Quality or quantity? Which one should you choose?

[misshannuh]

Hey guys, I recently created a blog article talking about quality vs quantity of books published. If you’ve been in the publishing or self-publishing business for any amount of time you will have eventually come across the extremely important question of quality vs quantity. Is it more important to publish fewer books that are of a higher quality? Or is it better to publish more books but sacrifice some quality in the mean time? In this blog, I’ll discuss the full impact of having a quality book and what things can be improved that make the most difference. Click the link below to view it:

https://pinn.cl/qualityvsquantity

I hope that you enjoy and learn from this article. If you have more ideas and questions, let's discuss!

[crich70]

I think quality as in using the right word, proper spelling etc. as well as a story that has well defined characters and a tension filled plot are all very important. If an author has a book full of mistakes or a plot that should be solvable in 5 minutes or characters that seem not to differ from one another (so that you can't tell who is who) then it won't matter how many books/article/short stories they write. People will catch on that their work has such flaws and stop buying. Incidentally the discussion of writing topics should actually be in the writing forum. That way it will get the most exposure.

[HarryT]

Moved to the "Writers' Corner" forum.

[HarryT]

Absolutely no question, to my mind: quality every time. Spending a couple of years properly researching, writing and editing a book is far, far better than churning out a piece of crap every couple of months. Look at any successful author, and you'll find that they all meticulously research their books.

Concerning your blog article, by the way: I'm afraid I'm instantly put off by writing like this:

Word of mouth, that’s the best way to sell anything. And you’re just gonna have, you’re gonna make a lot more money over a long time. You might be able to trick people quickly and say, “Hey, I got this book, buy it now,” and they’ll buy it, but then once they realize that it’s not a good book, they’re not gonna trust you.

Please don't use words like "gonna". It's fine in dialogue, but in other forms of writing it has no place. That's a part of what I'd think of as "quality", which is writing in an appropriate manner for the context.

[gmw]

After clicking on the link I can see why this was originally posted to the self-promotion forum, the website appears to be self-promotion more than helpful. As for the article, I skimmed as far as the ad "It's a rare book that wins the battle against drooping eyelids", and thought that the same applied to blog articles.

But to treat the subject line seriously (and to assume the writer is serious about the craft - not always a valid assumption) ...

The question is not as simple as it sounds. It is extraordinarily rare that any writer's first attempt, however much they worked at it, turns out to be a literary triumph. Like most trades, writing is one that you really have to work at before you start to get it right. You have to keep trying until you find your own voice, and even then you may not find success. So you keep trying until you manage to get the right book at the right time in front of the right people that will help your voice be heard. (Lots of work, followed by a good helping of luck.)

So if you spend too much time trying to perfect the one book the chances are you will not find success. But, if you spend too little time trying to perfect any of your work then you will gain exactly the wrong reputation, and you will not find success.

The linked blog article uses the word "balance" exactly once. It is, however, the key to the solution. You do your best to only publish things you will not regret publishing, but you won't really "get it" until you do publish. Publish and you will learn what you did wrong. The act of publishing is part of the learning process - for everyone, but for Indy publishers in particular.

So your work does not have to be absolutely perfect, but the work should not look like you've written it one night and uploaded the next. It has to meet some minimum standard, and it is likely that only a (relatively impartial, suitably qualified but still trusted) third party can tell you if this has been met.


But I'm still not done. Let's assume you have produced and published a book of suitable standard. If you actually want to make a financial success of writing fiction you need to keep producing. (Says this writer who has - so far - let four years go between novels...) A book a year used to be acceptable by traditional publishing standards. It is questionable now whether this is enough to remain in the public eye. Unless you are one of the few who make it big, within a very short space of time your books will drop off the front screens and you will be forgotten. You must produce regularly to keep reminding people that you're around and that you have a backlist of books worth looking at.

So quality is important, but so is quantity if you hope to make a financial success of writing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

The question is not as simple as it sounds. It is extraordinarily rare that any writer's first attempt, however much they worked at it, turns out to be a literary triumph. Like most trades, writing is one that you really have to work at before you start to get it right. You have to keep trying until you find your own voice, and even then you may not find success. So you keep trying until you manage to get the right book at the right time in front of the right people that will help your voice be heard. (Lots of work, followed by a good helping of luck.)

I entirely agree with you. The problem these days, though, is that all too often these unsuccessful attempts are inflicted upon the world through the medium of self-publishing. In the "old days", the worst tended to be filtered out via the "gatekeeping" of commercial publishing. There's a great deal to be said for the old-fashioned rejection slip as an incentive to improve one's writing.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree with you. The problem these days, though, is that all too often these unsuccessful attempts are inflicted upon the world through the medium of self-publishing. In the "old days", the worst tended to be filtered out via the "gatekeeping" of commercial publishing. There's a great deal to be said for the old-fashioned rejection slip as an incentive to improve one's writing.

