Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

Angel wrote: "I've written 554 books in my 24 year career of being a writer. I'm publishing them one at a time at my leisure."

And I thought I wrote a lot :3 props

A.C. wrote: "Written or published? LOL. I have quite a few written - or partially written - but I have published 13 novels (12 95k-110k words and 1 70K words) and 1 short story. I am currently working on my 14t..."

Cool beans, yo.

David wrote: "I published Novel number 6 four days back :~)

Now ten pages into the writing of number 7."

Congrats! Write on!

V.W. wrote: "Published, about thirty-five, give or take a book."

Awesomesauce :D

I have written one. I never realized how much time and work went into doing creating a book. I am amazed at how many books some of you have written. Way to go!!

Martyn V. (aka Baron Sang-Froid) wrote: "Angel wrote: "I've written 554 books in my 24 year career of being a writer. I'm publishing them one at a time at my leisure."

Full-size books? Wow!"

Yes, full size books.

Only one so far, but I'm working on a whole series (at least 8 in all).

Now, I don't want to take away from the achievements of anyone and fecundity is certainly an achievement. However, and at the risk of sounding negative, I don't know that quantity is nearly as important as quality. It always concerns me when I hear someone boast that they have produced hundreds of titles. Now, it is possible that they are a literary genius, but much more often they simply don't spend very much time on editing and revising which generally results in work that is barely readable and certainly not marketable. Some authors are more prolific than others of course - i.e. Stephen King has currently released 49 titles over 40 years whereas Harper Lee only 2 in 55 years. I think everyone would agree that both can be considered successful authors but still, if you are spending less than 9 months to a year per book, I would have serious concerns about the quality.

David wrote: "I would have serious concerns about the quality."

No need to be concerned. If you're interested in buying a book by an author that has written many (or even one) read a few pages and see if their work is up to your standards. If not, don't buy.

David wrote: "Now, I don't want to take away from the achievements of anyone and fecundity is certainly an achievement. However, and at the risk of sounding negative, I don't know that quantity is nearly as impo..."

You are rather selective in your examples. Barbara Cartland wrote 723 novels in her career. While perhaps not masterpieces, no one would call her an insignificant or untalented writer or her books rubbish.

Agatha Cristie wrote 72. Isaac Asimov is credited with 506 published works. Enid Blyton with over 600. Charles Hamilton with 1200, Walter B. Gibson (author of The Shadow) with 325, and John Creasy with over 600 as well.

It is fairly presumptive of you to set a quality guideline based upon nothing but the time taken to complete a novel.

A contrary statement with no greater or lesser validity could be made by taking all the novels that take over ten years to write and which never get published in any form at all or are total failures.

David wrote: "...if you are spending less that 9 months to a year per book, I would have serious concerns about the quality. "

P.S. I'm unclear about your use of the word "that" here. It looks like a typo, but surely one of your literary stature doesn't make typos.

V.W. wrote: "" Isaac Asimov is credited with 506 published works... It is fairly presumptive of you to set a quality guideline based upon nothing but the time taken to complete a novel.
"

Presumptive or not my own reading experience tells me no different.

However, like I said: It is POSSIBLE that the author is a literary genius (and I think you can definitely argue that Asimov fits neatly into the genius category), but I think if you look at the vast majority of successful published authors NOT writing formulaic novels (i.e. Daniel Steele for example, though I think several of the authors you mention fall into that category) Asimov is by FAR the exception rather than the rule. (If I might also point out Cartland, in addition to being HIGHLY formulaic, was charged with plagiarism, so I have to think ripping off other people's work sped up the writing process significantly).

In general, the most prolific writers produce slightly more than one book a year on average. There is just a minimum amount of time that most people need to do sufficient research on their subject, write the initial draft and then revise and edit for release to insure sufficient quality and believability. If all of those steps are not followed and given adequate time then most often the result is less than Pulitzer quality.

