Is Amanda Hocking the New Christopher Paolini?
Someone on Twitter asked for my opinion on self-published author Amanda Hocking, and whether she was the new Christopher Paolini.
My gut response? No. She’s Amanda Hocking.
Hocking is very much a self-publishing success story. She wasn’t previously published with a commercial publisher. She’s self-published eight novels and one novella as e-books. She reports having sold close to a million books, and she’s been on the USA Today Bestseller list.
Paolini was also a success story, of course. (I’ve written a little about his story here.) But his path to success with Eragon was very different than Hocking’s. Paolini’s parents owned the small commercial press that first published his book, and they devoted themselves pretty much full-time to publicizing it. More importantly, Paolini broke in almost a decade ago, and publishing is in a very different place today than it was then.
What Paolini and Hocking both have in common, aside from their impressive success, is that they’re both outliers. So are J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer, for that matter. All four of these authors are hanging out at the extreme end of the curve, and I think that’s important to keep in mind. Consider it a “RESULTS NOT TYPICAL” disclaimer.
I was reading Hocking’s blog, and I’m impressed with her take on things. She seems very down-to-earth about her success, and much more realistic than many authors I’ve read. From one of her recent blog posts:
“Self-publishing is great, but it’s not easy. Most people who do it will not get rich, just like most authors signed up at Scholastic books aren’t billionaires. Traditional publishers are not evil any more than Amazon or Barnes & Noble are evil. Things are changing, hopefully for the better, but it is still hard work being a writer.”
She also touches on something I’ve pointed out before, which is that holding up someone like Hocking as an argument for why you should self-publish makes exactly as much sense as holding up Rowling to prove you should go with a commercial publisher. (See “outlier,” above.)
I understand why so many people are talking about Hocking. I’ve seen analyses of exactly how many Twitter followers she has, how many Facebook friends, how often she blogs, her cover art … authors scrutinize every move she makes, because most of us would really, really like to duplicate her success. I know I’d love to make it onto the USA Today Bestseller list, and the money would be awfully nice too.
It doesn’t work that way. There are certainly things I can learn from Hocking, but I’m not her. I can’t follow her path and expect the exact same results.
So no, Hocking is not the new Paolini. She’s someone who has worked very hard to make her own path, and continues to do so. I would recommend reading her blog and getting her own thoughts on her success and the state of publishing. I found her comments both smart and … refreshing.
Anita K.
March 9, 2011 @ 9:50 am
Huh. I just heard of her the other day. I don’t have an e-reader so I won’t be buying her e-books, but I’m going to see if I can get the paperbacks through interlibrary loan, because I’m really liking her blog; thanks for linking!
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 9:53 am
Thus demonstrating that the “Just be a nice human being” approach can also work for writers 🙂
Tumbleweed
March 9, 2011 @ 1:35 pm
You don’t have to have an e-reader to read e-books; all the major formats tend to have (free) software you can use on your computer or smartphone to read e-books.
Sara
March 9, 2011 @ 1:48 pm
Under the “Just be a nice human being” approach: I have read the following authors based on liking what they write in blogs.
Patrick Rothfuss
John Scalzi
Neil Gaiman
Cherie Priest
I wasn’t disappointed in any of them.
On topic – I should think there are far more ways to fail at self publishing than otherwise. You have so many tasks that must be done well. Many of those tasks are in areas completely unfamiliar to the author. I think Scalzi mentioned once that if your book is good enough to be published, it will eventually be picked up by a traditional publisher. It might be worth the wait of several years of making those rounds, rather than risk the multi-faceted possibilities of screwing up self publishing.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
Using an outlier as an example of why to do something is never, ever a good idea.
However, you can use it as a baseline for goals.
Ms. Hocking is on track to sell 6 million books this year, maybe more. Probably more, based on her sales acceleration the last couple of months…
For every person who reaches that level of success, THOUSANDS of people are likely to reach 1% of her success.
Can you live with 1%? That’s 60,000 book sales, each making you $2 or so a pop, per year?
