Connecting Readers and Writers discussion

Good advice. I've always been told I'm filled with energy and enthusiasm and I've done pretty well for myself because of it. I've seen so many people drop out, giving up on their dreams because of people telling them they were wrong or foolish.

Yeah and I was one of them. My biggest regret in life was listening to those people (hence the violence evident in my writing).

Thanks for the comment!

Luke wrote: "My latest blog posting is up and it tackles those pessimistic people who would seek to discourage you from your dreams. https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog......"

Oh Luke! I just read your blog and you made me laugh out loud! Thank you so much for your honest, and obviously heart-felt, outlook on our writing endeavors. I haven't yet published my third book, but this morning I began writing my fourth. I am writing the memoirs of my life. I have had many people tell me I'm nuts to do such a thing. But do you know what? Those who have read my first two books, love them and are anxiously waiting for the third to be published. Please, allow me the opportunity to join with you and Shaun, and other fellow-authors, and give ourselves a big THUMS UP!

Victoria wrote: "Luke wrote: "My latest blog posting is up and it tackles those pessimistic people who would seek to discourage you from your dreams. https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog......"

Thanks :) People think you are an idiot before you are published and a genius afterwards.

Luke wrote: "Victoria wrote: "Luke wrote: "My latest blog posting is up and it tackles those pessimistic people who would seek to discourage you from your dreams. https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog......"

You are still making me laugh; I love it!! Thanks.

Now you need to do two more posts:

"Don't let winners discourage you!"
...and...
"Don't let losing discourage you!"

The former takes care of the depression you get when you look at the (very) few who actually make it and realize how poorly you compare to their success. They don't really matter any more than the negative people trying to pull you down, but comparing yourself to them is a potential source of internal negativism. It ain't good.

The latter takes care of the depression you get when you persevere only to find the response from the public is a whimper (a whisper or nothing at all) rather than a roar. After all, they say that every overnight success is at least 10 years in the making...and there are plenty of famous people whose work was not celebrated during their lifetimes (Van Gogh, El Greco, Galileo Galilei...etc.)

Great suggestion. The problem in my eyes begins when you start to compare yourself to others. There is value to be gained on one hand, but you can be your own worst enemy if you dwell on others. My son used to run races as a child and he would look back to see how close the other kids were. I kept telling him when he does that he slows down and he's going to trip and fall one day. Of course, he only took my advice after falling on his face and losing a race. My point is you should only be racing yourself. Don't try to beat the other guy, try to beat yourself each time out.

Your other point is good too and that stems from unrealistic expectations and the buttholes that tell you selling x number of books isn't enough.

Care for some blowback? I actually despised most of what I just read in that blog post, and I'm happy to state why--in detail. If you want to make me out some kind of 'gloomy gus'--I can handle it. How you respond though--will be very 'telling' as to your 'butthole' theory. I'm sure that you will agree with me that someone who is not a butthole, can handle negative criticism when it appears. Right?

Basically, I think the underlying flaw in your points about the publishing industry is that they have nothing inherently to do with 'people being negative'. You can't glibly misconstrue all the very serious and real concerns associated with e-format books, as just emanating from 'people being buttholes'. One has nothing to do with the other. You should at least make this distinction in your rant.

Hey, if folks in your own personal life have hindered your own personal goals; okay--that's unfortunate. But you can hardly extrapolate that experience into some overblown platform as you have done here--tilted against the 'pro printed page'-minded. When it comes down to cases, e-publishing has a lot more burden-of-proof to provide before it might ever gain acceptance as a replacement-for-print. Print has proven itself to be successful with a 600 year track record. Digital really has nothing comparable to recommend it, and your remarks don't assuage the situation in the least.

Okay so, here we go.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...It isn’t a coincidence that these same people rarely accomplish anything of significance..."

FD: By who's measure? Truly an American --a very 'materialistic'--outlook. Why is it all about results and products and manufacturing with some people? What you don't realize is that a lot of times, the point is to just to be the best person you can be--this means acquiring wisdom and judgment for its own sake. Not everything in life is 'only good' --if it 'generates a result'. Maturity and acumen are in no way, 'vindicated' by having to 'produce something which impresses others'. That would really be a very limited view of life.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...We no longer have a choice of a few books to read in any given month. Now we have the choice of a lot more books (good or bad) which sounds like growth to me..."

