ROBUST discussion

Amazon and indies have already shot themselves in the foot by creating a huge expectation of 99c and free books.

Books were on a special plane, well above sordid commercial considerations. Then these barrowboys and johnnycomelatelies arrived and turned books into sodden tissues, a disposable commodity.

A silly argument is made that many of the indies want only to be read, and will give their books away free to be read. But it really doesn't matter how many people read a writer if the income from his book is so low that he can't live on the proceeds. He won't write another.

A silly argument is made that many of the indies want only to be read, and will give their books away free to be read. But it really doesn't matter how many people read a writer if the income from his book is so low that he can't live on the proceeds. He won't write another.

I disagree, Andre. I'm one of the johnniecomelatelies with a 99c book and I will, write another, no matter how many or few books I sell, simply because I have to write...or go mad.

I look at it the same way as I looked at teaching. I wasn't going to make a difference in the life of every child I taught, but if I helped one child find the right road, then I made a difference. So if one person reads my book and is moved by it, I've made a difference, which I wouldn't if the book sat on my hard drive while publishers decided if it could make them money.

(and can someone please tell me how to get italics on this site? ;) )

(and can someone please tell me how to get italics on this site? ;) )

Katie you use standard HTML (see the link for 'some html is ok' for example). Instead of the brackets use less than (<) and greater than symbol (>)

Thanks, Todd. Fixed! I'll work this site out eventually!

Okay, Katie, that's a case. I did, when I investigated the matter earlier this year for the "Slushpile" articles on my blog, find that traditional publishing unfairly rejected a small percentage of writers. And, of course, real writers write because we must. I'm not talking about us.

I had more in mind the indies who want it both ways, who are fiercely partisan about Amazon giving them DTP (now KDP), outraged that Amazon won't let them give their book away free -- yet who also expect to get rich out of their books. These are incompatible intentions. It keeps striking me how many of them have only the one book and make a full time career of promoting it, with no discernable plan of writing another.

Andre, I disagree. There's a bunch of us (yep, I'm in that bunch) who'd giveaway our books if Amazon would let us. Of the authors I know in my non-virtual world, not one writes for the money. They write because they're writers.

Sierra, what about my point that Amazon and some indies between them have demystified books to the extent that they've become like sodden tissues?

IMO, the mystery of a book is in the reading of it, and the getting lost in the "vivid continuous dream" of the story and world the writer created. Nothing anyone can do takes that away, at least not for me.

Initially I thought the e-reading device would in fact steal that magic, but I discovered it hasn't at all.

In another way, I think it's about time some of the mystery, not of the book itself, but of the writing life, is debunked. Years back, the postal clerk thought I was going to instantly become rich and famous when I handed over the big boxes of my mss being sent to agents, and truly assumed that by the next time I saw him, I'd be riding in a limo!

Same with many of my family and friends, when my agents assured me a big deal was forthcoming. What no one knows is how few writers actually live off their earnings.

I think what we see on Amazon, with indie writers, is the spirit of many of us who will in fact keep writing no matter what, and will do all the work of writing, editing, publishing if that's what we have to do.

I'm 'in that bunch' too at this point although I would probably not give my book away for free - except to reviewers if there was a way to facilitate that easily.

Since the price of e-readers is high - having a lot of low-priced books is a good thing.

As the owner of an e-reader - I think of the $.99 book as 'e-pulp fiction' some of it is 'sodden tissue' but not all. I've read a few that I liked, sampled some that were awful and accidently bought some real horrible crap.

I'm experimenting myself, learning to market and joining forums, using my first novel as a test-subject. I gave away 70 odd copies from Smashwords last month. Experimented with prices, covers, vendors, review sites and forums.

Since I have no experience with trade publishing - and likely will not get any - I have to learn somewhere. I happen to agree that selling a book for $.99 benefits no one in the long run. But short-term thinking is everywhere...not just with Indie books. I tried selling my book for $.99, it didn't work for me.

Some people quit when they don't get rich in a few months. I'm getting ready to publish book #2 - using everything thing I learned from the first book. The first error I will NOT make is selling the book for $.99!

