# If you could figure out a secret formula to writing a best seller would you do it?



## Antics32 (Apr 17, 2014)

I'm new to this forum and I hope this is the best place to post this discussion.  I write as a hobby and so far I have only one self-published novella.  I can honestly write I am proud of that work although I have probably only sold ten copies.  I've read tons of the classics and for me the written word ends with the generation of Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Steinbeck.  Those three would have to be my literary role models.  I look at what is successful now and it is either trash for teens or trash for housewives.  

Here is my dilemma, all this trash writing is formulaic.  I'm pretty certain if I wanted to write marketable writing all I would have to do is spend a year studying popular fiction, figuring out the formula and then producing the same junk to get published.  From my experience in our current time what distinguishes a good writer from a bad writer is whether someone can mimic this formula in a marketable way.

Would you do that?  Would you produce something that is trash but will make you money?


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 17, 2014)

Hi and welcome  - Congratulations on publishing your first novel. I hope it is the first of many.

I don't think trash gets published traditionally as a rule but it does get self published all too frequently. (There are no agents and publishers acting as filters)

It is comforting for many amateur and self-published writers to consider successful works (I mean by sale figures) of poor quality. 

There will always be a group of writers who will try to chase the latest fad, but the majority will merely add to the growing pile of vomit that is substandard self-published crap.

There are many authors on this site, both traditionally and self-published. That I know of, there is only one who accepts he is seeking to do whatever makes him most money. - The rest of us are doing no more than pursuing a passion and, if we get paid for it, then all the better.

So speaking for myself... Well, I just write.


----------



## Trygve (Apr 17, 2014)

> Would you produce something that is trash but will make you money?


I think that in any artistic endeavor, if money is your primary focus, all you'll make is trash.  

There are plenty of good novelists out there these days, well-deserving of being called descendants of Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Steinbeck.  Personally, I've never been thrilled about _The Great Gatsby_ as a novel, but there are some great passages contained within it that I've read over and over because they were so well-crafted.  You can walk into any airport book store and pick up a current novel that will take you somewhere more exciting than any place listed on the departures board.


----------



## Clove (Apr 17, 2014)

Do it under a pseudonym, get rich, and then publish 'real' fiction under your real name. Win-win, situation! Although, having tried to do just that with a friend, I will say to try and latch onto the fad-market is harder than it looks. All the _really_ successful novels start the trends, rather than follow them - and regardless, a lot of best-seller fame/money will come from the amount of work you put in, in terms of book-promoting and advertising and whatnot.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 17, 2014)

If I could do it as scifi and the characters were at least my own creation? Yes. Yes I would.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 17, 2014)

There's no guaranteed formula for success, but there is a not-so-secret formula that many successful authors use to build their stories: the three-act structure. 

If you really want to learn it, I recommend reading up on all the best screenwriting books, as film writers have been ironing out this structure for decades. :encouragement:


----------



## Jeko (Apr 17, 2014)

'Writing a bestseller' is not in my list of interests; 'bestseller' is a monetary concept, and hence a negative influence on a more creative process such as writing.


----------



## ViKtoricus (Apr 17, 2014)

Antics32 said:


> I'm new to this forum and I hope this is the best place to post this discussion.  I write as a hobby and so far I have only one self-published novella.  I can honestly write I am proud of that work although I have probably only sold ten copies.  I've read tons of the classics and for me the written word ends with the generation of Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Steinbeck.  Those three would have to be my literary role models.  I look at what is successful now and it is either trash for teens or trash for housewives.
> 
> Here is my dilemma, all this trash writing is formulaic.  I'm pretty certain if I wanted to write marketable writing all I would have to do is spend a year studying popular fiction, figuring out the formula and then producing the same junk to get published.  From my experience in our current time what distinguishes a good writer from a bad writer is whether someone can mimic this formula in a marketable way.
> 
> Would you do that?  Would you produce something that is trash but will make you money?





Absolutely.

I'm willing to sacrifice dignity for money.

What's the use of being dignified if you don't live a comfortable life? You can always be dignified when you're rich, but you can't always be rich when you're dignified.


----------



## Clove (Apr 17, 2014)

ViKtoricus said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I'm willing to sacrifice dignity for money.
> 
> What's the use of being dignified if you don't live a comfortable life? You can always be dignified when you're rich, but you can't always be rich when you're dignified.



A lot of writers have other jobs - why must you only earn through writing? Earn via another job and then you can be 'dignified' all you want in your literary endeavours.


----------



## ChristinaH (Apr 17, 2014)

I wrote one suspense book. Suspense is kind of formulaic. But it was still fun to try to do it well. For example, there was a plot twist at the end! Big surprise! But it was really fun to try to do that well. I had a sociopathic serial killer! Very creative -- not. But it was still fun to create my own sociopathic character.

So I think my answer is yes. I can see trying to write, say a romance, but trying to do it well. Even though the formula for that genre normally annoys me.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 18, 2014)

Cadence said:


> 'Writing a bestseller' is not in my list of interests; 'bestseller' is a monetary concept, and hence a negative influence on a more creative process such as writing.



Why is it that so many people think making money and writing quality work are mutually exclusive?

I see nothing wrong with striving to find the formula for a best seller, while still making it a quality work.

The thought that making money=writing mediocre books seems rather silly to me. A good story has the potential to be a best seller whether mediocre or well written. It's all in how the story resonates with a given audience.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 18, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Why is it that so many people think making money and writing quality work are mutually exclusive?
> 
> I see nothing wrong with striving to find the formula for a best seller, while still making it a quality work.
> 
> The thought that making money=writing mediocre books seems rather silly to me. A good story has the potential to be a best seller whether mediocre or well written. It's all in how the story resonates with a given audience.



Thank you. I have never understood this distaste for writing for money, or the idea that deciding to write for money will somehow degrade one's writing. A great many people in the world wish they could earn money doing what they love, and a great many more go into one area of what they love because that's where they can make money, versus another area where they can't. Don't know that they're automatically assumed to do crappier work because of it, or that they're somehow selling out to do so, so why should writers face this assumption? If I didn't want to make money, I wouldn't be trying to get published. I'd just post my stuff on my website and let people read it for free.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 18, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Thank you. I have never understood this distaste for writing for money, or the idea that deciding to write for money will somehow degrade one's writing. A great many people in the world wish they could earn money doing what they love, and a great many more go into one area of what they love because that's where they can make money, versus another area where they can't. Don't know that they're automatically assumed to do crappier work because of it, or that they're somehow selling out to do so, so why should writers face this assumption? If I didn't want to make money, I wouldn't be trying to get published. I'd just post my stuff on my website and let people read it for free.



