# On NOT writing four books a year



## Genre Hoarder (Oct 4, 2014)

I should preface this by saying that I most definitely write more than four books a year. I understand the bits about learning your craft and such, but I'm not digging the prospect that writing more than that means they lack quality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-devon-wilke/dear-self-published-autho_b_8128668.html


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

soulfulone said:


> ... but I'm not digging the prospect that writing more than that means they lack quality.


'Quality' is a relative term. Are you comparing the book to what a traditional publisher requires as quality, or what your contemporaries are publishing? There is no right or wrong. Readers have different tastes and values.


----------



## elizabethsade (Feb 3, 2015)

Wow.

Her condescension basically oozes off the page.

Craft is important, but what's most important is that you write a good story. If you enjoy writing what you do, it's even better. And just because she can't write four good novels a year doesn't mean other people can't. -shudders- This sounds like someone wishing she was good enough for tradpub but not being good enough to make it.


----------



## Dobby the House Elf (Aug 16, 2014)

In response to that article. 

"Dear Writers, 

Please stop telling other writers how to do their job. 

Sincerely, 

A Writer."


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Huffpo clickbait. Step away from the mouse and do not click.


----------



## elizabethsade (Feb 3, 2015)

KJC said:


> In response to that article.
> 
> "Dear Writers,
> 
> ...


The very first comment on that article is my favorite. And it's our very own Yoda.

(It basically says what you do, except with slightly more snark. It's brilliant.)


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Boyd said:


> Too late! I read the article. I even followed the links to her books!?!?!


NoooooOO!!


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

I don't read such twaddle.
I have people for that.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Since when did Eastern Standard Time go out of style with macrame ? ? ? Nevermind, I found an article on "est" in Wiki about some training thing that was New Age-ish it sounds. 

As a reader, I would love my favorite authors to write a story a month, thank you very much. 

Oh and if you too pay the entry application fee you can be considered for a Pulitzer Prize. And hardly anyone who bought The Goldfinch actually read it according the stats shared when we were all freaking out about read-through.


----------



## Genre Hoarder (Oct 4, 2014)

The comment are the story.  I agree, everyone should do what works for them. I linked to it for amusement, not to be taken as gospel.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

There's some dreadful snobbery in literary circles. First there was that journalist dissing Terry Pratchett. Now this. The Goldfinch? I seem to recall the majority of readers didn't even finish the book. What's the point if people don't want to read what you've written?


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

A book that takes 11 years to write is an excellent book. A book that takes less than a year to write is a terrible book. Did I get that right?

Now we know to make our book purchases based on how long it took the author to write the thing. This will turn the literary world upside down!


----------



## Rayven T. Hill (Jul 24, 2013)

It took me 59 years to write my first book. I should be a zillionaire by now.


----------



## Kenzi (Jul 28, 2014)

People* need to spend more time worrying about their own books and careers instead of telling other writers how to manage theirs. 

*Not directed at anyone here.


----------



## Penelope Redmont (Sep 10, 2015)

KJC said:


> In response to that article.
> 
> "Dear Writers,
> 
> ...


So true... I've never heard of this writer, and now she's telling every hard-working writer what to do.

I adore this: _"Unless they're four gorgeously written, painstakingly molded, amazingly rendered and undeniably memorable books. If you can pull off four of those a year, more power to you. But most can't. I'd go so far as to say no one can, the qualifier being good books."_

I stopped reading at that point. What the ever-loving blue blazes is *"gorgeously written?"*

Which books make the cut? Who's the judge?

Good grief, Charlie Brown...

Clickbait is right. And I clicked. (sob.)


----------



## Calvin Locke (Mar 6, 2012)

I think things go off the rails when people attempt to talk in absolutes.

Literary writers versus commercial writers versus indie writers...the discussion/argument may never end.

The author of the article would do well to tone down her attitude, and perhaps she could make the point that writing merely for the sake of putting words on the page and worrying about quantity CAN lead to poor quality, but it certainly isn't an absolute.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

Yawn.. 

She's a bit late to the party on that topic. We hashed that out on KB almost 4-years ago!


----------



## Liz French (Apr 13, 2014)

I'm SO annoyed with myself for reading the article, all of the comments and then looking her up on Amazon. This should not be how I use my precious procrastination time! *gives self a talking to*


----------



## Word Fan (Apr 15, 2015)

Vicky Foxx said:


> Yawn..
> 
> She's a bit late to the party on that topic. We hashed that out on KB almost 4-years ago!


This!


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Dang. I clicked it. I couldn't resist. Good grief, some of those comments!!


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

As an aside, I actually DID finish The Goldfinch.  It was about 500 pages too long.


----------



## A Woman&#039;s Place Is In The Rebellion (Apr 28, 2011)

GeneDoucette said:


> As an aside, I actually DID finish The Goldfinch. It was about 500 pages too long.


I am one of those who couldn't finish it and I loved her other books. I wish she'd written 11 more books I wanted to finish in those 11 years.


----------



## HWaterman (Aug 27, 2015)

The writer has confused "good books" with "books written in a style that I enjoy."

I enjoy westerns, sci-fi, fantasy, Raymond Chandler and through to classics, Dostoevsky, Dickens, etc. All these styles are different, and since I have enjoyed them, I would say they are good. To another reader, they may be garbage. But so what?

Regarding 'The Goldfinch': Any hyped book will attract a lot of people to it. Many of them might be thinking 'I've heard raves about this, I'll get it/try it/borrow/it'. Surprise, it doesn't suit all readers. I loved it, so did my wife, so did many of my friends. I didn't want it to end. I would call it superb writing, but only because of the pleasure it gave me. I don't believe it to be superior to a good western. Though if I were in the mood for a western, Goldfinch fails.

The point is not how many people never read 'The Goldfinch', or never finished it, because isn't that true for millions of books? Many people loved it, and Tartt pleased her audience, her target readership. But we all know - OK, maybe some people don't - not every writer must wring her hands over each word for days, months, years, to please her target readership.

Someone on this forum writes more than four books per year as far as I can tell. I've bought a couple of her books and enjoyed them immensely, she writes a good book. So don't worry about how fast or slow you turn out your novels - and don't worry about people saying you're not a 'good' writer. They just don't enjoy your style - no big deal.


----------



## Lady Q (Jun 27, 2015)

The only thing I'm interested in clicking from this thread is what this Goldfinch book is all about. 

*googles*

Oh, it's by Donna Tartt! I read _The Secret History_ a long time ago. Creepy, unsettling, and unputdownable. And to think I almost went to a small Vermont college. *shivers*


----------



## mica (Jun 19, 2015)

_"Unless they're four gorgeously written, painstakingly molded, amazingly rendered and undeniably memorable books. If you can pull off four of those a year, more power to you. But most can't. I'd go so far as to say no one can, the qualifier being good books."_

This is the kind of advice that stops many people from writing a book, publishing it and fulfilling a dream.

Every author has to do what is right and what is comfortable for them. There are authors I read who release a book every two or three months and I think their books are highly engaging, well written and memorable. I am on their mailing list. I have also read books by authors who release every few years. I'll admit if I enjoyed their book, I want the next book within a year at least. I am a needy reader.

I personally cannot spend years working on one book but I wouldn't tell another author how long it should take to write their book and how many books they should release in a year.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Looking at my release schedule for the next six months, four books a year sounds wonderfully relaxed.


----------



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

Crystal_ said:


> Looking at my release schedule for the next six months, four books a year sounds wonderfully relaxed.


Yeah. If all goes as planned I'm writing four this month (with two days of overlap into October to finish). I wish I could get by with four releases a year. Actually, no I don't. I love to write.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Bollocks!