I can.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 2:08 pm
She said she’s sold 900,000 books since April of last year, and you’re estimating six million books sold this year? I guess that’s possible, depending on the assumptions you make.
You seem to be implying that since she’s doing so well, that thousands of the rest of us should be able to make $120K per year by self-publishing.
I am unpersuaded. But if that’s the route you choose to pursue, then I wish you the best of luck with it.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 2:10 pm
Speaking for myself alone, I’m glad these options weren’t available a decade ago like they are now. I wrote several novels that I submitted and tried to sell, and they were all rejected. Looking back, that was a GOOD thing. Those books just weren’t ready, but I wasn’t a skilled enough writer to realize it. Had I been able to self-publish so easily, and had so many people been telling me what a great idea it was to skip the commercial publishers and go straight to e-publishing … well, it would mean I had some crappy books out there with my name on them, and that thought makes me cringe.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 2:32 pm
She sold 100k in December, and 450k in January. She has not announced any other numbers, other than “over 900,000” late in February but before she had her Feb sales numbers.
She went viral in February – that’s when her name hit USA Today and suddenly everyone was talking about her. Odds are good her Feb sales were higher than her Jan ones, and her March higher than her Feb. Not sure where that will cap out, but even at 450k sales a month, she’ll have close to 6 million sales this year. That’s assuming she gets ZERO sales growth from the media attention, the radio shows, the TV appearances, the movie deal, etc. I think that is unlikely. I think she will sell quite a lot more than 6 million books this year, especially since she’s probably going to publish several more books this year. 😉
Don’t get me wrong though, Jim. I’m not suggesting that “just anyone” can go out, kick out some books, make $120k a year, and kick back. I’ve been traditionally published. I’ve got a book coming out soon self published. I’ve got a pretty decent idea how hard both routes are.
What I should have said is that the *potential* exists for thousands of people to reach 1% of her success.
I do believe that’s true. But they’d have to work hard to accomplish it. Ms. Hocking is putting out over four new novels per year. Authors who can keep that sort of pace will be in high demand in the new publishing era, and will be rewarded with more success. But it’s going to be a lot of work. I don’t think that everyone who wishes on a star will do well. But I think there is room for an enormous number of people to do very well, IF they are willing to work hard.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 2:41 pm
She sold 450K in January. That could mean she’s going to do even better for the rest of the year. It could also mean that January is right after Christmas, and a metric assload of people had just gotten ereaders and gift cards. Like I said, it’s possible, but it depends on your assumptions. Maybe she will continue to sell even better. If so, more power to her.
The potential exists for anyone to do as well as she’s done, or better. For the vast majority, I don’t believe they’re going to come anywhere close. I’ll quote Hocking herself on this one:
“In fact, more people will sell less than 100 copies of their books self-publishing than will sell 10,000 books. I don’t mean that to be mean, and just because a book doesn’t sell well doesn’t mean it’s a bad book. It’s just the nature of the business.”
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 2:41 pm
Shoot, Jim… I have enormous respect for your work, and I’m glad you seem happy with it as well. But I’ve seen a number of writers whose early work is…well, pretty shakey, let’s put it that way. And you can see the improvement over time. I recall being on a 24-hr duty back when I was in the Army, and reading the first six books by one author I will not name who is now a regular bestseller. The first book was pretty terrible, but I saw the gradual improvement in craft from book to book. It was actually pretty interesting to watch the author grow.
And those early mediocre books don’t seem to have hurt that writer. Do you think early mediocre works will do so for indie publishers? I’m more worried about the writers who will put up their “baby” expecting instant stardom, never get a sale except their mother and close friends, and give up writing rather than push on and improve. We’ll lose all the stories they might have told. Although on the other hand, I guess getting a stack of rejections does the same thing to many novices, so maybe that’s a moot point?
rachel aaron
March 9, 2011 @ 2:44 pm
Ha, this was my tweet to you… not really sure if I should be proud or ashamed. I agree with you 100%, Hocking deserves all the success she gets. Could not have happened to a nicer or more deserving lady! But when I asked is she the next Paolini, what I was really asking was do you think Hocking will be the next posterchild for “the death of publishing” as he was for awhile. Of course, I couldn’t fit that in the tweet, so there was no way you’d know, but no matter. Thanks as always for a great post!
