: Write only one novel and expect it to break through and establish your deserved fame and fortune. After all, it worked for Harper Lee and Margaret Mitchell.


IIRC, Margaret Mitchell wrote a number of manuscripts that publishers didn't want to publish. All they wanted was "Gone with the Wind." I can't remember where I read it, but if I'm not mistaken, she was still writing after that novel, and had some manuscripts going (now lost), but her life was cut short before she could finish. She was run over by a car as she crossed a road. And died in the hospital. She was in her mid-40s.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Have you been reading my emails? I just went through this over the weekend. Someone emailed me going on and on about how much they loved one of my books and since they were writing a similar book would I read their opening chapter and give them a critique. I KNEW BETTER. But he caught me at a weak moment when I was feeling generous. After I offered my critique, I was told I was "just jealous" of him and that I better not steal his idea...


Gah! I know you've got thick enough skin to deal with these pinheads, Julie, but people like that give me some serious rage  curse those egomaniacal idiots who take advantage of advice-givers and, by extension, also ruin it for the rest of us advice-receivers. Or who can't handle a bad review, freak out, and make people paint all self-published authors with the same brush. sigh. Kudos to you and Russell for continuing to be advice-givers, despite the crazy author types.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

JanThompson said:


> IIRC, Margaret Mitchell wrote a number of manuscripts that publishers didn't want to publish. All they wanted was "Gone with the Wind." I can't remember where I read it, but if I'm not mistaken, she was still writing after that novel, and had some manuscripts going (now lost), but her life was cut short before she could finish. She was run over by a car as she crossed a road. And died in the hospital. She was in her mid-40s.


If this article is correct (and it's on the internet so it must be  ) she was 49 and never wrote anything else. And yes, she was struck by a car and later died.

Excerpt:

Housewife in Atlanta 
Margaret Mitchell was an Atlanta housewife, a former newspaper woman, when she showed a suitcase full of manuscript to a talent scout for the Macmillan Company in 1935. The publication, the next June, of her 1,037-page novel of the South in reconstruction days, "Gone With the Wind," made her an international personage.

The fame which came with her book brought her an estimated $1,000,000 in book royalties, movie payments and other allied returns in less than four years, but disrupted her way of living. She said one day, in a fit of exasperation as she left for a mountain hideaway from the throngs which besieged her by telephone, telegraph and in person, that she had determined never to write another word as long as she lived.

When, in 1943, Gov. Ellis Arnall of Georgia wanted to appoint her to the State Board of Education, Miss Mitchell declined the appointment in a letter in which she wrote, "My time is not my own. It has not been my own since 'Gone With the Wind' was published. The very fact that since 1936 I have never had the time to sit down to my typewriter and write--or try to write--another book will give you some indication of what I mean."

She added that "being the author of 'Gone With the Wind' is a full-time job, and most days it is an overtime job filling engagements and meeting visitors. In addition, I am giving all the time I can to war activities and future commitments in this field which will take me out of the city."

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1108.html


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

KayBratt said:


> When, in 1943, Gov. Ellis Arnall of Georgia wanted to appoint her to the State Board of Education, Miss Mitchell declined the appointment in a letter in which she wrote, "My time is not my own. It has not been my own since 'Gone With the Wind' was published. The very fact that since 1936 I have never had the time to sit down to my typewriter and write--or try to write--another book will give you some indication of what I mean."
> http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1108.html


Kay, thanks for the corrected information (new to me). Looks like I was mistaken, sadly so. Wow, that's too bad about MM. I had always thought I read that she had tried to write more beyond GWTW. *shaking head*

[Edited to insert quote from NYT.]


----------



## KeithAllen (Jun 5, 2013)

I'm not able to unravel the satire in number 9 about length, but this list made me laugh which I so needed today.

x) Get two screens for your computer. On one of them work on your amazing book, in the other have all of your social networks and message boards open, lord knows you'd hate to miss something important while writing.

y) Don't read ever. You don't want other people tripe infecting your genius. 

z) If you get bored with your WIP, start something else immediately, preferably in a completely different genre, perhaps even in another language. Heck, make up your own language. The muse goes, where the muse goes.


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

JanThompson said:


> Kay, thanks for the corrected information (new to me). Looks like I was mistaken, sadly so. Wow, that's too bad about MM. I had always thought I read that she had tried to write more beyond GWTW. *shaking head*
> 
> [Edited to insert quote from NYT.]


Sorry, wasn't trying to prove you wrong! You just tweaked my curiosity and I thought the article was interesting. You probably read about how she had pages and pages stashed everywhere. Pages that took two suitcases and eventually became _Gone With the Wind_. And of course, that's just one article. Here is another one that says:

The only other work that's been discovered from Mitchell is "Lost Laysen," which she wrote when she was 16. The novella was published posthumously in 1995. 

[URL=http://classiclit.about.com/cs/profileswriters/p/aa_mmitchell]http://classiclit.about.com/cs/profileswriters/p/aa_mmitchell.htm[/url]


----------



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

Great thread!

FWIW - Not knowing any better, I genre jumped and regret it.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

KeithAllen said:


> x) Get two screens for your computer. On one of them work on your amazing book, in the other have all of your social networks and message boards open, lord knows you'd hate to miss something important while writing.


Oh no. This is bad. I do have 2 screens when I sit down to work on my books. One screen for my WIP. The other is my iPad Mini screen in case someone needs my non-writer attention by email or tweets...  Don't worry. I'm not writing today. I should be. But I'm trying a new recipe and I'm busy in the kitchen. I wear many hats.



KeithAllen said:


> z) If you get bored with your WIP, start something else immediately, preferably in a completely different genre, perhaps even in another language. Heck, make up your own language. The muse goes, where the muse goes.


Uh-oh. This happened to me some years ago. I was rewriting one of my WIPs when I had a then-brilliant idea, and I started 4 different WIPs in 4 different genres that took me in 4 different directions. I lost 8 years of work on the WIP I was supposed to be working on.

Don't do that. It will kill your writing career. I'm in recovery now.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

KayBratt said:


> Sorry, wasn't trying to prove you wrong! You just tweaked my curiosity and I thought the article was interesting. You probably read about how she had pages and pages stashed everywhere. Pages that took two suitcases and eventually became _Gone With the Wind_. And of course, that's just one article. Here is another one that says:
> 
> The only other work that's been discovered from Mitchell is "Lost Laysen," which she wrote when she was 16. The novella was published posthumously in 1995.
> 
> [URL=http://classiclit.about.com/cs/profileswriters/p/aa_mmitchell]http://classiclit.about.com/cs/profileswriters/p/aa_mmitchell.htm[/url]


No problem! Nice bit of literary history there. I study history, so I'm for accuracy. Appreciate the information. I do wish she had written more books, but her muse must have gone with the wind.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I agree with some of your points and disagree with others.  However, I think in the spirit of your points, we do agree.

Just because a person doesn't have formal training in X, Y, or Z skill doesn't mean he or she can't still perform that skill at least as well as somebody who has formal training.  After all, how many of us have either an education in creative writing or years and years and years of experience with writing stories from start to finish...and yet you're not trying to claim that only people who have "professional level" experience with writing are capable of writing good books.

I think saying "If you haven't had X years of experience or this specific type of training in this skill over here, you are an idiot if you're trying to do that yourself, and you're never going to be successful" is just incorrect.  

I think a more useful way to sum it all up is "you're not going to be successful if you've got your head in the sand when it comes to your own skills and quality."  And yes, it IS possible to have a reasonably good idea of how your various skills stack up compared to others'.  The idea that all people are fundamentally incapable of recognizing their own weakness is incorrect.  If you know whether you're truly any good at self-editing, or formatting, or making covers, or whatever...or whether you're not so good, then you'll be just fine.  You will be able to hire out the work that's your weak spot and DIY what you're truly capable of doing well.

But it all comes down to seeing yourself clearly.  NOT to whether you've had some kind or magical threshold amount of professional experience or academic training.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

KeithAllen said:


> x) Get two screens for your computer. On one of them work on your amazing book, in the other have all of your social networks and message boards open, lord knows you'd hate to miss something important while writing.


I had two screens for about ten minutes but it irritated me so much that I got rid of it almost immediately. I can't cope with the information overload.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

KeithAllen said:


> x) Get two screens for your computer. On one of them work on your amazing book, in the other have all of your social networks and message boards open, lord knows you'd hate to miss something important while writing.


Definitly bad advice! You would never catch me doing this! I have THREE monitors! To easy to miss stuff otherwise! 

(sad thing... is that is true LOL - I have learned i need to turn 2 of them off to stand a chance....)


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

(I forget what number we're on) Don't let some editor change your writing. They're just jealous failed authors. The point of an editor is to catch typos, not to tell you "She drunk all the whiskey" is ungrammatical.

(next number) Don't use any adverbs. There's no reason in good, tight writing to ever go into how, how often, where, when, or why something was done. You can easily (whoops!) find adverbs by doing a search-and-destroy for any word ending in -ly. Just hope your heroine isn't named Kelly.

(next number) Never used the passive. The passive is weak. That's why it's called "passive"--get it? The only reason it even exists in English is to make writers' books bad. You can locate the passives in your oeuvre by finding anything that's weak. Passive: She took a nap. Active: She died. More active: She died writhing in a pool of blood.


----------



## HarryK (Oct 20, 2011)

VydorScope said:


> Definitly bad advice! You would never catch me doing this! I have THREE monitors! To easy to miss stuff otherwise!


Three is a good number. I'd be able to have social media on one, writing screen on another, and the latest hot video game on yet another. Maximum use of time FTW!

As for genre hopping...here's a question for the peanut gallery: would you consider urban fantasy and heroic fantasy separate genres, or "close enough" to one another?


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

ELHawk: Most people are incapable of spotting mistakes in their own writing, mainly because they don't know they are mistakes in the first place. So they edit as well as they can, which is all fine and good, but because they haven't spent years developing and honing the editing skill, they aren't nearly as adept as someone who has. Sure, there are naturals at anything. More often than not, though, talent shows are filled with those who seem utterly unable to tell that they can't sing, or dance, or whatever, particularly well, if at all. And yet they believe they are contenders. 

Human nature is to be blind to our own defects. For what it's worth, even highly skilled editors I know, who also write, hire editors to go over their own work. Because their brain misses things in their own work they might pick up if they were editing someone else's. The brain is an adaptive, pattern-seeking instrument, and it's very good at filling in sentences, inserting missing letters for you, thinking a sentence makes sense because you know as the author what you meant to say, etc. And that assumes that you know all there is to know about structure, grammar, etc.

Most, no make that, nearly all, authors I've read and those I know, understand they can't spot their own deficiencies, certainly if they're unaware the elements in question are deficiencies. Call it positive sentiment bias. Or self-editing bias. Perhaps there are those who are not only gifted writers, but also editors on par with the better professionally employed ones, and masterful cover designers, as well as being artists, capable of making intelligent choices about every aspect of a cover. I just don't know any. And I know a lot of authors. 

Or let me correct that. I know lots of people who believe they're great at all of the above. They simply aren't. But they believe it, and because there's nobody to show them the error of their ways, they continue believing it. They're surprised when readers complain about their shoddy editing filled with typos, errors, etc. Those are just mean, hyper-critical haters intent on singling them out. They're the first to point out there are plenty of errors in professionally finished trad pubbed books, too. They inevitably have reasons and excuses why their slipshod job is just fine, thank you. Just as they're blind to the difference between a great cover and a kind of crap one, and they figure if they can manipulate a photo and get some text to stick to it, they're right in there with cover designers with 20 years of vocational experience.

I don't try to argue with them. The market will clearly indicate its appetite for their approach. Amazon is filled with unreadable dross slapped up by those with high hopes and zero interest in doing a quality job if it costs them anything - because hey, it should be free to publish and sell books. Except of course that it wasn't until recently. If you wanted to self-pub, you had to save the money to do so. And if you wanted a trad pub deal, you had to hone your craft until you were competent enough to have a ticket into the race. Both those barriers are gone now, and so we have an ocean of books finished in a manner I would call everything from brilliantly to horribly, with the vast majority trending below the mediocre line.

Sure, there are people who can skate as well as pro skaters, dance as well as those who spend 10 years practicing for 7 hours a day, etc. But mostly there are people who think they can, but actually can't. That's the overwhelming majority of those who think they can, I've found. Sadly, most exceptions aren't at all. They just believe themselves to be, or hope nobody notices they aren't.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. However, I think in the spirit of your points, we do agree.
> 
> Just because a person doesn't have formal training in X, Y, or Z skill doesn't mean he or she can't still perform that skill at least as well as somebody who has formal training. After all, how many of us have either an education in creative writing or years and years and years of experience with writing stories from start to finish...and yet you're not trying to claim that only people who have "professional level" experience with writing are capable of writing good books.
> 
> ...


If you were answering me, 
I was actually saying you can be skilled in X, Y and Z and your book may or may not be worth a tinker's dam. 
I read a book the other day that actually looked like a first draft for a college English class. The author in question listed all his credentials at the back. 
I was thinking nice try for a first book while reading it. Got to the back of the book, looked at his author stuff and went wait a minute, this book should have been much better and much clearer from the start. He did tell me that someone else had proofread his book and thought it was good.


----------



## Guest (Oct 11, 2013)

HarryK said:


> As for genre hopping...here's a question for the peanut gallery: would you consider urban fantasy and heroic fantasy separate genres, or "close enough" to one another?


They are sub-genres of the same genre, not completely different genres.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

1001nightspress said:


> (next number) Never used the passive. The passive is weak. That's why it's called "passive"--get it? The only reason it even exists in English is to make writers' books bad. You can locate the passives in your oeuvre by finding anything that's weak. Passive: She took a nap. Active: She died. More active: She died writhing in a pool of blood.


Love this example!


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

1001nightspress said:


> (next number) Don't use any adverbs. There's no reason in good, tight writing to ever go into how, how often, where, when, or why something was done. You can easily (whoops!) find adverbs by doing a search-and-destroy for any word ending in -ly. Just hope your heroine isn't named Kelly.
> 
> (next number) Never used the passive. The passive is weak. That's why it's called "passive"--get it? The only reason it even exists in English is to make writers' books bad. You can locate the passives in your oeuvre by finding anything that's weak. Passive: She took a nap. Active: She died. More active: She died writhing in a pool of blood.


Quoted for hilarity!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> They are sub-genres of the same genre, not completely different genres.


Oddly enough, I figure that you'll get less fan crossover between urban and heroic fantasy than, say heroic fantasy and space opera. The former two actually share fewer themes and tropes than the latter.

Then again, they're all Spec-Fic, so whatever. They all exchange DNA more and more every year, just as Bahamut intended.


----------



## S.R. Tooms (Oct 11, 2013)

Well now, I've mastered most of these points. Are there any other secrets I should be made aware of? Or is success right around the corner!


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. However, I think in the spirit of your points, we do agree.
> 
> Just because a person doesn't have formal training in X, Y, or Z skill doesn't mean he or she can't still perform that skill at least as well as somebody who has formal training. After all, how many of us have either an education in creative writing or years and years and years of experience with writing stories from start to finish...and yet you're not trying to claim that only people who have "professional level" experience with writing are capable of writing good books.
> 
> ...


It isn't ALL about experience, though it helps. But thinking that because you're a good writer you're also a good editor is a common mistake and a bad one. Being a writer does not make you an editor. Editing is a skill every bit as much as writing. I'm fortunate to have finally found a good editor who knows my work, can write in my voice seamlessly, and has never enjoyed my genre (the last thing to me was important for reasons that would take too long to express here). A good editor can give your work that extra polish that you could never get on your own. Not because you are a bad writer, but because they see you from a different perspective.

Proofers...well...to put a book out for the world to see without at least a couple of rounds of proofing is just plain lazy. The big named authors have their books poured over line by line. They do this because they are professionals and people expect a professional product. I too am a professional, and though I do not have the resources as they, I go to great lengths to put out a quality product. My readers deserve it and my pride demands it.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> ELHawk: Most people are incapable of spotting mistakes in their own writing, mainly because they don't know they are mistakes in the first place. So they edit as well as they can, which is all fine and good, but because they haven't spent years developing and honing the editing skill, they aren't nearly as adept as someone who has. Sure, there are naturals at anything. More often than not, though, talent shows are filled with those who seem utterly unable to tell that they can't sing, or dance, or whatever, particularly well, if at all. And yet they believe they are contenders.


I think most mistakes in most books (at least most I've read) are typos or awkward phrasing, not truly egregious grammatical issues. Most of the people who are that blind to grammar aren't making many sales anyway because it's obvious in the sample.

If most errors are the typo kind (very hard to spot in your own work, for sure -- your brain sees what it knows *should* be there and not what is actually there), then how is it impossible to get a book that pleases most readers out of trading typo-hunting with a friend? You comb through my book, I'll comb through yours.

I do agree with you that a lot of people who are ridiculously bad at writing aren't aware of it, and their badness includes not only problems that an editor could fix but also problems that an editor probably can't fix: dumb stories, wooden writing, poor character work, etc. In that case, it's not a professional editor they need. They need to have an honest talk with themselves about whether they're seriously lacking in this overall skill of storytelling.



> Human nature is to be blind to our own defects. For what it's worth, even highly skilled editors I know, who also write, hire editors to go over their own work. Because their brain misses things in their own work they might pick up if they were editing someone else's.


Yes, I agree. I just disagree that one MUST hire a "professional" and pay money for the work, and that if you don't, you can't possibly produce books readers will enjoy. Which is what you asserted in your first post.



> Most, no make that, nearly all, authors I've read and those I know, understand they can't spot their own deficiencies, certainly if they're unaware the elements in question are deficiencies. Call it positive sentiment bias. Or self-editing bias. Perhaps there are those who are not only gifted writers, but also editors on par with the better professionally employed ones, and masterful cover designers, as well as being artists, capable of making intelligent choices about every aspect of a cover. I just don't know any. And I know a lot of authors.


*shrug* I haven't paid an editor yet (I'd like to, but mostly to find out whether I actually do get a cleaner book by paying for it than by trading the work with other writers.) I make my own covers. I do my own ebook formatting. I'm not making as much money as you, largely because I only have two popular books out right now and I'm not writing in one of the most popular genres. But with only two books out, I earn about $2500/month on average. So clearly I'm not scaring readers away with my DIY hack-job. Am I a "master" at anything? No. Could I do better than I currently do at all aspects of this work, from writing to formatting to covers to EVERYTHING? Absolutely. Am I currently accomplishing the goal, with the skills I have right now, of piquing readers' curiosity, pulling them through to a sale, getting them to sign up for my mailing list and tell their friends about me, and then keeping them onboard for purchasing more books? Yes.



> Or let me correct that. I know lots of people who believe they're great at all of the above. They simply aren't. But they believe it, and because there's nobody to show them the error of their ways, they continue believing it. They're surprised when readers complain about their shoddy editing filled with typos, errors, etc. Those are just mean, hyper-critical haters intent on singling them out. They're the first to point out there are plenty of errors in professionally finished trad pubbed books, too. They inevitably have reasons and excuses why their slipshod job is just fine, thank you. Just as they're blind to the difference between a great cover and a kind of crap one, and they figure if they can manipulate a photo and get some text to stick to it, they're right in there with cover designers with 20 years of vocational experience.


Yes, I agree, there are people out there just like that. I've seen 'em. We've all seen 'em. My point is that you don't have to have the same experience as a cover designer with 20 years of vocational experience to make a cover that will do its job of pulling a reader in and kindling their trust in your product. And again, the problem isn't that these people didn't hire a professional with 20 years of design experience. It's that they don't know how to evaluate their OWN skills, and determine what they ARE capable of making right now, and whether it compares favorably to what people with 20 years of experience are doing. And learning how to objectively evaluate your own work is entirely possible. It's hard work and it's not always fun, but it's possible.



> I don't try to argue with them. The market will clearly indicate its appetite for their approach. Amazon is filled with unreadable dross slapped up by those with high hopes and zero interest in doing a quality job if it costs them anything - because hey, it should be free to publish and sell books. Except of course that it wasn't until recently. If you wanted to self-pub, you had to save the money to do so. And if you wanted a trad pub deal, you had to hone your craft until you were competent enough to have a ticket into the race. Both those barriers are gone now, and so we have an ocean of books finished in a manner I would call everything from brilliantly to horribly, with the vast majority trending below the mediocre line.


Yep. There's a ton of crap out there. I'm not disagreeing with you there.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> If you were answering me,
> I was actually saying you can be skilled in X, Y and Z and your book may or may not be worth a tinker's dam.
> I read a book the other day that actually looked like a first draft for a college English class. The author in question listed all his credentials at the back.
> I was thinking nice try for a first book while reading it. Got to the back of the book, looked at his author stuff and went wait a minute, this book should have been much better and much clearer from the start. He did tell me that someone else had proofread his book and thought it was good.


No, I was replying to Blake. But I agree with you -- it doesn't really matter what skills you do have if your book is just bad! You can only polish a turd so much, as the recent kerfuffle on Goodreads over -- what was that book called, the one that had the killer cover and blurb but was apparently just awful to read? Shard? -- I think that was it. as that kerfuffle proved.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

VydorScope said:


> Love this example!


Except that's not passive voice at all! Passive voice would be "A nap was taken." "A death happened." "She took a nap" and "She died" are active voice; they're just very spartan sentences.


----------



## kwest (Mar 16, 2013)

I wish I had read this and taken it to heart before publishing my first book. I've done a couple of things on the list that will be hard to come back from, and I can only hope it doesn't bite me in the butt down the road like it is now. It's best to do things right the first time instead of worrying about the initial investment. Even if you go back and fix mistakes related to editing later on, reviews are forever, and a reader glancing at them will have no idea that a review complalining about editing is months old and the book has long since been updated.

I really didn't know what I was doing back when I hit publish on my first book of my series in December, but I'm grateful for everything I've learned since then...and from learning the hard way, I'll never publish a book again without giving it the sufficient level of investment. Thanks Mr. Blake for the post.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> Except that's not passive voice at all! Passive voice would be "A nap was taken." "A death happened." "She took a nap" and "She died" are active voice; they're just very spartan sentences.


Yes, I know that.  I was being sarcastic.

See, I get irritated when (for example) people say they hate the passive and then follow it with examples that aren't passive. As in _Elements of Style_. I also get impatient with people who feel that adverbs are somehow "bad," yet have no idea what an adverb is, let alone an adverbial. The -ly adverbs of manner are just a small subset. (Not that there's anything wrong with them either.)

BTW, just for the record, "A death happened" is also not passive. Linguists generally recognize two passives, the true or straight passive formed with the copula "be" ("Komodo dragons are found in Indonesia") and the 'get' passive: "She got hit by a car." An intransitive verb is not the same thing as a sentence in the passive voice.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

1001nightspress said:


> Yes, I know that.  I was being sarcastic.


Wait, that was you?! hahahhaha.



> See, I get irritated when (for example) people say they hate the passive and then follow it with examples that aren't passive. As in _Elements of Style_. I also get impatient with people who feel that adverbs are somehow "bad," yet have no idea what an adverb is, let alone an adverbial. The -ly adverbs of manner are just a small subset. (Not that there's anything wrong with them either.)


Me too. Drives me insane.



> BTW, just for the record, "A death happened" is also not passive. Linguists generally recognize two passives, the true or straight passive formed with the copula "be" ("Komodo dragons are found in Indonesia") and the 'get' passive: "She got hit by a car." An intransitive verb is not the same thing as a sentence in the passive voice.


Ooh, cool. Stowing that tidbit away in the brainbank. Grammar is fun -- the more you learn, the twistier and more exciting it gets.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

ElHawk said:


> Grammar is fun -- the more you learn, the twistier and more exciting it gets.


Yes, but the less you get invited to parties... ha. Or as my husband once said, when I was explaining something truly fascinating, "You keep talking--I'm just going to run to the store."


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

1001nightspress said:


> Yes, but the less you get invited to parties... ha. Or as my husband once said, when I was explaining something truly fascinating, "You keep talking--I'm just going to run to the store."


