Being Marketable

I think it was Dizzy Dean who said, "It ain't bragging if you can back it up."

I must be odd (gee, that's never happened before), because I've never thought anyone who opposed me was wrong. I never felt the need to 'prove' anything to anyone.

I did note that certain arrangments of words sell well and consistently. I set out to learn how to arrange words in that way. My thought process was more along the lines, "I can learn to do this."

I agree that every piece of published fiction is not of the highest quality. But it doesn't necessarily correlate that every unpublished story is only unpublished because the author wasn't arrogant enough.

 

CDRW,

Then why isn't the definition of believing in yourself and the definition for arrogance the same definition? Because they are not the same thing, even if you want to construe what they are to fit your belief system.

And thus by grouping every person who has ever obtained a job through the application and interview process as arrogant, again renders the point you're making about writers as meaningless. Beyond that, you have a job, right? So why are you putting others down for being arrogant with respect to writing and selling works to make a living?

Anecdotal evidence, a story or two about an experience and a few broad, unsupportable examples prove nothing. Your statement is still false.

Maybe the problem is in you and your perceptions, CDRW, that everyone is now the enemy since you've announced your intent to get published. Go ahead and believe everyone is your enemy because you want to get published, and they're really not out to help you.

Besides, as stated, you don't need to improve your writing. Get sending out your pieces as they are. Why bother even proofreading them? Count on luck--oh, and call the editors and agents on the phone and be loud and boisterous, because that's the way to get ahead and your agenda taken care of. The logic you put forth indicates that's the path to success.

Your anecdote about Patrick McManus sending out everything he writes doesn't mean he sent out poorly written work.

But you believe it's all luck (or mostly luck), so again, why are you here trying to improve your writing, when it's all luck anyway, and 90% of everything out there is crud anyway. Just send it out enough times, until luck strikes. Maybe it's because you believe that writing a quality story with competence is needed?

You may not like what the reading public chooses to read--what they're willing to pay for, what sells. They have their definition of a good story, and you have your definition of what a good story constitutes. You may not appreciate that some writers have found success by writing what you feel is a poor story and bad writing. But that is the way life is. Maybe there's a niche market out there for what you feel is a good story. Write it and sell it, and get it introduced to other readers.

But then you'd have to be saying you could do it better, and that'd mean you'd be arrogant, or might even believe in yourself, and by definition as you see it, the same thing.

If you're taking pride in your work, aren't you believing in yourself and thus aren't you then being arrogant? And in your world, that's all a bad thing?

And the difference would be? Especially in the context of writers here giving crits and editors helping the author develop a piece that is marketable?

Which comes back to the point: If you didn't want to sell the piece, why are you even consider working with an editor--the enemy? Why are you even asking for crits here, with folks who are the enemy? And why do you provide crits, unless you're their enemy, working to undermine and not be truly helpful?

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

Terry

 

That's because you're not understanding my point as it's written. I am not putting down others for writing as a living. As I have said before, the issue is not the money or selling a piece of work. I am not making an argument for the purity of High Art over Low Art. The issue is in someone getting a job they've strove hard to get, and then turning out products that they admit are inferior. I don't care if you're an author, engineer, cashier, web designer, or burger technician, it applies to everyone. It smacks of ingratitude and it's an insult to the people who didn't get the job who would do their best.

The broad "unsupportable" evidence is far from unsupportable, check the newspapers, and if you don't want to do that I'd be more than happy to collect a sample from each of those populations I've listed. The only reason I haven't listed them is because a large list would take a long time to compile and would make the post unreadable.

I am also not saying that luck will overcome idiocy, only that it plays a larger role in publishing than quality after you've met the minimum requirements, which are extremely variable and quite low in some areas.

You also seem to be equating arrogance with stupidity and impracticality. Anybody who doesn't realize it's a bad idea to piss off the guy with the power is an idiot and deserves whatever the hell he gets.

To be quite frank, I'm not even sure what your point is now, except that I'm wrong. You're asking questions in your post that have already been answered and quoted in the same post. It's all quite circular.

 

Can't you strive for quality within what sells?

Twilight could have retained every attractive aspect for its target audience while also being of much higher 'quality', if only the author put the effort in.

"Being marketable" simply means that you identify the selling points within the type of story you are writing and try to include those points. You conform somewhat to the expectations of your genre, publishing company, or whatever. Can't you strive for the utmost quality within those parameters? You can. And you should.

I don't think anyone here would ever say that you can just dump quality, because shoddy writing with a couple hot points will sell just as well. That simply isn't the case most of the time. Fluke exceptions aren't worth discussing. Aspiring to win the lottery is a foolish endeavor.