I've read WAY to much chattel from Indy authors who had a pretty good idea for a story, but ruined it by publishing too soon to believe otherwise.

Dwayne wrote: "P.S. I'm unclear about your use of the word "that" here. It looks like a typo, but surely one of your literary stature doesn't make typos. "

Quite right. Clearly, I published too soon, did not spend enough time on process and revision and as a result the quality of my comment suffered.

My sister and I have written over 40 books. It seems hard to believe, I remember when we only had two---but the backlist adds up over time. Sometimes it's a nightmare to juggle the promotion. I usually try to promote the latest book.

I agree with V.W. that we shouldn't set a quality guideline based upon nothing but time. Some authors take longer than others until their work is publish worthy.

We should also take into consideration that some authors have written books over the years but stopped at a certain stage and put them to the side and began another. By the time you realize it, you have all these manuscripts waiting to be finished. So that's another reason some can release their books faster.

Until Amazon Kindle came along, I had a stack of manuscripts just waiting to be finished, but I really had no reason to because I couldn't find an agent. When the opportunity to self-publish opened up, I took them off the shelf. And that' why I'm able to publish one after the other without the quality of my work suffering.

Now, I'm working on a book from scratch and it will take time for that one to see the light of day. The constant revisions and editing along will take up most of the time. But certainly not years.

I think, before being so quick to judge the quality of an author’s work, you should consider the fact that there are several reasons why an author may have managed to write so many books in a year.

For one thing, it could be that the author had some old work they just needed to finnish off. In which case, most of the time they were working on it was probably devoted to editing.

For another thing, people write at different speeds, and have different amounts of time available for writing. One person may only get a couple of hundred words written in an hour, where another may easily manage a couple of thousand. Plus, one person may only have an hour or so on the weekend to write, where another may be able to write for several hours every day.

There are other reasons too, but I’m sure you get the point.

Take my own situation: I write for children, so generally my books aren’t more than a couple of thousand words anyway. By the time I found myself in a position to publish I had a stack of stories and poems that just needed a bit of polishing to be completed. Plus, writing is my day job, so a lot of my time is devoted to either reading, writing, or editing. The result being that I was able to publish 40 books in 3 years. And, for the record, I put in a lot of work to achieve that.

Yes, I know there are books out there that were published before they were ready. However, this applies to books that have taken years to write as much as to those that have only taken weeks. It’s like the common opinion that traditionally published books are always better edited than self-published books; it isn’t always true. I’ve seen books written in a few weeks that were edited well, and those that weren’t. I’ve seen books written over several years that weren’t edited well, and those that were. I’ve seen poorly edited traditionally published books, and perfectly edited ones. I’ve seen perfectly edited self-published books, and poorly edited ones. My point is, you can’t judge a book by the amount of time it takes to get published, nor by the method used to publish it.

David wrote: "Quite right. Clearly, I published too soon, did not spend enough time on process and revision and as a result the quality of my comment suffered."

So, do as you say, not as you do. Right? Gotcha.

Victoria wrote: "It’s like the common opinion that traditionally published books are always better edited than self-published books; it isn’t always true."

I agree but it sure helps to get professional editors, agents and publishers to help you release your book to the market. I guess more Indie Books and authors just happened to see the light of day because of internet. (I love you Internet!)

BTW, I have only written one novel.

Prex wrote: "Victoria wrote: "It’s like the common opinion that traditionally published books are always better edited than self-published books; it isn’t always true."

I agree but it sure helps to get profess..."

It does help, yes. It's also something a lot of self-published authors do actually do.

However, even the best professional editors can miss things, as shown by the fact it's possible for traditionally published books to have editing issues too.

Victoria wrote: "even the best professional editors can miss things, as shown by the fact it's possible for traditionally published books to have editing issues too. "

I understand you but upon releasing my novel and having people read them and point out mistakes that I wasn't able to spot, I am not totally confident with how I edit my stuff. It pays to have another person look at your work.

