How tempting is it to take "The Pantser Pill"? Plotting vs Pantsing: Part Two

I badly needed to revisit this topic ...

I've hit that proverbial brick wall with both the spin-off to The Land of Betrovia trilogy and the prequels.

And why have things stalled?

While working on those things related to the Betrovia trilogy, I'm also hammering away on an entirely different project (the novel I started the winter of 1984). I also do not have a complete outline to tell me how to bring the story to an end.

Why can't I just plod on without thinking about how these things should end?

Might it have something to do with being the first-born from a dysfunctional family? Just another one of those control-freaks struggling off and on with obsessive-compulsive disorder?

I know I need to plot/outline to somehow keep tabs on loose ends ... it's in my DNA! 

Oh yes, I detest loose ends! 

After publishing the trilogy, I decided to create an Excel-based timeline to help me decide where to go next. Or course, if I was a tried-and-true die-hard plotter like I think I am I would have set up that Betrovia universe spreadsheet years ago!

But there it is ... with over 300 years of "Betrovia history" delineated in a nice, neat timeline ... in multi-colored complexity to boot!

The goal is to kick out three Betrovia-related novels by December: the full set of the Nether Valley Tales, The Proselytes (still a working title for the spin-off featuring Kristof and Dalten), and Into the Desert (the working title for the continuing story of Edelin and Galena). But which one will be first? Does it matter?

Oh, and then there's the Life in Beatty book ... which is already at 60K 

but feels like it's only 2/3 done!

Plotting vs. panstering ... I think I'm somewhere in between. No, I haven't ingested the "blue pill of pansterology", but I have not been true to my outlining genetics.

Anyway, here's the continuation of what the fine folk of The Writers' Cafe 

have been thinking lately about this thought-provoking topic.

"Okay, I bet everyone will tell me that I'm wrong, but here's my theory:
First, a little background on how I formulated this theory. Last night I saw a promo for the new CW show called Star-Crossed, and it made me think of the prologue from Romeo and Juliet. (You know... 'from the forth the loins of these two foes, a pair of star-crossed lovers take their life.') And I was thinking about the prologue gives the ending away, (and also that loins is a funny word) but that must not have been much of a surprise, because with Shakespeare's tragedies, you could tell the end of all of them from the title. (In Hamlet, Hamlet dies. In Othello, Othello dies. In King Lear... well, anyway.) And I was also thinking about how there's this appetite for endless remakes of things, which is kind of silly, because I mean, I'm watching the new Carrie, and I already know how it's going to turn out. Anyway, so that got me thinking about how some stories are enjoyable because you don't know what's going to happen. Like Fight Club. With the ending ruined, that story would have been way less cool. And other stories are enjoyable even if you already know the ending, because you want to know how it happens. Same kind of thing for a remake. I wanted to see how the remake handled the story of Carrie. (And actually, since Shakespeare's plays were all based on well-known stories, maybe that was the allure of them as well.) So, I started thinking that some stories are what-happens stories and other stories are how-it-happens stories. For instance, twisty-turny thrillers are about what happens. But a mystery story is about how it happens, because you know the detective's going to catch the killer. Similarly, romance stories are about how it happens. You know they're going to fall in love. And I wondered if people who pants tend to enjoy finding out what happens and if people who plot are more likely to enjoy how it happens. For me, the fun of writing is often the nitty-gritty details. Writing the conversations, the emotional fall out, the punches and the explosions. But I often get sort of annoyed with trying to figure out what happens, like the overarching plot, because that's hard and no fun. So I often like to get the plotting business out of the way so that I can get to the fun stuff. I wonder, however, for dyed-in-the-wool pantsers, if the whole joy of writing comes from discovering what happens next, and that's why plotting takes all the joy out of writing."

"Pantsing is just so inefficient. I find it to be so, at any rate -- I end up rewriting and rewriting and rewriting. Getting my second book done has taken %&*)@#$! forever. My problem with plotting is not characters acting weirdly (I end up with that pantsing, too, LOL). It's more that I stare at my blank outline and can't think of anything to have happen. I can't seem to generate plot outside the act of writing. Apparently, when Morpheus offered me the choice, I took the pantser pill, and now there's no going back!"

"The style differences between Brian DePalma's CARRIE via the 1970s, versus the Kimberly Pierce version via the 2010s, are matters of director style, not the storyline itself. King's text remains largely unchanged from when it was first published until today. And he pantsed that plot. Both DePalma and Pierce took that plot and added their own style to it, but the basic story beats are all the same, because the story was already written by King. So... I'm not sure the example fits the theory. Comparing movie director styles to book reading is not a plot vs. pants thing. Although I will say CARRIE had one of King's better endings. (His endings are a weakness, and that sometimes proves to be true of pantsers, though not exclusively.)"

"As an aside (kind of), I'd love to see a breakdown of planners/pantsers and how-it-happens/what-happens people alongside a Meyers-Briggs breakdown. 

I'd bet the planners are J-types and the pantsers are P-types!"  

"Plotter here, and I agree that I fit into this pattern exactly. It's the journey, not the destination, and all that. Knowing the end of a movie or book NEVER makes me want to see/read it less. Sometimes, when I'm watching a movie at home, I'll just google the ending because I can't stand the suspense and it helps me 'enjoy the ride' better, haha. Plus, I find I'm really good at predicting what will happen in a story -- like I usually have a sense, very early, of how things will turn out. So, I'm very rarely watching or reading to find out 'what happens' -- I'm usually in it to find out 'how it happens.' I'm weird, I know. But I think this is pretty insightful. ETA: Thinking about this more -- I'm also someone who can watch the same movies, or TV reruns, OVER AND OVER. Case in point: I saw the last Hunger Games movie five times in the theater. I've seen Grey's Anatomy (all 9 seasons) start to finish about 5 times. Lol, so knowing what happens reeeeally doesn't bother me. Perhaps I am an extreme case."

"As a writer, I've always been caught up in the 'what happens next' aspect. I've been stingy with reveals and loathe to hint at events for fear of dropping a spoiler. And yet ... now I'm just finishing up the last episode in a retelling of a well-loved classic. EVERYBODY knows what happens! I'm finding people enjoy two things about a retelling - seeing how it happens in this version, and also reliving their own idea of the story in the way it knocks against mine. In other words, it's all about the ride, not the destination. Both are valid focal points, the ride and the destination. Actually, that might explain why people like genre conventions and get mad when the conventions aren't respected. They want the ride they bought the ticket for."

"I'm a little of both, I think. I am 80 percent pantser and 20 percent plotter. I have several landmarks in my head of what I'm writing towards, but those landmarks are ALWAYS subject to change. For me most of the joy of writing is finding out what happens next, which would be in line with your theory. But with several major points in the arc of my series that I know my characters are going to get to, I often wonder how as well."


"When I'm on the receiving end as a reader or TV/movie watcher, I'm totally a 'how it happens' kind of person. I drive my husband INSANE because I will read all the spoilers and wiki entries on TV shows/movies, and I've been known to flip to the end of the book while I'm reading it to know the ending. But I always enjoy the journey regardless of whether I know what's going to happen or not. Knowing the end doesn't take one iota away from my enjoyment. As a pantster writer through and through I should know by now (22 books and counting) that my characters dictate my story as I go along. I can try to plot, but when they make the story come alive they go where they want to go, and they often surprise me. That does make it fun for me. Stressful sometimes because I don't know where I'm going, but as long as I trust that they do, it always seems to work out."

"If my interest is flagging in a book, I'll flip to the last chapter. If it is compelling, I'll go back to find out how the author got there. I'm so glad I'm not alone."

"I'm a pantser, but there is a bit of plotting involved. It fits my philosophy of when things go sideways, embrace the sideways."

"I definitely discover what happens next by pantsing my way along. But I don't pants because it would take the joy out of things to outline; I pants because I simply can't figure out what happens next if I'm not actually writing it. It's actually sort of annoying. I wish I could be a plotter."

"I panted the first two parts of my current serial. It was so fun discovering as I went along. But as I came to the middle of the last installment, I hit a wall. I thought, 'How am I going to tie up all these loose ends?' So... I ended up outlining the rest. It will need a lot of editing to tighten the story. I don't think I'll pants again. While finding what happens is fun, it can lead down a confusing, disjointed path."

"I try to be a plotter, because I think I'll be more efficient in my word count, but when I plot, it feels like the characters are acting in certain ways to serve that plot and it feels like my writer's 'strings' are showing. When I get tired of that and finally say 'chuck it,' (or something similar) then the characters manage to resolve things on their own. 

I wish I was a plotter, but it's a battle."

I used to think I was a pantser, but reading this thread makes me feel I'm actually a hybrid pantser (80% pantser/20% plotter sounds about right). I have been accosted in bookstores by little old ladies who tell me I shouldn't read the last page of a book. But I'm reading it to find out the 'what' so I can better enjoy the 'how.' I adore spoilers of all sorts, but they only add to my enjoyment not take away from it. I always tell people that it's impossible to spoil a plot for me. There are hundreds of movies and books that I enjoy over and over. When I write, my characters usually take me on their journey. I simply record it. But I usually have a main arc in mind.


