Are We Writing For The Wrong Reason?

I am pleased that my posts are the most popular in the Kindle Direct Publishing “Community,” a forum owned, operated, and published by Amazon for the express purpose of providing authors and publishers with a forum to discuss “self-publishing,” a term of art designed to absolve the owners and operators of internet publishing platforms of responsibility for publishing. (1)

Thus far I have asked three General Questions of the Community. All three posts were highly trafficked, and, for the Community, were the equivalent of what is apparently most desired by Amazon KDP writers: best sellers. Yet all three were prematurely marked 'Answered' and were then “Locked” down by the anonymous Amazon moderator, prohibiting further discussion, although the discussions on the topics and related matters were still lively, and my intention, like that of all good authors, was to get at the truth. The threads are published by Amazon on the Net, and are entitled 'Traffic Counts (654),' 'Book Covers (1,140),' and 'Are we writing for the wrong reason?' (1,060).

'Traffic Counts' asked why traffic counts on Amazon's book advertisements were not provided unless the authors paid Amazon for special marketing services. It was denied and then admitted that the information even existed, and, although the moderators employed by Amazon do not answer questions nor point out the right answer by an poster, the 'Answered' status applied by them suggested that only money from sales counts, money being purportedly the sole reason for being writers, something that I, as a compulsive communicator, find disagreeable. If money were all that counts, I alleged that the conversion of views of the book advertisements into actual sales would be important information for authors and publishers who were doing their own marketing. Finally, I opined that if the truth were told, traffic was probably scant or even nonexistent on the millions of books on the platform unless the author did something besides resorting to the ineffective free advertising gimmicks offered. After all, the company is a commercial publisher; that is to say, a business whose business is to make public and distribute books posted on its platform for a percentage of the take, the amount of which it determines, and it will naturally do the least for the most income, leaving most of the work to its self-publishers, so called because the term hopefully absolves the company from responsibility.

'Book Covers' was likewise about the money. Someone should write an e-book entitled In Quest of the Magic Book Cover. There was a difference of opinion about the value of the little e-book covers on Amazon. Kimberly Hitchens, a recognized expert, asserted from her experience as a producer of thousands of books that the right book covers result in far more sales. I have never purchased a book because of its cover although I do understand the fascinating history of book covers, and that includes the stench of leather-bound covers of unread books shown off in private libraries. I took the position that the title and author's name on the cover were the most important feature for bestselling authors today, the rest of the design being of minimal importance although a subtitle and graphic might suggest what is in the book. I myself selected the ugliest cover provided by Kindle Create to brand my “coffin” simply because I was in a hurry to get them posted because I am 'Almost Dead Already', and money is not my concern nor has it ever been when it comes to writing. I have since designed my own covers, for the fun of it, yet I am considering going back to my ugly Lighting Bolt brand if I do not find a real publisher pretty soon.

In 'Are we writing for the wrong reason?' I questioned the motive for writing in view of the obsession of the “self-publisher” crowd with money. I quoted Arthur Schopenhauer, as follows:

“There are, first of all, two kinds of authors: those who write for the subject's sake, and those who write for writing's sake. While the one have had thoughts or experiences which seem to them worth communicating, the others want money; and so they write, for money. Their thinking is part of the business of writing. They may be recognized by the way in which they spin out their thoughts to the greatest possible length; then, too, by the very nature of their thoughts, which are only half-true, perverse, forced, vacillating; again, by the aversion they generally show to saying anything straight out, so that they may seem other than they are. Hence their writing is deficient in clearness and definiteness, and it is not long before they betray that their only object in writing at all is to cover paper. This sometimes happens with the best authors.”

Schopenhauer was ignored in his time but is now recognized as one of the world's greatest philosophers. He was an author who wrote plainly. He was all too honest with his opinions, insulting even his own mother's writings as popular trash. He was wealthy man, but he refused to pay publishers for publication of work that took him decades to write. One wonders if he would have Amazon KDP publish his works at no cost to him. Probably not: he would prefer what we call today a “legitimate” publisher known for quality of its publications. Vanity publishing was not his cup of tea.  As quoted, he criticized writers for filling up paper with words just to make money.

Well, “book stuffing” became a matter of great concern to Amazon when it started paying for number of pages read, wherefore content providers stuffed books with previously published works or copy-pasted rubbish and even inserted numerous blank pages under excuse of providing space for writers to make notes, and then enticed readers to go to the end of the books to see something—Internet publishers in the past prevented that by requiring each page read to be accessed, and timed how long the user had accessed that page. Amazon's Zero Sum Game provides a pot of money for writers to compete for. The scammers took advantage, earning enormous sums at the cost to sincere writers. If the pot were divided among all content providers, the average take might be around $15. Or so it is said. The algorithms change and are in a black box. Here again, the lack human consciousness resulted in the robotic punishment of numerous authors by the machine made to do the least for the most money. Besides, the fact that Amazon itself was reaping windfall profits from scammers is problematic.