Ah. That's how football conversations go down in our home. "Yes. Seahawks. Excellent. I'm going to be in the bedroom reading a book...you carry on for as long as you'd like."


----------



## DGS (Sep 25, 2013)

So what is your take on hopping around within a genre (Romance) ... say writing Contemp, then More erotic, then something prehistoric, but all ultimately within romance?  Good, bad? Worse than just doing a series of 1 of those books?


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

If you have a a large enough fan base I think it's possible to jump into other genres without damaging your career. But I feel if your goal it to become established, you should, at least for a time, stick to a single (or at least similar) genres. You could write under different names in different genres, but the idea is to become recognized. That's difficult under the best circumstances. It's certainly made more so if you expose yourself to completely different audiences with each new release.

I know the "artsy" faction will jump all over this and say "write what you feel and ignore genre". But the fact is, art is not just art...it's also business. You wouldn't start a new business then be all over the map with your products and services. You first get known for one thing, then through your reputation, move on to others areas.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Being a writer does not make you an editor. Editing is a skill every bit as much as writing. I'm fortunate to have finally found a good editor who knows my work, can write in my voice seamlessly, and has never enjoyed my genre (the last thing to me was important for reasons that would take too long to express here).


I agree that not all good writers make good editors and vice versa.

But I am not sure about the second part: "has never enjoyed my genre." Any hint if it's too long to explain?

I ask because I believe the opposite is true. If my editor doesn't read the genre I write in, he/she will not be able to understand my jargon. I think this is important for genre fiction. E.g. I don't write police procedurals but I know that law enforcement people speak a certain way, so you can't edit that out or reword it. That's how they speak. If the editor doesn't understand that, it would add time and money into the editing process.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

I'm not Brian, but I've heard lots of other authors express a desire to work with an editor who doesn't read their genre.  They've told me it's because they don't want their ideas shaped toward common tropes in the genre, but would prefer to keep them unique, even if that really makes them stand out from the pack.  (Maybe especially if it makes them stand out!)


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I'm not Brian, but I've heard lots of other authors express a desire to work with an editor who doesn't read their genre. They've told me it's because they don't want their ideas shaped toward common tropes in the genre, but would prefer to keep them unique, even if that really makes them stand out from the pack. (Maybe especially if it makes them stand out!)


That's interesting. Hmm. Food for thought. Thanks!


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

DGS said:


> So what is your take on hopping around within a genre (Romance) ... say writing Contemp, then More erotic, then something prehistoric, but all ultimately within romance? Good, bad? Worse than just doing a series of 1 of those books?


... prehistoric? 

But back to the question you asked. I'm in a few Romance subgenres, and I swear I have two reader groups with a bit of overlap. The people who read a lot seem to know exactly what they like, and if your new thing isn't like the other thing they liked, no dice.

It's probably best to stick very close to the tracks of your previous work.

However, we are artists, not robots. You have to mix what's good for your business with what's good for your soul.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

It has to do with the editor being more connected to the story, rather than to the genre. If they typically don't read in your genre, they'll look to the nuances of the story and characters, rather than labor over things like the magic system or technology, in the case of fantasy. 
An editor who does not follow your genre also has no preconceived notions of tone and pace. This leaves it raw.They can then look critically based on what they know about these aspects in general. They do not compare you to, as in my case, other fantasy authors. Instead they base their editing on a straight forward strategy. A good story is a good story, regardless of genre. So with a "clean slate" regarding the editors thinking, he/she can focus on the important bits from a better perspective.
This is, naturally, to do with developmental editing.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> It has to do with the editor being more connected to the story, rather than to the genre. If they typically don't read in your genre, they'll look to the nuances of the story and characters, rather than labor over things like the magic system or technology, in the case of fantasy.
> An editor who does not follow your genre also has no preconceived notions of tone and pace. This leaves it raw.They can then look critically based on what they know about these aspects in general. They do not compare you to, as in my case, other fantasy authors. Instead they base their editing on a straight forward strategy. A good story is a good story, regardless of genre. So with a "clean slate" regarding the editors thinking, he/she can focus on the important bits from a better perspective.
> This is, naturally, to do with developmental editing.


Thanks. I figured as much that you were referring to macro/substantive editing.

I'll keep in mind what you and ElHawk say about this when it comes to professional editing.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I'd like to add a rule (or four):

14.) And only listen to more experienced authors _*if*_ they write write books which are nothing like the books you write. Especially if they go around handing out advice on the internet that says there is only ONE way to do anything. (Obviously, people on the internet know exactly the right advice for you. Because obviously, they can tell by the look of your typing exactly the kind of experience and skills and knowledge you have.)

15.) Don't _ever_ try anything for yourself. Never withhold judgement until you test and see whether you can replicate what these miracle people on the internet claim. Don't research your own market. Don't learn the business for yourself.  And if you see anything different from what your internet gurus tell you, attack it. Don't let it live!

16.) And be sure to never listen to the authors who actually write the kind of books you write and maybe know something about your audience. That audience isn't good enough for you.

17.) And if you decide to give out advice, don't just put it out there for those who can use it. Be sure to get mad if everybody doesn't jump at it. Because after all, those zen guys who claim that "when the student is ready the teacher appears" just don't make sense. Better to bash an unwilling student over the head again and again and again until they accept it.

(Sorry, couldn't help it.)

Camille


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> I'd like to add a rule (or four):
> 
> 14.) And only listen to more experienced authors _*if*_ they write write books which are nothing like the books you write. Especially if they go around handing out advice on the internet that says there is only ONE way to do anything. (Obviously, people on the internet know exactly the right advice for you. Because obviously, they can tell by the look of your typing exactly the kind of experience and skills and knowledge you have.)
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## olefish (Jan 24, 2012)

BrianDAnderson said:


> It has to do with the editor being more connected to the story, rather than to the genre. If they typically don't read in your genre, they'll look to the nuances of the story and characters, rather than labor over things like the magic system or technology, in the case of fantasy.
> An editor who does not follow your genre also has no preconceived notions of tone and pace. This leaves it raw.They can then look critically based on what they know about these aspects in general. They do not compare you to, as in my case, other fantasy authors. Instead they base their editing on a straight forward strategy. A good story is a good story, regardless of genre. So with a "clean slate" regarding the editors thinking, he/she can focus on the important bits from a better perspective.
> This is, naturally, to do with developmental editing.


If your editor doesn't read your genre, you run the risk of crafting a good but derivative story.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

EL: I don't have any problem with someone trading or bartering to get their work edited. Of course, I've written 22 (23 on Monday) novels, and while I'm getting pretty decent at editing, there's no way my edit would even begin to match what my editors do. I guess I just have a tremendous amount of respect and appreciation for what good editors can bring to the table. Note I said good. Finding good ones is hard. So's basically finding good anything in this business. There are plenty of editors whose qualifications match many of the authors: they just decided one day it would be really cool to make extra money, so they hung out a shingle proclaiming themselves to be editors. Maybe they taught high school English. Or maybe they're also authors whose books aren't selling. What they don't have is a solid track record and a good resume. In other words, in all gold rushes, charlatans abound.

Daring: There are many ways to do things. Part of the learning experience is trying new things. If you survive those new things, you have valuable experience to impart. Most new ideas aren't new. They've been tried. And those with the scars to prove it know whether they work. I believe in being adaptive, and trying to avoid mistakes rather than repeat them, especially if the source claiming to know whereof they speak has fought the same battles. That's not argument from authority, it's saying model those who have careers you would like, not those that don't. Everyone's got an opinion. If you want to know how to sell $5K a month worth of books rather than $50K worth, model someone who sells $5K. Want to sell $100K? Find that person and model them.

That's not to say you should buy into dogma. Everyone's mileage will vary.

It actually doesn't matter to me one iota whether folks embrace my approach or dismiss it. Everyone has to cash their own check at the end of the month, and often the size of that check will tell them more than I ever could about the efficacy of their approach and philosophy. I stop in from time to time to share what I view as essentials - core basics, remedials that can help others based on what harsh experience has taught me. Nobody rewards me for this. I actually see an increase in one and two star reviews after doing so. So one might say I pay a penalty for sharing my views. The reason I do so is because I'm grateful to be in the position I am, and if I can give back some of that to others who are fighting the same skirmishes I have, I've partially repaid the universe for my bounty. It's the same reason I contribute heavily to pet rescues. Because I can, and because if I can leave some good in my wake, it's worth it. 

When researching markets, my first step is always to look at what successful players in that market are doing. I did that when I began self-publishing. I continue doing it now. I also try new things, most of which fail - but I still try them, because there's always a chance one of them will work. So the advice to know you audience and research your market is sound. I believe I've said that a few times. Or maybe I just wish I had.

There are many ways to skin cats. I tend to be interested in the ways that make maximum financial return for the most efficient outlay of effort. That's my gospel, I guess you could say. For every person that disagrees with my take, there are others who say Amen. In the end, it is what it is. They're both right. But in the business of selling books, versus feeling good about oneself, I prefer strategies that result in the most sales possible given any investment. Others may differ. I wish them well with their efforts.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

olefish said:


> If your editor doesn't read your genre, you run the risk of crafting a good but derivative story.


I haven't found that to be the case, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. I've worked with a few editors and had the best results with a non-genre fan. There are other factors to take into account. If you feel comfortable working with a particular editor, or are able to take harsh criticism from him/her without getting offended - this can be equally important. Also, trusting an editors opinion is essential. 
I suppose, in the end, it's about a working relationship. My current, and hopefully long term, editor, knows me well. He has reworked all of my books and knows how I write so well that, on the occasions he adds something, I can't tell if I wrote it or he did.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> But in the business of selling books, versus feeling good about oneself, I prefer strategies that result in the most sales possible given any investment.


No publisher strives toward mediocrity or failure, so I am one of those who do take your publishing advice seriously, and then see how I can apply it to my own business of publishing. Obviously everyone has different approaches, and I can't even begin to identify mine yet until I actually publish something, which is what I'm in the process of doing.

As far as "feel good" writing, I am sure that it's possible to write something I really like and make a profit out of it. But there are projects that are not going to turn in monetary profits, though I'm finding out that trying to do that is wiping out my bank account with the cost of publishing a book for the love of it.

I can see why tradpubs make it "easy" for authors to just drop off their manuscripts and go their merry way. As a self-pubber I'm doing the work of a small publisher as well. And I have to wear my business hat 50% of the time... Right now it's lopsided. I'm doing 70% trying to get all my publishing ducks in a row, and that leaves 30% for writing. It's upside down. (Cinisajoy, I hear you.) I'm hoping that after my first book is out I can settle down to a 25% business and 75% writing situation so I can get back to my next mss.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

olefish said:


> If your editor doesn't read your genre, you run the risk of crafting a good but derivative story.


There is truth in that. If an editor is versed in the genre, he/she will be able to point out things like -- new research, someone else has already written that, this might not work, why don't you try this, etc etc. He doesn't have to google every bit of thing you wrote because he doesn't "get it." He might be limited in what he can advise you if he doesn't have the background.

Edited: 
P.S. It also depends on genre. Some genres can cross over. For example, if I were a beta reader, I can read a number of genres without actually being interested in those genres. However, I'm speaking in terms of genres that are further apart, e.g. macro editors who handle historical fiction very well, but have never edited suspense novels.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Jan: It's a very tough business. It requires thick skin, brutal self-assessment, constant reinvention, and a drive for quality and relevance. Feeling good for me comes from the pride of putting out work that is as good as I could make it, and that readers seem to enjoy, thank goodness. I really enjoy writing, but the business of being a publisher is as hard as any I've been in. There are always multiple ways of doing things. I merely propose ones that have served me in good stead. If you find the counsel meritorious, good on ya. If not, I still wish you well.

And now to all a good night. I'm seriously behind on my WIP count for the day, and need to clock another 3K before I sleep. Another long day in a string of them.

Be good to each other in my absence.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> Jan: It's a very tough business. It requires thick skin, brutal self-assessment, constant reinvention, and a drive for quality and relevance. Feeling good for me comes from the pride of putting out work that is as good as I could make it, and that readers seem to enjoy, thank goodness. I really enjoy writing, but the business of being a publisher is as hard as any I've been in. There are always multiple ways of doing things. I merely propose ones that have served me in good stead. If you find the counsel meritorious, good on ya. If not, I still wish you well.
> 
> And now to all a good night. I'm seriously behind on my WIP count for the day, and need to clock another 3K before I sleep. Another long day in a string of them.
> 
> Be good to each other in my absence.


Good night and some great posts today.
Now go work on your book. I will need something to read. (eventually)


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> ...it's saying model those who have careers you would like, not those that don't.


I'm narrowing your quote down to the bit that seems to get lost a lot.

You give wonderful, incredible advice, Russell, and I hope you never get disgusted and stop sharing it.

I just want to point out the friction point I see: There are a whole lot of people who don't want that career, they just want that money -- but they want it the way they want to win the lottery. Ask them if they want to be an investment banker who makes that same amount of money and they'll say no. They don't want to do what an investment banker has to do to reach that point. Or they _can't_.

That's something that should be highlighted: they should look at people who write the books they want to write, and look at the people who make the money they want to make, and see if they are the same people. If they are, great! Do as they do. And if you don't do as they do, don't complain that you got different results.

But if they are different people, then you get to make a decision. Follow one, follow the other, or try to create your own path. If you don't like the results, change paths.

You can't save people from the scars of the wrong path, because no matter what they say, you don't know what they value. They may not know what they value until they have tested it. Some people have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.

But I think the big thing is.... The choice is almost always more narrow and nuanced than the choice between Making Serious Money, and being a Penniless Artiste. There is a huge area in between those two.

Camille


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> It actually doesn't matter to me one iota whether folks embrace my approach or dismiss it. Everyone has to cash their own check at the end of the month, and often the size of that check will tell them more than I ever could about the efficacy of their approach and philosophy. I stop in from time to time to share what I view as essentials - core basics, remedials that can help others based on what harsh experience has taught me. Nobody rewards me for this. I actually see an increase in one and two star reviews after doing so. So one might say I pay a penalty for sharing my views. The reason I do so is because I'm grateful to be in the position I am, and if I can give back some of that to others who are fighting the same skirmishes I have, I've partially repaid the universe for my bounty. It's the same reason I contribute heavily to pet rescues. Because I can, and because if I can leave some good in my wake, it's worth it.


Russell, it's not that your insights aren't valuable. In fact, I agree with many of your points and disagree with just as many. However, you also have the tendency to express your insights in a very "in your face" and borderline rude manner and sometimes come across as belittling those who don't agree with every single one of your publishing maxims.

I'm glad that you've found a process that works for you and that you've been successful that way. However, every writer is different. We all have different skills, life situations, priorities, etc... And I firmly believe that while we can all benefit from looking at and considering what worked for others, we must all find our own path, which may be very different from e.g. yours or Elle's or Holly's or Hugh's. However, the fact that someone is following a different path does not make them amateurs who don't want to succeed, just as the fact that someone cannot write 2000 words a day for whatever reason does not make them artsy flakes who wait for the muse to come to them. There are many ways of being a professional.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

Two of my all time favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Elmore Leonard. Both shifted genres. Another great is Edgar Allen Poe, who shifted between horror fiction and poetry. Another poet who was also a playwright who wrote several genres of plays and who we've all heard of is a guy called Shakespeare. Ray Bradbury (Have you ever read _Dandelion Wine_? It's beautiful.) John Steinbeck. Michael Crichton. CS Lewis. Edgar Rice Burroughs. Truman Capote (Could two books be more different than _In Cold Blood _ and _Breakfast at Tiffany's_?) JK Rowling. Roald Dahl. Joyce Carol Oates. Margaret Atwood. Judy Bloom.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

jdcore said:


> Two of my all time favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Elmore Leonard. Both shifted genres. Another great is Edgar Allen Poe, who shifted between horror fiction and poetry. Another poet who was also a playwright who wrote several genres of plays and who we've all heard of is a guy called Shakespeare. Ray Bradbury (Have you ever read _Dandelion Wine_? It's beautiful.) John Steinbeck. Michael Crichton. CS Lewis. Edgar Rice Burroughs. Truman Capote (Could two books be more different than _In Cold Blood _ and _Breakfast at Tiffany's_?) JK Rowling. Roald Dahl. Joyce Carol Oates. Margaret Atwood. Judy Bloom.


Yes but when did they do this? Really. I don't know. But I'm guessing for most it was after they had established themselves, at least to some degree. However, as this IS a guess, I could be wrong.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

jdcore said:


> Two of my all time favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Elmore Leonard. Both shifted genres. Another great is Edgar Allen Poe, who shifted between horror fiction and poetry. Another poet who was also a playwright who wrote several genres of plays and who we've all heard of is a guy called Shakespeare. Ray Bradbury (Have you ever read _Dandelion Wine_? It's beautiful.) John Steinbeck. Michael Crichton. CS Lewis. Edgar Rice Burroughs. Truman Capote (Could two books be more different than _In Cold Blood _ and _Breakfast at Tiffany's_?) JK Rowling. Roald Dahl. Joyce Carol Oates. Margaret Atwood. Judy Bloom.


For me, it's a lot of those. (Especially Roald Dahl and C.S. Lewis) And... James Thurber.

Define Thurber's genre as anything but... James Thurber.

P.G.Wodehouse is another genre unto himself. A whole BUNCH of pulp writers who wrote everything, but I don't know their real names. (I adore Norbert Davis in particular -- not exactly your model of success.)

I admire a lot of writers I can't write like: Donald Westlake (who, if you included his pen names, was all over the place), Lawrence Block. Harlan Ellison.

Of course not many of these guys are providing a model for indie publishers. (Maybe Lawrence Block, but he's inventing his self-publishing career as he goes too. And Ellison who would sell his audio recordings and some out of print and special edition stuff via his Harlan Ellison Record Collection.) But the thing is.... they mostly succeeded in another day when publishing worked a lot more like indie publishing. It was a lot looser, a lot less lock-stepped than traditional publishing became in the 1980s and 1990s. Niche markets were important and reachable like they are now.

The changes in the industry brought about by the Thor Power Tools decision and Barnes and Noble's distribution system really warped our idea of what is possible. That's not how publishing has always worked.

The thing to remember though: for every James Thurber, there are probably a dozen Norbert Davises. You need peculiar skills if you have a peculiar art. And you need luck.

Camille


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Yes but when did they do this? Really. I don't know. But I'm guessing for most it was after they had established themselves, at least to some degree. However, as this IS a guess, I could be wrong.


Kurt Vonnegut and Michael Crichton did it reasonably recently and did it every step of the way. Elmore Leonard, Margaret Atwood and Judy Bloom were all told they would fail if they shifted genres, and they all succeeded.


----------



## Guest (Oct 12, 2013)

jdcore said:


> Kurt Vonnegut and Michael Crichton did it reasonably recently and did it every step of the way. Elmore Leonard, Margaret Atwood and Judy Bloom were all told they would fail if they shifted genres, and they all succeeded.


But as it applies to an author with no or a small but growing audience, to jump around from genre to genre, though won't hurt their career, won't help it either. Understand that what I'm saying has nothing to do with writing skill or creativity. From business standpoint, it's wiser to focus your resources, rather than spread them so thin that they mean nothing. 
Time and time again writers ask what to do to sell books. Because of this I am increasingly of the opinion that they should spend as much time learning about sales and marketing, along with the basics of business, as they do on writing. That, or hire someone who knows what their doing in that arena. I do both. I spend a great deal of time learning as much as I can about the business end of what I do. I also hire marketing professionals to provide me with their expertise. 
It's hard to approach an artistic world in a cold calculating manner, but unless you have tens of thousands of dollars for massive advertising you must utilize what you have available to it utmost potential.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

My understanding of Russell's post, and others he's written on this topic before (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is not that he's saying nobody ever was successful doing things differently; rather, if you want to be successful in terms of high sales, you'll vastly improve your chances by doing it this way. That's also not the same as saying everybody wants high sales (or wants them more than they want other things).

Plenty of writers have chosen to write in a certain way, or to market or not market in a certain way, not because it brings in the largest sack of money but because they derive some emotional satisfaction from it. And yes, there have been writers who have hit it huge whose first published books were not edited well, had crap covers, what have you. But you can't conclude from that that the average writer trying deliberately to hit it big should forgo editing and pro covers.

Pick your goals first. Is it to have a book out there? to have a _good_ book out there? to make money? to gain fame? to enjoy yourself? What you want to check for is whether your methods are serving your goal. If they are, great! Go to town! If not, reassess. I don't think it's much more complex than that.


----------



## jdcore (Jul 2, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> But as it applies to an author with no or a small but growing audience, to jump around from genre to genre, though won't hurt their career, won't help it either. Understand that what I'm saying has nothing to do with writing skill or creativity. From business standpoint, it's wiser to focus your resources, rather than spread them so thin that they mean nothing.
> Time and time again writers ask what to do to sell books. Because of this I am increasingly of the opinion that they should spend as much time learning about sales and marketing, along with the basics of business, as they do on writing. That, or hire someone who knows what their doing in that arena. I do both. I spend a great deal of time learning as much as I can about the business end of what I do. I also hire marketing professionals to provide me with their expertise.
> It's hard to approach an artistic world in a cold calculating manner, but unless you have tens of thousands of dollars for massive advertising you must utilize what you have available to it utmost potential.


I'm not suggesting that just anyone can write a horror novel followed by a romance followed by a western followed by hard sci-fi and succeed. What I'm saying is that good writing is good writing.

Not that I'm an expert on how to be successful. So far I have published the first in a series of mystery novels, a related noir thriller and an unrelated time travel story with a noir feel. This weekend I will be releasing a humor story with a crime element (and my other stories also have some humor to them.) I genre hop, but I also stay in a narrow thematic milieu. I did it on purpose and in a calculated manner. I'd say I'm having slow and steady success with this strategy.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The thing is, there are some writer you follow because they're good at the genre and some because they're good at writing like them. Critchton, foe example had a _very_ distinct voice whether he was talking about pirates, dinosaurs, or discretely calling a critic a pedophile.


----------



## DGS (Sep 25, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> I'm narrowing your quote down to the bit that seems to get lost a lot.
> 
> You give wonderful, incredible advice, Russell, and I hope you never get disgusted and stop sharing it.
> 
> ...


Wow. I think this was some of the best advice on writing and life I've ever read. Hat's off.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

jdcore said:


> Two of my all time favorite authors are Kurt Vonnegut and Elmore Leonard. Both shifted genres. Another great is Edgar Allen Poe, who shifted between horror fiction and poetry. Another poet who was also a playwright who wrote several genres of plays and who we've all heard of is a guy called Shakespeare. Ray Bradbury (Have you ever read _Dandelion Wine_? It's beautiful.) John Steinbeck. Michael Crichton. CS Lewis. Edgar Rice Burroughs. Truman Capote (Could two books be more different than _In Cold Blood _ and _Breakfast at Tiffany's_?) JK Rowling. Roald Dahl. Joyce Carol Oates. Margaret Atwood. Judy Bloom.


But note that the people who pulled it off are exceptionally gifted storytellers. None of them are "Joe Nobody".

They're what I call "Writers who can sell their grocery list to their fans" because they're that good.

99.9% of us sadly aren't that good, tho we try very hard to improve w/ every word.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

JanThompson said:


> Thanks. I figured as much that you were referring to macro/substantive editing.
> 
> I'll keep in mind what you and ElHawk say about this when it comes to professional editing.


Personally, if I were to hire an editor, I'd hire one who had a good reputation for working with historical fiction (my genre) or at least loved to read it. That's because hardcore fans of historical novels expect a certain level of immersion into the time and place, but don't like to be overwhelmed with obvious displays of how much research the author has done. It can be a very tricky balance. The authors I swap editing work with now are all historical novelists.