"I'm an absolute pantser but I don't think that there's any more to it than that happens to be my writing process.  I feel like I get into the head of my characters, they 'speak' to me and I'm the scribe.  When I try to nudge them into things, they push back (and on one occasion stopped talking to me at all for 3 days!), so I need to listen to the story they tell me and write it down. For the record, I love both what happens stories and how they happen stories, it's just that mine happen by pantsing."

"I still haven't written enough to think I've settled into a permanent writing groove, but so far I've mostly pantsed.  Getting sucked into my own imagination, and letting that dictate where the story goes as I'm writing it, is a lot of fun for me... at least, it's fun when things are flowing.  But I tend to spend a lot of time tapping into that flow, and sometimes I feel more immersed than others. I've been thinking about plotting a story out, to see if it's less laborious for me to do the writing.  Maybe I'll try it soon."

"Perhaps it also depends on the genre? It seems thrillers, with their intricate plots and plenty of twists and turns, require more outlining than other genres. I've tried both outlining and pantsing, but have discovered that for some odd reason my outlining brain and my writing brain seem disconnected. The outlining-me doesn't seem to know what the writing-me is capable of, and therefore I've sometimes spent weeks outlining, only to discover once I started writing, that I couldn't write that story. It just didn't fit my writing chops and sensibilities. And vice versa, once I start writing, I tend to come up with plots and stories that I would never have been able to conceive in the outlining stage."

"I've been trying to outline to Blake Snyder's beat sheet, and I get pretty good outlines. After that I really kind of let loose, but I like to have that direction early. Plus I like to know where my reversals are coming. These can come to you when you're working on the fly, and the spontaneous aspect of them is great, but that outline is nice to have. Really though, I seem to make it then not look at it much except for a reference list when I need a character's last name, a building name, address, or some other small detail I try to have on that cheat sheet."

"I used to plot intensely, to the extent of having a couple of lines detailing events in each and every chapter of my novels before even switching on my computer to write the first draft. It worked very well, but ... now I only do about a third as much plotting, so that I have a series of major points I know I have to get to in order for the story to flow coherently. Other than that, I have become something of a pantster. I've discovered that new twists and character traits emerge more naturally for me by doing things that way. However, I must always have a beginning, middle and end firmly in my mind before starting the first draft, so the idea that the journey is the key to the enjoyment doesn't quite work for me yet ( as an author, not a reader ). Having an ending makes sure I'm always moving toward that ending, and not wandering aimlessly as I write. Maybe I'm both a plotter and a pantster now: a plonster ... ?"


"This is the problem with this discussion. You've assumed that plotting = structure, and no plotting = no structure, and that's false. It's just as easy to meander when you are plotting as it is when you are pantsing, and you can both learn to structure as a pantser (or have an innate sense of it), as well edit to a balanced finished product. I can name several devout plotters who are meanderers or who had serious structure problems. Just because you've put something in an outline doesn't mean the reader needs it or will care about it. It happens on both sides. The real problem with many writers is killing their darlings, not whether that book was plotted. And some big authors get to a point where editors either don't challenge them, or the publishing company just doesn't care (I'm really not sure, probably both happen). Both sides have to cut the fat in places."

"I switch between pantsing and plotting between whatever genre I'm writing, but I have pantsed thrillers. I guess I'm a weirdo. I have a pretty good memory though, so I tend to tie up everything (sometimes without realizing it at first). It's harder for me when switching POVs, especially 3+ POVs, to pants, so that's when I tend to plot. I definitely have way more fun pantsing. I am setting up my next series in one POV, and in a more episodic style, just so I can pants it."

"Pantsers don't have to write in order. They also can edit afterward. I don't even bother writing my first chapter first when I'm plotting. It makes much more sense to me to write that last or close to last."


"I'm a bit of a hybrid. I don't start writing before I know the end of the story. I also know the major turns. I write nothing down, but maybe that still counts as plotting. What happens in between the major turns, and how they happen, I sort of discover while writing. In that respect I'm a pantser maybe. In short: I plot the what and I'm a pantser in as far as the how is concerned."

"I enjoy dreaming the stuff up. Thinking of some creepy thing that happens to someone, and then thinking of some way to work that into the story. I also enjoy setting a character loose and following along for a while, though, I find I end up cutting a lot of stuff that way. 

I guess I'm a hybrid."

"I've turned into a Micro-plotter, meaning that every day before I start to write I work out with pen and paper what a scene is about, what HAS to happen and what CANNOT happen. Also, I know from the beginning how a story will end. I need that."


"The above theory comports with why I'm a pantser and, more so, why I became a writer and significantly reduced the amount of reading I do for enjoyment (seemed like everything I was reading, I knew the end before I was a third in -- and TV is so much worse when you can guess whodunnit based on the guest actors cast on some shows). I don't like knowing how it turns out until I finish -- then I go back and add a few lines here or there so it doesn't feel like it's coming completely out of left field to the reader. I have to learn to become a 'how it happens' writer, though, because I need to write longer and not get block the minute I decide how to end it."

"I'm one of those people that will end friendships if you spoil the ending of a movie for me.  I don't want to know what happens before I experience it!  I want to have all the joy of discovery all to myself! And I consider my best works to be the ones I have pants.  I have fallen on plotting times due to the need for speed and oversight and such.  But when I'm at the top of my game, it is when I just sit down at the keyboard and type, discovering twists and turns I couldn't possibly have figured out ahead of time."

"Like someone already said, pansters can revise, so there's absolutely no reason one of their books couldn't open with a passage that requires knowledge of the entire plot. Pantsing vs. plotting is just one's mechanism for coming up with a first draft. Not very many of us can publish unrevised first drafts and have them be anything but a steaming pile of poo. I certainly can't. Since I come up with the plot as I draft, I revise very heavily. The "cuts" file for my WIP stands at about 25K words, and the manuscript itself is only 116K."

"I believe the events of a story should add up to something. That involves planning and structure. Otherwise it's just a lot of stuff happening that may or may not have any underlying meaning. Some of that pants'd writing is great and entertaining - especially short stories - but longer novels that are pants'd often seem unfocused and meandering with tacked on conclusions 

(yeah, I'm talking about you, Stephen King and George Martin.)"

"The more I read pantser/plotter discussions, the more I think there aren't two separate camps, that we all fall somewhere on a continuum. There are pantsers who say they go into things knowing only a few plot points, but there are outliners who describe their outlines as that sketchy too. I read a book on her writing by Elizabeth George, and her outlines are so detailed she all but writes the book twice. On the other extreme are pantsers who simply start writing with nothing but a character or two or a starting scene. Most of us fall somewhere in between. As to the original theory of the thread, as an outliner I'd be a data point in favor. Until Kindle made it too difficult, I always read the last page or two of any book I was considering. That was my reaction to Gone With the Wind. However, as someone else said, I'm writing romance, so of course generally speaking the outcome is known from the start."

How do you handle a negative review?

As a writer, who's our biggest fan? Our spouse? Our best friend? Our favorite beta-reader? 

Up until that nasty alzheimer's disease kicked it, my biggest fan was my mom. A week after giving her a copy of Betrovia, she wanted to know when the movie based on it was going to be made. Not long after that, she persuaded the person in charge of setting up her church's monthly newsletter to include a blurb for the book.

She's not read many medieval fantasies, so it would not be logical to label her a valid critic of the genre. But she was a prolific reader and was even the leader of a readers' group at her church a few years ago.

So what should a writer expect from his loving mother? 

The first negative review of any of my novels/stories posted on amazon.com was a 2-star. This was awarded to one of my short stories after running it "free" the first time. Basically, the reviewer confessed she "didn't get it."

And "didn't get it" justifies giving the story 2 stars.

About a year later, someone posted this interesting 1-star review of Betrovia: "Sorry to say I gave up on this one only a few pages in. I found Patrik to be way (sic) to strange. He reminded me of someone who is mentally off. He became distracted over the smallest thing. One minute he is asking his daughter why she is so hard on Kristof, the stable boy, and the next minute he is distracted by how the sunshine highlighted a cleaning rag on the table. His daughter never answered by the way and it took him a full minute to realize this. The entire time you are in Patrik's head you see him distracted more times than he seems in 'the moment.' Too odd for me."

Maybe I should be thankful the reviewer didn't say "I don't get it"? 

Another thing to think about is how are negative reviews like rejection letters?

I never got around to sending my manuscripts to agents/publishers, so I don't have any letters sent to me to use as examples. But here are a few interesting ones:

The Diary of Anne Frank was rejected 16 times. After reading the manuscript, one publisher wrote, “The girl doesn’t, it seems to me, have a special perception or feeling which would lift that book above the ‘curiosity’ level.”

Joseph Heller, author of Catch-22, received this message from one publisher: “I haven’t the foggiest idea about what the man is trying to say. Apparently the author intends it to be funny – possibly even satire – but it is really not funny on any intellectual level.”

One publisher said this about Stephen King’s Carrie, “We are not interested in science fiction which deals with negative utopias. They do not sell.”

Yuppers ... negative reviews and rejection letters look pretty similar.

Now let's take a look at what those who patronize The Writers' Cafe think about 

negative reviews ... particularly the 1-star variety.

