Being Marketable

I'm a little amused actually that a thread about business has somehow turned into one about ethics.... ironic, really

 

This may or may not be relevant, but I've been thinking about my interactions with readers -- via snail mail, email and at signings.

Never once has a reader inquired about my enjoyment or lack thereof. Doesn't that make them selfish? How dare they only care about getting the book they want without a single thought to MY happiness?

I've only had other writers ask about my enjoyment.

That says something really interesting, but I still have to puzzle out exactly what.

 

Maybe readers assume that you wouldn't do it if you didn't enjoy it. Plus you're somewhat of a celebrity if they come to you seeking autographs. That would also imply that you are "above" them in a way. Even if they don't assume that you enjoy it, they know you have more power. Power is often associated with happiness.

Or, honestly, I think you're reading into to it too much. I never once consider the author's state when I'm reading a book. It's their work, they put it out for the world to read, and that's what I'm doing.

Most jobs are thankless, even humanitarian jobs. Don't get all high and mighty just yet.

~~~

Try working at the Food Bank - even though you're working to help feed people who cannot (or in some cases will not) feed themselves, you are completely isolated from them. No "thankyou letters", no visits from grateful patrons. Nope, these people simply consume and consume and consume some more. I just wonder how it is that I can afford to work and feed myself and donate time to feed others when some people cannot even feed themselves.

Obviously, a Food Bank reaches out to all types - and if someone is disabled and completely unable to work, then that's one thing. But I mean welfare users... I've never had that hard of a time feeding myself, even when I was homeless. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't judge.

My point is that the world at large doesn't give a rat's backside how you feel.

 

And that was my point. I don't write them for enjoyment, thanks or glory -- I do it for money. That is my great moral crime. Yet somehow, those readers are supposed to feel disrespected because I didn't enjoy the writing enough. Maybe no one told them that.

 

Well, this idea comes about because writing is a form of art. Many people are "art purists" - art should be done for the sake of art.

To me, engineering is a form of art. I used to do metal sculpture and fabrication. Yet car manufacturers have this concept of "planned obsolescence" - they design things to break. This goes against all of my values as an amateur engineer and as an artist. When I build something, I design it to work and to last and to be rugged. However, even decent companies like Toyota and Honda are simply out to make a buck. Is that offensive to me? Sure. Am I going to lose any sleep over it? Not at all. It's not worth my time.

 

If it's impossible, then there is no opportunity. The fact is that for every author who writes because it makes good money, there's three more in line who're just waiting for the lucky break that lets them in. The only way to break in is to edge someone else out. Opportunity only comes to the arrogant.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not taking issue with writing for money. It's a perfectly legitimate practice. What I take issue is with someone who doesn't stand by their product. It is simply not possible to do the best you can if you don't take pride in what you do. That extends all the way down to the cashier at Wal-mart. I'm not talking about the difference between Garfield and the Mona Lisa, this is the difference between Garfield as it once was and Garfield as it is now.

As for going out and doing more. I am. I expect a long and hard journey, but you can expect that I will always put in my best effort, and because of that I will be good at what I do.

 

I just think it's a horrible attitude to care more about the money than the way you get that money, no matter what you're doing, especially if you have a choice. Money corrupts. I don't descrimitate based on chosen field. Rose, you chose to do what you're doing, and you've admitted that you don't like it. You're the first writer I've ever come across who has chosen this.

 

I'm pretty sure RomanticRose said she was both kinds of writers:she wrote what she liked but also wrote for business. I mean, if I was writing under the ridiculous guidelines set forth by Harlequin, my enjoyment would be limited too.

I really don't see the point in criticising her for her attitude. She get's the job done. There are probably authors like her who think you guys are foolish for your beliefs, be glad she's not like that.

 

Okay, I'm not saying that YOU or anyone else should do what I do. I had my own reasons for wanting to get into profitable writing as quickly as possible that you know nothing about. But reasons don't matter, since your mind is already made up.

My actions aren't hurting anyone, least of all you. I don't judge your choices; what in the blue fannypack gives you the moral right to judge mine?

Money corrupts? How am I corrupted by havng a place to live, clothes to wear and food to eat? If someone offered you a million tax-free dollars (or EC or insert your own currency here), I suppose you would turn it down.

