Do authors publicize their crappy books first and build skill and story as they go

K

kx10

New member
or vise versa? I mean, would you first publicize a lengthy, unique piece of art that you consider to be your best work that has a little bit of everything: love,drama,fantasy,horror. Or a rather short somewhat different work that I consider to be an action flick. The second one has the potential to be somewhat good but just results in a lot of action and not much story.Whereas, the first story is a compelling, thoughtful, suspenseful, story that leaves a person thinking. Which should I publish first? Do I go start off bad and work my way up? Or start off with my best and work my way down?
They are both working titles...
The good one is "A Shadow In The Night"
and the other is "HEAT"
 
Start with something that's going to make your name, something shorter and more mass-oriented. Then, after you've made your mark, you can publish long 200,000 worders and go off completely on one of your own tangents. Quality doesn't come into it as much as you think.
 
Do you write? That's great!!
Well, your cynicism can be understood, there is a lot of crap published which I look at and think: "I can top that" (I write, too - god knows when it gets published, haha).
I think it doesn't matter which of the two categories you named goes to print first. A lot depends on the marketing.
Writing just for money and popularity differs from writing because it's what you feel you should do here on Earth. It's up to you to decide :)

When Moliere put his plays on stage in a new town, he chose a relatively good one for the first night. Then, next night he chose the awful one. So people started talking and arguing about his art. Of course, there were crowds at the theater for the third night - to see who was right or wrong. Moliere counted on that and put on his best play!
Well, he was already famous by that point, but wish you good luck, maybe it'll be something that works for you, too!
 
U should publish the good one first so people can get interested in your books. Then try to revise the bad one as best you can and publish it. Maybe people will like it. Try to be consistent with your work until you have made enough books that are good so that one bad story won't impact your career.

Wats the name of the books?
 
You start with anything you can sell. That's about 1 in 1000 finished, polished novels.

I'd have to say, both "lengthy and unique" and "short with not much story" don't fill me with any conviction that you'll be able to sell either of them. But it's especially unlikely that you will be able to sell something even you consider bad. You'll just be competing with too much that's good.

I'd try running both of them through a critique group or site, and see what sort of comments you get.
 
People have very different opinions on the quality of writing.

Take Dan Brown. I read the 'Da Vinci Code' when it was big and popular. Sure it, was good, but I liked his earlier books better.

It's a mater of taste, audience, and your personal expectations.

Do you expect to get a niche audience and little profit from your better work, or do you think it will revolutionise writing and be a best seller, making you rich in the process?

Do you think the 'action flick' will be a big hit, but are not personally satisfied with it? Is it intended for an entirely different audience than your other work?

Personally, I'd say publish the 'good' book first, then the 'action' one.
 
People have very different opinions on the quality of writing.

Take Dan Brown. I read the 'Da Vinci Code' when it was big and popular. Sure it, was good, but I liked his earlier books better.

It's a mater of taste, audience, and your personal expectations.

Do you expect to get a niche audience and little profit from your better work, or do you think it will revolutionise writing and be a best seller, making you rich in the process?

Do you think the 'action flick' will be a big hit, but are not personally satisfied with it? Is it intended for an entirely different audience than your other work?

Personally, I'd say publish the 'good' book first, then the 'action' one.
 
People have very different opinions on the quality of writing.

Take Dan Brown. I read the 'Da Vinci Code' when it was big and popular. Sure it, was good, but I liked his earlier books better.

It's a mater of taste, audience, and your personal expectations.

Do you expect to get a niche audience and little profit from your better work, or do you think it will revolutionise writing and be a best seller, making you rich in the process?

Do you think the 'action flick' will be a big hit, but are not personally satisfied with it? Is it intended for an entirely different audience than your other work?

Personally, I'd say publish the 'good' book first, then the 'action' one.
 
People have very different opinions on the quality of writing.

Take Dan Brown. I read the 'Da Vinci Code' when it was big and popular. Sure it, was good, but I liked his earlier books better.

It's a mater of taste, audience, and your personal expectations.

Do you expect to get a niche audience and little profit from your better work, or do you think it will revolutionise writing and be a best seller, making you rich in the process?

Do you think the 'action flick' will be a big hit, but are not personally satisfied with it? Is it intended for an entirely different audience than your other work?

Personally, I'd say publish the 'good' book first, then the 'action' one.
 
Back
Top