"Both of my books have a combined 43 reviews, 35 five star, 6 four star and 1 three star. Then out of nowhere I get a 1 star review. No mention of poor character development, poor grammar, poor punctuation, poor spelling, or unbelievable plot and characters. No, he thought it didn't have enough action in the first three chapters he read before returning it."

"How do I handle it? Usually, I laugh, especially my last one, "Progressive agenda wrapped in zombie blanket". I immediately shared it with friends. Gave me a good 24 hours of spontaneous chuckling."

"I think reviews are fair game. I want readers to express their opinions of my books so other readers can decide whether or not they're for them. Of course, I dislike ever hearing that someone did not enjoy reading one of my books. But that comes with the territory. In my case, I've had readers one star my books because they didn't like my character's hair color all the way to the fact that I used testimonials in the opening pages of my sample. As I said, it's all fair game and I'd rather hear from readers, than not. I won't always like what they have to say, but I want to hear from them nonetheless."

"You read it, decide if the criticisms are valid.  If they are, you try to consider them next time.  If they are not, you ignore them. I can't stress strongly enough that you have to detach emotionally from things like this if you want to do this as a career.  I see people say they don't read reviews, but a lot of negative (or middling) reviews have good points about how you can improve your work.  Good reviews are far less valuable (though more fun). If you let reviews depress you, you're going to have a hard time.  A quick little wave of unhappiness is one thing, but then let it go. I have a one star review that gushes about the book (an obvious mistake on the star rating), another one star that lists an old book and basically says, 'I didn't read this book, but I can't imagine how anyone can write on the topic better that XXX,' and still another that is a ten paragraph rant about how she couldn't download the thing.  You can't let this stuff get to you."

"I just quote The Big Lebowski: 'Yeah, well, that's just, like, your OPINION, man.;'"

"I usually kill some one off in my WIP... jk... I usually share it with my husband so I can vent about it then I can let my anger out. I just don't get it. I am so sorry that you had to get something like that. Some people out there try to bring other writers down just because they are intimidated. I have received one star reviews say things like I hate this genre and that's why I hated this book. I am just baffled by people choosing to read a book in a genre they hate or they only read a few chapters like you were talking about and then leave a review stating it was awful and how they could not get through even 2 chapters."

"It may help to tell yourself that, in a year, you'll have more perspective, and to forgive yourself for not having it now. I think I should have 'Don't overreact' tattooed across my forehead. Wait, across my thigh, where I could see it while I sat at my computer. But like any other emotionally triggering event, that's a whole lot easier to say than to do. Give yourself a break, let yourself be upset, and know that it'll get easier."

"I don't even read the good reviews. Forget about the bad ones. As long as they bought my book, they're free to say whatever they want. It's their right post-purchase. (Which is why I don't plan to make any of my books free until it has at least 200 5-star reviews or something to blunt nonsense reviews like this.)"

"Haters gonna hate. Just repeat that one hundred times, because it's true. Haters gonna hate."

"One of the awesome things about negative reviews (and why I like them) is because the very same reasons your reviewer laid out why they didn't like the book, will be the exact thing that excites the next reader to buy your book. I had a reader one star one of my books because she didn't like that the heroine had a girlfriend and that the makeout scenes were too descriptive for her taste. No sooner than her review went up, so did sales of my book. There's always a silver lining if you look for it."

"1) I sulk. For at least half an hour.
2) I find someone who loves me and whine to them about it, but within reason.
3) Chocolate.
4) Watch something adorable, like Tom Hiddleston meeting Cookie Monster, or kittens playing in the snow.
5) Find one piece of my writing that I really, really like and read it and assure myself that I am not a plague upon the writing world.
6) Repeat Steps 1-5 as needed. Then I'm over it.
Bad reviews suck. A lot. But it's the name of the game. There is a universal rule in writing: no matter what it is, someone will love it and someone will hate it. At least it means you're engaging them, if that helps. But hey, you also have a buttload of good reviews and some of us pray for that day, so don't sweat it. We got your back."

"I laugh. Life's too short to get upset by it.  Poop happens.  And way more people like my books than hate them, so I'm doing something right. To be honest, I love a good in-depth, scathing review.  If I made a reader feel ANYTHING strongly, I figure I did my job well."

"Upon receiving a bad review I crochet a little voodoo doll and write the reviewer's username on it with beige crayon. Then I paste it to the wall with glitter glue and stand before it, hurling invectives at it (completely ignoring correct grammar) and cursing their entire family tree and ancestors yet to come. Then I bury the doll in the backyard while quietly giggling to myself. I have a bit of a backlog, seeing how my backyard is currently under four feet of snow. But the time will come. Oh yes, it will..."

"I think we are hardwired to pay more attention to bad news than to good news. I think it's an inbuilt survival mechanism. Even to the point where we are inclined to give bad reviews more credence than they deserve. Your bad review doesn't appear to have any validity, and you know you shouldn't be grieving over it and giving it more emotional thought than it deserves. But you do, or you wouldn't have posted here. A practical way I have of countering this negative tendency is to extract the best key adjectives from the majority of my reviews and post them on the wall next to my right shoulder as I sit typing, to remind me of what the majority of my readers think of my books. Those people are after all the people we should keep in our minds, not the 10%-20% of people we will never please. Whenever I have a tendency to feel down about my work, I look over at the list and see words and phrases like: Awesome! Innovative! Compelling approach! Really cool idea! Brilliant! Enjoyed the format! Very readable, etc. I'm sure your many 5-star reviews have similar phrases. Type some of them out and stick them on your wall next to where you sit when writing."

"I raised teenagers. I already know how stupid I am. 

A one-star review? I consider it a compliment."

"The first time I got a 1* review I was very upset. Now I make a point of analyzing it a bit. Are they right? Sometimes they are and in this day and age it could be an easy fix (typos etc). If they fundamentally dislike the book because it's not to their taste rather than because it's badly written, as in your case, then it's best to accept that you can't please everyone all the time. The important point is that you love what you've written and so do a lot of other people. Alternatively you could write a rollercoaster ride of a story where action is followed by more action without any opportunity for the reader to take breath until they are gasping with exhaustion as the stakes are wracked higher and higher until it all culminates in a huge explosion of death and mayhem. And dedicate it to the reviewer. It's probably best not to hit the publish button on that one though."

"Try laughing. Or rolling your eyes. Or poking fun at it in a *private* group. But coming here to then put down said review? Not the path I'd recommend. Someone didn't like your book, and they don't need to meet your specifications of what is fair for them to rank it low, only theirs. If it's a few slow intro chapters, then so be it, man. You clearly have plenty more good reviews to balance it out."

"Negative reviews always carry a little sting but after awhile you learn to shrug, tell yourself 'different strokes', and move on. The only comments that don't roll off my back easily are the rare sort that get personal or confrontational. After those, I sometimes need to read a couple of my 5 stars to balance the negative feelings, so I don't go through the next half hour feeling sucky. But basically, it's best not to get too emotionally invested in reviews, or you'll spend your writing career on a never-ending rollercoaster. Some writers find it works best for them not to read their reviews at all. Me, I read mine. I try to distance myself from the creative part me, look at reviews with a coldly analytical eye, and see what (if any) consistent points I can find in the reviews. If you can do that, reviews are a useful opportunity to pick up on the reading habits, the likes, and dislikes of your audience."

"Seriously, any time you want to get upset by a 1 star review, go look at any big name author's books. Da Vinci Code has over 700 1 stars. You are in a business that has critics."

"There are 'bad' reviews and 'negative' reviews. Neither are handled (at least, not by me). Reviews are for readers, not feedback for authors. Of course you can treat them as feedback, in which case the 'bad' review should be ignored. The 'negative' review might give clues why your book seems to miss the mark with this particular reviewer. If several reviewers hint at the same issue, you might want to look at your book with dispassionate eyes, but that's all the 'handling' I do."

"The worst review I ever got was a 1-star that said my story was boring."

"It’s really hard to get a negative review, but remember that sometimes these reviews are written by jealous competitors. On the other hand, there are many cruel people in this world. I don't think that a reasonable person would post a very negative review, even if they hated the book. A reasonable person would show understanding and give you at least 3 stars. Those who are cruel usually have many psychological problems. They are not sensible."

"My feeling is that reviews are one reader's way of telling another reader 'Hey! This was a ___ book and here's why...' It has never occurred to me to think the reader was addressing the author with feedback. I don't see Amazon as a platform where readers and authors pow-wow. Because of this, I don't read (my) reviews. I just assume they were not intended for me, so why bother with them? On the other hand, I'm very active on Facebook and Twitter, and my regular readers know this and know that if they want to give me feedback on a book, all they have to do is post on my wall and I WILL respond. I've got a very good open line between my readers via Facebook and Twitter, and they are constantly telling me what they think and I'm constantly responding. If they are posting it on my FB wall they are directing it to me the author, but if they are posting it on Amazon than they are directing it to other readers. Plus I know when I'm reading Amazon reviews, it always rubs me the wrong way, when I as a reader, see an author commenting on the reviews, and it really ticks me off when I see an author arguing with a reader. My thoughts are: the readers are your fans, not every reader is going to become a fan, but arguing with one reader, is going to prevent other readers from wanting to be your fan, out of the fear that you'll lash out at them next. So my policy is don't read the reviews at all, they were not written for my benefit to begin with."

