What cliques mean for a midlist writer (ie: I'm sick of it all)

AndreaX

Registered
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
14
Reaction score
5
I'm just really tired of the cliques among writers, particularly popular writers.

I just feel like, when I've had friends that were in the trenches with me, all of us running towards the same goal, then we'd be able to keep supporting each other. But what happens when one blows up and suddenly pushes you aside because you don't sell enough books?

I just find more and more that you've got this circle of authors who are all popular, have lots of fans, get on the NYT, get the biggest interviews at the biggest cons or on the biggest shows and so they all kind of gas each other up and pretend to be the best of friends while little nobody writers like myself get treated like just another adoring fan celebrating whatever huge achievement they've achieved recently in their mentions.

I guess part of it is jealousy. You see how differently these authors are treated by bloggers and other people in the industry. But I just think the hierarchy hurts. I hate feeling like I'm just not important enough to associate with.

I guess it just burns away at my confidence bit by bit. All I ever wanted to do was write for the fun of it. I had no idea that getting published would bring all these little emotional challenges that feel more like what I experienced in high school sigh.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,542
Reaction score
24,137
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I guess it just burns away at my confidence bit by bit. All I ever wanted to do was write for the fun of it. I had no idea that getting published would bring all these little emotional challenges that feel more like what I experienced in high school sigh.

I know what you're talking about. I guess I go with Maya Angelou: When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. The vast majority of the authors I've met have been ordinary, friendly people, but I've got two on my list who behaved quite badly toward me (one shockingly so). It's sobering, and yes, very high school.

I think all you can do is keep your eyes on your own path, and remember not to become That Person as you find your own measure of success. And do remember that you wanted to write for fun, and all the cliques in the world can't take that from you unless you let them.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
I've worked in production for some really big name writers.

Two that come to mind were Michael Crichton and Douglas Adams.

Both are deceased, so I feel comfortable noting that I worked on new releases for both of them, with day and date release.

Michael Crichton was a complete jerk. Douglas Adams was kind, intelligent, charming and thoughtful. We did more projects with him. We all made extra effort on his behalf. We went above and beyond for Adams and his books.

My point being that an asshat is always an asshat, and people notice. Be kind, be professional and be courteous. You'll do fine.
 
Last edited:

RaggyCat

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
1,347
Reaction score
426
Location
UK
I know exactly what you mean, and, yes, it's impossible not to feel jealous. My books were released 2011-2013 and apart from the first year, I always felt pretty unimportant, like I'd been left behind before I had a chance to dig my heels in.

I think the part I find hard is the bloggers - they're great at what they do, but seem to be very sheeplike. If one influential person decides to champion an author, many of the others follow. It doesn't lead to particular diversity of opinion, which is normally a healthy thing when it comes to the arts. I can see that if you're blogging it takes some bravery to disagree with what seems to be the presiding opinion. I get it. But it's a shame, because people miss out on hearing about other great books if they just get told about the same ones.

I guess one positive thing to do is to bite your negative feelings and try to be as positive and supportive as you can and see if that develops into people helping you... Takes someone quite big to fight feelings of resentment and do that, though. I'm not sure I could at present!
 

CarlHackman

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
88
Reaction score
5
Location
Somewhere hot and humid
Website
www.carlhackman.com
Don't be discouraged, keep writing. Being a writer can be a lonely business and it's nice to have people in the same place as you helping each other along. I'd love to have a few writing buddies as I'm pretty geologically remote from the friends I do have. It may take time, but other writers with the same values as you will be drawn to you and then you'll have real friends who will support you as you walk the publishing path.

I have probably two or three writer friends who are consistent and, even though we are not writing buddies, we still share each other's posts and tweets, and also message each other. I'd love to be able to share with another writer or small writing group, but that might not happen, so I continue to fall through the hole into my characters' worlds and that is a place where I am truly happy. :)
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,777
Reaction score
6,489
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
I have only come across a couple writers that are condescending to we unpublished folk. I assure you I'm not the least bit jealous of them. One in particular (not on this forum), instead of offering her opinion if it differed from another forum member, will post that people should not trust the opinion of people who are not published (not mentioning the obvious, 'like she is').