I'll end this here and now. You are right. I'm wrong. I'm a horrible, terrible person. I'd disembowel myself right now to escape the shame if my ceremonial sword weren't at the cleaners.

 

Opportunity is like Jack London's inspiration. You don't wait for it, you go out and hunt it down with a club.

I made the decision to treat certain facets of my writing like business.

I do put my best effort into the bodice rippers; they are as good as the genre allows. But no matter what, they are never going to be great literature. I have never said romance novels are bad; they are just not to my taste. To put it into business terms, I'm not a member of the target audience. I am also not a member of the target audience for the Harry Potter saga, The DaVinci Code, Game of Thrones, just to name a few.

 

[I thought of another analogy. It's like a chef who hates French food, but it sells well, so he prepares it the way his customers like it, all the while rolling his eyes at the sight of the escargot and such. The customers don't care whether he likes French food or not; they care whether the quality is there, and fortunately he's an awesome chef, so it tastes good. Anyway, on his day off, he works at home on grand gelatos--a dessert he loves. He hopes one day that Ben & Jerry's or Dreyers will buy his gelato recipes, but if they don't, he'll continue making them because he loves them.]

 

Subject matter is incidental. Writing does not care if you are a romance lover, or a hard boiled detective fan. Your passion for your work matters to it, but not what the work is. There is no 'bad subject', only poor writing. An audience exists for every subject, and a hook for every audience.

Ultimately, the writing game plays out on a field of numbers and reputation. Make a reputation for high quality by producing your greatest work with every piece. Make the numbers work to your advantage by having a high density in circulation at any given time.

Serendipity disguises itself as inspiration, to keep you trapped in your tiny market. True inspiration is not something you must 'wait' for, but rather something that you grow. This is the entire purpose of effective brainstorming. A good writer reads, reads in variety and reads often. Their reading inspires them, shapes their skills and style, and helps them to bridge into a whole new genre.

The best way to take advantage of the markets is through diversity. Don't hedge yourself into one genre, but open your wings and spread your portfolio to encompass everything you can. If you write short sci-fi stories, train yourself to write science articles, or even turn your hand to writing a drama. Each new genre you breach will breathe more life into your writing as your understanding and ability grows, and breathe life into your career as you target a wider range of markets, an ocean of opprotunities, rather than the small pond of a specific genre.

When your submissions are rejected, revise them again, tailor them to the audience the next destination on the submission list appeals to, and send them back out. When they hit the end of the line, store them away for future ideas and churn out the next piece and set it about its rounds. Soon enough you will have dozens of pieces making the rounds, and your constant writing will drag your skill up, skewing both the numbers and reputation game in your favor.

Don't be afraid to submit. Editors won't bother to remember the name of a bad writer, they'll just reject it out of hand and move on to the next. It's only when you start to succeed that you must maintain your reputation, so make your success based on your writing ability, and not a one hit wonder. If you can't consistently churn out high quality work, keep training your skills until you can. When your work begins to catch the eyes of editors, you'll have the foundation you need to keep their attention and make those small successes into something larger.

This is the core of marketability, the skill to write in any genre, to turn out a large body of high quality writing, and the stubborness to keep it circulating. It isn't the genre that requires marketability; it is you, the writer and the quality of work you produce, that must be marketable. Business is Darwinian, and writing especially so. Be adaptable, be competetive and your survival will prove you fittest.

Tailor each piece to the flavor a publisher prefers.Your story does not care about its 'purity', it is alive, it wants to evolve, to grow, and to be read. A single piece of writing, with a bit of editing, can be changed drastically. Fear of spinning a finished piece to appeal to a specific audience will cripple its marketability. You can only spin it so far, but there's always malleability inherent in any story. The flesh must change with its environment, but the spirit remains the same.

When you have something sizable published, your work depends on how marketable you are, as well as the quality of your work. Without an audience, no one will read it. If you do a public reading and sign autographs at a small book store, let the media know, do radio interviews. It will bring people to your work, and then your work will spread between them, their friends, their relatives. If you hide the existence of your work, it will remain unread.

 