"It is everybody's right not to like a book for whatever reason. I feel terribly peeved sometimes, but what can I do? I'm about the only person in Germany who does not like potatoes. Ok, I don't review potatoes but I'd always suggest to take the pasta. You get the weirdest reviews but if your stuff is good, you will overcome."

Looking for a good read? Check out some indie authors!

During my senior year in high school, I signed up for my first creative writing class.

Oh sure, I was forced to take language arts/English classes all the way through junior high into high school and was given the opportunity off and on to be "creative" in those classes.

But this was different.

Here it was, my first opportunity to write basically what I wanted to write: science fiction. My creative writing teacher, now that I think about it, was surely a new member of the Topeka High School faculty. I mean, she didn't look much older than me. But I'm sure she must have impressed someone in the THS English department to be awarded the privilege of administering that department's "creative writing" class.

As far as I can remember, she told us that she would love it if we'd "hone" our skills in one particular area/genre. If someone wanted to focus only on poetry, so be it. What about focusing on "free verse" poetry? Could we do that? Why of course we could!

It's a "creative writing" class!

When I told her I'd like to focus primarily on sci-fi, her response could have been something like:

"Well, I am a woman, David, and women traditionally don't care much for science fiction." But she must have phrased it such a way that said she would be as objective about it as possible -- for a woman, of course.

Even before "graduating" from 6th grade, I devoured science fiction: Burroughs, Heinlein, etc. and for the most part the only comic books I enjoyed were of the sci-fi variety. So, needless to even mention, my brain was definitely full of science fiction plots/characters/settings and even themes (especially what is now referred to as "dystopian sci-fi").

Even though the first draft of our stories/poems weren't due until Friday, I purposely handed in my "post-nuclear holocaust" short story on Thursday.

The next day, I couldn't believe it: she had made enough copies of my story for everyone in the class and spent nearly all of that class period using my story as her text for that day's "creative writing" instruction. I was more than stoked: I thought I had been transformed ... re-created ... initiated into another world. I had "made it."

A few weeks later, she assigned the class a "character study" in which we were to describe using as much metaphorical language as possible someone we admired ... or at least liked a lot.

And I chose to focus on my current girl friend. And I thought the assignment was pretty easy. And I thought the best person to first share my descriptive paragraph with was that beautiful young lady.

Boy, was I wrong ... so very, very wrong.

Not only was she humiliated by my metaphoric/allusive description of her, I firmly believe this seemingly-harmless collection of sentences led to the demise of our relationship. (She was so "impressed" with my description of her that she drew -- with colored pencils even! -- a pictorial representation of it and threw it at me before that school day was over.)

Audience ... that's what "creative writing" is all about. And there we have it ... my introduction to "The quality of indie books."

Now how about we move on to the meat of this blogpost: 

the highly-insightful and sometimes even humorous comments 

from the those who populate The Writers' Cafe.

"It occurred to me today that we as indies have been fighting a losing battle by trying to argue that indie books are of the same quality as trade published books. Certainly many are, but at the same time a great many aren't. Which means that the quality of an indie book on average is less than that of a trade published book. This is basic statistics, and as long as many indie authors produce poor quality work, there's nothing we can do about it. And readers will know this - let's be honest. They aren't dumb. And if they've been browsing as I do and checked out a lot of books, indie as well as trade, they will have come across some poor indie works. Those invested in the trade publishing world have of course seized on this quality gap and used it as a club to beat us over the head with. Again, this is their bread and butter we're threatening, so there's not much we can do about that either. And so we as indies will always be labelled with the stigma of poor quality. But, and here's where things get turned around, the underlying reason for this difference is the presence or absence of gatekeepers. In the trade publishing world books of substandard quality simply aren't produced - or shouldn't be. But the gatekeepers have been knocking out books for other reasons than quality. And as all of us know, often the reason for their rejections has been commercial success. In short if a book didn't fit in a commercial genre or follow a particular commercial trope, it was unlikely to be picked up. That means if you want original, fresh work, you're much more likely to find it among indie books than the trade published. So maybe instead of trying to argue a losing cause and to claim that indie books are of the same quality on average as trade published, we should instead be arguing a winning one. That indie books are fresher, more original, more creative etc. And if those invested in trade publishing claim we produce poor quality work that they would never publish, we as those invested in the indie publishing world argue that they produce formulaic, derivative, generic and unoriginal work. This is in debating a thing called framing the argument. Showing the true costs of choices etc. So everybody wants better health care but no one wants to pay higher taxes. You can't have both. So maybe readers want higher quality books, but they don't want boring, repetitive stuff that they've read a hundred times before."

"I don't honestly ever find myself having this argument--not with family, or with friends, or with strangers, or with trad publishing colleagues. I think the work I put out myself is on par with what I get with publishers. Better in content in many cases. Less flashy with art."

"It's true that most of the indie content is below par, both in quality of stories and quality of workmanship. But we writers should look at this as an opportunity, not an obstacle.  Because it's presenting us with a clear way to stand out from the crowd.  We must make sure our work rises above that level, and readers will notice.  They may still complain about indie books in general, but they'll also know which authors to turn to in order to find better than the typical indie book." 

"I honestly don't care what anyone thinks. I'm selling books, I'm having a blast doing it, and people who are reading my books love them and demand I write faster! Then again, when I decided to write, I never once considered tradpub. I know it's hard to believe, but NOT ONCE. The lousy terms, the idea of putting my career in someone's hands and hoping they do right by me, was never something that appealed to me. I understand that a lot of other self-publishers don't come at it from this angle, which I assume is behind the desperation to be seen as 'legitimate.' I personally don't care. When I was devouring books like a maniac, I never ONCE turned to the copyright page to see who published that book. NOT ONCE. My advice is to stop trying to win the argument. It's never ending and it will never really make you feel better. Just ... write. If you're having fun, and people are loving and buying your book, what does it matter what some jackass in New York thinks?"

"I see the argument differently than most. For starters, I don't buy into the whole Team Indie thing. I don't recall ever signing up to be part of some conglomerate of self-published authors. If you put out a professional product that's been professionally edited, has a professional cover, with an excellent blurb, readers shouldn't be able to tell the difference between a traditionally published book and a self-published one. So maybe the reason readers are critical of indie books is because some authors are presenting their books as being something that's substandard from the get go, as in 'I'm indie, so I'm going to be different and not spend money on my books or learn how to do the production work properly'. Me? I'm an author. The method of my publication is inconsequential. What matters is that I put out a quality book. I'll leave the rhetorical debate of why some readers dislike indie books for others who have more free time on their hands than I do. I choose to spend that time writing more 'quality' books."

"IMO, the biggest pro-indie case, and the reason most readers buy indie, is price. Indie books, on average, are cheaper. That, first and foremost, is what makes them attractive. Indie writers have more flexibility over price (including free) than trad writers and publisher with overheads and specialists to pay for. Some people may complain about Indie quality, but everyone loves a bargain, and lots sign up to Bookbub to get exactly that."

"With my reader hat on: The average quality of independent books vs tradpub would only matter to me if I were planning on reading all 2 million (or whatever the number is) books currently published. Even in the genres I mostly read there are approx 100000 books listed on Amazon. At an average of one book a week, if I live to a typical age I *might* manage another ::counts on fingers:: 2000 books. Since the market opened up in the last few years I'm buying good books faster than I can read them, and I guess approx 70% are indie (I seldom bother checking). Proportionately I find as many duds in the tradpub books (derivative formula). Honestly I'm not seeing a quality problem. If I don't like a book it goes into the DNF folder and onto the next. Happy days."

"Back in the 90s, I earned my living as a freelance writer for about three years, one book published, one in progress, lots of articles. I did okay, but when I really looked at the numbers, I said, yeah, no, I'm not insane. Got myself a job as an acquisitions editor and spent a pleasant ten years earning good money doing a job I was good at. When I started writing again, I never once considered tradpub. Not once. My first book has 99 five-star reviews on Amazon. No traditional publisher would ever have picked it up. It's a genre book that doesn't have a genre, it breaks rules right and left, it's simple and not, it's decidedly quirky in every possible way. I wrote it and if I'd been the acquisitions editor who got the manuscript I would have said, 'Not a chance, loved the read, but I can't sell a book that doesn't fit on a specific shelf, and by the way, do you know that there are rules about how plots work?' I don't feel the need to defend indie publishing. For me, that would be like defending indie music. Sure, there's a lot of crap out there. But it's also where a lot of interesting stuff is happening. If you're the kind of person who needs to know exactly what you're getting, stick with the top 40. But those of us who are listening to the crap in order to find the interesting stuff, we don't need to defend ourselves to you. We get to smile quietly and keep listening."

"Something I learned in business a LONG time ago is that trying to compete on price isn't usually the best strategy. I believe that most consumers seek out quality and will pay for quality, as long as the price isn't too far out of line. I hate to see indie authors underpricing quality work because they feel like their only advantage is price. It isn't. I think that the more stories that come out in the mainstream media about indie authors having success, the less common will be the impression that indie works are of poorer quality or worth less money than traditionally published works. I encourage indies to not give in to the thought that "I have to sell my hard work for cheap" and price their work what they think its really worth."

