[Millard]

I know people probably will bite my head off for this, but Locke's story is the opposite of inspiring to me. It's artless, soulless marketing. Commerce over art.

There's a place for that kind of thing, and an audience, clearly, but it's not for me.

 

[Millard]

I'm curious as to why you feel this way.

The guy below you puts it pretty well.

I honestly can't see what pleasure he might derive from churning that product out. Money is nice, but that motivator can only last for so long. He doesn't strike me as a real writer. I don't see any sign that he writes anything he feels the need to say.

It's not an inspiring story to me because it looks like a marketing guy (apparently a millionaire before he even started) who set himself the goal of selling a lot of books, not writing interesting stories. And if your goal is purely shifting volume, then that's fine, but he's clearly not setting out with the greatest of artistic intentions. Locke seems to speak talk entirely in empty marketing-speak, like those people who follow you on Twitter with the bio of "SOCIAL MEDIA NETWORKING GURU" and whose only plan is following a bunch of people so they'll follow you back, with no content beyond that end. The whole thing of 'befriending' people into becoming his readers and sticking around for the next title doesn't sit well with me either. Of course, we must engage our audiences, but it's all so hollow and cynical, and when I'm reading lines on his website like...

Those who voted yes gave me brilliant reasons that inspired me! Those who voted no told me tragic stories that hurt my heart.... Your comments of support brought tears to my eyes.

... I'm thinking "Really?" Huh. In no way does that look like a writer's website either. It's got a total IMPORTANT NETWORKING GURU feel about it, or a self-help guy. I'd be interested to see if he ever did an interview about his creative process, of the writers that inspired him to put fingers to keyboard.

Nobody can deny that it worked for him, but he comes across as a marketer who decided books was the thing he'd have a go at, rather than a writer who writes because he has to, because it's in him, and who'd still be writing stories if every other person in the world had disappeared. I'm sure plenty of us here know what that's like, and never leave home without a notepad or two. I don't get that feeling from Locke. There's totally a place for the airport thrillers that he churns out, and not everything has to be the Great American Novel, but I hate the idea that this is what indie authors should be aspiring to. Aspire to write something that'll blow people away, not whatever you can churn out the fastest, put up for 99 cents and have people buy because of what your research told you sells the best.

 

[Millard]

That said...I don't like that he admits he's not a great writer, sets a goal to churn out a book in eight weeks, and treats his books like customers.

Yeah, this is horrible to me. My goal is to create something as good as a Herzog film, or Chris Morris's Blue Jam, or any of the things that blew me out of my seat and inspired me to want to make somebody else feel the same way.

 

[Millard]

As far as some of the "Why you gotta be so negative, man?" comments, my issue is with the title of this thread and the idea in general that it's somehow an inspiring story, when I feel it's the complete opposite. There's no "negativity for negativity's sake," just a different opinion. Kinda like how five star reviews are AWESOME AND SQUEE, but one star reviews are by vengeful idiots who know nothing.

 

[Millard]

i can understand where you're coming from as a writer, and i usually appreciate a writer with your passion. however, publication becomes a whole different monster, and Locke has mastered what most indies would do anything for.

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.

 

[Millard]

A lot of writing is commercial writing. Also, he's writing westerns now, not exactly a popular genre. I'd have to think he's doing that because he enjoys them.

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.

 

[Millard]

So work hard writing in a popular genre and build up a fanbase, and then write what you love is a bad strategy?

I didn't say it was a bad strategy, just not something particularly aspirational.

 

[Millard]

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

Yeah, man. Totes turning green right here.

Really though, you can't have a different opinion about something a successful person does without it being down to jealousy? OMG, I'm like, such a hater!