FD: It isn't, though. More like, mutation. Don't confuse 'motion' with 'progress'. Flooding any market with a glut of 'cheap product' destroys whatever value that market previously had. Simple truism.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...But, while there’s more competition; there are also vastly more tools and opportunities for writers to promote their books..."

FD: Yeah but who cares if the books are shyt, in the first place?

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...You will see in the coming replies that things have never been better for a writer (or any creative type for that matter)..."

FD: I actually don't see it it at all. Things are not 'better' for genuine authors. Ask any author trying to write in the category of literary fiction these days. "Things are better" (perhaps) for 'genre authors' and 'grub street hacks'; but who cares about whether life is better for those clowns? The internet made life better for spammers, too. Is the growth of spam, a boon for the rest of us?

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...Publishers still don’t quite consider self-published books real books. That is changing rapidly..."

FD: No, its not. E-Books will never be real books; it doesn't matter what anyone says or how any 'trend' may be wending. The disparity between the two formats is nothing which can be glossed over. And there is quite an inherent disparity. You're under-emphasizing the drastic array of downsides which accompany e-books.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...People are abandoning print books for the cheaper, easier to get, and more plentiful eBooks..."

FD: And for a lot of other moronic motives. It doesn't necessarily follow that its correct, or right, or good.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...The pie is larger and now mostly feeds the writers and not giant corporate publishers. Writers and readers are still benefiting from this change..."

FD: Sales and profits are not the only way to rate the merit or demerit of this vast transformation. Frankly, your remarks show a dismaying thinness, superficiality, self-interest, and callousness towards what are very serious drawbacks associated with e-publishing.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...This is now irrelevant. Fighting for shelf space was the print boy’s game; we don’t play that shit no more. Now the fight is…there is no more fight. Writers write, readers read, and a book has a 100% chance of being available to a worldwide audience forever. Who wants to be on a shelf anymore?..."

FD: Its not about the 'shelf'; its about the publishing houses that used to stock-the-shelves. They were valuable and important gatekeepers.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...Now an author can work at selling a book forever..."

FD: Do you think that makes a better author? It doesn't. It makes these jokers even worse. Like an explosion of used-car salesmen.

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...The most effective marketing you can do for a book, or almost anything on the Internet, is to write. Write blog postings, articles, comments, interviews, etc. Using Goodreads, Library Thing, Twitter, Face Book, LinkedIn, and other social sites you can keep your audience updated on your writings as they are released. The Internet is starved for content, (not spam and ads) so, create the content you are so good at and love to create. It’s gold man...."

FD: No. Its BS. The internet is a BS machine, a disinformation dispenser; nothing more. How does what you advise here improve anything? Why is 'more' BS 'better' for us?

Luke Ahearn wrote: "...Publishers rarely marketed books..."

FD: They provided a crucial infrastructure, is the better way to state it. Just because authors used to have to go on promotional circuits didn't mean the system was broken. Plus--nowhere in your remarks--do you even consider the entire sphere of academic publishing. Typical.

Look, I don't care how enthusiastic you are about your career as an author. Nor do I care how insistent you are that people-in-general be more positive and upbeat. Whether we're discussing the book industry, or anything else--you can't just dismiss hard facts as 'doom-speak'.

There is simply another whole perspective to your points; this perspective is a vital component of any debate about publishing; and you are shunting that aside by framing it as 'negativity'.

Promulgating a more cautious, reserved perspective does in no way mean that we who do so are simply 'debbie downers'. Show me a man who grins all day long ...and I'll show you an idiot. Rose-colored glasses, etc. See how it can cut both ways?

Meanwhile, if you want to have a serious discussion about publishing, you know where to find me.

There's a book here on Goodreads which is very apt for me to recommend at this moment:

Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America

FD

Feliks wrote: "Care for some blowback? I actually despised most of what I just read in that blog post, and I'm happy to state why--in detail. If you want to make me out some kind of 'gloomy gus'--I can handle it...."

I was seriously considering making a comment and then thought better of it. Of course, being an old woman and not very technical, I have no idea how to get out of this little box without commenting!

I think you are completely wrong. My posting is to encourage writers. If I tweaked you in some way I am sorry but you seem to be the epitome of a butthole.

