REAL TALK ABOUT WHY MOST AUTHORS WON'T SUCCEED
Now that I've got your attention and you're already irritated, let's have a little real talk, shall we?
The fact of the matter is that most authors won't succeed because they're not good enough. Boom. I said it. They're not good enough. For some reason, this seems to be the 600-pound gorilla in the corner that no one's willing to talk about.
Close to a half-million self published books will go up on Amazon this year, and the reality is that most of them aren't good enough to garner fans who would buy another book from that writer. You would think everyone knows that to be the truth, but I'm amazed and appalled by the number of writers I encounter who agree that it applies to the other guy, but NOT to them.
If you're not selling ANY books except those you've coerced your family, friends, and a few co-workers into buying, it's time to ask yourself the question of whether or not you're one of those writers who's not good enough yet to succeed.
I am the very first person to agree that a FEW excellent writers will just have bad luck or bad packaging or bad marketing that kills a great book, and it sells for crap. But MOST writers who claim to be one of these writers...I did say real talk...are delusional.
In the good old days of print publishing way back, say, ten years ago, writers had to submit their stories to publishers and have their story purchased before it saw the light of publishing day. Something like one in 5000 books made it out of the slush pile and onto book store shelves.
Was this always a fair filter? Certainly not. Great books didn't get bought because the publisher didn't know how to market them, or the author's voice just wasn't right for that particular editor, or other reasons. But I daresay that at least 4900 or so of those rejected manuscripts were rightfully rejected. Frankly, I think the number is closer to 4990, but I'm willing to give my fellow writers the benefit of the doubt.
In today's publishing environment, every last one of those 4900 books is now being self-published.
It worries me that writers don't understand the disservice they're doing to themselves by publishing their works before they've become good enough to earn fans and build a career. Once you've put a book out, particularly in ebook format, it's out there forever. In years to come, anyone can go back and read that sub-par book and have a chance to be turned off by it and decide not to read any more of your books.
Everything you do contributes to building your brand. When you put out bad books, the brand you're building is "WRITER OF BAD BOOKS".
Let's say you write a dozen novels, and six or eight books in, you figure out what the hell you're doing and start writing pretty decent stories. Readers who like your new stuff and going to go back and buy the crap from the early days, assuming it will hold up to the new stuff. Their enthusiasm evaporates, and now they won't recommend you to a friend over the water cooler at work. It's hard to give a recommendation that says, "Read this author, except only read this title and not that title, because some of Author X's stuff is great, but the rest is drek." The other guy at the water cooler won't remember all of that. He hears, "Author X. Writes drek."
I know everyone's shouting about how great it is to get to self-publish while you learn the craft and how cool it is that writing can pay for itself while you learn how to do it. I just heard someone crowing about what a great gig it was for these very reasons. To that person, I say, a) I doubt you'll make a decent living writing crap en route to writing something decent, b) if being a good writer were that easy, everyone would actually BE good writers, c) you're wrecking your brand, and on a purely personal note, d) you're clogging up the marketplace with crap that's preventing the decent books out there from being found.
I know it's going to be a wildly unpopular point of view, but I really think most authors would be better off writing their bad learning books and storing them in the safety of their own closets forever, rather than sharing them with the rest of us.
And yes, I have four manuscripts under my bed that will never see the light of day.
Author's Note: After I first posted this blog, it took under a minute for someone to post that I hate indy publishing and am a slave to NY print publishing. Impressive. I'll say it again. I think some of the BEST books being published today are being indy published and I wish them massive success. They're helping break the strangle hold that print publishing has held over publishing for far too long. But I stand by what I said. MOST self-published books aren't good enough to build a working career on. We're talking a half million books a year, here. 15 million total or something insane on Amazon right now. MOST of those are not selling and most of those writers are NOT making a living at it. Why is that? We all know the answer. Everyone's too afraid of being that author to answer the question truthfully. I'm just the moron who dared to say it out loud.
The fact of the matter is that most authors won't succeed because they're not good enough. Boom. I said it. They're not good enough. For some reason, this seems to be the 600-pound gorilla in the corner that no one's willing to talk about.