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Boyd said:


> Too late! I read the article. I even followed the links to her books!?!?!


I come to these threads for the crazy cat gifs . . .

EC (off to write more "gorgeously written" <burp> prose while barbecuing a goat and chanting, "Please help me write as well and as fast as Amanda Lee.)


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

You know, I think these articles are signs of cracks in the edifice of traditional publishing. They and their supporters protest too much.


----------



## horrordude1973 (Sep 20, 2014)

Notice her books are ranking in the millions...


----------



## WDProsapio (May 22, 2015)

Dobby (aka KJC) said:


> In response to that article.
> 
> "Dear Writers,
> 
> ...


Love it.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

So the Goldfinch took 11 years to write? Wow. Just think how much better it would be if she had taken 20 years to write it.

I wish she was still writing it. Then it would be incredibly awesome whenever she finished.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

Christopher Bunn said:


> So the Goldfinch took 11 years to write? Wow. Just think how much better it would be if she had taken 20 years to write it.
> 
> I wish she was still writing it. Then it would be incredibly awesome whenever she finished.


I've been writing a book since I was three. It's brilliant.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

I loved the comment "Okay, I'll write four books a month instead."

I totally agree with Elizabeth Ann West's response.  Winner.  

And yes, Isaac Asimov is the perfect example of a fast writer who wrote excellently.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

I haven't read the link and feel no need to do so.

My comment would be: if it took me 3 months to write what I have been doing in 1 month, there would still be no difference in the end result. My writing is my writing. It doesn't change just because something takes longer.

Taking longer to write wont change the quality in any way.

My writing skills get better with each book. Stringing them out over a longer time, just means the skill learning takes longer. The more I write, the better I get at writing. To only do 4 books in a year, I'd have to write less than half of what I normally do in a day, or take weekends off, and long weekends, and holidays. Why? As a writer, the more I put out there, the more I learn and the better I get. And by keeping books in the new releases list most of the time, I keep my 'brand' in the public eye, where doing 4 books a year means losing the momentum 3 times a year, long enough to mean you have to promote to stay current.


----------



## Stephanie Marks (Feb 16, 2015)

Someone posted this on a FB writing group I'm a part of, and dang! There were so many comments of "preach!". There was so much "fast writer" hate in the comments that I just held my hands up and backed away slowly.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

For those who don't speak Pretentious Snobbish, allow me to provide a translation:

*ahem*

"You GUYSSSSSSS! Can you like, stop writing so much? This is totes hard for me! Ugh, so unfair!"


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

I think there's another factor no-one takes into account in this issue.

I for one can write as much as I do, simply because I don't have a life. 

And if I didn't have daily migraines, I could be writing a lot more than I do.

You never see comparison of what sort of life each author has in these things.

I freely admit I'd like to have a life, and it most likely would slow me down a bit. A sexy wife for example, would have me taking time out to practice love scenes instead of writing around them.   Might make all the difference to the romance in my stories, and make the slow down worth it. 

However, until a life actually finds me, I'll keep writing as I am.


----------



## Salvador Mercer (Jan 1, 2015)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> It took me 59 years to write my first book. I should be a zillionaire by now.


Took me much less, only 38 years


----------



## mojomikey (Apr 9, 2014)

Christopher Bunn said:


> So the Goldfinch took 11 years to write? Wow. Just think how much better it would be if she had taken 20 years to write it.
> 
> I wish she was still writing it. Then it would be incredibly awesome whenever she finished.


This.

And I would have one less competitor for the vaunted 2,316,232 sales ranking slot on Amazon


----------



## HWaterman (Aug 27, 2015)

Christopher Bunn said:


> So the Goldfinch took 11 years to write?


That's an interesting question: it came out 11 years after her second novel. I wonder how much of that time was spent actually writing it. "Eleven years in the making" could be just hyperbole.


----------



## Elidibus (May 13, 2015)

Maybe it's because I'm such a woeful optimist, but can anyone else believe the amount of hate being tossed around at other writers? I thought if there was one group of people that could agree to disagree, it would be writers. It appears as though I've been mistaken all of these years. I mean, really? It's impossible, honestly impossible, to write four masterpiece books in a year? With over 7 billion people on this planet, not one of them can accomplish that?

Yea...

Now if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment at the "second tier club." A lot of those people make a ton of money while writing masterpiece books, so that's who I'm going to learn from.


----------



## SusanCht (Oct 24, 2014)

What's funny about the article and the writer is that she obviously isn't a professional fiction writer -- someone who makes a significant part of their living writing fiction. She has two novels and a short story. 

She does a lot of things. She's made an album, sold a handful of songs to films, acted a bit, and takes pictures. As someone who worked nearly 20 years in Film/TV, when someone says "well-received screenplays" it means probably nothing's sold or been optioned. The one screenplay of hers that has been made stars herself and her co-writer. 

She's married to an entertainment attorney so maybe she has the luxury of doing whatever she wants without having to anything to sustain herself financially.

Obviously, this woman can "buck the trends" all she wants because apparently doesn't need to depend on her books to support herself. 

My favorite thing, though, is her comment on "The cultishly-beloved Harper Lee," also a Pulitzer Prize winner.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't get why it's anybody else's business how fast another author writes. I mean, either people will buy their books or not--either they did a good enough job at--whatever--to sell a lot, or not. (Whether you want to call that story, writing, marketing, whatever.) It's a very individual enterprise. If your book isn't selling and you want to look around and see if you can figure it out by comparing yourself to others, fine. But from what I know, writers write at different speeds. I'm not all that fast. Doesn't mean I'm writing better than faster people. Just means I'm not that fast.


----------



## abgwriter (Sep 12, 2015)

Yawn... same old, same old. Apparently neither James Patterson, nor Stephen King nor any of my favorite bestseller authors are good writers. She seems to forget that the average bestselling trad author spawns an average of three books a year. But then again they don't have Pulitzers so who cares about the millions and millions of fans who follow them and buy their books. Good to see that just anyone can write for the Huffpo this days.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

I wish I'd gone to the author's Amazon page first; I could have saved the time taken to read the article. She describes herself as a 'creative hyphenate'


----------



## My Dog&#039;s Servant (Jun 2, 2013)

Perry Constantine said:


> For those who don't speak Pretentious Snobbish, allow me to provide a translation:
> 
> *ahem*
> 
> "You GUYSSSSSSS! Can you like, stop writing so much? This is totes hard for me! Ugh, so unfair!"


Snort! Thanks, Perry! It's been a long day. I needed a good laugh!

So, let's compare this to, say, painters. Is Rembrandt a better/more important/more respected painter than Picasso? He certainly didn't "churn" out the thousands of paintings that Picasso did, so, he MUST be better, right? Or maybe he's just Rembrandt and Picasso is just Picasso? And maybe what matters isn't the numbers but the works themselves? Now, there's a thought.....


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

SusanCht said:


> What's funny about the article and the writer is that she obviously isn't a professional fiction writer -- someone who makes a significant part of their living writing fiction. She has two novels and a short story.
> 
> She does a lot of things. She's made an album, sold a handful of songs to films, acted a bit, and takes pictures. As someone who worked nearly 20 years in Film/TV, when someone says "well-received screenplays" it means probably nothing's sold or been optioned. The one screenplay of hers that has been made stars herself and her co-writer.
> 
> ...


You hit the nail on the head there. I was just thinking about that one - exactly how does one support oneself if one doesn't "churn out books?" I didn't realize that she was married to an entertainment attorney, but it certainly makes sense. It's easy for her to judge other writers for treating publishing like a business, as opposed to treating it as a pure art form - she doesn't have to worry about making a living. She can sit in her ivory tower and pooh-pooh us unwashed masses, because we actually depend upon our writing to make a living. Now that I know that she doesn't need the money, her condescension infuriates me that much more.

