Dead Letters
Picking up on some of what I'd posted before, one of the biggest problems on Twitter (specifically Writer Twitter) is writers aren't the same as readers.
Sure, writers read (duh). But writers aren't the best audience for books, compared with actual, real readers.
I know that seems like a semantic point, but it's not. Writers are all competing with each other for the same limited audience of readers.
And, particularly in indie, there are desperate writerly souls out there who just want to get seen and discovered and read, who'll do anything they possibly can to get seen and read, in the vain hope that they'll catch on.
This has led to the tendency of Twitter writers to cross-promote each others' works (whether or not they actually read the books they push is almost beside the point, although not completely beside the point).
There's a fatuous "rising tide lifts all boats" sentiment among indie writers, closely tied to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" -- however, it misses the fact that Twitter isn't a top social media app, and that writers singing praises for each other isn't actually going to do much to elevate a book.
Rather, it's just commiseration among writers who want to feel better than they do about their work, and hope sing-songing praise for each other will provide some solace (and sales, of course).
For writers, only readers truly matter. That's your audience. That's who you really need to be trying to reach. Reach your readers.
And the ratio of writers to readers on Writer Twitter is heavily skewed toward the former, not the latter. What sort of reader dithers on Twitter hoping to find the next book to read? Wading through the muck that is Twitter seems a poor way to discover good books -- which is why it lags as a social media app, even before it got worse.
Further, the writers on Twitter who are pushing for the acclaim of other writers are fooling themselves. It's like McDonald's looking for Wendy's and Burger King to promote them (wishful thinking -- no indie writers have that kind of reach).
I respect that readers only have so much time, money, and attention to read. That's a precious thing.
So, let's say a score of writers are all pushing each other's work, hyping it up, fluffing it up, praising it to the heavens. And let's suppose there's even an actual reader considering a buy (versus a Twitter sycophant, acolyte, or confederate pretending to dig a book) who has a choice of those 20 books.
Do they buy all 20 books? Highly unlikely. They might go with one or two. And even then, they might not get to reading it for a long time. Ergo, a couple of winners, and a lot of losers at the crapshoot. And even the winners only just barely won -- converting a reader or two does not a bestseller make (sorry to burst that bubble).
All writers are competing with each other, whether or not they admit to it. And all writers within a genre are intensely competing with each other, because the audience segmentation is even more taut -- they're hoping to reach the right *kind* of reader for their books.
It's why writers secretly seethe when one of their ranks does better than them. It throws them into unadmitted fits of envy. It's why the illusion of "community" on Writer Twitter is just that.
Sure, all writers (good, bad, and ugly) are dealing with the pain of writing together. If they are seeking transitory comfort there, it can be had for those who need it. But after that, the community evaporates because everyone's still competing with everyone else for that time, money, and attention of readers.
Moreover, at least for me, it's far more valuable to have a dozen readers who are strangers to me sing the praises of my books, because those are honest assessments of the work, because they've come in cold, and don't have an agenda. Something about the book(s) caught their eye, they read it, and there it is. That's an actual win -- doubly so if the reader rates and reviews the work and tells others about it.
That's much more trustworthy than faux reviews from erstwhile writer allies and courtiers eager to scratch each others' backs for fleeting flavor in the endless churn of Twitter.
And there's another problem with the writer-to-writer hype train. Writers involved in this find it easier to lob praise to inferior writers than writers they know are better than them.
Of course, writerly egos being what they are, few writers actually think "Wow, I suck. Can't believe people are shelling out money for my shit books." -- but, when writers confront writers who are better than they are, the response is usually one of envy and, in many cases, awe -- I know I've read classic writers whose work impressed me so much, I desired to get better in my own work, to aspire to reach their level. I could name many names of those writers, but you probably already know them, because they're the legitimate giants of writing.
Spoiler warning: There are no giants of writing on Writer Twitter. Rather, there are cadres of nobodies and courtiers peddling books in vain hope of recognition and reward.