Several KDP members given to hovering over the forum slurred and poo-poohed the great German philosopher I had quoted when posing the General Question, 'Are we writing for the wrong reason?'

A member referring to himself or herself as “beachgardener,” who had graced my previous posts stepped in to accuse me of violating the rules:

“I'd say you are a champion 'bumper" keeping your thread in view. Against the rules by the way and people tend to quit reading so the OP ends up talking to themself.” (sic)

Beachgardener represents herself or himself as elderly woman, and brags in her little profile that she is so successful at writing romances and so on that she was able to remodel her house with the proceeds.” Perhaps her books are not doing that well at present, and she was angered to see my topic at the top of the list. However that may be, her comment was adjudged to be the best answer of all and therefore is published right under my question as a header for all to see forever.

The KDP Community, mind you, utilizes a reputation scoring and ranking system pioneered in China, and is about as democratic as its dictators. Beachgardener was in fact guilty of the very thing she accused me of doing, of keeping the discussion going with bad intentions. And for that abuse her remark became the Top Rated response, I had no intention whatsoever of violating any rules. Indeed, if my dear readers examine Amazon's publication on the Net of my three threads, they will not find me violating the rules of decency, but they will find others attempting to insult me, and to the extent that some remarks are outright libels. Since I proudly call myself by my christened name, a book of mine that I referred to was anonymously rated and reviewed, unread, by someone in the thread in a most juvenile manner, and Amazon refused to delete the vandalism

I was surprised and slighted by her accusation since I am somewhat naïve. I was not familiar with the expression, 'bumper.' I had bumpers on my cars, and never bumped anything intentionally. I did not know that the most popular posts or those getting the most recent attention are moved to the top although that was a practice common on open publishing sites that provided Most Read or Best Selling posts.

Now that I think of it, another reputable member of the Community, who calls himself or herself Dingling, said s/he had been “pumping” my thread, but I did not realize what he meant at the time. He is knowledgeable about the process and renders some good advice here and there, but he too appears obsessed with money, and thinks I am somehow complaining about Amazon because, he says, I am a “failed writer” for not raking in the dough.  False on both counts. Given his representations of himself, I do not believe he is a writer.

At any rate, I was not talking to myself: I was on topic, with a member who calls himself Semper Vaporo. He considers himself a critic. He had bemoaned a low rating of his book. I made a distinction between critic and writer, preferring myself to write on some other subject than the writers of others. I do occasionally elaborate on what good authors have written, but do not think it is productive to waste time delving into literature I do not like. I suggested he submit his reviews to the New York Times, and recommended that Amazon book reviews be dropped from the system, because they are not really reviews in the classic sense, that the five-star rating system be reduced to three stars, the rank of books dropped from view, and a monthly or quarterly list of Best Sellers be published by Amazon. Semper Vaporo was critical, as I imagined everyone else who plays the game would be.

We are all critics, although I would not waste my time criticizing fellow writers unless I were a professional critic, a profession Semper Vaporo might consider. I do offer this brief critique of the KDP Amazon Community, which its executives will not mind since all “complaints” have ideals in mind and may lead to improvements:

Curiously, given the fact that Kindle encourages authors to strive to have best sellers, the Kindle moderators have locked all three of my titles down, thus censoring any further discussion on them, because their popularity is allegedly not in the best interest of Amazon KDP. I have no objections to that perspective of the company and to its right to regulate its property, yet the crippled behavior intrigues me as to the real reason it would want to prohibit a lively discussion appertaining to its policies. My view at this time is that there is a wizard behind Oz, and that what is objectionable to that wizard is the truth, something that all successful creators including authors strive to relate through all forms of literature fiction and nonfiction. The stated goal of the Community is “to provide an environment where members can freely exchange thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and opinions.” Honesty, Respect, and Productivity are required. Productivity is defined as respect for the “time and energy of your fellow authors and publishers.” Participants are asked not to post anything that “disrupts the effective use of the forums in any way.” The reality is that the Community is notorious for the disrespect exhibited by some of its members in the past and overlooked or encouraged by Amazon moderators. Innocent members get punished at the behest of the bullies. The abusers generally hide behind pen names to heap abuse on others with impunity. Anyone can sign on and pretend to be authorities while squatting behind a pen name. The very use of false identities is in itself dishonest and does not lend to credibility. Members excuse the use of pen names as necessary to protect themselves, and, if they happen to be authors or publishers, to save their books from horrible ratings and reviews.