not for the brilliance of the writing, sorry to say... just for their 'escape from real life' value...

 

Do you think that's somehow a new piece of information? Of course they're not brilliant. They are not supposed to be. However, they are throught to be 'worth reading' by sufficient readers to make them profitable for a large corporation and its authors. If an author tried to insert things to make them more appealing to mainstream readers, their consistent core readership would decrease. The imprint on the cover tells the romance novel fan exactly what to expect when they open the book.

If they wanted 'brilliant fiction', would they be browsing the bodice rippers?

 

Keep it civil, or I will be infracting.

 

The opportunity is impossible for some because either they don’t have the drive, or just will never be able to develop the skills to be a best-selling author, for example. It takes more than luck to be a successful writer. Yes, there is some luck involved, but luck is useless if it isn’t matched with a manuscript that someone thinks will sell. Those take time and effort to create.

Please clarify the assertion: “Opportunity only comes to the arrogant.” I didn’t get possibly what you meant from the paragraph in which it occurred nor in the subsequent two paragraphs of the post. Otherwise, the only way to read it is simply that any writer who takes advantage of the opportunities that present themselves are by their actions arrogant individuals. Or possibly they weren’t until they stepped forward.

Money doesn’t corrupt. The love of money corrupts.

I listed a number of examples of various fields/jobs/careers—analogies to the discussion, which you kindly overlooked while continuing to denigrate writers who write for a paycheck/to make a living. So, all of those individuals in those fields, the landscaper, the custodian, the assembly line worker, the carpenter as described—they all have horrible attitudes and are in some way corrupt for it?

Terry

 

Sci-fi writer John Scalzi has this really long article about the business of writing at his blog. He points out, first of all, that he made $164k last year and has averaged $100k over the past 10 years. He then goes on to give some very practical-sounding financial and business advice because, he says:

His advice is basically how to keep yourself from financial ruin while writing--so things like paying off your credit card, not living in an expensive city, not expecting to make much money writing as the odds are against you, and keeping your day job. But he also mentions how to make a living off of writing. For him that involves being willing to write pretty much anything, including outside of his usual market, as long as it pays him what he feels his writing is worth (for him, it's a minimum of 20 cents a word). And it means treating writing like a business--so making sure you get work done on time and to specification, tracking your "product inventory" and dealing with taxes and business expenses. He says some of the writing he does is less than fun such as technical writing or Web site FAQ text, but it can pay quite well and, paradoxically, makes it possible for him to write stuff that doesn't pay well but is a lot of fun to do.

 

I just skimmed through the first five pages or so. . . and some parts of this discussion don't make any sense to me at all.

Man, I'll sign that one.

First, let us clarify 'selfish', shall we? All this talk of selfishness has me baffled. Some people here say that writing stuff you don't care about for money is selfish. They also argue for writing what you are passionate about; according to these people, you should write only what you love. They say this is what the unselfish, good writer should do.

That seems like the very definition of selfishness. I mean, the artsy crowd here seem to be saying that, to be an unselfish writer, you must be true to yourself and write what you love, regardless of what others expect from you. Disregarding the wishes of publishers and fans, aka other people, you should write only what you are truly passionate about, books that you would like to read, material you can be proud of.

I'm trying very hard to understand this logic. . . I think the problem is that it's illogical to me. I don't think it's even possible to write unselfishly. You write because, for whatever reason, you want to write. That makes it selfish. . .

I agree with pretty much everything RomanticRose has said. Kudos to you, RR, for accomplishing what most of us here can still only dream of.

A commercial writer needs a solid business model, plain and simple. What ultimately matters to a businessman is how much other people appreciate his product. Appreciation = sales, and everyone is happy. The published author is a businessman. Getting your favourite writing published has to take a back seat to getting published in the first place, unless your self-indulgent masterpiece also happens to be a crowd pleaser.

If you want to go the opposite way, that's fine, but please don't throw the word 'selfish' around. To write unmarketable material, which only you can appreciate, is the very pinnacle, the absolute definition of pure selfishness as a writer.

