Never Before

I might never have agreed with a post as much as I agree with James Scott Bell's post over at The Kill Zone entitled How to Make Money Self-Publishing Fiction. Now, I don't actually make money (yet) on anything I've published. Hope to, sure, but as of now it's just and expensive, time consuming hobby.

One of the things I really like about this post is that the author turns the idea of success on its head.


Last week's post on publishing options drew some spirited responses, especially from one of TKZ's erstwhile contributors. In his opinion, "self-publishing is an exercise in frustration and a path to near-assured failure for first-time authors."

Now, I have great affection and respect for said commenter, who argues well for his point of view. But I was nonetheless discomfited by that "near-assured failure." Been thinking about it all week. What does "failure" even mean? Who sets the standard? If a new author finds a way to make steady but not huge income, is that "failure"? If a new author keeps working and growing as a writer, is that "failure"? On the other hand, might it possibly be said that self-publishing, done consistently and skillfully, can actually lead to near-assured success? What is "success"? Is it a loyal readership, even if it pales in comparison to Dean Koontz's (well, every readership pales in comparison to Dean Koontz's)? Is it the happiness that comes from writing and publishing more, faster, being in control of one's destiny and, yes, making some money at it?


Then, as a person who loves lists for success he provides five bullet points and passages on how to be successful at self-publishing.

Treat it like a job.
Treat it like a craft.
Treat it like a sacrifice.
Treat it like a mad passion.
Treat it like an adventure right up to the end. 

There's a lot more to each of the points, but basically what this tell me is that I'm two for five. Need to improve a bit if I hope to turn the hobby into a business.