I can understand the distaste if the writer's sole motivation is monetary.

However, I still don't think that being motivated to write something that makes money is automatically going to make the writing bad.


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 18, 2014)

I think making money is a by-product of creating a good story, and writing it well. I would agree that there is likely a hint of formula about maximising its success, but I'd suggest the main ingredient is writing with passion, tenacity and with talent!


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Apr 18, 2014)

For one, I'm immediately turned off by the word formula. You've already put yourself in a box. Two, money doesn't mean much to me. I would love the notoriety, though only if it was for the right purposes. I would loathe myself if someone came along and said to me "I'm gonna put you on the best sellers list. All I need you to do is write a young adult vampire story. Just saturate the market with another BS teenage angst vampire book." If I got famous under that pretense I would probably take my money and go drink myself to death in a cabin in the middle of nowhere. Fame would almost scare me for the reason that my image, and even my message to a degree, would be out of my hands. It would have to happen the right way.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 18, 2014)

Formula doesn't bother me. When I was in high school, I took all the creative writing classes I could. And I wanted A's. I knew what the teacher liked, I knew what the teacher expected, and that's what I wrote. And I wrote the best darn stories I could, even when the subject given was not something I particularly cared for. To me, the challenge of writing is being able to take even the lamest idea and making it into something fantastic. I don't always succeed, but I give it my best shot each and every time. 

If I didn't care about the money, I wouldn't be aiming for publication. I'm not interested in the 'fame' - I'm a troglodyte by nature. And the idea of working through query letters and agents and contracts - why on earth do that if there's no chance of compensation somewhere down the road? If someone said, "I like your writing - can you do a teenage vampire story?" and there was every chance of it earning me money - darn tootin' I'd write it. And it would be the very best teenage vampire story I could write. Because _every _story I write is the very best I can do.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Apr 18, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Formula doesn't bother me. When I was in high school, I took all the creative writing classes I could. And I wanted A's. I knew what the teacher liked, I knew what the teacher expected, and that's what I wrote. And I wrote the best darn stories I could, even when the subject given was not something I particularly cared for. To me, the challenge of writing is being able to take even the lamest idea and making it into something fantastic. I don't always succeed, but I give it my best shot each and every time.
> 
> If I didn't care about the money, I wouldn't be aiming for publication. I'm not interested in the 'fame' - I'm a troglodyte by nature. And the idea of working through query letters and agents and contracts - why on earth do that if there's no chance of compensation somewhere down the road? If someone said, "I like your writing - can you do a teenage vampire story?" and there was every chance of it earning me money - darn tootin' I'd write it. And it would be the very best teenage vampire story I could write. Because _every _story I write is the very best I can do.



And I have a ton of respect for that. But I think I'm different in that I have a kind of idea of what my writing should be. So it's one thing for me to be given a topic and then cree range like the way the challenges here work. But its another thing to tell me that my writing needs to fit this formula or genre or whatever to make it big. Thats just something I personally have a problem. I want my writing to be heralded for what it is. Not for because I made it to someone's guidelines.


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 18, 2014)

I think the basic formula is for a talented person to write a good story well, and I think it could be considered self-appeasement to think that there is any other reason you are not successful...

Unless you're writing in an unmarketable niche, I think it is safe to say success will greet those few of us who have enough talent. - The rest of us, if honest, accept we're amateurs indulging our passion for writing.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 18, 2014)

> Why is it that so many people think making money and writing quality work are mutually exclusive?



I might have been unclear; I do write in order to make money. But my _aim _is to write quality work. Look at it this way:

Write a good story -> make money out of it.

That works, generally. As long as you can sell your work to the publishing industry, and they can sell your work to the public, you should be able to make a profit. But the other way round:

Aim to make money -> Write a good story

That doesn't work. You won't write better because you want to make more money; the video I posted in another thread outlines the psychology of this and why money isn't a good motivator for a creative task. The first aim should be to write a good story; money should be off the table.

Therefore, I ultimately want to make a living out of being a writer. But when I sit down to write, my aim is to write a good story. In order to write a good story, I don't think about money. I'll make money if I write good enough stories, so I need to focus on writing stories, not making money.


----------



## patskywriter (Apr 18, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> I think making money is a by-product of creating a good story, and writing it well. …



Making money *can* be a by-product of writing a good story, but only if people know about it—and that's where the marketing comes in. And marketing can be fun if you like doing such things as being interviewed (print, radio, TV, Internet).


----------



## spartan928 (Apr 18, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I might have been unclear; I do write in order to make money. But my _aim _is to write quality work. Look at it this way:
> 
> Write a good story -> make money out of it.
> 
> ...



Well said. Writing quality work and making money are mutually exclusive. They rely on two completely different processes, dynamics, skills etc. One does not necessarily beget the other. As Cadence suggests, dangling a wad of benjamins in front of one's face will not produce brilliant stories. It didn't for Rowling, Christie, Patterson, Steele, King, or any other successful author. It happened for them because they truly loved what they were doing, believed in the writing they were creating and busted their behinds night and day to create it. The fat stacks came later. 

There is a suggestion in the OP that formula equals greater chance of success but that is blindly ignoring dozens of facets of successful publishing, the most prominent of which is, it is very, very, very hard to actually sell a lot of books regardless of how formulaic or even good it is. Only a handful of people manage it because tens of thousands of people are trying to every day. Writing does not serve a formula. You use templates, techniques or formulas to serve your writing.

