He actually writes quite a bit and the novels he writes are very long. He's not writing a book a year, last I looked, he was hitting about 3 and well over half a million words. You know what he did with all of those books? He took them to Kickstarter and not only broke records with how much he took in, he took all of that extra money and funded other authors who were struggling.
"Good" is in the eye of the audience. The Twilight novels are crap but Stephanie Meyer laughed all the way to the bank. Same with Fifty Shades. It's complete garbage but it made a ton of money. All you have to do is find a sustainable audience who likes what you write and you're golden. As much as people want to think that quality is all that matters, in the real world, that's simply not the case. Therefore, I leave it up to my audience to see if the books I write are successful. They certainly seem to be. There are no universal paths to success. There most certainly are universal paths to failure.
Yes, I did describe him as prolific. Probably one of the most prolific modern authors and a very clear outlier. Which is still a far cry from the pace you’re describing. 5k+ words every day is >1.8 million per year. Yes, and that’s part of my point in bringing up traditional publishing vs. self-publishing. Quantity is king when it comes to the latter, while there’s an upper ceiling for how much content traditional publishers are prepared to accept even if you’re one of the best-selling authors in your genre. If you’re just starting out and aiming for traditional publishing, churning out half a dozen books you can’t find representation for or sell is useless. Better to spend your time carefully crafting one or two projects you can sell.
But quality itself is a subjective measure, what some people consider a beautifully written masterpiece others might consider a bunch of elitist pretentious drivel and vice versa vis say twilight I don’t like her writing but she is much more successful than I am so in assessing the ‘ quality’ do we take the critics word that it’s crap or the best sellers lists word that it’s amazing? on the point above in ref of self publishing I don’t really agree that quantity is king. If the work is crap it won’t sell to readers either, it’s not a case of churning out 12 first drafts and publishing them with no editing, the work still has to be decent in terms at least of having been edited and proof read. also in trad you could spend years carefully crafting one book and still not be able to find representation of it doesn’t hit the right notes that the market happens to be looking for ( which will probably have changed during the years you spent crafting)
‘Best sellers lists’ tell us nothing about quality, in whatever field of the arts you care to mention. This is precisely why we so many talentless morons like Ed Sheehan, Sam Smith et all, doing so well. It’s why we have to endure so much shit TV... the cancer that is social media ...
I think a lot of the discussion is getting muddled here, which is why I asked for a better idea of what we meant by success. As @OurJud mentions above, a best seller list says nothing about quality, only quantity. We can accept that garbage can be popular and genius can be ignored. However, both can be successful by different standards (one by selling copies, one by creating something new and innovative, just as examples). Quality, success, sales, productivity, efficiency…they may be intertwined but they are distinct things and it’s easy for talk of them to get muddy. A big point people picked up on was that many previous authors wouldn’t be successful today, but then it was accepted that success is subjective. I don’t think that adds up (but I haven’t had a response on that yet). On the quality point though, we can’t slip into complete subjectivity otherwise this whole forum is useless. If people come here to be better writers, then there has to be good writing and bad writing. If there is no bad writing to avoid and techniques used to make writing better, why give advice? Why not just say “it doesn’t matter, no writing is good or bad” and leave it at that? Of course I’m being hyperbolic, but you get my meaning, right? How can we offer advice if we could just say “it’s all subjective, just find people that like what you write”?
It depends on what you mean by quality though I mean you might say that Ed sheeran is a talentless moron but he’s achieved great success, made a hell of a lot of money, and a lot of people love his music if we define low quality as I don’t like it, then we also have to accept that it’s completely subjective if we look for an objective measure of quality what do you use aside from success and audience approval it’s much harder in the creative arts than with something like cars or electronics where quality can easily be bench marked by standard values with writing we can look at standard values like can they punctuate, can they spell but beyond those measures it becomes much more subjective to say this is good writing or this is bad
Whenever I accept forum advice, it’s with the intention that it will help me write closer to my own subjective preferences and values.