What I'm saying regarding the indie Writer Twitter, is the writers who're boosting each others' works are full of shit (I can write more on this later, and probably will).
They're trying to win points with each other in hopes of ginning up interest and attention for their own works. It's how we end up seeing what I call "Flavor of the Month" writers & books appear (and, more importantly, disappear) cyclically. They come, they hype, they go.
Why do they go? Because readers -- the most critical part of the process besides the books themselves -- aren't buying.
Certainly, the arbitrary winds of fortune have favored junk writing (FIFTY SHADES, anyone?) -- but even tripe like that reflects what can happen to a book if enough readers get behind it. That's what makes a bestseller, and what makes a writer's name and reputation.
What doesn't make a bestseller is a book (or writer) touted by a bunch of desperate and miserable unknown writers on Writer Twitter. Those books are overwhelmingly dead letters.
People who are playing that game might be triggered by my dark cynicism about Writer Twitter, but I don't care. I'm not part of that game (aside from maintaining a nominal Twitter presence). And I don't get involved in that boosterism -- I market the books I have to, but only because I believe in them, not because I'm doing some quid pro quo-type hype arrangement with others in hopes of gaining favor.
For those who think I'm too cynical, let's see where Writer Twitter is in another five years. Hell, maybe as soon as three years. It'll be a ghost town -- and/or there'll be haggard new aspirants out there, pushing their latest literary snake oil, begging people to take a swig.
Meanwhile, the readers -- the true readers -- are out there, somewhere, wanting something worth reading.
Speaking of cynicism -- the booster brigades & hypesters are very much hoping their self-dealing fluffing each others' books will translate into some word-of-mouth wins. Or possibly getting enough hype swirling around them that a trad publisher and/or agent might give them a look. Still feels tremendously unlikely to occur, barring below-the-radar friendships and associations that might otherwise draw someone's eye.
Sure, writers read (duh). But writers aren't the best audience for books, compared with actual, real readers.
I know that seems like a semantic point, but it's not. Writers are all competing with each other for the same limited audience of readers.
And, particularly in indie, there are desperate writerly souls out there who just want to get seen and discovered and read, who'll do anything they possibly can to get seen and read, in the vain hope that they'll catch on.
This has led to the tendency of Twitter writers to cross-promote each others' works (whether or not they actually read the books they push is almost beside the point, although not completely beside the point).
There's a fatuous "rising tide lifts all boats" sentiment among indie writers, closely tied to "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" -- however, it misses the fact that Twitter isn't a top social media app, and that writers singing praises for each other isn't actually going to do much to elevate a book.
Rather, it's just commiseration among writers who want to feel better than they do about their work, and hope sing-songing praise for each other will provide some solace (and sales, of course).
For writers, only readers truly matter. That's your audience. That's who you really need to be trying to reach. Reach your readers.
And the ratio of writers to readers on Writer Twitter is heavily skewed toward the former, not the latter. What sort of reader dithers on Twitter hoping to find the next book to read? Wading through the muck that is Twitter seems a poor way to discover good books -- which is why it lags as a social media app, even before it got worse.
Further, the writers on Twitter who are pushing for the acclaim of other writers are fooling themselves. It's like McDonald's looking for Wendy's and Burger King to promote them (wishful thinking -- no indie writers have that kind of reach).
I respect that readers only have so much time, money, and attention to read. That's a precious thing.
So, let's say a score of writers are all pushing each other's work, hyping it up, fluffing it up, praising it to the heavens. And let's suppose there's even an actual reader considering a buy (versus a Twitter sycophant, acolyte, or confederate pretending to dig a book) who has a choice of those 20 books.
Do they buy all 20 books? Highly unlikely. They might go with one or two. And even then, they might not get to reading it for a long time. Ergo, a couple of winners, and a lot of losers at the crapshoot. And even the winners only just barely won -- converting a reader or two does not a bestseller make (sorry to burst that bubble).
