From: mumble@nomail.invalid   
      
   On 06/11/2014 05:15 AM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:   
   > On 6/11/14 4:30 AM, mumble wrote:   
   >> On 06/10/2014 08:43 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:   
   >>> If you are TOTALLY unknown -- no friends, no network of acquaintances --   
   >>> yes, you'll fail, because you have no way to get the word out.   
   >>   
   >> The internet may have changed that.   
   >   
   >   
   >      I was including Internet Friends as part of that network.   
      
   Does "Internet Friends" really mean "Facebook Friends"?  I'm of the   
   opinion that Facebook is a bad joke and the google equivalent is   
   following it down the same tube, but I realize that's a minority opinion.   
      
   Even a link in usenet post sigs, like Tina Hall uses, can provide a   
   couple readers here and there.  If your work is outstanding, that can be   
   enough; if it isn't, you're pretty much down to "marketing" anyway.  The   
   point being that if something is really good, anybody who stumbles onto   
   it will pass the word one way or another, and if it isn't really good,   
   well there you are.   
      
   > If you   
   > have few-to-zero friends/acquaintances online, no one's gonna plug your   
   > site.   
      
   Certainly if nobody ever reads it, nobody will pass the word; but if you   
   put links "out there" some few will click on them out of curiosity, and   
   then your snowball can roll if it'll stick together.   
      
   > Then the only way you're ever likely to get noticed enough will be   
   > something like paid ads. But in most cases if you could afford to pay   
   > enough for the ads to get distributed widely enough to be noticed... you   
   > had enough money to pay for the editing, cover, etc., already.   
      
   There's a difference in outlook that perhaps posters here have   
   forgotten, or (more likely) never considered to begin with.   
      
   Some write for income, and others don't care about income.  They are   
   really two different games.  If you're writing for income, that puts you   
   in something of a bind that you'd not be in if the income aspect was not   
   a consideration.   
      
   In my case, income is not a consideration, in fact it's a negative; if I   
   was to make income from writing, I'd have to go through the whole   
   income-tax business, which I don't want to do, the government has   
   extorted enough from me over the years and I don't feel that the   
   military needs more play-money.   
      
   For those who write for income, making money is a significant goal,   
   which is two-edged.  On one hand you have a great job that at least   
   starts out not making you crazy, on the other hand you lose a little   
   freedom in order to get money from the activity.  Figuratively, you've   
   put a chain on your muse's ankle.  Put another way, the job-ness of it   
   can destroy the part that made it enjoyable to begin with.   
      
   Given the nature of most jobs, I can certainly understand why the job of   
   writing SF would be appealing.  It just isn't without its hazards.  Some   
   get beaten up by the demands, and I'm not sure what happens to them;   
   others get caught up in the egoistic aspects and (this might be going on   
   with Patrick Rothfuss btw, just guessing) get distracted from (possibly   
   ever) completing that last book in their contract, and I'm not sure what   
   happens to them either.   
      
   In any case, if a writer's work has sufficiently powerful "draw", it's   
   my belief that people will pass the word, something like that is similar   
   to a black hole that pulls in anything that passes close enough.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)