Now, then, since the Amazon moderator shutdown ('Locked') my thread, as was done with the other two posts just as I was about to innocently respond to a few comments on topic, I provide my comments here.

Biggus Notabenus: “People write for difference reasons. I write because I enjoy it, but I publish to make money.”

 I wanted to ask why he enjoys writing, but the censors shut down the thread.

Veinglory: “It is weird to assume there is one correct reason to write. It's like saying there is one correct reason to walk, talk, draw a picture. A blueprint is just as valid as an oil painting and each is assessed only relative to its purpose.”

I was about to ask what his reason or cause for writing is, but the censor terminated the discussion. Does he write because he was taught to write, just as he was taught to walk? Does he express himself to communicate? Yes? And why? Are good writers good thinkers? Would good thinkers ask themselves if book writers have a common motive regardless of their particular objectives, a motive that could be simply stated? Have writers who think money is their only motive been the most successful?

Resteasy: “You quoted Arthur Schopenhauer "Writing for money and reservation of copyright are, at bottom, the ruin of literature." Wonder if he included Shakespeare in this generalization."

Good question, and calls for some research and a written answer. Who was Shakespeare? What were his economic circumstances? Schopenhauer, by the way, adored the works of Shakespeare.

Morgan Carlson: Whenever I tell people that I write for money is a good way of avoid having them as me, "Why do you waste your time writing." If I was truly trying to write solely for money then I wouldn't have the drive to write at all."

Morgan Carlson has a lot of company. Sounds like a good excuse to me. Then they ask you, “How much do you make every year? Who is your publisher? Etc.

"Poetryebook: “I enjoyed writing long before I ever had the inkling to publish, and even if I didn't publish, I'd still have the urge to do something creative. I write because I have something to say....”

Yes, Poetryebook has something to say, and wishes to communicate at book length. Why do we want to communicate? Good question for this Community or commune! But Amazon shut the thread down. Why? Does not all worthwhile writing try to get at the truth whether or not it is pleasing or entertaining?

The Mission: Who is to say that my books will not be looked on in two hundred years and considered to be the writings of the millennium Shakespeare?

Aha, I dream of posthumous prestige myself, so I have mentioned my books at coffins on the River Styx. And then I commented, that I woke up terrified one morning with the thought that I might be considered one of the greatest authors yet will not know it because I am dead.

R.J. Cadmus: “I thought I had an idea for a story that at least some people would find interesting, and frankly I wanted to see if I could do it. Mission accomplished on all fronts."

I congratulate Mr. Cadmus, a real person and successful communicator. People need to communicate in order to survive in a society, therefore they communicate to reveal and know, and this is be found in the best literature,  the truth about the world of which the self is part, whether it informs, educates, or entertains. Every thinker is a communicator and therefore at least an imitator if not innovative, who stands above the reality out of necessity of existence to criticize it according to the ideal, therefore the underlining difference between reality and the ideal, which is hypocrisy, the underlying crisis.

Joseph Shakespeare: “There are only 5 good reasons to write a book: 1. Money. 2. If it's your talent and passion. 3. To inform. 4. To entertain. There are only 4 bad reasons to write a book: 1. Prestige.”

So money is first. And what are the other three bad reasons? Of course obtaining prestige among the authors here may be a futile endeavor, but why not prestige?

Jean Paul Sartre addressed our topical question in his influential chapter, 'Why Write?' in What Is Literature. He associated art with flight and conquering, and asked, “Why does one have to manage his escapes and conquests by writing? Because, behind the various aims of authors, there is a deeper and more immediate choice which is common to all of us.”

Writers who would be authors will find it profitable to read the essay and get to the bottom of the question, “Are we writing for the wrong reason?”

Note:

(1) The only thread in the Community that realized the popularity mine have elicited was written by a member who calls herself or himself “Fictitious,” entitled, 'I just feel so... lost right now. What should I do?' “I've really tried my best guys. I've worked constant 12 hour days to get my book to where I wanted it to originally be, I've spent 3 and a half total years writing and rewriting my book, and I still have nothing to show for it. I was recently review bombed a 1-star review on my first day of publication for my rewritten book, which I think was out of spite for my earlier work. In short, it doesn't really matter. I've done everything I can and I still failed. My book launch has failed yet again. Maybe writing books just isn't for me? The issue? I've failed at every single other job I've tried in America. I just feel so worthless right now. I'm just such a failure....” And so on. It remains open as of this writing.

RELATED

KDP Thread Are We Writing For The Wrong Reason?

KDP Traffic Counts

KDP Book Covers