Is having your book ‘out there’ enough for you?

This article (Only 40 Self-Published Authors are a Success, says Amazon) has prompted some people, including me, to ask why Amazon defines financial “success” as having sold a million e-books over the last five years. Self-published writers tend to price their books between $3 and $5, and often at only $0.99. They can earn up to 70% of the retail price. In my view, one can sell a lot fewer than a million copies and still be earning a decent income.

amazonlogoAt the same time, the article has prompted others to say that just having their books “out there” is all they need to feel successful. They feel that if they do a great job of writing a story, have a great editor and a wonderful cover artist/designer, they are fine with the results of their avocation. Far be it from me to criticize that view. One might have similar feelings about creating music, making art, sewing quilts and other creative arts and crafts.

I am grateful for each reader, for every honest reviewer, for having a wonderful publisher and editor, and for all of those who’ve interviewed me, talked about my books, and otherwise been supportive. All of that is a viable form of success.

If you sense that a “however” is coming, you’re right.

However

Even the IRS considers that if we never show a net profit as a writer, we aren’t really a business. Writing books isn’t a free undertaking. One has to buy reference books, a computer, an Internet connection, office supplies, travel to locations where the novel is set, and (if self published) pay for your editor and cover designer. If these costs exceed the amount of money from royalties and direct sales, then one is running at a loss. Whether one calls his or her writing a business or an avocation, those costs can reduce the happy feeling one gets for having his or her books in print and getting some good reviews.

The people who run stores will seldom hear about self-published books.
The people who run stores will seldom hear about self-published books.

I grew up in another era, long before e-books and Kindle Direct Publishing, so I believe writing (fiction, especially) is always a long-shot proposition. One can never expect to earn a John Grisham or a J. K. Rowling income, or even enough to write full time. Most writers can’t survive on writing income alone and, as more and more readers expect 99 cent or free books, it’s getting harder and harder for most writers to cover costs, much less see real profits. So, my “however” is that if one wants to have a successful writing career, that “success” has to at least provide enough income to cover expenses.

Creative people are somehow expected to take pleasure in the work they do even if they are bankrupt. I suppose you can say that writing passion exceeds having a viable business, or that we feel at our best when we’re creating what we create. However, while I don’t need to sell a million e-books to feel successful, I do need not to be running in the red. I don’t think that’s too much to ask in order to feel successful in a career where–some have said–winning the Powerball is a better bet.

So, having my books “out there” is not enough. It’s wonderful, but if “out there” is all there is, it’s not paying the bills. Worse yet, it’s costing writers money and taking them away from their families.

If you’re a reader and/or a writer, do you think it’s possible to feel successful as a writer–or any other creative artist–if you’re expenses are higher than your sales?

See alsoFalling book prices could force authors to abandon their keyboards – The article notes Amazon’s penchant for running at a loss with low prices and low payouts to writers.

–Malcolm

Why I review the books I review

Truth be told, if my name were James Patterson and/or if I worked for the New York Times, a fair number of readers might be waiting to see what I (or my newspaper) had to say about “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” or “Frankenstein: Lost Souls.”

But I’m not and I don’t.

I’ll probably read “The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” because I enjoyed the late Stieg Larsson’s “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” I probably won’t review it, though, because by the time I get around to reading it adding one more review to a slough of them on Amazon or GoodReads just isn’t going to matter.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Stieg Larsson’s books don’t need any help, nor do they need any cautionary words or warnings. But small-press and self-published authors do need publicity, so I’m going to focus on novels from those sources when I find books I like.

I have no delusions of grandeur about this. My review isn’t going to catapult an unknown author onto the New York Times bestseller list. The book world runs on publicity. The trouble is, those who don’t need it keep getting more of it. Those who do need it get very little of it because they’re not already famous.

This is one of those paradoxes that drives authors nuts. “Why,” they ask, “is there a million dollar marketing budget for a book that’s going to become a bestseller with no marketing at all?” And, “Why are a hundred reviewers lining up to review the last James Patterson book when, really, everything that could be said about it has already been said?”

Mob instinct, I would say.

I would much rather offer my humble opinion about a book you might not hear about at all unless you chance upon my blog review or my GoodReads review. Perhaps you will find a title you like and you’ll buy a copy. After you read it, you might tell your friends about it.

The authors of the books I review may have worked for a year or two writing their books. In some cases, they struggled with their manuscripts off and on for decades. I think they deserve a chance to be read. That’s why I review them.

Malcolm