Some of us don't have the luxury of being married to an entertainment attorney. Some of us are the only bread-winner in our family, and have elderly parents to help support. I'd love to have somebody financially support me so that I could have the luxury of producing a book every few years if that's what I wanted (which I don't. I happen to love to write lots of books).

I think it's safe to say that this woman has little empathy for those of us who HAVE to treat this whole thing like a business.


----------



## HWaterman (Aug 27, 2015)

Elidibus said:


> Maybe it's because I'm such a woeful optimist, but can anyone else believe the amount of hate being tossed around at other writers? I thought if there was one group of people that could agree to disagree, it would be writers.


Professional jealousy strikes without discriminating between disciplines. Which reminds me of this:

The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I am pleased.
In vast quantities it has been remaindered
Like a van-load of counterfeit that has been seized ...
(Clive James)

Complete verse here- https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/bookofmyenemy.html


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

If I was a mega bestselling author this is what I'd do.
Write my one bestseller a year (would take me about six weeks), go travelling, seeking inspiration, having massages, checking out fancy restaurants, have more massages and then write another bestseller in the next year.
I bet this is what most of them do.
Unfortunately I can't afford it.


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

anniejocoby said:


> You hit the nail on the head there. I was just thinking about that one - exactly how does one support oneself if one doesn't "churn out books?" I didn't realize that she was married to an entertainment attorney, but it certainly makes sense. It's easy for her to judge other writers for treating publishing like a business, as opposed to treating it as a pure art form - she doesn't have to worry about making a living. She can sit in her ivory tower and pooh-pooh us unwashed masses, because we actually depend upon our writing to make a living. Now that I know that she doesn't need the money, her condescension infuriates me that much more.
> 
> Some of us don't have the luxury of being married to an entertainment attorney. Some of us are the only bread-winner in our family, and have elderly parents to help support. I'd love to have somebody financially support me so that I could have the luxury of producing a book every few years if that's what I wanted (which I don't. I happen to love to write lots of books).
> 
> I think it's safe to say that this woman has little empathy for those of us who HAVE to treat this whole thing like a business.


http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/


----------



## Ros_Jackson (Jan 11, 2014)

At the same time, a moderately prolific writer has come under fire for her crowdfunding efforts. Some of that is no doubt due to the tone she used in asking for money, and I'm not going to link her because I don't want to see a dogpile, but there's also a sense of author jealousy because most of us take only what the market gives us, and the market very clearly isn't as interested in (or aware of) authors who publish infrequently.

But it's worth considering how we pay for a career whilst building it up. Many of us take second jobs. Others have supportive families, or ask for funding. I've also come across one or two who successfully get arts grants. Whatever it is, you can't live on air while you wait for the perfect words for your masterpiece. For one thing, writing whilst hungry, cold and stressed is no way to enhance your creative processes. I don't know about others, but if I'm worried about how I'm going to pay the bills I'm not thinking enough about how I'm going to resolve the next plot problem. So if more prolific authors tend to be more financially secure, that's another reason that when output goes up quality doesn't necessarily (or even often) go down.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

Oh, now I checked out the Amazon page as well...
Umph.
Well.


----------



## Overrated (Mar 20, 2015)

I'll write as fast or as slow as I want to. 

But thanks for the advice. Always nice to hear from another author.

Seriously. WHY? Why do so many feel the need to step on others in the same profession? I don't get it. I personally only want to indie publish. It makes more sense for me, makes me happy, and is the direction I want to go. How does that hurt others? 

It doesn't. Even if there is some logic in the idea that others are hurt by my typing speed, why write a piece attempting to shame those who (I am only assuming here) type faster than the author of that post does?

The comments were really a sad statement on the divide a certain determined group insist on keeping fresh and present.

Meh. Ok. Keep digging that divide, folks. I'm back to my WIP.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

Lisa Manifold said:


> I'm back to my WIP.


Ditto.

We are writers, this is what we do.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2015)

Jim Johnson said:


> Huffpo clickbait. Step away from the mouse and do not click.


THIS.


----------



## Matthew Stott (Oct 22, 2014)

Compared to some of you on here, only four books a year actually seems quite restrained...!


----------



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

Janet Michelson said:


> A book that takes 11 years to write is an excellent book. A book that takes less than a year to write is a terrible book. Did I get that right?
> 
> Now we know to make our book purchases based on how long it took the author to write the thing. This will turn the literary world upside down!


Lol, that's what I got from that article as well, in addition to the rampant snobbery and jealousy.
Yikes, when will authors stop thinking they know what readers should read? Yeah, that's not how it works. READERS make that choice. Authors can whine about it all day long, spends twenty years writing a story, write countless Huff Post articles about it, and it won't change a blessed thing.

As I read that ridiculous rant, I kept wondering...this is probably one of those authors who responds to negative reviews by telling the reader "you just don't understand my genius!!" After all, it took ten years to write. Everyone should love it, by virtue of time spent. LOL. Ok, I get it now.


----------



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

thesmallprint said:


> I wish I'd gone to the author's Amazon page first; I could have saved the time taken to read the article. She describes herself as a 'creative hyphenate'


Oy.

Well, isn't that speshul.


----------



## stoney (May 24, 2015)

the hypocrisy (in the article), it burns us, precious.

Also, this:


bpmanuel said:


> My gut reaction "You're slow."
> 
> Head reaction "That's the way you work, so be it."
> 
> My whole reaction? "Good one less person to compete with."


But what do I know? I'm not a creative hyphenate.


----------



## Madeline_Kirby (Apr 14, 2015)

Oh goodness, I read it. I also read the comments (where the good stuff was) because I saw so many familiar names and faces there. But then... then... I went to Amazon and looked at her books and as far as I can tell, they are self-published. So now I'm just kinda going "huh?"

Oh, and I just published my third novel in six months, and in less than 24 hours it has hit #6 in the LGBT Mystery subcategory. I'm not going to be buying a boat anytime soon, but at least I can take my husband out to breakfast.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Abderian said:


> http://www.salon.com/2015/01/25/sponsored_by_my_husband_why_its_a_problem_that_writers_never_talk_about_where_their_money_comes_from/


I remember reading that article and starting to make sure when I was talking about what I do last year that our family depends on hubby's paycheck. In my case, it's a Catch-22, it's not that I CAN'T work outside the home, I have a degree, I've done it before, it's that his career is so all encompassing that it's extremely painful on my family for me to have a career outside the home. Just today I had to pick up my oldest because he is sick. And tomorrow morning I will be dropping my husband off at the airport, he'll be home for the weekend then gone again somewhere different next week . . . and yes, MANY civilian jobs have that too and my hubby doesn't go out to sea anymore thankfully, but he is on call 24-7 ANNNND we move every 2-3 years. It's very hard professionally to move your career every 2-3 years to different states. Just about any career that would be in high demand, like teaching, nursing, etc. has individual state licensing requirements that take a year or more to get through.

Thankfully, we recognized this when I graduated college and had to quit my first real job in 2007 so I could move to California. Now, my youngest is in 1st grade and I have ample time during the school day to write and work from home. I would feel pathetic if I wasn't bringing some kind of money into the household . . . it's just not in me to NOT work. I write efficiently and see a real decent wage now, but it took me a year to get here and I have no plans to slow down.

I really question the motives of the article writer. I want to know what positivity did she put out into the world with this snide, hurtful article? It's not EASY to write 4 books in a year, if a writer has achieved that level of discipline and ability, trust me, they worked their A$$es off! There is no benefit to shaming them. And I don't know a single author without a healthy dose of self-doubt and insecurity, not even the most egomaniacal personalities on the Internet . . . so there's really zero reason to ever try to tell one another "You're not good enough."