Prex wrote: "Victoria wrote: "even the best professional editors can miss things, as shown by the fact it's possible for traditionally published books to have editing issues too. "

I understand you but upon r..."

Absolutely! I'm not disputing that, and I'm sorry if you thought I was.

My point above was only about not being too quick to judge a book just because of the speed and method involved in publishing it.

Victoria wrote: " about not being too quick to judge a book just because of the speed and method involved in publishing it"

Exactly. There are great writers everywhere; some of them are bloggers or fanfiction writers who often produce more decent literary outputs than the ones traditionally published.

Victoria wrote: "My point above was only about not being too quick to judge a book just because of the speed and method involved in publishing it.
."

The fact remains that if a book is rushed it is just flat out going to have more mistakes than a book that is carefully edited. Author's don't do themselves any favors by rushing. The best books are carefully researched, adequately beta tested, and sufficiently edited (both by the author and the editor). Don't delude yourself. You CANNOT deny that an otherwise pretty good story can be RUINED by sloppy or insufficient editing that leads to grammar and spelling errors as well as plot holes and poor character development. Even if the work is otherwise pretty good, these sorts of mistakes can render it unreadable. Whether the time is stretched out over years or months it still needs to be done or even the best author will risk putting out a shoddy product which can then damage their ability to market their other work.

David wrote: "Author's don't do themselves any favors by rushing. "

Clearly. Slow down, professor.

Another big mistake that some indy authors make is failing to adequately market their books after publication. That's why some authors might have 26 works but only 28 reviews, while others may only have published one work but have 127 reviews. You get out what your willing to put into it and the most important thing you can put into your writing is TIME.

David wrote: "That's why some authors might have 26 works but only 28 reviews, while others may only have published one work but have 127 reviews."

Oh, hey! I have 26 published works and 28 reviews! You have one book and 127 reviews!. Cool how that worked right into your example. Neat.

David wrote: "You get out what your willing to put into it and the most important thing you can put into your writing is TIME. "

Well, all writers are different. We all are interested in different things. I am into it for the craft and for the love of the language. That includes basic things like knowing the difference between "your" and "you're". Some are only interested in seeing how many reviews they can get. To each their own, I guess.

I'm also interested in selling lots of copies of my book too. You know... Rather than attack people who have had some small degree of success, you might possibly consider asking questions and seeing what has worked for other authors instead of being a belligerent spelling Nazi. I certainly try and pick the brains of more established writers. There are lots of authors a thousand times more successful than me and I do whatever I can to learn what I can whenever I can from them. I don't mine debating, but do you think you could dial back the vitriol just a skooch? I really don't know why saying "spending time on editing is good" is a controversial statement.

Two.

I trunked my first one (although I might revive the character later). You can find my second one elsewhere in this forum and it will be released at the end of August.

David wrote: "I'm also interested in selling lots of copies of my book too. You know... Rather than attack people who have had some small degree of success, you might possibly consider asking questions and seein..."

Perhaps because your previous posts can be interpreted to suggest that every other author present who has more than a couple of books out is NOT spending time on editing?

David wrote: "Rather than attack people who have had some small degree of success, you might possibly consider asking questions and seeing what has worked for other authors instead of being a belligerent spelling Nazi. "

So, there's this double-edged sword here. You see a group of authors discussing the number of books they've written and feel it's time to step in with a lecture about quality over quantity. You knew you were out of line, otherwise you wouldn't have started with, "I don't mean to sound negative..." and "I don't want to take away anyone's achievement".

And so on.

But, when someone points out that your own writing may be less than stellar, pointing out glaring elementary errors, they're suddenly some kind of Nazi. As I said before, your main message seems to be "do as I say, not as I do." You're free to call the work of other authors "chattel" but because you consider yourself successful and you have more reviews than I, I'm not allowed to point out the irony in your message.