Another thing. A person dressed like a communist and a profile set to private has no credibility. You are a coward and exactly who I was talking about. You reacted in the same fashion I describe.

Luke wrote: "Another thing. A person dressed like a communist and a profile set to private has no credibility. You are a coward and exactly who I was talking about. You reacted in the same fashion I describe."

Oh Luke, I don't even know you and yet, I am so proud of you. You have the courage to say what you think and to keep a positive perspective on things. You try to build people up and give us encouragement. I believe that's what people are supposed to do for one another. Yes, I'm old and have seen a lot of life, and that's my perspective; we need to support each other and help each other achieve success. I have a Masters Degree from the School of Hard Knocks and you what? I'm glad of it; I have learned a lot about life, the good, the bad, and the ugly. I almost died a year and a half ago, that has added to my conviction that we all need to help and support each other. Life's too short to live on the negative side!

You are so right and thank you for your comments. I am glad we have had the chance to chat here.

I agree with some of what you said, but the difference between traditional publishing and what we have now is so dramatic I can't even address it here. The traditional publishing industry is a business not a bunch of noble genteels looking for great literature. The publishing industry as it is now didn't exist when most classics were written. Everyone acts like writing is a dying art because more people are doing it. And really, who can stand there and tell me that it was better when a few elite individuals could decide on a few elite books to publish. We may have a mountain of bad writing now, but also a lot of good too. And the elite literate types won't go away and they won't be diminished. Just as there are still great artist and musicians precisely because we gave the hoypoloi access to some basic music and art lessons.

But my focus is solely on encouraging authors to write. To discourage someone from expression of one's self is borderline evil. I feel that way because I was raised in a pessimistic environment with a nihilistic world view. It was a dark and depressing childhood and I was convinced I was the crazy one. I met someone who simply turned my thought in the right direction and I was both excited at what I could do and angry at what I was deprived of. I have accomplished so much more than I ever thought possible it still makes me choked up thirty years later. So you can see why I hate buttholes who write long replies arguing against positive thought.

So yes there are some harsh realities, I don't deny that, but to trumpet "the harsh realities" will more likely kill the next great literature career than ebook technology will. I let the so-called realities hold me back because, why try right? When I started to dare ignore the over educated naysayers I took off. I have published a good number of books and with established publishers, crooks, and by myself. Positive encouragement is going to keep writers writing, not some shit we can argue over and debate.

Well, I am not here for this crap and the only reason I reply is because I don't want people discouraged by overly pessimistic thought. Who is Feliks anyway? Maybe I am way off base, but I suspect he's never accomplished anything in his life.

Luke wrote: "I agree with some of what you said, but the difference between traditional publishing and what we have now is so dramatic I can't even address it here. The traditional publishing industry is a busi..."

Amen!

Well, I am not here to debate or discuss, only encourage.

A few other observations also just struck me. If these ten points are a sample of the criticisms that detractors and nay-sayers are spouting lately and if it is this type of obstruction which makes would-be authors suffer doubts and qualms..I'd say all ten of them are missing the mark. They're written as if its a 'given' that the aspiring-author-in-question, has written something fine, noble, and worthwhile...and that its just a matter of "solving the riddle of selling his work". They're written as if the only consideration is that of marketing and ROI for the author.

Let's re-hash them here quickly for convenience:
“1. The number of books being published every year has exploded.”
“2. Book industry sales are declining…”
“3. Despite skyrocketing e-book sales, overall book sales are still shrinking.”
“4. Average book sales are shockingly small, and falling fast. Combine the explosion of books published with the declining total sales and you get shrinking sales of each new title.”
“5. A book has less than a 1% chance of being stocked in an average bookstore.”
“6. It is getting harder and harder every year to sell books.”
“7. Most books today are selling only to the authors' and publishers' communities.”
“8. Most book marketing today is done by authors, not by publishers.”
“9. No other industry has so many new product introductions. Every new book is a new product, needing to be acquired, developed, reworked, designed, produced, named, manufactured, packaged, priced, introduced, marketed, warehoused, and sold. Yet, the average new book generates only $100,000 to $200,000 in sales, which needs to cover all of these expenses…”
“10. The book publishing world is in a never-ending state of turmoil.”

Really, the thing that these ten bullet-points miss is the issue of literary quality. Its 'cart-before-horse'. Marketing should be secondary to ability. Sales, secondary to content.