Fortunately this attitude is the exception and not the norm. Look at all the representative published works by members on this forum. And look at how nice people here are offering their time and expertise to the rest of us.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
Meh. Having written is the big hurdle, really, more so than being published.

Sure, a lot more people write books than actually publish them, but if you compare those who actually write the book (vs talking about writing the book, thinking about writing the book, research writing the book . . . ) just having written is a huge accomplishment.
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,865
Reaction score
4,640
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
I have only come across a couple writers that are condescending to we unpublished folk. I assure you I'm not the least bit jealous of them. One in particular (not on this forum), instead of offering her opinion if it differed from another forum member, will post that people should not trust the opinion of people who are not published (not mentioning the obvious, 'like she is').

Fortunately this attitude is the exception and not the norm. Look at all the representative published works by members on this forum. And look at how nice people here are offering their time and expertise to the rest of us.

I was excluded from several group conversations one evening because of the four of us sitting at a table in a coffee shop, I was the only one who had been commercially published; the other three were all self-pubbed and, having "stuck it to the man!", decided I wasn't worthy to be included, even though it was a writing event.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Two that come to mind were Michael Crichton and Douglas Adams.

. . .

Michael Crichton was a complete jerk. Douglas Adams was kind, intelligent, charming and thoughtful.

I have confidence that Adams' books will continue to be read long after Crichton is a minor footnote in literary history. Not because he was a nice person (something I have heard from many others), but because his writing is just plain better and more long-lived.

caw
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,542
Reaction score
24,137
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I was excluded from several group conversations one evening because of the four of us sitting at a table in a coffee shop, I was the only one who had been commercially published; the other three were all self-pubbed and, having "stuck it to the man!", decided I wasn't worthy to be included, even though it was a writing event.

One of the things that shouldn't have surprised me about the writing community is that it's just like any other community: it's going to have its share of asshats, and sometimes you're caught off-guard.

I prefer to remember the writer who met me for coffee to give me career advice, or the one who made sure I didn't have stage fright when I did a reading with him, or the one who offered to beta for me on a book that I was struggling with, or the ones who've shared with me their own gorgeous creations-in-progress, or the ones who let me rant at them for no other reason than I needed to rant.

It's easy to feel isolated and discouraged when you've encountered someone who isn't nice (or who started out nice and changed for some arbitrary reason). But AW Admin is right: those people wouldn't be nice no matter what they did for a living. That some of them end up successful is sometimes grating, but they (generally!) don't have any control over your career, and it's best to figure out how to push aside the sense of exclusion and get back to work.

I write this to remind myself as much as to share with others, you understand. :)
 

Treehouseman

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
1,090
Reaction score
102
Oh, it's definitely there, and I'm not sure that socially we are primed to do anything but try and get the "contact high" of being in the same group of ever more famous people. Getting a Best Selling book puts those upper echelons in reach, people just can't help but social climb.

It is all rather disheartening! though I hate to begrudge successes, its interesting how some people can really RUN with a small amount of success but not have the juice to turn it into a long term career. In the end all we can do is keep our eyes on our own paper, as they say.
 

Fuchsia Groan

Becoming a laptop-human hybrid
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
2,870
Reaction score
1,399
Location
The windswept northern wastes
I think what you're describing is an especially big phenomenon in YA, AndreaX, for whatever reason. Or maybe I'm just thinking of that because it's what I know.

Personally, I haven't experienced feeling directly or deliberately excluded, and I've experienced a lot of kindness and support from writers who debuted the same year as I did but who were more successful. (I love my debut group!) That said, I find it really hard to go on social media and see everyone else's good news, and yes, it does make me feel like I'm not in the popular-girl clique, because some writers definitely are more popular than others, at least in the Twittersphere/blogosphere. Sometimes that's a function of their high sales and publisher support; sometimes they're just very adept at building a likable, entertaining persona on social media.