I probably won't remember her name, but I won't forget that book cover with ice cream truck and lazy green font. I pray she doesn't find herself in a few years needing help from her fellow indies, because I doubt she'll be getting it.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

> Notice her books are ranking in the millions...


What kills me is sales ranks of 330k and 1million _after _direct links from a HuffPost article. What on the green earth were they before?

Overall though, you can go back to the 50s/60s and read the same things about "cheap paperback books" and the 20s and 30s about "these terrible pulp magazines."


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

A comment left by one of the people commenting on the article:

_"I'd rather be self-published than self-absorbed"_

And...BAM! Nailed it! Mic dropped. Stage exited. That's all for tonight folks!


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

horrordude1973 said:


> Notice her books are ranking in the millions...


You people don't know anything. That is, in fact, the proper way to write a book. The way you're supposed to do it is to write one book a year MAX, and then complain that your book isn't getting any visibility because there are too many other authors out there putting out books. This is the only path to happiness for an author.


----------



## Talbot (Jul 14, 2015)

Abderian said:


> There's some dreadful snobbery in literary circles. First there was that journalist dissing Terry Pratchett. ..


Oh, no, he din't...


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

I see that almost all of the comments on the HuffPo thread have disappeared


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

soulfulone said:


> I should preface this by saying that I most definitely write more than four books a year. I understand the bits about learning your craft and such, but I'm not digging the prospect that writing more than that means they lack quality.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-devon-wilke/dear-self-published-autho_b_8128668.html


That reads like someone who is jealous because they can't do it. I don't write four books a year; I write 12 books a year, one a month. The problem is that people like the writer of that article have this vision of the classic writers who took two or three years to write one book. As I have said before, that was not through a superior quality, but a lack of the right equipment to do it faster. I remember handwriting, then typing; if you put in an extra paragraph the whole chapter had to be retyped, if not the entire book.

I expect people think of Rudyard Kipling as quality; I thought they were the most boring books ever written, not to mention Evelyn Waugh (yawn). No, that is an article by someone who doesn't have a clue. She can't keep up, so she's trying to make everyone else slow down.


----------



## MyraScott (Jul 18, 2014)

What we need is MORE people telling us what is proper. How else will we know, without a publisher to guide us?  Thank you, brave author whom I've never heard of before, for setting us all straight.  The relief...


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

TimothyEllis said:


> I think there's another factor no-one takes into account in this issue.
> 
> I for one can write as much as I do, simply because I don't have a life.
> 
> ...


Ah, Timothy, but if you had a wife you'd be more likely painting the garage doors or mowing the lawn.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

thesmallprint said:


> I see that almost all of the comments on the HuffPo thread have disappeared


I was wondering why I couldn't find anywhere to leave my own words of wisdom. Obviously, no one agreed with her so she stamped her little feet and deleted all the comments; shame. I think Samuel Johnson took twenty years to write the first English Dictionary so that must be a classic. And think of books like the Lindisfarne Gospels which took a whole monastery full of scribes years and years to put together.


----------



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

Wow. I guess if you delete stuff from the internet, then it doesn't exist anymore...right??!!


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Doglover said:


> I was wondering why I couldn't find anywhere to leave my own words of wisdom. Obviously, no one agreed with her so she stamped her little feet and deleted all the comments; shame. I think Samuel Johnson took twenty years to write the first English Dictionary so that must be a classic. And think of books like the Lindisfarne Gospels which took a whole monastery full of scribes years and years to put together.


Speaking as an occasional contributor to HuffPo, I'm not so sure the power to delete comments rests with the contributor.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Steven Hardesty said:


> I think we're being too hard on whatshername. Spending an excruciating amount of time "shaping" and "molding" each word in a book absolutely guarantees a brilliant novel. As James Joyce proves. He'd come home from a day's writing (down at the pub) and Nora would ask him, "How'd it go, kid?" and he'd say, "Great! Another two words stuck together!" or (on his Yoda days) "Fab! A whole sentence done!" The result was the greatest and funniest book in English - _Ulysses_ - which is also completely unreadable. Which makes it even funnier. Now William Faulkner, who was a literary slacker (even if he was one of the few great American novelists), wrote _As I Lay Dying_ in a furious six weeks on the back of a wheel barrow while he dug rock for food money. No one's ever heard of Faulkner. Why should they? He doesn't measure up to whatshername's standards.


That you find Ulysses 'unreadable' doesn't mean everyone does. That I hate Faulkner's work doesn't mean everyone does either. Literary taste AND how long it takes to write novels is very individual. One should (as the author of the article should have) take a deep breath and hesitate long and hard before being insulting about either.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

As a reader I don't really care obviously how long it takes an author to write a book. All I care about is the end result and if it is enjoyable. But, there is a but.  
When some of my favorite authors are on the prolific side, I have no choice but to fall behind, miserably fall behind. Since I don't just have one favorite author, I have like 100's and 100's, there is just no way for me to keep up. I have a list now of authors I kept up with for a while and then just gave up. Not on reading them in general, but on trying to keep up. Once you are so far behind on so many, its really impossible to ever get to the front of the line.

The downside on that is that I just totally forget sometimes about some I started reading and then I go, oh, I haven't read a book by this author in like 2 years, need to look into it and then I found out there are like 8 more books in the series now     . 

I won't lie, it gets a tad depressive sometimes when I am so behind on everything and its difficult to follow my favorite blogs and sites where readers talk and my goodreads friends as I do not want to be spoiled about anything. 

So anywho, don't care how long it takes, just care about if its good.  But blame yourself we can't keep up with your output anymore and fall way behind.  

I might just blame it on my puny human lifespan. How am I suppose to read ALL THE BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



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

Well, I'm just gonna keep my thoughts about it on my personal FB page, where I know I won't get deleted. Try to censor me there, Huffington Post!!!! muuwwwhhaaa


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Abderian said:


> I've been writing a book since I was three. It's brilliant.


Your book must be incredible (assuming you're not 6 or 7 years old now). You should keep writing it for another couple of decades and then it will be mind-blowing. I'm looking forward to reading it if I'm still alive when you finish.


----------



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

Yeah, a "clarification" was posted. Apparently we are just too inept to understand her genius and what she was really saying. I don't know about you, but if a LOT of people (apparently at least 60+ people) get a distinct impression from your article, it's not a matter of misunderstanding. You wrote what you wrote, and that's what plenty of readers understood from it. 
My impression as I read this snippet?



> Because I not only wanted to publish a novel, I wanted that novel to be a work of art, a book of depth and merit, one that would not only tell a compelling story _*(Ok, admirable)*_ but would meet standards of publishing that authors of the highest regard are held to _*(hold the phone, you're losing me here. Who gets to decide who is an author of the "highest regard"? You? Uhm, okay...)*_. I wanted it to be a book that would favorably compare with anything put out by a traditional publisher *(reasonable)*. My choice to self-publish was a result of not having engaged a publisher by the time my book was done and I was ready to market it. It was not based on the notion of joining the "second tier club" where one is unbound from the stricter, more demanding standards of traditional publishing. _*(I missed that whole class about "second tier club". How do I get membership? Is this an appointed position, or elected? Is this an Amazon thing, like KDP Select?!)*_
> 
> "Second tier club"? Yes. As insulting as that sounds_* (Ok, so at least you are AWARE you're insulting a massive amount of your peers...even though it sounds like you are above all of us...but whatever)*_, particularly in relation to self-publishing, there is no question that there are two tiers operating in the culture of the book industry *(note to self: take the two tier class)*. Take a moment to think about it: based on what advice is given to self-published writers, some of which I shared above; based on the"free/bargain" pricing paradigms of most book sellers hawking those writers; based on the corner (quality)-cutting measures required to pump out endless product to meet the purportedly endless demand of those sites and their bargain-hunting readers, "second tier club" is no misnomer. _*(Should I spend more money to publish, like, is there a minimum I need to spend before I make it up a Tier?)*_


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

ebbrown said:


> Yeah, a "clarification" was posted. Apparently we are just too inept to understand her genius and what she was really saying. I don't know about you, but if a LOT of people (apparently at least 60+ people) get a distinct impression from your article, it's not a matter of misunderstanding. You wrote what you wrote, and that's what plenty of readers understood from it.
> My impression as I read this snippet?