Ole A. Imsen
March 9, 2011 @ 2:45 pm
What I find interesting, but I’ve not seen anyone mentioning in the self-publishing vs. publisher debate, is this: If you take the number of self-published book vs. the number of books published by publishers, you’ll find that the percentage of people making millions, or even a living, from writing is far greater with those that has their books with a publisher.
So that would make getting a publisher a better idea if you want to write for a living.
And as the number of self-published books increase, the percentage of those with a success story will only decrease.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
It was indeed! I wasn’t sure if you’d want to be named or not, so I omitted that detail. But thank you for prompting a good discussion … even if I totally missed the point 🙂
I have seen Hocking being waved around as evidence for the death of publishing, but I think her pretty clear and straightforward statements of “Nope, sorry” should dampen that a bit.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 2:54 pm
That’s a hard one to answer with any sort of scientific or data-driven accuracy. But in most studies, two of the biggest reasons someone picks up a book are:
1) They know the author and like his/her stuff
2) Word of mouth
An author who launches with a bad book has just shot themselves in the foot on #1. It’s *possible* that they’ll eventually be able to compensate by writing REALLY good books that generate more word of mouth to counteract that initial misstep, and I suspect that might be what happens with some of the examples you’re thinking of.
There’s also the fact that, for the most part, the gatekeeping function of commercial publishing keeps most of the truly awful stuff off the shelves. Not all of it, but most. So a lousy first book from a publisher was still judged to be “good enough,” meaning a lousy self-published first book has the potential to be much more painful.
Administrative Note: Anyone taking this to mean “Jim thinks self-published authors suck!” will be dragged out back and fed to the ferrets.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 2:56 pm
I don’t know her numbers for Feb/March, no. I know the numbers of a bunch of other folks though, and those numbers have seemed to generally trend upward in Feb, and so far in March as well. Not the spike everyone saw in January, but still definite growth. That’s logical – ebook market share growth is continuing to accelerate. As it does, sales numbers of top books will go up.
And she has seven books in the top 100 bestsellers.
Anyway, it’ll be interesting to hear her numbers if she announces them again.
As for the quote you mentioned – I agree. Not sure, have you ever done any editing, Jim? I have. Slush piles are just…OMGBBQ bad. 😉 I recall getting short stories put in front of me that looked like they were penned by 3rd graders. Not kidding. Most books are unpublishable. Heck, most books are barely *readable*. So yeah, most books are going to sell under 100 copies because they are terrible and no one will read them even if paid to do so, let alone paying for the privilege. Completely agree with her on that score.
And thanks for the discussion. This has been fun, made me think. 😉
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 2:57 pm
Re: editing, a very little bit, along with some workshops online and in person. So I haven’t gotten the full slush-reading experience, but I’ve had a taste, yes…
Annie Bellet
March 9, 2011 @ 2:58 pm
Also, all her books are available as paperbacks for 8.99 to 9.99 I believe. No need to have an ereader at all…
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 3:06 pm
I think you’re using the wrong ratio.
If you could somehow compare the ratio of those making a living via traditional publishing :: those who *submit* manuscripts to traditional publishing vs the ratio of those making a living self publishing :: all who self publish…
…my guess is that self publishing would come out ahead. Now, I don’t think that has anything to do with self publishing being better. I think it’s just because most people still submit their badly written novels to traditional publishers. Self publishing hasn’t caught on enough (yet?) to get folks to send the entire slushpile to Kindle yet. So there if there’s a larger percentage of success in self publishing (which I think is true, but can’t prove), it’s only because not as many of the worst submissions are trying it. Yet. 😉
My very strong impression however is that for good, publishable novels, the numbers work out very similarly right now between self pub and traditional pub success. The interesting thing about that is that if that is true today, when happens over the next year or two as ebooks close on 50% market share, Borders goes away, and B&N closes most of the rest of their stores?
