Dude, lighten up. I was just saying he strikes me as more of a marketer.

I don't think anyone here is "attacking other writers." Even if we were, are we creative people, or are we sycophants? I find a little back and forth discussion much more interesting than weighing whether going against the consensus is "a great idea" or not.

Maybe we're all a tad jealous?

 

There are many roads to Oz.  And Oz means different things to different people.

I just like to keep myself as informed as possible about both roads and destinations.

 

At this point, he's got such an established fanbase that he could be pumping out neanderthal erotica or stories about a horse that runs a detective agency and still be shifting copies.

Now now let's not get horse detectives involved, who are we to judge them if they have the proper qualifications?

 

OK. Dude, chill.

I believe JR is a "dudette."

 

OK. Dude, chill.

I agree. kindleboards has become insane lately

 

Inspiration just once a day? Cripes. Mine comes any time of day or night. Morning showers or while doing the dinner dishes and blasting rock 'n' roll are particularly good times. Maybe water, suds and music are key contributors.

Or nakedness.

 

The only reason I don't like Locke's strategy is that it very much relies on hitting it big. He made a name selling a million copies. That's great! But he also sold them at 99 cents, meaning he made $350k doing it, and to do it, he had many, many books in the top 100. The odds of pulling that off are incredibly, stupidly low, and more importantly, it's almost impossible to replicate consistently (I did a quick perusal of his books, and I saw most in the 1ks, other than one novel at 198...but he's got a lot of books so I might be missing a few  ). If he wasn't hitting top 100, if he wasn't selling a hundred thousand a month...he'd be making peanuts. It's an all or nothing gamble based on having a lot of books, rapidly released, with each creating an almost exponential rise in sales.

That said, much of what he says to do I do agree with. And what he says to do might not actually mimic what he did himself (I haven't read his book, only studied his strategies and what he's publicly told others). He advocates being professional, frowns on spamming, focuses on entertaining the reader...I see no problem here. Would I call him "inspirational?" For me, not really, but for others who perhaps write in his genre, or need a nice, solid example to follow when it comes to building an author brand, I could see people feeling that way.

As for the anger...I kinda get it. A millionaire sold a million books. Hooray? As for the art comments, though, give me a break. He wants to entertain, he writes books to entertain, and for the most part, readers say he is indeed entertaining. He's clarified this over and over again, that he doesn't think he writes crap, it's just that he doesn't see it as any form of high art because he's clearly trying to write some easy, fun escapist literature. I just don't buy this "we must write or die from our muse" nonsense. It's just a way to romanticize what is honestly a *lot* of hard work. There's plenty of days I drag my butt before my laptop at the library, wishing I could do *anything* else but that. Times where I stare at the screen and just can't wait for the battery low indicator to come on so I can go home. Doesn't reflect one iota on my passion for the craft, my desire to entertain my readers, or the overall quality of my work.

 

*quivers in excitement*

 

I would have said, "Be brave, just like braveheart."



I HAVE BEEN WAITING SIX YEARS TO SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evil, EVIL vampire kitty!

Edit: Just WAIT til you get all those emails requesting reviews. Lots and lots of reviews.

 

You're a writer and the best you can come up with is: Dude, lighten up?

I don't think anyone was talking about any "consensus" anyway. In fact, I don't know what "consensus" you're talking about unless the one that if you write you're a writer.

OK. Dude, chill.

 

I would have said, "Be brave, just like braveheart."




I HAVE BEEN WAITING SIX YEARS TO SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Dude, lighten up. I was just saying he strikes me as more of a marketer.

I don't think anyone here is "attacking other writers." Even if we were, are we creative people, or are we sycophants? I find a little back and forth discussion much more interesting than weighing whether going against the consensus is "a great idea" or not.

You're a writer and the best you can come up with is: Dude, lighten up?

I don't think anyone was talking about any "consensus" anyway. In fact, I don't know what "consensus" you're talking about unless the one that if you write you're a writer.

 

So if on a certain day I write something that I don't feel particular passion for I'm no longer a writer?

Nope, passion may make you a passionate writer although I've known some very passionate writers who, to be utterly frank, were a lot more passionate then they were talented.

What makes on a writer is getting words down on a page. When I was a writer for a newspaper, I was a writer. If I chose to write non-fiction, I would be a writer. If I choose to write what sells (ala John Locke and Patterson), I would be a darn successful writer. When I write what I enjoy (and it is enjoy and not necessarily have a passion for) I am still a writer.

Of course, you can not consider me or Locke or Patterson writers and that's by your definition. Obviously, we disagree on that but I don't think it's really a great idea to go around attacking other writers because they're not passionate enough for you. Of course, you don't consider them writers so you consider you have that right, nay, that duty. So we have a bit of a disconnect.

Dude, lighten up. I was just saying he strikes me as more of a marketer.

I don't think anyone here is "attacking other writers." Even if we were, are we creative people, or are we sycophants? I find a little back and forth discussion much more interesting than weighing whether going against the consensus is "a great idea" or not.

 

As I say above: "I don't see any sign that he writes anything he feels the need to say."

That's what I think makes a real writer.

In his book he says he writes what he thinks will sell, and if something doesn't sell, he switches back to what does.

So if on a certain day I write something that I don't feel particular passion for I'm no longer a writer?

Nope, passion may make you a passionate writer although I've known some very passionate writers who, to be utterly frank, were a lot more passionate then they were talented.