If there is a second tier at all, I would say it was the authors struggling along with no control and waiting months to even get seen, restricted to one book a year and earning a pittance. We are the ones with the brains to be making a lot more money and having complete control over our work and when it is published.


----------



## 80593 (Nov 1, 2014)

Sorry, but I have to throw a flag for Nonsense Backpedal on that "clarification." This is from the second paragraph of her original article:



> If you can pull off four of those a year, more power to you. But most can't. I'd go so far as to say no one can, the qualifier being _good _books.


That says, outright and right out loud, that in her opinion NO ONE writing four books a year is writing good books. And as she's a writer who painstakingly molds every word, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume she knew what the words meant.

So honestly, if those two sentences actually meant to convey that there's no one right way and everyone should make their own choices and sing together in perfect harmony, as her clarification suggests, then I'm afraid she's just not a very good writer.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Jen Rasmussen said:


> Sorry, but I have to throw a flag for Nonsense Backpedal on that "clarification." This is from the second paragraph of her original article:
> 
> That says, outright and right out loud, that in her opinion NO ONE writing four books a year is writing good books. And as she's a writer who painstakingly molds every word, I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume she knew what the words meant.
> 
> So honestly, if those two sentences actually meant to convey that there's no one right way and everyone should make their own choices and sing together in perfect harmony, as her clarification suggests, then I'm afraid she's just not a very good writer.


I think she probably isn't a very good writer and she is seething because others are writing a lot more good books and making a lot more money.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Oh this is the funniest thread ever









Don't you all realise how ridiculous and defensive you all sound on your soap boxes?









It's a well known fact that books written quickly are utter crap









(Backs away giggling from this thread to go and submit an article to Huffpo on something else that will rile writers up







so that they talk about me despite the fact that hardly anyone has ever heard of me prior to it)

Oh, I'm not actually criticising any of you, just that you totally lack level headedness, but that is your choice

_(Do you appreciate this disclaimer and clarification? Does it let me off being an obnoxious cow to every single person here?)_

*
Uh - just in case anyone didn't actually get it, my whole post is laced with very British sarcasm, I was actually pretty insulted by the "clarification" in the article!*


----------



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

Evenstar said:


> Oh this is the funniest thread ever
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sarcasm? That's not a literary form of writing. It must have only taken you thirty seconds.

But let me clarify, I did not mean that sarcasm was inferior in any way. And if you don't understand that, then you need to re-read my post. 100 times. Over a span of ten years.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Oh, there you go again, Evenstar. Showing off your highbrow vocabulary with those fancy emojis when a simple " : ) " will do the trick.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

thesmallprint said:


> I see that almost all of the comments on the HuffPo thread have disappeared


Today, when I finally got around to reading it, there were 0 comments.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

555aaa said:


> Oh, there you go again, Evenstar. Showing off your highbrow vocabulary with those fancy emojis when a simple " : ) " will do the trick.


Allow me to raise that bar even higher for you


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Lisa Grace said:


> Today, when I finally got around to reading it, there were 0 comments.


I know! I'm longing to know what Amanda wrote, I bet it was fab


----------



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

Lisa Grace said:


> Today, when I finally got around to reading it, there were 0 comments.


They're all still there on mobile when I checked via my iphone. I thought about screenshotting them but I'm not that motivated. Too much work for 90+ comments that were deleted. I wonder if there is a separate delete button for mobile vs web? I'm finding it strange that it was a "glitch" that deleted the web comments when the "clarification" was posted, but not for the mobile version. Things that make ya go hmmmm....


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

ebbrown said:


> Sarcasm? That's not a literary form of writing. It must have only taken you thirty seconds.
> 
> But let me clarify, I did not mean that sarcasm was inferior in any way. And if you don't understand that, then you need to re-read my post. 100 times. Over a span of ten years.


Thirty seconds? It took me thirty years to write that. Therefore I am _significantly_ better than yew!


----------



## elizabethsade (Feb 3, 2015)

Evenstar said:


> I know! I'm longing to know what Amanda wrote, I bet it was fab


I don't know if this is exactly verbatim, but it was pretty close to:

"Those who can't do tell others how to do it."


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Surprised to see her worry so much about detractors given the legions of admirers reviewing her books. Her skills must indeed be dazzling, for her reviewers invariably write their reviews in novella form (Lord knows how long it must take them), whereas 80% of my reviewers have time only for reviews like:

"Good"
"Poor"
"Meh"

I guess my reviewers must be putting out, what, as many as four reviews a year?


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

thesmallprint said:


> Surprised to see her worry so much about detractors given the legions of admirers reviewing her books. Her skills must indeed be dazzling, for her reviewers invariably write their reviews in novella form (Lord knows how long it must take them), whereas 80% of my reviewers have time only for reviews like:
> 
> "Good"
> "Poor"
> "Meh"


lol, me too. I had a brilliant one-worder this week - it said "rubish" I had to giggle


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

The backpedal is strong in this one.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Perry Constantine said:


> The backpedal is strong in this one.


Lol.

I'm not psychic, but I bet at least five authors from the WC are writing articles called, "Please, Please, Please Publish at Least Five Novels a Year"


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Matthew Stott said:


> Compared to some of you on here, only four books a year actually seems quite restrained...!


Yeah, I wish I wrote four books per year (working on it). She would have a melt down if she saw the prolificness of members here.


----------



## hunterone (Feb 6, 2013)

Alan Petersen said:


> Yeah, I wish I wrote four books per year (working on it). She would have a melt down if she saw the prolificness of members here.


LOL. Kboards is like a sweat factory. Except folks are getting paid in diamonds.

Though I must see about getting a raise myself.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Ok, fun aside, I'll take up the contrary position and note that every year there are a few authors who write one book and then can retire. 

One and done, for life. 

For those of us with a day job and a family that relies on us, that might not be a bad strategy, as opposed to the hop on the treadmill and burn yourself out strategy. It's longer odds, but with a bigger payout. Who is to say what is right for others?


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

I think it's important to note that whatsername (well put Steven) clearly has not been here to kboards. 

If she had then I don't think she would have written it because she would have seen first hand what nonsense it was. I'm really proud to be part of a community that is at the cutting edge of Indie Publishing. Kboards authors are everything from fresh new talent to wise old talent. We have people yet to publish and people who have been doing so since the first kindles appeared. We have small minnows traversing dangerous water and some of the really big fish of the industry. Loads of the authors here came from a trad background, many of them are still trad, or hybrids. Either way the collective wisdom is bigger than any one of us and if whatsername had been here she would undoubtedly have a more accurate view.


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

Evenstar said:


> I think it's important to note that whatsername (well put Steven) clearly has not been here to kboards.
> 
> If she had then I don't think she would have written it because she would have seen first hand what nonsense it was. I'm really proud to be part of a community that is at the cutting edge of Indie Publishing. Kboards authors are everything from fresh new talent to wise old talent. We have people yet to publish and people who have been doing so since the first kindles appeared. We have small minnows traversing dangerous water and some of the really big fish of the industry. Loads of the authors here came from a trad background, many of them are still trad, or hybrids. Either way the collective wisdom is bigger than any one of us and if whatsername had been here she would undoubtedly have a more accurate view.