I am not, so I find I'm way happier when I avoid Twitter. I assume there's also a lot of cliquishness at conferences, but I haven't really been to any. (Well, not as a writer. I used to attend academic conferences, and they were cliquish and alienating. There I did feel deliberately excluded.)

So for me, I think the solution is to focus on the writers who are loyal friends, and on doing my own writing, and basically just ignore whatever in-groups and out-groups may develop on social media. It's cutting off one source of networking, but it's better for my mental health. No, there's never going to be tons of bloggers eager to cover me (I think I can safely say that, given what I write), but a few have found my book and liked it, and I try to focus on that.

Easier said than done, though, right? It's a work in progress.

ETA: A lot of the writers I like are midlist writers, or at least not bestsellers, and it makes me feel good to read and support them. Because midlist does not mean "mediocre" or "middle of the road." Sometimes it just means you're doing cool, weird stuff that only a niche or cult audience is going to adore. Or that you haven't had a lucky break. Or that your subgenre isn't popular. Well, that's my take. (I'm still confused about the proper meaning of "midlist," honestly. I know it didn't originally mean what many writers use it to mean now.)
 
Last edited:

AndreaX

Registered
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
14
Reaction score
5
I think what you're describing is an especially big phenomenon in YA, AndreaX, for whatever reason. Or maybe I'm just thinking of that because it's what I know.

Personally, I haven't experienced feeling directly or deliberately excluded, and I've experienced a lot of kindness and support from writers who debuted the same year as I did but who were more successful. (I love my debut group!) That said, I find it really hard to go on social media and see everyone else's good news, and yes, it does make me feel like I'm not in the popular-girl clique, because some writers definitely are more popular than others, at least in the Twittersphere/blogosphere. Sometimes that's a function of their high sales and publisher support; sometimes they're just very adept at building a likable, entertaining persona on social media.

I am not, so I find I'm way happier when I avoid Twitter. I assume there's also a lot of cliquishness at conferences, but I haven't really been to any. (Well, not as a writer. I used to attend academic conferences, and they were cliquish and alienating. There I did feel deliberately excluded.)

So for me, I think the solution is to focus on the writers who are loyal friends, and on doing my own writing, and basically just ignore whatever in-groups and out-groups may develop on social media. It's cutting off one source of networking, but it's better for my mental health. No, there's never going to be tons of bloggers eager to cover me (I think I can safely say that, given what I write), but a few have found my book and liked it, and I try to focus on that.

Easier said than done, though, right? It's a work in progress.

ETA: A lot of the writers I like are midlist writers, or at least not bestsellers, and it makes me feel good to read and support them. Because midlist does not mean "mediocre" or "middle of the road." Sometimes it just means you're doing cool, weird stuff that only a niche or cult audience is going to adore. Or that you haven't had a lucky break. Or that your subgenre isn't popular. Well, that's my take. (I'm still confused about the proper meaning of "midlist," honestly. I know it didn't originally mean what many writers use it to mean now.)


I see this a lot in the Young Adult world too. Everyone has good news, everyone congratulates each other on their good news, secretly probably hoping they'd get noticed. Authors will respond to the authors who are 'at their level' but completely ignore authors they've never heard of.

I also hate social media particularly for this reason but also I find that most of the people in that world are a bit heavy handed with issue topics and it can be a bit stifling. So sticking to myself is sometimes the best thing to do for my own peace of mind.

I agree though about being midlist, though to this day I'm not sure if i'm using that term correctly. But the general gist is not having a huge book deal doesn't mean you're not worthy, or that your work isn't good. Sometimes the hierarchies and the cliques can make me feel otherwise, though, but I'm giving myself permission to block everyone and everything out and just love my work while focusing on improving.
 

