20BooksTo50K. What is it?

[ZodWallop]

Anybody know of an unbiased article that can explain to me what 20BooksTo50K is? I'd heard about it being a Facebook group. And I just read an article in The Federalist. But it's so full of opinion and jargon that if you don't already know what's going on (and I don't) you are left no more enlightened than you were before reading the article.

And the fact that they mention Frank Herbert and Robert Heinlein as authors who understood that what readers want out of sci-fi is escapism and fun makes me think the author doesn't know what he's talking about.

Is this related to the Sad/Rabid Puppies debacle? The phrasing of the article makes me suspect that it is.

Here's a link to the article I read. I'd appreciate anything clearer: Indie Sci-Fi Authors Are Upending Traditional Publishing, And It’s Turned Into A War

[DrNefario]

I don't know a whole lot about it, but it seems there has been some trouble with slate-voting in the Nebulas this year, and it turned out to be this group of self-publishers gaming the nomination process. Sigh.

Honestly, I'm not sure I want to know any more about it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

I don't know a whole lot about it, but it seems there has been some trouble with slate-voting in the Nebulas this year, and it turned out to be this group of self-publishers gaming the nomination process. Sigh.

Honestly, I'm not sure I want to know any more about it.

I thought the Nebula nominations were put forward by the SFWA?

[ZodWallop]

I don't understand the desire to see awards cater to popularity.

The Oscars often go to movies relatively few people have seen. Book awards go to books readers haven't heard of. What's wrong with that?

Box Office/Bestseller lists are there for folks that want to know what's popular. Awards are generally handled by industry insiders to celebrate what they see as excellence. Awards highlighting excellent work that wouldn't otherwise draw a spotlight is to the good, I would think.

[DiapDealer]

20Booksto50k is a Facebook group that was started by self-published author, Michael Anderle, back in 2015. At the time, he realized he could make a sustainable income of about $50,000 a year by publishing 20 books that sold at least a few copies per day. After his first $12,000 month, he knew that his strategy could help other authors succeed and wanted to share his insight.

https://publishdrive.com/were-back-f...-you-about-it/

[j.p.s]

So, write 20 books a year (average 18 days per book), and make $2500 per book.

I can believe a great book can be written in 18 days, but I don't believe anyone can sustain even 5 mediocre books in less than 100 days.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

So, write 20 books a year (average 18 days per book), and make $2500 per book.

I can believe a great book can be written in 18 days, but I don't believe anyone can sustain even 5 mediocre books in less than 100 days.

I don't think you need to write 20 books a year. You just need a catalog of 20 books that sells a few copies a day.

[HarryT]

It can certainly be done in formulaic genres like romance. Barbara Cartland churned out two 50,000 word books a month for decades, writing 723 books in total.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

https://publishdrive.com/were-back-f...-you-about-it/

Thanks for the link. It makes the group seem far less sinister than the Federalist article that was attempting to defend the group. That article did more harm than good to this outsider.

Your linked article makes the group seem like a self-pubbed author's support group (which I'm sure it is) but the Federalist article makes me suspect that at least some of the authors in the group are participating in Sad Puppies shenanigans.

[DiapDealer]

I didn't know anything about 20Booksto50k before this thread. But what little I picked up is enough to convince me that the author of that article in the Federalist has put together quite a piece of garbage. An overly-simplistic "us vs those other ridiculous dunderheads who aren't us" diatribe. Par for the times we live in, I suppose.

[DrNefario]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I thought the Nebula nominations were put forward by the SFWA?

The authors are members of the SFWA and voted for each other, as I understand it.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

The authors are members of the SFWA and voted for each other, as I understand it.

I'm no expert. But if that's what happened, I find that less slimy than the Puppies, who had people who had never read the books and weren't science fiction fans in general join the organization just to nominate them as a slate.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't think you need to write 20 books a year. You just need a catalog of 20 books that sells a few copies a day.

Originally Posted by HarryT

It can certainly be done in formulaic genres like romance. Barbara Cartland churned out two 50,000 word books a month for decades, writing 723 books in total.

I was clearly making multiple incorrect assumptions.

Thanks.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

...But what little I picked up is enough to convince me that the author of that article in the Federalist has put together quite a piece of garbage. An overly-simplistic "us vs those other ridiculous dunderheads who aren't us" diatribe...

I'm not a reader of The Federalist. My opinions and theirs aren't likely to jibe very often. But that article makes them look really bad. It's full of leaps in logic and opinion that the author doesn't bother to back up with examples. I can read an article that I don't agree with and still see their point if the article is well written and researched.

I also don't think that a conflict between indie authors and big publishers must necessarily be due to political differences.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I'm not a reader of The Federalist. My opinions and theirs aren't likely to jibe very often. But that article makes them look really bad. It's full of leaps in logic and opinion that the author doesn't bother to back up with examples. I can read an article that I don't agree with and still see their point if the article is well written and researched.

I also don't think that a conflict between indie authors and big publishers must necessarily be due to political differences.

All you have to do is look on Amazon at some of the authors listed in the article to know this has nothing to do with political views or the sad puppies movement, other than perhaps the same clique that reacted to sad puppies reacted to them.

One of the extremely profitable business models in the indie movement is to act like some of the old pulp fiction writers did - i.e. identify a target audience and write a whole lot of inexpensive stories that appeals to that audience. It's actually not that different from what makes for a successful blog, except you get your money from the audience rather than from advertisement. You just have to keep putting out fresh material so you don't fall off your target audience's scope. Those target audience can be the psuedo romance urban paranormal crowd or the gun happy zombie apocolypse crowd or anything in between.