Quoting because I love this, Evenstar.


----------



## AllyWho (May 16, 2015)

555aaa said:


> Ok, fun aside, I'll take up the contrary position and note that every year there are a few authors who write one book and then can retire.


Is that really true though? Are there people who write one book and it does so phenomenally well they never write anything else again? Or do they write under pen names?

I can only think of one example of a one book author - Erin Morgenstern who wrote THE NIGHT CIRCUS in 2011. I keep checking her page for more work and she's never written anything else, but I assume she still writes but possibly under another name?

I know this is a hijack but I would love to know more examples of one hit wonders and are they true "one book only" or is it a case of writing other genres under other names.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

It's not her, it's everyone else that didn't understand the supposed true gist of the post.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/643907195277455360
I'm amazed that someone writes something controversial for the sake of clicks and link backs and attention (hey, it worked, HuffPost editors are smiling away at the attention) and then they're taken aback by the reaction.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Alan Petersen said:


> It's not her, it's everyone else that didn't understand the supposed true gist of the post.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/643907195277455360
> I'm amazed that someone writes something controversial for the sake of clicks and link backs and attention (hey, it worked, HuffPost editors are smiling away at the attention) and then they're taken aback by the reaction.


One thing I've learned about elitist snobs--they can't handle criticism. Anyone who doesn't tell them what a genius they are just didn't "get it."


----------



## Abderian (Apr 5, 2012)

If you're going to criticise someone else's method of working and say it results in a poor quality product, at least have the decency to stand by your words. Complaining those who comment negatively have misunderstood and are overreacting is just adding insult to injury.


----------



## SusanCht (Oct 24, 2014)

I know I've met this woman before.

Was it at a pitch where she had "the perfect script" that could be done for under a mil and had a mid-level name attached only she never bothered to price it out in actuality and include things like travel cost, housing, permits, etc.?

Maybe I met her at a local gallery when she was showing her photographs (like the ice cream truck).

Or she could have been that under-five I met who I cast in a party scene or in a band that had a song up for consideration in a TV show I was on the production staff of. Or maybe it just was at some Women in Film lunch. I just know she has lunches.

Never met her in a writers' workshop, though. Don't recall talking to her about craft and storytelling. Or analysing what makes a story work, the nuances of character development, plot development, world building, and the different reasons people read.

But she wasn't at that table when we sat back and said, yeah, if we want to make a living writing, maybe we don't always write the stories we'd love to write, but the stories the audience loves to read.

And that's okay. Lorraine Devon Wilke is free to write what she likes and how she wants and the rest of us can choose whether or not to read it as we please. Same with every other book out there (except Evenstar. We all have to read Evenstar). But it might be a good idea for her to think about who she insults the next time she tells people what to do. Charles Dickens wrote fast and he wrote classics.

In any case, if she herself is complaining that the audience of her article didn't understand what she was trying to say, I think she needs to work on her basic writing skills.

[What, me snarky?]


----------



## GeneDoucette (Oct 14, 2014)

Tempted to write a new BAD ADVICE FOR WRITERS column just to make fun of this advice.


----------



## bobbic (Apr 4, 2011)

soulfulone said:


> I should preface this by saying that I most definitely write more than four books a year. I understand the bits about learning your craft and such, but I'm not digging the prospect that writing more than that means they lack quality.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lorraine-devon-wilke/dear-self-published-autho_b_8128668.html


Well, gee. Both the GOLDFINCH book, and the ALL THE LIGHT books bored me to stupefaction. So excuse me if I want to read a good book that only took a month to write! LOL


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

bpmanuel said:


> This isn't rocket science


Well.....for those of us writing Space Opera, it is. 

I saw this today. Thought it summed up the whole thing.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

Rayven T. Hill said:


> It took me 59 years to write my first book. I should be a zillionaire by now.


You win the thread!


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

AliceWE said:


> Is that really true though? Are there people who write one book and it does so phenomenally well they never write anything else again? Or do they write under pen names?
> 
> I can only think of one example of a one book author - Erin Morgenstern who wrote THE NIGHT CIRCUS in 2011. I keep checking her page for more work and she's never written anything else, but I assume she still writes but possibly under another name?
> 
> I know this is a hijack but I would love to know more examples of one hit wonders and are they true "one book only" or is it a case of writing other genres under other names.


50 Shades of Drivel springs to mind, but that was three shades of drivel not one. I think she could have retired (and should have) after one. The one that does glow brightly is Gone with the Wind, the only book written by Margaret Mitchell and is still making money in one form or another nearly ninety years later. And it won the Pulitzer Prize. It did, of course, take her seven years to write, but as I said before, that was more likely lack of the right tools to do it faster - pen, paper, carbon paper and a manual typewriter.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Would somebody please send Whatsername an invitation to join KBoards.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

AliceWE said:


> Is that really true though? Are there people who write one book and it does so phenomenally well they never write anything else again? Or do they write under pen names?
> 
> I can only think of one example of a one book author - Erin Morgenstern who wrote THE NIGHT CIRCUS in 2011. I keep checking her page for more work and she's never written anything else, but I assume she still writes but possibly under another name?
> 
> I know this is a hijack but I would love to know more examples of one hit wonders and are they true "one book only" or is it a case of writing other genres under other names.


I think Diane Setterfield might fall into this category. Her first book (I think) was THE THIRTEENTH TALE. Totally brilliant, I thought, and deserving of its international success. I waited _and waited_ for Setterfield's 2nd book--About five years if I remember right. Unfortunately, it didn't measure up (to me), but I'm pretty sure she did phenomenally well off of one book.


----------



## Holland d&#039;Haas (Mar 11, 2015)

The article is just a personal rant. This author has complained more than once about how she couldn't get in bookstores because other of other 'low quality indies who pump too much drivel out'. In reality, dealing with authors directly is just a huge legal pain for bookstores and not worth the effort, especially when there is no trusted middleman to moderate the content.

Anyway, this whole concept is just silly. It's like parents arguing over which is the "correct" way to raise a child. The discussion is worthless unless you're taking the individual children and the household's circumstances into consideration. What worked with your child may not work for others, and there are just so many variables to take into consideration that blanket statements are nothing but self-righteous nonsense. Now, if you were introducing studies on the effects that certain environments have on early development and suggesting your fellow parents may want to look out for it, that's at least understandable. Or if you brought many parents together and discussed their personal experiences, providing a variety of angles to consider, I get it. But just whining about how, "Well _my _child took a second language when he was younger, and now he slurs his words, so no child should _ever _grow up with two languages! Only an ill-fit parent would ever allow that!" is comical.

(Speaking of writing four books a year... I should probably stop procrastinating on Kboards now.)
Edit: Speaking of telling others how to raise their kids...


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

I read the excerpts of the post on PG's blog and it sounds to me like the author is trying not only to push her views on others but to make authors who write more than four books per year feel guilty for it and have them worry that their books are not good enough, just because they are written in less than a few months. 

Reading/seeing people pushing their views on other, lecturing them that there is only one true way of doing things, their way, always made me wonder how do people get to be feeling so entitled, why do they think that is okay to  to push their views on others and do they really believe that others would obey them or see them pushing their agenda in a positive light.


----------



## thesmallprint (May 25, 2012)

Key issue now, I think, is that the comments on her piece by other writers were censored, either by the author or HuffPo.