For the past several years, the traditional publishers have mostly been putting out historical fiction that really feels much more like your typical "beach read" type of book, with shallow setting, anachronistic dialogue, and characters who feel super-modern. I think it's because the editors at those imprints aren't that into historical fiction and are editing books these books to fit into the kind of book they either like to read or have worked with the most. The result is a big disappointment for real fans of the genre (but has worked like a charm with the people who usually just read fun, beachy women's fiction...who then go all over review sites and declare, "Oh, I love historical fiction and I didn't even know it!" And then if they buy books like mine, which I've crafted so carefully to walk that super-thin line successfully, they think they're boring and too full of history.  )

So I think the "editor who doesn't like your genre" approach only works for certain genres. If I used it for my own books, I'd be afraid I'd end up with historical figures who spoke and acted like 1980s Valley girls. *shudder*


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

As for the big question about whether authors can successfully switch genres...

I think Kris Rusch's recent blog post on the subject of pen names summed it up pretty well.  I've actually had a lengthy conversation with the guys at The Self-Publishing Podcast about this very issue.

I think it's totally possible for indie authors to switch genres with great success.  I think readers are plenty smart enough to decide for themselves whether they want to read your latest book, as long as you brand it clearly.

However -- and this is where I disagreed with one of the members of TSPP -- I think it's smart to stick to one thing until you've established your fan base really well and made a good reputation for quality.  Once you've got a lot of people supporting your career, you can cross over to something new and probably bring a lot of them with you -- and then you don't have to start from the ground up with establishing an all-new base of readers in the new genre.  His argument was "But I don't want fans to think of me as just a great fantasy or horror writer...I want them to think of me as *a great writer* no matter what I'm writing."  I totally get that desire, and I think we all want that.  But the reality is that most readers out there like what they like and do not feel comfortable venturing outside their happy place unless they have a really good reason to do so.  By establishing yourself as one of the best in X genre first, you are giving them the confidence to follow you into a new reading adventure.

So that's what I think about the multiple-genres thing.  It's why I'm using two pen names now, and will for at least a couple more years.  I do hope to merge them at some point, but I have to see how things go for me and my readers first.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> However -- and this is where I disagreed with one of the members of TSPP -- I think it's smart to stick to one thing until you've established your fan base really well and made a good reputation for quality. Once you've got a lot of people supporting your career, you can cross over to something new and probably bring a lot of them with you -- and then you don't have to start from the ground up with establishing an all-new base of readers in the new genre.


From a reader's perspective, some genres are easier to cross over than others. E.g. I have seen authors writing both historical fiction and contemporary romance/women's novels with the same readership base endorsing both genres.

Some readers don't follow their favorite authors to another genre. For example, I read Michael Koryta's PI/mystery novels. But when he genre-hopped to horror, I didn't follow. I waited for his next mystery, which on the tradpub clock meant 2 years


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> After I offered my critique, I was told I was "just jealous" of him and that I better not steal his idea...


How rude. Here, have a cupcake. And don't steal his idea. 

Russell & Cinisajoy, I agree with part of what you said about writers thinking they are better at editing/making covers/etc than they are but I also suspect that while there may not be gazillions of totally DIY writers, there is a significant amount. I think these sucessful DIYers simply toil away in silence, breaking many of the "rules" in the original post, and enjoying their profits. I don't think many would admit/step forward to discuss their counterintuitive strategies though because the general writerly public disagrees with how they do what they do.

Just my opinion.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

NadiaLee said:


> But note that the people who pulled it off are exceptionally gifted storytellers. None of them are "Joe Nobody".
> 
> They're what I call "Writers who can sell their grocery list to their fans" because they're that good.
> 
> 99.9% of us sadly aren't that good, tho we try very hard to improve w/ every word.


(I assume that when you say "Joe Nobody" you're not talking about OUR Joe_Nobody, but using it as a term for people nobody has heard of....)

The problem is.... that's actually true of the "formula" writers as well. There's a survivor bias in a lot of theories of success. Because we so badly want to have a simple formula which anybody willing to work can use to achieve success, we often forget that the people who actually succeed with that formula are exceptionally talented at what they are doing. We also tend to completely overlook the "Joe Nobody's" who are quietly making an ordinary living, very often doing many different things, so that nobody realizes their success because it looks like they are not doing much at any one thing.

That was the bulk of working writers for most of the 20th century and a good portion of the 19th.

Which brings up the other point: even among famous writers, we often only see that portion of their work that got famous. We don't see what they did to make a living from day to day. Sometimes it's because they wrote under pseudonyms, but mostly it's just because their more niche works went out of print and were lost.

And because Indie Publishing is so new (and Traditional Publishing has changed radically) we're often comparing apples and oranges and orangutans. I mean, I'm curious about Russell's experiment in multi-genre writing. Where are those books? How many of them are there? Are there any I might like? Were they self-published? Under a pseudonym? How long did he try it for? What were his expectations? What made him declare the experiment a failure?

In business and science, success is about failing again and again, and failing better. (There's another interesting author for you; Samuel Beckett.) Failures are what science and invention and business are all about.

Camille


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

Daring/Camille, I agree with you.

I was thinking that I'll bet there is an entire subset of writers who make their "living" writing under pen names that never break out but can make their bills/expenses comfortably. We'd only hear about the truly break out book under (possibly) their real names, but never know the other genres/pen names. (Unless someone really gets nosy and this information is discovered by accident, usually after the writer passes away).


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> And because Indie Publishing is so new (and Traditional Publishing has changed radically) we're often comparing apples and oranges and orangutans. I mean, I'm curious about Russell's experiment in multi-genre writing. Where are those books? How many of them are there? Are there any I might like? Were they self-published? Under a pseudonym? How long did he try it for? What were his expectations? What made him declare the experiment a failure?
> Camille


Here's one. And I actually read it and loved it. I picked it up because I was curious about the man who made such a success of himself and I'm the type that likes that inside/personal look. This book tells a lot about Russell and who he is as a person, not just a writer. Warning: this book causes unexpected bursts of emotion...


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> (I assume that when you say "Joe Nobody" you're not talking about OUR Joe_Nobody, but using it as a term for people nobody has heard of....)


Oops. I did not mean Joe_Nobody. I was using it to mean some guy/gal nobody's heard of.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> (I assume that when you say "Joe Nobody" you're not talking about OUR Joe_Nobody, but using it as a term for people nobody has heard of....)


I'm not Nadia, but I wonder if Joe Nobody has other pen names such as Joe Somebody or Joe Cool.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

KayBratt said:


> Here's one. And I actually read it and loved it. I picked it up because I was curious about the man who made such a success of himself and I'm the type that likes that inside/personal look. This book tells a lot about Russell and who he is as a person, not just a writer. Warning: this book causes unexpected bursts of emotion...


If I remember rightly, he says it's sold about 10,000 copies. (Someone hit me if I'm wrong.) So, that's his idea of a failure. (Again, I don't remember if he actually uses the word 'failure', but he seems rather dismissive of it.)

He says it didn't damage his brand because it's so clearly branded as nonfiction.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Everyone's got opinions. Some theorize that there's an ocean of unseen DIY writers who are making nice livings. That's possible. Of course it's as non-disprovable as ghosts moving among us and swaying all human behavior, or a giant invisible lizard god controlling time and space. My problem with these types of theories and opinions is that they contain no real information for me other than the content of the opinion, i.e. that someone thinks X. I don't have something I can use from that to better operate my publishing business. So I tend to discount opinion that isn't backed by data, or that enables me to take positive steps to better manage my biz.

I think 1001Night got it. And expressed it more eloquently than I.

Everyone's free to try whatever they like. If their goal is to make serious money at this, I've had some success with my approach. It's by no means a one-size fits all formula. And it's likely to be extremely unpopular with many because it's about 80% very hard work for incredibly long hours, and 20% fun and artistic fulfillment. It demands that you save money and invest in your business, not try to bootstrap it on a hope and a prayer. It depends far more on basic business principles than on dreams of literary fulfillment. It's geared toward how to succeed as a self-publisher rather than how to feel good as an author.

Some hate it because it conflicts with their chosen path. They've decided they will try their hand at editing, formatting, cover design, etc. and forego investing money into their commercial enterprise. My counsel is to not do that. This offends them. Sorry. I'm not particularly offended by those who say you don't need to invest in your business. I just look at their success, and if they are selling fewer books than I'd like to sell, then I shrug and make a mental note. I'm interested in modeling those who are doing better than I am - not necessarily due to the genre they're working in, but because of their system, their approach. I want to understand how I can model their better mousetrap and improve my sales.

I'm not interested in debating whether it's better or worse to aspire to be a full time writer who makes a serious income, or to be a part timer who is doing the best they can. I'm uninterested in hearing about authors who succeeded writing across genres 20-50 years ago in a completely different time and place, working within a completely different system. I'm not interested in the philosophies, especially the philosophies of failure. I'm after practical take-aways I can use to improve my model, not hear about how we're all winners deep down. That is not intended to be disrespectful of those who aren't selling, but rather to point out that respect is generally earned in business, not awarded by virtue of your drawing breath, and the feel-good bromides and hackneyed aphorisms are not substitutes for sound business counsel. We may all be special snowflakes, but the market is a great weighing machine, and it will find most of our approaches wanting.

Holly does her own covers. She comes from a background of many years working in photography and with images. She does a stellar job. Elle does a great job on her covers. Both of these people have invested time and work in becoming good at that skill, and likely have outsized talent in that department - in other words, they are outliers. Standouts. Atypical. The result they achieve is as good or better than most pro designers. For that I celebrate them. But I don't confuse myself that I can do the same thing. Perhaps I could if I wanted to invest tons of time and energy mastering that skill. But I'm more interested in mastering writing, and if I can pay someone a few hundred bucks to do that part for me, from a time management standpoint, that's the intelligent decision. A CEO of a company could certainly go work on the assembly line or clean the coffee station and bathrooms every day, but it would be a poor time management strategy, because his time's worth way more than the person he can hire to perform that function. So it's a money waste, not a money saver. Regardless of whether he feels a sense of satisfaction for a job well done. It's a bad trade-off.

Likewise, I'm quite sure that if I did six or seven drafts of my novel, and then swapped editing with a couple of my talented author friends, I could probably get a result that's close to what I get paying editors and proofreaders. But during that extra three weeks or a month, I could also write another novel. For me that's a no-brainer. Pay the grand, because that new novel's going to return many multiples of my investment in editing and proofing. To try to DIY for me would be foolish time management, and I aspire to work smarter, not harder. And I value my time considerably, even when I wasn't selling squat. Which is how I built a substantial backlist in a short period. By choosing to write, and farm out the other tasks that suck my writing time.

In terms of genres, I recommend using pen names for stuff that's far afield of your core genre, or sticking to one genre (investing in that genre until you can assess whether it's a winner or a loser for you), assuming you care about improving your chances of commercial success. If you don't particularly care, by all means genre hop to your heart's content, and revel in the market's reception to your strategy. But don't say nobody warned you. I did. Here. Multiple times. Out of the goodness of my heart. Not because I'm trying to sell something.

I view genres from a reader's perspective. Not from an author's. I couldn't care less about your literary satisfaction. That's between you and your pillow. I offer advice that's hard-nosed business advice based on what's worked for me, and what I've heard from people who are in a position to know. From a casual reader's perspective, you have only a few seconds to rope them in. If they can't immediately tell what you're all about, you just lost a lot of them. Because contrary to many authors' beliefs, they aren't going to invest a lot of time and thought trying to figure out who you are and what it is you do. It's your job to clearly communicate that. If who you are and what you do is a mishmash of genres, that can be your choice, but to the reader, it's confusing, so they move to the less confusing choice - the one that's presented more clearly, with less ambiguity. In business branding, having a confusing brand is the kiss of death. Perhaps books are different than every other business on the planet, but I seriously doubt it. I have heard examples of outliers who did this a long time ago, usually after they were already recognized as stellar talents...but what does that have to do with you, unknown author who isn't selling squat? Nothing. That's what it has to do with you. Not a damned thing. No more than how a Kardashian is let into every hot club in town just because they're them, and are featured in the media countless times when they have no obvious skill or talent. Because that's not you, and being a talentless trollop isn't going to yield you the same results. You can believe it will, but business sense says it ain't so.

I agree with the poster who said most authors could do with a decent business course so they understand the basics of commerce, branding, channel management, positioning, etc. Most of the posts here that take issue with my counsel don't offer sound business reasons why my approach is deficient - they offer philosophical arguments, or criticize my tone or word choice or the way I frame my arguments, or disagree because we should all make mistakes to learn or whatnot. That's all fine and good, but I don't recommend making costly and time consuming mistakes if you can avoid it. A smart business person seeks to work smarter than that.

I don't offer writing advice very much. I have a feeling my writing advice would go down about a well as my business advice does. Most wouldn't like it. So I keep it to myself.

I offer counsel on the business of book selling. I see quite a few responses that don't actually have much to do with that business of book selling, and instead argue the merits of personal philosophy, which is fine and interesting, but does nothing for me if I'm looking for hard, usable counsel on how to structure my book selling business so it's more successful. So no disrespect to those offering reams in support of their life or career philosophies, but if it doesn't help me sell more books, it's not of interest for the purposes of this discussion.

With that, I will now go write another 9K words today. Because the book's not going to write itself. And meeting your work schedule so it can be edited and polished properly in order to make your publishing schedule is part of the discipline of being in the business of selling books successfully. By successfully I mean selling 200K or more books per year. That was my target for this year. I'll have surpassed it by about 50K, for which I'm grateful. Next year I'll up that to 300K or more. Every year, raising the bar, because in business you're either shrinking or growing. Either taking or losing market share. Either expanding or contracting. There is no static state - when you're static, someone else is moving up on you to overtake your market position. That's business. In this, as in all other, businesses. Regardless of how you might feel about it.

Same as it ever was.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Angel sold a decent number of books. It was well received. Now it sells squat, mainly because I don't market it, and because it's reached most of its target audience on Amazon, as far as I can tell. And because I can sell a lot more of my thrillers than I can pushing that.

I consider it a bad choice on my part because it did little or nothing to advance my brand, which is a suspense author. It created virtually no synergy. There was little follow on sales of my backlist. Because, and follow along, readers who loved it had nothing else by me that was similar, and they weren't interested in hopping genres, for the most part. So it didn't help me build my brand. It was a successful financial experiment, but in the bigger picture, my time and money would have been far better spent doing something in support of my core brand, not making a tangent successful. I could no doubt sell more books written in that genre, but that's not what I do. So it was a one shot deal, and not smart from a branding or career building standpoint.

And everything I do from a bookselling standpoint should funnel to building my core brand. Everything. The more I put out there that is not in my genre, the more murky who I am or what I do becomes for the casual browser. And that's counter-productive.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

LBrent said:


> How rude. Here, have a cupcake. And don't steal his idea.
> 
> Russell & Cinisajoy, I agree with part of what you said about writers thinking they are better at editing/making covers/etc than they are but I also suspect that while there may not be gazillions of totally DIY writers, there is a significant amount. I think these sucessful DIYers simply toil away in silence, breaking many of the "rules" in the original post, and enjoying their profits. I don't think many would admit/step forward to discuss their counterintuitive strategies though because the general writerly public disagrees with how they do what they do.
> 
> Just my opinion.


Here is a cup of coffee to go with that cupcake.

I never said there weren't writers that can do it all. There are, I am sure.
I was referring to the author that puts out an unedited book because he has a degree or two and doesn't think he needs help. Then make excuses when called on it.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

I am gonna come in as a reader.  Russell is right.  You only have a few seconds to catch my attention to look at your book.    I am also going to say that you only have a few pages to keep my attention.    If I can't make sense of your sample, I am not gonna buy your book.  If you have what comes across as typos in your first page, I am not gonna buy your book.  Note I do not know the authors personally so I can't know what they were thinking, only what it looks like.  There are too many others out there.    
Note that if you ask for opinions on your book, I will gladly give one to you.  It does not matter if we talk every day or I don't know you from Adam.  When looking at your book, you are just John Doe and I will be critical.    There are some authors who's work I usually love and I will even let them know when I don't like a book.    I have been known to put that in a review too.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

On that note, I recently read a book that was an interesting story, had pretty decent characters and I hung in there for those reasons, BUT...it was abysmal in the actual grammar, typos, going from present to past tense in inappropriate places, awkward sentences, weird POV jumps in the same sentence that were horribly distracting. I got through it, but I doubt many readers would have.

Now I feel guilty because I didn't know what to say in a review without the writer's feelings getting hurt by being told how awful it was. I didn't have the heart.  But now the writer may never know the truth. I dunno. Should I have sent a review privately?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

LBrent said:


> On that note, I recently read a book that was an interesting story, had pretty decent characters and I hung in there for those reasons, BUT...it was abysmal in the actual grammar, typos, going from present to past tense in inappropriate places, awkward sentences, weird POV jumps in the same sentence that were horribly distracting. I got through it, but I doubt many readers would have.
> 
> Now I feel guilty because I didn't know what to say in a review without the writer's feelings getting hurt by being told how awful it was. I didn't have the heart. But now the writer may never know the truth. I dunno. Should I have sent a review privately?


On books like those, I will leave a review that basically says if you can get around the grammar, this is a good story. As far as hurting the author's feelings, I have generally not found that to be the case. Now two authors have contacted me about the reviews. One made excuses and the other said and I quote "I don't want people like you buying the wrong book". Actually 3 have but the third one was polite about it.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Everyone's got opinions. Some theorize that there's an ocean of unseen DIY writers who are making nice livings. That's possible. Of course it's as non-disprovable as ghosts moving among us and swaying all human behavior, or a giant invisible lizard god controlling time and space. My problem with these types of theories and opinions is that they contain no real information for me other than the content of the opinion, i.e. that someone thinks X. I don't have something I can use from that to better operate my publishing business. So I tend to discount opinion that isn't backed by data, or that enables me to take positive steps to better manage my biz.


Often when someone posted something here that goes against the conventional wisdom on this board, they were attacked and hounded for proof. Just ask Tattooed Writer and Bilinda Ni Sidocain. After witnessing a few of those threads, it's no wonder that plenty of people who don't follow the prescribed path don't feel like talking about it. It just like what Dean Wesley Smith said about the myth of rewriting. Plenty of authors write only a single draft and then do some minor corrections. However, it is expected that writers rewrite extensively, so even people who don't claim that they do.

I fully agree with you that every indie writer should put out a product that looks professional. How the writer gets there, with hired help, bartered help or on their own, is their own business.

What I disagree with is your blanket dismissal of writers who don't follow advice as amateurs, artsy-fartsy snowflakes or worse. The fact that e.g. Camille or I don't follow your specific path doesn't make us any less professional or disciplined than you and it's rather rude of you to insinuate that. After all, I don't see anyone calling you a mercenary hack writer who's only looking at the bottom line either.

As for business, I already have two jobs and a freelance business (as a translator) that I enjoy. I write because I enjoy it and while I like the extra income, I would still write (and did) if I didn't get paid for it. I promised myself back in the day when I was still pursuing trad publishing that I would never depend solely on my writing income, so I could always walk away from bad contracts, ugly covers, enforced pen names or changes to my work I couldn't live with. Indie publishing suits me, because I like being in control of my own work. I also like learning new skills. I don't spend money hiring someone to do something I can do myself (and the emphasis is on "can". If I can't or don't want to do it, I hire someone who can), precisely because I am a business person and therefore careful where I invest my money. What I like most about indie publishing is the freedom that makes even niche works viable. And I always sigh when I see indie writers doing exactly the sort of thing trad-pub forced many authors to do.

Maybe that's not the writing career you want, but that's okay. I wouldn't want your career either and not just because your genre is one of the few I don't care for. And if that makes me an artsy-fartsy snowflake in your opinion, then so be it. Cause unlike many others on this board, I don't think art is a dirty word.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> On books like those, I will leave a review that basically says if you can get around the grammar, this is a good story. As far as hurting the author's feelings, I have generally not found that to be the case. Now two authors have contacted me about the reviews. One made excuses and the other said and I quote "I don't want people like you buying the wrong book". Actually 3 have but the third one was polite about it.


I might go back and leave a review after all. Thanx.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

CoraBuhlert said:


> Often when someone posted something here that goes against the conventional wisdom on this board, they were attacked and hounded for proof. Just ask Tattooed Writer and Bilinda Ni Sidocain. After witnessing a few of those threads, it's no wonder that plenty of people who don't follow the prescribed path don't feel like talking about it. It just like what Dean Wesley Smith said about the myth of rewriting. Plenty of authors write only a single draft and then do some minor corrections. However, it is expected that writers rewrite extensively, so even people who don't claim that they do.
> 
> I fully agree with you that every indie writer should put out a product that looks professional. How the writer gets there, with hired help, bartered help or on their own, is their own business.
> 
> ...


Exactly . .


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

I had an autographed book store about 10 years ago. Authors signed on with me, and I sold their autographed books in my shop. I also sponsored them for public signings at town festivals and things. There were a few local authors (and some not so local), whom I could always depend on to sign up for events.

One of these was a reporter-turned-novelist. Think about that for a moment: no shame. Ready? Now proceed.

The other was an older woman who had been born without knees - her feet were attached where her knees would have been. She was normal sized from the waist up, but stood about three feet tall. She had prosthetic legs, which made her about 5'8" tall (they were designed around her waist and up proportions) but she NEVER EVER EVER wore them to book signings. Her book was an autobiography called "The Short and Tall of It." And, she was also absolutely shameless.  

Both women were lovely, and I really enjoyed their company. I really did. But their sales tactics were Un (effing) Be (effing) Leivable. The reporter would accost you (that's the correct word) and put her arm across your shoulder, holding her book up to your nose, reading you passages. People literally bought her book to get away from her. It was worth $12.95 to escape.

The woman with no knees would waddle up to you, look up at you soulfully, hold her book out and say, "Would you like to buy my book? It's really good." I vividly remember a book signing event under a tent at a street fair, where she went running down the street after a potential reader, and returned still running, waving the cash in the air.

Those two women were my best sellers. No kidding. So who am I to complain?


----------



## Cheryl Douglas (Dec 7, 2011)

Brilliant! 

Had it not been for the months I spent on this board prior to hitting 'publish' the first time, I could have easily made a lot of these mistakes. Thanks to all the seasoned pros who unknowingly steered me in the right direction. 

The only one I have a problem with is the one relating to word count. My books are only 60-65k words and I don't think that makes me lazy. As part of a contemporary romance series, that formula works for me. In fact, my content editor would probably rake me over the coals if I tried to add another 10-15K words just to stretch it out for the sake of giving my readers more bang for their buck. At $2.99, I'm satisfied I'm doing my job by entertaining them for several hours. It's still a lot cheaper than going to the movies.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Cheryl Douglas said:


> Brilliant!
> 
> Had it not been for the months I spent on this board prior to hitting 'publish' the first time, I could have easily made a lot of these mistakes. Thanks to all the seasoned pros who unknowingly steered me in the right direction.
> 
> The only one I have a problem with is the one relating to word count. My books are only 60-65k words and I don't think that makes me lazy. As part of a contemporary romance series, that formula works for me. In fact, my content editor would probably rake me over the coals if I tried to add another 10-15K words just to stretch it out for the sake of giving my readers more bang for their buck. At $2.99, I'm satisfied I'm doing my job by entertaining them for several hours. It's still a lot cheaper than going to the movies.


Many trad books in some genres are 50-60K. Comes back to know your genre. Erotica is half that. Long as the readers are buying and not complaining that is who you should listen too.
Oh and I prefer books to movies anyway.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

It's easy to attack the person rather than the argument, Russell.

Remember a few things here: You have no idea of the person you are talking to has had a business course, or a whole degree, or has run multiple other businesses.  They aren't necessarily going to tell you.  You haven't said anything that indicates a business background.  Maybe you have one, maybe you don't. The only indication you give is that you didn't believe your mentors when you started, and that you are really sorry you didn't.  You haven't given us a business analysis of what happened with that, nothing about your strategic goals in doing it, nothing about the assessment you used.  You've only told us that you were scarred by it.