I think Cadence's statement above is perfect because it probably says a whole lot about the quality of writing that writers actually produce when you discover their mindset. Becoming a professional writer is an incredible accomplishment for those pursuing it. But, let's be real here too in addressing the subject of the OP that getting to that level takes more talent, devotion, luck and a willingness to accept a low return on investment of said energy and devotion than probably any other profession. You have a greater chance of achieving financial independence working at your local Olive Garden than through writing. Yet, if you really love writing, if that is the thing that excites you every day, by all means go for it. Just go for it with your eyes open so you don't slam into a wall of disappointment every time you kick out a novel. Do it because you live to write, not because you write to live. Personally, and again it's my perspective only, I think that mindset helps narrow the focus on the writing itself and allows a person to reach their greatest creative potential. Which in turn, allows the work to serve the writer with the greatest chance of publishing success.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 18, 2014)

This idea that money is not a good motivator is valid only to a point. If Person A is using money to motivate Person B, then it's only a partial solution to get Person B to do what Person A wants. But if Person B is motivated by money, Person B will do what is necessary to get that money. And I don't understand why this presumes that, if Person B is a writer, that will not motivate them to write better. There's a big judgement being made here that I don't think is either accurate or fair. What matters is the person is motivated to write better - _what _motivates them is inconsequential. I dare anyone here to point out which authors wrote for money and which ones wrote for "love" based solely on quality of writing. And I doubt that any agent or publisher could tell either - or would care one iota.


----------



## Clove (Apr 18, 2014)

I must say, there's a lot of idealism going on about here. To be a noble/_Nobel_ writer is a wonderful endeavour, but to exclude the idea of money and commerce with quality of literature as coexisting is presumptuous by far. Money is a brilliant motivator. It's what motivates us through our careers, our lives, and the very actions we take all comes back to it. Why would money not be a good motivating factor for a full-time writer who needs to write and publish a short-story, or hand in a newspaper article, in order to earn a paycheque? Not being able to put food on a table, or pay for petrol, seems a hell of a motivator to me. However I, like many others, am lucky that I do not need to rely on writing to support me but am aware that other people do. And as shadowwalker above put it in better terms than I, so long as one is motivated - for whatever the reason - the end product could be just as lofty as any other reason. 

Money shouldn't be this almighty tainting evil when we discuss it with the art of writing. Someone above mentioned that dangling money in front of a writer could not produce great literature, but I find that bollocks to be honest. What would the multitude of creative writing competitions - with glamorous large cash prizes - have to say about that? They get people to write. You may never have wanted to write a story based on the theme 'diaspora,' but hey, maybe for £2500, you might just do that. Obviously, not every writer may feel lulled by writing competitions, or the need to earn money, but that does not make them 'better' writers for eschewing a commodity which, at the end of the day, allows us to write in the first place.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Apr 18, 2014)

I think writing is generally a hard thing. Even if you are saturating the market with aforementioned "BS teen angst vampire book." You still have to fill 300 pages. If I was just out to make a boat load of cash I would go delve into like, pop music or something like that because it doesnt take any effort. I suppose you could find a cheap way to write a best-selling piece of crap with minimal effort, but if you're that vapid I think writing might be the last thing you do. All thoigh it could be a cheap ploy done by someone already famous. 

"I'll just have this sap here write my auto biography even though I'm a 12 year old pop star and make a billion dollars off it." But in general I think writting is too laborious to be the lazy man's way into money. And as far as being motivated by money, its not something I'm motivated by, but if I could get paid to write instead of what I get paid to do now, I would be over joyed. Like I said before, I would be catious as I would want my writing to be famous for what is and what somebody else made it (as the question suggests thats what would be happening) but it might even inspire me to immerse myself in it more than I do now.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 18, 2014)

I think it's much easier for a person who doesn't really _need_ the income from writing to be idealistic. 

As for motivation...

My motivation, other than to write a damn good story and the pure joy I get from writing it, is to have my story sell. I hope that it sells, and sells enough for my family and I to be at least a little bit better off financially than we are today. 

I fail to see how having that as my motivation, is going to cause me to write badly. As a matter of fact, that motivation is going to push me to make damn sure that my novel is as good as I can possibly make it.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 18, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I might have been unclear; I do write in order to make money. But my _aim _is to write quality work. Look at it this way:
> 
> Write a good story -> make money out of it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the clarification.

I think there may be a little confusion, though.

While a part of my motivation is to make enough for my family to be in a better place than we are now, it's not my entire motivation.

Tht is the kind of thing I am talking about. Not having money be the only motivation.


----------



## A_Jones (Apr 18, 2014)

Antics32 said:


> I'm new to this forum and I hope this is the best place to post this discussion.  I write as a hobby and so far I have only one self-published novella.  I can honestly write I am proud of that work although I have probably only sold ten copies.  I've read tons of the classics and for me the written word ends with the generation of Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Steinbeck.  Those three would have to be my literary role models.  I look at what is successful now and it is either trash for teens or trash for housewives.
> 
> Here is my dilemma, all this trash writing is formulaic.  I'm pretty certain if I wanted to write marketable writing all I would have to do is spend a year studying popular fiction, figuring out the formula and then producing the same junk to get published.  From my experience in our current time what distinguishes a good writer from a bad writer is whether someone can mimic this formula in a marketable way.
> 
> Would you do that?  Would you produce something that is trash but will make you money?




I have not read the previous posts.  I want to say that up front.  I also want to up front say that what you have said here is understandable but still very offensive to me.  I would have to whole heartedly disagree with you that formula writing is trash.  To the very bottom of my being I am saddened by your blind opinion of it.  Where do you think the formulas came from?

Writing an original story at this point in literature's growth is almost impossible.  We learn this in collage.  Any story written is influenced by other stories.  Every writer has a role model.  Did you know that at the time of Fitzgerald and Steinbeck others were writing stories very much like them, and even before, it just turns out that they were the ones who did it best.   

I base my writing around formula with one gigantic difference.  I take the formula and I turn it upside down and backwards.  But still my work isnt anything new.  Many people have done it before.  But what I bring is wholly me.  One hundred percent of what I write came from some place deep inside myself, and it as as original a work of art as I myself am.  Are you calling me trash?  I write a formula novel which is trash in your opinion.  And my novel is me, all of me, so that must make me trash right?