There was even something to be said for it from the writer's perspective: at least it was real, firm and undeniable (if sometimes slow). Of course, these days even traditional publishers are getting lax, some don't even send a rejection slip - becoming just another void you can empty your heart into. (Yes, that is the voice of experience. )

There is no denying that the ease of self-publishing means a lot of stuff gets out that probably should have been left in the desk, or, at best, shared on a blog or something. This is one of the reasons why I inserted "and to assume the writer is serious about the craft" into the top of my post. The fact is that a lot of people that self-publish are not serious about the craft, possibly may even laugh at the idea. I would not expect them to be interested in the question of quality or quantity. For some, I suspect, self-publishing is not much more than a sort of social media extension, a way to share what they've written with friends etc.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gmw

There is no denying that the ease of self-publishing means a lot of stuff gets out that probably should have been left in the desk, or, at best, shared on a blog or something. This is one of the reasons why I inserted "and to assume the writer is serious about the craft" into the top of my post. The fact is that a lot of people that self-publish are not serious about the craft, possibly may even laugh at the idea. I would not expect them to be interested in the question of quality or quantity. For some, I suspect, self-publishing is not much more than a sort of social media extension, a way to share what they've written with friends etc.

One of the problems, though, is that when the only feedback many self-published authors receive is from friends and family telling them how wonderful their book is, how can they know that it's actually not? It's far harder to get objective criticism these days, it seems to me.

[JSWolf]

Personally, I'd want quality over quantity. I want good books. If I read a book from an author I've never read before and I didn't like the book, I most likely won't be reading any more of that author's books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Personally, I'd want quality over quantity. I want good books. If I read a book from an author I've never read before and I didn't like the book, I most likely won't be reading any more of that author's books.

That's the trouble, isn't it? You only get one chance to make a first impression, as the old saying goes and if that first impression is bad, most readers won't be back to try more books by the same author; there are too many good books out there for it to be worth spending time doing so.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One of the problems, though, is that when the only feedback many self-published authors receive is from friends and family telling them how wonderful their book is, how can they know that it's actually not? It's far harder to get objective criticism these days, it seems to me.

Sure, but the point I was making is that some (I have no idea of the proportion) aren't actually looking for objective criticism. They've achieved what they wanted simply by putting it up there. This presents a problem to the rest of us that would like to be taken seriously, but it isn't a problem to them.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Personally, I'd want quality over quantity. I want good books. If I read a book from an author I've never read before and I didn't like the book, I most likely won't be reading any more of that author's books.

We all want quality, and when we find it we want lots of it.

Seriously, one of the things I look at when I think of trying a new author is how many other books have they written. If I'm going to put in the effort to try them I want to know there is a good sized pay-off on the other side. So I'm not sure if I would bother to try me out as a new author - which is a rather sad admission to make on an open forum ... did I really say it out loud?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by gmw

We all want quality, and when we find it we want lots of it.

Seriously, one of the things I look at when I think of trying a new author is how many other books have they written. If I'm going to put in the effort to try them I want to know there is a good sized pay-off on the other side. So I'm not sure if I would bother to try me out as a new author - which is a rather sad admission to make on an open forum ... did I really say it out loud?

One thing that's more important then the number of books is how good are the book(s) that are available. We know an author has to start with the first book and that's OK. But, one thing that needs to be of good quality is the cover. If the cover looks like Photoshop barfed, then no, I won't be giving the book another look. If you cannot be bothered to make a good cover, I cannot be bothered to read your book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One thing that's more important then the number of books is how good are the book(s) that are available. We know an author has to start with the first book and that's OK. But, one thing that needs to be of good quality is the cover. If the cover looks like Photoshop barfed, then no, I won't be giving the book another look. If you cannot be bothered to make a good cover, I cannot be bothered to read your book.

That's where we differ, Jon. Covers have never bothered me. Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, on the other hand...

[gmw]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

One thing that's more important then the number of books is how good are the book(s) that are available. We know an author has to start with the first book and that's OK. But, one thing that needs to be of good quality is the cover. If the cover looks like Photoshop barfed, then no, I won't be giving the book another look. If you cannot be bothered to make a good cover, I cannot be bothered to read your book.

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's where we differ, Jon. Covers have never bothered me. Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, on the other hand...

There is such a proliferation of reading material available, and only limited time and money to spend on it. Covers and blurbs don't help reduce the list much. (Covers are so generic, so many good professional covers, but all so much the same within a genre that they offer little help in choosing). Whereas a quick look at the author's page showing what they've written takes me less time than reading a preview and gives me yet another way to cull a list back. Anyone with several novels under their belt obviously means business and could be worth spending some time on the preview.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

There is such a proliferation of reading material available, and only limited time and money to spend on it. Covers and blurbs don't help reduce the list much. (Covers are so generic, so many good professional covers, but all so much the same within a genre that they offer little help in choosing). Whereas a quick look at the author's page showing what they've written takes me less time than reading a preview and gives me yet another way to cull a list back. Anyone with several novels under their belt obviously means business and could be worth spending some time on the preview.

If I see an author has written what I perceive as too many books in a short time period, it's an almost automatic "no" for me--it indicates that someone is simply churning out product without quality control.