A large part of it comes from the irrational fear of rejection. We as a society have become petrified of being looked at in any semi negative light even over things that are so small they shouldn’t even be a concern.
Selling and mythologizing yourself is a stage of transformation that many people are not at yet, but writers need to be. Appealing to people who don’t normally read is a great obstacle but could be a very fun challenge. Yet trying to be a piece of that collective transformation takes more work and flexibility, so it’s understandable why most find it easier to just write for similar nerds with similar interests. Hence, the Substack circle jerking. Which has been very noticeable.
We all have to be our own managers, marketers, PR people etc. It’s less romantic to think of the business end of it, but if we’re serious about taking the reigns from big publishing or carrying the torch in a new direction, we can’t afford not to take that side of it seriously.
You could self-publish the greatest book written in a hundred years and it would sit on a marketplace and stagnate unless you not only got it out in front of people, but also motivated them to spend their time and money to read it.
Let’s go Mark! You’re already doing all of this. Keep going for years and it will all fall into place. I see a unity across your entire work and messaging, and that’s why I sub to you.
"got it out in front of people, but also motivated them to spend their time and money to read it." How the heck do you do that? With 2.5 million self-published books a year, hasn't everything been tried?
The no side is because it’s hard to say what hasn’t been tried until someone discovers something that hasn’t been done yet and who can say who or what that’ll be, ya know?
The yes side is that people who self-publish do sometimes use the same sort of tools and methods to get their stuff out there but to varying degrees of success.
You and I could write the same story of equal quality and prose, but say your book cover happened to appeal better than mine, you might grab a lot more attention. Similarly, you might choose to utilize something like Amazon while I used only IngramSpark and you might sell more copies through the platform alone.
I’m simplifying it a bit for the sake of a quick illustration, but my point is that it’s very possible.
So yes, there may be 2.5 million self-published books per year, but at least half of those are low-content dumpster fire books about random nonsense like “How to Grow Your Instagram” written by Danny Dipshit where he explains how to create a basic sponsored post in under 50 pages. You’re competing against people in your niche or category but not against the entirety of published content.
Sorry for the long winded response but I thought your question was a good one and deserved some extra perspective :)
I like long-winded : ) My guess is social media beats all. You will sell some books to fans. For instance, when I mentioned my book, The Melancholy MBA (conventionally published but by a little academic press), on my Substack I instantly sold like a dozen copies.
Of course if you have a REALLY BIG social media footprint, you won't be self-publishing. A publisher will find you.
Yeah I hear you! Social media is the bigger and arguably more affordable option because word of mouth is powerful and algorithms can boost all kinds of things (for better or worse lol). You can build a following without actually spending money to do it.
I’ve had some on and off ‘success’ with Amazon ads, but obviously that’s tricky to figure out (I’ve learned a lot but wouldn’t say I’ve mastered it) and of course people with larger budgets will get more mileage out of it. But even then, how you represent it in the ad and product copy etc also influences who clicks that purchase button.
Lots of moving parts that all work together toward the same goal. How many you have in action just help to increase the odds, at least in my opinion.
Also true, big social media presence can draw the attention of big publishing, but again, we’re at a weird place now where if most books are sold online and publishers aren’t even doing much to market authors anymore, is it actually worth it? The more annoying they become and the less helpful amidst they are amidst all the self-publishing options, the more it raises questions about if it’s even worth it to be involved with them at all.
Well of course a conventional publisher beats all. For all their effort, self-publishing authors just about never get read. Of that 2.5 million published last year can you name a star? I can't.
The idea that conventional publishers don't support their authors is a myth, with all due respect. Nothing's changed. They know how to sell and they do. The combo of advertising, book reviews, store distribution, library sales, and the prestige of the imprint itself guarantees a certain level of sales, say 50 - 100k if you're talking Big Five.
So the important thing now is the pigeon and not the message. I’ve known this for years but still resist. Don’t really know how to get over it 😤 grow some skin I guess??
Day by day Sam. Stop framing it like your writing doesn’t matter. It does more than ever. It still needs to transform modern souls who are more lost and resistant than ever.
But, the challenge for modern writers is also to become the messenger of the message.
I'm taking this as my permission slip to finally indulge the self-mythologizing impulses I've long felt I wasn't "allowed" to have. Thanks for this write-up, what a refreshing perspective!
I think self-mythologizing can unfold naturally through building upon a portfolio of pieces that contain parallel thematic elements. Speculation breeds engagement, and the works themselves become the perfect vehicle for that, no incessant self-exaggeration required.
Lmao not above or below but as a peer I respect whose work I genuinely love to read and believe in. Happy to elevate it.