I understand that you think it is wrong to write for money.  I can agree to a point.   I could never write a formula for something to become a rich person.  Could, not would.  However I did go to school to learn the proper way to write, the way that makes people listen.  I studied the formulas of fantasy, epics, scify and realistic fiction so that I may understand what works in a novel. And hopefully live off that passion, yes in a monetary way.  I am an academic I do not work well in a labor position.  I do not wish to be rich.  I learned it all so that one day I would write a novel, spin the yarn of my story, and teach people through my message, who I am.  

And I am damn proud that I do it!

Thank you.
AJ


----------



## Jeko (Apr 18, 2014)

> Writing quality work and making money are mutually exclusive.



I don't think you mean 'mutually exclusive'; that would mean that they can't both happen at the same time.



> While a part of my motivation is to make enough for my family to be in a better place than we are now, it's not my entire motivation.



But that's not _money_; that's the benefit of your family. Money is the means to attain it, but the more important goal is what you do with the money.

When people say 'money' is their motivator, they often mean, as you've shown, something that money enables, rather than money itself. A lot of the time it's making money _yourself_; that is, not being paid by a 'boss' - in other words, autonomy. _That _is a very good motivator, and is, IMO, why a lot of people think they're being motivated well by 'money'.



> You may never have wanted to write a story based on the theme 'diaspora,' but hey, maybe for £2500, you might just do that.



Glad you brought up competitions; it summons up more of the complexity of the issue. 

The monetary reward is a good starting point, yes, but what then? Every time you struggle to find the right word, do you really want '£X' in your mind? Will that give you the words you need? The money may make you strive to write the story as well as you can, but thinking about that money while you write will distract you from the story, its characters and the characters' conflicts, goals and the rest. So in order to get that money, you have to stop thinking about the money. 

Additionally, a distinction must be made between general 'money' and 'this much money'. They are different focuses.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Apr 18, 2014)

Only if it would enable me to spread my message of the book to a mass-market audience.

Good answer?


----------



## Jeko (Apr 18, 2014)

A writer should say to himself, not, How can I get more money?, but How can I reach more readers (without lowering standards)?

-Brian Aldiss

(edit - would sound better if he didn't imply that all writers are male...)


----------



## stevesh (Apr 18, 2014)

Clove said:


> I must say, there's a lot of idealism going on about here. To be a noble/_Nobel_ writer is a wonderful endeavour, but to exclude the idea of money and commerce with quality of literature as coexisting is presumptuous by far. Money is a brilliant motivator. And as shadowwalker above put it in better terms than I, so long as one is motivated - for whatever the reason - the end product could be just as lofty as any other reason.
> 
> Money shouldn't be this almighty tainting evil when we discuss it with the art of writing. Someone above mentioned that dangling money in front of a writer could not produce great literature, but I find that bollocks to be honest.



So do I. Frankly, the only reasonable measure of whether you're a good writer or not is the number of books, articles, stories, etc. you're able to sell. Yes, there's total crap that sells well (I'm looking right at you, E. L. James), but the idea that the literary world is chock-a-block full of wonderfully written prose that can't find an audience is nonsense.

A couple of quotes I like:

"I'm a commercial writer, not an 'author.' Margaret Mitchell was an author. She wrote one book."

Mickey Spillane


After winning a libel suit over a particularly savage review by a British critic, Liberace coined the famous phrase,

" I cried all the way to the bank."


----------



## dither (Apr 18, 2014)

At my age it's all about financial security, if I could find ANY way, any legal way, of attaining that, well what do you think?
Yes of course it would be nice to do that with the pen but that isn't gonna happen.


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 18, 2014)

stevesh said:


> ...Yes, there's total crap that sells well (I'm looking right at you, E. L. James), but the idea that the literary world is chock-a-block full of wonderfully written prose that can't find an audience is nonsense.



I never read it. - Most people I'd spoken too who have, thought it either good or reasonable. - Mind you, you're the first bloke I've come across that gave it a try.

One day I do accept I will have to try reading Twilight. - My niece loved it (at age 16), and I think it still sells well now.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 18, 2014)

> Frankly, the only reasonable measure of whether you're a good writer or not is the number of books, articles, stories, etc. you're able to sell.



From what I've seen, a lot of popular authors find their way of making a living out of their work and, beyond that, they don't write any better. They may be the ones selling more books, but the 'good' writers, IMO, are the ones who are willing to put their success on the line, and the money they make with it, for the pursuit their artistry beyond the point where their craftsmanship is enough to make them a living. They don't just sit comfortably where they know they can sell their work; they continue to push the boundaries of what their writing is capable of, and it shows.

Those are the authors I admire. Those are the authors I aspire to be.



> One day I do accept I will have to try reading Twilight.



It's a surprisingly worthwhile exercise in seeing what attracts such a wide readership. I'm studying it for a super-curricular project at A level.


----------



## spartan928 (Apr 18, 2014)

stevesh said:


> So do I. Frankly, the only reasonable measure of whether you're a good writer or not is the number of books, articles, stories, etc. you're able to sell. Yes, there's total crap that sells well (I'm looking right at you, E. L. James), but the idea that the literary world is chock-a-block full of wonderfully written prose that can't find an audience is nonsense.
> 
> A couple of quotes I like:
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I'll step back and concede that any motive to write is the writers personal thing; money, love of writing, sex, awards, attention, finger exercise, escape from a nagging spouse, whatever. Yet as it pertains to the OP, the notion that producing formulaic writing somehow increases one's chance for publishing success is bollocks[SUP]2[/SUP]. If you wanted to produce a formula to write a bestseller, as an unknown author, writing whatever "it" is has no greater chance for success than writing what's on fire inside you to write. Writing something that becomes a bestseller is a gift bestowed on very few writers out of the tens of thousands churning out books every day. I'm suggesting to the OP that true publishing success is extremely rare, so be careful thinking that trying to emulate others' work is the path to that success. I don't believe it. I believe that the best chance for success is being true to the stories that you feel passionate about telling, whatever they are. 

Also, Mickey Spillane is a great example because I feel a large part of his success was hatched from his innovation as a thriller writer. Nobody wrote the edgy, sexy, violent stuff he did in his day. He was an original, and so I think if you want to sell millions of books like Spillane did (and continues to), be original too.