"I call this 'The Originality Trap', a belief that being 'original' from the ground up is the single most important thing, even if story or even mere comprehensibility 

(not a word, but it should be) must suffer. I've read so many freaking books 

that are so wrapped up in being 'spayshul' that they make absolutely no sense."

"Maybe ten to twenty years ago, there was a lot more credibility to the 'gatekeepers' argument filtering out the cruft and serving the best of the best to the reading public. However, while the media and certain corporate moguls are trying to sell the quality point in the news, the numbers aren't supporting that argument. Titles by self-published authors are now showing up routinely in the bestsellers lists. Even the New York Times which was openly hostile to self-published writers in the past, finally gave in and now includes self-published titles in their reviews. A significant percentage of the top books listed are self-published. If the quality wasn't there, then why are these books flying off the shelves?"

"Serial fiction is another big thing that self-pub is turning somewhat mainstream, I think. Not that it didn't exist before, but H.M. Ward is making bank on a VERY addictive NA romantic suspense serial. Sure, her work is fun entertainment -- but I think bringing that form to the ravenous romance community is pretty original. So, if we're talking about, like, experimental literary fiction, I totally agree -- not much of these writers are taking advantage of self-pub. I think that's partly because the self-pub stigma is especially strong in literary circles (I say this coming from academia): I think lit-fic is still pretty attached to the traditional publishing model. But indies are providing readers with fresh, original content: or at least content big pub refused to try out." 

"It doesn't matter how you frame the argument, there are people who simply aren't going to change their minds. I see no point in wasting valuable writing time on something that won't change by blabbing at people. Do your best work. Always strive to improve yourself. When possible, advise and even mentor new writers to do their best work. Set a good example -- standards, if you will -- by being a professional writer and publisher. Price books the way you feel benefits your career. Write a series if you want. Or don't. Write in the genre you like. Or the one that you can make money from. Pay for covers and editing. Or don't. Respect the fact that others won't agree with you. Accept that some people won't like what you write, and won't hesitate to tell you, in excruciating detail, why. Write with your heart, and publish with your head."

"People confuse originality with creativity or even talent. I believe it was Mark Twain that said 'All ideas are second-hand.' We all start out wanting to be 'original.'  But originality is not the goal of storytelling. The goal of storytelling is to speak on the human condition. 

Readers read not to see something original per se. 

They read to engage in the human experience. 

They read to be entertained. The read for comfort and familiarity. They read to escape. 

I watched Henry IV pt 1 last night (with Jeremy Irons and Tom Hiddleston). 

It was the most beautiful production of the play I've ever seen. But it wasn't original. 

They didn't change the play or the characters 

or turn Percy into a vampire or Prince Hal into a fairy. 

Ye gods, Henry IV wasn't even original when Shakespeare wrote it! Everyone knew the basics of the story. But what made it great was the interpretation of the story. The ability to take an old story and make it mean something to a modern viewer."

"My first career for the last 20 years has been as an indie artist. That community has had this argument in one form or another over and over and over. It's moot. Here's why: Some people don't care if a book is indie published or not. (great, don't worry about these people, you just keep being you) Some people do care. Some people will decide to judge all indie books by a bad experience they've had with one or a few titles. Those people are narrow minded. Their minds cannot be changed except by their own persuasion. If that happens at all, it will be over a long time, after many + experiences that slowly chip away at their initial impressions. These kinds of people exist as consumers of every creative market and you just cannot fashion your practices to indulge them. The only things you could possibly do in an effort to change their mind is to put out the best possible work product you can at every stage of your career and continue to do this repeatedly. The good news is that is what we should all be doing anyway. We should all be doing our best to put out our best work all the time. And I'd say most people do. The disconnect lies in subjectiveness. The logic flaw that exists in a lot of these "indie writers don't care about quality" arguments is the CARE part. I've never met an indie that didn't care. I've never met an indie that didn't think that they were putting out their best work. But there's no accounting for taste. Just as some people are tone deaf, some have no idea their cover is bad or that their writing is stale. I've met many artists like this in the art world, artists who think they are incredibly talented and are ready for a professional career. LIFE separates the wheat from the chaff. Bad work, doesn't sell. Some people will explore the reasons why, solicit objective opinions, and then take steps to improve. Some won't. This natural selection exists in every creative pursuit. It works on it's own. So we need do nothing. Now from time to time people point to a book they don't like that is selling well and they say 'The system doesn't work, this shouldn't be making money because I think it sucks.' That's just sour grapes. In the end all we can do is keep our head down, and swim in our own lane."

"The only way I know an indie from a trad is if the indie screams it.  Now do not get me started on indies that use others.  Oh and I learned something this week.  If you want to write about a real person even fictionally, you had best get that person's permission or the estate's permission."

"You know, Woody Guthrie said something about music that this conversation reminded me of: 'I hate a song that makes you think that you are not any good. I hate a song that makes you think that you are just born to lose. Bound to lose. No good to nobody. No good for nothing. Because you are too old or too young or too fat or too slim too ugly or too this or too that. Songs that run you down or poke fun at you on account of your bad luck or hard traveling.' Well, the entire literary industry spend decades convincing authors that they were too ... something to be published. I suppose in a way I am proud to be a part of the change that has put that behind us. Hugh Howey said something in another thread that he was happy to be part of allowing a twelve your old girl to put her NaNoWriMo novel up for sale (sorry if I misquote him slightly since I'm not sure exactly which thread he posted that in). Anyway, I agree with him on that. I hate an industry that told us (still tries to tell us) that we aren't any good and I'm not fond of people like Franzen who tell us we have to have the literati's permission to put our stories out there. So I'll put out the best stories I can and to the devil with the rest."

"I've read twenty books this month. (Twenty! Amazing what you can get done with a vacation and a well-stocked Kindle.) Some were tradpubbed, most were indie, 90% of them were wonderful. Thinking back on them now, I can't tell you which ones were published by indies and which ones weren't. They were all edited, formatted, and presented about equally well. I feel like there might have been a lot more trouble with quality when ebook self-publishing was still getting its feet, but I don't even see this subject as relevant anymore. Most author-publishers have their [crap] together. I pick up a lot of books by browsing alsobots, reading samples, and purchasing whatever looks cool - I can't remember the last time I DNF'd because of a quality problem. (Though it probably was a trad book with fixed font size, which drives me crazy and seems to be prevalent in older trad titles.) I'm not saying that there are no low-quality books. I'm just saying they're not visible or numerous enough to be worth worrying about. Also, if there's any perception that self-pubbed books are of lower quality, then it hasn't hurt my business, so I don't care. Y'all know what they say about ze haters."

"I don't think the average consumer even knows they are reading indie books. They buy from an Amazon list or an also-bought or from a Bookbub email and never check to see who the publisher is. Even then the self-publisher can be obfuscated through a small pub house or custom imprint. Now, if they read a poorly edited book and check out the publisher, it can reaffirm their bias -- 'Of course it was bad, it was self-published' -- while not realizing many other good books they have read were indies. I don't think 'Indie Book' can be a brand. Just like 'American car' is not a brand. There are good ones and bad ones in both groups."

"An intelligent buyer choose a product based on the merits of the product, not all similar products by makers ranging from known companies to unknown ones. 

If a reader believes that quality books only come from traditional publishing companies, I would prefer not to have them as a customer. 

I'd rather have readers who like my work for what it is, a self-published book, 

and not because I led them to believe 

that it was something more akin to a traditionally published book. 

To me, it's as simple as that."

Could you write without a computer?

When I was in elementary school way back in the 1960's, I didn't struggle at all with math, science, language arts, etc. But I did struggle with "handwriting."

There wasn't a problem with my handwriting technique until, at the beginning of third grade, the introduction of "cursive." Even though my third-grade teacher still stands out as one of my favorites, I hated being forced to make the transition from printing to cursive. 

I simply could not grasp the concept of seeing the purpose in following a bunch of rules in how to communicate via the written word. I liked how my printing of the English language looked, so what's the big deal with relying on it compared to some fancy-pants curvy lettering style? I was earning excellent grades in all of my subjects except "cursive." Mrs. Johnson (not her real name) was such a sweet-heart, though; she even made me stay in from recess to tutor me in this new-fangled way of writing. But it was to no avail; there was no way to please her.

My fourth-grade year was marked with a variety of changes, a major one being an adventurous move from Florida to Kansas. In the back of my mind I am certain I wondered: "Will I have to write in cursive in Kansas?" The answer, unfortunately, was "yes."

Every report card from then on said the same thing: all A's but nothing better than C in "cursive." Even in sixth-grade with my second-favorite teacher, Mr. McAtee (his real name, BTW) things were much the same: straight A's ... and a C in handwriting.

But what about junior high? My two older step-brothers told me that once I made it there, I would never have to worry about writing in cursive again. I didn't believe them. Surely something so essential to my educational upbringing couldn't be tossed away so easily ... could it?