Besides, my name is already attached to the comment itself and goes right to my profile if anyone is interested in my work (hint hint if any of you are reading this 😂)
The book on writer mythology shut somewhere between 2010-2015—at least in that it generated sales in a marketing arena (which is mostly demolished now anyway and where mythology would have spread and eventually become lore today). You don't mention Binky Urban being more instrumental to Cormac McCarthy's career than his writing. Agents reined supreme, knowing how to spin anything into gold, and they did, when their architects could not. The buyers who consume 10-12 books a year do not know anything about the author, and they don't care. They care more about the person who told them to read it, and if they believe them, they make themselves believe they need to read it too, even if they don't. And more often, even when they don't like what they're reading, because said someone has told them they should, they magically do. And so the word of mouth continues. Thinking outside the lit bros ad substack-heads, think of readers of Delia Owens, Bonnie Gamus . . . more literary: Anthony Doerr (Binky Urban), or even Donna Tartt (also Binky Urban). All stratospheric success stories, none due to their backstory. Even Donna Tartt's last-stage capitalistic re-success of The Secret History is due in part to booktokers and bookstagramers who don't know anything about her early-nineties, cigarette smoking it-girl era edge—which is what, exactly? mythology???
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sold as well as it did only because its author died the day he turned the third book in its previously rejected and unsold trilogy into his publisher. It was marketing gold, and it worked. That was his mythology, that was it. And authors do self-mythologize, but it's only on gender and race and sexual orientation, political ideologies, etc. which, as they are writers selling their novel, separates them how, exactly, from the same mock-up of an individual who shares everything in common with them but is not a writer. No, who that person is, is their reader.
Good read! A lot of us have been trying to hype up each others personal stories recently. Even if not everyone has some sort of wild life story, getting to know the author and the perspective they write from matters to many. But I also prefer the idea of mythologizing the author as best done by just boldly but genuinely telling ones story, rather than inventing some new self
Mythologize oneself. I can dig it. Sometimes I feel like I'm a little too old for your energy, bro, but I do appreciate it, even if I have to Google to understand some of the lingo you young cats are using these days. 👍🏾
Okay, I see the argument’s merits, I think, but please indulge me to quibble. (See my ‘stack for how apt I am to quibble.)
“We stopped believing writing is meant to be transformative and stand for something. . . . The best example of modern writers' disconnection is their belief that they’re too smart, too artistic, and too humble to self-mythologize.”
These two assertions seem, to me, to contradict each other. On the one hand, our writing should “stand for something,” which suggests artistic integrity and a focus on the work itself. On the other, our work’s selling point should be our identities and self-mythologies, and we should take focus off the work to busy ourselves hyping that.
It’s not that I’m so “principled” that I’ll do nothing to hype my work. My main ‘stack is sci-fi oriented, but my second ‘stack features memoir about my life on the road. To some degree, it is self-mythology, though I’m a stickler for reporting the facts. But there’s quite a gap between my life and my fiction writing — sure, the one influences the other, but in nuanced ways not that easy for me to unpack. Not every writer has the advantage of a compelling backstory. T.S. Eliot worked in a London bank.
I recognized your summation of Outer Dark at once because it’s the first McCarthy novel I read. I’ve read several others of his since. I used to live in Knoxville, Tenn. I was delighted to find his description of Market Square on a plaque in Market Square itself. But this mythology about him you’ve cited? I’ve only just learned of it now, reading your piece. I didn’t need mythology. McCarthy’s writing, his unique style, his themes and how he handles them were the selling points for me.
Time is a writer’s most precious resource, I think. I choose to spend mine writing. Naive as it may be, I hope my work speaks for itself. I’m a bit wary, too, of becoming a writer all wrapped up in my self-mythology. I’ve crossed paths with writers like that. They didn’t impress me as people I want to know. They’ve put such a stake in their images that they can’t just be ordinary people anymore and treat other people like, well, people. It’s all about preserving the image and selling that. It’s off-putting and, I suspect, soul-destroying.
Again, just quibbles. I’m sure it is a spectrum, a continuum, not a binary — focus on the work or focus on selling it.
A large part of it comes from the irrational fear of rejection. We as a society have become petrified of being looked at in any semi negative light even over things that are so small they shouldn’t even be a concern.
Selling and mythologizing yourself is a stage of transformation that many people are not at yet, but writers need to be. Appealing to people who don’t normally read is a great obstacle but could be a very fun challenge. Yet trying to be a piece of that collective transformation takes more work and flexibility, so it’s understandable why most find it easier to just write for similar nerds with similar interests. Hence, the Substack circle jerking. Which has been very noticeable.