----------



## Lyra Laurant (Apr 19, 2014)

Antics32 said:


> I'm new to this forum and I hope this is the best place to post this discussion.  I write as a hobby and so far I have only one self-published novella.  I can honestly write I am proud of that work although I have probably only sold ten copies.  I've read tons of the classics and for me the written word ends with the generation of Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Steinbeck.  Those three would have to be my literary role models.  I look at what is successful now and it is either trash for teens or trash for housewives.
> 
> Here is my dilemma, all this trash writing is formulaic.  I'm pretty certain if I wanted to write marketable writing all I would have to do is spend a year studying popular fiction, figuring out the formula and then producing the same junk to get published.  From my experience in our current time what distinguishes a good writer from a bad writer is whether someone can mimic this formula in a marketable way.
> 
> Would you do that?  Would you produce something that is trash but will make you money?



I think you are being rude to the writers who put their hearts and souls in their stories trying their best to reach their target readers and, by consequence, became bestsellers.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 19, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I don't think you mean 'mutually exclusive'; that would mean that they can't both happen at the same time.



Well...sometimes it seems like that is the message being put across here.



> But that's not _money_; that's the benefit of your family. Money is the means to attain it, but the more important goal is what you do with the money.
> 
> When people say 'money' is their motivator, they often mean, as you've shown, something that money enables, rather than money itself. A lot of the time it's making money _yourself_; that is, not being paid by a 'boss' - in other words, autonomy. _That _is a very good motivator, and is, IMO, why a lot of people think they're being motivated well by 'money'.



I understand the subtle difference. However, it still comes down to being motivated by the money. I can be motivated to make a better life for my family, but it's still going to come down to making money. Mostly, it's a case of semantics and how people want to view the difference.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 19, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> I never read it. - Most people I'd spoken too who have, thought it either good or reasonable. - Mind you, you're the first bloke I've come across that gave it a try.
> 
> One day I do accept I will have to try reading Twilight. - My niece loved it (at age 16), and I think it still sells well now.



I'll say this because I like you, Gav.

When you finally decide to pick up Twilight, please make sure there are no sharp objects within easy reach. I give this warning because you'll be wanting to gouge your eyes out before you are ten pages in.


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 19, 2014)

The thing is, it's an immensely popular book, and I don't think it has led to mass self-mutilation.

IF I were to read it as a writer, I may perhaps feel the need to shove a spoon in my ear, and scoop out lumps of infected brain, but I need to understand it as a reader for there must be something of merit therein.

But I will make sure I've a medical team on hand as I read.


----------



## Greimour (Apr 19, 2014)

"Teenage Trash"
"Housewife Trash"

So you are neither a teenager nor a housewife and do not favor these novels and therefore they are trash?
I've said before that I have no interest in certain classic literature writers.

 Hemingway has some wonderful quotes but Ive never managed to get absorbed in his work the way I did for Roald Dahl. 
I never found interest in Steinbeck the way I found interest Mark Twain. 
I never done back flips in marvel of Shakespeare or Dickens but found my self awed with Dan Brown, Derek Landy, J K Rowling and Phillip Pullman...

So what you call 'trash' other people call treasures.
I think it's a little narrow minded to sub-categorize everything that isn't to your liking as trash. I think Hemingway, Steinbeck and Shakespeare were all geniuses and more than those to-boot. But I have little to no interest in most of their works.

To me, trash is words on a page with no meaning, no end, no purpose. 
A story on the other hand... a story takes you places in your imagination. Shows you things, teaches you things, shares secrets or mysteries, surprises you, makes you smile, laugh or perhaps cry from heart ache. A story is a tool of magic and any book that fulfills it's purpose is not trash. Whether it did it for one person or a million. 

I don't write for money, but my genre of choice is "Teenage Trash" I write YA Fantasy Fiction mostly... but because I am not Hemingway or Steinbeck or fashioning my writing after them, my stories are automatically trash?

Sorry but I fail to see your point of view.


***

P.S. 

Gav, regarding twilight... I have read them all. I Liked them until I watched the films... I wasn't big on vampires or that typical teenage romance crap - Dracula, Twilight, Buffy, whatever... vamps aren't my thing... but Terry Pratchet had some vampires in some of his work and they didn't bother me. Nor did Derek Landys vampires bother me... 

Yet somehow, I honestly, to my great surprise, truly liked and enjoyed reading the entire twilight saga.


----------



## stevesh (Apr 19, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> I never read it. - Most people I'd spoken too who have, thought it either good or reasonable. - Mind you, you're the first bloke I've come across that gave it a try.



I should say that I read the first twenty pages or so standing in the bookstore, and it was so poorly written I couldn't go on. I never even got to the good parts.


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 19, 2014)

Scary to think something that poorly written could sell so well. I'll not knock the author, for she's done something we all aspire (and fail) to do, and that is write a book enjoyed by countless others...

I could say such things as 'sex sells', but we're talking about the success of a single book within the genre, and one that's flooded with many such books. - IF she can write something so poorly written in an over-subscribed genre and sell more books, with greater speed, than anyone else in history, the woman must be an absolute genius.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 19, 2014)

> I can be motivated to make a better life for my family, but it's still going to come down to making money.



If it was about the money itself, you'd probably be trying to get it with something other than the written word; there are many, many easier ways to make money. I don't want to sound like I'm being personal, but it sounds like you're more motivated by wanting to make money through something you love than by the simple prospect of money. That, again, is a better motivation than money alone - you want the money to come out of the talent you have.



> I could say such things as 'sex sells', but we're talking about the success of a single book within the genre, and one that's flooded with many such books.



Twilight doesn't have any sex. It's mostly lust; I would guess that the reader's desire for it to be fulfilled through physical action is substantial enough to make some readers follow the characters like they're carrots on sticks.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 19, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Scary to think something that poorly written could sell so well. I'll not knock the author, for she's done something we all aspire (and fail) to do, and that is write a book enjoyed by countless others...
> 
> I could say such things as 'sex sells', but we're talking about the success of a single book within the genre, and one that's flooded with many such books. - IF she can write something so poorly written in an over-subscribed genre and sell more books, with greater speed, than anyone else in history, the woman must be an absolute genius.



I don't know if she's a genius, but I'd definitely agree with anyone who says she had talent. Her millions of fans were evidence of that. Despite what any critics may say, Meyer knew how to please her intended audience with the written word.