Yes, it could. I was overjoyed to get to junior high where writing in cursive was not required, where I could revert back to my own style of handwriting! But I still could not get a perfect grade card (thanks to the rigors of junior-high physical education classes).

In eighth grade I jumped at the chance to be part of the newspaper staff where I thrived in writing/taking notes that no one but myself could decipher. And, as is par for the course, this was my first opportunity to work with an "editor."

Once in high school, I was able to fake through two high school history classes where the teacher, Mr. Ryan, preferred "essay" tests. I would fill the pages up with illegible ramblings and he would put A's on top of each of them. 

My senior year my counselor suggested that if I was "college-bound," I should take a typing class. Everything has to be typed in college, he said. So there I was, faced with yet another set of "do's and don't's" when it comes to writing. Can you believe that I was admonished for not holding my wrists over the keys in a certain way? That I was castigated for looking at the keys while typing instead of looking at the stuff I was supposed to type up? The horrors of "writing in cursive" returned like a flood! (BTW, this was a manual typewriter, not an electric one!)

But I persevered. I liked how the things I typed looked, more professional, more literary. Once I was able to get my word-per-minute speed up to around 30 (with as few errors as possible), I told my counselor that I wanted to drop the class. 

Those five weeks in that typing class revealed that even though writing in cursive was impossible for me, using a typewriter to communicate my thoughts and feelings was going to be quite possible. And just as my high school counselor told me, college was about typing research papers and essays, not about how "beautiful" my handwriting was.

But what if I had to "write" by hand again? Cursive or otherwise? What if I didn't have a computer to write on ... or even a typewriter? Would I still write?

I often cart along a small spiral notebook in which I jot down story ideas. But could I actually write an entire story or even a 70K+ novel onto a college-ruled spiral? 

To be honest: not on your life!

Now let's see what the wonderful writers who 
frequent The Writers' Cafe think 

about this topic of writing without a computer.

"Computers make it so easy to write. It is easy to make changes and move things around. We can check spelling and reseach on the Internet. It makes writing a story much easier. Some of my first short stories were written by hand and were a real struggle. My hand kept getting tired. I was talking to my wife about that the other day and she agreed that using a computer is so much easier than using a pen. I am not sure that I would continue writing if I had to use a pen or pencil instead of a computer.  I am not talking about jotting down some notes but full time writing."

"I tried writing w/o a computer a while back and it was dreadful. It gives me a profound respect for writers in the past who had no choice and people today who can pull that off. Suffice it to say, I have no idea how people can possibly write without an electronic device of some sort."

"I started out writing on a manual typewriter,  so sure. But it would SUCK to make revisions. As much as I tweak [crap]? Zoiks."

"Olivetti and Smith Corona were my friends long before Macintosh, so yeah, I could write without a computer. And pencils came in handy, too."

"The short answer would be no. But if I had no choice, perhaps I would learn to use a pencil and paper. The inability to easily edit could be a blessing in disguise. Manuscripts can lose their power when over-edited. Often a rough draft has a more sincere tone. I probably could, but it would no longer be fun for me I think. I use a very basic handheld psion computer to write on to keep distraction away, but of course it doesn't work when my tablet is right by my side ready to be googled upon for research. I never would have started writing in a serious way without that psion. I just picked it up and began, and before I knew it I was jotting things down on it every spare minute. Would I have done that in a diary or notebook? I doubt it very much. Now? Well this is my career and I think I would DO ANYTHING to keep writing, but the joy would leach away with the edits and hassles of writing long hand I feel."

"When Gordon Dickson got his first word-processor, he said it was like getting 7-league boots. Yeah, I *could* write without a computer,but it's so much easier with one."

"Wrote my first stories on a typewriter when I was a kid. Saved my money and bought a word processor in high school, a magnavox video writer. I loved that thing! My hand writing is horrid, so while I suppose it is possible that I could write by hand, no one, including myself, would ever be able to read it."

"Writing by hand is incredibly painful for me, and has been since I was a child. In college, I was diagnosed with a type of arthritis that resides in the hands. I used to dictate stories to friends to write down, but I avoided writing by hand in every way possible. When computers became accessible and the internet was available, I discovered a whole new freedom when it came to expressing myself, because I wasn't limited by handwriting anymore. I know Kevin J. Anderson dictates many of his stories and a typist types them, so that would be a possibility, but I don't think I'd be a writer if I couldn't use a computer."

"I wrote my first book by hand on a big pad and actually got more done than I do now with the constant siren call of the internet (yes, I know I can turn it off but that just doesn't happen). On the other hand I love the clean copy that the computer gives me as opposed to the constant crossings out and arrows etc that litter my hand written stuff. Also I don't have to type it in before publication if it's all done straight to the screen."

"I could, but I wouldn't like it. I don't even journal by hand any more. I do it on the computer. I get a much more free flow of my words that way."

"I don't think so. I used to when I was little, but I've been working with computers all of my adult life, so long projects with a pen and paper seem foreign to me now. It's like my creativity is short circuited somehow, I can't even outline by hand. Now, if I lived in a world without computers, I suppose it wouldn't be like that, but then we also wouldn't have the ability to self publish, so why even bother?"

"Words come easier to me with a pencil in hand. Somehow it makes it easier to shut off my internal editor and just write. So my system is to scribble a few messy pages in a notebook, then type it up, rearranging the words and sentences as I go. The typed version is like a second draft. Around 20% gets changed as I'm typing. My hand cramps when I write for more than an hour or two, which is why I only do a few pages at a time. For awhile I thought I could save time by cutting out the middle man and going straight to the keyboard. No pencil and notebook. But I found it took me longer to get my thoughts together while staring at that blank screen. And what I wrote still needed to be redrafted, so I wasn't really saving time at all. I gave up and allowed myself to go back to longhand scribbling. I've even ordered myself a handy little book stand for my desk to make the typing process quicker (my stupid notebook kept falling over as I copied). My handwritten stuff is incredibly messy and filled with scribbles and arrows - another reason I have to pause often and type it up while it's fresh in my memory. Otherwise, I won't be able to make out my own handwriting."

"I have a lot of pain in my hands that makes my hand-writing too atrocious to stand, even to my own eyes. So if I were forced to hand-write my novels, then no. I could use a typewriter, though I wouldn't want to. I work better with words on a screen. I usually have three pages side-by-side as I work. I write the words, move them, play with them until the flow is just right. I can just *spot* where something else is needed when it is up in front of me. And it's so easy to pop up a page or two and insert a little something, change a name/word/action. At the bottom of the document, I make notes that pop into my head but will need to be worked in later. The computer makes it really easy on a writer. That's for sure."

"I actually DO write on a pad and paper. I use the internet for research, but the actual first draft is always done on paper. The reason for this is that my goal with the first draft is to just "get it down." The problem with writing on a computer is that it is too easy stop and edit...and stop and edit...and stop and edit...and stop and edit. Writing on paper forces me to just keep moving forward. I can't easily just go back and rewrite the same scene again and again. Once I have it down on paper, it goes in a file for two month. Then I come back to it and type it into a file, at which time I do any needed rewrites. I can't properly edit my work if I am too close to it. The wait give me distance to look at what I wrote objectively and think about what needs to be fixed. And I still have tons of books that I reference for my actual research. Sometimes it is easier to pick up a book and find info that to go online, because it is too easy to get distracted online."

"Yeah, I wrote about 25 novels/novellas as a teen, all longhand. But typing them up took so long aggravated my back problems, so now I just write on the computer. I do miss the contemplation time, though. While my hand was scribbling, I had time to really figure out what I wanted to say. I had a massive callus on my third finger from the pencil."

"I used to love fountain pens and paper and I still do ... but like antiques. I couldn't possibly work without a computer. My significant other wrote his thesis before word processors and he had to retype everything 10 times before getting to the final draft. What a pain and so much time wasted. Don't you think this is one of the major reasons while today's author are more prolific ... makes you wonder how many more stories Victor Hugo or Jules Vernes would have told us with a wp."

"On a typewriter, yes. Pen and paper, no. My poor arthritic fingers would scream in protest after a short time. I do jot down notes when I think of something, but more and more I just turn on the voice recorder on my IPhone and talk. I would go mad without my computer. For more reasons than just writing."

"I got my first word processor in 1982 when I was 16. The answer is a very big no. My hands cramp within minutes of printing and I can't even write cursive anymore. I can remember the lower case letters, but I tried to write something cursive a few years ago and realized I no longer even remembered how to properly form the capitals."

"I first began using a typewriter when I was about 8, so I could go back to it, but why ever would I want to. Changing anything would be a constant chore and re-writes or scene moving...ugh. Please pass the White-Out. My cursive looks like the enigma code and I never use it. My printing best resembles early Sumerian and though I use it for shopping lists you can find me in the supermarket staring at a little piece of paper trying to figure out what I wrote the day before. I'd be toast without a computer. Some authors find it soothing to write by hand on paper. I'd be crying."

"I do most of my writing long hand in notebooks before getting to the computer. There is something so off-putting about a blank computer screen for me, not so much a blank page. My first ever 'published' writing was done on an old-fashioned manual typewriter, where the S key was stuck in subscript the whole time, but the newspaper I was sending articles to accepted them despite that. Of course, the subscript S didn't appear in the newspaper though."