Going along with what V.W. pointed out, you are coming across as a bit of a snob, sneering at anyone that has a few books out, when you have one and assuming that the only reason must be that they aren't taking the time to edit.

You brought this up. You wanted to talk about authors who write sloppily and do not edit. But, now that you've shown yourself to be just as sloppy, you want to turn the attention to your success and your reviews. I am in touch with a number of authors who have enjoyed success. None are quite as prideful about it as you seem to be.

S.L. wrote: "The more you write, the better you get, and the faster you can polish a manuscript and prepare it for publication."

This is probably true more often than not, but I have found it's not always true. The next thing I plan to publish is taking a lot more work and effort than some of the other things I've published. It's non-fiction, a memoir about my experiences with the paranormal. Unlike fiction where I can see the story unfolding as I write, this piece takes a lot more thought and a lot more revision.

But, yes, I hope to have it done by the end of this month. Then I will be doing a few horror shorts before Halloween. Those won't take nearly as long.

S.L. wrote: "Every manuscript you write should be better than the last, no matter how long the process takes you."

Yes. We're all still learning and growing. No one is ever a true master of this craft. Every piece I do I try to give myself at least one challenge - one thing I've never tried before, just to see how it plays out.

Just finished up number five. Okay, finished up the first draft... minus the final few pages. Jet lag is not, apparently, conducive to finishing a book.

I'm getting close to the end of my fourth actual novel... but so far I've only published one hahaha :P xx

I've recently published my twelfth sci fi novel. Just about to begin edits on number 13.

I published my first book of poetry last August, and currently have another in the works that is set to be released sometime in December.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2...

What S.L. said is true. The more you write, the better you become at the process of revisions and editing and the less time it would take.

I know if I went back to my first novel and read it through, I would cringe.

I completely agree that a book shouldn't be rushed, and that time should be taken to properly research and edit; I'm a firm believer that a book takes as long as it does to be ready, and can not - and should not - be rushed. I also completely agree that poor editing can ruin an otherwise fantastic story, and that poor research can do the same (the latter more in some genres than in others).

However, it's unfair to say that because a book was completed in a very short amount of time, those things were neglected.

All I'm saying is not to be too quick to jump to conclusions on the quality of work based on things like the time between the dates an author has published their books, or the method they've used to publish them. If you've had experience with an author before, or taken a look at the sample, and are able to judge based on those experiences that an author's work is of poor quality, and not worth your time... Fine. Otherwise, give them a chance.

It's also unfair to judge by the number of reviews, since there are plenty of cases where the only reason someone doesn't have many reviews is due to the fact they either have managed to generate interest without being successful in getting those who purchase their books to leave reviews, or most of the people who have shown interest in their books are people who plan to buy the books and haven't done so yet. In fact, sometimes it's a bit of both: most people haven't gotten copies yet, despite showing interest, and those who have didn't bother to leave reviews. It's unfair to assume it's due to a lack of effort on the author's part to market their work. It's people being too quick to jump to conclusions without giving someone's work a chance that stops a lot of fantastic authors - with properly edited books, I might add - from being noticed, and getting reviews; everyone has to start somewhere, after all. Besides, all the marketing in the world isn't going to do you much good if you're spending so much time on it that you've got nothing new to offer the fans you manage to get.

I've self-published four books - a biographical narrative 'Daniel', two novels "The Cornish Knot' and 'The Art of Secrets, and a children's picture book 'Kazam! - and one at about 75% written, which I plan to get finished before the end of the year.
I keep track of each of them by having a separate page for each book on my website and promote them on my blog, Facebook, Goodreads, and my Amazon author page when it's relevant.
Each of them is professionally edited before production and goes through a series of beta-readers, proof-readers and substantive editors before release. Quality is my mainstay and whilst I can't guarantee there isn't a single mistake, I hope there are no more than you'd find in any book whether self-published or traditionally published.
www.vickyadin.co.nz

I've also self-published 4 books (stand alone romance novels).