You accuse writers of being selfish and not thinking of the readers.  You don't even listen to the fact that in many cases, we are speaking as readers first and writers second.  Is it any less selfish to only think of readers of best sellers and tight genre classifications?  What about the readers of James Thurber?  Don't they count?  What about the readers who want something different? Who want something new?  Or something old?  Screw the long tail readers, but shame on us for being too selfish to serve the over-served bestseller audience.

So don't call the kettle black.  That's what we're asking.

The saddest thing about this is something you may not be able to see from you point of view: what you have to say is of use to people you insist on insulting nearly every time you post.  Sure, it's not anything new, but new writers are lost in a sea of scammy get-rich-quick noise out there. Your path may not be the path they ultimately need to take, but it's a true path. It doesn't lead to a swamp.  And imho, every writer needs to hear it, and understand it.

And constant derision and insults is not a good way to get them to listen.

Camille


----------



## Scott Daniel (Feb 1, 2011)

Mr. Blake:

I want one of my pen names to be branded as a romance writer. The problem is, I started using this pen name a few years ago and published a pair of titles (short stories, one of which is perma-free) that are kind of romance-ish, but not clear cut from a branding point of view. Would I better off in the long run to unpublish those titles?

Also, another couple of questions if I might. When you publish a new novel, does it improve sales for all of your backlist, or just the related titles? In other words, if you release a new Jet does that help just the Jet series, or do you see a residual bump on everything? How long does that wave last? Is there a point where a new release doesn't help part or all of the backlist?

Thank you.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Can't answer your question vis a vis the strategy of tight genre branding, but given that Russell has asked for more specifics, I can say that:

When I publish a new title, it generally helps all my very scattered books.  However, it is not as predictable as you'd think in terms of which books it might help more than others.  (Often, it helps books very different from the new book -- which may be because existing readers have read the similar books, and it gets them to take a look at the others.)

Camille


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Cheryl Douglas said:


> The only one I have a problem with is the one relating to word count. My books are only 60-65k words and I don't think that makes me lazy. As part of a contemporary romance series, that formula works for me. In fact, my content editor would probably rake me over the coals if I tried to add another 10-15K words just to stretch it out for the sake of giving my readers more bang for their buck. At $2.99, I'm satisfied I'm doing my job by entertaining them for several hours. It's still a lot cheaper than going to the movies.


Speaking strictly as a reader of contemporary fiction, not necessarily romance, but the same point nonetheless, I think that $2.99 is too low for a 65K novel, but I might be wrong. I say that because lots of 20K novels are sold at the $2.99 price point. I think that your word count of 60-65K seems to gravitate toward $3.99. Someone correct me?

I went to Amazon to see what HQN priced their romance and here is what I found. Their Love Inspired line has many subgenres so I just grabbed a few contemporary romance ebooks, knowing that according to the HQN website they shoot for 60K words, and all of them are listed at $5.99 but on sale across the board for 23% off at $4.61.

Example: http://www.amazon.com/Season-Love-Inspired-ebook/dp/B00CFX57H6/

Turns out that the entire Love Inspired line is on sale for $4.61 for Kindle eBooks in all genres - suspense, romance, historical, etc.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> And constant derision and insults is not a good way to get them to listen.


I'm just a spectator, but I want to say that I must be missing posts because I don't see Mr. Blake as insulting. Blunt and assertive, he may be, but insulting, I don't see. Perhaps I've developed a thick skin to be able to run my own business, or I'm just not seeing the "insults." Actually I might have been insulted by agents before, so shields are up, and words cannot hurt me (er, maybe LOL).

However, as someone fairly new to KB, I want to hear both sides, no matter how blunt the arguments are, and I want to make my own judgment. So I want to hear all the pros and cons and ups and downs and sideways. Tell me as it is. I can handle it (wait, let me go hide behind my shield first).

While I appreciate the politeness, sometimes I myself need a wake-up call. I first realized that self-publishing needs to be treated as a business when Mr. Blake said it. So for that I thank him. But he's not the first one to say it nor the last. And I've learned so much from EVERYONE on this board that helps me "unparalyze" my fear of failure. So for that I'm eternally grateful. I'm still inching my way to my first publication but it's not too scary anymore... For now.

All that to say I'm for all views being aired, knowing that "to each her own" and YMMV are the bottomline. Cheers.









http://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483190684046/


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Following is a draft excerpt from a WIP about self-publishing, which I might never publish:

_There are many ways to market a self-published book. None of them work.
...
Here are the brutal facts about marketing schemes. Potential readers have only so much money to spend. You and a million other writers are competing for that money. When one of them succeeds at getting the most money from the reader pool, he or she often writes a book that explains the process, thus getting more money from ambitions writers like you.

But...

If everyone uses some writer's iron-clad, tried-and-trusted, field-proven marketing formula, it stops working.

That's right, the sure-fire marketing secrets of successful writers stop working when the secrets are published and embraced. Because everyone is using them. And, after all, there are only so many dollars...

The formulae stop working even for the very writers who developed them. But they don't need them any more. By now, they are famous, their names are their brand, and, assuming they keep writing good books, their loyal readership will continue to buy their work.

So, have yourself a ball with social media, giveaways, blog tours, bookmarks, trailers, and all that, but don't expect those activities to deliver a huge following.

The only marketing advice I've read that makes sense is this: Keep writing and publishing good books until one of them catches on, however that happens, and the readers might flock to your backlist.

Then write a book on how to market books._


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Al Stevens said:


> Following is a draft excerpt from a WIP about self-publishing, which I might never publish:
> 
> _There are many ways to market a self-published book. None of them work.
> ...
> ...


Now this meets Frank Sheed's sanity criterion: seeing what is there, what is real.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Everyone's got opinions. Some theorize that there's an ocean of unseen DIY writers who are making nice livings. That's possible. Of course it's as non-disprovable as ghosts moving among us and swaying all human behavior, or a giant invisible lizard god controlling time and space. My problem with these types of theories and opinions is that they contain no real information for me other than the content of the opinion, i.e. that someone thinks X. I don't have something I can use from that to better operate my publishing business. So I tend to discount opinion that isn't backed by data, or that enables me to take positive steps to better manage my biz.


I know I make a decent living without help on my titles, but I've already been dismissed in other threads because of my genre and the fact that I'm on the steamier side of it, so I'm in no mood to provide "real information." I will acknowledge that I have a background different from many self-publishers that includes advanced degrees relevant to business; a very successful experience as a retail manager; prior traditional publication (meaning I know what value I can expect from an outside editor and have decided to forego having one); significant editorial experience at the level of top national/global publications; corporate publishing experience; and SEO & marketing (to include visual brand development) experience -- plus whatever else is slipping my mind as I don't have my CV on hand. So, all those years I hated working for someone else were thankfully preparing me to work for myself.

My position on whether one follows a total DIY path or outsources aspects involves a cost-benefit analysis: assuming I can produce work of equal quality, is it "cheaper" for me to DIY or for me to outsource? I don't work anywhere near a 40-hour week now that I am a "full-time" writer and often there is an inequality between what I can produce versus the services I can buy in that I cannot find reasonably priced helpers that will produce at the same quality I do.

Another problem faced by some authors who choose to outsource is that they have no concept of quality. Someone did their cover, someone did a developmental edit, someone did a final proof, and yet their book (a) has an ugly, unmarketable cover, (b) needs a developmental edit, and (3) is riddled with typos and grammatical errors. If you can recognize quality, you can DIY or choose to outsource it. If you cannot, you may spend a lot of money for nothing. I see a lot of people spending a lot of money for nothing.

Finally, there is this assumption of how much effort and quality goes into a traditionally published work that is not the author's effort. It's kind of like thinking a traditional publisher is going to do your marketing for you. I suggest anyone who thinks significant developmental edits and multiple copyedits *are the norm* in traditional publishing is an outsider to traditional publishing.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Camille: I'm not attacking anyone. There has been no argument mounted. There have been opinions and sentiment and philosophy.

Nobody has come on and said, hey, wait a minute, if you want to sell 200K books a year, here's how I did it - I do my own covers, I edit myself, I do my own formatting, and I attribute my success to that. Rather, I've heard how there are different paths, which there may well be, but which isn't useful for formulating a successful strategy. And that's my whole point.

I have heard of different paths as alternatives, but nobody has pointed to concrete examples of how those different paths have been used by self-publishers to get outsized results. I've heard arguments about how it isn't necessary to measure success by sales results, which simply moves the goalposts. Of course it's necessary to measure the success of a book selling strategy by sales results. How you feel about a strategy is unimportant to me as a book seller. Whether it works is all I care about.

Again. This is a thread in which I am trying to discuss BOOK SELLING and the various ways I would counsel to improve BOOK SELLING, not one's feelings about art, or the path less traveled, or any of the rest of it. That's not being insulting. It isn't intended to be insulting. It is intended to discuss the BUSINESS of SELLING BOOKS in a blunt, no-BS manner. Nothing else. Not whether we're all successful if we feel we are, or whether circumstances make us less successful because we can't operate our book selling business full time, or what the word successful even means. It seems like I'm getting a lot of posts that are admonishing me about my style, or feel I'm saying those who DYI aren't professional.

For the record, if you don't like my style, don't read. Simple. If you want a nerf world where it takes a village to sell a book, look elsewhere. I write, when I post, about the business of book selling, in frank, no-nonsense terms.

As to my feelings about DIY, again, the benchmark for professional publishing doesn't need to be argued. It's like who won the 1977 world series. It's knowable. Look at the PROFESSIONAL book sellers - the traditional publishing houses - and look at their process. Do they have their authors "do it themselves?" No. Because that's unprofessional, and they know most would do a crap job. So they hire professionals. That's what pro businesses do. They aren't cottage industries where one person wears all hats. They hire professionals to do a professional job. Pro formatters, pro editors, pro book cover designers. They are the benchmark, and they are the quality I aspire to. Not the best someone can do on a shoestring by themselves.

Now, it's entirely possible that the rarest of talents can not only write at a professional level, but can also design and execute covers at the level, can edit at that level, including their own work, can proofread their own work at that level, can format at that level, and their product is essentially the same as the benchmark. I just haven't seen anyone who can do all of that. The one person I know who can takes a year and a half on one book. She spends many months on the editing. She recently had my cover designer redo her self-created covers, and loves the new, professional covers. She's the closest thing I've seen. And her covers fell short. More importantly, instead or writing two or three books in a year and a half, she burned that time with items she could have farmed out to pros and been writing the next one, and the one after that.

That approach is hugely inefficient, if efficiency is measure by maximizing your writing time and minimizing your non-writing time. I hear again and again, "I really want to spend most of my time writing." So I tell people how to do that, and many don't like it. Guess what? There's no free lunch. Never. None. You either pay in money, or time and sweat, which usually, if your time is even slightly valuable, is the most expensive way to do most of the maintenance and QC related tasks. If you can find a good editor to edit 100K words for $600, versus you spending a few weeks doing your best, that's a simple equation. What are two weeks of your writing time worth? Three? Four? More? More than $600? Then farm it out.

I have a business background. As you might have guessed. So I approach things from a business perspective...when discussing business. Art is art. It's a different discussion. I don't know why it's so hard to get authors to recognize that the business of selling books is completely different than the craft/art of writing. All my counsel is designed to help authors make better business decisions when approaching the business of selling books. It has nothing to do with the art or craft of writing. I wouldn't presume to instruct others how to write. That's a very personal thing, and will vary. But how to market and sell the most burgers, or CDs, or books? That's business. And there are constants in business. Knowable things. Benchmarks. Strategies that yield great results, and those that don't.

All business approaches are not equivalent based on how people feel about them. They are measured by their results, and nothing else.

If you have an approach you believe to be superior to mine in terms of demonstrable results, by all means articulate what it is, what specific result it has yielded in terms of sales (because that's the discussion - book selling), and why you believe it has worked so well.

If your approach hasn't yielded superior results, and they are in fact worse, then state that, because that's a pretty big data point in a discussion of book selling techniques that work.

I don't accuse anyone of anything. Some authors are selfish. Others aren't. Some think of things from a reader's perspective. Others don't. Those that put out shoddy product that fails to live up to pro standards aren't thinking of things from a reader's perspective. Those that use book selling approaches that yield lousy results and couch their choices in non-sales terms, arguing they're servicing readers they don't want to leave behind or whatnot, are merely rationalizing why a book selling approach yields lousy results, but is _philosophically_ important to them.

If you believe a book selling strategy of emulating James Thurber is a good book selling strategy, then by all means, illuminate us with your sales results of that book selling strategy you've developed. Leave it to us to decide how viable that strategy has been. Book selling strategy viability being measured by units sold and dollars earned, not sentiment about the importance of servicing a market that yields poor book selling results.

Here's where I'll leave this. Every day for the last 60 days, and for the next 30, I have to write 7500 words to make my commitments. I've also written several thousand words here over the last few days. I don't have time to draft a business analysis of why my book selling strategy is a good one. Nobody's paying me to do so. And frankly, results speak for themselves, and I earn my daily bread by operating my book selling business as well as I can, not in educating others. So I won't invest my time in drafting one. I offer my book selling approach for folks to take or leave. If you have performed such a business analysis on your favored approach, again, by all means offer the results so we can understand its book selling success to date, as well as the analysis, which will be of interest to me only if it's yielded good book selling results.

If anyone finds my insistence on sticking to definitive terms and data within a book selling business context to be insulting, I apologize. I'm not insulted by those that disagree with me, so they shouldn't take umbrage at my posts. If I see something I believe to be twaddle, I skip it. If you believe this to be twaddle, do the same. I'm quite sure the world won't tilt off its axis either way.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Before I go back and read any of this.... I'd just like to apologize to Russell.

I didn't think I was getting pissed off, just annoyed, but I realize I am doing to him what I accuse him of doing to others.  To whit; the first post in this thread really seems like a response to several other threads in the past day or so, which were about taking the alternate route on some things.  I'm talking specifically about the DIY thread and the one about slow writers.  It seemed at a glance to be a snarky response to people who don't deserve that kind of derision.  The first post here does not reflect any of the attitudes expressed on those threads.

But to be honest, I have no way of knowing if this is a response to that or not.

So I'm sorry.

I'll make a better attempt not to take offense at any responses I provoked since my last post.

I will, however, ask if Russell is serious about wanting to see more information (less "feeling") on other paths.  For instance, why I as a design professional went for the covers I have.  (Not to "help" him see the light, but rather to help him see whether we're talking about what he thinks we're talking about.)

If this thread's a dead horse, I can take it elsewhere.

Camille


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Okay, I been watchin' this one . . . 

I know for a fack Ms. Wick knows what she's talking about. And she will share her expertise, too--freely. Thanks. Ms. Wick. 
And Mr. Blakebooks knows what he's talking about too. He's got the figures to back it up.

But here's what's not being talked about. What kind of frigging book are you writing. That is, are you writing the kind of book that lends itself to fast, one-time ereader consumption--smut (don't say it), vampire romance,  thriller, action adventure, whatever--or are you writing books that people will RE-READ. There's a huge difference.

Mr. Blake is absolutely on the mark for the kind of book he's talking about. But what do I do if I don't want to--or can't--write that kind of book? 

And, yes, "fack" is correct--that's an Okie-ism.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

WyattM et al. said:


> But here's what's not being talked about. What kind of frigging book are you writing. That is, are you writing the kind of book that lends itself to fast, one-time ereader consumption--smut (don't say it), vampire romance, thriller, action adventure, whatever--or are you writing books that people will RE-READ. There's a huge difference.


I don't think that's the issue at all. Litfit, chicklit, smut...his advice is for people who want to sell books. It's about giving yourself the best chance to sell the most books. Whether someone rereads them after they buy them isn't the issue.


----------



## Jennifer R P (Oct 19, 2012)

Add random people on social media. Then direct message or chat them with ads for your book.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Monique said:


> I don't think that's the issue at all. Litfit, chicklit, smut...his advice is for people who want to sell books. It's about giving yourself the best chance to sell the most books. Whether someone rereads them after they buy them isn't the issue.


I know, I know, you're fond of the pithy comment and come-back like me (I seen it). Still, the kind of book matters--is it for mere comsumption or is it for something more? There is a difference all around--and re-reading is a huge issue for certain kinds of books.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> I know, I know, you're fond of the pithy comment and come-back like me (I seen it). Still, the kind of book matters--is it for mere comsumption or is it for something more? There is a difference all around--and re-reading is a huge issue for certain kinds of books.


Serious question:
What difference is there if I read a book once or 10 times? How is re-reading a huge issue? Please explain.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> Still, the kind of book matters--is it for mere comsumption or is it for something more? There is a difference all around--and re-reading is a huge issue for certain kinds of books.


I'm not sure if I read your post correctly, but IMO, re-reading doesn't affect sales because the book or ebook has already been purchased. Unless of course they bought another copy of the printed book.


----------



## Indecisive (Jun 17, 2013)

I've been reading this thread with some interest, but I feel like Russel Blake is missing a piece of the puzzle, where other writers are concerned, namely, different definitions of success. 

For Mr. Blake, success = selling the most books

For someone else, it could be writing one great book, or a few books they're really proud of, and getting some money and/or recognition for that work.
For myself, I want a balanced life, and a modest income to support that. Lots of money might be nice, but I want health, friends, and family time more. That's a different definition of success. I don't see the book-a-month advice as being the best for me. My goals are less quantifiable (though I do have some targets and benchmarks) and certainly less flashy, but for me, and probably others, success isn't about $$ profit alone.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Okay, now I know how Mr. Blake feels trying to explain his view.

Look, there are different  kinds of books. Some are meant to be raced through, consumed rapidly, and some are meant to be savored--ya know 
Big Macs and and steaks and all  that --

It's not that hard.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

ameliasmith said:


> I've been reading this thread with some interest, but I feel like Russel Blake is missing a piece of the puzzle, where other writers are concerned, namely, different definitions of success.
> 
> For Mr. Blake, success = selling the most books
> 
> ...


Well, to be fair, he did say it was all about seling books.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

ameliasmith said:


> I've been reading this thread with some interest, but I feel like Russel Blake is missing a piece of the puzzle, where other writers are concerned, namely, different definitions of success.
> 
> For Mr. Blake, success = selling the most books


Success does vary wildly from person to person. But this thread isn't "How to not be a successful writer", it's How not to sell books. It's about selling. It's advice geared toward helping authors sell more books. I don't think he begrudges anyone their own definition of success.



WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, now I know how Mr. Blake feels trying to explain his view.
> 
> Look, there are different kinds of books. Some are meant to be raced through, consumed rapidly, and some are meant to be savored--ya know
> Big Macs and and steaks and all that shi--
> ...


I think we all can agree that there are different types of books, but I'm still not sure what that has to do with the basic rules for selling books as outlined in the thread.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, now I know how Mr. Blake feels trying to explain his view.
> 
> Look, there are different kinds of books. Some are meant to be raced through, consumed rapidly, and some are meant to be savored--ya know
> Big Macs and and steaks and all that shi--
> ...


Let me rephrase my question. I am an avid reader. Or a voracious reader. Some books I will read once and others I have memorized.
I can pretty much bet that I will only read Atlas Shrugged once. I have read Lonesome Dove twice. Yet both authors only got paid once. I have read Cheaper by the Dozen at least 8 times. Author got paid once.
Now I have read all of JA Konrath's books. He also only got paid once. I have read 2 of Mimi's books. I have read several of Alexia's books. I have also read some Isaac Asimov.
Now depending on who I am talking to would depend on which book I would recommend. Where does how many times I read them come into play?


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

WyattM et al. said:


> ... are you writing the kind of book that lends itself to fast, one-time ereader consumption--smut (don't say it), vampire romance, thriller, action adventure, whatever--or are you writing books that people will RE-READ. There's a huge difference....


1. Thank you and   
2. I guarantee a large # of my readers re-read my books  they tell me both in emails and in reviews. Romance readers, whether they are paranormal readers, or the really steamy readers, or the sweet vanilla readers, are big on re-reading their favorites so are erotica readers.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Christa Wick said:


> 1. Thank you and
> 2. I guarantee a large # of my readers re-read my books  they tell me both in emails and in reviews. Romance readers, whether they are paranormal readers, or the really steamy readers, or the sweet vanilla readers, are big on re-reading their favorites so are erotica readers.


Ayup. My books are far from classics, but I the same from my readers.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

ameliasmith said:


> I've been reading this thread with some interest, but I feel like Russel Blake is missing a piece of the puzzle, where other writers are concerned, namely, different definitions of success.


No, I don't think so--he's not talking about success or satisfaction or personal goals or quality of literature, even--he's just talking about sales. It's OK to not always want sales to be the most important thing to you. And he's not saying you do! He's just saying, if you want to maximize your chances of selling a lot, here are some steps that you can take to get you there.

I really don't think it's any more than that. He's not saying other people's genre-hopping is wrong, or that other people's books are bad, or that other people's methods of obtaining covers is a farce, or that other people's sales of 200 books a month instead of 2000 books a month makes them pithy humans. He's only talking about large amounts of sales, and how to get them (should you want to). That's all. And in a statistical way--what will happen to most people most of the time. That doesn't preclude the existence of outliers, of course not. But if you're not an outlier, you'd be better off studying the strategies that will work for most people most of the time, as long as they meet your goals.

I don't even actually think Russell has said huge sales are HIS definition of success. He's just said, "This is a way to sell a lot of books." I'm surprised people feel so challenged by that. And I say that as someone who--frankly--doesn't sell a lot of (fiction) books. That's not my priority. Still, though, I'm interested in selling SOME books, so I listen to what people like Russell and Holly and Elle say, because they are selling a lot of books. Whether I choose to follow their advice or not depends on my life and what I want out of it; but I can't see any advantage to not even listening to their advice. Often I find I can take some of it, and do better. That's gold to me. My gold may be Russell's tin, but I don't care--and neither does he. If I'm not selling books, I still want to know why, even if I choose not to act on that. Understanding is never a bad thing. What I do with that understanding is up to me, but it's hard to react to it if I don't even have it.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Wyatt -- while I know where you're coming from, I actually have to agree with the others on it. Blake's methods are great for those kinds of books too. It's the business and career model, not the quality of book. There are great literary authors who do exactly as he recommends.

But that doesn't make the career/business model right for every author. Not all authors can do what he recommends. Not all need to. But any author can benefit from it.

I will say that this advice (if taken lockstep) could _theoretically_ hurt literature if someone like Russell has some culture-changing book (something like, say, The Princess Bride) inside him and he doesn't write it because it doesn't fit his brand. But that's his personal choice, and if he were to choose that we would be deprived of what he would have written instead.

You can blow people away with thrillers and romances and smut too.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

daringnovelist said:


> I will say that this advice (if taken lockstep) could _theoretically_ hurt literature if someone like Russell has some culture-changing book (something like, say, The Princess Bride) inside him and he doesn't write it because it doesn't fit his brand. But that's his personal choice, and if he were to choose that we would be deprived of what he would have written instead.


The Princess Bride? Inconceivable!

But... as you wish...


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Okay, look, what Russel says is true and correct and wonderful--for his kind of book.

I can't write that kind of book. So where does that leave me? (And I ain't been makin' no kind of value judgments.)

But there are other kinds of books--and his strategy is probably not the best for them.

And, yes, I understand that he was trying to be helpful and that he'll probably never do that again and that we are all contrarians and my foot itches and my wife is gone for the weekend and . . .


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

WyattM et al. said:


> But there are other kinds of books--and his strategy is probably not the best for them.


This is 100% genuine question: Why not?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

JanThompson said:


> The Princess Bride? Inconceivable!
> 
> But... as you wish...


In any discussion of best practices, you have to invoke William Goldman.

Camille


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, look, what Russel says is true and correct and wonderful--for his kind of book.
> 
> I can't write that kind of book. So where does that leave me?


Well, some types of books aren't ever going to be huge sellers. So there's that. For some people, the answer is, "Don't have expectations that can't be met." I have no idea what you write, though, so I'm not saying that's your answer--that's just an example.