Ed Robertson
March 9, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
I dunno. I think if you self-publish a bad book too early, it will die a quiet death in the arctics of Amazon. Later, if you get better and realized you used to blow, you can just delete that title from your Bookshelf. Nobody will notice. If it got a lot of sales and attention, that’s a different matter.. but if it actually sold in the first place, there’s probably something about that book that wasn’t “bad.”
And if the next book is genuinely good, I don’t think ebook buyers are going to notice or care you released a bag of trash the first time out.
That said, I agree with you that this could be dangerous business for authors who self-publish right away. My first two books deserved a shallow grave. The third required a long, grueling stint at Revision State Pen before I got happy with it. I recently put it and my fourth up to see what happens–there’s no reason new authors can’t self-publish and pursue the traditional route–but if these media existed 5-8 years ago, I would still be hanging my head about the stuff I’d tried to sell.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 3:31 pm
That’s a good point. With e-publishing, it’s easier to yank the books and bury the evidence, so to speak. And if it sells the more typical 100 or so copies, it’s not like there’s much word-of-mouth out there to hurt you…
“…if these media existed 5-8 years ago, I would still be hanging my head about the stuff I’d tried to sell.”
Oh, yeah. I still remember my first book, the one my girlfriend told me was so good. The idea of that sucker being out there in print gives me what’s best described as EPIC WINCE.
bryan broyles
March 9, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
For readers, the Hocking success is good for multiple reasons. First, new paths to success likely mean authors will be successful who may not have otherwise reached our readers eyes. Second, as publishing options grow, the publishers who insist on the “old ways” that are frankly damaging to themselves and readers, will be forced to adapt or fail. Watching publishers flail about trying to justify ebook pricing right now is disheartening. I’m not one of those who believes publishers will go away, but I do think they’ll have to adapt to a new reality in ways they aren’t doing right now. Self-publishing won’t likely become a major player, but it doesn’t have to to make the Tors of the world stop pricing in laughably unjustifiable ways.
Ole A. Imsen
March 9, 2011 @ 3:46 pm
I think that even if you take the number of people actually submitting to publishers, as opposed to those that get published, those who go with publishers come out ahead.
I don’t get how you get: “My very strong impression however is that for good, publishable novels, the numbers work out very similarly right now between self pub and traditional pub success.”
I don’t remember the exact numbers, but there was several hundred thousand self-published books last year. Something around the 80-90% mark, if I remember correctly, of those that were published. There is no way anyone can know how many of those self-published books are written to a good standard. Those that are will drown in the vast mass of books. And only a few of the good ones will get discovered and get the success they deserve.
And anyway my point is that although 80-90% (and probably rising as I write this) of all books are self-published, there is no way that 80-90% of successful authors are self-published.
It is much easier to notice a successful self-published author because they are so few at the moment that they are always headline news within the book community.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 5:08 pm
I totally hear that. 🙂 I wrote my first novel about twenty years ago. It was back when TSR was doing open submissions for more D&D based books. I unearthed the first few chapters a couple of months ago, and Oh. My. God. am I glad that isn’t out there for sale. *shudder*
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 5:23 pm
Hmm. OK, firstly – I am not sure where the “several hundred thousand” number comes from. If there are that many, they’re certainly not showing up on Amazon, which is where over 70% of indie sales are being made right now. If you’re making a book, and not selling it in the dominant market, you’re almost automatically out of the running.
That quote: “My very strong impression however is that for good, publishable novels, the numbers work out very similarly right now between self pub and traditional pub success.”
First, is my impression. From studying the industry and tracking numbers. Hard to know for sure, that’s just my general feeling. Take it or not. 😉
Second, what I was saying that if Good Writer writes Good Book and sends it to either market – trad or self pub – in a proper, professional manner, they seem to have roughly equal success rates. There’s a lot involved in either process, things you need to “get right” to have good success that are not directly related to the writing. But assuming you write a good book in the first place, and then accomplish those other things, it looks like you have a decent shot at success either route. Which makes it more or less the writer’s option which road to travel.