Close to a half-million self published books will go up on Amazon this year, and the reality is that most of them aren't good enough to garner fans who would buy another book from that writer. You would think everyone knows that to be the truth, but I'm amazed and appalled by the number of writers I encounter who agree that it applies to the other guy, but NOT to them.
If you're not selling ANY books except those you've coerced your family, friends, and a few co-workers into buying, it's time to ask yourself the question of whether or not you're one of those writers who's not good enough yet to succeed.
I am the very first person to agree that a FEW excellent writers will just have bad luck or bad packaging or bad marketing that kills a great book, and it sells for crap. But MOST writers who claim to be one of these writers...I did say real talk...are delusional.
In the good old days of print publishing way back, say, ten years ago, writers had to submit their stories to publishers and have their story purchased before it saw the light of publishing day. Something like one in 5000 books made it out of the slush pile and onto book store shelves.
Was this always a fair filter? Certainly not. Great books didn't get bought because the publisher didn't know how to market them, or the author's voice just wasn't right for that particular editor, or other reasons. But I daresay that at least 4900 or so of those rejected manuscripts were rightfully rejected. Frankly, I think the number is closer to 4990, but I'm willing to give my fellow writers the benefit of the doubt.
In today's publishing environment, every last one of those 4900 books is now being self-published.
It worries me that writers don't understand the disservice they're doing to themselves by publishing their works before they've become good enough to earn fans and build a career. Once you've put a book out, particularly in ebook format, it's out there forever. In years to come, anyone can go back and read that sub-par book and have a chance to be turned off by it and decide not to read any more of your books.
Everything you do contributes to building your brand. When you put out bad books, the brand you're building is "WRITER OF BAD BOOKS".
Let's say you write a dozen novels, and six or eight books in, you figure out what the hell you're doing and start writing pretty decent stories. Readers who like your new stuff and going to go back and buy the crap from the early days, assuming it will hold up to the new stuff. Their enthusiasm evaporates, and now they won't recommend you to a friend over the water cooler at work. It's hard to give a recommendation that says, "Read this author, except only read this title and not that title, because some of Author X's stuff is great, but the rest is drek." The other guy at the water cooler won't remember all of that. He hears, "Author X. Writes drek."
I know everyone's shouting about how great it is to get to self-publish while you learn the craft and how cool it is that writing can pay for itself while you learn how to do it. I just heard someone crowing about what a great gig it was for these very reasons. To that person, I say, a) I doubt you'll make a decent living writing crap en route to writing something decent, b) if being a good writer were that easy, everyone would actually BE good writers, c) you're wrecking your brand, and on a purely personal note, d) you're clogging up the marketplace with crap that's preventing the decent books out there from being found.
I know it's going to be a wildly unpopular point of view, but I really think most authors would be better off writing their bad learning books and storing them in the safety of their own closets forever, rather than sharing them with the rest of us.
And yes, I have four manuscripts under my bed that will never see the light of day.
Author's Note: After I first posted this blog, it took under a minute for someone to post that I hate indy publishing and am a slave to NY print publishing. Impressive. I'll say it again. I think some of the BEST books being published today are being indy published and I wish them massive success. They're helping break the strangle hold that print publishing has held over publishing for far too long. But I stand by what I said. MOST self-published books aren't good enough to build a working career on. We're talking a half million books a year, here. 15 million total or something insane on Amazon right now. MOST of those are not selling and most of those writers are NOT making a living at it. Why is that? We all know the answer. Everyone's too afraid of being that author to answer the question truthfully. I'm just the moron who dared to say it out loud.
date
newest »
newest »
I couldn't agree with you more on all counts, Cheri. I agree that some of the best books being published today are self-published and that some of the worst books today are trad/print published. It just worries me that excited young writers are rushing to the market place with their work before they've actually learned enough of their craft to produce a high quality work that won't damage their brand in the long run.