If his advice can't be applied to your type of book, then seek out those who are the most successful at your type of book and follow their advice, if they'll give it, or if you can't get access to that, see if you can figure out what they're doing on your own and what of that you could emulate. That's where I would start, if huge sales were my goal.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> In any discussion of best practices, you have to invoke William Goldman.


And not William Golding?

(Sorry!)


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

I really don't think that DIY is what's keeping my books from going to the next level.

I think I'm a little too left of mainstream, too genre-blendy--too "out there" for typical romance readers, to "romancey" for readers of thrillers or suspense. But that's only a theory, because there's no way to prove that.

I'm very proud of my covers. I worked really hard to learn how to make them. When I started out, I was crap at covers. I've improved.

I know for a fact that I put out books with tighter plot lines and a better handle on English language usage than books that I have seen in the Amazon Top 100.

I know grammar. I know punctuation. Text to speech catches my missing words. I've written enough novels to know how to tell a story. I'm fairly confident that the errors in my books are limited to about five or six, which is about what I tend to see in trad pubbed books. I'm not confident that hiring an editor is going to improve things much. I'm just not. If, um, someone wanted to offer me a freebie so I could try it out, then maybe I'd be sold on the process. If I could get a copyeditor who would charge me per error they found, I'd pay that person.

It's ridiculous, really, to believe that a writer can't be bothered to learn the rules of usage. Writers use written language more than anyone else. If we don't know the rules, who will? The other argument for an outside editor is generally that you don't see your own errors because your brain fills them in for you, considering that you're familiar with the work. But text-to-speech solves that problem rather handily. I can see not _wanting_ to do your own copy-edit, because it's tedious. And when I start making five figures a month pretty steadily, I'll consider paying someone. But I do think it's possible for a writer to edit his or her own work, if the writer is willing to put in the time to learn the skills necessary.

My lifetime sales are 41,000 (not counting September because I haven't gotten that report crunched yet). I've been supporting myself solely from my writing since January 2012.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Monique said:


> This is 100% genuine question: Why not?


Because . . .

I don't own an ereader, but my wife does--and so does her niee and her nephew and her sister and this and that and the other. And ain't none of 'em readers--except for ephemeral stuff.

Am I a snob? No. This is just the way it is. Blake's marketing would work with them. Fine.

I have a different audience. So . . . different tactics. Yes?

Out.

Maybe . . .


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

valeriec80 said:


> I really don't think that DIY is what's keeping my books from going to the next level.
> 
> I think I'm a little too left of mainstream, too genre-blendy--too "out there" for typical romance readers, to "romancey" for readers of thrillers or suspense. But that's only a theory, because there's no way to prove that.
> 
> ...


I just read a few pages from "The Toil and the Trouble." Very nice so far. I cannot tell it is self-edited. I think you will do good.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> Because . . .
> 
> I don't own an ereader, but my wife does--and so does her niee and her nephew and her sister and this and that and the other. And ain't none of 'em readers--except for ephemeral stuff.
> 
> ...


What does owning an e-reader have to do with anything? Do you think people that own e-readers read certain types of books but people that don't read other types of books?


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, look, what Russel says is true and correct and wonderful--for his kind of book.
> 
> I can't write that kind of book. So where does that leave me? (And I ain't been makin' no kind of value judgments.)


Sorta NSFW, but this is the wayback machine for Ellora's Cave. It is the evolution of one of the first digital publishers of erotic romance -- it helped propel changes in the reading habits of American women. I wouldn't say if there was no EC there would have been no Fifty Shades (because others would have stepped into the void), but they were a game changer. Look at 2001 -- are your eyes bleeding from the covers? Look at Ellora's Cave today -- ellorascave.com. EC is a multi-million dollar company and has been for at least 8 years.

Readers aren't fragile, they don't need protected, there's a refund button on Amazon that is as easy as sneezing and a review and rating button that's just as easy. Put your best work out there and keep improving. And don't be afraid to improve already published work -- new covers, a fresh copyedit when you aren't ready to move onto the next project. My covers today don't look like my 2011 covers or my 2005 covers (back when I self-pubbed old school via a web site and paypal/payloadz). I proof several times post publication, such as when I'm putting in print or when I'm doing next in a series/serial.

There are best practices and the OP ostensibly (and inversely) included a great many of them. Implement those you can and trade services for those you can't afford. If you have something to barter, you don't need to spend a penny (but, uhm...don't forget when you barter services, it's a taxable event).


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> What does owning an e-reader have to do with anything? Do you think people that own e-readers read certain types of books but people that don't read other types of books?


There is a very slight correlation between ereader ownership and genre preference, yes.

Seems to me we've got two factions here.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Christa Wick said:


> Sorta NSFW, but this is the wayback machine for Ellora's Cave. It is the evolution of one of the first digital publishers of erotic romance -- it helped propel changes in the reading habits of American women. I wouldn't say if there was no EC there would have been no Fifty Shades (because others would have stepped into the void), but they were a game changer. Look at 2001 -- are your eyes bleeding from the covers? Look at Ellora's Cave today -- ellorascave.com. EC is a multi-million dollar company and has been for at least 8 years.
> 
> Readers aren't fragile, they don't need protected, there's a refund button on Amazon that is as easy as sneezing and a review and rating button that's just as easy. Put your best work out there and keep improving. And don't be afraid to improve already published work -- new covers, a fresh copyedit when you aren't ready to move onto the next project. My covers today don't look like my 2011 covers or my 2005 covers (back when I self-pubbed old school via a web site and paypal/payloadz). I proof several times post publication, such as when I'm putting in print or when I'm doing next in a series/serial.
> 
> There are best practices and the OP ostensibly (and inversely) included a great many of them. Implement those you can and trade services for those you can't afford. If you have something to barter, you don't need to spend a penny (but, uhm...don't forget when you barter services, it's a taxable event).


Okay, Look, this.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> There is a very slight correlation between ereader ownership and genre preference, yes.
> 
> And you're not gonna pay that much for 5 minutes of entertainment . . . please . . . you do all the time. You need to ask yourself whether that 5 minutes (actually, closer to 30) is worth . . . whatever . . .
> 
> Seems to me we've got two factions here.


You obviously don't know me yet. I am queen of the cheap. Your book is 12 pages. I read roughly 2 pages a minute so yep 5 minutes.

You seem to have a narrow view of readers. I do wish you luck.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> You obviously don't know me yet. I am queen of the cheap. Your book is 12 pages. I read roughly 2 pages a minute so yep 5 minutes.
> 
> You seem to have a narrow view of readers. I do wish you luck.


You have a narrow view of readers--on the optimistic end that is. Who--besides you--can read 2 pages per minute? You, sir or madam, are not averag.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Oh and I don't know about most people but there is no way I would try to read "Atlas Shrugged" in hardback.

Just because the 3 women you know only read one thing does not mean EVERYONE that owns an e-reader only reads ephemeral stuff.   
If that was so, JA Konrath would not have made 1.6 million in 3 years, Hugh Howey would not have a movie deal and others would not be making good money.

People with e-readers read across all genres.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

WyattM et al. said:


> There is a very slight correlation between ereader ownership and genre preference, yes.
> 
> And you're not gonna pay that much for 5 minutes of entertainment . . . please . . . you do all the time. You need to ask yourself whether that 5 minutes (actually, closer to 30) is worth . . . whatever . . .
> 
> Seems to me we've got two factions here.


Mmmmmmmmmm, no. Maybe three factions? Because you seem to be against both sides here.

I don't even know where to begin, but as the person who has been vociferous about literary writing and off-genre work.... I just don't see where you are coming from. I've got everything from Trixie Belden to E. M. Forster on my Kindle. (Including, I think Lonesome Dove, as someone suggested you admire.) Let's see, Agatha Christie ... Guy de Maupassant ... Walter Mosley ... Proust? (yeah, he's there. Not exactly your five minute snack read).

I don't see this debate as being about quality of fiction.

But it is true that there are multiple ways to reach most audiences, and like people, different audiences are.... different.

Camille


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

WyattM et al. said:


> You have a narrow view of readers--on the optimistic end that is. Who--besides you--can read 2 pages per minute? You, sir or madam, are not averag.


I haven't timed myself, but I could give cinisajoy some solid competition in a speedreading challenge. That's probably why I'm also someone who wouldn't pay .99 for a short story. (Unless it were by an author I absolutely adored, maybe.)

I'm about to be in the awkward position of publishing something I wouldn't buy. However, I don't see a problem with publishing short stories, as long as we're completely up front about word count and page count.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> You have a narrow view of readers--on the optimistic end that is. Who--besides you--can read 2 pages per minute? You, sir or madam, are not averag.


It is madam and I have never claimed to be average. I have also been reading since I was 2. I would bet numerous people read faster than me.
How do I have a narrow view? I know people that read Christian stuff on their readers, another that reads spy stuff, another that reads older books. Usually what a person will read as a hard or paperback is what they will read on an e-reader.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

NadiaLee said:


> But note that the people who pulled it off are exceptionally gifted storytellers. None of them are "Joe Nobody".


Hey now! Beeee careful.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Hey now! Beeee careful.


She didn't know you. Keep reading. I am glad you showed up.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> I haven't timed myself, but I could give cinisajoy some solid competition in a speedreading challenge. That's probably why I'm also someone who wouldn't pay .99 for a short story. (Unless it were by an author I absolutely adored, maybe.)
> 
> I'm about to be in the awkward position of publishing something I wouldn't buy. However, I don't see a problem with publishing short stories, as long as we're completely up front about word count and page count.


Okay, I'll come back to the argument later. But this is a rea, genuine, honest question.

Shorr version: "How can you read that fast?"

Longer version: "Do you mean to say that you read poetry and easy-reading fiction at the same speed?

How in the hell is such speed possible?


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, I'll come back to the argument later. But this is a rea, genuine, honest question.
> 
> Shorr version: "How can you read that fast?"
> 
> ...


Short answer: I just can. I guess it is because I have been reading all my life.

Longer answer: No. Dante was only about half a page per minute. 
Atlas Shrugged was about 1 page per minute.
Non-fiction science book is also somewhere between a half to one page per minute.
So yes genre does matter. Type of Language matters too. I read a book today that was about 3 pages per minute. "Revolt at Muddy Boggy Texas." Now for someone that is not well versed in Texan, the book might be slower.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, I'll come back to the argument later. But this is a rea, genuine, honest question.
> 
> Shorr version: "How can you read that fast?"
> 
> ...


The human brain can comprehend words much much faster than human speech, which is the speed many people read at. However, if yo stop sub-vocalizing, most people are only limited by how many words their eyes can process at a time. I am slower than average because words reverse and play around on me. But I had a student aide who literally read books by taking one look at each page. (Most fast readers take in a whole line at a time, not a whole page.)

Camille


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> The human brain can comprehend words much much faster than human speech, which is the speed many people read at. However, if yo stop sub-vocalizing, most people are only limited by how many words their eyes can process at a time. I am slower than average because words reverse and play around on me. But I had a student aide who literally read books by taking one look at each page. (Most fast readers take in a whole line at a time, not a whole page.)
> 
> Camille


Okay, I'm not trying to be a jerk now--this is something I'm really interested in.

But did she read poetry the same way? Wouldn't she have to slow down and read poetry word by word? Andof course, godd books would have to be read the same way, yes?


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2013)

Much of this simply boils down to how you pay your bills and support your family. If the answer is through your writing, then sales are extremely important. They also take precedent if you intend, or deeply desire to make your living as a writer. As great as it is to look at writing from a purely artistic perspective, a writer must look to the business of writing if he/she has any hope of continuing to avoid being forced into an unwanted profession (that is to say anything other than being a writer).
But, if you are simply a person who enjoys writing and desires to share what you have written with others, sales will not mean quite as much. Not to say they mean nothing, but the lack of sales will not impact your family negatively.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> Much of this simply boils down to how you pay your bills and support your family. If the answer is through your writing, then sales are extremely important. They also take precedent if you intend, or deeply desire to make your living as a writer. As great as it is to look at writing from a purely artistic perspective, a writer must look to the business of writing if he/she has any hope of continuing to avoid being forced into an unwanted profession (that is to say anything other than being a writer).
> But, if you are simply a person who enjoys writing and desires to share what you have written with others, sales will not mean quite as much. Not to say they mean nothing, but the lack of sales will not impact your family negatively.


I think part of the problem is some people think of writing an e-book as a fast way to make $$$. At least once a week, there is a free "How to sell an e-book on Kindle" book. or how to be a success/make a fortune/other words that mean the same thing selling your e-book.
Too many people think just throw words on a page and the people will buy it. (I am tempted to try that idea just to see how many will sell.)


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Camille: I am not targeting you. Your covers are what you want. That's fine. If you have a pro background an they're a good representation of what you were after, hat's off to you.

I am discussing strategies to sell books. By sell books, I mean to sell as many books as you can in your target market. If your target market is only 50 readers, then you can disregard everything I say. But if you want to sell tens of thousands of books per month, might want to pay attention.

Note that at no point to I advise people on what to write. I advise them on  how to operate a book selling enterprise with success, success being defined as selling lots of books. I offer no counsel as to genre, style, etc. That's up to the author in them. I take over as the publishing alter-ego.

WyattM: All books are for consumption, or rather, if you are charging for them, for sale. My counsel is on how to assure your book selling business of the best odds of success. Whether your readers read em once, or read them while sounding out words, or read them multiple times because of whatever reason, doesn't matter in the least to me. That's an author issue. I am offering book selling advice in this thread.

Somewhere in all this the thread went way off the rails. I am not advising anyone on how to sell "their kind of book." I'm advising on how to operate the most successful possible book selling business. Being a book seller means being a publisher, as opposed to an author. Authors write whatever "kind of book" they like. A book selling business decides whether to invest time and money into marketing that book, or not. One of the determinants is whether the book selling business can make good money trying to sell that product. Books are products once you try to sell them. So the obvious question is, how many of that product can I sell, versus this one? How big is the market for that product, versus this one? Can I create a company that's synonymous with this genre product (whatever it is) and have 80% or 30% or 10% of my products be outside of that genre and still have a commercially successful company? If the market for my product is extremely small, highly fragmented, and I have no way or branding myself as being necessarily what they want to read, will I sell many books, or am I setting myself up for failure?

All book selling questions. Not book writing questions. You seem to be trying to take this into a discussion about book writing questions, or rather, a discussion of why sound business principles should be ignored in some cases. If you are going to advance that argument, I would counter with the put-up-or-shut-up argument, which is what sort of book selling success, in hard numbers, has your approach yielded? Or in more folksy parlance, there's an old saying about all hat and no cattle. My system has yielded many cattle. I see your hat. Where are your cattle?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, I'm not trying to be a jerk now--this is something I'm really interested in.
> 
> But did she read poetry the same way? Wouldn't she have to slow down and read poetry word by word? Andof course, godd books would have to be read the same way, yes?


She posted that there are some things she reads at different speeds. I don't know how she reads poetry. I would imagine short poems like sonnets could be read quickly and digested slowly. Just like flash and micro fiction often are.

Hemingway's famous six-word story: "For sale, baby shoes. Never used."

Doesn't take long to read, nothing to savor specifically about the language. Intended to be thought about afterward.

On the other hand, even a fluffy science fiction story or mystery might have a whole lot of information to keep track of. (With SF it's the world building, with mystery it's the clues.) There are some authors in both genres who pack information in so densely that you have to read slowly to make sure you don't miss anything -- this has nothing to do with whether it is "serious" or light. It's just the style.

There is some poetry meant to be sung. Others meant to be read slowly. There are indeed serious authors who write with prose that makes you savor it (though you might read it quickly anyway -- Raymond Chandler comes to mind). And then there are authors who challenge the heck out of you and do require you to slow down. John Le Carre comes to mind.

Camille


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> I think part of the problem is some people think of writing an e-book as a fast way to make $$$. At least once a week, there is a free "How to sell an e-book on Kindle" book. or how to be a success/make a fortune/other words that mean the same thing selling your e-book.
> Too many people think just throw words on a page and the people will buy it. (I am tempted to try that idea just to see how many will sell.)


I suppose there are people who do that. But I think that most writers have dreams of achieving immortality through their work. I love what I do and hope to continue for years to come. I try very hard to write books I can be proud to say I have written and that other people enjoy reading. That I am able to make money doing so is a wonderful thing that I would no jeopardize for anything. I certainly would not put out what I knew to be substandard work simply to make a quick buck. I may win in the short run, but ruin my career in the process, and lose the respect of the people who read my books.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

Brian: My intent was to counsel people who want to know how to improve their odds of success at selling books. Not to argue the merits of one sort of writing vs. another. Somehow this got sidetracked into a discussion of the philosophy of writing, vs. what things you should and should not do if you want to enjoy a successful run at the book selling game.

Here's the easiest way to stop this tangent cold. Imagine that your book selling business didn't, in fact, couldn't, feature your books. You had to operate it as a for profit business selling other people's books. Now, would you rather the product you had to sell was professionally packaged and finished, or DIY? Would you rather that the author you were going to invest your time and money in stuck to his/her knitting, or bounced across multiple genres? 

If you remove yourself as ego/author from the equation, the answers become really simple and obvious. It's only when everyone's ego/investment in their way/philosophy gets into the mix that suddenly it's not about how to operate a successful book selling business, and instead a sort of esoteric moral philosophy/artistic choice discussion, in which everyone's opinions are valid, because they don't have to prove the merits of their approach with anything besides the heat of their breath.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

BrianDAnderson said:


> I suppose there are people who do that. But I think that most writers have dreams of achieving immortality through their work. I love what I do and hope to continue for years to come. I try very hard to write books I can be proud to say I have written and that other people enjoy reading. That I am able to make money doing so is a wonderful thing that I would no jeopardize for anything. I certainly would not put out what I knew to be substandard work simply to make a quick buck. I may win in the short run, but ruin my career in the process, and lose the respect of the people who read my books.


More of them then you would think. I wish this was not the case.
I went over and read a couple of your blurbs and your reviews. Now you did not catch me as a reader but it shows that you do care about your reader. Thanks for doing your best.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

WyattM et al. said:


> Okay, I'll come back to the argument later. But this is a rea, genuine, honest question.
> 
> Shorr version: "How can you read that fast?"
> 
> ...


Well, I know this is a tangent, but what the heck.

Short version: I just do.

Longer version: No, I have a lot of different speeds, depending on the genre, style, and why I'm reading the book.

Still longer version: I'd be apt to slow down reading poetry, slow down if I'm reading French, slow down even more if I'm reading poetry in French, slow down even more if I'm trying to memorize poetry, etc.

How is it possible? Just is.

Daringnovelist mentioned stopping sub-vocalizing. I make a point of sub-vocalizing while I proofread--yep, I'm one of those lousy DIYers--just to make sure I keep the pace reasonable.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Hey now! Beeee careful.


LOL. Hi! Sorry I picked on you. I had no idea we had a member named Joe_Nobody!!!!


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

WyattM et al. said:


> There is a very slight correlation between ereader ownership and genre preference, yes.
> 
> And you're not gonna pay that much for 5 minutes of entertainment . . . please . . . you do all the time. You need to ask yourself whether that 5 minutes (actually, closer to 30) is worth . . . whatever . . .
> 
> Seems to me we've got two factions here.


I read everything on my Kindle -- romance, epic fantasy, SF, urban fantasy, nonfiction (mostly finance, economics, HBR, etc.), articles, etc. I don't buy a short story from an author I've never heard of, esp. if the author has only one "book" out (the short story in question).

I don't know, but I'm pretty certain I don't spend 30 minutes reading 12 pages based on the number of hours it takes for me to finish a novel, and I'm not a very fast reader.

People routinely pay $0.99 for 5 minutes of entertainment (such as music or music videos, etc.). But that's only for stuff they want to re-watch or re-listen to. I don't buy mp3s I have no intention of listening to ever again.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> Camille: I am not targeting you. Your covers are what you want. That's fine. If you have a pro background an they're a good representation of what you were after, hat's off to you.
> 
> I am discussing strategies to sell books. By sell books, I mean to sell as many books as you can in your target market. If your target market is only 50 readers, then you can disregard everything I say. But if you want to sell tens of thousands of books per month, might want to pay attention.


I didn't think you were targeting me (you've put in enough asides over time that it's clear you get me -- but I'm an outlier).

The reason I volunteered to talk about my covers was to talk about branding decisions that would affect writers like me. You said people don't talk business enough in these discussions. Well, you know, there are people who don't need to go to tens of thousands a month -- don't have a shot at that because of what they write -- but they would like to go from 50 readers period to 50 readers a month to 50 readers per book per month.

So if the advice is "get a professional to do your cover" how does that translate to those people? There are a bunch of decisions for those who won't be selling enough to hire a really good pro. If you're in a tight genre, learn you genre so you can pick or at least guide a cheaper artist to hit the genre target. If you're like that person upthread, you learn to do it yourself, which for her was enough to get her to where she wants to go.

I played with a bunch of strategies. My first self-published books were not in identifiable genres, so I studied small literary presses, and imitated that. Not great for them or me, but it got me started. When I started publishing things that could be put in a genre, I researched the genres and tried more commercial covers, but they attracted audiences that weren't really keen on my books.

On top of this, my covers, as you certainly imagine, were a mess of styles. So I went back to design. I am dead center of my prime audience. I looked at the covers on my bookshelves, and browsed cover sites online and noted what attracted me. Then I went and browsed book blogs and groups that are devoted to the book I love. (Mostly Golden Age this or that.) And I looked at what attracted my audience. And I realized two things: I had to go retro, I have to use covers to separate different kinds of work I do (especially shorts from full novels), and I had to unify the brand like James Thurber -- build it on my own quirkiness, because that was the common thread in all my books.

I am far from where I need to be. I need about ten more books before the selection starts to make sense. (Though if you look at my Barnes and Noble page, the books are displayed in a block, and it is beginning to shape up.) I have a couple of problematic "brands" -- still working on the children's horse adventure brand, for instance.

Has these made a difference? It has made a moderate difference so far. A non-genre cover isn't going to pump sales, but it does seem to help with exposure -- people talk about them, the covers bring new people to my blog. Heck, just putting up designs on my blog -- not covers at all -- seems to attract people and sometimes raises sales. (It's just that a picture takes longer than a thousand words....)

But more than that, I seem to be attracting the right audience now, and I have greatly improved the cross-purchases -- not just within a type, but across all books. When I put out a related book, people can find it. The Mick and Casey books have a logo. The contemporary crime are all 1960s retro-hip graphic design - and series within have a very brandable design -- I just have to get more books.

I'm sitting on a number of drafts that don't quite fit with what's there. I need more books that fit the existing brands. But every time I release a less related book -- like the horse books -- it does give a boost to my other books, in spite of the "bad fit." I might have to get the books out and then rebrand the covers later.

At the same time, Dean Wesley Smith, who does different genres and lengths all over the place, brands on his name. For a long time, he was literally slapping type over stock photography. He has upgraded the designs for WMG publishing, but his mysteries still look like his sf which still looks like his romance. The words tell you what it is. As a reader, I don't have a problem -- I know what to avoid and what to grab. But then with him, it's more a matter of flavor: I don't really care which genre as much as I care about whether it's light or dark.

I don't know if that made sense, I'm tired right now. But doing your own cover doesn't necessarily mean you just slap some text on a pretty picture. Having widespread genres doesn't mean you don't brand (it just means that branding is an ongoing issue).

Camille


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

Look, I appreciate what Mr. Blake is doing--I've been bookmarking. I understand that he's got writing to do, but instead he's sharing with us stuff that will help us sell more.  Good. And thank you.

But there are different kinds of books--some (perhaps many) that don't lend themselves to his system. Some books are not for mere consumption. Fine. 

On my wife's KIndle I read J.D. Robb and Terri Reid. When I have more time, lately, I read (with pencil in hand  so I can make notes in the margins) Michael O'Brien and even Jack London. That's just the way it is. 

Would you promote all these the same way?

And  all you fast readers, how do you do it? I just can't. Any Attic Greek readers out there? Mine is almost gone, lo, these many years laters.