RomanticRose could write the best bodice ripper of all time. Just because she conforms to expectations doesn't mean that she can't outperform other authors. You should always struggle to produce quality work, whether you're working within guidelines or not; the overall quality of your work, within the context of what you are writing, is the most likely influencing factor in how well it will sell, providing that you write what your market demands in the first place.

Being marketable is step #1; it's not the be all, end all. You can always go further than simply getting published, and you can always go further than just having a marketable story with relatable characters. Quality of writing is part of what defines marketability, but the skill with which you write is irrelevant if nobody is interested in what you're writing about.

"That's the best nose hair polisher I've ever seen, Ted!"
"Oh, I know! So how many would you like?"
"Umm. . . well, I don't have my wallet with me. I'm sorry! I'll have to catch ya later, Ted. Good luck!"

Quality does sell. Flukes like Twilight are not a good example of what sells. . . It's called a fluke for good reason. You are much more likely to sell more books if you focus on producing the best material possible, in every conceivable way, within any guidelines that might apply. Sometimes there are very few guidelines - only those which define the genre. But it's much more difficult to publish a unique fantasy novel (where general fantasy is a genre with few absolute rules), than say, a Harlequin, as a new author. So I just might have to get into bodice rippers for a while.

I just don't see what's wrong with that. . .

 

Possibly the reason I am having difficulty understanding your point is because you use words and phrases such as believing in oneself and arrogance as being the same thing, when they're not. You use elements of different fallacies to make or support your points. Then, you simply move on when your point doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.

For example, I have witnessed and been a part of many situations where the loud and boisterous individual does not get their way, and things don't get done on their schedule. I am sure many folks have. This simply disproves your assertion.

And, CDRW, you still never answered why you're on this forum and seeking crits or giving them since everyone is the enemy? And there is a difference between giving useful advice and trying to be helpful, especially in the context of folks here with crits, or an editor helping a piece become marketable? And even if there is a difference, how is either a bad thing to provide?

And when you claim idiocy, I simply use your statements and place them in relevant examples to show how they don't stand up.

I don't believe I will alter your cynical perception, but other readers who stumble across this thread should at least be given a view of why they should question the assertions made. If no one challenges it, a writer very early in his or her career will read what on the surface sounds like it might be reasonable and believe it. Such as once you tell people your intention to be published, everyone is then the enemy. Or that

. What you fail to realize, for example, when you write for a certain genre or publishers within a genre--be it YA or Romance, there are formulas or templates, things you can and cannot say, how a novel must end—guidelines that are there and must be adhered to. The writer who steps up and provides the quality work that fits those guidelines gets published and paid. Is it the best work they could possibly do? No, probably not, because of the constraints. But they used the best of their skills and knowledge the job successfully—everyone is happy (except a few—such as those arguing against the point on this forum). The writer is happy, the publisher is happy, the reader is happy. And it is a job that pays the bills. And the creditors/bill collectors are happy.

This is a bit off topic with our discussion but relevant to the overall thread:

For the vast majority of writers who are supporting themselves on their writing, it is a long time between advances when writing novels.

Once established, one may get a 1/3 of an advance upon acceptance of a proposal, 1/3 upon acceptance, and 1/3 when it goes to print (but even then on the publisher's schedule--going through an agent, possibly, sometimes it is 1/2 on acceptance and 1/2 on publication). Then there are the royalties that may come once a book earns out if it does (not counting holding back against possible returns by the publisher--depending on the contract negotiated and also the agent’s 15% or so).

That doesn't stop the rent from being due, the health insurance that has to be paid to make sure the family is covered, that there is food on the table, etc. So the writer has to be productive and doesn't necessarily have two or three years to perfect their next novel. It has to be the best they can do under the circumstances, not the best they can turn out every five years (and more than a few publishers are not interested in a good author who produces every five years, if the author could survive that long). Also, the author may have to do smaller pieces, write articles or other bits that don't really interest him to keep financially solvent.

All of this, remembering, that except for the very very few authors, their next contract weighs heavily on the success of their previous novel or maybe two novels. With this in mind, who would think that an author wouldn't produce the best they could, even given the genre or other possible limitations? (I know for example, a successful author--makes a living at it--sells 50,000+ per title published, who still has word limits the publisher will accept)

There are those that have the luxury to sit back write solely from the heart and create 'a great piece', and not worry whether it will sell or not. Maybe a spouse works and supports the family and the author. Maybe the author's parents let him live in the basement and indulge in his literary efforts. More often, the author works a primary job while working to create work that is publishable.


Terry

 

Yes, it is possible. That is the point I've been making for five pages now.