All writers are competing with each other, whether or not they admit to it. And all writers within a genre are intensely competing with each other, because the audience segmentation is even more taut -- they're hoping to reach the right *kind* of reader for their books.
It's why writers secretly seethe when one of their ranks does better than them. It throws them into unadmitted fits of envy. It's why the illusion of "community" on Writer Twitter is just that.
Sure, all writers (good, bad, and ugly) are dealing with the pain of writing together. If they are seeking transitory comfort there, it can be had for those who need it. But after that, the community evaporates because everyone's still competing with everyone else for that time, money, and attention of readers.
Moreover, at least for me, it's far more valuable to have a dozen readers who are strangers to me sing the praises of my books, because those are honest assessments of the work, because they've come in cold, and don't have an agenda. Something about the book(s) caught their eye, they read it, and there it is. That's an actual win -- doubly so if the reader rates and reviews the work and tells others about it.
That's much more trustworthy than faux reviews from erstwhile writer allies and courtiers eager to scratch each others' backs for fleeting flavor in the endless churn of Twitter.
And there's another problem with the writer-to-writer hype train. Writers involved in this find it easier to lob praise to inferior writers than writers they know are better than them.
Of course, writerly egos being what they are, few writers actually think "Wow, I suck. Can't believe people are shelling out money for my shit books." -- but, when writers confront writers who are better than they are, the response is usually one of envy and, in many cases, awe -- I know I've read classic writers whose work impressed me so much, I desired to get better in my own work, to aspire to reach their level. I could name many names of those writers, but you probably already know them, because they're the legitimate giants of writing.
Spoiler warning: There are no giants of writing on Writer Twitter. Rather, there are cadres of nobodies and courtiers peddling books in vain hope of recognition and reward.
What I'm saying regarding the indie Writer Twitter, is the writers who're boosting each others' works are full of shit (I can write more on this later, and probably will).
They're trying to win points with each other in hopes of ginning up interest and attention for their own works. It's how we end up seeing what I call "Flavor of the Month" writers & books appear (and, more importantly, disappear) cyclically. They come, they hype, they go.
Why do they go? Because readers -- the most critical part of the process besides the books themselves -- aren't buying.
Certainly, the arbitrary winds of fortune have favored junk writing (FIFTY SHADES, anyone?) -- but even tripe like that reflects what can happen to a book if enough readers get behind it. That's what makes a bestseller, and what makes a writer's name and reputation.
What doesn't make a bestseller is a book (or writer) touted by a bunch of desperate and miserable unknown writers on Writer Twitter. Those books are overwhelmingly dead letters.
People who are playing that game might be triggered by my dark cynicism about Writer Twitter, but I don't care. I'm not part of that game (aside from maintaining a nominal Twitter presence). And I don't get involved in that boosterism -- I market the books I have to, but only because I believe in them, not because I'm doing some quid pro quo-type hype arrangement with others in hopes of gaining favor.
For those who think I'm too cynical, let's see where Writer Twitter is in another five years. Hell, maybe as soon as three years. It'll be a ghost town -- and/or there'll be haggard new aspirants out there, pushing their latest literary snake oil, begging people to take a swig.
Meanwhile, the readers -- the true readers -- are out there, somewhere, wanting something worth reading.
Speaking of cynicism -- the booster brigades & hypesters are very much hoping their self-dealing fluffing each others' books will translate into some word-of-mouth wins. Or possibly getting enough hype swirling around them that a trad publisher and/or agent might give them a look. Still feels tremendously unlikely to occur, barring below-the-radar friendships and associations that might otherwise draw someone's eye.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Vicki
(new)
Jun 15, 2023 09:03PM
Glad I don't have a twitter account
reply
|
flag
Yes, be very glad of that! Twitter (or "the Twit" as I typically call it) is like a never-ending dumpster fire. It's also the Land of Misfit Toys, where sad-n-lonely people desperately hope to be found & appreciated.