----------



## WyattM et al. (Jul 11, 2012)

I pretty much agree with Daring all the way.

I've published a handful of short stories under my own name that are pretty fine stories. And I'll add more. And I'll have a novel under that name out the end of this month. And a shortish memoirish thingy. 

Under the pan name(s) therell be some stuff that will lend itself to the BlakeBooks method. It just all depends on the kind of book.

You fast readers still amaze me.

Gotta g0--my brain and fingers are getting way too thick now.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

blakebooks said:


> Brian: My intent was to counsel people who want to know how to improve their odds of success at selling books. Not to argue the merits of one sort of writing vs. another. Somehow this got sidetracked into a discussion of the philosophy of writing, vs. what things you should and should not do if you want to enjoy a successful run at the book selling game.
> 
> Here's the easiest way to stop this tangent cold. Imagine that your book selling business didn't, in fact, couldn't, feature your books. You had to operate it as a for profit business selling other people's books. Now, would you rather the product you had to sell was professionally packaged and finished, or DIY? Would you rather that the author you were going to invest your time and money in stuck to his/her knitting, or bounced across multiple genres?
> 
> If you remove yourself as ego/author from the equation, the answers become really simple and obvious. It's only when everyone's ego/investment in their way/philosophy gets into the mix that suddenly it's not about how to operate a successful book selling business, and instead a sort of esoteric moral philosophy/artistic choice discussion, in which everyone's opinions are valid, because they don't have to prove the merits of their approach with anything besides the heat of their breath.


Russell, this is what ALWAYS happens when you start a business-oriented thread on KB. 80% of the KBers will actually read the post carefully and appreciate the info, regardless of whether it applies to them. 20% will not read the post carefully or will read it and insert all kinds of info that isn't there or make incorrect tangential assumptions, and then start arguing about unrelated issues. Just don't let it frustrate you to the point that you stop sharing, because then the 80% who really do appreciate what you're saying and the maybe 50% who will follow your advice and gain success doing so won't have the benefit of it anymore.


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

ellecasey said:


> Russell, this is what ALWAYS happens when you start a business-oriented thread on KB. 80% of the KBers will actually read the post carefully and appreciate the info, regardless of whether it applies to them. 20% will not read the post carefully or will read it and insert all kinds of info that isn't there or make incorrect tangential assumptions, and then start arguing about unrelated issues. Just don't let it frustrate you to the point that you stop sharing, because then the 80% who really do appreciate what you're saying and the maybe 50% who will follow your advice and gain success doing so won't have the benefit of it anymore.


This!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

And I'm stepping in what is a very interesting thread (thanks, Russell and everyone who is posting) to remind people that the custom here is to not critique items not put up for critique. I've removed a couple posts that went over the line.

And the 80/20 rule is probably true of any forum post on any topic. Which brings me to another reminder--don't take things personally that aren't personal. 



jljarvis said:


> +80%




Carry on...

Betsy
KBoards Moderator


----------



## HarryK (Oct 20, 2011)

Oooh! Oooh! I'm part of the 80%!


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

ellecasey said:


> Russell, this is what ALWAYS happens when you start a business-oriented thread on KB. 80% of the KBers will actually read the post carefully and appreciate the info, regardless of whether it applies to them. 20% will not read the post carefully or will read it and insert all kinds of info that isn't there or make incorrect tangential assumptions, and then start arguing about unrelated issues. Just don't let it frustrate you to the point that you stop sharing, because then the 80% who really do appreciate what you're saying and the maybe 50% who will follow your advice and gain success doing so won't have the benefit of it anymore.


This.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> Brian: My intent was to counsel people who want to know how to improve their odds of success at selling books. Not to argue the merits of one sort of writing vs. another. Somehow this got sidetracked into a discussion of the philosophy of writing, vs. what things you should and should not do if you want to enjoy a successful run at the book selling game.
> 
> Here's the easiest way to stop this tangent cold. Imagine that your book selling business didn't, in fact, couldn't, feature your books. You had to operate it as a for profit business selling other people's books. Now, would you rather the product you had to sell was professionally packaged and finished, or DIY? Would you rather that the author you were going to invest your time and money in stuck to his/her knitting, or bounced across multiple genres?
> 
> If you remove yourself as ego/author from the equation, the answers become really simple and obvious. It's only when everyone's ego/investment in their way/philosophy gets into the mix that suddenly it's not about how to operate a successful book selling business, and instead a sort of esoteric moral philosophy/artistic choice discussion, in which everyone's opinions are valid, because they don't have to prove the merits of their approach with anything besides the heat of their breath.


The problem I run into when I try to counsel people on sales is that they usually want to hear, "Hey, you're doing everything right already," and not the reality that they are in fact making mistake after mistake. When told, they get angry and accuse me of not being a "real writer", but a cad only interested in money. This was confusing to me at first as I wasn't the one asking for help in the first place. 
People do not enjoy hearing about their own shortcomings, even when they claim to want to. They want to think they know everything from the onset. The fact is, though I have no problem with sales myself at this point, I am still constantly trying to learn ways to move my career in the right direction. It's not about getting rich as much as it is being in a place of security. Security gives you freedom. That freedom can unlock potential you never knew you had. I have yet to write the Great American Novel, but one day I hope to be in a position to give it a try. Until then I'll keep writing my books and entertaining my audience. And in all honesty, I am happy thus far with that. Moreover, I am lucky that it makes me a good living.


----------



## 68564 (Mar 17, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> I pretty much agree with Daring all the way.
> 
> I've published a handful of short stories under my own name that are pretty fine stories. And I'll add more. And I'll have a novel under that name out the end of this month. And a shortish memoirish thingy.
> 
> ...


Continuing the rabbit trail...

I would venture to say that you can read MUCH faster then you think you can (with out loss of comprehension). Sometimes what someone needs to believe that is the help of a tool. Head here: http://www.spreeder.com/ and use their free tool. (they also sell software for $80, but you can ignore all that for the sake of this). I am not endorsing their product, never used it, but the information in that free tool may help you.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

ellecasey said:


> Russell, this is what ALWAYS happens when you start a business-oriented thread on KB. 80% of the KBers will actually read the post carefully and appreciate the info, regardless of whether it applies to them. 20% will not read the post carefully or will read it and insert all kinds of info that isn't there or make incorrect tangential assumptions, and then start arguing about unrelated issues. Just don't let it frustrate you to the point that you stop sharing, because then the 80% who really do appreciate what you're saying and the maybe 50% who will follow your advice and gain success doing so won't have the benefit of it anymore.


+1

It always has and always will be this way in a public venue. Some time ago I posted a little blurb about creating a marketing plan before you write the book. It met with.... errrr... shall we say a mixed reaction from my fellow word merchants here on the boards.

Then last week everyone was all-ah-flutter over the interview posted by writer.ly (can't find the thread) with the Amazon marketing guru.

Guess what he recommended? Yup - create a marketing plan first.

Shrug. Happens. I still love each and every one of you pen monkeys like you were my brother or sister.


----------



## Sam Kates (Aug 28, 2012)

I’ve been following this thread with great interest. It never ceases to amaze me that very successful writers care enough to take time out to offer advice to us wannabes. So Russell, and others like you, you have my gratitude and respect.

FWIW, here’s my take on it. Seems to me that Russell is setting out his blueprint for selling a ton of books. If that’s your sole or overriding goal, then you’d be well advised to take on board what he’s saying. His method works – he has the stats to prove it. So if that’s what you want, roll up your sleeves and get on with it.

But this is what it ultimately boils down to for each individual – what exactly is it you want to achieve by writing? This thread has made me ask myself just that question, or a series of questions.

Do I want to reach tens of thousands of readers? Yes, of course.

Do I want to tailor my writing to try to reach those readers? No, I don’t.

Do I want to try to write six novels a year to garner those readers? No, I don’t. 

Am I prepared to risk not reaching those readers by writing what I want to write? Yes, I am.

I don’t need to go any further. Russell’s blueprint isn’t for me. That is not in any way a criticism of it or of those whose sole goal is to maximise sales. It’s just not for me. If it’s not for you either, there’s no need to be critical of it. Simply shrug and say, it’s not for me. 

For me, I write to fulfil a need to tell a story. If that story happens to dovetail with what makes a bestseller, then I’ll gladly rake in the royalties and be thankful for my good fortune. If it doesn’t, I’ll shrug but still finish the story. That’s what it’s about for me: the story.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Some hate it because it conflicts with their chosen path. They've decided they will try their hand at editing, formatting, cover design, etc. and forego investing money into their commercial enterprise. My counsel is to not do that. This offends them. Sorry. I'm not particularly offended by those who say you don't need to invest in your business. I just look at their success, and if they are selling fewer books than I'd like to sell, then I shrug and make a mental note. I'm interested in modeling those who are doing better than I am - not necessarily due to the genre they're working in, but because of their system, their approach. I want to understand how I can model their better mousetrap and improve my sales.


No, nobody "hates it because it conflicts with their chosen path." Your initial post was annoying to me because you clearly stated that spending money on professionals who have a long history in the same business and who are trained from their college days to do X discipline *is the only way to make money at this. 
* And that is not true, as I pointed out using my own example.

Again, I am not making as much money as you because I have two books which are selling well and write in a genre which is less popular than the thrillers you write. But $2500 a month, while not making me part of "the 1%", is enough to live on with reasonable comfort in Seattle, and if I lived in a place with a lower cost of living I'd feel almost affluent. And aside from trading editing work with friends, none of whom are people who went to school to learn editing, nor have they ever worked as editors, let alone for 20 years, I do the work myself unless it costs me less in time and resources to outsource it. So far, the only thing I've felt better about outsourcing than doing myself is print formatting.

You can call that "not investing in my business" all you want. It's a bit of a cocky attitude to take toward my own business, to be frank. I'm operating it with the budget I have and remaining in the black. That's what's important to me. You seem to feel that unless I invest in the same things you choose to invest in, and hire the same types of professionals you hire, who have the same resumes your chosen professionals have, I will never succeed. I am already succeeding, and am ahead of the curve according to the business plan I wrote when I started this whole venture. Be cocky about your level of success compared to mine all you like; it doesn't change my success for me. And when somebody comes out of the woodwork and proclaims herself an authors who IS succeeding by doing much of this herself, you hand-wave and declare that the whole idea of an author who's making a quiet living without being a huge success and getting rich like you "non-disprovable," exactly as non-disprovable as the existence of god. That's a rather silly stance to take. You're talking to one of those "ghosts" right now.

Your counsel is not to do anything until you can afford to invest a very large sum of money into it. Fine. That's your counsel. My counsel is that a writer doesn't necessarily need to invest a lot of money to make a living from this, but that a writer has to be able to realistically evaluate her own strengths and skills if she's going to try DIYing any part of publishing. Neither is THE ONE TRUE WAY for any writer to find success. Either route can be successful, if the right amount of time and hard work is put into the business. Your suggestion that DIYing any aspect other than writing equates to laziness, that a person isn't fully (emotionally/mentally) invested in their business unless they hire professionals with long experience, baffles me. Isn't a person who chooses to do much of this work for herself, or who is forced to due to her budget and wants to succeed, a harder worker? It's hard work to put the time into editing your edit-partners' books. It's hard work to format. It's hard work to make a good cover. It's hard work to market your books. And yet you say that people who DIY are lazy. See, that's why some of us are reacting with annoyance to what you said. It's not because you said you have to invest in your business. I think we all agree on that, but you choose to invest money and I choose to invest time and effort. It's because you implied that people who don't invest money are lazy jackasses who aren't serious about success, and will never be as successful as you.



> I'm not interested in debating whether it's better or worse to aspire to be a full time writer who makes a serious income, or to be a part timer who is doing the best they can. I'm uninterested in hearing about authors who succeeded writing across genres 20-50 years ago in a completely different time and place, working within a completely different system. I'm not interested in the philosophies, especially the philosophies of failure.


So in other words, you don't want to read any argument that rebuts your assertion that there is only one way to find "true" success. Got it.



> I'm after practical take-aways I can use to improve my model, not hear about how we're all winners deep down.


I didn't realize you had a motive with your inflammatory first post other than pointing out how much more you know than everybody else. Now you say you're actually looking for for something out of this thread. Okay, well, you got me there. I did not understand, in your first post, any desire to learn from anybody else. Color me surprised.



> That is not intended to be disrespectful of those who aren't selling, but rather to point out that respect is generally earned in business, not awarded by virtue of your drawing breath, and the feel-good bromides and hackneyed aphorisms are not substitutes for sound business counsel.


So if you make an assertion that is patently false, and then somebody comes along and says, "Actually, that's a false assertion, and here's an example from my own experience that proves it's false," then she is expecting a reward for drawing breath, spouting feel-good bromides and hackneyed aphorisms? And her business counsel is not sound. Got it.



> Holly does her own covers. She comes from a background of many years working in photography and with images. She does a stellar job. Elle does a great job on her covers. Both of these people have invested time and work in becoming good at that skill, and likely have outsized talent in that department - in other words, they are outliers. Standouts. Atypical. The result they achieve is as good or better than most pro designers. For that I celebrate them. But I don't confuse myself that I can do the same thing.


Aha. So you do acknowledge that some writers are actually capable of DIYing parts of their business, and succeeding in it. It only took us five pages to get there.

Again, I agree that writers need to be aware of their own skills and capable of accurately assessing them. But that's a different piece of advice from "if you don't spend a bunch of money, you can't be successful, period."



> Likewise, I'm quite sure that if I did six or seven drafts of my novel, and then swapped editing with a couple of my talented author friends, I could probably get a result that's close to what I get paying editors and proofreaders. But during that extra three weeks or a month, I could also write another novel. For me that's a no-brainer. Pay the grand, because that new novel's going to return many multiples of my investment in editing and proofing. To try to DIY for me would be foolish time management, and I aspire to work smarter, not harder. And I value my time considerably, even when I wasn't selling squat. Which is how I built a substantial backlist in a short period. By choosing to write, and farm out the other tasks that suck my writing time.


This is the reason why I'm interested in hiring an editor in the future -- to see whether it saves me on time investment. I have a suspicion that the turnaround from a professional editor will actually be much slower than the turnaround I get from my friends, and the book will not go from finished manuscript to readers' hands as quickly. But if it saves me the three or four days I put into reading a friend's in return, it _might _be worth the money. It's not really something I can accurately judge until I leave my day job in a few months and get a good feel for exactly how fast I can write in a 10-hour day. But I do want to experiment with it, just to see.

Time does have a monetary value in a business.


> I agree with the poster who said most authors could do with a decent business course so they understand the basics of commerce, branding, channel management, positioning, etc. Most of the posts here that take issue with my counsel don't offer sound business reasons why my approach is deficient - they offer philosophical arguments, or criticize my tone or word choice or the way I frame my arguments, or disagree because we should all make mistakes to learn or whatnot. That's all fine and good, but I don't recommend making costly and time consuming mistakes if you can avoid it. A smart business person seeks to work smarter than that.


Well, I'm maybe the most vocal author who has taken issue with your first post, and yes, it is because of your word choice, your tone, and how you framed your arguments. Because the word choice and tone were condescending and in some cases bordering on insulting, and the framing of your arguments was frankly b.s., until just a few paragraphs prior to this one in this very post. "If you don't agree with me, you're just a lazy jerk who's obviously never going to succeed" and "the only authors on the planet are those who are selling nothing at all and those who are selling a ton and earning five figures or more per month; anything in between is a mythical beast whose existence cannot be disproven, so I pooh-pooh that argument" is about the lamest and most offensive possible way of framing your argument.

So, yes, some people are taking umbrage at what you've said. Not for the reasons you think, though.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

WyattM et al. said:


> Because . . .
> 
> I don't own an ereader, but my wife does--and so does her niee and her nephew and her sister and this and that and the other. And ain't none of 'em readers--except for ephemeral stuff.
> 
> ...


I am a voracious reader of literary fiction, the more experimental, thought-provoking, and high-brow, the better. I read more literary fiction than any other genre, unless you count the nonfiction books I read as research for the historical fiction I write.

I write literary fiction, too, and while my single (so far) lit title is my poorest seller (which is what I expected, because literary fiction doesn't have the huge fan following that romance and thrillers and even historical fiction have), it's been very well received by its readers.

I am a superfan of literary fiction.

I do almost all of my reading on my Kindle Fire. Some I confess to doing with my Kindle app on my Android phone, which I bought specifically because it had the largest screen and was easiest to read books on. Occasionally I'll also sneak a few pages on my Surface RT tablet when I'm supposed to be writing on it (bad Libbie). When I hear about a new literary novel, if I can't get it on one of my three ereading devices right this very second, I am not likely to read it at all. I cannot be arsed to go to a bookstore and sedately browse the shelves until I find it. I am not excited by the process of purchasing a paperback copy online. I want my literary fiction INSTANTLY. If I can't get it instantly, I'll probably forget about that author and his book and he's missed that opportunity to get his book into the hands of a rare reader of his genre.

So literary fiction readers (and authors) are not behind the times in embracing ebooks. It's probably not to your benefit to characterize us as being too uninterested in "ephemera" to bother with those silly ereaders. I love to return to a good book and read it over and over again and soak it all in...on my ereaders.

It might behoove you to re-think your strategy! I'm not the only lit fic fan who won't bother with a book if she can't get it immediately. Having to hunt down a book, spend gas money to drive to the bookstore, handle an unwieldy print copy, and store it on a bookshelf doesn't make that book any better.

Also, on the question of reading speed, it may surprise you. It surprised me. My Android tracks how quickly I read and gives me a figure that estimates how long it will take me to finish each chapter and the entire book. I was really startled at how quickly I apparently read. It doesn't feel that fast to me while I'm doing it.


----------



## markobeezy (Jan 30, 2012)

@Blakebooks...A couple months ago (ish) you posted a list of 25 points on how to sell books, and I printed it out and put it with my writing notebook. I still reference it when I feel a little overwhelmed or directionless. I think I speak for many of the young writers here when I say thank you for sharing your wisdom and experience. I don't mean to sound ageist, but older men tend to have more patience and care with the things they create, so that may be the reason that so many authors have trouble following your detailed model.

Best,

Mark


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

EL: My post isn't for those who want to try their hand at DIY, and shoot for $2500 a month. My post is intended for people who want a professional book selling business that competes at a much more aggressive level than that.

Perhaps you should start a thread called, "If you want to make $2500 a month with a couple of books, here's how I did it!" I probably won't be going on it to point out everything I disagree with, but you'll find your audience. They'll look at your Amazon rankings, determine whether they believe you make that, and then line up.

My post is intended for authors who wish to MAXIMIZE their chances of selling books. Note the emphasis on maximize. 

You obviously are taking my post as a personal criticism of your method. You have chosen to DIY. You have decided that your time is better spent designing covers, doing editing swaps, formatting yourself, proofreading yourself, etc. than in applying that time writing. You have consistently ignored my point that professionals that establish the benchmark for quality don't DIY. I'm not sure we have anything more to discuss, in that regard.

Is my system the only system? Of course not. Playing the lottery is one way to get rich. Many prefer that than working 15 hours a day building a business. There are plenty of sites that will advise you on the best way to play the lottery. I'm simply not a consumer for their product, but there evidently is a large audience that is. There are also plenty of sites that will advise you on how to have a thriving business with no money down. Suffice it to say I'm also not a consumer for that, either. But plenty are, and they are free to follow their hearts and heads in that regard.

If you are satisfied with the result your DIY approach has brought your book selling business, then bravo. Read no further. This is not a contest to win hearts and minds. I intended it as well-intentioned counsel on how to maximize your chances of having success in the book selling business. It has since then degraded into a discussion of whether it's appropriate to write "commercial" fodder, or whether selling 20 books a month, if that, qualifies one's opinion as being equivalent in book selling matters as someone selling 20K a month. None of which I'm interested in debating.

If you believe that your DIY approach is a good one, and feel that authors would do well choosing to do most or all of their QC and production tasks themselves rather than saving up a grand and paying qualified pros (because that's what you do), you're more than entitled to advance that notion, and can use your success as a book seller to underscore the kinds of results you can hope to get. I have no issue with your doing so.

No disrespect to anyone here, but I have a lot of writing to do. I don't have the many hours it takes to continue these missives arguing the merits of one system over another. If you want to know how I've gotten to the point where I'll sell a quarter mil books this year, you know my approach. If you don't care, good on you. If you think your pet system is just fine, and don't aspire to those kinds of numbers, all good with me. Carry on. If you believe that your system will hit that, but the world just hasn't caught on yet, super. If you want to debate that you don't have to sell lots of books to be a book selling success, have at it. If you prefer to debate your author-centric choices and defend them because book selling just isn't that great a metric to measure your personal satisfaction, super duper. 

I'm bowing out before this further degrades into a toxic soup of recriminations and defense over personal preferences, and not a discussion of how to MAXIMIZE your BOOK SELLING. If you prefer to do everything yourself, and saving or coughing up a grand is just intolerable for a commercial enterprise, I'm not the one whose advice you should follow. Find someone who has the kind of book selling success you aspire to, and read their threads on how to establish and operate a quality commercial enterprise with no money down. It's possible to do that. I just don't recommend it, as I find it highly inefficient if you value your time at more than what a barrista makes on an hourly basis. However, everyone has a better idea of what their time is worth than I, and if you're fat with time and myriad skills, and thin on cash, there are certainly ways you can try. I just don't personally endorse any of them. I prefer offering the following counsel: Figure out what a responsible business owner must, which is what it will cost to create a quality product in sufficient quantities to meet your business goals, and be prepared to invest time and money to achieve those goals. I see that simple, rudimentary business principle has annoyed some, so I'll leave it at that.

Measure all advice by the quality of results it has achieved. Find models that are generating the kinds of results you want, and figure out what they're doing that you aren't. If you spend all your time defending your model versus learning what more successful models are doing right, you'll spend most of your time looking up at leaders instead of being one yourself.

That's all I have. Be nice to each other.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

jljarvis said:


> *THE SHOCKING TRUTH ABOUT RUSSELL BLAKE:*
> He's a nice guy who's generous enough to offer help to other writers.


I actually do think he's typically a really nice guy, and I've always enjoyed his advice prior to this thread. I will continue to read his advice with interest in other threads. This one struck me the wrong way, and I'm not the kind of person to just sit on my hands when I believe misinformation (or incomplete information) is being touted as truth. I am a person who appreciates a balanced view of all issues, and so if I see an opportunity to provide that for others, I do.

I like Russell. He's a good dude, and yes, generous with his time and experience.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

+1 Mr. Blake.  A very big, very enthusiastic 1.  Well done.  Best of luck to you with your continued success.  You've certainly earned it with all the time and effort you put in and with all the help you graciously offer others.


----------



## CEMartin2 (May 26, 2012)

> So if the advice is "get a professional to do your cover" how does that translate to those people? There are a bunch of decisions for those who won't be selling enough to hire a really good pro. If you're in a tight genre, learn you genre so you can pick or at least guide a cheaper artist to hit the genre target. If you're like that person upthread, you learn to do it yourself, which for her was enough to get her to where she wants to go.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> EL: My post isn't for those who want to try their hand at DIY, and shoot for $2500 a month. My post is intended for people who want a professional book selling business that competes at a much more aggressive level than that.


$2500/month is hardly my end goal. I'm sure you didn't pop out of your mother's womb selling 200,000 titles a year, did you?



> Perhaps you should start a thread called, "If you want to make $2500 a month with a couple of books, here's how I did it!" I probably won't be going on it to point out everything I disagree with, but you'll find your audience. They'll look at your Amazon rankings, determine whether they believe you make that, and then line up.


Yes, thank you for your excellent sarcastic advice. As for the current Amazon rankings, my genre has peaks and valleys more than just about any other I've seen. So I'm not too concerned with the rankings for October 13th. The rollercoaster always comes around again. Nor is Amazon the only place where I make money.



