How do you deal with uncertainty?

Marketability also is influenced by unexpected works that suddenly become popular despite the predictions of those who determine what is marketable.



Write what you want to write.

God yes, we all get it and it doesn't, for me anyhow, get much better. Don't write for success or the market, write for you. The rest might or mightn't follow but you'll have something you like and it mightn't work out writing for the market, either.

My trilogy is space-opera, mashy with a fantasy-esque feel in the main setting, and wasn't wanted at all in the market, but it had multiple offers in the end. There are ways forward for anything - niche publishers, self publishing, trad - don't give up hope!

Talisker.

Seriously: Write as if there are no "markets". For me, there aren't, and I've plenty of proof. I still write. And bitch about the lack of markets for what I am capable of writing, and get back a lot of comments here about my lack of confidence, or lack of faith, or how I need to write more in this genre or that, and how I should be sweeter and think about butterflies and spring flowers glistening in the sunshine, etc.

Write what you gotta write. Don't have expectations. Or aspirations.

And get a good bottle of Talisker.

And if your location of residence is "North", it's very likely you aren't as "North" as I am, but it probably would be more beneficial if you lived in someplace more southerly and sexy to agents and editors.

caw

“I said you need to strive to be better than everyone else. I didn’t say you needed to be better than everyone else. But you gotta try. That’s what character is. It’s in the try.” – Coach Eric Taylor, Friday Night Lights.

Oh, and I deal with it by mulling over my query and manuscript and editing the crap out of it (and try to distract myself with other fun stuff in life).

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, too, except my issue has been less "marketability" (because I'm shit at that) and more "good" (as in, what if I'm not actually a good writer?). What I've come to decide is that you can't control a single thing outside yourself. You can only control the internal stuff. You can control your work, how you feel about your work, how much time you put into developing your craft and working with critique groups, etc. But you can't control the market. Keeping that in mind has done wonders for my level of stress over the uncertainty.

And booze. I'm a red wine lady myself, but Talisker is also excellent.

I firmly believe that Good Enough and selling go hand in hand. If you're good enough, you will sell. Marketability is not really the same thing. Good Enough sells a novel, but Marketability is really about how many people buy your novel after it's published. Really, walk into into book store and look around. Most of what you see is reasonably well-written, reasonably well-told, but won't sell many copies. It's Good Enough to sell, but it really has no marketability. It won't sell many copies.

If you're good, you will sell, but you have to write something that millions of others love to be a true bestseller. That's marketability, and I'm not sure you can do anything about it. The old saw is to write the book you would want to read if someone else wrote it. I think this is always the way to go, but this is no guarantee, either.

What's left unsaid is that this only works well if you share the same taste in reading as a large chunk of the reading public. If you do share this taste, if you write reasonably well, and if you can add a bit or the original, marketability will come.

I don't know that any of this is under a writer's control.

I do know that if you listen to too much typical writing advice, obey all the do this and don't do that, such as keep the description to a minimum, don't use "long" sentences, never use an ly word or an ing word, yadda, yadda, yadda, you may write a novel that sells, but it probably won't go anywhere.

These things are like batting stance. In the beginning, we were all taught to hold the bat the same way, to stand the same way, to step into the ball the same way, etc. This was great as a guideline for beginners. A year later, however, the really good hitters all had their own stances, they stood this way and that, some held the bat high, some low, some laid it on their shoulders, some kept it still, some moved it constantly, some stood close to the plate, some far away, etc. The ignored the rules, some looked like uncoordinated clowns, but they hit the ball.

They learned to do what worked for them. You have to do the same with writing. There's too much same old, same old in slush piles, even from writers who display talent. It's like they've all received advice for first time batters, but never grow out of it for fear of striking out, or taking a fast ball right between the eyes.

You can't be afraid to ignore every last bit of writing advice anyone gives you because, at best, it's all just basic guidelines for beginning writer. And it's all bullshit unless you love the way it makes your story read.

There are no guarantees, no certainly, but if you can write just reasonably well, if you can tell a good story that's filled with characters readers want to spend time with, if you can add three cups of originality, and if your taste in story and character matches that of enough readers, selling is easy. I think originality is the hard part, but that's just me. But if, if, if, if always brings uncertainty.