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
Midlist means that the book is not a new release (front list) or a perennial book that never really goes out of print (backlist) but a currently available book that is in the middle of the list.

The "list" is a publisher's list of book available for sale. In the front are the new releases, in the middle are the already released but still recent books, and the back are those older books that are still in print.

Being midlist means you have books available for sale that are in print. This means every time you sell a new book, readers can go buy your previous books because they're still in print.

It's not really a ranking hierarchy.
 

Nakhlasmoke

yes
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
11,792
Reaction score
4,698
Location
Wicked Little Town
Website
cathellisen.com
I've noticed the Big Writer Cliques over the years, and I don't believe it's ever going to change. All I can say is, be kind to all those you meet (unless they're a complete wad, in which case, ignore) and do your best to extend a hand down to all those on the rungs below. In publishing, you're never so big that you can't fall a few (or more than that haha) rungs with the vagaries of the industry. :D

Celebrate the successes of other writers, talk up the books you love, be generous (but no need to be a doormat). These things come back to you in time.

(also, sometimes what looks like cliquiness could just be writers having terrible social skills, anxiety, and shocking facial memory. :D Certainly, speaking for myself (and a few others I know.))
 

Tchaikovsky

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 23, 2017
Messages
100
Reaction score
14
OP, are you me?

I see this a lot in the Young Adult world too. Everyone has good news, everyone congratulates each other on their good news, secretly probably hoping they'd get noticed. Authors will respond to the authors who are 'at their level' but completely ignore authors they've never heard of.

I don't even write YA and I've noticed it on Twitter.

I also hate social media particularly for this reason but also I find that most of the people in that world are a bit heavy handed with issue topics and it can be a bit stifling. So sticking to myself is sometimes the best thing to do for my own peace of mind.
Yes. I find Twitter (and Facebook) chaotic, but remember Twitter especially is not a good place to have civil discussions... it's more of a "rah-rah CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS THING omg" type of place, where people support you with a click of a button or a GIF. 240 character limit? Yep.

There have been scientific studies showing Facebook causes social anxiety and feelings of depression. I wouldn't be surprised if this extends to all social media. The reason is people tend to post their good news, while minimizing the bad. So while we see the glittering beach vacations, new babies, or new condo (or, in the case of the writing world: book deals, Kirkus reviews, etc.), we don't really know what's going on in their life. We don't see their breakups or their unpaid debts, or how they just tanked a project at work.


In the same way, I echo the others in that there will always be jerks who ignore the "little people" but pamper to the big-names. But this happens everywhere. I work in a large corporate office. Just the other day, one of the security personnel at the front door greeted "Good morning" to every single person who came in (including bigwigs in suits), and you know how many people replied? Zero.

I was shocked. But that tells me a lot about their character.

OP, stand by this quote: The real test of character is how you treat the people you don't have to be nice to.

Forget those who snub you on social media. Honestly, you don't know them, and judging from their actions, I don't think you'd want to. Not a part of their silly clique? Be thankful.

Cheers!
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,783
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Midlist means that the book is not a new release (front list) or a perennial book that never really goes out of print (backlist) but a currently available book that is in the middle of the list.

The "list" is a publisher's list of book available for sale. In the front are the new releases, in the middle are the already released but still recent books, and the back are those older books that are still in print.

Being midlist means you have books available for sale that are in print. This means every time you sell a new book, readers can go buy your previous books because they're still in print.

It's not really a ranking hierarchy.

Out of curiosity, what is meant by the term "midlist author" then? By definition, all trade-published writer would be midlist eventually, if their books sell well enough. Being mid-list would be a good thing (meaning the initial release sold well enough to keep it in print). However, the term is often used in the context of being kind of average.