"My first computer was a Commodore; it had to be hooked up to the TV for the monitor and didn't have a hard drive.  Programs had to be loaded from a floppy disk. It had a word processor that was build into the Rom so I could do limited word processing on it. It had to be saved on a floppy disk. Printing was incredibly slow and was expensive, especially for colors. This was before the Internet; some people had sites you could dial into and download things or chat with other people. Of course, modems had to be bought extra. I remember this one site that the guy had. He bragged that he had a 10 mg hard drive that you could download things from.  It was only available for a few hours each day. My son and I downloaded a nude picture that took about half a hour.  In those days, you couldn't see the picture ahead of time so you got what you got. Now things are much different; I have newer desktop computers running Windows 7 and a laptop running Windows 7.  We have high speed Internet and download whatever we want. It is hard to realize how much computers have changed.  Now I mainly use my computer to write on. My wife uses hers to e-mail her friends and to play games. We use the laptop as a backup computer and to reconcile the checkbook. It is amazing how much we depend on our computers when once we didn't even have a computer. Now my son does his job over a computer from home since he is a computer tech. I write up my novels on my computer and send them to Amazon and Draft2Digital for publishing. My computers were bought with money that I earned writing.  So life has gotten better with computers."

"I wrote in speckled composition notebooks from childhood until my 20s. Then I typed on a Smith Corona until I discovered the Internet in 1995. I find writing on the computer so much easier."

"I used a notebook per story for the longest time, then a friend borrowed me a typewriter, which was a manual.  I was eventually able to get an electric typewriter of my own and for years wrote on that, maybe going through three typewriters... the last being a very nice one with a correction ribbon, but an error had to be realized within one or two sentences or out of luck.  I spent a lot of time retyping entire manuscripts.  My first computer was an IBM PS1, not internet-capable, so while I was able to enjoy all the editing and print-out benefits, I still ended up retyping entire manuscripts onto the Dell once I owned one. It's been a long journey, but all I learned about the craft during those times has been invaluable. All the references were in books and The Writer for years and years. I still use a paper notebook for the first several chapters until the story really begins to formulate, and then turn to Google Docs where I store everything in case of a computer malfunction. So, I do still compose by hand to a great extent.  So, yes, I would still write without a computer."

"Sure. I spent most of my life writing by hand. I have several old manuscripts written entirely by hand. I trained myself to write cursive clearly when I was in college and had to take notes fast in class. I always hated typing back in the day of the typewriter, and still dislike it, but I use the keyboard now because it's so easy to make revisions and corrections. However, I can always achieve smoother, better writing if I rough it out in a handwritten form first. I guess it depends on how you trained yourself to work when you were young."

"I can't seem to go more than a few hours without jumping on a computer. A friend of mine writes all of his books, by hand, in his car, while chain smoking. He later types out the books on his PC."

"I wrote my first book on a portable electric typewriter (didn't have a PC of my own at the time). I think I did one more draft that way and then scraped up the $$ for a PC of my own. I do remember that getting the whole thing into the PC was a major chore and something I vowed never to do again. That said, I was an avid fan of Albert Payson Terhune in my teens and remember reading an autobiography where he said he wrote by hand until writer's cramp was so bad he couldn't hold a pen or pencil. At first he tied a pencil between his fingers and kept going, then he learned to type. When typing became too painful, he learned to dictate. It stuck in my mind all these years as an example of the lengths people will go to when they're determined to do something."

"I was just reading Lawrence Block yesterday about rewriting, and remembering how difficult it is when you have to type everything over again! I have done it. I'm sure I could do it.  But I am so glad we don't have to anymore."

"I could write as long as I had pencil and paper -- good luck in reading any of it. I used to buy spiral notebooks and write stories in them turned around because I am a wicked, wicked southpaw. I still buy little notebooks to write down notes.  My printing is neat, and my cursive can be read by some people. I print my notes because I have a deal with a friend of mine that she gets my notes when I die (this water tastes funny). Ever since I got my first typewriter, I haven't really hand written rough drafts. When I got my first PC back in the mid 90's, I have not looked back. I don't think I could be as productive as I am now... well, relatively speaking when it comes to productive."

"Of course I could. The question is: would I?"

Why buy the cow when the milk is free?

Amazon's Kindle Desktop Publishing program, informally known as KDP, has been around for nearly four years now. I noticed an advertisement for it somewhere, possibly from an email, close to three years ago as I worked on Betrovia, book one of what was to become The Land of Betrovia trilogy. As the day to unleash Betrovia on a completely unsuspecting audience approached, I learned more and more about KDP. In August of 2011 I took a leap of faith (so much irony in that idiom) and signed Betrovia up for the program. To make a long story short, the following December I also enrolled Betrovia in Amazon's Select/Prime program, an off-shoot of KDP. As nearly every self-pub, indie writer should now know, Amazon Select/Prime allows writers to promote their ebooks by offering them as "free" for a short time during a 90-day period.

In April of 2012, Betrovia, along with a few other authors' fantasy/sci-fi novels, was part of a nifty promotion. Since I discussed that promotion within this blogpost, I don't want to belabor the point further.

And so here we are at the crux of this blogpost.

It's been a bit over three years since Amazon shoved Select/Prime out the door.

Let's see after all this time what the kind folk who frequent The Writers' Cafe think of it now!

"Making written works available free, is IMO harmful to both the Indie author and the industry. Many people believe you get what you pay for. The worker is worthy of his/her hire. Not much is free in this world, why should your work be free? If you just want to get your work out there, keep in mind that a freebie is a potentially lost sale to a serious reader, and your book if looked at will serve to evaluate you as a writer. Therefore your freebie should be very carefully edited, and be your best work. I have seen freebies referred to as sales. A free giveaway is not a sale. There is a world of difference. To my mind, if a person doesn't think enough of their reading to spend a few dollars on it, they need not read my work. On the other hand, I gift ebooks to people I want to read them. And, I will gift an ebook on request. People, please keep in mind we are in the USA, where the minimum wage is now $7.25 per hour, and so an ebook price of $2.99 is less than half an hour's work. Do you really feel your work is not even worth so little? To read my work you must repeat must pay a (very) minimal fee. Or, request the book. Get it generally free- forget it! No way Jose!"

"Because a lot of people like steak with their milk, and they have to pay for that."

"Do people still say that? My mom did, when I was living with my boyfriend. Also (and even more confusingly), 'He won't buy the loaf if he can get all the slices.' We've been married for 23 years. Does that mean I am now perma-free?"

"It's called a loss leader. It's a very common method of sales. It works, if done right."

"Calculated timing of loss leaders is what has made me a bestselling author and a ton of money. I don't consider it devaluing my work. I consider it showing people that my work is worth purchasing."

"Gamers out there likely know this, but often time console makers will sell their new machines at cost or sometimes even at a loss. They know they will make it back in future costs of games. While not exactly the same the same argument can be made for free books, especially those with series. You have 5-6 whatever books in a series. A person may see it, but not willing to spend money on it. They get a free taste and suddenly they are hooked....wait I think this applies to drug dealers to. We are literary crack dealers! If the cops come get me, I will testify against Hugh (Howey) for a lesser sentence! (or even for a grammatically correct sentence!)"

"Let's not forget how many MMORPG's have moved to Free-To-Play and Freemium formats. And let's not get into indie games where people like ToadyOne of Dwarf Fortress are making a living exclusively off donations garnered by fans of the game he's giving away for free, or Jick of Kingdom of Loathing, who is running a company off of his Item of the Month system and Merch. Outside of games, this is literally how it has always been done with webcomics (Scott McCloud aside). Penny Arcade has a media empire based on a comic they still give away every single day, Rich Burlew of Order of the Stick had a million dollar Kickstarter to do a book of side stories for his free comic, plus merch. Content-as-loss-leader and Content-as-promotion is probably the most powerful emergent force in the digital age. The money, for these endeavors, isn't in the work, it's in the fandom who click your ads, pay for extras, buy your merch and donate to keep you comfortable enough to give them more."

"I received a free razor in the mail about a year ago. 

I'm still buying replacement blades for that razor."

"What do people think Amazon have been doing with the Kindle itself? Exact data is hard to find but most commentators reckon they are sold at near to or below cost price. Ask ANYBODY who works in selling ANYTHING & they will tell you the same story- loss leaders can work & in our case, it can achieve severals things we all crave- visibility, Reviews and possibly even (gasp) sales. The cow/milk analogy also doesn't work. We are the cow producing the milk. If anything, we're more like drug dealers giving away free samples to get consumers 'hooked' (although morally that metaphor doesn't make us look great)."

"Here's the numbers of copies sold for Amulet 2:
Jan 2011 - 1
Feb 2011 - 8
Mar 2011 - 5
Apr 2011 - 5
May 2011 - 3
Jun 2011 - 3 
Jul 2011 - 495
Aug 2011 - 276
Sep 2011 - 221
Oct 2011 - 202
Nov 2011 - 207
Dec 2011 - 190
Jan 2012 - 308
Feb 2012 - 251
Mar 2012 - 249
Apr 2012 - 211
May 2012 - 216
And so on...
Can anyone guess when Amulet 1 went free?"