Unfortunately for them, she stopped writing after a beta-reader stole an early draft of her next book and released it to the public. She now feels negatively about writing, because of that, and all the hostile criticism she received after getting popular. So, the writing world lost a rising star. 

Some authors even celebrated her early retirement. Strange, to me, how someone can revel in another writer's downfall, but then again a lot of people are spiteful toward those who reach success. Sad, but true.

Personally, I think her writing in _The Short Second Life of Bree Tanner_ and _The Host_ was stronger than her writing in the _Twilight_ saga. She evolved from a published amateur to a published professional, in my opinion. Funny how that works!


----------



## Bishop (Apr 19, 2014)

[Accidental reply, please delete.]


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 19, 2014)

Would I write something I have no interest in writing just to sell it? No. I have to feel passion for what I'm writing or it doesn't happen. If that passion is there to help me write a bestseller, then hell yeah I'll write it. But it has to be because I want to.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 19, 2014)

Passion is over-rated, IMHO. Ask journalists if they have to feel passionate about their assignments in order to do them. There are lots of things in life I'm not passionate about doing, that, quite frankly, I loathe doing. But doing them allows me to reach a goal, so I do them and I do them to the best of my ability. 

If one chooses not to do something for money, all well and good. But all this looking down noses at people who write primarily for the income (whether they earn their living from it or not) is really unwarranted. Some of the greatest writers did precisely that, after all.


----------



## Greimour (Apr 19, 2014)

stevesh said:


> I should say that I read the first twenty pages or so standing in the bookstore, and it was so poorly written I couldn't go on. I never even got to the good parts.



The copy I had on my e-reader was poorly writ, but the actual book wasn't so bad. I didn't expect there to be a difference, but sadly there was. Typos,, misplaced punctuation and missing apostrophes, even a missed out letter or two... but the book wasn't so bad. Started off with a mild interest for me and I wasn't overly keen on the reading of it:



> My mother drove me to the airport with the windows rolled down. It was  seventy-five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue. I  was wearing my favorite shirt – sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was  wearing it as a farewell gesture. My carry-on item was a parka.



Blegh!

I am not sure at what point the book took hold of me, but at some point, I found myself no longer reading words and instead watching the scenes play out. I was living it, feeling it, seeing it... at the end of the day, that's what I look for in a book, regardless of genre and why I often find myself in YA fantasy fiction sections of the bookstore. They often grab my imagination most. 

At any rate, I was dragged into the world eventually and from there to the end of the final book I was hooked. Then I watched the films and I completely lost interest in it all.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 19, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> Scary to think something that poorly written could sell so well. I'll not knock the author, for she's done something we all aspire (and fail) to do, and that is write a book enjoyed by countless others...



As I have pointed out previously, it depends on the audience and how the story resonates with them. The thing about Twilight is that it hit just about the perfect audience. It got away with being poorly written because most of it's target audience simply isn't all that savvy about what good writing actually is. Slogging through a few hundred pages of a teenage girl being depressed may not work well, especially when poorly written, for those of us who are well past our teenage years. But it worked perfectly well for those tweens and teens who thought it was the coolest thing ever.



> I could say such things as 'sex sells', but we're talking about the success of a single book within the genre, and one that's flooded with many such books. - IF she can write something so poorly written in an over-subscribed genre and sell more books, with greater speed, than anyone else in history, the woman must be an absolute genius.



In "over subscribed" are you referring to the vampire/werewolf thing? If so, then that's not entirely accurate. The YA market has become saturated with vampires and the like _because_ of Twilight. It's the result of a whole lot of writers thinking that they have a better idea, and publishing houses looking for that one book that is going to strike a chord with a huge audience.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 19, 2014)

Cadence said:


> If it was about the money itself, you'd probably be trying to get it with something other than the written word; there are many, many easier ways to make money. I don't want to sound like I'm being personal, but it sounds like you're more motivated by wanting to make money through something you love than by the simple prospect of money. That, again, is a better motivation than money alone - you want the money to come out of the talent you have.



Fair point, and pretty doggone accurate. Nicely said, Cadence.

I really do want to make money from my work because I know I have the talent to do it.


----------



## J Anfinson (Apr 19, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Passion is over-rated, IMHO. Ask journalists if they have to feel passionate about their assignments in order to do them. There are lots of things in life I'm not passionate about doing, that, quite frankly, I loathe doing. But doing them allows me to reach a goal, so I do them and I do them to the best of my ability.
> 
> If one chooses not to do something for money, all well and good. But all this looking down noses at people who write primarily for the income (whether they earn their living from it or not) is really unwarranted. Some of the greatest writers did precisely that, after all.



I didn't mean to come across as snubbing those who do, only that I have no desire to write something I have no passion for, even for the money. Those that do, power to them. I won't knock Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown, or anyone else on the bestseller list. They've probably made more money than I ever will, and are more popular than I'll probably be as well.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 19, 2014)

J Anfinson said:


> I didn't mean to come across as snubbing those who do, only that I have no desire to write something I have no passion for, even for the money. Those that do, power to them. I won't knock Stephanie Meyer, Dan Brown, or anyone else on the bestseller list. They've probably made more money than I ever will, and are more popular than I'll probably be as well.



I wasn't pointing the finger at you - sorry if it came across that way. But I was pointing fingers at the general attitude displayed in this thread, that makes it seem that if one is not doing it for "the art" there's something wrong about it or the writer. Methinks some folks need to jump off their pedestals...


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 19, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> As I have pointed out previously, it depends on the audience and how the story resonates with them. The thing about Twilight...



Ah sorry, my post was a response to Stevesh, in reference to E L James, not Twilight.

It is not a direct relationship, but there must be some correlation between the success of the author and their talent. (When comparing within each genre)


----------



## Jeko (Apr 19, 2014)

> But all this looking down noses at people who write primarily for the income (whether they earn their living from it or not) is really unwarranted.



Just to clarify; I'm promoting that, according to psychological studies, money is not a good motivator for performing better at a creative task. I'm not looking down on those that ultimately write for money, because I'm one of them. But money isn't my motivation; what drives me is the desire to have the money I make come out of my love and talent for writing.