I assumed it referred to writers whose new releases weren't at the front of the catalog in terms of anticipated or actual sales. I remember being at a workshop once where an editor from a big SFF house said that most "midlist" fantasy and SF authors tend to sell only a few thousand books per release or something like that. I've seen writers (in blogs) mention that their new releases are at the front of their publishers lists, or something like that (implying that some authors new books aren't). I assume this meant that when one of their books comes out, their publisher prioritizes it in some way in terms of promotion due to greater anticipated sales.

I got the impression, from how this editor explained the term, that a lead author was the one whose new release was at the front of the catalog, while midlist encompassed several titles each month--either new releases anticipated to have more modest sales as well as books that had previously been released and were still in print. She implied that there was a big distinction between high midlist and low midlist. Back list was for the much older titles that were still in print.

It's pretty clear that big houses do treat their authors' new releases differently, even among debuts. In Locus, for instance, some warrant full-page, color ads, while others get much smaller advertisements. Some authors get multi city book tours, while others don't. How do publishers determine which debut writers' books warrant this special treatment?
 
Last edited:

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,285
Out of curiosity, what is meant by the term "midlist author" then? By definition, all trade-published writer would be midlist eventually, if their books sell well enough. Being mid-list would be a good thing (meaning the initial release sold well enough to keep it in print). However, the term is often used in the context of being kind of average.

You can be both at the same time, even. So let's say Patricia Briggs' new hardcover comes out. It's going to be Frontlist because it's hard cover, and the last several books made various best seller lists, and it's a new release. That new forthcoming book will have some sales collaterals, and maybe a page to itself in the catalog or list.

But she also has a sizable backlist, still in print in paperback. Those will be midlist books. She was midlist for years, until word of mouth had people buying her books on notification of release date, which caused her publisher to move her new releases to hardcover, which meant that when the paperback came out it too was likely to be a best seller, which in turn sold her backlist . . .

Frontlist also has books that are just listed, by author and title, maybe categorized further by genre or imprint. And others that are featured releases, but mostly only book buyers for stores see that kind of collateral/marketing material/sales sheets.

I assumed it referred to writers whose new releases weren't at the front of the catalog in terms of anticipated or actual sales. I remember being at a workshop once where an editor from a big SFF house said that most "midlist" fantasy and SF authors tend to sell only a few thousand books per release or something like that. I've seen writers (in blogs) mention that their new releases are at the front of their publishers lists, or something like that (implying that some authors new books aren't). I assume this meant that when one of their books comes out, their publisher prioritizes it in some way in terms of promotion due to greater anticipated sales.?

When you submit your final ms. your publisher revises the P & L (Profit and Loss Statement) then or soon after (different houses may use a different stage) to figure a more detailed schedule for printing etc. which requires a better idea of what expected sales numbers would be, and will affect marketing and sales expenditures. So they may, for instance decide that the particular book will be killer, and then book ads in Locus etc. How they determine that will depend on the particular publisher, but they know they have X amount to spend on Y books for the year.

And there's a fair amount of wheeling and dealing, like they may bargain for a full page ad for book X if they get a better price on a full page ad for a group of "forthcoming" books, for instance. And sometimes chain bookstores will agree to pitch in and buy an ad or ads because they do their own sales numbers, especially for authors with previously published and in print books.

In other words . . . it's complicated.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,783
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I'm still a bit confused by the meaning of the term "midlist titles" and "midlist" authors, because the way I've most often heard the term used is like this, or like this--to refer to authors whose new releases aren't bestsellers, or top of their publishers list at any point, but they still generate enough profits to justify publication.
 
Last edited:

Dennis E. Taylor

Get it off! It burns!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
2,602
Reaction score
365
Location
Beautiful downtown Mordor
I'm still a bit confused by the meaning of the term "midlist titles" and "midlist" authors, because the way I've most often heard the term used is like this, or like this--to refer to authors whose new releases aren't bestsellers, or top of their publishers list at any point, but they still generate enough profits to justify publication.