"I went from earning 150 dollars to 1500 the first time one of my books went permafree.
Now I'm at 5000/6000 a month.
Does that answer your question?"

"As a relatively new (since june 2011) author with 8 novels self published, I have my very first novel set free at another popular publishing platform.  I can't set it free at Amazon because I'm a UK author and we're not allowed to have perma freebies for some unfathomable reason.  It is the first in a four part series, and I have it set free because several authors said this is a good idea.  Readers will take the freebie and if they like it, they're more likely to buy the others.  I've found that those who've read it, have loved it and several times it has led to sales of further volumes in the series.  I'm not in the position of making  huge numbers of sales as I have zero money to pay for aggressive marketing/promo, so anything that doesn't cost me much in money or time is worth it as far as I'm concerned.  I certainly do value my work, but I am willing to take a chance on a formula that some say has worked for them."

"Once a month, most museums nationwide offer a free night or a weekend day. Completely free admission. Doesn't devalue other museums, or museums in general. Goldstar is a discount ticket aggregator for live plays, musicals, and performances. They often have free tickets -- the price set by the production company or venue. Doesn't devalue other performances. Libraries offer free books for those with a card. Doesn't devalue other books. Those who are against permafree/free eBooks tend to be those who 1) haven't tried it or 2) tried it and it didn't work."

"Free samples are as old as dirt. They are a proven way to get new customers."

"That said, I do think that only some of an author's books should ever be offered for free. I think it's a big mistake to have all your books in Select and rotate them all into being free. You just train your readers that eventually they can get any of your books for free. The first book in a series permafree has worked for so many authors here at KBoards that I consider it the norm."

"You need to view it as a product. There is a place for giving away free books. If they are part of a series, or part of larger whole, having the first book free (or at a reduced price) is a good tactic.  In my day job, we get samples all the time chemicals to try out and use. The point isn't that it is free, but that it is a sample.  You are trying to convince a customer to try out a product they have never used before, or have very little experience with. Now, don't put your whole catalog for free, unless making money is not your goal (and for some it is not). But putting a free book (or maybe two if you have multiple sets) is a way to get people interested. Many of the books that I read now started because I downloaded a free or reduced price book to try them out. I won't do that for a $10 book, but for a $3 or so I will take a risk. As with all things marketing, it is a tool, but not the only one."

"Amazon's free book supply draws in customers who then go on to buy the books we have for sale. If Amazon thought they could make more money by getting rid of free books, they would do it.  But it's a business strategy to make them more money.  And the way they make more money is by us authors selling more books. Consider the extreme situation of Amazon selling only one author's books - yours.  At first glance, that may seem like a good thing, but it isn't.  Because there would be nothing (no offense) to draw more readers in.  No one would show up if Amazon only offered one author's books.  But add in more authors, and more people show up. So what seems like more competition, is actually beneficial to all authors involved. It's the same with free books.  They even help authors who don't give out free books, by attracting more readers to the website.  So you're actually benefiting from my free books without having to donate any of your work to the cause."

"As far as I can tell, there are two main answers to that question:
1: Put a link to your other book/s in the back of your free book.
2. Put a sign up form to your 'Be notified of new releases' email in the back of your free book.
Do you have those in your book?"

"In terms of the (theoretical) size of the market, I think authors are competing at least as much against all sorts of entertainment. It's not just books. Games, movies, TV, dinner out with the S.O., everything you can do for fun other than reading is what we're competing with. And as a reader and consumer, I'm good with that. I have zillions of options every day that never existed before. But what I want most is for reading to take up as much of that entertainment budget (time and money) as it can. Because I think reading is a positive good."

"Free gets me in the door. Easy shopping keeps me coming back. BTW just so you know amazon has always offered free e-books. Even if they got rid of the indie and select freebies one could still get the public domain books free. So yes, Amazon on the whole would make less money. Heck the freebies save them on advertising. Oh are you all aware that Amazon also has free apps and free mp3s everyday?"

"Free books draw people to the website. Once you're in the store, you're apt to buy something you didn't plan to.  To sell stuff (and I'm broadening this to more than books), you have to get people into the store. Free books do that. I've bought books by authors I sampled by reading their freebies. I'm pretty sure member Michael Wallace is one of them, for some of the others I'd have to go check (because by the time I actually get to a book, I have no idea what I paid for it without checking.) I pick up all of MW's books as soon as they come out, and wouldn't have tried them without the freebie. Freebies work for Amazon because they bring people into the store.  Freebies may or may not work for individual authors--because the freebie has to be good enough to make the reader want more of that author. There's always going to be a place for a loss leader in sales, whether it be free or just really, really cheap. It's a time tested method of attracting interest.  As are tentacles."

"I've done the math on this over and over again and I've proven that free books cost Amazon virtually nothing. You know that 'delivery fee' they charge for each of your paid books? Yeah, each nickel of that can pay the bandwidth bill for thousands of free books. Even with the absolute worst hosting deal (which they don't have because they are the host), the entire free book market costs them less than a few thousand dollars a month. So the cost to them is negligible. Not only that, but even if all the naysayers are completely correct and free books are terrible advertising, they only need to sell a couple of thousand books to turn a profit on them. But the naysayers are in no way correct because that's literally not how commerce works. As long as the free thing doesn't cost more to produce than the business it brings in, it's working as designed. Here's the big question though: how much money are you spending on promos without the loss-leader to get the same amount of effect as having one? I'm not burning down the chars, but I've spent all of $50 this year and am doing better profit-wise than some folks that have spent twenty times that. And that $50? I had to spend that to keep afloat before my permafree kicked in."

"Russell Blake already did 'test the waters' — he used freebies to expand his reader base, then stopped using freebies when they were no longer cost-effective for him. So if you're 'a true disciple', you'd use free copies as a tool to expand your reader base until you had a solid enough position high enough in various algorithms that you no longer need that freebie as a promo."

"Blake benefited from free for a very long time, and it helped him get where he is. The larger fanbase you already have, the less relatively useful free will be. It's a building strategy, mostly. Indeed, Blake's overall example on this is a good one to follow. He used free when he thought it helped him, and he monitored things and decided it was in his interests to make a change. I'm sure if he feels something would benefit him by being free, he'd do that. That's how you run a business or an independent career. You learn, apply what you learn, and understand that you will almost certainly need to change from time to time. FYI, I have never done free, but I would if I thought I needed it or could gain a net benefit from it. This is a business strategy, plain and simple, to be analyzed, tested, and applied if you feel it will benefit you. It is not a religion; it is not a philosophy. Uncounted businesses have given away product to build a client base. Lots of examples were given here. When I was in high school, a new radio station had a commercial free summer. They were trying to build a listener base. There are dozens of comparisons. For those trying to erect a golden idol to the "no free books shall pass" religion, ask yourself this: if writer A gives away a bunch of books and sells 5,000 in a month and writer B refuses to go free with anything and sells 50, who is 'giving away' their work?  You don't rate your success one book at a time, nor do you pay your bills that way.  It costs a writer nothing whatsoever to give away a free ebook: there is no incremental cost. If you sell more books overall (to a point), you are getting paid more for the work you did, not less. I do think some people go too far with free.  Some genres are smaller than others, and if you give away an enormous number of books, I don't see how that doesn't cut into the potential paid market. Perhaps you don't care if it is book one of a 6 book series (and, in that case, perhaps you shouldn't care), but it is something to consider in developing an overall strategy."

"In general, for FREE promos to work, the books have to be worth downloading in the first place, and for follow-through the rest of the books also have to be worth paying for. I wouldn't "buy" a free book just because it was free, it HAS to have honest effort put into it. DON'T just type up something, slap together a cover in Paint, and throw it up for sale, it won't go anywhere at any price. I'm not saying you have to pay thousands of dollars for the best editor out there, but good lord, at least get someone who can spell and has a decent grasp of the language the book is written in check it over.  Get a cover made if you don't have the skills yourself.  Barter for it if you don't have a spare cent. (BTW, pre-made covers that look good are advertized here all the time, and they aren't that expensive.) And none of this is even pointing out, Do NOT overprice your crap stories, and then WHINE about them never selling. I have recently seen a slew of "new authors" who are putting out "books" that are under 50 pages, and charging $3.99 or more. Let's see, short, un-proofread or edited, crappy story with a horrendous cover, and it's at $5? yeah riiight. It's Free? who gives a rip? I wouldn't sully my Kindle with that."

"There are two groups of freebie users
1. Those that will never pay for a book because they have grown accustomed to getting freebies (these are the people that writers opposed to freebies are understandably most scared of)
2. Those that use free to try new writers and then go on to buy more books by that writer (these people are the reason why free works as a marketing tool)
I know a lot of people who fit into category 1. for music.  When they mention an album they like, if you ask them where they bought it, the colour drains from their face and they tell you they download all their music from torrent sites.  Hopefully this culture never becomes ingrained in book buying (some opposed to free may argue it already has). However, my experience is that most people are 2. - as evidenced by mine (and most others') experience that free promotions lead to measurable gains in paid sales."

"If free books hurt Amazon's overall strategy they would have dumped it. When it no longer works they will dump it."