 

Kas,
Just be aware that to make any kind of consistent income, you'll have to knock out a minumum of two a year -- three or four is better. But hey, come on down to the dark side. We have cookies and champagne -- the good stuff (Peppridge Farms cookies and Cristal champers). Guidelines for all the imprints are availible on eharlequin.

 

Amen, amen and amen. Playing the numbers game by keeping a high volume in circulation will eventually get you published, but skill will make your published works come regularly and build a reputation that will skew the numbers game to your side dramatically. Unskilled writers will forever be relying on the one in a million flukes.

If you have a spectacular novel written, developing a reputation with other work will make it much easier to get it published. Editors are gamblers. They're playing a numbers game too, based on how many people will buy what they read. If you have a reputation for being a reliable thoroughbred with endurance, speed, and technique that can usually win, editors will bet on you more often than they will a one trick pony or a dark horse (unpublished writer). You can get published by playing the numbers game, but you can only build a career on that if your work is excellent every time, if you're a good bet for an editor.

As far as 'selfishness', if you do not love the words enough, even if they aren't your favorite face of writing, to pour your soul into bringing them to life, then you do not love writing for itself, only for your own selfish desires. Is writing not worth loving, even in a genre you aren't a fan of? Love writing for its own sake and you'll love it in any form it comes in; if you do this, you'll do your best to give it flesh and blood and bring it to life.

Sorry if it seems a bit melodramatic, but it is what I believe.

 

Give me some more specific examples of me avoiding an unanswered question, and I will try to answer it better.

This is not an example of me avoiding the question. I answered it, but failed to answer in advance any objections you would raise.

That is not a disproof of my assertion, it is a disproof of your strawman setup of my assertion "The loud and boisterous individual wins every time in every situation." My assertion is, "The loud and boisterous individual wins more often than the person who isn't."

The last time I posted something for review was in early february, well before I came to the conclusions I have. I am not on the forum for the review and crit, and I'm not going to ignore a valuable resource for other information and intelligent discussion because I think certain folks aren't actually here to help when they say they are. The intelligent person doesn't ignore the enemy, he learns from him.

No, you have taken your strawman of my statements and shown how that doesn't hold up, which of course it doesn't.

I have not failed to realize that, and I have acknowledged it multiple times that I realize there are restraints and the author has to work within those restraints in order to get published. That is the reason I brought up High Art versus Low Art.

 

So at the end of the day, it just comes down to 2 ways of thinking about writing. One is practical, one is idealistic. I think this is the part where people agree to disagree?

 

Akraa, I think anyone who is willing to tolerate the inevitable brutal criticism and proportionately low paying job (in terms of hours from start to finish) of being a writer clearly loves writing. You don't have to love exactly what you write at a given time to love the art of writing itself. I can't imagine wanting to be an author without having at least a certain affection for the written word. It would be like becoming a musician to get rich when you have no interest in music. Not the most brilliant plan.

CDRW, I started skimming after a while, as your argument with TW is getting tedious. Forgive me if I'm repeating things, or if I seemed to argue against you when you already agree; I was only trying to summarise my thoughts, and the line I quoted gave me a good place to start from.

 

Marina: Actually, this is usually the part where someone yells 'jihad!' and people start killing each other. Thank god we're writers. We'll probably just take it to nasty PM's instead. Heheh.

Kas: I wasn't saying that it was necessary to love every genre. I merely meant the concept that by writing something that you don't love is selfish is an absurdity. If you love the art, not just the genre, then any work is a labor of love, even a 500 word book review in a newspaper, or a novel in a genre that doesn't interest you to read. You learn to do it, and do it spectacularly so that your words will be read. In truth this is the ultimate altruism of writing. The problem is, if I want as many people as possible to read my writing, I have to accept being paid for it.

(Sorry, a bit of inappropriate humor there)

*points at the next post*
I love being right. JIHAD! (through PMs)

 

No problem, and I agree that it's getting tedious. I'm going to stop replying to the thread before I say anything to get it closed. However, lest anyone think I'm running away after a sound trouncing, I'd be more than happy to continue it in PMs.

Edit: Just a theory I'm throwing out there. It seems like a lot of people can't comprehend that I'd be someone of such a cynical ideology, and still uphold a thoroughly idealist concept.

 

I think that anyone who stumbles across this thread will get the point the participants made and can decide which one is the direction they will take.

I will make one final point. I am a published writer. Despite this, I am not the enemy of those who are striving to be published (or continue to be published and published more often) I visit and post here to network, to learn, and share information and insights I have that I believe will benefit others.

Terry

 

I think a reasonably-minded person reading this thread would have little trouble discerning who's been published and who hasn't.

 

This thread has reached the point where it is generating more heat than light.