Yep the purpose of the forum ( and indeed any forum or writing group) is to give an author different opinions on their work ( or possible solutions to a problem) to help them improve rather than improve the work for them , rather than to be the arbiter of whether writing is good or bad because those things are subjective for a commercial writer good writing is that which makes them money… they are doing well when they make sales and poorly when they don’t For a writer for whom praise from critics is more important than commercial success writing well means doing what ever it is that a their target critics want to see others might define good as that which pleases a certain audience or meets a set of self imposed standards if you come back to the music analogy if you asked Ed Sherman whether his music is good he’d probably say that it is and point to the platinum discs and 7 figure bank balance by way of proof…
Yet again though, it doesn’t define quality if you just make it on sales, so I’d say he’s objectively wrong. Good writing and bad writing can sell. I don’t care if he says it’s good because it sells. That’s a non sequitur as I can say “it’s bad, but it sells”. Also, none of the above say that value is subjective. If you subjectively wish to write with precise grammar, then there is an objective standard that meets that. If you subjectively wish to write a book that grips a specific audience, then there are things that will objectively increase the likelihood of that. We shouldn’t mistake the subjective nature of our preferences with the objective nature of what satisfies them. Things are good if they meet a standard or achieve an aim (or help one to do it). If Ed Sheeran wants to say that his music is good because it makes him money, then that’s fine but it’s not good music. It’s a good money maker, just as trading stocks may be. Likewise writing can be good for or at something, depending on the purpose. I guess i’m working this out in my head in real time. Thanks for your patience.
That makes sense. As I said in a post now above this one, our preferences are subjective but the ways to achieve them are objective. If I want to write a picture book for toddlers, I’m not going to follow advice on how to create a deconstructionist work of meta-fiction (although that sounds like fun).
Perhaps, though even if that were true it wouldn’t support the claim that writing/storytelling quality can be objectively measured.
See this is what i mean - its not good music - in your opinion, his opinion might be different - that's why its subjective. Theres no single objective standard that definers what good music is likewise with writing theres no single standard that says 'all good writing is like this'
That's what you get by assuming. I only wrote 967k last year. I don't work holidays or weekends. Quality is king regardless. This is what I was saying, people making assumptions that are baseless. "I can't do it so it has to be bad!" I've been there. Had a Big 5 (at the time) contract on the table. Turned it down because I didn't want to deal with the inherent limitations of traditional publishing. Now I make a lot more than I likely would have traditionally published. Thanks for your concern.
Yet the problem that I, and a lot of other people, have seen, is the culture of failure among a lot of amateur writers. They say they want to improve, they say that they want to get published, yet they spend all of their time making excuses for why they don't and "can't" follow best writing practices that are most likely to lead to the kind of success that they seem to want. They wallow in rejection, mostly as a means to congregate and back-pat each other and commiserate that life isn't going well, when rejection is just part of the life of any serious writer. It happens a whole lot more than acceptance, often by a ridiculous margin. It's why virtually every published author I know refuses to come to places like this. I've been told, repeatedly, that most amateur writers don't actually want the help. They just want to complain. They just want to make excuses. They don't want to put in the hard work that is part and parcel with the success that they claim to want. I've used a swimming example before so I'll do it again. It's why you don't see professional swimmers, people trying to get on the Olympic team, sitting around complaining about having to be up early every morning to swim. They recognize that it's a necessary step to achieve their goals. Yet, around here (and by around here, I mean almost all amateur writing forums), you get exactly the opposite. In response to people asking where you "find the time" to write, I've always responded that you don't "find" the time, you make it. You make writing a priority and you put it ahead of other things. I, for instance, am up at 5am every single day, writing. Would I rather get a couple of hours of sleep? Sure, but writing is more important so I've found a way to get it done, around family obligations and a full time career. The second that anything like that is suggested, you get the excuse brigade coming out in droves. "But I'm too tired!" "I can't function with less than 12 hours of sleep! (yes, I've actually heard this one)" And the ever popular, "it gets in the way of playing video games and hanging out with my friends!" These people aren't serious. These are people who are playing at writing. It's why the overwhelming majority of amateur writers never actually get anywhere. They probably blame others for their failures too. It's also why you rarely see published authors coming down to this level to help out. Granted, a lot of them are writing books and selling courses to do things like that, but giving back to the community is a thing and far too often, trying to demonstrate the actual realities of writing, that just gets thrown back in our faces because these people just aren't serious. They don't care. They're just telling themselves a story in their head to keep the dream alive without actually wanting it badly enough to act on it. I really find that incredibly sad. YMMV.
I'm intrigued! Feel free to tell me mind my own business, but I've read your posts with interest, can't argue with many of your points, including (if not especially) ones that touch on my own deficiencies. But still, I've got so many questions regarding your process. What you're describing as a work schedule/method is beyond what I can envisage. 5k+ per diem is a lot. Typically, how much time in front of keyboard for that? With a book every 6 weeks, does that include revisions, re-edits, proof/beta reads? Is there lag to your production, like book finished today is released 6 months from now when you're sure it's ready? I assume self-pub? Are these books within a series or stand-alone? Do you sell, have pre-orders, enquiries as to when the next will be published? What/where do you apply quality controls? All I can picture that that biopic of Ed Wood with Johnny Depp flying through movie-making, no time or need for a second take, just get it done! That's the only way I could imagine that output, with no time for introspection but I guess things will click after 40 years of practice. For some, though, writing is an indulgence that can't conflict with other responsibilities, time needed for other people or interests. It doesn't remove ambition but does place it in a queue with other demands, I also think it's entirely possible to spend as much time as you describe at the writing desk with vastly smaller output, not due a lack of dedication but different writing process and purpose. I think this is the most heartening thing I've read on the subject in a long time.