Want an analogy? A well known and widely appreciated chef comes up with his own unique soup recipe. He loves it so much he decides that from now on he will only cook what he is passionate about, namely his own creations. Unfortunately, his soup tastes like vomit to all of his prior customers, and his future experiments are even worse. He's lost his market, but boy, is he happy! Until the rent comes due, and he must take on another job. Hundreds of customers send him letters, phone him at home, stop him in the street, all asking the same questions: "Why did you stop working at X? Why are you only cooking that stuff now? It's awful; don't you know everyone says so? Oh, why won't you just go back to what you were doing before?" To which the chef responds: "I only did that for money, selfish man that I was. I renounce my shame!"

The point is. . . write whatever you want, but if you also want to be published and make some money, you've got to write something that sells. I fail to see how that could be a bad thing. If it sells, people like it. If people like it, then it's good writing, to them, at least. Everyone has their own opinion as to what constitutes good writing. I intensely dislike Twilight, for example. But Twilight is the height of excellence, as far as Meyer's millions of fans are concerned. Even though I don't like it, I would defend it just for that fact alone. And who cares whether or not Meyer was passionate about her story? What matters is how her readers feel. The attitude of the writer is completely irrelevant, providing that it does not show in the finished product. The product and overall appreciation of it is what counts if you're a commercial writer.

It all just depends on what your goals are. But I don't see how anyone here can justify taking a moral high ground. There is no moral high ground. There are only different goals and different methods to reach those goals. In the end, most of us want the same thing - fans to read our work and some cash to pay the bills. RomanticRose has the most practical method of achieving this, and for that reason she has been successful! She deserves congratulations, not condemnation.

 

This whole spiel reminds me of an online friend of mine who believes that altruism doesn't exist - that everything anyone does is selfishly motivated.

To an extent, this is true. We are survival vessels - designed to carry genes around and pass them along. Even the soldier out killing the enemy is also getting paid.

Granted his was a skewed misanthropic world-view. Some soldiers fight because they honestly love their country - but then wouldn't that still be a selfish goal? "I want my country to be on top"

As far as I'm concerned, as long as you don't exploit someone else, you are not being selfish.

You might be stingy, but there's a difference.

 

I mean that opportunity only comes to the person who says "I can do that better." Unspoken, it's called motivation. Spoken, it's called arrogance. The belief that you stick out from the crowd will make you stick out from the crowd, even if you don't deserve it. The belief that you don't stick out from the crowd will work to ensure that you will never come to anybody's attention no matter how good you are. The loudest, brashest, most forceful person in the group is always the one who gets the most done even if he's not the smartest or best. They are the ones who create their own luck.

Once you make clear your intention to publish, everybody in the world becomes your enemy, even the ones who say they are there to help you. It takes an arrogant person to tell them all "I am good enough, and by God I'll prove you wrong if it kills me."

If skill were more important than luck in publishing, then Sturgeon's Law wouldn't apply so forcefully.

 

I don't believe I've ever read anything with which I disagree more.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative and mean no disrespect, but do you have a line of demarcation between arogance and just having a healthy ego. To make it as a professional writer, especially freelance, a healthy ego is as much a necessity as a word processing program. A healthy ego is what keeps you writing when the rejection slips start talking louder than the voice that says, "I can do this."

I've never had the thought, "I can do that better." I have had the thought, "Why can't I do that?" Then the answering thought comes, "No reason in the world why you can't. Give it a shot. Just do your homework first."

 

Believe it or not, I came to that conclusion after observing the people around me who manage do more than everyone around them. The only demarcation between arrogance and "healthy ego" comes after the fact. If you can't pull off your boasts, you're an arrogant prick. If you can, it's a healthy ego.

Businessmen, lawyers, authors, I've known them all, and the thing they all had in common was an unshakable idea that they were right, and the people who opposed them were wrong.

 

So, any person who has ever applied for and inteviewed for a job--any job, would be by your definition, arrogant. Anyone who believed and asserted their skills and talents made them the person to fill a position (as opposed to other applicants) in a company or organization is arrogant, be it from a street sweeper to a company CEO--which renders your defintion and point meaningless.

"The loudest, brashest, most forecful person...gets the most done even if he's not the smartest or best." Really? And your proof for this is?

