Angry Robot are doing it again.

[Scarfy]

I can rarely think of what to blog about, so I use twitter mostly.

Same. Though I've read commentary that suggests that writers shouldn't spend too much time blogging, as not a lot of people read them.

I don't look at writers' websites a great deal - usually just drive bys for people I know. Anyone else do it..?

 

[kromanjon]

I don't really enjoy the thought of excellent writers being rejected because they don't have facebook or twitter. It's a crap policy made for crap reasons either way you look at it. Now I don't write YA so I won't submit, but if I did I'm not sure I would bother. Or perhaps I would linking them to my blog written in Swedish.

 

[Glitch]

This is a business. Having twitter followers or a regular blog readership shows some marketability.

 

[kromanjon]

This is a business. Having twitter followers or a regular blog readership shows some marketability.

I think good Writing should be its own marketablility. Also, call me old fashion if you like, but I much prefer when the writer stands for the art while the publisher handles the buisness.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think good Writing should be its own marketablility. Also, call me old fashion if you like, but I much prefer when the writer stands for the art while the publisher handles the buisness.

I won't call you old fashioned. I'd love this to be the case. It's not anymore. There is an expectation that the writer will do some of their own marketing and social platforms. If you go on Twitter most big authors have a platform -- I follow Joe Abercrombie, Mark Lawrence, Anne Lyle, Val McDermid, Iain Banks, Patrick Ness -- to name but a few, and I'm sure they don't just tweet because it's interesting, but also because their publisher wants them to. (I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong...)

Sadly, there are so many books out there that good writing counts for very little in terms of marketability, at least at first. Unless you find readers for that good writing, it will get lost in the murk of other good writers (and some not so good).

I won't say you can't make it without a platform, I will say you make it much, much, much harder for yourself. And it's pretty hard already.

 

[millymollymo]

I think a lot of it is down to your 'targeted publishers' and 'target reader' too.
I know some agents/publishers fear that the author has a platform online, it can do more damage than good in some cases.
Matt Haig's connection with Book Trust resulted in a trending blog on Twitter. But would Mr Haig have reached the same audience without the marketing department of Cannongate/agent pulling strings.
Where is your time best spent? Learning your way around a digital nightmare, or creating a fantastical world full of them?
Age doesn't come into, nor does fashion, just like every character has a voice, every book has a market.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't really enjoy the thought of excellent writers being rejected because they don't have facebook or twitter. It's a crap policy made for crap reasons either way you look at it.

Excellent writers will always be rejected, have always been rejected, because there are more of them than there are slots to publish them (publishers can only bring out so many books a year, and they have to depend on some of those to make money or they go out of business).

So what it comes down to sometimes is this: Will they publish Excellent Writer A who uses Facebook and Twitter (though perhaps not thrilled at having to do so, but we all have to do things in life that we find tedious or don't see the use of), or Excellent Writer B who says "take me as I am, I'm not going to change with the times." I think that whenever that is the case, the answer should be pretty obvious.

Of course the nice thing about all this business of will he/she use social media or won't he/she is that it supplies a ready made excuse for failure so that we don't have to question the excellence of our writing, it's just that we wouldn't compromise, etc. etc.

I know it's proving a handy excuse for me.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I think publishers these days just want to know that their authors will make an effort. For a real author that shouldn't be a problem. It also doesn't mean just FB & Twitter...

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Every job has its good and bad. If someone wants to be an author then why shouldn't they be professional about it? I've started my blog.

 

[kromanjon]

But I think one question remain. Does anyone really discover writers through their blogs, twitters or facebook accounts, or do people start following them after they've read their books and liked them? For me, I've read a bit of Abercromibes blog and Richard Morgans, but as bloggers I found them both lacking, so I went back to just reading their books.

But sure, I might be wrong. It sure is a new day, a new world and a new life. I'm just stuck in the old ways, sad to see them go.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Kromanjon, I'm with you. I'm beginning to seriously wish I'd worked on my writing career back when I first started, instead of getting sidetracked for twenty-some years, because then I could be established already and thumb my nose at the social media thing.

I really dread having to come up with blogs and twitter-things just because I want my books accepted. Oh, I can think of things I could blog, but I'm afraid it wouldn't help my marketability any.

 

[Anne Lyle]

But I think one question remain. Does anyone really discover writers through their blogs, twitters or facebook accounts...

Yes. Only the other day I acquired at least one new reader because a writer friend passed on a link to my cover reveal for Book 3.

And for the record, I'm mostly on Twitter to stay in touch with the friends I've made at conventions, not because Angry Robot want me to. I was on Twitter for two years before I even met the Angry Robot guys, though admittedly I'm a lot more active since I signed with AR. Partly that's because I now get to chat with readers as well as personal friends

I'm much less active on FaceBook, where I have a "fan page" - I post pictures and book news there but not much else. I mostly do it because not everyone is on Twitter...

https://www.facebook.com/AnneLyle.author

The point of having a website is that a significant percentage of readers will want to find out more about your books, and they will google you. You don't need to blog if you don't want to - a simple static site with links to your books is better than nothing. See the non-blog section of my site for an example:

http://www.annelyle.com/nightsmasque/

Honestly, if you can't manage even a basic website, I think you should see writing as a hobby, not a career. It's the 21st century equivalent of having a business card!