For now, at least… Hard to see the future right now. I figure keeping an open mind and an eye on both methods is a good idea. 😉
Ole A. Imsen
March 9, 2011 @ 5:48 pm
Couldn’t get numbers for 2010 (I didn’t look too hard), but these numbers shows a dramatic increase from 2008 to 2009. And I have no reason to suspect that there wasn’t a similar increase for 2010. http://wordsofeverytype.com/tag/total-number-of-books-published-by-year
That it is hard to find all these books on Amazon, that is I suspect the platform where most of these books are self-published, is of course part of the problem.
“Second, what I was saying that if Good Writer writes Good Book and sends it to either market – trad or self pub – in a proper, professional manner, they seem to have roughly equal success rates.”
Hmm…based on what?
Not the NY Times E-book bestseller list. Not the number of books published last year that the average person can name. Not on the names of debut authors that the average person can name.
-Based on the average sale numbers for a book, that is certainly not the case.
Sounds more like a combination of wishful thinking and listening to self-publishing hype than anything related to reality to me.
As I said in my last reply:
“It is much easier to notice a successful self-published author because they are so few at the moment that they are always headline news within the book community.”
We probably get reports of the majority of self-published authors making more than a decent living. But as the figures I started with seems to show, there are hundreds of thousands who will not earn in what it would cost them to get a professional cover and professional editing done.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 6:44 pm
Ah, you missed the NYT list scandal? USA Today took them to task over not listing Ms. Hocking on their ebook list, and then they made it worse by de-listing a book after they realized it was self published. Reality: about 40% of the top 100 bestselling ebooks are indie published. NYT list is no longer a credible source.
Those numbers you posted *are* interesting, though. I have to wonder where all those books are… All I know is, most of them are not up for sale on the general marketplace. Amazon is adding new ebooks at a rate of about 13,500 a month right now (based on new ebooks added over the last three months). That’s only 162,000 new consumer ebooks per year at that rate, including all traditional and indie releases.
“We probably get reports of the majority of self-published authors making more than a decent living.”
Probably. But with average advances of only around $6000 for a first novel in SF&F genres, and only marginally more even in higher paid genres like romance, are you tracking every person who sells 3000 copies of their self published book? I sure can’t – there are too many to track.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
“Reality: about 40% of the top 100 bestselling ebooks are indie published.”
Two thoughts popped into my head upon reading this.
1) Do you have a source for that statistic?
2) Given the current distribution, 40 of the top 100 bestselling e-books is still very different from 40% of the bestselling books, period … though that will continue to evolve with time.
I really hope Bookscan is moving toward tracking e-book sales as well as print, because it would be awfully nice to be able to bring some more data into these discussions.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 7:01 pm
1) Amazon results from book publicist Robin Sullivan (it was 38% as of March 5th): http://write2publish.blogspot.com/2011/03/amazon-100-march-2011.html
You have to go get the B&N results yourself, but they’re similar, if you want to take my word for it. 😉 Because B&N + Amazon represent roughly 90% of ebooks sold in the US, pairing those two is a pretty good basis for a bestseller list (with the weight on Amazon, because they own roughly 70-75% of sales).
2) I completely agree – that is nothing compared to print bestseller sales. Print still accounts for over 85% of consumer books, last I heard. That’s going up – by the end of the year, if ebooks hit 25% like a lot of folks are suggesting, the ebook list will matter more, but print will still outnumber ebooks 3-1 at that point.
3) I wouldn’t count on it. Right now neither Amazon nor B&N use ISBNs for any of their ebook sales. So Bowker is unable to track 90% or so of all ebook sales…which means almost no ebook sales actually show up on Bookscan. I don’t see that likely to change, either. There’s simply no reason for retailers to want ISBNs on their books, or to track sales by ISBN. There’s too much advantage to them to track those numbers internally instead and keep them from competitors, and no real advantage to helping Bowker make money. I’m starting to wonder if the ISBN is dead, to be honest.
Ole A. Imsen
March 9, 2011 @ 7:10 pm
@Jim
More data would be good. Unfortunately data on e-book sales would have to come from Amazon, and they have a policy of not giving the public any real number.