Everyone is your enemy, even those who say they are there to help you? That sounds paranoid. That means everyone on this forum who has said they intend to get published are enemies, and none of them are are really out to help because they're all enemies. Every time an editor at a conference gives good advice to writers, he is really the enemy. That means an agent who takes on a client, is an enemy. That means crit partners, fellow authors who offer advice, or put you into contact with their agent...all of them are really the enemy.

Add to anyone who has ever interviewed and obtained a job, anyone who strives to succeed is by your defintion, is arrogant.

Why are you on this forum, if most of the folks here are the enemy? Arrogant enemies, to boot. Or are you here as the enemy of those who intend to get published?

I'm not a follower of Sturgeon's law, with respect to works that are published. In the slush pile may be another question.

If you truly believe Sturgeon's Law ("Ninety percent of everything is crap". Derived from a quote by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, "Sure, 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud."), why spend time striving to write a good piece.

Just send out a half-hazardly created story and send it out, again and again, to every agent and market possible. If rejected by them, change a few things in the manuscript-names, switch chapter 1 and 5 for example, call it a new work and resend it again and again and again...repeat until it is accepted and published. Surely if you do it 50,000 or 100,000 times luck should strike eventually. Skill isn't important what's important in the big scheme of things. Luck is paramount. Spending time writing could more effectively be spent submitting, and with email/electronic submissions it doesn't cost anything other than time--time waiting for luck to strike.

Just to add in to what was indicated earlier, call those agents or editors, be loud and boisterous, because that's the only way things get done and one can get their agenda accomplished.

I'm sorry, CDRW, I just don't see the logic in your statements and assertions. As I see it and tried to explain with examples, they don't stand up in application.

Terry

 

My point is that arrogance and "believing in yourself" are the same thing. The only difference is if someone else likes your position or hates it.

The head for every major corporation. Franklin, Newton, and most other prolific or important scientists and inventors. The most successful lawyers.

Every elected politician on the face of the earth.

I once knew a man, a very successful lawyer, who saw a clock he liked. It was a very nice clock made completely out of wire with little wire men turning little wire crankshafts instead of gears. He said to himself "I want a clock like that," so he tracked down the man who made those clocks. It turned out that the man had stopped making those clocks because the materials used had caused him some major health problems, something about breathing the solder fumes. He begged and pleaded with the man to make him one anyway, saying that it was only one more and he could take as long as he wanted to do it, and wouldn't leave when he was told "no." Instead he stayed and badgered the man until he gave in. Six months later, he had the clock. Then he decided that he wanted another one, so he went back to the man and begged and pleaded with him to make him another one, it would only be one more.

Most people I've spoken to about getting a crit have been helpful. After telling them that I wanted to try and publish, the same people stopped giving the crit I asked for, or the crit I needed. Instead, they spend an hour and a half telling me I need a faster opening to the story, which is good advice, but hardly the only thing in a story, and hardly a subject worth that much time when they could be getting to the question I asked, "did I pull off the climax?" At that point they're no longer trying to help, they're trying to prove their superiority.

It has been pointed out many times on this very site that the editors and agents aren't interested in helping the author, only in getting a book they can sell. There is a difference between giving useful advice and trying to be helpful.

It has also been pointed out here multiple times that quality and what sells are not the same thing, and that if you want to get published you should focus on the "what sells" aspect. That's the reasoning behind why books like Twilight and Eragon sell, and why stories like The Motorman's Coat make their way into the "best" magazines in the genre. That's also why things like Harry Potter are rejected because "the sentences are too complicated for kids."

The reason to strive for quality is because you take pride in your product, not because it's what gets you published.

This is what got Patrick McManus into writing humor. At the time he had a policy to send out everything he wrote, even if he didn't think it was good enough. He sent out an article that he'd spent three months writing and got
$700 for it. He had some time left over after finishing the article, so he spent an hour typing out a short story and sent it in also. He received $300 for it, and ever since then he's been doing his thing.