> You obviously are taking my post as a personal criticism of your method. You have chosen to DIY. You have decided that your time is better spent designing covers, doing editing swaps, formatting yourself, proofreading yourself, etc. than in applying that time writing. You have consistently ignored my point that professionals that establish the benchmark for quality don't DIY. I'm not sure we have anything more to discuss, in that regard.


Well, perhaps you need to edit your first post to make that more clear. Because your first post and the title of this thread clearly state that it's only about SELLING BOOKS -- not about selling 200,000 a year. And no, I'd love to apply more time to writing. It would be great. But right now, I don't have the capital. If I followed your method, I'd have to wait _years _to sell _any books at all _because if I didn't invest all that money in all those services I'd be _unable to sell any books.
_

Instead, I've opted for a slower build, putting in more effort on the back end which I hope will translate one day into more writing time on the front end, as I finish more books and as sales increase.



> No disrespect to anyone here,


Hah.



> I see that simple, rudimentary business principle has annoyed some, so I'll leave it at that.


No, Russell, it's not your simple, rudimentary business principle. It's your condescension and your insults.



> Be nice to each other.


Lovely advice.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

I've been successful at doing something, and here's the way I've done things in case anyone would like to learn from my success.

Or...

I've been successful at doing something, and unless you do it my way, you're not going to be successful like me.



Some of the successful authors here choose the first attitude, and others choose the second.


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

EL: Actually, the title is, how to not sell books.

Not how to not sell many books.

It seems like our interaction has degraded into you feeling compelled to defend your approach against my observations. That's a shame. Your approach will reward you with whatever the market feels it's worth. If my approach feels like a threat to your personal approach, I'm sorry. Perhaps I should retitle my post, "How to sell a s***load of books." Or, "How to build a successful book selling business." Then you can come on and say, but that's not how I did it! And then defend your approach against the threat you feel is ingrained in my approach.

I'm sorry that you feel that my advice, which is to save and spend some money and hire qualified professionals to do low value tasks so you can write more, threatens your approach, or insults you in some way. I fail to see in what way, but you're obviously insulted.

I won't be continuing this thread. I think I've seen and heard enough. Thanks for your input.

SWolf: Perhaps some will be successful without hiring qualified professionals for their low-value tasks. If they are, bravo, and I'd encourage them to post their success stories so we can all learn from them. So far, though, I haven't heard a lot of genuine success stories from authors who self-edit and DIY all their stuff. I'm quite sure there are a few out there, and I'd love to hear why that's a better mousetrap than mine. I'd celebrate not having to pay qualified professionals to perform editing and cover and formatting tasks, so I can spend the rest of that money on tequila and strippers, and waste the rest. I just haven't heard any stories that convince me that my way isn't a good way to approach selling books.

To clarify: My post was to underscore my approach. If you don't want to do it "my way," which incidentally is the same way the professional trad pubs do it, then feel free to try "your way." Stop in and let us know how doing it "your way" has panned out. Don't argue with me about how you believe your way is superior, and it just hasn't gotten to the point where it's actually performed well quite yet. Or how a way doesn't have to generate good book selling results to be considered a valid approach to book selling. I'm afraid I'm not a receptive audience for that. Sorry. I'm interested in ways that generate consistent, measurable results in book selling. That's the only thing that, for the purposes of this discussion, matters to me. Everything else is sound and fury.

Peace, out.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

I always learn something from posts such as Russell's, and I appreciate--*immensely!*--that he took the time to share his personal and very successful book-selling strategy experience on the WC. If there was umbrage to take in what he said or how he said it, I missed that opportunity.

I hope you continue to share your opinions here, Russell. Thank you.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> SWolf: Perhaps some will be successful without hiring qualified professionals for their low-value tasks. If they are, bravo, and I'd encourage them to post their success stories so we can all learn from them. So far, though, I haven't heard a lot of genuine success stories from authors who self-edit and DIY all their stuff. I'm quite sure there are a few out there, and I'd love to hear why that's a better mousetrap than mine. I'd celebrate not having to pay qualified professionals to perform editing and cover and formatting tasks, so I can spend the rest of that money on tequila and strippers, and waste the rest. I just haven't heard any stories that convince me that my way isn't a good way to approach selling books.


Not sure what that response has to do with my post.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

swolf said:


> Not sure what that response has to do with my post.


I would guess he's assuming you've lumped him in with the second group.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> I'm sorry that you feel that my advice, which is to save and spend some money and hire qualified professionals to do low value tasks so you can write more, threatens your approach, or insults you in some way. I fail to see in what way, but you're obviously insulted.


Once again, Russell, let me reiterate what you already know but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. It is not the specifics of your advice that insult me and other Kboards members. It's perfectly valid advice. It's the fact that when somebody offers any advice or any comment that seems to contradict yours, or even casts a different light on the subject, you respond with shit like this:



> Perhaps you should start a thread called, "If you want to make $2500 a month with a couple of books, here's how I did it!" I probably won't be going on it to point out everything I disagree with, but you'll find your audience. They'll look at your Amazon rankings, determine whether they believe you make that, and then line up.


How is that not intended to be an insult? Please, tell me, because I find it difficult to take it any other way.

You have already said once that you're far too busy and important a fellow to continue wasting time on this thread, and yet here you are, once again. So seriously: tell me how you didn't intend that to be an insult.

And that's what offends me: that you think it's okay to just toss insults at anybody whose opinions or perspectives you don't like. _That _seems rather defensive to me, so if I am being defensive, I'm not the only one in this thread who is.



> I won't be continuing this thread. I think I've seen and heard enough. Thanks for your input.


Uh-huh.



> To clarify: My post was to underscore my approach. If you don't want to do it "my way," which incidentally is the same way the professional trad pubs do it, then feel free to try "your way."


Good to get that clarification.



> Don't argue with me about how you believe your way is superior, and it just hasn't gotten to the point where it's actually performed well quite yet.


Nobody, including me, has said that a different way is _superior_. But it is another way to skin a cat, and success for most people is usually incremental, and built on a carefully thought-out plan that involves several steps. Some of those steps may include, for many of us, going DIY for a while until the capital is there to invest in more. Meanwhile, _we are selling books. _


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Russell -- I don't know that I've heard a single person say that their way was superior to yours, only that your method doesn't work for them for various reasons.

I'll just summarize my incoherent ramble from last night:

I have used slick commercial covers. They caused "silos" -- I didn't have much cross selling.  People bought one book, and waited for the sequel rather than buying others.  The commercial covers didn't help my sales, and they attracted an audience looking for a more slick, commercial kind of book.

When I went with quirky self-branded covers, my sales improved. I stopped attracting that wrong audience, but my cross-selling increased dramatically.  Furthermore I started attracting a very small audience to the art itself.

Now, that's not only not right for everybody -- it's definitely the wrong for most people.  It's not a superior method.  It's just that, of all the methods out there, it's the one that currently works best for me.

Camille


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

The phrase "beating a dead horse" is coming to mind ...


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

daringnovelist said:


> When I went with quirky self-branded covers, my sales improved. I stopped attracting that wrong audience, but my cross-selling increased dramatically. Furthermore I started attracting a very small audience to the art itself.


Interesting. Hmmm. I've been thinking about ways to merge my two pen names (in the future, probably a couple of years down the line) but haven't been able to come up with a great idea on how to effectively do it, if I decide to go ahead with it. That could be the answer I need.

Thanks for the great idea!


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

EL: That wasn't intended to be an insult. Believe me, if I wanted to insult you, you'd know it. Believe it or not, I'm not shy about that sort of thing. Sometimes a cigar, Dr. Freud, is just a cigar, and nothing more. My point was that if you believe your system is valid and good, you should start a thread articulating why it's valid and good, using your results as the come on. I wouldn't be a taker, but maybe there would be some.

And yes, I'm really far too busy to be continuing this. But it's like watching a snake eat a pig. You don't want to look, but you just can't help it.

You disagree with my counsel. Fine. Time to move on. Good luck with your approach.

SW: Sorry, that was before I had my coffee. It was meant to be more of a general response. I had a thought, wrote your name, then sort of drifted off to...well, whatever I said. And now I can't for the life of me remember what pithy witticism I intended to grace the crowd with. Sigh.

Daring: If you have something that's worked for you and you're selling enough books so that you can consider your approach a success in the book selling department, then good for you.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

blakebooks said:


> Daring: If you have something that's worked for you and you're selling enough books so that you can consider your approach a success in the book selling department, then good for you.


Blake: I would love to be able to apply your advice and have it increase my sales. But because I literally can't do some of it (I can't write in one genre except for very very very slowly -- too slowly to reach any sort of critical mass) I have to adjust on the rest too.

I _started_ with your advice. But it's an all-or-nothing gig to do what you do. Or more accurately: if one component changes, the others may still help, but the whole equation shifts in terms of _how_ they work.

Camille


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> Interesting. Hmmm. I've been thinking about ways to merge my two pen names (in the future, probably a couple of years down the line) but haven't been able to come up with a great idea on how to effectively do it, if I decide to go ahead with it. That could be the answer I need.
> 
> Thanks for the great idea!


It really depends on what connects your books. For me, because I not only write in different genres, I write in non-genres and cross genres and old genres. So the common thread is my style. I'm working on the art to reflect that.

You can always do the "writing as" thing and put both names on the book in the "author" slot. That would keep a separate identity, but allow people to see that they are actually by the same author. That's pretty well established now, and I think readers appreciate having the choice.

Camille


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Here's a question about sticking to one genre. If you start, and have success in one genre, obviously that's a message that you'll have greater success if you continue in the same genre. But, what if you start and do not have success? Is it possible that there's another genre that'd be a better fit for you? On the other hand, if you continue in the same genre, you might improve, or find your readers. On the other hand, you might look around, five books later, and realize that you've simply wasted a year.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> EL: That wasn't intended to be an insult. Believe me, if I wanted to insult you, you'd know it. Believe it or not, I'm not shy about that sort of thing.


I have no trouble believing that.



daringnovelist said:


> It really depends on what connects your books. For me, because I not only write in different genres, I write in non-genres and cross genres and old genres. So the common thread is my style. I'm working on the art to reflect that.
> 
> You can always do the "writing as" thing and put both names on the book in the "author" slot. That would keep a separate identity, but allow people to see that they are actually by the same author. That's pretty well established now, and I think readers appreciate having the choice.
> 
> Camille


See, that's the boat I'm in. The common thread is the prose style itself. Historical fiction is much more commercial -- it just attracts way more readers than literary fiction. In fact, if you believe BookBub's stats, it's the third most popular genre out there...though I think their numbers may be skewed by the fact that they include historical romance as historical fiction -- romance readers and HF readers both beg to differ.  However, HF has the potential commercial reach that lit lacks. I'd like to find a seamless way to bring the two together, so my literary fiction can tap into the possibly-third-largest audience. My earliest HF has a very different voice, but it creeps through each successive book more toward the voice I use in my lit stuff. I'm thinking by the time I'm working on Revelator, the two will be so similar in style that there's really not much difference to speak of, and it will no longer make sense to operate them as separate branding.

I'm probably putting some kind of cart before some kind of horse here, but it's something I've thought about a lot lately.

Anyway, cover style could be the element I need to pull the two together with the least amount of hand-waving and fuss. At present, I have links to each pen name in the back of every book, so there's no secret. Some readers have crossed over in both directions, but not as many as I'd like flowing from HF to lit fic. That's the trick. Maybe it'll just take the right book to do it. The more I work on the outline for Revelator, the more I think it has a good chance of really crossing over both brands. Time will tell!


----------



## nobody_important (Jul 9, 2010)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Here's a question about sticking to one genre. If you start, and have success in one genre, obviously that's a message that you'll have greater success if you continue in the same genre. But, what if you start and do not have success? Is it possible that there's another genre that'd be a better fit for you? On the other hand, if you continue in the same genre, you might improve, or find your readers. On the other hand, you might look around, five books later, and realize that you've simply wasted a year.


I think it's difficult to put out only one book and then wait and see how it does before writing your next, then next. Most readers are fickle and they won't stick around if you don't have another book for them to read. A lot of successful authors said that it took them anywhere from 5-8 books before they saw their sales really grow.

So unless you happen to get really lucky and your 1st book sells like crazy, it's most likely that you won't know until you put out 5-6 books in the same genre.

Russell Blake said in another thread:



> I published my first novel on Amazon June, 2011. I published my 20th novel in April, 2013. My first month I sold about 7 books. In 2013, from the start of the year to today, May 7, I have sold just shy of 100K books, and look good to exceed 200K for the year by a decent margin. I do not sell books at .99, or $2.99, or $3.99. The vast majority of my titles are $5-$6.
> 
> ...
> 
> Don't get bummed because you haven't been an overnight sensation. I sold $300 of novels in November, 2011, after six months of 15 hour days and seven releases. In December, 2011, I released five novels I'd been working on for months, to create a massive Xmas surge. I leaped to $1450. With a dozen books out. That's not exactly a ton for the big Xmas season. But I continued writing as though my work was in hot demand. And I kept investing in my product, losing money, until it turned the corner and I started making real money in Jan of 2012.


See what he wrote above? He sold 7 books when he started out in June 2011. He was only making $300/month after 6 months.

If he'd given up in November because he didn't make that much money in six months, he would've never made any real money.

I think that's why people tell you to pick one genre that's popular, but also you enjoy writing because it's going to take a while before you see real success (or big $ / sales). Romance is popular, but don't write romance if you don't like it or enjoy writing it. If you do and you happen to hit big, it's going to suck to realize that you have to keep doing stuff you don't like just to make money.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2013)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Here's a question about sticking to one genre. If you start, and have success in one genre, obviously that's a message that you'll have greater success if you continue in the same genre. But, what if you start and do not have success? Is it possible that there's another genre that'd be a better fit for you? On the other hand, if you continue in the same genre, you might improve, or find your readers. On the other hand, you might look around, five books later, and realize that you've simply wasted a year.


Tricky...If you have tried and failed in one genre, I see no reason why not. I would only advise against switching prematurely while building a readership. But, then again, who knows. Your genre my lend itself to switching things up. I write Fantasy. It would be easier for me to switch to Sci-fi as they are often grouped together, than to switch to western adventure.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Genre-wise, I'm in an odd position. My books (I only have one series) are part romance, mystery, historical, fantasy, time travel. I'm *hoping* that will help me slide into a new genre when the time comes (next year). I might have shot myself in the foot by creating a mash-up, but I'm hopeful, I can write in one or more of those and not lose my core audience. We shall see.


----------



## Iwritelotsofbooks (Nov 17, 2010)

Monique said:


> Genre-wise, I'm in an odd position. My books (I only have one series) are part romance, mystery, historical, fantasy, time travel. I'm *hoping* that will help me slide into a new genre when the time comes (next year). I might have shot myself in the foot by creating a mash-up, but I'm hopeful, I can write in one or more of those and not lose my core audience. We shall see.


I hope you haven't shot yourself in the foot, but from my personal experience, I've found a surprising number of fans are series loyal, not author loyal--even within the same genre. It was a real bummer when I wrote my second series and a lot of my fans didn't follow me. Maybe things will be different for you though.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

lacymarankevinmichael said:


> I hope you haven't shot yourself in the foot, but from my personal experience, I've found a surprising number of fans are series loyal, not author loyal--even within the same genre. It was a real bummer when I wrote my second series and a lot of my fans didn't follow me. Maybe things will be different for you though.


I know that's often the case. I've made my bed though, so all I can do is hope and be willing to experiment to find another path.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Just chiming in to say that I'm right there with you ElHawk.

Personally, Russell Blake's way of doing stuff is not for me, either. I don't figure he cares much about my reasons, and I guess they're probably personal enough that I don't feel like they'd be too edifying for the rest of the board either. So, I'm not going to get into them.

I do think that Mr. Blake has come off in a bit of a condescending and arrogant manner in this thread, but I don't know what it's like to put up a big post about my strategy for doing things and have others disagree with me, so I can't say that I wouldn't behave defensively in his situation as well. Perhaps it's only because he's so proud of himself--and he should be. He's accomplished a lot.

Whatever the case, I do agree with him that quality is helpful in terms of being successful. (I also think quality is impossible to measure, due to its highly subjective nature. But I think one can get a general idea of quality, if not a specific one, that applies pretty much across the board. I also think that each individual can think up his or her own specific, individual measure of quality. Using the two together, one can attempt to try to evaluate things in terms of quality. Sort of. But it's never going to be really "right," of course, because there's no real "standard" for quality any standard that is applied is going to be arbitrary--by the very nature of standards--and I need to shut up because this is why no one ever responds when I start posting stuff like this, and probably why I'm never going to have a blockbuster hit either. The way I think is just... convoluted.) Anyway, point is, we should all try to do better all the time. And that people who do better sell better.


----------



## Guest (Oct 13, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Oddly enough, I figure that you'll get less fan crossover between urban and heroic fantasy than, say heroic fantasy and space opera. The former two actually share fewer themes and tropes than the latter.
> 
> Then again, they're all Spec-Fic, so whatever. They all exchange DNA more and more every year, just as Bahamut intended.


Exactly the point. It all falls under the same umbrella. While you may not have cross-over per se, you won't actually risk alienating anyone either. We aren't exactly talking about the difference between _Interview with the Vampire_ and _Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt_ (though I find it really funny Amazon has the later listed under horror...).


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

Harper Alibeck said:


> I don't think Russell has come across as condescending, or arrogant, or insulting. He's stating his experience and his truth. If people choose to personalize that, it's on them. I really appreciate his descriptions of his process and his analysis.


Oh, don't get me wrong. I got mad respect for the guy. I think we all do.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

He's blunt. And the opinion he holds he holds very strongly. If you have both a different philosophy and have a certain temperament, I can see why you might want to argue. But I think it's important to take the advice in spirit in which it is offered. And really, let's say you only take away one useful thing from this thread. You are still looking at a busy professional making scads of money who is willing to give some free advice to help you do the same. Isn't that quite valuable?


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

MichaelWallace said:


> He's blunt. And the opinion he holds he holds very strongly. If you have both a different philosophy and have a certain temperament, I can see why you might want to argue. But I think it's important to take the advice in spirit in which it is offered. And really, let's say you only take away one useful thing from this thread. You are still looking at a busy professional making scads of money who is willing to give some free advice to help you do the same. Isn't that quite valuable?


+1

If someone can't handle candid criticism then it's not Russell's fault. Mature people can accept it without getting offended, even if it hurts. It's a great post, with real world advice.


----------



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

blakebooks said:


> Brian: My intent was to counsel people who want to know how to improve their odds of success at selling books. Not to argue the merits of one sort of writing vs. another. Somehow this got sidetracked into a discussion of the philosophy of writing, vs. what things you should and should not do if you want to enjoy a successful run at the book selling game.
> 
> Here's the easiest way to stop this tangent cold. Imagine that your book selling business didn't, in fact, couldn't, feature your books. You had to operate it as a for profit business selling other people's books. Now, would you rather the product you had to sell was professionally packaged and finished, or DIY? Would you rather that the author you were going to invest your time and money in stuck to his/her knitting, or bounced across multiple genres?
> 
> If you remove yourself as ego/author from the equation, the answers become really simple and obvious. It's only when everyone's ego/investment in their way/philosophy gets into the mix that suddenly it's not about how to operate a successful book selling business, and instead a sort of esoteric moral philosophy/artistic choice discussion, in which everyone's opinions are valid, because they don't have to prove the merits of their approach with anything besides the heat of their breath.


Ah, love this post. What a great tool.

The only thing I disagree with is the idea that writing across multiple genres will harm you and confuse your readership. I'd agree that dabbling around will slow down your growth vs. concentrating hard on one series/subgenre. (Unless you hit on a new book/series that sells even better than your "main" series.) But so long as your lines are clearly branded, readers can follow the books they like and disregard the ones they don't. Sometimes they'll even cross over to a subgenre they wouldn't normally care for just because you wrote it. ;P

Obviously, however, dividing your attention will generally be less efficient than concentrating on your biggest earner. I'm just quibbling with the idea that it is actively harmful.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

OK, this made me laugh. While we were all arguing discussing here last night, Russell published another book, which just went live.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

1001nightspress said:


> OK, this made me laugh. While we were all arguing discussing here last night, Russell published another book, which just went live.


LOL, I noticed that too!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

1001nightspress said:


> OK, this made me laugh. While we were all arguing discussing here last night, Russell published another book, which just went live.


Does this mean we now get tequila and topless male authors? I thought I read something about strippers in this thread.


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

I've written a lot over my lifetime, most of which has disappeared. Very little of what remains would I ever consider publishing. So, here I am today. One book published (almost a year ago) and one almost ready to publish. Yes, I do intend to be somewhat more prolific in the future. I am determined to produce good material.

Here's the reality though. In general, I know how to do what it takes, but I am not willing to give up (from the other parts of my life) what would be required for me to do what it takes. I hope that awkward sentence makes sense.

Nevertheless, I want to hear what others are doing and how they're doing it. I do take all advice seriously. I use what I want and what I can. I greatly appreciate successful writers sharing their methods and ideas. I doubt it would be useful to anyone for someone like me to share my unsuccessful marketing approach. So, thank you...thank you...thank you, to all of you who are willing to share with the rest of us here on this forum!


----------



## Sapphire (Apr 24, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Does this mean we now get tequila and topless male authors? I thought I read something about strippers in this thread.


Where's the tequila? I was busy posting and missed this.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

Sapphire said:


> Where's the tequila? I was busy posting and missed this.


If there is Russell, there is tequila. That's always been my understanding.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

ellecasey said:


> Russell, this is what ALWAYS happens when you start a business-oriented thread on KB. 80% of the KBers will actually read the post carefully and appreciate the info, regardless of whether it applies to them. 20% will not read the post carefully or will read it and insert all kinds of info that isn't there or make incorrect tangential assumptions, and then start arguing about unrelated issues. Just don't let it frustrate you to the point that you stop sharing, because then the 80% who really do appreciate what you're saying and the maybe 50% who will follow your advice and gain success doing so won't have the benefit of it anymore.


Thank you. That crossed my mind too. I hope that not only Mr. Blake, but other generous authors, will not stop sharing with the rest of us who are willing to learn about the business of publishing. I'm afraid that they might stop sharing because of the backlash, and the rest of us who want to learn will suffer loss.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> I'm bowing out before this further degrades into a toxic soup of recriminations and defense over personal preferences, and not a discussion of how to MAXIMIZE your BOOK SELLING.


You know, that's what I was afraid of, that Mr. Blake will keep his wealth of knowledge to himself. I'm here to learn from the pros about book publishing and selling, and I'm all ears when Mr. Blake says something because as a businesswoman who has started my own company before, I know what he's talking about. This thread is about selling books. Maybe there are other threads on the art of writing, but this is about the art of selling, so maybe if we stay on topic, there won't be 'toxic soup" to stir...

Ask any trad publisher -- I hear that they will all tell you they won't invest in books that won't sell, and they want to make sure they move them books LOL. There will always be "artisanal" publishing, and there are merits for that. Yes, I am also writing a non-fiction that is for the love of it. I didn't write it for pecuniary profit. But when I write my fiction genre, I have to have some sort of ROI to buy more than cat food. That's the way it goes. A worker is worth his wages.


----------



## Austin_Briggs (Aug 21, 2011)

JanThompson said:


> You know, that's what I was afraid of, that Mr. Blake will keep his wealth of knowledge to himself. I'm here to learn from the pros about book publishing and selling, and I'm all ears when Mr. Blake says something because as a businesswoman who has started my own company before, I know what he's talking about. This thread is about selling books. Maybe there are other threads on the art of writing, but this is about the art of selling, so maybe if we stay on topic, there won't be 'toxic soup" to stir...
> 
> Ask any trad publisher -- I hear that they will all tell you they won't invest in books that won't sell, and they want to make sure they move them books LOL. There will always be "artisanal" publishing, and there are merits for that. Yes, I am also writing a non-fiction that is for the love of it. I didn't write it for pecuniary profit. But when I write my fiction genre, I have to have some sort of ROI to buy more than cat food. That's the way it goes. A worker is worth his wages.