I've always heard it used that way, too. Maybe it means that in the same way that literally now means figuratively.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,542
Reaction score
24,137
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
(also, sometimes what looks like cliquiness could just be writers having terrible social skills, anxiety, and shocking facial memory. :D Certainly, speaking for myself (and a few others I know.))

There's one writer I'd love to be able to excuse for this reason. But I met her with a group of other writers, all of whom were better established than I am. She was gregarious and friendly with them, but completely standoffish with me. (The other established writers were perfectly welcoming of me.)

I'm the kind of person who's very good at coming up with a non-malicious reason for someone else's rudeness, but literally the only thing I can think of in this case is that I was not significant enough for her attention. She certainly hangs with the big dogs on Twitter. Best of luck to her, I suppose.

The only other writer on my "karma will catch up with you" list took a public shot at my work without reading it.

Like I said - although one would love to believe writers are all good folks underneath, sometimes they're just not. We're a heterogeneous group, and that means a certain percentage are going to be plain ol' unpleasant people.

I'm kind of glad I never got to meet the people who wrote my favorite books growing up.
 

phantasy

I write weird stories.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
1,895
Reaction score
259
Location
The Moon
For me, the cliquishness on twitter is worst around YA authors, followed by adult white male authors. I'm always shocked when a male author responds to me. They always seem to be posting with each other or at least someone equally as popular and no one else. It's weird. YA authors also do this thing of where one complains about how tough their life is and and 60+ people chime in about how much they're adored. Reminds me of high school.

But twitter really improved for when when I started following short story authors, even if they were popular and constantly making sales. They're the nicest and most friendly and appreciate it when you're supportive of their work. Also reading their work reminds me of the level I'd like to attain.
 

thejadevoice

Registered
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
41
Reaction score
2
Location
The Colonies
I am not, so I find I'm way happier when I avoid Twitter. I assume there's also a lot of cliquishness at conferences, but I haven't really been to any. (Well, not as a writer. I used to attend academic conferences, and they were cliquish and alienating. There I did feel deliberately excluded.)

So for me, I think the solution is to focus on the writers who are loyal friends, and on doing my own writing, and basically just ignore whatever in-groups and out-groups may develop on social media. It's cutting off one source of networking, but it's better for my mental health. No, there's never going to be tons of bloggers eager to cover me (I think I can safely say that, given what I write), but a few have found my book and liked it, and I try to focus on that.

Easier said than done, though, right? It's a work in progress.

YES to this! I actually left Twitter a couple of years ago because it was making me feel things I wasn't very proud of. I know it was me feeling left out because people I started on this road with have gone on to be published, famous people.

That said: I do have some friends in the YA world who are quite big names and have always been so encouraging and helpful and just great friends in general.

But I do stand by my decision to leave Twitter, though. I've been much happier since.
 

S. Eli

Custom User Title
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
421
Reaction score
54
Location
Philadelphia
Twitter overwhelmed me for those reasons--I'm REALLY not good at having an online personality. I'm a lurker at heart, and a homebody in real life, but I pretty much stay away from society in all forms, digital or otherwise, unless I'm at work (DIRECT EVIDENCE, I'M A PRETTY ACTIVE-ISH MEMBER HERE BUT I HAVE LIKE 200 POSTS LOL). I can turn myself "on," I just can't do it online, which meant Twitter for me was like watching everyone speak a different language, get cookies and prizes for it, but I don't know how they're getting their cookies and prizes because I don't understand anything that's going on. It's as everyone has said, just like high school, but even in high school everyone eventually finds their own clique.

If you find your confidence uncomfortably low, do what thejadevoice (and myself) have done and get rid of the space (or distance yourself) that is causing your doubt. Your world won't end without you being on twitter consistently, just tweetdeck some and pre-tweet, check in for some user engagement, and blast away. I have said on some other post, long time ago, that my dream has always been to be a reclusive writer, but even I feel the draw of the exclusiveness of some of the big name author circles. It's only natural to feel left out when they're your contemporaries, which is why you should disengage if it effects your process, and what you like about the craft.