----------



## W.Goepner (Apr 19, 2014)

Pidgeon84 said:


> And I have a ton of respect for that. But I think I'm different in that I have a kind of idea of what my writing should be. So it's one thing for me to be given a topic and then cree range like the way the challenges here work. But its another thing to tell me that my writing needs to fit this formula or genre or whatever to make it big. Thats just something I personally have a problem. I want my writing to be heralded for what it is. Not for because I made it to someone's guidelines.



I respect that you have your standards, We all have them. Not to be judgmental but you have narrowed yourself into a standard of me and mine. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I write what I am comfortable with because, I know no better. Meaning I have a very difficult time writing the bad guy or the controversial caricature. I can get angry, sad, and even vindictive, But that is me as I am sitting here. Someone says, acts, accuses, or defiles me personally, Then I react.

So Vampire and evil scare your sox off type writing might never come from me. Taking that into consideration, IF, someone were to come to me and say there is a big pay off if I pull one off. Would I try? Maybe. Because I would like to try and write the next Twilight Saga. Not for the notoriety or the money, But to say I did it. You know the Personal accomplishment. The I did it, I win, thing. 

When working outside of your comfort zone, it should be a challenge to do your best in it. Take it and mold it into what you are and make it the best piece of writing you ever done. Writing does not have to be junk or trash to sell today. Look at Ann McCaffery, Brian Jacques, Mercedes Lackey, Christopher Paolini, J.K. Rowling, and  Jean M. Auel. These writers have all hit the best sellers list and (in my opinion) are definitely not trash. But they are found in the YA and Adult sections of most book stores. I know when I saw one title or author pass my station when I worked the packing lines in the B&N warehouse. I became curious as to who and what they wrote.

Whew got off tract a bit. Look If nothing else. If it sells and people read it, if the reviews do not make it sound as if it was a piece of junk. Then who or what makes it trash? In my opinion, junk writing or trash is, simply put, something that someone threw together to meet a quota and never thought to edit or refine it. The only time money can diminish a work is in that manner. I might never get published. I may never write the next big thing. But I would not just finish a story because my editor or agent says "Deadline". Maybe that is why I refuse to have one and am working through this forum.

Really it is only a compromise if you feel it is.


----------



## W.Goepner (Apr 19, 2014)

J Anfinson said:


> Would I write something I have no interest in writing just to sell it? No. I have to feel passion for what I'm writing or it doesn't happen. If that passion is there to help me write a bestseller, then hell yeah I'll write it. But it has to be because I want to.



Yes and no. Yes I might try, No passion does not have to guide my writing, though it does. I think we tend to blur the lines between Passion and knowledge. Knowledge of subject, line, pattern, flow, and structure. is what makes the story flow from out proverbial pens. If we have the full story within out minds and only have to add the details when we put it into writing, it can feel like a passion. When those structures are weak, or unclear, within our minds, we struggle to ad the definition. Therefore we feel less passionate about it. The only thing which separates writing from a more permanent form of art such as carving, A detail can be erased within the written word that is more difficult to fix on the carving. I know I carve also. I find carving more difficult at times because I do not always get my hand to do what my eye or mind sees.


----------



## W.Goepner (Apr 19, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Just to clarify; I'm promoting that, according to psychological studies, money is not a good motivator for performing better at a creative task. I'm not looking down on those that ultimately write for money, because I'm one of them. But money isn't my motivation; what drives me is the desire to have the money I make come out of my love and talent for writing.



You are right there take it from a self proclaimed perfectionist. Though you would not believe it in my writing. But when it comes to the other things I do like my carving, walking sticks or figurines, or working on my vehicles. Things must have a feel, look, or function correctly. This cannot be done in a volume affair. Mas-production which is the greater drive behind sales, is detrimental to creativity and therefore quality. Quality is what most of us strive for in our writing. When we get pressured by sales and deadlines, quality drops off. Point; look at Steven King. His novels take one to two years to complete, at minimum. A rarity was once he did two or three in a year and a half.

I personally have not tried to read his works. Having listen to people who have, and how they describe them, some are awed some are disappointed, Some say dry ,others say it had them riveted. Non have said, what I would call a, WOW you need to read this to me. Though he is a best selling author and screenplay.(I believe)

No money is not a good motivation, but it might be for some. I will not detour anyone who wants to make money from trying. But I would discourage it from being the reason to finish a piece when they are struggling.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 19, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> This cannot be done in a volume affair. Mas-production which is the greater drive behind sales, is detrimental to creativity and therefore quality. Quality is what most of us strive for in our writing. When we get pressured by sales and deadlines, quality drops off.



But we're not talking about "mass production", although there are many writers who are very prolific and manage to do excellent work. As to deadlines, again I would point to journalists - a number of Pulitzer winners wrote under extreme pressure and still produced excellent work. 

And again, if writing for money isn't your thing, no problem. But we should stop making assumptions about others and their work based on our own views.


----------



## Lytharicus (Apr 19, 2014)

I agree that the idea that getting money for writing does not make you a sell out. There is no reason you cannot make a book and do it well and get paid for it. You just have to be willing to do the marketing, or find someone else who will, in addition to writing something that people have an interest in. Many books have very similar themes or plots, but the style of the writing or details of the characters and settings make it compelling. I think if you can use your formula to come up with an idea you can get into writing about you should go for it.


----------



## bookmasta (Apr 20, 2014)

Not to be rude, but I think its pointless to ask such a question. My reason being is simple. No writer, at least from all of whom I know, have ever set out to write in search of literary greatness. They do it because they love what they do. The success they earn is a byproduct of their work and a reward for what they've done. To skip forward all the way to having a secret formula for a best seller is like skipping out on the journey, which kind of deflates the purpose of writing. Argo, you take the reason out of writing in the first place. Anyway, if I ever do become good enough to write a best seller (in my dreams) I would want to enjoy the journey along the way rather than skip straight to it.


----------



## W.Goepner (Apr 20, 2014)

bookmasta said:


> Not to be rude, but I think its pointless to ask such a question. My reason being is simple. No writer, at least from all of whom I know, have ever set out to write in search of literary greatness. They do it because they love what they do. The success they earn is a byproduct of their work and a reward for what they've done. To skip forward all the way to having a secret formula for a best seller is like skipping out on the journey, which kind of deflates the purpose of writing. Argo, you take the reason out of writing in the first place. Anyway, if I ever do become good enough to write a best seller (in my dreams) I would want to enjoy the journey along the way rather than skip straight to it.