Anyway, I think you have to write the book you want to read, even if it means ignoring every bit of writing advice you're ever heard. Then you have to hope your taste in story and character matches that of the reading public. The real trick, though, is the originality factor. Same old, same old will sometimes sell, if it's written well enough, simply because editors have slots to fill, and there aren't enough really good novels to fill them all, but even well-written same old, same old are all the books that seldom earn out an advance.

An editor once told me that, beyond decent writing, a really good novel either needs something original that captures the imagination, or it has to have something old that's done better than anyone else has ever done it.

When you write a novel and can say, "By God, I like that, even if it does go against everything I've heard. It's good, it's original, and ain't nobody ever told a story this well", you probably have something.

But while you have to keep an eye on marketability in the sense that no one is likely to want a story that's just Carrie or Harry potter with new names and faces, and probably don't want a category romance with an "everybody dies" ending, but beyond this, you just have to be yourself, tell your story your way, and takes you chances on getting hit between the eyes with a ninety mile an hour fastball.

If you have just a little bit of talent, and a dollop of common sense, this should be enough.

Witch_turtle said:

Your baseball analogy reminds me of when I was in the first grade and got told I wasn't holding onto my pencil the right way, and the teacher made me use this rubber grip which forced my fingers into the "correct" position. I absolutely hated it and couldn't understand why I couldn't just do it my way.

Click to expand...

I still hold my pen "wrong," and I've filled stacks and stacks of notebooks with legible prose. (My handwriting has gone to crap since I started doing everything electronically, but that's a different issue.)

I wrote something original, big, and bold that my then-agent hoped would be a "break-out novel." No sale. I wrote a more modest book that used a familiar trope in a new way. Sale. Now I'm drafting a book based on a concept from my agent, and making that concept very much my own, but who knows. The process of "making it my own" could result in something that doesn't sell. Or the market could change in a blink. Coach Taylor's quote is right on.

One key thing you can control is whether you're telling your story in an effective, readable way. I used to write ambitious novels that were largely world building, with passive protagonists whose motives remained cryptic even to them. There was good writing there, but very little storytelling that would compel anyone to continue. (Even literary novels along those lines, like Pynchon's, need a strong central story thread, or they crash and burn.)

Once you realize you have an Achilles' heel like that, you can work on it. But you can't control the final result.

I'm pretty darned good at longhand. I've pratcied it all my like, and I hold my pen in the "proper" way. So do two of my sons. My third son, however, holds his pen in the weirdest way imaginable. I don't see how he can even use it, but his handwriting is far better than mine. It's actually kind of annoying.

Market, talent, workmanship, which sells books? This question has vexed and perplexed me for most of my life.

I prowl libraries for old books, forgotten books. I like to read books by authors that are out of style now but once were best sellers. Some are really, really badly written and best forgotten. I like to read books that were once considered solid literature but are now forgotten. Some are well written but hopelessly out of style--talky and head hoppy, racially insensitive, sexist.

Some stand up well, despite their great age. Ever read Sincerely Willis Wade or The Late George Apley? Klunky but funny. Ever read Ernest Poole? He won a Pulitzer Prize, as did Booth Tarkington and Willa Cather. We remember Cather and watch The Magnificent Ambersons on the classic movie channel but who remembers Hunter's Moon?

Mainly, I like to readbooks that are solid but dusty like Cross Creek or South Moon Under or Sweet Thursday. This is how I discovered Nordhoff and Hall, The Trees by Conrad Richter, Elspeth Huxley, Ralph Moody. There are books that were popular in their day; books that should have been bestsellers but weren't; books that should have won this prize or that but politics got in the way.

And then there are all the other books; shelves and shelves of books that made it into the publishing house and into print but never did anything at all. The authors are long forgotten and the books are ready for discard but every now and then I read one and think--What the hell--this is really good. Better than I am doing right now.

The common factor in all of these books seems to be workmanship. Not marketability, not great, breathtakingly brilliant talent.( If passion could translate into talent I would be wonderfully talented.) The common factor seems to be workmanship. So I can either forget the whole bleeping struggle--and from time to time I do--or I can hone my skills and try again--s6

Seriously: Write as if there are no "markets". For me, there aren't, and I've plenty of proof. I still write. And bitch about the lack of markets for what I am capable of writing, and get back a lot of comments here about my lack of confidence, or lack of faith, or how I need to write more in this genre or that, and how I should be sweeter and think about butterflies and spring flowers glistening in the sunshine, etc.