Shall I shout, "Amen!" Absolutely. Not everyone can write, and not even some who are best sellers can really write well. Those pulp fiction books that sold like gangbusters in the fifties, sixties, and seventies are gone. No one even reads them anymore. Once, I asked a group of writers whether they wanted to write to sell, or to tell a great story. Some seemed a bit confused, thinking they were doing both. I told them that to write a great story may mean you aren't read, possibly until you're dead. Moby Dick comes to mind. It's a timeless story of madness and obsession, but it didn't sell when it was first published. I said it would be nice to sell. Everyone wants to make money, and surely I do as much as the next writer, but my goal is, first and last, always to tell a great story. The story is everything.
On most of this blogpost, I would agree. Too many people just don't have the talent and product to succeed but you can't tell them that they would be better off doing something else more productive with their time. The reason for this is, they want to prove the naysayers wrong and be the Next Big Thing. The fact that they won't doesn't dissuade them. A lot of this is because there are some authors, especially the ones who found big success, who push the idea that "You could be like me if only..." and then list their 'how to' as if one merely needs to duplicate the successful people to become just like them. Never mind how subjective art is, and books are art.
However, I am less convinced by your comment "I am the very first person to agree that a FEW excellent writers will just have bad luck or bad packaging or bad marketing that kills a great book, and it sells for crap. But MOST writers who claim to be one of these writers...I did say real talk...are delusional."
This premise is logical if you buy into the "cream rising to the top" philosophy. For authors, if I write a book most people think is great, and I keep at it, I will be successful. Now I concede that I haven't yet published anything, and I may in fact suck more than I think I do. But I have become more convinced that most artists' success is due to luck and convenient timing, and the rest is perseverance and talent.
But then again I've published 0 books and made 0 sales, and I'm not famous. So if i am totally wrong and dumb, feel free to correct me.
Hey Sam,You made me laugh, so I guess you are successful. As a traditionally published author, I've heard from many of my Sisters in Crime (SinC) and Mystery Writers of America (MWA) friends bemoaning the fact they must constantly struggle to make money, and they have real talent. Discovery is oftentimes due to pure luck. Being in the right place at the right time is helpful, among lots of legwork, marketing, and writing. What made Tom Clancy sell his first million was President Reagan was asked about the book in his hand. He said, "It's a great yarn." That was The Hunt for Red October. It flew off the shelves and made him a star, landing a movie deal. And it wasn't his first book.
That doesn't happen to most of us. Moby Dick just sat there until a professor started touting it as a truly seminal work for Melville. Then it sold and they made a movie out of it. Of course, Melville was long dead. So yes, you are wrong. We aren't delusional. Where was his payday?
It's hard to make money when you are one voice among a million authors and a million books. Logistics is a bitch. Discovery is everything for an author to continue. How else could Dan Brown sell so many books, except that he wrote a story that caught the imagination of readers, and the release of another book on the subject of the Da Vinci Code causing lots of buzz on the subject. He's a terrible writer, but he still sells his awful books.
So you see, talent doesn't sell all books. Discovery does. And that's a shame, but it's a fact. Now, it's a different story over a lifetime. Talent will out. Talent is lasting even after the author is dead for a hundred years or more. But talent alone will not sell your book. I suspect that in fifty years, no one will have ever heard of Dan Brown (one can only hope), and that will be a good thing.
The winners of awards from PEN and the Booker Prize will attest to the fact that they aren't discovered just because they're traditionally published and have talent enough to win a great award. They may have loads of talent that will astound a reader, but their books don't sell like James Patterson's do because their publisher won't advertise. That's part of the bad marketing, bad luck, and bad packaging scenario.
Would it surprise you to know that some Edgar Winners or Shamus winners have second jobs because their books don't make enough to pay a living wage? It's true for other genres as well. So yes, they can have bad luck, bad marketing, and bad packaging and ooze talent. And they aren't delusional, and it's more than a few.
With all the hacks out there, it only makes it worse for those of us who truly want to be a good writer and don't slap a book together and put it up on Amazon. We work hard at our craft, spending the better part of each day reading and writing, and squeezing a few moments on social media to get our name out there. We worked hard enough to catch the eye of an editor at a publishing house, and now we're traditionally published, and we belong to professional writing groups, and we feel like we've arrived as a true professional. We're as good as the big boys and girls, but...
"Keeping at it" is not the necessary formula for success in selling a book, and that is an unfortunate truth these days. It sounds good, but it's only part of it. And we may die before we are discovered by readers. Writing is a thankless job, but I wouldn't want to do anything else. I'm not in it for the money or fame, but a little money would be nice.
Cheri wrote: "Hey Sam,You made me laugh, so I guess you are successful. As a traditionally published author, I've heard from many of my Sisters in Crime (SinC) and Mystery Writers of America (MWA) friends bemo..."
I'm successful in my own mind. That must count for something.
You are right about discovery. And that's the hard part for a lot of people to accept- you could write the next Lord of the Rings, and the world may or may not know in your lifetime, if ever. As for the literary award winners, their problem to me is that the books they write to win awards from critics may not be the kind of books the general public wants to read. If the general public wants to read Twilight and not the 2012 Edgar winner's prose, then that's out of the hands of the author who won the Edgar.
It's because of this discovery that is sometimes out of our control that drives us crazy. Because some people get it, others don't. Some deserve discovery, others don't. And yet it's because some authors push "keep at it" as if that alone is a formula that persuades those who really ought not to be authors to continue writing.
Hey Sam,Right after I wrote my little comment--I know it wasn't that little--my SinC newsletter added a link all about the Booker Prize Winner selling an unacceptable number of books. Here's the link: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/19/4414591...
I do agree that these prize winners may not write the kind of book most people read, but we should be expanding our horizons, as a civilized people, and challenge our brains.
I also read an article that revealed the little known dirty secret about all those literary snobs who hand out prizes and acadamian snots who turn their noses up at us rabble who write genre books. It said that they secretly read Romance novels and thrillers. Hmm. Kind of makes you still wonder why an Edgar or Shamus winner isn't selling more books. After all they write thrillers, mysteries, and suspense novels, not the usual "woe is me" books (and now in different countries other than the US) that might proliferate the Man Booker Prize lists.
Yes, dear Cindy and Sam, I'm one of those who wishes that those self-published hacks who have no talent would take their ugly books and go home, never to be seen or heard from again (and that includes the hacks who are traditionally published too), but this is the hand we've been dealt. I will write, as the article says, because I must, even if I don't get paid. Dear Lord, you didn't hear that last part. I really would like to get paid. Please, send just a little. I'm not greedy. I need to pay that bill... Amen.
Many great books are overlooked, and have been for years by readers, simply because a publisher won't market for a writer who isn't on the best seller list already or a famous name. I've heard complaints from Booker prize winners, and other prestigious book award winners about how few books they sell. Having to market ourselves, we indie--and I'm a true indie with a small press, not self-published--we share the market with all of the traditionally published and the self-published. We are one voice among thousands upon thousands.
How does a reader find you? Well, leg work, honing your skills, and continuing to market in an ever expanding market. Internet engagement isn't the only way to be recognized, but most self-published books are screaming at you across that cyberspace that must be addressed. Even me, I'm sad to say. I do it because I must.
The fact that hardbound books are on the rise suggests to me that the hacks are losing the book wars, and the traditionally published are beginning to see daylight. Readers are recognizing that there are some great writers out there, and they can be found on the shelves of their local book store.
Just as you wrote, that's not say that there isn't some good writing among the self-published, but I'm tired of being asked to review books that aren't formatted correctly, and don't engage me on the first page, have grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors, let alone an inability to actually write. I always know it when I look at the first page. If it has a ragged right edge, it's self-published on Amazon or some equivalent hack outfit. I sigh... and move on to the next book, hoping that I'll find the gem in the rough, but sadly, I haven't quite yet. I've looked at hundreds of books, and I still have a few on my shelf to go through. Out of self-defense I read great stories from established writers like Somerset Maugham, Patricia Highsmith, or Daphne du Maurier. Occasionally, I'll add in a writer still alive, but on the whole I look to the day when people like Dan Brown won't earn millions and that poor little gal who won a prize because her prose is to die for can see a few bucks in her account. Then the self-publishing craze will be over, and we'll go with confidence to our shelves knowing there is at least a book written well, even if we don't like the story. I'd rather face that than the triple threat: Horrific writing, awful story, and a grammarian nightmare.