Well, I guess there's hope for me after all.

 

I write because my muse keeps giving me story ideas, and because I have such a good time writing. I think of my novels as smart entertainment. Not the loftiest of descriptions, but if I provide a reader with hours of enjoyment I feel I've accomplished something worthwhile.

Locke says he writes for fun, and I believe him. I read "Vegas Moon," at his suggestion; I emailed him and asked which of his books might be a good starting place. "VM" reminded me of the old Destroyer series by Sapir and Murphy, paperback originals that were also cheaply priced back in the day.

About 88% of my novels' reviews are either four or five stars, but marketing is the weakest part of my game. I need to do better there so my sales numbers can reflect a larger number of people I'm making happy, including me as I head to the bank.

I don't know that Locke's particular ideas are that horrible. I think his books are meant just to be fun entertainment, and obviously he's found a successful way to market them. I read through part of "Wish List" the other day at Sam's Club, and there's nothing that terrible in it. I could certainly imagine wiping it out in two hours and not feeling like I completely wasted my time.

Yes, we write when our muse hits us, but like Faulker said, his inspiration was always at 9 in the morning. He has a certain businesslike attitude toward writing and marketing his books; so do a lot of other writers. At a certain point in his career, Mickey Spillaine would only write a new book whenever he decided he wanted to buy a boat, or he needed to make quick money and he knew he could sell the book (no, I'm not holding the creator of "Mike Hammer" as an arbiter of high art, BTW). Chandler started writing essentially because he had so mucked up his previous career no one would hire him anymore. Dickens wrote "A Christmas Carol" just for the money.

Patterson has an even more driven sense of marketing, and he doesn't even really even WRITE his books, and yet people eat 'em like they're peanuts.

None of us set about to write a bad book, and I doubt he does either. There seems to be more than enough room for Herzog AND the latest popcorn action flick.

 

What works for John works for John. Some of you want to create works of art and that's great. John just wants to write some stories and he has a good time doing it. What's your problem? Not everyone can be as talented as some of you, nor have such lofty goals. He knows he's not a great writer. He just likes to entertain with stories. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Sorry, guys... I'm trying to read this thread with a straight face, but all I'm seeing in my head is Terry O' Quinn on the Island stating "Don't tell me what I can't do!"

 

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.

 

I read Locke's book and agree with some of his approaches to marketing (like developing a Twitter network). On the marketing side, he has great ideas.

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. Sure, books can be vehicles for earning authors income and royalties, but there's far more to writing than creating "employees" to work for you. I set soft deadlines for myself but would never throw a book out to the public before it's ready to publish. IMHO once a book is finished, it's finished, and you shouldn't expect to make any revisions. Get it right the first time. I would much rather take the extra time to write a timeless classic that is read for 100 years than a book with an eight-week run. Writing is a passion to cultivate, not a cash cow.

I like to think that this approach will stand the test of time. Once today's John Locke has had his run, the John Locke of yore, the father of liberalism whose incredible works stand the test of time, will again surpass his contemporary.

 

I write because my muse keeps giving me story ideas, and because I have such a good time writing. I think of my novels as smart entertainment. Not the loftiest of descriptions, but if I provide a reader with hours of enjoyment I feel I've accomplished something worthwhile.

Locke says he writes for fun, and I believe him. I read "Vegas Moon," at his suggestion; I emailed him and asked which of his books might be a good starting place. "VM" reminded me of the old Destroyer series by Sapir and Murphy, paperback originals that were also cheaply priced back in the day.

About 88% of my novels' reviews are either four or five stars, but marketing is the weakest part of my game. I need to do better there so my sales numbers can reflect a larger number of people I'm making happy, including me as I head to the bank.

 

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.

 

When I first approached the indie idea of publishing, I started to do my research and his name kept coming up.

So, I bought his how-to book. All of it is very good information and I like how he considered each of his books as an employee and how that employee is working for him.

He builds and presents a very practical model for indie publishers to follow.

Why do I like the book - this is a new channel for writers to explore and build a reader base. To succeed, regardless of art or commerce, you need a framework to work from. He presents one.

Just my two cents.

 

Robert Heinlein once said that the most beautiful phrase in the English language was:

"Pay to the order of____________________"

OTOH, Ring Lardner thought the most beautiful word in the English language was "gangrene".

Take your choice! 

 

I find the replies here interesting, in particular

He doesn't strike me as a real writer.

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 feel the same way. I tried to take Locke's approach, but 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.

After so many years of earning nothing, the thought of using writing as a way to strike it rich seems about as silly as going to Alaska to prospect for gold. Sure, I might find the mother lode--some people do--but my real motivation for sitting out there every day swishing around my pan is because I love the outdoors and the independence.

 

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.

I feel the same way. I tried to take Locke's approach, but 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.

 

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.

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

 

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.