@blacbird- If we don't have anything intelligent to offer, perhaps you should stop bothering to ask us.


@Witch turtle- Well, let's face it, a novel is a whole lot of eggs in one basket and that long haul gets exhausting. Then again, isn't the big gamble part of the intrigue, really?

One idea that might (or might not) give your confidence and "resume" a boost here. Perhaps try some (very) short pieces in the meantime, flash fiction, opinion pieces, etcetera. They can often be written, critiqued, and submitted on the same day. Plenty of places that accept them take simultaneous submissions or answer quickly (Duotrope is your friend). A page or two is so much less commitment on a publisher's part that they're fairly easy to place, imo. And they serve as advertising too since you can mention your novel in your bio. Also, yes, wine. I mean, whine. No, both. Good luck.

An artist, a filmmaker, a singer, a poet - these people tend to work on spec. It goes beyond money. I know people who have tons of dough yet they'd never ever work on spec. It's too risky for them emotionally. They rather climb the ladder step by step, take the route of so-called certainty. Then again, I know people who don't have a peso yet they are willing to work on spec 'cause it's the process that woos them, not the end result.

Willing to work on spec is a trait ya either have, or ya don't. Maybe this is the real question.

Gringa said:

An artist, a filmmaker, a singer, a poet - these people tend to work on spec. It goes beyond money. I know people who have tons of dough yet they'd never ever work on spec. It's too risky for them emotionally. They rather climb the ladder step by step, take the route of so-called certainty. Then again, I know people who don't have a peso yet they are willing to work on spec 'cause it's the process that woos them, not the end result.

Willing to work on spec is a trait ya either have, or ya don't. Maybe this is the real question.

Click to expand...

Yup. I decided at a certain point that I wasn't willing to write academic articles on spec and for my own enjoyment. But novels? In a heartbeat.

I can't imagine making fiction writing my full-time job any time soon; it's inherently risky. (And it always has been. Read Balzac's Lost Illusions.) I admire (and envy) people who sell reliably enough to do that.

And, yeah, a few people who holed up to write their Great American Novel on spec (supported by savings, a fellowship, or kindly relations) have seen great returns. The thing is, we don't hear about all the writers who took that same gamble and lost. (Remember Paul Giamatti's character in Sideways?)

So a tolerable day job that maybe sometimes even gives you ideas for your stories helps make the uncertainty less punishing.

shakeysix said:

Market, talent, workmanship, which sells books? This question has vexed and perplexed me for most of my life.

I prowl libraries for old books, forgotten books. I like to read books by authors that are out of style now but once were best sellers. Some are really, really badly written and best forgotten. I like to read books that were once considered solid literature but are now forgotten. Some are well written but hopelessly out of style--talky and head hoppy, racially insensitive, sexist.

Some stand up well, despite their great age. Ever read Sincerely Willis Wade or The Late George Apley? Klunky but funny. Ever read Ernest Poole? He won a Pulitzer Prize, as did Booth Tarkington and Willa Cather. We remember Cather and watch The Magnificent Ambersons on the classic movie channel but who remembers Hunter's Moon?

Mainly, I like to readbooks that are solid but dusty like Cross Creek or South Moon Under or Sweet Thursday. This is how I discovered Nordhoff and Hall, The Trees by Conrad Richter, Elspeth Huxley, Ralph Moody. There are books that were popular in their day; books that should have been bestsellers but weren't; books that should have won this prize or that but politics got in the way.

And then there are all the other books; shelves and shelves of books that made it into the publishing house and into print but never did anything at all. The authors are long forgotten and the books are ready for discard but every now and then I read one and think--What the hell--this is really good. Better than I am doing right now.

The common factor in all of these books seems to be workmanship. Not marketability, not great, breathtakingly brilliant talent.( If passion could translate into talent I would be wonderfully talented.) The common factor seems to be workmanship. So I can either forget the whole bleeping struggle--and from time to time I do--or I can hone my skills and try again--s6

Click to expand...