@Kevin
The figures I linked to show a huge increase for 2009, the year that Kindle self-publishing took off. I don’t think that is a coincidence. If those books don’t show up on Amazon, that will certainly make it even more difficult to succeed with a self-published book.
“Reality: about 40% of the top 100 bestselling ebooks are indie published.”
I see the list you linked too. But Amazon’s lists are known to change several times a day, and without real numbers they don’t really mean anything. A December 2010 sales statistic with real numbers would be much more useful.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 7:26 pm
Amazon uses an algorithm similar to the NYT, actually – it ranks each book based on current velocity of sales, weighting recent sales heaviest, and older sales less so. It updates the list hourly. But if you track back over that blog, she’s been tracking those numbers for weeks now, and that percent has stayed about the same. Some of the books have changed, but the percents are very similar.
About the list – see, that’s what’s confusing me. All Kindle DTP books *do* get listed. Which means almost none of those 800k self published books the chart listed actually got up for sale. That makes me wonder what sort of books they are counting… Because most of those were never actually put up for sale in the major markets.
Ole A. Imsen
March 9, 2011 @ 7:51 pm
About the list:
It agrees with every other number I have seen, and I hadn’t seen the list when we started this discussion.
I’ve looked at the list behind the graph (sorry for not doing that at once), and it consists of books with ISBN numbers, meaning they can be sold in all outlets. And I would guess that most of these books would be available in Kindle format by now. If however they are not available on Kindle, I guess Kindle self-publishing is really a small percentage of self-published books. -Something I didn’t expect.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 9, 2011 @ 8:04 pm
There’s only 870k books available in total (and most of those are either classics reprinted, or traditionally published books), on Kindle, so no – they’re not listed there, not more than a fraction I would guess. Don’t know why.
Don’t get me wrong, guys – I’m not down on trad pub, and I’m not one of the folks saying that “traditional publishing is doomed”. I figure you should do whatever works. But when bestselling authors like Kris Rusch are posting on their blog recommending writers self publish, well… It makes you think, y’know?
Ole A. Imsen
March 9, 2011 @ 8:23 pm
I agree with you there. Publishing is in a transition period, and things are changing. What the outcome will be is something that can only be guessed at.
It’s sad that these discussions don’t have any real numbers from Amazon to go by. Whatever they show when it comes to Kindle DTP, it would be very interesting to actually have them. -Basically, without them we are mostly going at it blind 😛
Anita K.
March 9, 2011 @ 8:38 pm
Also no internet access at home, or smartphone. Yep, I’m truly a luddite!
Anita K.
March 9, 2011 @ 8:39 pm
I saw that, and placed an interlibrary loan request at my library! 😀
[links] Link salad sports a gold tooth | jlake.com
March 10, 2011 @ 8:23 am
[…] Jim C. Hines on Amanda Hocking — He’s wise. […]
B.C. Young
March 10, 2011 @ 9:02 am
Well said. Sometimes people hit it big. But it’s the hard work that typically gets them there. Overnight success is very rare, and only through persistence can you truly achieve what your goals.
Jim C. Hines
March 10, 2011 @ 9:04 am
From what I’ve seen, overnight success usually comes after a decade or more of hard work 🙂
Anonmouse
March 10, 2011 @ 9:10 am
There are many paths to success and in the end the market is the ultimate decider of monetary gains by the publisher/author. I find it funny that many actually think that if a book is good enough to be published it will. This is just silly. There are plenty of publishable books out there that never see the light of day and others are turned away because they just plain suck. It always amazes me how critical writers are of other writers. If everyone kept their eyes on their own paper, they’d be amazed at how much better they’d do. Embrace the change and accept reality. There will be more competition of all kinds for readers. Cable went through this years ago. The pie will be sliced and diced. There is room for all kinds of success and in the end I’d rather have more stuff available than less (and friend, that’s how its been for the last 50 years). There is no doubt that indie writers now have more opportunity and must also be aware that there is more to “book making” than simply having access to a press. In the end the real winners are the readers and that’s what its all about. If you self-pub and prove you are good, trad pubs are going to come calling and your pay scale as well as product will only improve from there.