E-book prices might stay low - for a certain segment of the market. There will always be a market for the e-pulp equivlent of the 'penny-dreadful.'

The software market quickly shook out - the e-book market will do the same. The vendors with the best books will be the ones to beneft.

Billie - professional reviewers expect free copies. I certainly do. My netside publishers give anyone who asks and expresses an intention of writing a review a free copy. I wouldn't dream of reviewing anything I paid for.

Kat - interesting perspective. I too tried the 99c route, and the sales were impressive. But I launched two books on the same day in the week before Christmas precisely so I could have a control element and not have to fall back on the guesstimating so prevalent among the indies. It soon became clear that whatever book I had at 99c would sell impressively, but that the cheap sales did nothing for my review ratings, and that the readers didn't go on to buy the other, higher-priced book. They just sat around waiting for me to lower that price too, or give it away free. Then I raised the price of the 99c book to $4.99, because I can afford to sell it for that, having been long since paid for my work with fat advances and additional royalties. Sales were cut, "catastrophically" some idiot on a discussion group said. Not so: the income from the book multiplied, and, more -- the fewer but higher quality readers instantly bought my other book as well. Even better, reviews started coming in.

Conclusion? Readers who pay more have a bigger stake in a book, I think, and in its author. Of course, they expect more, but that doesn't bother me; I've always given more, believing that in the long term your bread cast upon the waters will be returned manifold.

I think you're right. There will be a shake-out. Everybody in ROBUST will survive though because they're smart or talented or sincerely want to be storytellers.

Andre Jute wrote: "Sierra, what about my point that Amazon and some indies between them have demystified books to the extent that they've become like sodden tissues?"

I've never connected the price of a book to the value of books in general. Nor do I consider books to be sodden tissue, so I don't see Amazon or Indies as making that happen. My only complaint is in the opposite direction (Random House has priced my books way too high).

Like you, I put higher prices on my Indie books just to see what would happen. I sold about the same number that I sold at the lower price point, which is to say not many.

I'm inclined to think that the 'sodden tissues' come not so much from the price, but from the fact that some authors are 'churning' out books to boost their sales (contrary to your idea, Andre, that they'll never write a second book). I've generally found that any author who produces 3-4 books a year, indie or otherwise, writes to a formula. They may still be well written and well edited, but the characters and plots are simply regurgitated in a different guise.

Katie wrote: "writes to a formula. They may still be well written and well edited, but the characters and plots are simply regurgitated in a different guise."

You're touching on a sore spot here, Katie. I can not tell you how many of my agents and publishers have asked me, more or less pointedly, to reprise a character or a situation. The late David Stewart Hull, a most cultured man, once opened a conversation by saying, "I flew across the Atlantic to ask you not to betray your loyal readers again." That certainly got my attention. But, while I'm charming in person, I'm not at all malleable. I still wrote the entirely different book I proposed.

I know that discerning readers think recycling characters and situations, calling psychopaths back from the grave repeatedly in some cases, is all the work of slack writers, but the pressure on writers can be enormous, and you need to be a strong personality to resist, especially these days.

A bit of background. Into the 70s and the 80s, there was always a more adventurous editor hovering to snap you up, until he too was pressured by his marketing department into asking you to repeat yourself. These editors, invariably men, were high rollers, always willing to take a chance on something interesting. But from about 1990 a whole bunch of women arrived in senior editorial positions, and the politest way of describing their outlook is "regular and professional"; they weren't interested in taking chances (they were put in place by conglomerators and accountants precisely because they weren't "chancers", as their predecessors were described in the boardroom of one publishing house I helped to sell to a conglomerate...), and they abhorred some of the stunts we thought up. A "feminist" novel I faked up which one of my editors flogged to a feminist house for an unheard-of advance got his face ripped with long fingernails when we fessed up; I was faster: I was hiding under the table already, a butter knife from the table in my hand to defend myself if she should come after me -- what a farce! But that publisher was typical: no sense of humor. She wasn't a publisher to have fun; fun didn't feature in her life. To a publisher like that, the sort of writer you condemn for repeating him/herself appears not dull, but "professional and reliable".

I have news for you: that whole trend, what I think of as the "Cornwell/Patterson Axis-Nexus Lowest Common Denominator Production Line" will become more and more refined -- worse and worse, to the discriminating -- with formula books being churned out in the names of these trademarks long after they're dead. Think of what Hollywood has become, endless remakes, the last producer who thought outside the box (Bill Mechanic) fired by Rupert Murdoch for making "Fight Club". That's where Big Publishing is headed.

I don't actually mind. I got so bored with demands to repeat myself, I went off and wrote textbooks instead, or packaged books I thought up for others to write, and expressed myself in electronic (kilovolt amplifiers are certainly exciting...) and automobile engineering and in the graphic arts, and I was thinking of going back to painting. I forecast both the contraction of publishing opportunities and the reaction in the efflorescence of indie publishing around 1990, on hand of Apple's Newton, but was so much entertained elsewhere that I didn't have time to do anything about it until just before Christmas last year.

Everything always works out for the best, and here we have a whole new toy to play with.

***

The ones I was thinking of as one-book writers are not the leathery old pros but the new writers, brought out by Amazon's easy route to publishing. All their attention is on promoting their first book. They're not really writers, they think of being "an author" as being a lifestyle choice. The majority of them aren't writing a second book.

Sierra, I thought the price of the book you gave me was obscene, regardless of the fact that it is a superior thriller. I didn't mean that high!

There's a clear balance between profiteering and giving a writer a decent living. It may turn out to be about $9.99 for an electronic book, which I think should be priced around the same as a trade paperback.

Right now, the e-self-pubbing boom reminds me of online poker of all things. I had piles of friends off-line and online rushing to poker sites, reading poker books, memorizing statistics, and spending hours and hours on that sort of thing. People who barely played poker before were running around spouting dense gambling jargon. Everyone kept talking about how they had the talent to make it to the top and would win the World Series of Poker.

Of course, after a few years (even before the Feds start leaning on the sites), a lot of people realized that they weren't going to become instant millionaires and started walking away. My friends who said they could 'go pro' if they wanted seemed to be playing less and less poker.

I know it's not a perfect analogy, but that's what I feel like (the poker thing, of course, in turn vaguely reminds me of the day trading craze of the latter nineties, but that was a far more dangerous deal in a lot of ways).

I'm very supportive of indie publishing (and am trying to do my own small part by helping with an indie review blog), but I do think in a few years once the 'OMG! I can become an insta-millionaire' factor has worn off, we'll reach an equilibrium point where serious writers will be able to get their work out without churning through the query-go-around and dealing with the slightly ossified structures of traditional publishing* and most of the get-rich-quickers will have faded away.

With that departure, the price points will probably even out at a higher level.

Of course, I'm a person who three years ago scoffed at the idea that e-books would represent any significant chunk of the market for a long time (and I'm very pro-gadget), so I'm probably just making another incorrect prognostication here. :)

I also, just to throw this out here, haven't published anything yet (other than scientific papers). I've written seven books (all genre fiction), but only the last two are well-crafted enough to potentially be worthy of being published. Maybe once I put my book out there I'll change my tune.

*Just for the record, I'm not anti-traditional publishing. Even querying one of my books to agents right now, just I've been rather surprised to see how strangely the industry is run and how slow they are to adapt to change.

I think it depends on the length of the book on offer. I have no problem offering my rather brief novellas and collections for 99c. The thing is that no one knows who I am, as a writer, so why should I expect them to take a punt?

J.a. wrote: "I've been rather surprised to see how strangely the industry is run and how slow they are to adapt to change. "

My first book was published when I was 13. I haven't seen a single change for the better. Indie publishing isn't a change; it is merely an intensification of a pre-existing trend. 79 out of a 100 indie books I looked at were crap. And 6 of the other 21 were in fact not indie books at all, they were books by tradpub writers dipping a toe in Kindle waters. See the Slushpile articles on my blog, starting here:
http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/ar...

Andre Jute wrote: "Sierra, I thought the price of the book you gave me was obscene, regardless of the fact that it is a superior thriller. I didn't mean that high!

There's a clear balance between profiteering and gi..."

I don't see how there's any profiteering when copies seldom sell at that price. I wrote a letter to the top dog at Random House (my second such letter) about two weeks ago telling him that since he gave me a pile of money for the book, it might be a tad smart to now help sell it -- by lowering the price. I truly do not know what RH is thinking because it's not making money for either of us. When it first came out (in paper) it was under $7, then it went up into the 20s as a trade paperback. I suppose they're seeing the reduction from the 20s to $17.99 as a bargain. It's insane. I asked Random House's Stuart Applebaum why in the world anyone would pay that much for an ebook by someone the reader has never heard of. No response, of course. Unfortunately, I have no say-so in this, and never will because the book will now never go out of print. There's no chance the rights will ever be returned to me.

I have a close friend who writes a suspense/thriller series with a main character that people adore. She begged her publisher to let her move on to stand-alone books. They caved, the stand-alones did poorly (sales-wise), and now she's returned to the series and doing fine. What I take away from this is that it's not just the publishers who want writers to repeat themselves. It's the readers.

Patricia Sierra wrote: "I don't see how there's any profiteering when copies seldom sell at that price."

If you insist on being rational, Sierra, you will never get your own way. Throw a tantrum at the AGM of the mother company, and you'll soon have everyone hanging on your lips.

Mehry wrote: "The thing is that no one knows who I am, as a writer, so why should I expect them to take a punt?."

There's the fine innovation of the extensive free samples from books on the Kindle. That's a wonderful showcase, mentioned by several of my reviewers who make a point of saying that it was the sample which persuaded them to read a book that otherwise they might not have bought. I'm a big fan of Amazon's sampling system.

I have a close friend who writes a suspense/thriller series with a main character that people adore. She begged her publisher to let her move on to stand-alone books. They caved, the stand-alones did poorly (sales-wise), and now she's returned to the series and doing fine. What I take away from this is that it's not just the publishers who want writers to repeat themselves. It's the readers.

Patricia and Andre, I wasn't referring to series. There's a number of series that I've definitely got hooked on and would love the authors to continue. I was talking about the authors who have shelves of books out, all the same, sometimes under three different names.On the surface they're different stories, but there's a sameness about the characters and the plot follows a similar path. After a while, there are no surprises. But you're right, the readers in general do seem to lap them up. Maybe I'm just envious of anyone with the energy to put out that much writing.

It may just be me who's slow, but in my opinion there is a definite limit to the number of good books a writer can produce in a year. In my case that's two, and it is a major exercise in discipline, and I'm never satisfied with the result. Now that I can do what I want, I am luxuriating in the freedom of perfectionism!

I know what you mean, Katie, and probably who, too. Publishers love those writers, though, as a sure thing, an income year in, year out. But even more, they love the series character that readers just can't get enough of.

Andre, I completely agree with you. I am fascinated by how many books one author can churn out in a very short period of time. Personally, as a writer, I need to understand my characters, their motives, the setting, the intentions, etc., without delving into the perspective of the character as well as all of the other characters of a story how can one really create anything of value. To me, it's a lot how the business world encourages people to hand out business cards to network, to build relationships. That's not building relationships that churning to build a vast number of people you never really connect with, just to be profitable. (Storytelling shouldn't be driven by money, you kill the essence of what writing is, what story telling is)!

As a writer, don't you want to be apart of the process? Isn't that what it's about, building "relationships" with the characters of the story in order to best convey the story? How can one understand the story they are writing if they are writing so many in such a short period of time...Maybe I'm old fashioned?

I did for a while publish two novels a year, just to show I could do it. I'm too mature to show off now...

I take your point about knowing your characters. But then I've always taken the view that unless you first had characters, you weren't likely to have a story anyway, no matter how exciting the plot you lifted from a newspaper. Like Sierra, I wait until I hear their voices in my head, talking to each other, before I start writing. It's decades since I last made a plot of any kind. All I need is a character's name, and some inkling of a problem, and his or her voice in my head, and that's good for a novel. I don't really care any more how long it takes to arrive there.

All I need is a character's name, and some inkling of a problem, and his or her voice in my head, and that's good for a novel.

So I'm not mad, hearing character's voices in my head? Well, no madder than you.

I thought I was slow or something not being able to create that many stories, or just too attached to the story. I hate ending the book, the good bye is always so difficult, you know to move on to another character in a different story when you become so involved in the characters of your story.

Would you agree that a lot of published books today are driven by plot, the focus is on the plot? At least in todays mass produced selection of books. Or it seems the characters are underdeveloped and the focus is on major themes or explosive plots. Whereas a great story (in my head) is connecting with the characters and through the relationship with characters one can find an underlying plot/theme.

But to your point, of not caring how long it takes to arrive there, it is possible that you are vastly creative and can isolate yourself from life and create great stories with great characters and write multiple books in a year. (Time is relative, creativity isn't in synch with our man made clocks.)

Katie wrote: "All I need is a character's name, and some inkling of a problem, and his or her voice in my head, and that's good for a novel.

So I'm not mad, hearing character's voices in my head? Well, no madde..."

This made me feel less "mad" too! *SIGH* I can admit this "voices in my head" thing aloud...FINALLY!

Katie wrote: "So I'm not mad, hearing character's voices in my head? Well, no madder than you."

I know novelists who speak aloud when they're alone, doing voices in character, and a goodly number who speak dialogue aloud as they type it.

Naomi, you and Katie and quite a few others sound like you've come home at last!

As for plot-driven novels, it used to be worse. In 1986 I published a book for other writers called Writing a Thriller (it's a book about writing, period, but the publisher had a series and the title had to fit), in which I demonstrated that everything flows from character, and that the plot is a mechanical contrivance. That concept, which was a brand-new idea at the time, has been copied so often that several recent reviews of my book called it "old-fashioned" -- wannabe-writers who haven't grasped that some truths are good for all the ages? Don't rush out to buy a copy, as a new edition will be out in a month or two, and you'll be able to get a review copy free.

Perhaps we should have called this discussion group "Voices in the Head".

Andre Jute wrote: "Sierra, I thought the price of the book you gave me was obscene, regardless of the fact that it is a superior thriller. I didn't mean that high!

There's a clear balance between profiteering and gi..."

Are you of the opinion then that ebooks should be priced the same as a printed version bought instore? If so I highly disagree with you. If that does happen, that Amazon et al price all their books the same as they would a printed version, I'd sell my Kindle and go back to only buy printed books. There should be a benefit to the reader when it comes to ebooks vs printed books. There is no benefit that I can see, other than having it on a little device small enough to keep 100s of books stored on instead of lugging tons of luggage around.

Mehry wrote: "I think it depends on the length of the book on offer. I have no problem offering my rather brief novellas and collections for 99c. The thing is that no one knows who I am, as a writer, so why shou..."

As a reader, this is where free or cheaper priced books come into play. If I don't know you, but see your book priced well below others of the same nature, and the blurb pokes my interest, I'd probably buy it and read it. After that, if the writing is good, the plot worthwhile, I'd probably buy more books written by you.

As an example, I bought the first in what is quickly becoming an epic saga amongst space nuts. There are currently something like 8 or 9 full length novels available for purchase. I bought all after reading halfway through the first. First time I'd ever read anything from this author but not the first time I've bought books unsampled. I do that often enough with printed works.

Naomi wrote: "Would you agree that a lot of published books today are driven by plot, the focus is on the plot? At least in todays mass produced selection of books. Or it seems the characters are underdeveloped and the focus is on major themes or explosive plots. Whereas a great story (in my head) is connecting with the characters and through the relationship with characters one can find an underlying plot/theme.

..."

This for me resonates with the instant gratification generation out there. You just have to look at how well many action flicks do on opening weekend to understand how the market thinks - the more CGI and explosions, the higher the return financially. Same with books I would imagine.

Claudine wrote: "Are you of the opinion then that ebooks should be priced the same as a printed version bought instore?"

No, I don't think ebooks for hardcover prices is a sustainable plan, or even objectively reasonable. But I certainly think e-books should be priced at mass market paperback prices, or some substantial portion of that. Currently my novel IDITAROD is priced at $4.99, which, when loaded by Amazon's ripoff delivery charges for some, for people overseas puts it in the paperback bracket

An e-book Sierra had to buy to give me was priced like a hardback; I thought that well over the top.

There should be discount for the danger of losing all your books if Amazon changes its format, for the inconvenience of not being able to share a book more than once, for being locked in to Amazon's proprietary system, etc.

I talk to myself when writing; the rhythm of prose is often best uncovered by speaking it aloud.

My wife came in the other day to find out what was wrong, as I was doing a particularly swear-y rant for a character...

Andre,

I have read some books in the past that were definitely written to a formula. Robert Ludlum and Tom Clancy come to mind. I have read and enjoyed a handful of books by both authors, but then grew tired of the same pattern. Still, who wouldn't want even a portion of the success of both of them? In the end though, my favorite books and stories are fresh and unpredictable. I think that is why I really like Tom Wolfe, although I'm sure some would disagree.

Will, I agree with the formula writing ala Clancy and Ludlum. I have read both extensively and have found that while Ludlum kept my interest with most if not all he wrote, Clancy in the latter half of his books the formula he used just didn't carry forward anymore. I found myself getting irritated with his characters.

I prefer my fantasy / sci fi epics to be long and follow a formula while the rest of the fiction I read I prefer one hit wonders as it were. Especially those that become good friends.

I'm going to throw in my two cents here....

With the invention of the Kindle, and now the Nook, the publishing industry is in much the same place as the music industry was with the advent of iPods and YouTube. CDs and DVDs are still available but sales have fallen off sharply. True, ninety percent of what you find on YouTube is silly crap, but YouTube gave us Sara Bareilles while the music industry gave us Brittany Spears.
The same appears to be happening with the publishing industry and they aren't seeing the writing on the wall.
As with the music industry, a few major artists turned to the new media - ala Eisner - and some of the new wonders went the other way.
That being said, as an author, particularly of fantasy, the idea of writing to any kind of formula gives me the horrors. Why would anyone want to write like everyone else? Yet I understand the appeal of the tried and true.
I'm a published author of erotica under my pseudonym of V. J. Devereaux. Most of my books have gotten great critical reviews. Another writer with the same publisher writes three different series, a new one comes out almost every month. The plot line is essentially the same - girl gets kidnapped by alien from planet with few women, requiring him to share the 'wealth' but she convinces him to defy convention just to be with her. She also uses 'damn' as an adjective or adverb. She's definitely churning. For the publisher, she's a powerhouse, and I feel a subtle pressure to write more like her, to be less literate. Even my husband says, if you did that you'd make more money.
Risk adverse, publishing is less willing to take the chance on the new untried writer, but I continue trying. I'd be an idiot though, if I didn't take some chances of my own, and follow the example of Amanda Hocking (without the churning). So, I'm trying self-publishing even as I continue to submit my books to the big six, hoping for a break.
What the industry needs to do is take a good hard look at opening up separate lines like 'breakout artists' that take a chance on new writers but offer those books at a discounted price. They should also renegotiate their contracts with some of their writers, open up their backlists as strictly e-books at a $.99 price. That's a win win situation. But it won't happen.

Claudine,

I agree with your comments on Ludlam and Clancy. My favorite Clancy book was one of his first: Red Storm Rising, and I don't think Jack Ryan was in it. Plus, for some reason I don't like Clancy's attitude. He comes across as arrogant to me. Still, it is hard to argue with his success, as he was totally unknown and made it big. Maybe I'm a bit jealous!

Valerie I do agree, the publishing industry is precisely where the music industry was a couple of years ago.

What type of fantasy do you write? I've yet to check out any of your work. Sorry! :)

Will, Red Storm is my favourite Clancy book as well. It was just so different and had such a completely different storyline to his Ryan series that it stood out to me. Still stands out to me actually. I read that one long before I read any of the Ryan books and have to say that it is probably his best book, for me.

I find the Ryan character (senior not junior) to be childish, especially in the later books. It irritated me that at one point I threw a book clear across the room once out of utter frustration.

Claudine wrote: "I find the Ryan character (senior not junior) to be childish, especially in the later books. It irritated me that at one point I threw a book clear across the room once out of utter frustration."

I gave up on Clancy years ago: I didn't even know there is a Young Jack Ryan!

You want to be careful throwing fat clunkers like across the room -- you could easily pull a muscle!

Clancy is an excellent example of a writer who wrote some stunning books when he wrote them himself, but then became a trademark, a brand, whose quality plummeted (though not as far as that of some others) but is yet lapped up by his loyal fans.

Andre Jute wrote: I didn't even know there is a Young Jack Ryan!

The older character was getting too old to reliably tell any more of the same stories so he brought in a new generation : Kids of all the main characters from the earlier books. I picked up one of them at a bookstore for next to nothing a while back and never got further than the first quarter. Total dreck.

Wow. I officially feel old. I also didn't know there was a Jack Ryan Junior. :/

J.A. Old is a state of mind ;) It was pure luck that made me pick up the new gen book. Still, it is now part of the great book exchange in the sky. Do not go out and buy anything new, his writing is like that of a man in his dotage.

J.a. wrote: "Wow. I officially feel old. I also didn't know there was a Jack Ryan Junior. :/"

Doesn't make me old. Just smart. (Okay, okay, stop beating on me already! Just too busy to have noticed that Clancy ran out of things to say about his most attractive character.)

Claudine wrote: "Valerie I do agree, the publishing industry is precisely where the music industry was a couple of years ago.

What type of fantasy do you write? I've yet to check out any of your work. Sorry! ..."

Oh good, I'm not the only one to pitch books in frustration! And Clancy mostly stamps his names on books written by other writers. I gave up on him when he did his first tech book and got all the details wrong.

HI CLAUDINE!!!

I write fantasy and epic fantasy for the most part, although Heart of the Gods bridges that, horror and contemporary fantasy. The sequel to my epic fantasy The Coming Storm will be released on Friday the 13th of May. *grins*

Awesome release date! :)

Hey, when it's all a matter of luck... *laughing* you might as well start at the bottom!

I have steered away from books due to the price point on both sides of the spectrum. I avoided $.99 books because I felt it was a cry of desperation. I also avoided books that were over $9.99 because I felt that in the e-book universe there was no point of paying that amount for a book when the overhead was not high at all. It felt like I would be reaching over a running faucet to purchase bottled water .$2.99 to $9.99 seemed to be the okay value for me, this coming from a reader's perspective.

Now that I have my novel immortalizing itself on iPad, I question what price I will sell it for. I confessed to a friend today that I was writing a novel with the intentions of self promoting and publishing it. Without even knowing the topic of the novel, he said he wouldn't pay anymore than $2.99 for it.

What is a book worth? The best selling book in history, the Bible, found it's way on my Kindle app only because it was free.

Shawn, pricing depends on what you're looking for: money or readers. My books have been priced all the way from free (is that a price?) to $17.99 (that's not my doing; Random House did it), and what I've learned is this: Free is the way to go if you want readers.

Many times I've seen comments posted that 99-cents is, as you say, "a cry of desperation," but it's also a price point at which people feel comfortable hitting the one-click button. In the past day or two, I've lowered all my Kindle store prices to that level because I sell more books there. $4.99 and even $2.99 reduced my sales enough to get my attention.

I understand Andre's point that authors should value their own work if they want others to (Andre didn't use those words; I'm paraphrasing), but there's also a value in getting your work read. I don't think of myself as desperate for wanting to connect with readers.