That’s why you are here, Josh. Time to set these nerds straight and make them do some literary push-ups 🤣
🫡🫡🫡
We all have to be our own managers, marketers, PR people etc. It’s less romantic to think of the business end of it, but if we’re serious about taking the reigns from big publishing or carrying the torch in a new direction, we can’t afford not to take that side of it seriously.
You could self-publish the greatest book written in a hundred years and it would sit on a marketplace and stagnate unless you not only got it out in front of people, but also motivated them to spend their time and money to read it.
Let’s go Mark! You’re already doing all of this. Keep going for years and it will all fall into place. I see a unity across your entire work and messaging, and that’s why I sub to you.
Thanks so much Ian! That’s really encouraging to know I’m on the right track. Means more than you know. Here for the long haul.
"got it out in front of people, but also motivated them to spend their time and money to read it." How the heck do you do that? With 2.5 million self-published books a year, hasn't everything been tried?
That’s a yes and no kind of answer Richard.
The no side is because it’s hard to say what hasn’t been tried until someone discovers something that hasn’t been done yet and who can say who or what that’ll be, ya know?
The yes side is that people who self-publish do sometimes use the same sort of tools and methods to get their stuff out there but to varying degrees of success.
You and I could write the same story of equal quality and prose, but say your book cover happened to appeal better than mine, you might grab a lot more attention. Similarly, you might choose to utilize something like Amazon while I used only IngramSpark and you might sell more copies through the platform alone.
I’m simplifying it a bit for the sake of a quick illustration, but my point is that it’s very possible.
So yes, there may be 2.5 million self-published books per year, but at least half of those are low-content dumpster fire books about random nonsense like “How to Grow Your Instagram” written by Danny Dipshit where he explains how to create a basic sponsored post in under 50 pages. You’re competing against people in your niche or category but not against the entirety of published content.
Sorry for the long winded response but I thought your question was a good one and deserved some extra perspective :)
I like long-winded : ) My guess is social media beats all. You will sell some books to fans. For instance, when I mentioned my book, The Melancholy MBA (conventionally published but by a little academic press), on my Substack I instantly sold like a dozen copies.
Of course if you have a REALLY BIG social media footprint, you won't be self-publishing. A publisher will find you.
Yeah I hear you! Social media is the bigger and arguably more affordable option because word of mouth is powerful and algorithms can boost all kinds of things (for better or worse lol). You can build a following without actually spending money to do it.
I’ve had some on and off ‘success’ with Amazon ads, but obviously that’s tricky to figure out (I’ve learned a lot but wouldn’t say I’ve mastered it) and of course people with larger budgets will get more mileage out of it. But even then, how you represent it in the ad and product copy etc also influences who clicks that purchase button.
Lots of moving parts that all work together toward the same goal. How many you have in action just help to increase the odds, at least in my opinion.
Also true, big social media presence can draw the attention of big publishing, but again, we’re at a weird place now where if most books are sold online and publishers aren’t even doing much to market authors anymore, is it actually worth it? The more annoying they become and the less helpful amidst they are amidst all the self-publishing options, the more it raises questions about if it’s even worth it to be involved with them at all.
Well of course a conventional publisher beats all. For all their effort, self-publishing authors just about never get read. Of that 2.5 million published last year can you name a star? I can't.
The idea that conventional publishers don't support their authors is a myth, with all due respect. Nothing's changed. They know how to sell and they do. The combo of advertising, book reviews, store distribution, library sales, and the prestige of the imprint itself guarantees a certain level of sales, say 50 - 100k if you're talking Big Five.
I am interested in self publishers and their journey so stay in touch. Also for a laugh check this out https://richarddonnelly.substack.com/p/the-literary-agent
I avoid writers because of their legends; I have never in my life read a book because I was interested in the author.
More often than not, I’ve had to overlook how underwhelming the author is (*cough*Jarett Kobek*cough*) in order to appreciate the work.
So the important thing now is the pigeon and not the message. I’ve known this for years but still resist. Don’t really know how to get over it 😤 grow some skin I guess??
Day by day Sam. Stop framing it like your writing doesn’t matter. It does more than ever. It still needs to transform modern souls who are more lost and resistant than ever.
But, the challenge for modern writers is also to become the messenger of the message.
I'm taking this as my permission slip to finally indulge the self-mythologizing impulses I've long felt I wasn't "allowed" to have. Thanks for this write-up, what a refreshing perspective!
I think self-mythologizing can unfold naturally through building upon a portfolio of pieces that contain parallel thematic elements. Speculation breeds engagement, and the works themselves become the perfect vehicle for that, no incessant self-exaggeration required.
"We are good enough at writing. That isn’t the problem." We are not good enough, and that is the problem.
Ian, I don't know where you're seeing these exciting "stylists" these days. Name one. Except for me : ) Thanks for letting me comment.