I totally agree with you.

After learning from Russell, Konrath, and a host of other professional Indies, I've decided to approach book selling exactly as I'd approach any other venture capital business. This is my brand, and I'm investing (having cut almost all discretionary expenses) for the long-term. I'm still in the red, but I see the first signs of my strategy working.

In stage 1, I create the product. This is the "art" stage and I want to learn from masters of writing. I love this.

In stage 2, I sell. This is the pure business stage, and I want to learn from folks who sell a ton through their own efforts. I hate this but without the money, the "art" above won't exist. So I'm also learning to love the process of selling.

I need more effort / money spent on consumer research before product creation, to minimize firing blanks, so may start doing it later.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

After all this, I just re-read Russell's original set of "how nots."

First, I don't sense any insults, arrogance, or indirect personal affronts. I'm not sure where that came from. Maybe it's because I might have said it the same way. There is a touch of holier-than-thou, but I get that a lot too. 

Second, it seems to me that the points he makes can mostly be summarized into one piece of sound advice:

_Write and publish the best book you possibly can._

I totally agree with that encapsulated interpretation.

His advice enumerates the things he thinks most writers need to do to achieve that specific objective--editing, covers, and so on. There's not much in the original points about marketing or selling. Two subsequent points he has made are: (1) It's how traditional publishers have done it for years. (2) So far no self-publisher who has done it otherwise has stepped forward to claim validation or verification of their methods based on sales statistics.

Those are two hardball realities.

I join those who thank Russell for his contributions, and I would add one question: Why ever would you want to empower your competition with your path to success?


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

valeriec80 said:


> Whatever the case, I do agree with him that quality is helpful in terms of being successful. (I also think quality is impossible to measure, due to its highly subjective nature. But I think one can get a general idea of quality, if not a specific one, that applies pretty much across the board. I also think that each individual can think up his or her own specific, individual measure of quality. Using the two together, one can attempt to try to evaluate things in terms of quality. Sort of. But it's never going to be really "right," of course, because there's no real "standard" for quality any standard that is applied is going to be arbitrary--by the very nature of standards--and I need to shut up because this is why no one ever responds when I start posting stuff like this, and probably why I'm never going to have a blockbuster hit either. The way I think is just... convoluted.) Anyway, point is, we should all try to do better all the time. And that people who do better sell better.


I think you're correct with your thoughts on the subjective nature of quality. However, I think if one's goal is to sell a lot of books (a perfectly valid goal! One I have myself  ) the smartest move is to evaluate quality in terms of how most readers are likely to view it. That, of course, means presentation, including covers, editing, and less tangible aspects of presentation such as author branding and how it plays out on social media, etc -- it also means stories that are likely to attract an audience and putting a lot of thought and consideration into the writing of those stories.

And I agree that continually striving to do better is a huge key to any kind of success, no matter how you measure it -- and something that will never change throughout a person's career. In any field.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

WyattM et al. said:


> You have a narrow view of readers--on the optimistic end that is. Who--besides you--can read 2 pages per minute? You, sir or madam, are not averag.


Um...Me...I read so fast (with high comprehension) that I literally devour books. 

I have been known to read a novel in one sitting. I read Hugh Howey's WOOL in 3 evenings, but that included going to work and sleep and stuff, too.


----------



## WG McCabe (Oct 13, 2012)

cinisajoy said:


> Does this mean we now get tequila and topless male authors? I thought I read something about strippers in this thread.


Oh fine. I long ago retired but anything for the good of the board. Cue up the music.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> I think you're correct with your thoughts on the subjective nature of quality. However, I think if one's goal is to sell a lot of books (a perfectly valid goal! One I have myself  ) the smartest move is to evaluate quality in terms of how most readers are likely to view it. That, of course, means presentation, including covers, editing, and less tangible aspects of presentation such as author branding and how it plays out on social media, etc -- it also means stories that are likely to attract an audience and putting a lot of thought and consideration into the writing of those stories.
> 
> And I agree that continually striving to do better is a huge key to any kind of success, no matter how you measure it -- and something that will never change throughout a person's career. In any field.


Absolutely. That's a basic business principle. Constant testing and evaluation. What was true yesterday won't necessarily be true tomorrow. So if you're young and something doesn't work for you, you still go back and test when you are older. Your situation, skills, perspective have all changed, and that may be what makes the difference.

And self-evaluation can be the biggest part of that. So last year, I discovered I could not write erotica without going off the rails into literary fiction, unless I slowed WAY down. To a lesser extent, this is a problem with romantic suspense, but I think that may be a problem I can overcome, so I'm going to give it a little try later. However the first try totally screwed up my production schedule, so I'm catching up right now.

I wrote children's fiction when I was in traditional publishing. There are parts of that genre where I could write like Russell recommends. But, though parts of that genre can break out now and then, not the parts I can write that quickly. It's not what you'd call your most lucrative genre. I already hit the lists with those -- sometimes with a single sale. (I'm #1 in English-language children's horse stories in France!) All the same I am always keeping my eye on what I might do with that genre -- it's a smaller-than-normal sales niche in ebooks, which means it could be a growth genre any time.

But even so, one way to make money _while_ writing is not to make your money AT writing. I'm a full time writer now, too. I invested approximately what I made from writing in trad publishing, and that's paying for me to do what I want now. It's a valid option.

Camille


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Let's move on from jumping on Wyatt's comment...I think the point has been made.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Does this mean we now get tequila and topless male authors? I thought I read something about strippers in this thread.


Actually, I think Russell was buying shots of tequila and then he was gonna strip...or something like that.

Seriously though after reading the entire thread 3 things popped out at me:

First, in posts Russell reminds me of the curmudgeonly uncle that ya love anyway. *Thank you for being generous with your time and information, Russell*.

Second, I notice that most of the KBoarders who took exception to his tone were female, including me. I wonder if that's partly due to the way that men and women communicate/interpret things.

Thirdly, if a body of 23 products commands a total of 250,000 purchases that averages to what, 10-12,000 of each sold? OK, so a body of 1 product that sells 10-12,000 is equally as impressive. A body of 2 products that sell 20-24,000 the same. The average is the same. The difference is exponent. No?


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

1001nightspress said:


> OK, this made me laugh. While we were all arguing discussing here last night, Russell published another book, which just went live.


That's because he's da man! A writing and publishing machine.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

LBrent said:


> Actually, i think Russell was buying shots of tequila and then he was gonna strip...or something like that.
> 
> Second, I notice that most of the KBoarders who took exception to his tone were female, including me. I wonder if that's partly due to the way that men and women communicate/interpret things.


Dunno about that second one... but it might be the females who want to see Russell do this tequila-infused stripping deal.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Sam Kates said:


> I don't need to go any further. Russell's blueprint isn't for me. That is not in any way a criticism of it or of those whose sole goal is to maximise sales. It's just not for me. If it's not for you either, there's no need to be critical of it. Simply shrug and say, it's not for me.
> 
> For me, I write to fulfil a need to tell a story. If that story happens to dovetail with what makes a bestseller, then I'll gladly rake in the royalties and be thankful for my good fortune. If it doesn't, I'll shrug but still finish the story. That's what it's about for me: the story.


I think that's what I like about KB... We get to hear all sides. I think I'm in both camps. I am all for writing the story, and I have a few in my pocket, so I'm happy wearing my writer hat.

At the same time it's obvious that most people want to be paid for their writing. If you are truly writing only for the story, you would be giving away all your books permafree. But why do writers charge for the books they write?

When I take off my writer hat and put on my publisher hat, I'm also mindful of the fact that people sit down in offices, work all day, and get paid. Even dog walkers and lifeguards and kids at their lemonade stands get paid. I would like to get paid for my writing, if it's worth anything LOL. We'll find out next year sometime if I make it.


----------



## ToniD (May 3, 2011)

I’m female and did not take offense. (and, uh, where is his tequila-and-strip gig?)

Russel is blunt and upfront about his method. This thread (and most others he starts) are straight-up tutorials, if you will, about how he is successful selling books. And he's sharing that approach here. Because I write in the same genre, I always pay attention. Not yet putting all the good advice into practice; e.g., I write way too slowly, spend too much time on research. And that’s why I keep coming back to Russell’s threads. They’re like listen-up post-it notes on my computer. 

Anyway, I hope you stick around Russell.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

LBrent said:


> Second, I notice that most of the KBoarders who took exception to his tone were female, including me. I wonder if that's partly due to the way that men and women communicate/interpret things.


Ehh... I don't think so. Elle Casey had a thread earlier giving advice, and it also devolved into people taking issue with her opinions about writing in popular genres, amongst other things. ('Course, lots of those folks might have been female too... However, there are more female writers than male ones, and more females on this board too, so that skews stuff.)

It kind of ended up breaking down the same way. She said, "This is what I did, and it worked really well. Has the opposite worked equally well for you?" Response: "Weeell... not exactly, but it might someday." Just like this.

You really never know, of course. My plan is to be a crazy successful outlier, since I got no skills at doing it like everyone else.  Besides, all ginormous breakout hits are generally firmly planted in tradition, but enough off-kilter to feel fresh and exciting, and I think I got that song and dance down. So, I'll be back with my own thread when I'm Suzanne Collins.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Here's a question about sticking to one genre. If you start, and have success in one genre, obviously that's a message that you'll have greater success if you continue in the same genre. But, what if you start and do not have success? Is it possible that there's another genre that'd be a better fit for you? On the other hand, if you continue in the same genre, you might improve, or find your readers. On the other hand, you might look around, five books later, and realize that you've simply wasted a year.


I asked one of the tradpub agents that very question because all they want is your "best" genre but I asked her - so what happens if that "best" genre doesn't sell? She pretty much brushed me off but gave me the impression that you're out of luck. Since I don't believe in luck (I believe in miracles instead), I decided that self-publishing is where I can write many genres without people telling me I can't. If I fail, it's because I tried at all, not because I failed to try.


----------



## LBrent (Jul 1, 2013)

I want to at least try all the minutiae of self publishing.

Whether I'll wanna DIY forever, I dunno yet. 
Whether the strategy I have in my head will even work, doesn't matter to me. 
I wanna do it all at least once.

As for making sales, that's another separate issue as far as I'm concerned, but then I'm so new to it all that I just wanna touch everything. Maybe in a year I'll read this thread and say, "What was I thinking?" Maybe not. There's just so much pretty and shiny to see right now. Ya ken?

[shrugs]

That's all I got. Lol


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Austin_Briggs said:


> I totally agree with you.
> 
> After learning from Russell, Konrath, and a host of other professional Indies, I've decided to approach book selling exactly as I'd approach any other venture capital business. This is my brand, and I'm investing (having cut almost all discretionary expenses) for the long-term. I'm still in the red, but I see the first signs of my strategy working.
> 
> ...


Well said.

And Stage 3: Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Silly Writer (Jul 15, 2013)

I'm just here for the strip tease--but I do like the way Blake talks  
Blunt... And shirtless (or so I hear)


----------



## blakebooks (Mar 10, 2012)

LB: That would be the case if you assumed an even distribution across 22 books (23 as of last night). Alas, that's not the case. My two series make up 70% of my sales. Stand alone titles don't do as well. Readers like series. Use that information as you will.


One of the things I should point out is that my model called for having a thriving book selling business without a hit. You can't plan for hits. You can't create hits. They sort of happen or don't. But what I was after when I sat down and did my little business plan was a sustainable business where I could make X dollars per year. I studied those who were making in the mid-six figures at the time, (Konrath, Locke, Hocking) and quickly determined that one of their strengths was a large backlist, so when a reader discovered them, they had six, ten, twenty books they could read through. So I determined that I'd better get writing. 

I also determined that series sell way better than single titles, in general, but I resisted this for the first five months because, d*mn it, I wanted to do it my way. Just as I had knowledgeable friends who told me not to genre jump, which I also ignored. I wrote How To Sell A Gazillion eBooks In No Time, a non-fiction parody of all the "helpful" how to books that were out on self pubbing, which sold squat. I wrote Fatal Exchange, The Geronimo Breach, Zero Sum, Delphi Chronicle, all stand-alone novels or trilogies that were never designed to continue from there. In other words, I thought I knew better, and I didn't like being limited by being "stuck" to writing within a series.

Then I tried it, and I found I liked it. I wrote King of Swords over Nano in November, 2011, as well as Night of the Assassin, and found myself thinking about further exploits for the MC, which led me into writing the Assassin series, which now has six novels in it, with another coming next year. But I still wasn't convinced, so I wrote Silver Justice, and it basically sold not a lot - by my standards, anyway. It shifted 7K or so books. Nothing to sneeze at, but not anything near like what I'd shifted of King and the rest of the Assassin novels. So I sat down and came up with a female James Bond type character, a kick-A female protag that could take names and bring the hurt, but had a sensitive side. That became the JET series, which is by far my biggest seller. And I'd learned something by then - that putting out three or four in the series within four months leading up to Xmas was a smart move, because I stayed on the HNR list for that critical period. 2012 I sold 104K books. I was over the moon. My numbers were pretty much in line with Joe's 2012. I was a contenda! But the way I got there was partially luck, partially timing (Select was still worthwhile and I rode that train like there was no tomorrow), and mostly really hard work - I created a backlist that would be the work product of a twenty year career over the course of 18 months, and continued, no, accelerated that insane pace all of this year. 

2013 started very strong, and got bigger from there. JET continued to sell like lifeboats on the Titanic, and my next installment in my Assassin series, Blood of the Assassin (probably my best novel to date, some say), kicked it up a notch. And then in April Amazon featured King of Swords as their daily deal, and suddenly I was shifting 23-24K novels a month at an average $5 price point. 

Summer came, and the 40% pullback that I saw last year returned, but I'm still seeing ~15K months on my "bad" months, and silly numbers for my "good" months. Joe Konrath and I will likely be neck and neck this year on self-pubbed ebook earnings as well - depends on the next three months, really, but we'll be close. I use him as the metric because he's transparent, and thus his numbers are easy to understand. 

I have big news to announce end of November or so, if all goes well, which should take it up another notch. 2014 should be very interesting.

I've been extremely fortunate. I get to write novels for a living. I'm building a reader base that enjoys my work. I'll never starve as long as I can spin a decent yarn, and seems like there will always be readers for my scribbling. If this is as good as it ever gets, I consider myself extremely fortunate, which is why I try to give back - because I wish someone had laid it out for me when I was starting out, and I don't mean by counseling writing a blog that goes viral or any of that twaddle. I mean I wish someone had created my punchlist, and sat me down and said, hey, you can make it, but it will be extremely hard, and you'll have to want it more than anything you've ever done, and be exacting in your standards, and you'll need to be very smart about your time management, and hire folks who can help you with the stuff that doesn't involve building your backlist until it's a body of work worth noticing, and you'll have to constantly reinvent yourself to accommodate a shifting market where there can be no rest - like a shark, you need to keep moving to stay alive. Nobody said that to me. I had to figure it out for myself, and as part of my paying it forward, I share what I've learned with you, if you care to try your hand at it as I did.

The best advice I got, I actually got decades ago in a different field. It was simple: "You must become a force of nature. Something to be reckoned with. Have that as your goal, and success will follow naturally."

It was right.

Go become your own force of nature. Be reckoned with. Make the world pay attention. Be. That. Force.

And try to have some fun doing it. Tequila stripping isn't off the table. Nobody gets out of this alive, and there's never a U-haul at a funeral, and I'm pretty sure I won't care once I'm dead whether my work is revered or reviled. All the same to me. Enjoy this moment, and save the posterity for museums.

That concludes my thoughts for this month. Good luck to you all, however you approach this, and whatever you choose to do.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

blakebooks said:


> Tequila stripping isn't off the table.


Pics. Pics or it didn't happen.

And for the record, no one cares if you danced on the table or off it.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Okay, that explains a LOT in terms of differences in point of view.  (I think.)

You do realize that most people who use your methods and succeed wonderfully take much much longer to get where you are -- and that includes people like Konrath?  Usually it takes a decade or more for a hot career "instant success" to take off.  And most of that decade is usually taken up by learning how to tell a story that readers want to read.

So my hat is off to you.  Please don't underestimate your talent, brains and drive.

Camille


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

blakebooks said:


> I've been extremely fortunate. I get to write novels for a living. I'm building a reader base that enjoys my work. I'll never starve as long as I can spin a decent yarn, and seems like there will always be readers for my scribbling. If this is as good as it ever gets, I consider myself extremely fortunate, which is why I try to give back - because I wish someone had laid it out for me when I was starting out, and I don't mean by counseling writing a blog that goes viral or any of that twaddle. I mean I wish someone had created my punchlist, and sat me down and said, hey, you can make it, but it will be extremely hard, and you'll have to want it more than anything you've ever done, and be exacting in your standards, and you'll need to be very smart about your time management, and hire folks who can help you with the stuff that doesn't involve building your backlist until it's a body of work worth noticing, and you'll have to constantly reinvent yourself to accommodate a shifting market where there can be no rest - like a shark, you need to keep moving to stay alive. Nobody said that to me. I had to figure it out for myself, and as part of my paying it forward, I share what I've learned with you, if you care to try your hand at it as I did.


Thank you for that and all the rest. That, and this:

"How to Sell Loads of Books" by Russell Blake
http://russellblake.com/how-to-sell-loads-of-books/

The article above has this quote in it:









http://www.pinterest.com/pin/353884483190692977/

I totally get it. Oh boy. Hard work ahead.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

> I mean I wish someone had created my punchlist, and sat me down and said, hey, you can make it, but it will be extremely hard, and you'll have to want it more than anything you've ever done, and be exacting in your standards, and you'll need to be very smart about your time management, and hire folks who can help you with the stuff that doesn't involve building your backlist until it's a body of work worth noticing, and you'll have to constantly reinvent yourself to accommodate a shifting market where there can be no rest - like a shark, you need to keep moving to stay alive. Nobody said that to me. I had to figure it out for myself, and as part of my paying it forward, I share what I've learned with you, if you care to try your hand at it as I did.


There has been a lot of good (if heated) discussion in this thread, but I really appreciated this quote ^. I agree that there's more than one path to success, no matter how you define it. Which is why it is extremely helpful to see professionals (Russell, Elle, Valerie, Libbie, etc) talking about what has worked _for them_. That's how I choose to read Russell's long, if dogmatic (no disrespect!), advice posts -- as what method worked for him. I take what I can, knowing the kind of career I'd like to have (which is not quite like Russell's). IMO, the OP does a good job of emphasizing the importance of _quality_ alongside quantity. Plus, it helps me to be reminded that publishing is business, while writing is art, and not to confuse the two.

Russell gives tough love - but I like hearing that very hard work, perseverance, business acumen are what helped him, because those things are measurable, learnable, and doable. This is not a lottery ticket path to sales, which is nice. He lays it all out with very little room for chance. That gives me hope!

I admit I did cringe a little at the whole, "I've sold more books than you, so my advice is obviously more valid" thing, particularly when both parties had sold way more than most of us can imagine. I also disagree with the implication that DIY authors can't possibly remove their egos from the business equation; ElHawk is a very good example to look at. Ditto Elle and Holly. The only thing you really need for DIY is self-awareness and honest self-appraisal. It's not easy, but it's not impossible.

I like the way ElHawk put it: you can invest money, or you can invest time! Such a great point, and a good way to think about it.

I appreciate hearing from all sides of the fence, about different types of success, etc. So thanks to everyone for a very frank and forward discussion - it's stuff like this that makes the WC invaluable.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Great thread. Thanks Russell.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2013)

I read Mr. Blake's blog about selling more books. He's not wrong. Personally, my limit is two books per year and not three (my editing and proofing process takes a while), but I didn't see anything that jumped out and screamed WRONG! I do almost everything he suggested. I think what people object to is the sheer volume of work involved that has nothing to do with writing. But, if you want to sell books and you can't shell out $20,000 for a marketing campaign, that's what it takes. The Big Six spend a great deal of time and money on marketing and distribution. But as an indie, you are the one burdened with this monumental task. It takes all of the romance out of being a writer. But sadly, reality usually bears little resemblance to fantasy - and I should know. 

Many may think that his method does not apply to you. That's what screams WRONG! What Mr. Blake lays out is a model that guarantees that you will appreciate the people who do these things for authors as a profession. Why? Because it's bloody hard work. You can say, "it wouldn't work for me" all you want and it will make it no more true. You can puff out your chest and claim that your are an artist and far above such petty concerns, and still his model remains correct.  

The knowledge Mr. Blake posted for free is certainly information I wish I had when I started. It took a a lot to find it out for myself, and I'm still not done learning.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

BrianDAnderson said:


> I think what people object to is the sheer volume of work involved that has nothing to do with writing.


WRONG.

You seem to think that calling everybody who doesn't agree with you "artsy," or implying they're just too stupid, stubborn or lazy is the way to go convincing people of your point of view. Could you please stop this juvenile behavior? We don't call you a money-grabbing sell-out word-peddler either.

You don't seem to understand the problem for us, artsy folks, so I will break it down in little, easy to understand chunks.

Russel's advice, and that of Elle and a few others, is brilliant _*IF*_:
a) your main motivation is making as much money as possible writing books
a) you happen to write in a mainstream genre
b) are prepared to adjust your books to popular taste, including changing an ending you know is superior into one that you know will sell more books

Let me add that there is nothing wrong with a, b, or c. It's a perfectly honorable way of earning money.

For some of us this poses major problems:
a) our main motivation is writing books we think should be out there, or, to use a cliché, books we would have loved reading ourselves
b) some of our books fit only in sub-genres. In my case, my books are virtually their own sub-sub-sub-genre.
c) we're not prepared to tinker with our books just to make them easier to sell

Let me put it another way:

You have the luxury to adapt your product to the market. We haven't.
Our writer-self has written a book. Our publisher-self has to sell it *as is*.
We're actually in the position of a marketing & advertising agency. Our client produces TomatoMilk™ _(All The Goodness Of The Cow And The Tomato In One Delicious Drink)_. It's our job to market and sell this product, no matter what we think or how we feel about it.
We could advise our client to add sugar, or, better, to make two products that are known to have a broad consumer base: milk and tomato juice. Alas, our client insists that his idea is brilliant, and counts on us to make as many people as possible see that *and* have them buy his product. Our client is right: it's not our place to meddle with his product, but it *is* our job to come up with a good sales strategy for this specific product.

That being said, I know Russel will keep trying out new things and improving his methods. I hope he will keep us informed of his findings, because so far all his points are, mutatis mutandi, perfectly and 100% valid, even for us stupid, lazy, stubborn artsy folks.

They just don't solve all our problems.


----------



## Guest (Oct 14, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> WRONG.
> 
> You seem to think that calling everybody who doesn't agree with you "artsy," or implying they're just too stupid, stubborn or lazy is the way to go convincing people of your point of view. Could you please stop this juvenile behavior? We don't call you a money-grabbing sell-out word-peddler either.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your well thought. albeit mean spirited, response. I would point out that I never said anyone was stupid or lazy. Only that many are overwhelmed and unwilling to see the reality of the situation. I never suggested you change your book or genre. I never even suggested you should follow his advice. Only that to say it's wrong or that it wouldn't work is not the case. It will work and will work for anyone who applies it. But if you think you have a good bead on things, good for you. Hey, do your own thing. Do I care? The answer is a resounding NO! But please for the love of the book gods, take the time to read a post before spewing forth. You only embarrass yourself.

addendum-It took longer than I thought for someone to get angry and confrontational over silly things. It speaks well of the posters here.


----------



## Cpersons101 (Aug 27, 2013)

Very entertaining perspective...however, I have to say that half of those things I did on my first book and has sold quite well.  Bringing me 2400.00 the first month.  I didn't have money to hire an editor or a cover artist.  So, I went on blind faith and voila!!  So, just saying...it can happen.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

locking the thread until I can review the last couple of posts which seemed to be a bit over the top.  Have to go out for half an hour, will review when I get back, or one of the other mods will take a look.

Everyone, step away from the keyboard and do some writing.  Or something.  Back in a bit.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------