(I have those as well - v handy to give out at conventions. Just my web address and Twitter handle - no phone, email or snail-mail address, as I reserve those for people I actually know.)

 

[kromanjon]

Yes. Only the other day I acquired at least one new reader because a writer friend passed on a link to my cover reveal for Book 3.

So what you're saying is no. You gained a new reader through a writer friend, not through your blog.

Honestly, if you can't manage even a basic website, I think you should see writing as a hobby, not a career. It's the 21st century equivalent of having a business card!

Thanks. What a lovely sentiment. I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Anne Lyle]

So what you're saying is no. You gained a new reader through a writer friend, not through your blog.

No, I'm saying I gained a new reader through social media, which was the question (I thought). That new reader is now happily downloading freebies from my website, e.g. desktop wallpaper based on my book cover art.

I've bought books because other people tweeted about them. I've bought books from a blogger whose blog I enjoyed and found useful. There's no one method that suits everyone. If you hate blogging, better not to do it than to do it badly. But only a few brilliant recluses like K J Parker can get away with anonymity.

Ultimately it's all about connecting with your readers - they are the ones who expect it in this day and age, which is why publishers like you to be online in some form or other.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I've gained several readers through social media who keep asking when I'll get it published.

 

[kromanjon]

God damn it. Alright, so I'm obviously wrong here and I should return to practicing my hobby in silence. But before I go could someone at least agree that you need-- No wait, that's to strong a word. But at least it helps to write good litterature. You can have a million people discover you on facebook or twitter, and perhaps a million people will buy your book, but if it isn't good will a million people buy your next book?

That's all I want to know. That's all I want to be true. I don't care if people tweet things and book alot of faces and gram alot of instas. I just want good fiction to be good. And I would also like for a publisher (because this was the original question) to look at the writing first, and not judge an author on his/her webpresence, and see that good writing is good.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Of course it comes down to the book and the writing, no one is saying it doesn't. It's simply that if you don't capitalise on opportunities out there, you're making it harder to succeed. And all agents say they go with the writing first.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Of course good writing makes a difference, but as I said before, given one piece of good writing from a writer who is willing to use social media, and one where the writer isn't, the publisher will go with the first. In order for the quality of your writing to outweigh all this, it has to be not just good, not just excellent, but such that it sends a thrill through the editor's heart.

There will also be mediocre books that get published. They will be published because they are marketable -- they have the kind of story and characters that hosts of readers are longing for, not very discriminating readers who don't care much about the quality of the writing so long as there is plenty of the stuff that readers want (sex, romance, battles, government conspiracies, or whatever is appropriate for the genre in question) but readers nonetheless, who will lay out the money to buy that kind of book. These books may well be published whether the writer uses social media or not, but the ones that will be most successful will be the ones whose writers tirelessly self-promote using all the available media. These mediocre books will keep the publishers in business so that they can take an occasional risk on something they think is excellent but maybe not particularly marketable.

Really, it's the writer of excellent -- but not guaranteed marketable -- fiction that may need social media the most. That's the reality of it. If you want to write popular trash, you may be able to get away without it. You don't want to write marketable trash, so it's a question of what you are willing to do to give your good writing the best chance.

 

[kromanjon]

Ah yes, the old classic. It’s the system, that’s just how things work, you have to learn to adapt. Sink or swim, right?

Well, what if I want another alternative? What if I want to build a boat? What if I want to walk around? What if I want to drain the seas and walk across the parched ocean floor?

Just because a system works doesn’t mean it can’t be improved. Am I the only one who sees the injustice? Am I the only one who can sell the disease? You can’t just treat the symptom with a dash of internet, you have to go after the root of the problem (am I mixing metaphors again?).

You all just line up like sheep for the slaughter and bow your heads, grateful as long as someone wants a slice of you flesh. Well, if they want a slice of me, they’ll get the hoof.

---

No. I’m just joking. Sure I see your point and like I said, I have nothing against the use of social media. But still I can’t get over the fact that a publisher would actually list this as some sort of demand upon an author as part of the submission guidelines.

Surely they could read the manuscript first and then ask the author kindly to get a website, start a blog or sign up to facebook if he/she hasn’t already done this. At least this way you’d get a feeling like they had their priorities straight.

That’s all. I’m going to stop bothering all you fine folks now. Besides, I think I’ve had a bit too much to drink this evening so I’m going to bed.

Good night.

PS. Don't drink and post. DS.

 

[Ursa major]

Whatever the system, no reader is going to buy a book (however well written it is, however much it would press their reading buttons), if they are unaware of its existence. To reach the maximum number of potential buyers requires reaching out to them by every possible means**. So to use Teresa's example, the writer not prepared to blog (or not do something else that might garner readers) is reducing their book's potential sales, and highlighting the fact that the competing book is trying to get every possible sale. All other things being equal, whose book would you publish?

By the way, this might not be important for well-established and popular authors (who may still have to give interviews when they'd rather not), but when the book is your first published novel, why not help its sales (and thus also your chances of getting another novel accepted for publication)?



** - short of spamming here, obviously.