Erichka would be a great example:
https://substack.com/@erichka?r=g3g24&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile&shareImageVariant=image
What not yours? If you put this person above you, you need an old fashioned pep talk, son
Lmao not above or below but as a peer I respect whose work I genuinely love to read and believe in. Happy to elevate it.
Besides, my name is already attached to the comment itself and goes right to my profile if anyone is interested in my work (hint hint if any of you are reading this 😂)
Damn calling me a fan when I gave you a super dope shout out like that is crazy lmao
Lmao. This is like your third name change this year, I didn’t even know who this was when I made the screenshot. Now, I do!
Writing alone isn’t enough anymore. And maybe never was.
You have to become someone worth reading.
Huh! You must be out of your goddamn mind, Boy!
The book on writer mythology shut somewhere between 2010-2015—at least in that it generated sales in a marketing arena (which is mostly demolished now anyway and where mythology would have spread and eventually become lore today). You don't mention Binky Urban being more instrumental to Cormac McCarthy's career than his writing. Agents reined supreme, knowing how to spin anything into gold, and they did, when their architects could not. The buyers who consume 10-12 books a year do not know anything about the author, and they don't care. They care more about the person who told them to read it, and if they believe them, they make themselves believe they need to read it too, even if they don't. And more often, even when they don't like what they're reading, because said someone has told them they should, they magically do. And so the word of mouth continues. Thinking outside the lit bros ad substack-heads, think of readers of Delia Owens, Bonnie Gamus . . . more literary: Anthony Doerr (Binky Urban), or even Donna Tartt (also Binky Urban). All stratospheric success stories, none due to their backstory. Even Donna Tartt's last-stage capitalistic re-success of The Secret History is due in part to booktokers and bookstagramers who don't know anything about her early-nineties, cigarette smoking it-girl era edge—which is what, exactly? mythology???
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo sold as well as it did only because its author died the day he turned the third book in its previously rejected and unsold trilogy into his publisher. It was marketing gold, and it worked. That was his mythology, that was it. And authors do self-mythologize, but it's only on gender and race and sexual orientation, political ideologies, etc. which, as they are writers selling their novel, separates them how, exactly, from the same mock-up of an individual who shares everything in common with them but is not a writer. No, who that person is, is their reader.
Good read! A lot of us have been trying to hype up each others personal stories recently. Even if not everyone has some sort of wild life story, getting to know the author and the perspective they write from matters to many. But I also prefer the idea of mythologizing the author as best done by just boldly but genuinely telling ones story, rather than inventing some new self
Pretty broad claims. What’s your sample size?
Mythologize oneself. I can dig it. Sometimes I feel like I'm a little too old for your energy, bro, but I do appreciate it, even if I have to Google to understand some of the lingo you young cats are using these days. 👍🏾
Okay, I see the argument’s merits, I think, but please indulge me to quibble. (See my ‘stack for how apt I am to quibble.)
“We stopped believing writing is meant to be transformative and stand for something. . . . The best example of modern writers' disconnection is their belief that they’re too smart, too artistic, and too humble to self-mythologize.”
These two assertions seem, to me, to contradict each other. On the one hand, our writing should “stand for something,” which suggests artistic integrity and a focus on the work itself. On the other, our work’s selling point should be our identities and self-mythologies, and we should take focus off the work to busy ourselves hyping that.
It’s not that I’m so “principled” that I’ll do nothing to hype my work. My main ‘stack is sci-fi oriented, but my second ‘stack features memoir about my life on the road. To some degree, it is self-mythology, though I’m a stickler for reporting the facts. But there’s quite a gap between my life and my fiction writing — sure, the one influences the other, but in nuanced ways not that easy for me to unpack. Not every writer has the advantage of a compelling backstory. T.S. Eliot worked in a London bank.
I recognized your summation of Outer Dark at once because it’s the first McCarthy novel I read. I’ve read several others of his since. I used to live in Knoxville, Tenn. I was delighted to find his description of Market Square on a plaque in Market Square itself. But this mythology about him you’ve cited? I’ve only just learned of it now, reading your piece. I didn’t need mythology. McCarthy’s writing, his unique style, his themes and how he handles them were the selling points for me.
Time is a writer’s most precious resource, I think. I choose to spend mine writing. Naive as it may be, I hope my work speaks for itself. I’m a bit wary, too, of becoming a writer all wrapped up in my self-mythology. I’ve crossed paths with writers like that. They didn’t impress me as people I want to know. They’ve put such a stake in their images that they can’t just be ordinary people anymore and treat other people like, well, people. It’s all about preserving the image and selling that. It’s off-putting and, I suspect, soul-destroying.
Again, just quibbles. I’m sure it is a spectrum, a continuum, not a binary — focus on the work or focus on selling it.