A couple were completed in writing frenzies; the stories were in my head to the point of obsession; I had to keep writing and writing (I even locked myself away in my bedroom at one point when the step children were around!). So those ones were completed in a matter of months. But yes, there was a great deal of hard work and eiditing completed still.

My current book in contrast has taken me a year so far. I've almost finished draft one. But it has a sensitive storyline which I'm being very careful with, and I changed day jobs, so am getting less time to actually write.

I have a spreadsheet to record main characters (names and appearance etc.). As far as promotions go, I keep track of these in my diary.

T.L. Clark

Victoria said; "However, it's unfair to say that because a book was completed in a very short amount of time, those things were neglected."

I don't think it's unfair to point out that the less time one spends on a particular work, the more likely it is that work is going to have serious flaws. I think it's just the law of averages. Now I'm sure there are some successful, highly popular novels out there that were written over a weekend, but I have to think those are few and far between.

David wrote: "Victoria said; "However, it's unfair to say that because a book was completed in a very short amount of time, those things were neglected."

I don't think it's unfair to point out that the less tim..."

If I'm not mistaken, the amount of hours an editor will spend on a book of a certain length will be the same whether the author has taken ten days to write it or ten years, and is determined by how long it takes the editor in question to carefully read through the manuscript. In other words, it's determined by the speed at which the editor in question can read, while at the same time being able to carefully check for mistakes.

Since people have different reading and comprehension speeds, this means that the amount of time it takes for a book to be properly edited is as difficult to predict as it is to predict the amount of time it will take to write, unless you are familiar with the editor in question. Does it not?

The same thing can be said about beta readers, of course.

You should also take in to consideration that many people have various projects on the go at once in different stages, so will work on writing one while waiting for beta readers and editors to get back to them on another.

In which case, my original point about it being impossible to say whether enough time has been allowed for the work to be done on the book without knowing all the details of the circumstances and workings of those involved stil stands. Meaning that my point about not being too quick to judge an unfamiliar author's work also still stands, since if they are able to write quickly, and have beta readers and editors who read quickly while still being accurate, there is no reason why they can't produce a book of excellent quality in a short amount of time, and follow it with another soon afterwards.

Victoria wrote: "It's also unfair to judge by the number of reviews, since there are plenty of cases where the only reason someone doesn't have many reviews is due to the fact they either have managed to generate interest without being successful in getting those who purchase their books to leave reviews, or most of the people who have shown interest in their books are people who plan to buy the books and haven't done so yet. ."


This on the other hand MIGHT be unfair, however positive reviews are a key marketing tool to positively impact sales of your book. It is true that it MIGHT be the case that a particular novel is an underground sensation but its biggest fans can't be bothered to write a review, but I think most of the time it's more likely that a novel with few reviews has few because the author is not spending sufficient time and effort on marketing and the book is not selling.

Another thing I have learned about reviews, in the beginning it can be difficult to get people to invest the time to give your work a chance, but as the positive reviews start piling up, suddenly people become more willing to take a chance on an unknown author.

Also, most of the small publishing houses I've had experience with in addition to the typical synopsis, first four chapters, query letter, etc. they also regularly ask the author to demonstrate the quality of their author platform - i.e. social media sites, promotional efforts, appearances, etc. Indy authors with lots of positive reviews not only indicate the underlying quality of the work itself, but also show publishers that they are not only getting an author, but a business partner as well, and for a small publisher who might have one employee in charge of marketing (often in addition to other duties) demonstrating that you will be a willing partner as a contracted author can often be the difference between you getting signed vs. someone else with a comparable work.

I think getting reviews for your work is ABSOLUTELY worth your time.

David wrote: "Victoria wrote: "It's also unfair to judge by the number of reviews, since there are plenty of cases where the only reason someone doesn't have many reviews is due to the fact they either have mana..."