Although these points come not from some figure any of us personally know or respect (they're just commentary contained in an internet article and not intended to be taken personally) Luke basically asks us to imagine these points coming from someone close to us, someone 'hindering our dreams'.

Well. In that scenario, these ten points are really 'pussyfooting around'. Someone truly hindering your dreams would be telling you something like, "You suck..your writing is garbage..you have no talent...your book is lousy". Right?

Isn't the first concern you want to satisfy--as an aspiring author--more this kind of thing? "Is my writing ability shyt?".."Can I write?".."Am I competent?"..." All questions of quality.

It should not be, "hey everybody, look at me, I've just written something, why aren't you purchasing it--godamn you!"

Next: the article comes from someone named "BJ Gallagher" (aside: why would a woman ever use those initials??) Anyway, she's a 'sociologist' and 'best-selling author'. Well..me, I'd put more stock in what she has to say if she was some kind of bonafide insider to the publishing industry. Some doubt is raised there, right-off-the-bat. Who is BJ and what is her authority to speak on the history of publishing?

On the other paw, who exactly is 'Luke Ahearn'? What is his standing to speak about publishing? What is his expertise? At least BJ stuffs every paragraph she concocts, chock-full of facts, data & figures. Against all the considerations I've raised above, I'm still inclined to go with facts (which have presumably been researched and checked) rather than merely, someone's blog-opinions (earnest and impassioned though they may be).

Just sayin'.

FD

Not wasting my time on a troll.

Before challenging, commenting upon or evaluating the validity of statements or claims made by anyone, it is wise to first familiarize oneself with their credentials in order to determine what, if any, experience, expertise and success they possess to validate their opinions on a specific subject.

BJ Gallagher is a best-selling author. A Peacock in the Land of Penguins sold over 300,000 copies.

Ms. Gallagher is considered by many to be extremely knowledgeable in matters concerning writing, publishing and motivational speaking. She has appeared on several TV shows - CBS (Bob Shieffer), The Today Show, Fox News, PBS and CNN - as a recognized expert on the subjects.

I do not believe that "loser" or "butthole" would be a valid description of anyone able to lay claim to such accomplishments and public recognition.

I no longer consider anyone who appears on TV news shows, especially cable news, an expert in anything. The term has been so overused on these pontificating gabfests its original meaning no longer appears valid or appropriate. Rather 'expert' now appears to mean someone having something to sell, whether it's self-promotion, or a particular point of view.

^^^ agreed. You can't put any faith in the bozos carefully-selected by tv newsmedia.

Next: this bit sticks in my memory from reading the earlier blog post...

(BJ): “10. The book publishing world is in a never-ending state of turmoil.”

(Luke): And so is the rest of the world.

I'd say rather that the real world is actually pretty stable; there is calmness and simplicity there for anyone who seeks it. Instead, it is the false world of all this electronic-entertainment-media (including the internet) where chaos erupts, non-stop.

In any case, even supposing we were to freely characterize the world as 'always-in-turmoil'...then, does it make any sense to add to that meltdown by removing some of the key pillars of society (e.g., literacy, critical thinking; or freedom-of-the-press)?

Printed books have long been one of the most stabilizing forces in the world. Digital formats give us...fiascoes like Napster and Limewire; piracy-lawsuits; and first-run movies being sold on blankets on city sidewalks.

Feliks wrote: "^^^ agreed. You can't put any faith in the bozos carefully-selected by tv newsmedia.

On the contrary, they are not carefully selected. The entire process is one of marketing and promotion, as we do here with our books. The news program bookers merely go through a rolodex of names, people they've used before who are considered telegenic and good at sound bites, or names provided by publicists and PR reps of clients who need to build a public profile and platform.

I think calling Feliks a 'troll' for providing realistic counterpoints to your blog post is a travesty. Quantity does not trump quality nor does digital product benefit the creators or industries of ANY art. Look at how great it's been for music...

Thanks for that remark. 'ppreciate it. Really, how can one 'troll' a thread where the OP posted a somewhat inflammatory-styled, 10-point diatribe about 'buttholes in our society'? That is a kind of provocative, two-fisted stance, wouldn't you agree? How could he expect no retort whatsoever, from a diverse public venue like this?

