Planning for 2015 and Book Marketing

Discussion in 'Marketing' started by John Rebell, Jan 2, 2015.

  1. John Rebell

    John Rebell Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Mid-west USA
    This also isn't directed at anyone personally, but at the topic in general.

    I read somewhere (I think in "On Writing") Stephen King writes "11 pages" everyday. (Don't quote me) Which seems like a lot. So lets break it down. Is that single or double-spaced pages? He doesn't say. If double-spaced that's 2,750 words. If single spaced, then it is 5,500 words per day. Is that 5 days a week, or seven? He doesn't say. Does he take holidays? He doesn't say. My point is even if you have a specific number written words a day, it is meaningless. No matter what else he is, King is prolific and successful. No one in their right mind would argue with either.

    But not if compared to James Patterson. Patterson has an army of co-writers and collaborators and probably "cranks out" 10 times that amount every hour. So does Clancy and Cussler. And, according to various sources Patterson made 90 million last year. I'm not even going to bother going into which one is a "better" writer. That is like arguing over which is a better car, Ford or Chevy. It is all personal opinion and taste.

    Here's my point: it's all relative. What one person is able to accomplish is no reflection on what another person is able to do. Nor does the amount of money a person makes relative to their quality of writing. Just because a person drives a Rolls Royce (Literary fiction) doesn't make them automatically a better driver than someone who drives a Ford. (Genre writers) You can't use someone else's yardstick, and then apply it to yourself, or someone else, and say that it's "right" or it's "wrong" for another person.

    Nor can you make the same distinction when it comes to "quality" writing. Quality according to who? Who defines quality? Is there a Quality God somewhere who makes that sweeping judgement? Can I have his email address? I remember perfectly well in the 1980's when the New York Times reviewers were calling King a hack because he dared to write the way people actually spoke and that he "would never last." And reviewers for the New York Times were quality Gods in those days. (Pre-Internet) That reviewer is long gone, yet King is still standing, and much, much, more successful. So much for the opinion of quality Gods.

    At the end of the day it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference how many words someone is able to write, or at what level of quality they are able to write at. There will always be plenty of people clapping on one side of the auditorium, and plenty of people booing on the other. Poe and Hemmingway were "great" writers. But by all accounts, they were also alcoholics and dope fiends, miserable to be around, and unhappy with themselves and their work. Poe died broke in the gutter. Are you sure you want to emulate him? But I would rather be a shitty writer and have a blast doing it, than be a great writer and hate every minute of it.

    My opinion only.
     
    Amanda_Geisler likes this.
  2. peachalulu

    peachalulu Member Reviewer Contributor

    Joined:
    May 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,620
    Likes Received:
    3,807
    Location:
    occasionally Oz , mainly Canada
    I don't find it a big deal to produce more than one book a year - it all depends on your style of book. To be honest I'd think a genre author that didn't produce more than one book a year, a bit of a slowpoke. Especially if we're talking books that are only about 300 pages. I read once that Richard Peck - YA author used to write one book a year. He'd give himself time to find an idea, write it, edit and send it off in time for the editors to go over it. Compare him to Ann M. Martin of the Babysitter's club. Their page lengths aren't that off - hers is about 250 his maybe more. But she was putting out books nearly every month( ghost writer's took over when she quit after 25. )

    Quality is pretty easy to recognize. His are quality, literary but still entertaining. Hers are - entertaining. I think what pisses writers off is making it about whose is better. It doesn't really matter. They both fulfill a purpose. She wants to be light and entertaining. Peck wants to be thought-provoking. Ann M Martin doesn't have to take as much time because the character's goals are pretty straight forward and her themes are simple. Peck probably needs more time to sort his out because the characters goals are never that simple nor is the theme.
     
    Okon likes this.
  3. John Rebell

    John Rebell Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Mid-west USA
    Good post, Peach. Agreed on all points, especially the "They both fulfill a purpose." Exactly.

    Let's take a look at the opposite end of the spectrum for a moment...

    Michael Creighton said he took approx. 3 years to research and write each of his books.

    Joseph Heller (Catch-22) also took 3 to 5 years to write his.

    We could also talk about Thomas Harris (Silence of the Lambs) He took 10 years between books. (I wonder what his daily word count was? :))

    But here's the difference: Each of those authors (above) lived in a different literary world than the one we have today. It's not comparable. In that world a publisher would advance enough money for that author to take that amount of time. Not today, or ever again. Or the author already had enough money that it didn't matter. That one factor changes the writing dynamics completely. It matters quite a lot if you're working Indie writer that has a family to feed by their writing. It is hard to compare that to a publisher sponsored, or a trust fund baby with a cushion to fall back on. Those factors will also very much effect your level of output.

    Indie authors, for the most part, the ones earning their living by writing, have no publishers willing to pick up the tab. They have very little choice if they want to maintain their income and stay relevant in their fan's minds, than to write several books a year. They probably don't do it by choice, but by necessity. They are good enough businessmen/women to know how many books they need to write every year to maintain their incomes. Since most of them publish 3-4 books a year, we can assume that is the level they need to maintain their lifestyles. (These are guys making a million + a year) That's a lot of work! That's 12-16 hours a day, every day, between writing, editing, polishing, publishing, social media, marketing, blogging, responding to fan email, etc. For me personally, that doesn't sound like much fun either. I'm way too lazy for that lifestyle.