I completely agree that getting reviews is worth your time. I'm just saying that not having loads of reviews doesn't mean the author hasn't tried.

David wrote: Another thing I have learned about reviews, in the beginning it can be difficult to get people to invest the time to give your work a chance, but as the positive reviews start piling up, suddenly people become more willing to take a chance on an unknown author.


Preach, brother! Yes, it is true that we cannot judge the quality of the book based on the reviews alone but first and foremost, a book is not a blog. Authors have a target audience in mind. Without a reader, the book is nothing. These days, people value recommendations from their peers and this is where a review, whether good or bad, matters. A blog can thrive with or without a review most especially if the bloghost just wants to share his thoughts to nobody in particular.

Victoria wrote: " I'm just saying that not having loads of reviews doesn't mean the author hasn't tried..."

I don't know about you, but when I pick up a novel to read on a lazy Sunday afternoon, whether or not I think the author "tried" is hardly one of my chief criteria in deciding whether I want to drop $9.95 on a paperback. I want a quality work about which I have reasonable confidence that it will be well done and I will enjoy it. I might read a few pages, but I definitely check out the reviews - ESPECIALLY the bad ones. If it's something like "the story was stupid!" "I hate fantasy!" "There was too much sex!" or "The author used too many big words!" I will generally assume a matter of taste - that it just might not have been a particularly good fit for that particular reader, but don't necessarily take it as an indictment of the book's literary quality.

If on the other hand there are lots of complaints about spelling and grammar errors, poor character development, or major plot holes, I tend to avoid those because it is likely that the book is just simply no good.

Now, as far as how long the editing takes... You don't do yourself any favors by sending an error laden manuscript to a copy editor. First, it will cost you more (usually the more difficult the job the more editors tend to charge) second it is more likely that an editor will miss things if they are popping up every other sentence or paragraph. You should get your manuscript as clean as possible before sending it off to be edited.

David wrote: "I don't know about you, but when I pick up a novel to read on a lazy Sunday afternoon, whether or not I think the author "tried" is hardly one of my chief criteria in deciding whether I want to drop $9.95 on a paperback. I want a quality work about which I have reasonable confidence that it will be well done."

I think you misunderstood. I meant that not having a lot of reviews doesn't mean the author hasn't tried to get more reviews. Meaning, you can't judge how much time has been spent on marketing by how many reviews a book has.

David wrote: "Now, as far as how long the editing takes... You don't do yourself any favors by sending an error laden manuscript to a copy editor. First, it will cost you more (usually the more difficult the job the more editors tend to charge) second it is more likely that an editor will miss things if they are popping up every other sentence or paragraph. You should get your manuscript as clean as possible before sending it off to be edited."

I wasn't suggesting that anyone would be sending an error laiden manuscript to their editor. I was simply trying to point out that without knowing the details of how many hours someone has to spend on each stage of the project in a given day, and how fast they are able to do things such as write, read, and edit, you can't accurately judge whether or not they've spent enough time on those tasks. Just because it takes you a certain amount of time to do something, doesn't mean that's the amount of time everyone needs to perform the task.

I have published one book (The Day We Are Born - shameless self-promotion...), and my second one is with my editor as we speak (biting of nails!). My first book took four years to write while my second only one year - I chopped and changed so much the first time round, but learnt from my mistakes and found the writing of the second book much smoother. I was a journalist for 15 years, so writing and editing was my meal ticket, and still, writing and editing a book took loads of effort! The best tip I was ever given was to read your whole book out loud to yourself as a final edit before you send it to anyone else. It felt weird to do so! But it works... I found several errors even though on my last edit, I would have sworn it was copy perfect. (Of course, my editor still found mistakes...) I also have a group of friends and former colleagues who all read my book before it was published - I believe you can't have too many people read it first!

@Philippa
And that's what you should do. That's all I'm saying.