----------



## 80593 (Nov 1, 2014)

Alan Petersen said:


> It's not her, it's everyone else that didn't understand the supposed true gist of the post.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/643907195277455360


Well, but she's a professional writer, right? A painstaking loving crafty every-word-is-a-diamond type writer, no less? So it's kind of like it's almost her job to get her point across clearly. I don't know, if it was me, and I wrote a piece that was "misinterpreted" this widely, I'd evaluate it to see why I failed so badly at communicating, and where I might improve.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

And what the heck is her point about the difference between "react" and "respond?" I think a reaction is a lot better than response because to react means you DID something, respond just means you SAID something back. I fail to see how authors taking action over her post is worse than authors writing their own HuffPost Articles? Far as I can see, her books have not been victim to drive-by reviews (and I am NOT suggesting they should, NO NO NO), so what action, other than comments and disagreeing with her, is she referring to? And how are those NOT responses, since um, they're written . . . 

My head hurts. I can't. I just can't do anything more with this author who feels called to save the world from the mythical "tsunami of crap."


----------



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

GeneDoucette said:


> Tempted to write a new BAD ADVICE FOR WRITERS column just to make fun of this advice.





Alan Petersen said:


> It's not her, it's everyone else that didn't understand the supposed true gist of the post.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/643907195277455360
> I'm amazed that someone writes something controversial for the sake of clicks and link backs and attention (hey, it worked, HuffPost editors are smiling away at the attention) and then they're taken aback by the reaction.


I strongly dislike blaming the reader who "misinterpreted." You're a writer. Your job is to put words together. If readers didn't understand your article, then _you_ did not convey your intended meaning.

Well, I was able to screenshot some of the 90+ deleted comments on my phone. (Which really messed up my plan to write four books this month, but whatever.) There was a lot of good debate in that thread, and lots of viewpoints and discussion. Sorry I could not expand & snap every post, but I tried. If you are an author who had his/her reply deleted and have a screenshot of it, please feel free to post it. The Third Tier/EB's Blog


----------



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

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> And what the heck is her point about the difference between "react" and "respond?" I think a reaction is a lot better than response because to react means you DID something, respond just means you SAID something back. I fail to see how authors taking action over her post is worse than authors writing their own HuffPost Articles? Far as I can see, her books have not been victim to drive-by reviews (and I am NOT suggesting they should, NO NO NO), so what action, other than comments and disagreeing with her, is she referring to? And how are those NOT responses, since um, they're written . . .
> 
> My head hurts. I can't. I just can't do anything more with this author who feels called to save the world from the mythical "tsunami of crap."


I took it to mean "react" was a way to diminish the validity of the opinions of anyone who "responded".


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

ebbrown said:


> I strongly dislike blaming the reader who "misinterpreted." You're a writer. Your job is to put words together. If readers didn't understand your article, then _you_ did not convey your intended meaning.
> 
> Well, I was able to screenshot some of the 90+ deleted comments on my phone. (Which really messed up my plan to write four books this month, but whatever.) There was a lot of good debate in that thread, and lots of viewpoints and discussion. Sorry I could not expand & snap every post, but I tried. If you are an author who had his/her reply deleted and have a screenshot of it, please feel free to post it. The Third Tier/EB's Blog


That is brilliant, thanks so much for posting that. I didn't get to leave a comment; the comment box had vanished by the time I got to it.


----------



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

Doglover said:


> That is brilliant, thanks so much for posting that. I didn't get to leave a comment; the comment box had vanished by the time I got to it.


Thank you  Sorry, I don't blog much, but I think I fixed the comment box. LOL, I'm not blocking or deleting, I swear!!


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Wilke's argument becomes much more thought-provoking if applied to other ways of making a living, such as plumbing or brain surgery.

"You must only operate on one brain a year. Those who operate on four brains or more a year are hacks."

"You must only plumb one tub a year. Take your time. Do it well."

Interesting. The Wilkes Principle becomes much more attractive if considered in conjunction with crime.

"You must only mug one person per year. Take your time. Do it well."


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

ebbrown said:


> Thank you  Sorry, I don't blog much, but I think I fixed the comment box. LOL, I'm not blocking or deleting, I swear!!


I didn't mean your comment box, I meant Whatsername's comment box.


----------



## Holland d&#039;Haas (Mar 11, 2015)

What I think is more interesting is the amount of self-centered, unprofessional, inappropriate personal remarks coming out of the other side's mouth. There may be jesting in this thread, but it's nothing compared to the bitter comments made by authors related to this on their _public social media pages_. Insulting your peers by name and proclaiming your work is an objective literary masterpiece? Since when was that kind of behavior ever acceptable? They should be damn grateful that they're able to publish without a middleman or else their publicity agents would be throwing a hissy fit.

/endrant

This event has certainly opened my eyes to how much of a division there is even in the indie community on such topics. The hostility is incredible.


----------



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

Doglover said:


> I didn't mean your comment box, I meant Whatsername's comment box.


lol, gotcha


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

Christopher Bunn said:


> Wilke's argument becomes much more thought-provoking if applied to other ways of making a living, such as plumbing or brain surgery.
> 
> "You must only operate on one brain a year. Those who operate on four brains or more a year are hacks."
> 
> ...


Writing is the only profession I know of, either creative or otherwise, where people are discouraged from practicing a lot. A musician practices every day, that's praised. A painter puts brush to canvas every day, that's praised. An athlete goes to the gym every day, that's praised.

But if a writer writes every day, suddenly they're a hack.


----------



## C. A. Mitchell (Aug 6, 2015)

Ugh. Stories fly out in all shapes, speeds and sizes, even if written by the same writer (and writers, I've found, are also not identical ). Speed of writing has no impact on quality. It's the _actual words_ that count.



AliceWE said:


> Is that really true though? Are there people who write one book and it does so phenomenally well they never write anything else again? Or do they write under pen names?
> 
> I can only think of one example of a one book author - Erin Morgenstern who wrote THE NIGHT CIRCUS in 2011. I keep checking her page for more work and she's never written anything else, but I assume she still writes but possibly under another name?
> 
> I know this is a hijack but I would love to know more examples of one hit wonders and are they true "one book only" or is it a case of writing other genres under other names.


Don't have an example to mind, but as Stephen King said, if these folks only wrote one book, then what are they doing now? I can't help but write. You'd have to chop my hands off to stop me. (And then I'd buy dictation software, so there. )


----------



## Desert Rose (Jun 2, 2015)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> And what the heck is her point about the difference between "react" and "respond?" I think a reaction is a lot better than response because to react means you DID something, respond just means you SAID something back. I fail to see how authors taking action over her post is worse than authors writing their own HuffPost Articles? Far as I can see, her books have not been victim to drive-by reviews (and I am NOT suggesting they should, NO NO NO), so what action, other than comments and disagreeing with her, is she referring to? And how are those NOT responses, since um, they're written . . .
> 
> My head hurts. I can't. I just can't do anything more with this author who feels called to save the world from the mythical "tsunami of crap."


I'm pretty sure in this context, "react" is a kneejerk, defensive reflex, where "respond" would have been something thoughtfully considered (and undoubtedly in agreement with her). Because we hacks just spew out whatever drivel pops into our heads, you know.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

C. A. Mitchell said:


> Ugh. Stories fly out in all shapes, speeds and sizes, even if written by the same writer (and writers, I've found, are also not identical ). Speed of writing has no impact on quality. It's the _actual words_ that count.
> 
> Don't have an example to mind, but as Stephen King said, if these folks only wrote one book, then what are they doing now? I can't help but write. You'd have to chop my hands off to stop me. (And then I'd buy dictation software, so there. )


I wrote that post upthread about crafting one book and retiring. Which doesn't happen. But there are people whose first novel sells like hotcakes and they COULD retire. They usually keep writing. You know that book about cleaning up? It's sold two million copies. That's what I call cleaning up. "Neuromancer" was William Gibson's debut novel, but he had been writing SF for magazines for a long time before that. And so on.