    If you talk to them, (I have) here is what they'll tell you. They are on a relentless merry-go-around of writing and publishing, which they can't stop, and wouldn't stop if they could. (They're addicts) It was the lifestyle they choose, they have no regrets, and they wouldn't have it any other way. Most wouldn't take a publishing contract if one was waved in front of them. They will also tell you that they got lucky, that it had nothing to do with word count, quality, genre, or target market. Many felt they simply were in the right place with the right book at the right time. Luck. When I tell them it was their hard work, word count, quality, and genre, which created that luck to begin with, they usually smile. "Yeah, probably."

    Luck or no, they earn their money the hard way. They have all my respect and admiration.
     
  4. Amanda_Geisler

    Amanda_Geisler Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Australia
    Funnily enough I never responded to this question.

    I think the character defines the conflict, then afterwards the effects of the conflict define the character. So yes they do kind of work hand in hand. If a character acts badly then the will either have sympathy or aggression directed towards them from the reader, if they continue to act badly then it will usually not garner support from readers, just understanding, they will loose sympathy as time goes on, even when the reader understands their motives.

    Some characters will have that pivotal moment they have to work through, my character has been brutally raped and abused for six years until she finally killed the person, now she needs to work through it and find out who she is, and trust me, its going to be messy, but so far she hasn't lost who she is. Another one of my characters (a male character no less) is going to have a break down because of something that happened to him in the book. People in real life have defining moments, and so should our characters. They need that defining moment to mean something, to have something to strive for.
     
    John Rebell likes this.
  5. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    It's not JUST light genre authors who are prolific...

    Isaac Asimov was a machine, Alexandre Dumas wrote a lot, Joyce Carol Oates has been at it a long time but has certainly produced a lot, Mercedes Lackey creates new worlds and lots of them, etc.

    It's hard to be sure who first said, "I spend the morning putting in a comma and the afternoon taking it out," but I bet it wasn't any of the people listed in the paragraph above. Some writers take a long time to do things, others don't. I'm not saying there's no correlation between writing speed and the 'weight' of the finished product, but I don't think there's a direct correlation.
     
  6. John Rebell

    John Rebell Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Mid-west USA
    I think the character defines the conflict, then afterwards the effects of the conflict define the character. So yes they do kind of work hand in hand. If a character acts badly then the will either have sympathy or aggression directed towards them from the reader, if they continue to act badly then it will usually not garner support from readers, just understanding, they will loose sympathy as time goes on, even when the reader understands their motives.

    There's enough food for thought in these two paragraphs to last me for days. Which could also be called, or used as, a plot device used to create the protagonist, or the antagonist. There's a reason the good guy is good, and the bad guy is bad. Once the sympathy is created, no one wants to see the good guy die. Conversely, once the aggression is created, everyone wants to see the bad guy gets what's coming.

    Some characters will have that pivotal moment they have to work through, my character has been brutally raped and abused for six years until she finally killed the person, now she needs to work through it and find out who she is, and trust me, its going to be messy, but so far she hasn't lost who she is. Another one of my characters (a male character no less) is going to have a break down because of something that happened to him in the book. People in real life have defining moments, and so should our characters. They need that defining moment to mean something, to have something to strive for.


    Isn't that what we call a "character arc?" That in good writing, each character must change, or transform, from what they began as, to something different by the end of the story. A fundamental change must occur based on the conflict of the story. Which is tied inextricably to plot, which is the story arc.:) Ohhh...this is fun! In other words, you can't separate the two. (Plot and character) One can't exist without the other. Even a plot or story with no characters, has a setting, a location, or something, which stands instead of a character, which creates the conflict. Can anyone think of a story with no characters? Is it possible to have a story with no characters?
     
  7. Amanda_Geisler

    Amanda_Geisler Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Australia
    I just realised how trivial that post was. Not too bad for this early in the morning, on a Sunday no less, I surprise myself with the things I come out with. It is the Character Arc, but I tend to call it their defining moment, I don't know why, it's just how it comes out, every time.

    I can't think of any story where there isn't some kind of character, because without that human essence there usually isn't a conflict of interest, only natural occurring conflicts. There is always conflict, else there is no story, just a description.
     
    John Rebell likes this.
  8. John Rebell

    John Rebell Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Mid-west USA
    You can also add Elmore Leonard, and Louis L'Amour (sp?) Robert Heinlein, to that list as well. All had incredible volumes of work. Charles Dickens was no slouch either. Neither was Bierce, Twain, or London. Which shows even down through the ages, writers are going to write, no matter what.

    I know with me sometimes when I'm in the zone, writing comes out almost perfect the first draft. Minor changes here and there, clean up spelling and punctuation, yes. But no all day studying the position of a comma. :) Other times I have to spend days on a chapter polishing it to get to where it says what I want it to say. Dialogue can also be tricky and require extensive rewrites. I doubt if anyone is going to consider either on par with any of the people listed above though, no matter how much time I spent on them. :)
     
  9. John Rebell

    John Rebell Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Mid-west USA
    I just realised how trivial that post was.
    I don't think the post was trivial at all. You described it beautifully. We live in different countries. Of course we would use different terms to describe concepts. The "defining moment" is the entire point of, or the climax of, having the character arc. You nailed it. I was talking macro and you were speaking of micro. We're just talking about the same thing, using different words.
     
    Amanda_Geisler likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice