I'm a midlist author feeling a bit rejected and dejected

i don't know crap but i sold a couple of books and it was neat to see them in bookstores. i couldn't believe seeing my first (and only) hardcover on a shelf. it literally took the wind out of me. but things change, things happen, and i am back at trying to get my stuff in bookstores again. i was really lucky to receive this great blurb from a very talented storyteller about my first book. i sent her a note when things seemed to be going south and i was concerned and asked for advice, and she told me to just try to ignore all of that and keep writing. keep writing. i guess the journey for most writers is gonna be a bit hilly. with a cliff or two along the way.

I've type/deleted about six times on this one.

But I'll just say this: Ms. Schwab's success is absolutely hard-earned and well-deserved. But she's unusual. It's true that if you stop trying you'll definitely fail, but most authors who work just as hard and deserve just as much don't see even a small percentage of her success.

It's okay to feel sad and hurt about a trade deal going badly.

lizmonster said:

I've type/deleted about six times on this one.

But I'll just say this: Ms. Schwab's success is absolutely hard-earned and well-deserved. But she's unusual. It's true that if you stop trying you'll definitely fail, but most authors who work just as hard and deserve just as much don't see even a small percentage of her success.

It's okay to feel sad and hurt about a trade deal going badly.

Click to expand...

For every Ms. Schwab out there, there are probably 100 who have a similar story but never reached her success. But there are probably 1,000 more who had a similar story but then gave up after year 5 or 6 or 7 from frustration.

So, bottom line is that you just go along and control exactly what you can control and nothing more and do your best.

lizmonster said:

I've type/deleted about six times on this one.

But I'll just say this: Ms. Schwab's success is absolutely hard-earned and well-deserved. But she's unusual. It's true that if you stop trying you'll definitely fail, but most authors who work just as hard and deserve just as much don't see even a small percentage of her success.

It's okay to feel sad and hurt about a trade deal going badly.

Click to expand...

It's absolutely true. Not everyone's hard work pays off. I had to confront that in another career (academia), years ago. I put a decade and some financial investment into it, and it didn't work out. I had to decide whether I loved literary scholarship enough to do it for nothing, with a "real" job only a mirage on the horizon. The choice was easy. If I was going to pursue a passion that could never become a career, that passion would be writing fiction.

I still get encouragement from stories like Schwab's, but I also feel the sadness over things that didn't work out. Right now, I'm focusing on the hopeful side, which may be unrealistic of me, we'll see, but I need that spark of hope to get a project done. Didn't mean to suggest it wasn't okay to feel the rejection and dejection!

Maybe the question to ask is: What would it take to make me feel okay about being a midlist author, and could I achieve that? I have no answers right now. In the past (so I've read), a person could spend decades with midlist sales, perhaps with a small, loyal group of fans, but I don't know if that's true today.

Fuchsia Groan said:

Maybe the question to ask is: What would it take to make me feel okay about being a midlist author, and could I achieve that?

Click to expand...

I've been told the midlist isn't as vibrant as it was 15-20 years ago, but I'm not sure how reliable my sources were. I do know it still exists, and I know a number of authors whose sales are okay-not-great but still steadily sell new work, so it's definitely attainable.

i never liked the word 'midlist' very much. it is like when you ask someone if you look nice before going out for supper and they give you a quick glance over and say, 'you look fine.'

ancon said:

i never liked the word 'midlist' very much. it is like when you ask someone if you look nice before going out for supper and they give you a quick glance over and say, 'you look fine.'

Click to expand...

See, I'm quite fond of it. It's rather like "middle class." When it shrinks, it's indicative of a larger problem. As a reader, I want more choices than the NYT bestseller list.

interesting perspective. i want EVERYONE to read my stories.

What a good point you bring up! As an emerging writer, I have this overwhelming feeling that if I can just get an agent, everything will be fine. But it's such a journey, and one that never ends really. I totally get where you're coming from and while there's probably not much I can say that will make you feel better (other than keep marketing that book!), I can tell you that I appreciate you posting your feelings and that it will help me remain realistic through this process. Perhaps you need a different agent or publisher for the next book--maybe it just isn't a great fit. Either way, you have accomplished something that few people do, and you should be proud of that no matter what.

Mid list may not mean what you think it means.

It means that your book(s) is neither a current release or forthcoming book, or current best seller, and therefore featured at the front of the list (aka the publisher's current catalog) nor a reliable seller that was published many years ago (i.e. classic literary works, etc.) but is still in print. Mid list is everything between these two sections of the catalog.

Most books, say 75% to 80%, are midlist books. They are expected to sell through, they are in print and they are, more often than not, books that sell through and earn out. Midlist authors and their books are the backbone of publishing and book sales.

ancon said:

interesting perspective. i want EVERYONE to read my stories.

Click to expand...

Realistically, though - EVERYONE doesn't have the time, or the inclination. There are whole genres I never even consider. There are zero books in existence that are beloved by the entire world. And readers don't have enough money to read everything.

You are welcome to that #1 slot (truly - I wish you luck and will cheer you when it happens!). Me, I would love to be able to sell well enough to get another book deal. Midlist has been my ambition ever since I was a kid.

I don't want everyone to read my stories. Only people who like them ;-) There are few things worse feedback wise than a beta who slogs through while hating every word. I imagine a real reader doing that is also bad.

Everything published will have haters and likers and those who are merely indifferent.

AW Admin said:

Most books, say 75% to 80%, are midlist books. They are expected to sell through, they are in print and they are, more often than not, books that sell through and earn out. Midlist authors and their books are the backbone of publishing and book sales.

Click to expand...

Ah. Yeah, I totally have my terminology wrong (no surprise; I think I've acquired some confused information along the way). Apologies for cluttering the conversation.

I guess I'm talking about non-bestseller-but-still-doing-OK writers - the ones who don't end up on the Top 10 of the Year lists, but still sell well enough to get another book deal. I dunno. I never wanted to be a Big Author; I just wanted to be a steady seller. Maybe to be one you have to be both. (Maybe it depends on genre.)

good info here. thanks. i still don''t like the word 'midlist' though.

Thanks for the correction, Admin! Very helpful.

I think what I actually mean when I say "midlist" is "book that is not one of the publisher's designated lead titles, a book that is not heavily promoted and (generally) does not sell the way lead titles are expected to." The equivalent of a medium-budget movie, a non-blockbuster. A book without particular industry buzz (which, probably, is the majority of books). If such a book then does really well, it might be considered a sleeper hit. Is there a better term for that?

I've heard authors refer to themselves as "low-list," too. Clearly this usage is getting far away from the proper meaning of the term, but it's a way of expressing the sense that there's a hierarchy.

Some great advice here.

I'd love to be able to make a living out of writing, but I'm also at the point where I realise that not every writer can pay the bills with their writing passion. I'm really now trying to focus on what I can control. Writing because I love it - each book/story is an an adventure in craft and characters full of highs and sometimes very low lows - ha ha. I write too because I'd love to connect with readers, and over time, I'd like to be able to grow my readership.

But because I've had a really hard start to my career, I think my expectations have been tempered. Things went wonky with my first agent - my first book got a tiny deal and although it was short-listed for some awards, didn't make great sales. Agent 1 hated book 2 and that disaster continued for years - it was so hard to get an agent in the first place that I didn't want to let go! Yes, silly me - no advocate is better than someone who no longer believes in you - mind you, the same applies to any kind of relationship.

I finally have a new agent and a manuscript on submission (book 2 that agent 1 hated - yip, it is such a subjective business), but it is very, very tough out there, and I've realised that it's a flooded market. Literally a market absolutely over-flowing with strong manuscripts that:
a) aren't getting agents
b) aren't getting publishing deals
c) are getting publishing deals, but then aren't really getting noticed.

I also think there are dwindling readers? Perhaps more people getting hooked on series and gaming?

A slight side-step here: A while ago I read the most awesome self-published novel and felt a little sad that the book wasn't traditionally published, as I felt it was going to take a long time for the writer to build up the kind of audience he could have had if he'd published traditionally. I realise now that my logic was flawed. I used to have this idea that traditional books get more marketing budget and can - as such - reach a wider audience. I don't think that anymore. While I think it's really tough for a reclusive (read: shy, not a good self-promoter, twitter-phobic, social-media unsavvy writer) to get their to books to gain real economic traction if they self-publish, I also think it's equally tough for many of the traditional writers who aren't best-sellers. They fall through the cracks. Call it what you want - midlist is a tough place to be. Possibly as tough as self-publishing if you don't get a good marketing budget from the publisher? In short, from what I understand (and experienced) a small traditional book deal will get you a smaller marketing budget, and unless you're brilliant at cross-platform networking to get eyes on your book, your book will likely struggle to gain traction.