And the crowd goes wild. Never heard a better statement than you just made. (bookmasta not everything that follows is directed at you)

"Antics32',s" A secret formula, in deed. No, writing is not an exact art, or a fly by night endeavor. Writing is a skill that today might be a breeze, yet tomorrow a major challenge. To say one does it for the money, I say good for them, if they can achieve their goals. To say writing for money takes away from it, I say that is narrow minded. When some one becomes famous and achieves that plateau, the challenge becomes even greater for them, because of the demand for more or even greater works. But takes away from quality or determination, NO.

Antics32, To call a different venue of the art trash, (some others have commented on that here,)  my view is this. Michael Angelo (not sure if I got that right) Carved stone and painted Great works. Vango painted differently, My old Family dentist created great statues of cement, My cousin's wife paints abstract. Any or all of these artiest can or have gained monetary value and notoriety of some amount. Is any one of them trash or Junk? Only to those whom do not see the value in them. But NO ONE, except an art critic, will openly state to a vast number of people that one over the other is junk or trash. And most of all that is just their opinion. Yes opinions can hurt, and they can stink, but that is what they are and we can choose to like or hate them, or even, (what I try but quite often fail to do)is ignore them. 

Here is MY main complaint that "Antics32" did, (and I see they posted just once and no more. hmm raises questions, like how were they able to post this to begin with?) They post into a Writers Forum, that houses a multitude of writers from every venue, then states one or more venues to be trash or junk. They cause a great four page debate on the value of writing to sell. Where they, HAVE NOT ONCE! come back to comment on any of it. (of course they might be suspended at this time)

People lets just say we disagree on this. We all have an opinion as to the subjects value or merit. We must, however, remember that it is how we are and choose to be. Writing for some is an enjoyment that might never be noticed by the multitude readers out there, because they cannot see putting their works out for that sort of reticule. Others will be disappointed when no matter what they try they just cannot seem to get it right. I have a few venues I am attempting and might even fail at completing, due to my lacking of knowledge or understanding. I do know that my first works to be printed might not be the Aha one, that it might be some twenty books later where someone says, "This is great" and proceeds to find the rest of my writings and see what they missed out on. Then the trend might get started.

Now back to bookmasta, Hey please, do not belittle your dreams, they can become a reality. I know I am at least going to try and get one out there. I hope I can do more but my time is limited, I will be 54 at the end of May and if it takes me another five years to get my second book done, well let me say I see where it will end. Hehe. But who knows Maybe the literature gods will shine on me and I can pull off my miracle.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Apr 20, 2014)

W.Goepner said:


> People lets just say we disagree on this. We all have an opinion as to the subjects value or merit. We must, however, remember that it is how we are and choose to be. Writing for some is an enjoyment that might never be noticed by the multitude readers out there, because they cannot see putting their works out for that sort of reticule. .



The good thing about this place, though, is that even though some of us may disagree, it's done respectfully. As long as that remains the case, I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to discuss it should we choose to do so.

Personally, I like to see the viewpoints of others who are doing their best to make themselves the best they can be at their craft.

I agree that it is rather suspicious that the OP hasn't been back. But, hey, it gave us something to talk about.


----------



## bazz cargo (Apr 21, 2014)

Buy a copy of Writer's and artist's yearbook, read the guidelines that are specific to whichever genre or outlet you are interested in and write something to order. Money for old rope? No, it is tougher than you think.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Apr 21, 2014)

This is a great thread.  Adding my 2 cents.  No solutions offered here - only observations.
We should start by getting a few misconceptions off the table.
1.  Most everything we do in life, we do for money.  (or sexual gratification but that a whole other conversation)
2.  Most everyone is looking for some kind of formula - whether it be the 'Bestseller' formula or your own personal formula for writing is a matter of personal choice.

Sadly, the concept of quality gets pushed to the wayside in favor of success.  If you sell a million copies, you are most often considered 'A great writer' by the vast majority of the sheeple.  
Take Dan Brown for example.  Sold a ton of books.  Do a google search "first line of the da vinci code" and you will see page after page of critique on Mr. Brown's prose.  James Patterson?  Don't even go there.  We've been over the 'worst of the worst' writers numerous times in a variety of threads.  

The idea that writing a good story will get you to the payday is a lie.  I imagine that if 'The Count of Monte Cristo' were released today it would BOMB.  Doesn't start with an inciting incident.  Too much back-story before we get to the good stuff.  

Yes, it will take a good story to get to the payday but that's not the determining factor.  Trends, Marketing, Social media, a support network, luck, black magic and a sacrificial lamb could all be factors.  

Or you could write that formulaic pop-culture - pulp fiction masterpiece and have it tightly plotted with real characters etc. and it could sell ZERO copies.

I totally agree with the post that states that writing with an economic gain in mind is the best way to ensure that you fail.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 21, 2014)

I'm not so cynical that I don't believe quality and success are compatible. So many critics of so many writers look at only one aspect of quality (the one that matters to writers) and ignore the other aspects (the ones that matter to readers). So what if the prose isn't the greatest? As a reader (and one of some intelligence) I can skip the less than stellar prose if the storytelling is good - and _that _is what makes or breaks a book, IMO.

So I just don't believe that writing with earning money as the motivator automatically means poor writing, nor do I think that money cannot be a strong self-motivator. (And yes, I've read all the literature on money as motivation, btw - got my degrees in that sort of thing. But that's talking about motivating employees, not oneself.) It might not work for all writers, but it doesn't mean it won't work, period.


----------



## Gavrushka (Apr 21, 2014)

How I'd love to believe I wasn't successful because my work was too high quality... - That's simple blather amateurs like to believe... - Yes, a gross simplification I am sure, but it beggars belief that some people seem to argue they're failures because their work is too good.

In the main, we're unpublished authors because we ain't good enough... We're high on ego, but low on talent... Maybe if we shed some of the former, we'd have a little more room to grow the latter. (This isn't meant as a dig at the majority who get their heads down and strive, but to those who feel they're too pure for success)


----------