Brad R. Torgersen
March 10, 2011 @ 10:26 am
I like what Dean Wesley Smith tells new writers: if you haven’t done at least 500,000 words yet, and/or aren’t already getting positive personalized rejections from the big magazines and/or New York book editors, you’re not ready for self-publishing yet — because the craft level just won’t be there. I wrote 870,000 unpublished words before breaking in with WOTF and like Jim, I am glad the bulk of those words remain frozen in carbonite. It’s the old “First Million Words” rule, which is similar to the 10,000 hours rule.
As for instant riches, Steve Savile has been reporting some fascinating numbers from his overseas electronic sales. I don’t know if he’s been blogging about it, but he’s been doing quite well of late — through almost no promotional effort on his own part. He’s simply seen sales spike sharply as material has accumulated, and now that he’s on those “Top 100” lists, it’s a feedback loop.
Also, while Hocking is a perfect example of the outlier, I think e-publishing also opens the door what what I call the micro-audience writer. Someone who writes a very specific kind of thing that appeals to a few thousand, loyal readers. Enough to supply monthly sales that pay a few bills. Maybe, even, the mortgage. Such a person doesn’t need to have a million units sold to have his or her writing become a financially beneficial project.
L. M. May
March 10, 2011 @ 11:43 am
I agree with you 100% Brad. There’s that half-a-million words of junk to get through, but once one’s craft level is strong enough, indie publishing becomes a definite option.
I just broke through this year as a writer, and stories of mine will be BOTH traditionally published and indie published this year. I see no reason why novelettes and novellas of mine (if they’re well-written) need sit on my hard drive just because the traditional market for them is virtually dead.
Like you I plan to “play on both sides of the street” and continue doing traditional and indie work. And I think you’re right, we’re entering an era where a micro-audience writer can find his or her audience.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 10, 2011 @ 1:28 pm
I read Dean’s blog pretty regularly. His thoughts on this have changed, just over the last few months. Last I saw, he’s still talking about the idea that one’s first million words or so are their “apprentice work”. But he’s also made a rather big deal lately about “Dare to be Bad” – telling even newer writers to just put their stuff up for sale (self published), because if it’s good, it’ll sell; and if it’s bad, no one will read it or review it anyway, so there’s no risk of longterm negative side effects. In effect, he’s suggesting writers use self publishing as a tool to *determine* if the writing is strong enough to sell yet – because the readers are the clearest indicator one can get.
Not saying that’s good advice or bad. But he’s got some powerful arguments to back it up.
Elf
March 10, 2011 @ 1:50 pm
Shane Jiraiya Cumming’s recent “Grand Conversation on Ebooks” had guest posts from many authors, none of whom have Hocking or Konrath levels of success with ebooks. The post by Frank Zubek is especially good; it mentions very modest ebook sales, and how that compares to physical sales (10 years for a single sale vs 100 sales in 7 months). He’s very hopeful about the future of ebooks, but warns that “doing much much better with ebooks” is not the same as “ready to quit the day job.”
A followup on “The Hocking Effect”
March 10, 2011 @ 2:30 pm
[…] http://www.jimchines.com/2011/03/amanda-hocking/ Did you like this? Share it:Tweet Amanda Hocking, epublishing, novel, publishing, writing […]
Jim C. Hines
March 10, 2011 @ 3:28 pm
Hm … ten years is actually a pretty common figure on how long it takes to learn the skills to be a successful writer (depending on your definition of successful). It’s normal to get rejected during those first years, because most of us write really bad stories as we’re learning. That may or may not be the case in Zubek’s situation, but it doesn’t really strike me as unusual for a writer to need a decade of work to start selling.
Kevin O. McLaughlin
March 10, 2011 @ 3:40 pm
I think even more important than years is actual time spent, but yeah – it doesn’t seem unrealistic to expect to spend a decade before becoming a professional in a creative craft, does it? How long did it take you to feel like you were solidly “pro-level”, Jim?