Most of the writers whose tradbub debut novels are bestsellers have written a lot. Just not as novels. This thread isn't about not writing, it's about (I think) writing carefully. There's also an undertone that's not very nice about genre vs. literature writers. Some people like to write fast. Some people write fast and do it well (and I've previously posted about how productive 18th and 19th century writers were). But there's nothing wrong with writing slower, more deliberately, and more carefully. Seamus Haney translated about ten lines of Beowulf a day when he was working on it. You're not going to quit your day job (and that WAS his day job) doing that, but that's what that type of writing takes.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

This kind of snobbish pretentiousness is common in many professions, usually by those whose insecurities are fed by a lack of talent and success. "The ART" is what is important, not whether anyone appreciates "My GENIUS" enough to pay for it.

I grew up in an artist's colony, a place with over a dozen major art museums and a thousand galleries. Also home to many successful writers. There was a ton of this garbage going on.

And once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, I made jewelry for a living. Many "artists" put their noses in the air at the fact I made "mass-produced crap". It wasn't crap, but I was very fast at it, and yes, many of the pieces were alike. Sort of like writing series ... Anyway, there is a juried craft show once a year that attracts artists and jewelers from all over the country. One of my pieces took third prize out of over a thousand submissions. It did feel good to see some of my "starving artist" friends try to pull their feet out of their mouths.


----------



## suliabryon (May 18, 2009)

Perry Constantine said:


> Writing is the only profession I know of, either creative or otherwise, where people are discouraged from practicing a lot. A musician practices every day, that's praised. A painter puts brush to canvas every day, that's praised. An athlete goes to the gym every day, that's praised.
> 
> But if a writer writes every day, suddenly they're a hack.


I must have trained under different people, because I have _never_ been told not to practice. I mean, I get what you are saying - you're talking about the special snowflakes, the writers who think taking ten years to craft their Literary Masterpiece means they are a Real Writer...but in my experience, I've only encountered this sort of writer in college "creative writing" classes. There are reasons I stopped trying to take these classes when I was in school. This is one of them. (Another being that genre writing was never permitted - because, you know, that isn't Real Writing.)

All of my mentors have been of the "write, write, and write more" school of thought.

Here's the thing. I'm a literature major, an English teacher, and a writer of genre fiction, and I get SO TIRED of the argument that genre fiction is trash/not real writing/genre writers are hacks/etc. All writing is real writing, and like anything else, the more you practice, the better you get. Simple.

I also have a really good friend who can produce amazing word counts. We are talking 20k/day when she hits her groove. And the vitriol and downright ugliness that people - that writers - directed her way regarding that is astounding to me. They literally bullied her in a deliberate and cruel manner until she stopped posting about her word counts, and in fact, until it chipped away at her self confidence and she was almost unable to write at all anymore. I didn't find out about any of it until months after it happened, I just knew she was no longer posting her word counts, and thought life must have intervened. Why did those people treat her like that? Jealousy. Somehow her ability to produce words faster threatened them to such a degree, that they attacked her for it. I still get angry whenever I think about it. I wish I had known what was happening at the time. I'd've had my own words for those jerks.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

suliabryon said:


> I must have trained under different people, because I have _never_ been told not to practice. I mean, I get what you are saying - you're talking about the special snowflakes, the writers who think taking ten years to craft their Literary Masterpiece means they are a Real Writer...but in my experience, I've only encountered this sort of writer in college "creative writing" classes. There are reasons I stopped trying to take these classes when I was in school. This is one of them. (Another being that genre writing was never permitted - because, you know, that isn't Real Writing.)
> 
> All of my mentors have been of the "write, write, and write more" school of thought.
> 
> Here's the thing. I'm a literature major, an English teacher, and a writer of genre fiction, and I get SO TIRED of the argument that genre fiction is trash/not real writing/genre writers are hacks/etc. All writing is real writing, and like anything else, the more you practice, the better you get. Simple.


Actually, I'd imagine we had pretty similar training. I also majored in literature and teach English. With that comment, I was pretty much explicitly referring to the snooty, literati types who think that one book should take ten years to write because you have to make it perfect. And yes, there are writing mentors out who stress the importance of writing a lot. For many of us here on KBoards, that's common knowledge.

But a large amount of people still believe that the best writing instruction comes from behind the university walls where this "writing a lot is bad, genre is bad" backwards advice is still peddled. That's the advice I was referring to.

One of the reasons I want to end up teaching at the university level so I can do some small part to try and change this backwards thinking.


----------



## suliabryon (May 18, 2009)

Perry Constantine said:


> Actually, I'd imagine we had pretty similar training. I also majored in literature and teach English. With that comment, I was pretty much explicitly referring to the snooty, literati types who think that one book should take ten years to write because you have to make it perfect. And yes, there are writing mentors out who stress the importance of writing a lot. For many of us here on KBoards, that's common knowledge.
> 
> But a large amount of people still believe that the best writing instruction comes from behind the university walls where this "writing a lot is bad, genre is bad" backwards advice is still peddled. That's the advice I was referring to.
> 
> One of the reasons I want to end up teaching at the university level so I can do some small part to try and change this backwards thinking.


Yeah, I think it is pretty unique to the university/academic setting. Which is literally the opposite of commercially successful fiction. Sounds like we have very similar backgrounds, Perry.


----------



## elizabethsade (Feb 3, 2015)

suliabryon said:


> Yeah, I think it is pretty unique to the university/academic setting. Which is literally the opposite of commercially successful fiction. Sounds like we have very similar backgrounds, Perry.


While I think the shaming might be unique to that level, the whole idea that become an author means writing things forever for very little money isn't entirely unique to academia - I mentioned to a friend (I'm a grad student in a non-humanities program, she's in the biological sciences) that I wanted to be an author and she was like '...why don't you stay in your grad program so you can actually make money while you're [spending the next several years] writing your novel and making no money?'

The misconceptions out there about writing are numerous. It's a bit exhausting to correct them all.


----------



## 75814 (Mar 12, 2014)

elizabethsade said:


> While I think the shaming might be unique to that level, the whole idea that become an author means writing things forever for very little money isn't entirely unique to academia - I mentioned to a friend (I'm a grad student in a non-humanities program, she's in the biological sciences) that I wanted to be an author and she was like '...why don't you stay in your grad program so you can actually make money while you're [spending the next several years] writing your novel and making no money?'
> 
> The misconceptions out there about writing are numerous. It's a bit exhausting to correct them all.


Yeah. Whenever I tell people that I write about one or two novellas a month, they look like I just told them I built a house in a day.


----------



## SusanCht (Oct 24, 2014)

In academia, if you write 4 books in a lifetime, you're doing well. But traditional publishing, both novel and magazine level, made it rare for someone to publish a lot. There were few magazines and traditional publishers kept the number of books available limited. And, in some ways, it seems like the only things worth writing were contenders for "The Great American Novel," etc.

It wasn't always that way. Pulp novels, serial novels, etc., favored fast writers. Think of the King of Literary Fecundity, Charles "I get paid by the word and each one is gold" Dickens." Writers often appeared to write fewer books because they did so under pseudonyms.

But now with the change in the way literature is experienced/bought, the gatekeepers are becoming meaningless.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

elizabethsade said:


> The misconceptions out there about writing are numerous. It's a bit exhausting to correct them all.


The myths out there are strong and seemingly immortal. I know Dean Wesley Smith and Kris Rusch have been fighting them for years, as well as many other authors, but they just don't go away. Keep fighting the good fight, though.


----------