Most of the books you list up front were bestsellers, and still sell remarkably well today. Cross Creek never seems to stop selling. And Hunter's Moon is also still widely read, and taught in many colleges.

Workmanship, I think, lets you sell a book, but talent and originality make for marketability. Talent is a must, but writing style is seldom talent. Merely competent writing can sell a hundred million copies, if the story and character. "Horribly written" is generally a meaningless phrase, and is real only according to taste. It's story and character that draws readers, not style.

"Good" is also highly subjective. This book is really good matters only if a whole lot of readers agree with you.

Gringa said:

An artist, a filmmaker, a singer, a poet - these people tend to work on spec. It goes beyond money. I know people who have tons of dough yet they'd never ever work on spec. It's too risky for them emotionally. They rather climb the ladder step by step, take the route of so-called certainty. Then again, I know people who don't have a peso yet they are willing to work on spec 'cause it's the process that woos them, not the end result.

Willing to work on spec is a trait ya either have, or ya don't. Maybe this is the real question.

Click to expand...

I don't think writing on spec has a thing to do with it. Darned near everyone on the planet except manual laborers really work on spec. Start any new business, and you;re working on spec, even if you're selling canned soup.

Just about every wealthy person I've ever met got that way by "working on spec". That's what starting any kind of business means, and while writing may be an art, publishing is a business just like any other, whether it's starting a new insurance company, or canned soup factory, or a furniture business.

I just don't believe "working on spec" has anything to do with it. I think that's just an excuse not to do something.

For that matter, tell me which just it is that has any certainty, and security? You may get paid week by week for the work you've done, but you either deliver a satisfactory effort, give satisfactory results to the powers that be, or your butt will be out on the street and you won't be working at all.

This is all writing is. You give a satisfactory product to the powers that be. Even thinking abut it as working on spec is completely wrong. You're starting a business, and you expect to see at elast enough cash to make a career out of it. It's just having faith in yourself, in your talent, in your intelligence, in your drive. If it has anything to do with being a starving artist, it's not because that's the way it's supposed to be done, but because some people are just not very functional.

No one tells writers to sit around without money, hoping that someday they'll get rich from writing. Most writers are employed, and most I've known have very good jobs. They're smart, hard-working, talented people who are most often college educated. Go down the list of bestselling writers and tell me how many of them were living on risk before they started selling novels.

A ton of dough? Define a ton of dough, and tell me how they earned all of it. Few people earn a ton of dough without taking risks, but the risk should never mean sitting around without a peso, it means getting a good education, finding a good job, and then starting the side business of writing, just as someone else starts a side business making rocking chairs, or someone else starts a side business of baking cakes.

People without a peso write most often because they see the possibility of a mountain on pesos at the end of the tunnel, not because the process is so enjoyable that they're willing to wallow in poverty for twenty years. They want out of poverty, and writing is the only way they can think of to get out.

Jamesaritchie said:

I firmly believe that Good Enough and selling go hand in hand. If you're good enough, you will sell.

Click to expand...

I agree they go hand in hand, but I don't believe the correlation is absolute. I believe there are interesting, well-written manuscripts that don't sell, and less interesting, less well-written manuscripts that do. The gatekeepers are not morons, but they're not infallible either -- either individually or in aggregate.

F.

Jamesaritchie said:

I don't think writing on spec has a thing to do with it. Darned near everyone on the planet except manual laborers really work on spec. Start any new business, and you;re working on spec, even if you're selling canned soup.

Just about every wealthy person I've ever met got that way by "working on spec". That's what starting any kind of business means, and while writing may be an art, publishing is a business just like any other, whether it's starting a new insurance company, or canned soup factory, or a furniture business.

I just don't believe "working on spec" has anything to do with it. I think that's just an excuse not to do something.

Click to expand...

Well we can agree to disagree on this.

There's a pretty good chance if someone shows up to work for eight hours a day, they'll get paid as long as they do what they're supposed to do even if it means going through the motions. Perk? Friday paycheck.

But someone working on spec, as in writing for eight hours a day? Where's the check?

Big difference.

Jamesaritchie said:

If you're good enough, you will sell.

Click to expand...

And the only way you can know you're good enough is if you sell.

caw