This has nothing to do with the quality or timeliness of the work, it has to do with not being able to get your work into the hands of the right readers.

I've recently started reviewing more books on goodreads and amazon. It's the most effective way to appreciate a writer. Let this be a clarion call to all of us writers out there: let's review books we read on platforms where it counts. Especially the books that have 12 reviews only! Those are the writers who need it the most.

And to the OP: I'd read your book, lots of us in this thread would. To all the folk in this thread who've offered to read your books, DM us with the details books if you're too shy to post publicly. I promise to read one, and to review it online. Every reader and reviewer and counts.

Thanks for sharing your story, Qwest. It's heartening.

Qwest said:

I'd love to be able to make a living out of writing, but I'm also at the point where I realise that not every writer can pay the bills with their writing passion.

Click to expand...

I wanted to pick out this bit, because a lot of people starting out use this as a measure of success (I did). And there are genres and avenues where it's easier to do this than others (assuming both skill and output) - there are a number of genres that do screamingly well on Kindle, as I understand it.

But I think making a living wage off writing alone is (for novelists, at least) pretty unusual. Most of the writers I know and know of - even the ones regularly getting book contracts - either have other jobs, or other sources of income. Writing is piecework, and income isn't always going to be predictable. (Kameron Hurley, among others, has generously shared some of her financial information in her blog over the last few years.)

I mention this, because before all this I'd assumed that selling a book would come with a living wage. In most cases, it doesn't. A low advance means you may see royalties sooner, but you're not going to have enough to live on in the meantime. A high advance may briefly mean a living wage, but you may never earn out at all.

That last paragraph is about trade publishing, of course. In self-publishing you keep more of the proceeds, but you're carrying all of the up-front costs - never mind the sales and marketing efforts. There's no short cut to making money at this gig.

Whether or not the financial rewards are important depends, I suppose, on what you're trying to get out of the work. But I see too many stories of people saying "oh, I'll just live at home/wait tables/take this hideous soul-sucking job until I publish my first novel and can live off my writing." Sometimes a first novel will take off and make the author zillions, but it's extremely rare. In general, it takes a lot of books, a lot of time, and a lot of luck.

And I think I just agreed with Victoria Schwab.

Just through shared groups on fb and other communities, I've encountered quite a few indie writers who make a very very good living off writing.

But without exception they produce 12-24 books per month, wordcount usually around the 50-60k mark. Majority are in romance, a few in YA with strong romance arcs.

I could never write in that way. Not everyone can be prolific or write in that genre. So they are welcome to it.

Harlequin said:

But without except they produce 12-24 books per month, wordcount usually around the 50-60k mark. Majority are in romance, a few in YA with strong romance arcs.

Click to expand...

Yeah: Not me. At all. Ever. A book a year is pushing it for me.

it takes me years. i am in awe of authors like king. what a gift. i have to keep many pots on the stove and start cooking early if i'm ever gonna get food on the table someday....like five years from now.

Qwest said:

I've recently started reviewing more books on goodreads and amazon. It's the most effective way to appreciate a writer. Let this be a clarion call to all of us writers out there: let's review books we read on platforms where it counts. Especially the books that have 12 reviews only! Those are the writers who need it the most.

Click to expand...

Yes! I read a ton and try to do a lot of reviewing. If it's a local author, I review them in the newspaper where I work; otherwise, on GR and Amazon. I've been Bookstagramming the books I enjoy, too. Given the size of my following, it doesn't mean much, but I like supporting good books. While I don't read my own reviews or engage with reviewers, EVERY positive reader tweet or Instagram about my book means the world to me.

so maybe this is tangential (I'll remove if so) but for you guys who publish, and review, do you do that under your own name?