In my case, I’m way, WAY more than ten years in, and still a beginner, but that’s breaks in the action – inconsistency in working on the skills (spent a number of years in the Army and a number of others doing computer game art before coming back to writing). That’s why I like that “million words” or “half million words” thing… It’s not just about years put in, it’s about how much time, effort, and energy you put in over those years. The writer putting in five hours a day on the craft, every day, is going to progress far faster than the writer putting in a few hours a week.
Jim C. Hines
March 10, 2011 @ 3:47 pm
Solidly pro level? I’ll let you know when it happens. But it was about a decade before my career hit what seems to be a consistently pro level (meaning the books were selling in major bookstores, and most of my short fiction was selling to pro-paying venues).
But yes, you’re right that it’s not just the time; it depends greatly on how much work you’re doing, just as with any other skill.
Leigh Saunders
March 10, 2011 @ 4:10 pm
Dean’s “Dare to Be Bad” post was mostly targeting on two things: getting out of the “rewrite it to death” mentality, and “finish it an put it in the mail to a paying market” cattle-prod. (You can read the actual post, and the comments, here: http://www.deanwesleysmith.com/?p=2494 ).
In other posts (sorry, you’ll have to look them up yourself), he still talks strongly about a writer needing to go to the effort to learn their craft. He’s not advocating just slapping something together and throwing it out as an ebook. But if you’re a writer who wants to get your work to a paying market (in print or online), at some point you have to just put it out there, and trust your audience to decide if it suits them or not. That’s what “Dare to Be Bad” is about.
Robin Sulliavn
March 11, 2011 @ 5:17 am
I agree with your assessment that Amanda is an Outlier – but there are a number of success stories now in self-publishing even beyond her. John Locke, has 7 books in the Amazon Top 100 including #1 Saving Rachel. D.B. Henson’s Deed to Death was self published and was pickedup by one of the biggest agents in the world Noah Lukeman – her book went to auction for an undisclosed some and will be releaed in July – Keep a watch on this one. H.P. Mallory got a six-figure two book deal after self-publishing her books. Michael J. Sullivan (my husband) got a 3-book six-figure deal from Orbit after doing a Paolini (my small press Ridan published his works). Victorine Lieskie has been on the top 100 for over 10 weeks. Nancy Cartwright has been on the top 100 for more than 100 days. J.A. Konrath has been posting guest blogs from many self-published authors and his own novel, The List has broke the top 20.
Yes, Amanda and now John are outliers but there is plenty of success stories to point at in self-publishing today.
Some more on the whole e-book thing | Cora Buhlert
March 12, 2011 @ 1:33 am
[…] mind right now. Many people have responded to the success of Amanda Hocking by now, including Jim Hines, Lee Goldberg, John Scalzi (watch out for commenters using the opportunity to slag paranormal […]
Lois D. Brown
March 12, 2011 @ 10:51 pm
Interesting blog with lots of opinions. I’m still in the amateur stage, (less than 500,000 words printed) but I’ve been self-publishing shorts and a book from my back list just to learn the trade. I have no intention of making a million bucks (at least not yet) but to me the education I’m getting e-publishing is invaluable. However, I’m not e-publishing two novels I’m particularly attached to. I’m holding out for those to be traditional published.
Anyhow, I’m following your feed now and look forward to other posts. My blog is Life of Lois
Jim C. Hines
March 12, 2011 @ 10:56 pm
Thanks Lois, and welcome! How have the self-published titles been doing for you, if you don’t mind me asking?
I did an interview earlier today where I said every author should go through this process at least once, if only for the education into the publishing process.
More links and a new upload! « creative barbwire (or the many lives of a creator)
March 15, 2011 @ 4:11 am
[…] Amanda Hocking in her own words and as seen by Jim C.Hines. […]
You Say You Want a Revolution : Bloodletters
March 16, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
[…] I’m seeing a ton of blog posts with titles like “The Very Rich Indie Writer,” “Is Amanda Hocking the New Christopher Paolini?” and the pretty much self-explanatory “Amanda Hocking Is The Exception, Not The […]