I unloaded my counterpoint calmly--in 3 responses-- and my points-of-rebuttal speak for themselves. I spoke from content, not from just a 'combative attitude'. I'm not hanging around here 'looking to grapple'--just for the sake of grappling. That's what trolls do. I've simply been following this controversy in the publishing world for 3 years now..why oughtn't I speak up like I did? I feel just as strongly about my views as Luke does his, after all.

I think Luke at least meets a basic level of fairness in allowing reception/appraisal of his 'biting condemnation of print-publishing'. I'm not asking him to welcome my remarks (or be happy about them) but as long as he lets them stand, I have no complaint.

[FYI: surprisingly, I've found that so many moderators on Goodreads claim to support 'equal speech' but so few are willing to do so when they have to actually confront opinions which pose contrast to their own. It calls for maturity, responsibility, and restraint].

So I *thank* Luke (and Elle, the group mod) for allowing my commentary to remain in view. Its the right thing to do. I'm sorry if anyone thinks I was 'trolling' or hi-jacking.

p.s. I'm glad to hear more background on BJ. I'm glad she's thought well of in her particular circuit; although I still insist that being a professional in publishing (instead of just someone who has had a book published) is always more credible for this particular subject matter. Me, I don't always put stock in someone's reputation. The talking-heads on news programs also have 'good reputations'. What I appreciate more (as I said earlier) was all the stats and references she supported her points with, right-off-the-bat. I liked that.

Getting back to Luke's points: does anyone ever consider what an explosion of entertainment-fiction e-books (and all their untrustworthy, unsavory connotations) means for the publishing of non-fiction? We've already seen at least three scandals in recent years to my knowledge--where authors were 'outed' for fraud in their writing. Without publishing houses to manage our public need for reliable non-fiction, who exactly are we going to trust? How many self-published authors of nonfiction, would you give your trust to, in an e-format dominant publishing world?

Ah I was going to never reply to this thread, but I do agree with the downside for nonfiction.

That's the way, Luke. Attaboy. It benefits no one by clamming up, walling-yourself-off and refusing to sort out a forum of differing views.

I kinda think that when new technology emerges there are lots of potentials for bad scenarios when any one 'line-of-introduction' is pushed too hard. That's what has occurred in publishing in recent years. The lightning-fast introduction of Kindles & Nooks left some of us chafing for more 'leeway'.

You desire a better environment for emerging fiction writers, that's your goal. But you're willing to admit that in least one area; this boon can also produce a deleterious affect. I applaud this concession of yours. It shows fair-mindedness.

I too, have 'exceptions' I'm willing to concede. For example, I think that e-books are beneficial to people with eyesight problems. [What I would have liked to see happen was e-readers introduced ONLY for that kind of population, as 'reading aids'--but of course that didn't happen].

What you would perhaps like to see is 'the old way' of stodgy publishing-houses disappear; but (hopefully) that one-sided scenario is also not going to happen in just that way.

And what I would like to see is all e-books restricted to nothing more portable than a laptop. I don't want them competing with books we used to carry in our hands. But naturally I recognize that this scenario of mine, is never going to come about, either. Its purely fantasy at this point unless an EMP blast comes along and wipes the slate clear.

My point though, is this: what we all need is more 'middle-ground' in the way technology is thrust upon us. More options. Perhaps the only way we ever might get those choices is via discussion; questioning; making our discomfort known to the corporate-powers-that-be.

I actually agree with you on many points, but my original points were directed at the individuals reality of publishing, not the global reality. And I know that a positive attitude will affect your writing and chances of being a successful author. I am tired of the doom and gloom. Things are never perfect and too many people sit in the dark waiting for them to be. Anyway, I am here to encourage writers to write, not have a debate.

Amazon is the new slush pile and now we have a jury of our peers telling us if our book sucks or not. Under the old publishing model a vast majority of manuscripts never saw the light of day.

But the books on amazon have samples available, reviews, and a refund policy - and you can borrow/lend the books. How is this less desirable than mailing the manuscript off into oblivion.

While I do have your attention: Please check out my book giveaway at https://www.goodreads.com/giveaway/sh...

A little. You are right upfront but the truth is all the investment in fake stuff is wasted. The sales don't reflect it. Readers are more savvy and can spot fake reviews. I know it's not perfect but I see it working. Good books sell by word of mouth.