There seems to be a strong stigma or cultural taboo (almost) of writers reviewing other writers, unless it's positive and/or on the cover of a book. I like doing reviews, and I'm not published so not an issue for me, but I did wonder about how that works for published people.

AndreaX said:

I don't really know where to start.

I feel like I should be grateful because at least I was published via a big trade publisher like I always wanted. But I'm just feeling so dejected right now.

I spent years wanting to be a writer and trying to get an agent, trying to get an editor and finally I'm published. I've got a whole series out that's pretty much done now. The books find their way into bookshelves at bookstores and I know not everyone has that.

But at the same time I also know the books aren't really selling. Barely anyone knows they exist. All the money that was spent into marketing dried up as soon as the first book released. And I've been trying hard to promote myself but nobody seems to care. Barely anyone is reviewing the books on goodreads or amazon. It's just like the books are a complete non-factor.

It's not that they're not good, I've gotten great reviews. I'm just being passed over. It just makes me wonder when I see the books of authors that got a massive push and a huge fandom and are going on tours and signing movie deals - is my work really that much worse than theirs? I really don't think it is, so why the difference?

What hurts the most is that some big name author with a huge fan base and lots of connections in the industry recently got a deal for a book series that's basically the same as mine in pitch and I know it's going to do far better simply because he's built up his name over the years.

I guess I just feel like it never ends. You get dejected because of so many things along the way as a writer. I guess I shouldn't look at other people's success and feel down on myself but I can't help but wonder why I'm stuck in this rut.

Click to expand...

=================

alas, that is the modern society. the washpost had an article on a band with several CDs out, toured usa and europe twice. they quit because they could not make enough to support their families.

these days it is a very very long tailed phenomenon. a few people hit it really big and some are doing so-so, but most are getting insignificant revenue to be worth the effort. if you are not doing it for the fun then look elsewhere than music or writing. if you get lucky and hit it big then give thanks to God for your good luck.

unfortunately education training talent and hard work no longer guarantee success.

Yip, it is tough pat j - has to be for the love, I agree.

So, Harlequin... I know this could be a bit controversial, but I started a Goodreads account under a "pen name" so that I could be free to review books on my own terms. And obviously not make enemies in the writing world! It's something I think about a lot. I'm part of a huge book group on Facebook (there under my own name) and would post there if I loved a book - but not if I didn't. However, I do think it's important to leave honest reviews on Amazon or Goodreads - if I read a best-seller and am disappointed and will leave a review on my "pen name" Goodreads account. But I do always leave some kind of caveat in a negative review something like: "I don't think I'm the target reader for this" or "lots of people loved this, so I'm obviously not the market for it." I also give good reasons for not enjoying something. And I try to be as kind as I can.

Sometimes I'll read a negative review of a book I'm keen on reading, and it will say: "All the characters were unlikable..." That's not a problem for me, as a reader, I enjoy unlikable characters, so I won't avoid a book because of a review like that. Or it will say, "This was preachy..." and I won't mind that either, I quite enjoy my reading to have wider messaging. And with #writeyourresistance, I think we'll start accepting more of that as readers.

I try to keep my "pen name" reviews balanced. But, in short, I do think writers need to be careful about criticism of other writers, but we're readers too and I want the freedom to be able to compassionately and honestly review other people's work without prejudicing myself in the process. Am I a coward? Maybe.

Harlequin said:

Just through shared groups on fb and other communities, I've encountered quite a few indie writers who make a very very good living off writing.

But without exception they produce 12-24 books per month, wordcount usually around the 50-60k mark. Majority are in romance, a few in YA with strong romance arcs.

I could never write in that way. Not everyone can be prolific or write in that genre. So they are welcome to it.

Click to expand...

Yes, different genres have different expectations and returns. Even sub-genres. For instance, military SF and post-apocalyptic/survivalist SF are cash cows if your stuff is good. There are writers who put out one novel after another in those sub-genres and make a good living.

The trouble is that it's difficult to write to a genre that you have no interest in. I write Space Opera and tech SF because that's what I like to read. It's probably not the best choice in terms of return on effort (in general terms) but it's what I'm best at.

And that brings us back to the question of goals. If an income is your primary goal, then maybe you will want to shift genres to find something lucrative, and maybe you'll be willing to do the up-front research to learn the tropes and expectations of that genre.