Measured would be the wrong word, but evaluated could be. All of that advice about having a strong main character would be something I’d imagine we’d criticise a writer for failing to include. A story would be needed for storytelling. One that didn’t have a story wouldn’t be a good story. I think my point is more that if you say “I want my writing to do x” then you can succeed at that and your writing will be good. If you want to say “I want to write a good story” then there will be things that will help you to do that and things that won’t. What you want a story to do is 1) tell a story and 2) other things. There may be multiple ways to tell a story, but there are ways to do those things well and badly. I have no skin in this game. I’m thinking out loud. All of this stems from the previous discussion that other authors wouldn’t be successful today.
Okay? That’s still far more than even most of the top-producing authors out there. Many excellent self-published works languish in obscurity because their authors aren’t publishing content often enough to build an extensive backlist and continue drawing in new readers. Meanwhile, there are other self-pubbed works—their actual content ranging from fair to excellent in their own right—littered with typos but selling like hot cakes. Why? Because the latter authors are prolific and know how to use the constant stream of content to their advantage when it comes to e-commerce and social media platforms, because they’ve found underserved niches more than happy to take what they can get, and because they have a knack for marketing in general. These things are enough to counterbalance the objective flaws that would’ve prevented their traditional publication. Quantity can have a quality all its own. There’s no concern. All I’m saying is churning out half a dozen or more books every year isn’t helpful to an author who wants to go the traditional route if they aren’t finding representation or a publisher who wants to buy them. Better to concentrate all that effort into one or two books so they stand a better chance of meeting expectations. My issue here is you seem to be suggesting anyone can match this pace and it’s essentially a requirement to be successful. Neither is true. Some people just write slower, even if they’re constantly writing. Many traditionally published authors have found success at one or two books a year or an even lower rate.
There’re a couple of issues with that. (1) the author may want something that the reader emphatically doesn’t, which means even if the author “succeeds” it won’t be objectively good. And (2), even if the author and reader want the same things, at least one reader will disagree that the author has succeeded in delivering them. In those inevitable instances there is no objective standard to turn to resolve the disagreement. As far as I can see, it’s inescapably subjective. And that’s not a bad thing.
Oh absolutely. I have to batter my students with the mantra that subjective doesn’t mean arbitrary, valueless, or false. I would say though that disagreement doesn’t inherently make something subjective either. The old example of this is conspiracy theories or flat earth stuff. I could provide proof that the world is round but a flat earther will deny that I’ve met the burden of proof. That doesn’t make the shape of the earth subjective, nor does it mean that they’re not just plain wrong in their judgment. However, I can see how it would work in this context. Do you think the judgement is different in this context?
I think the various replies go further than this. It isn’t just that anyone can match it and that it is essential for success (which was also agreed to be something a person has to determine for themselves). It was also suggested that anyone who doesn’t do this is making excuses and being a snowflake. If that isn’t the suggestion, the point is uninformative. If the point is that everyone that doesn’t do this is making excuses, it’s false and I would indicate the people with medical conditions who just can’t keep up this pace (myself included).
It's also why you rarely see published authors coming down to this level to help out... giving back to the community is a thing and far too often, trying to demonstrate the actual realities of writing, that just gets thrown back in our faces because these people just aren't serious. They don't care. They're just telling themselves a story in their head to keep the dream alive without actually wanting it badly enough to act on it. I haven't experienced any sense of "coming down to this level," perhaps because I enjoy visiting with people on levels of expertise above and below my own. Some of the things the dreamers say and ask serve to jolt me out of any complacency I might've developed over the decades. I appreciate those jolts, and if I can occasionally offer something in return that resonates in a brain or two, that's good, too.
Yeah, that’s different. The trouble with flat-Earthers is that they’re making a claim about observable reality, and therefore their claim requires evidence. Evidence they obviously don’t have. Those folks can (and are) dismissed as having a false explanation of our world. The fact that someone might deny good evidence about the nature of reality doesn’t make it subjective — you’re correct about that. Certain questions definitely have objective answers. A story, on the other hand, relies on human comprehension and interpretation. It taps into our individual imaginations and emotions. A book that moves me to tears may not affect you at all. A scene that makes you stand up and cheer, might elicit a cringe and sigh from me. And neither of us can offer evidence that the other had the “wrong” reaction. Personally speaking, I’m glad it’s subjective. I very much enjoy relying on my own judgement and analysis of stories.