What makes on a writer is getting words down on a page. When I was a writer for a newspaper, I was a writer. If I chose to write non-fiction, I would be a writer. If I choose to write what sells (ala John Locke and Patterson), I would be a darn successful writer. When I write what I enjoy (and it is enjoy and not necessarily have a passion for) I am still a writer.

Of course, you can not consider me or Locke or Patterson writers and that's by your definition. Obviously, we disagree on that but I don't think it's really a great idea to go around attacking other writers because they're not passionate enough for you. Of course, you don't consider them writers so you consider you have that right, nay, that duty. So we have a bit of a disconnect.

 

Book sales stroke the ego. Ego means you want to sell as many copies as possible. I would argue that you have to have ego to go out there and push your books. Someone without a healthy ego would keep them in a drawer.

The writer in me wants to keep the little ones inside, safe, where I can keep an eye on them. The publisher in me knows I have to let them go outside.

Hey, a little bit of schizophrenia never hurt anybody. In the immortal words of Ms. Slocombe: "I am unanimous in that."

 

Book sales stroke the ego. Ego means you want to sell as many copies as possible. I would argue that you have to have ego to go out there and push your books. Someone without a healthy ego would keep them in a drawer.

perhaps. perhaps not. i'm not a writer so i couldn't tell you

 

Book sales stroke the ego. Ego means you want to sell as many copies as possible. I would argue that you have to have ego to go out there and push your books. Someone without a healthy ego would keep them in a drawer.

 

Writers are supposed to be devoid of egos now? Good grief. Those will be some uninteresting writers!

Yep. With no opinion whatsoever on anything. (Beware the Lurking Reader.) And with a thick, teflon-coated skin.

Seriously: as indies we have two personas, the writer and the publisher. Ideally, never the twain should meet.

 

Writers are supposed to be devoid of egos now? Good grief. Those will be some uninteresting writers!

i would assume that once a book is done and headed to 'print', ego must go out the window.

 

Well said. He rid himself of ego and marketed his work to a wide audience, doing everything right. Wish more indies had in them what he has.

Writers are supposed to be devoid of egos now? Good grief. Those will be some uninteresting writers!

 

His readers would turn on him. You really sound like you are jealous of his success.

Surprised it took so long for someone to pull this moldy old chestnut outta their attack bag. Gimme a break, man.

 

I find the replies here interesting, in particular

I'm interested to know what you think makes a "real writer"?

For me a writer is someone who writes... is there a piece of the puzzle I'm missing?

Personally I think Locke is interesting and I admire him for the fact that he did achieve his goal. He writes books that are entertaining and that people want to read. For me that's what I want to do, I'm not interested in writing art or even the next "big thing" but I do want to write books that people want to read. Books that entertain and give enjoyment, a means of escape. Now If I can do that and make a living from it I'll be one happy bunny

Bilinda

I absolutely agree. I do not buy that one must be some sort of artiste to be a "real writer".

 

I think John Locke is brilliant.

Whether the strategies in his book will work for everybody is very doubtful. Locke got his success at a certain point in time. The same tactics might not work as well anymore. The general strategy is still sound, but, then again, it's hardly new. Try to maximalize initial sales and build on that.

I think he moved beyond that. His "How I sold..." delivered what he promised it would deliver. What it also did - and what he didn't tell explicitly - is that it is one gigantic promotion for his other books. Core readership: we, indies. "Look for yourself what the level of writing is to be successful. It's easy. Just buy my books." And a lot of us did, keeping him high in Amazon's rankings.

There were lessons in the book, but also: the book itself was the lesson.

PS: I exchanged a few mails with him. John Locke is very professional and very friendly. He replied rather promptly and it was no generic mail either. I could tell he had visited my website because he commented upon it.

Well said. He rid himself of ego and marketed his work to a wide audience, doing everything right. Wish more indies had in them what he has.

 

I think John Locke is brilliant.

Whether the strategies in his book will work for everybody is very doubtful. Locke got his success at a certain point in time. The same tactics might not work as well anymore. The general strategy is still sound, but, then again, it's hardly new. Try to maximalize initial sales and build on that.

I think he moved beyond that. His "How I sold..." delivered what he promised it would deliver. What it also did — and what he didn't tell explicitly — is that it is one gigantic promotion for his other books. Core readership: we, indies. "Look for yourself what the level of writing is to be successful. It's easy. Just buy my books." And a lot of us did, keeping him high in Amazon's rankings.

There were lessons in the book, but also: the book itself was the lesson.

PS: I exchanged a few mails with him. John Locke is very professional and very friendly. He replied rather promptly and it was no generic mail either. I could tell he had visited my website because he commented upon it.

 

To a degree, but for most people here, I'd imagine that the sales part is a half that wouldn't fly without the other 50% of affecting the reader, or producing something you're truly proud of. There's been a lot of bluster about Locke, but everything focuses on the sales stats. In a decade, or even a few years, is his work going to have made enough of an impact to still be remembered? Not everyone wants to be the new Dickens, but this cynical way of breaking down literature to the base elements of what sells the most the fastest will only ever result in work that's completely transient. It's the boybands of writing.

good points. i would assume that every writer here would do near anything for his sales though. i will say i'm glad there are many fine writers who do put pride into their work but i must give credit to mr locke. he's done well for himself and kudos to him. i also think he's done alot for the indie movement, but won't receive the credit due.