@Victoria
It might not be fair, but you cannot assume that potential readers will give your work the benefit of the doubt. They will absolutely make assumptions about it before buying (or not buying) and you need to be aware of them.

As for "trying to get reviews" in addition to time I think you also need efficiency (of which I admittedly had none in the beginning). An awful lot of writers go about getting reviews in exactly the wrong way. If you are not sure how to approach it, it can certainly feel like you are beating your head against a wall, but once you have a methodical process, you'll be surprised at how successful you can be. A while back I even wrote a blog post about it...

https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...

David wrote: "@Victoria
It might not be fair, but you cannot assume that potential readers will give your work the benefit of the doubt. They will..."

That's true; people will always make assumptions. I just wanted to point out things to consider before jumping to conclusions about an author's work, in the hopes that doing so will make potential readers think before making judgements based on things such as the time and method involved in publication. Judgements based on reviews are fair enough. But if there aren't any reviews, or the reviews that are there aren't making complaints about the overall quality of the work, give the author a chance; even if they publish something every month. At least take the time to read the sample. That's all I'm saying.

Also... You're right that in addition to time you need efficiency when it comes to marketing. However, different methods will work better for different people (partially determined by the genre and subject matter of the book in question, though not exclusively). Yes, there are some general tips which will work well most of the time, but there are exceptions. So, again I would like to point out that a low number of reviews is not always a good way to determine how much effort the author has put in to marketing. I do agree though that the more good reviews you have, the better, and that time and effort does need to be put in to aquiring those; first by doing all you can to make your bbook the best it can be, and then by devoting time to marketing. It's important, however, to make sure to continue writing too, since there's not much point in working hard to build a large fan base if you're not going to be offering them something new at some point in the future.

Besides, many people will tell you that multiple titles increase your chances of having your work discovered accidentally. So, if you have the ability to produce multiple titles every year, and still market those titles, without the quality suffering, what's wrong with doing so?

Victoria wrote: " However, different methods will work better for different people (partially determined by the genre and subject matter of the book in question, though not exclusively)... Besides, many people will tell you that multiple titles increase your chances of having your work discovered accidentally."

I'm still lurking and reading along, but I haven't had much time until just now to say anything today.

Thank you, Victoria for being a voice of reason and wisdom.

You are right. All writers are different and what works for Joe Blow many not work for Joe Schmoe. My writing is very different from what David is doing. This is not to say it is better, just different. I write very quirky, eccentric things, so I have to take a different approach to it. I haven't yet published a novel. I'm working on building a following, first. All the titles I have out there are short stories and a couple of novellas.

While reviews can help and they are nice to get, they don't strongly fit into the advice I've been given by some of the more successful authors I know. They have told me to:

1) Keep writing. Keep putting things out there.
2) Make the writing solid. The best form of marketing, according to them, is word-of-mouth. If you write something that gets people excited and that they remember, they will pass the word on. And that has been happening. Again, reviews are nice and I do appreciate them, but people have to find your work first, then read the reviews. Word-of-mouth will draw people to your work.

This has, so far, been working for me. I am not saying it is the path everyone should take. We all need to try different things and see what works.

The vast majority of avid readers may occasionally recommend a book to an acquaintance, but they never post a review on a literary or vendor website.

Consumer reviews are intended as a means of sharing a reader's subjective opinion of a book with other readers, not as a personal message to the author. Therefore, a professional author should not obsess over reviews and never comment on one - positively or negatively.

Jim wrote: "The vast majority of avid readers may occasionally recommend a book to an acquaintance, but they never post a review on a literary or vendor website.

Consumer reviews are intended as a means of s..."

Not comment?? But, but, that would mean I couldn't use my collection of expressive icons like -



(I'm kidding for those who can't tell).

Dwayne wrote: "This has, so far, been working for me. I am not saying it is the path everyone should take. We all need to try different things and see what works."

Exactly!