I don’t think of myself a gambler. It is not the sort of thing I like. I have no problem with people who enjoy gambling. I am just not one of them.
For me, it’s not any kind of ethical or moral issue. I just can’t get past the idea that never—in the entire history of casinos—has there ever been a scene where the mobsters sat around taking the count at the end of the night and saying, “Man, we really got screwed tonight.” It is as impossible to consider as a used car salesman coming to the realization that some yokel just ripped him off. It just doesn’t happen. The odds always favor the house. You have to know when you walk into a casino they didn’t pay for all that—the garish opulence, tigers, and girls wearing little more than smiles—by losing a lot of money.
Though I don’t think of myself as a gambler, I am a risk-taker. I think all indie authors are risk-takers. We cast our dreams to the winds of fate, hoping they will be borne aloft to new heights.
If one thinks of being an indie author as gambling, it might be beneficial to know what game we are playing. Are we playing poker or roulette?
Poker is a game where skill and strategy weigh considerably. It still matters which cards you get, but there is a lot more to the game than that. Many more games have been won by skilled players with poor hands than by poor players with good hands.
Roulette is a game of pure chance. You can bet red or black, even or odd, but the big win happens when you pick the exact number the ball lands on.
Some authors approach writing as if it were poker. They concentrate on putting forth a professional product. They believe what will win out in the end is good writing. They write and re-write, edit and polish, and sweat over details like the cover and the book description. They emphasize quality.
Other authors approach writing as if it were more like roulette. They just play as often as possible, believing that eventually they will win. They put out scores of books, many without painstaking attention to the details of editing and polish. They concentrate on having an extensive back-library. They emphasize quantity.
What does it mean when a book series like 50 Shades hits it big? Much of the buzz on the books indicate they are poorly edited. The writing has been referred to as laughably shallow and unrealistic. Still, no one can deny the books are a success.
Did E.L. James win by playing poker or roulette? Did she really just luck out and happen to guess the number upon which the little ball would land, or does she possess some skill and knowledge that is invisible to many of us?
A poker player will be able to see how she could win big with a bad hand. She didn’t have a great book, but maybe she had a perfect pitch. A roulette player will say she just happened to tap into some hitherto unknown public appetite. Unfazed, the poker player and the roulette player head back to their tables to resume playing.
Is there a secret to success, or it it a matter of perseverance? If there is such a secret, it is either well-kept, or the people who do succeed genuinely do not know how they did it. They can only tell you what they did. But to assume their actions, by virtue of preceding their success, is the reason for that success is flawed logic. It is in fact, a particular type of logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because A happened prior to B. This is the essential problem with all “How to Succeed” books. People can replicate those steps to success without achieving success.
Neither is there any indication that persistence alone is sufficient to succeed. Einstein reputedly defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. How many authors who hit it big ever did so only after having written thirty or forty books first?
Frustrations abound. The cream does not always seem to rise to the top, nor do the unsavory bits always drift to the bottom. I don’t know what kind of game this is, but I think I would like to know. Maybe it wouldn’t help. Maybe it wouldn’t matter. I do think it would help me better decide which strategy to use, because I don’t enjoy gambling. I think I said that.
What game are you playing?
Definetly food for thought Stephen. I’m with you as far as “real” gambling, I guess I’m too conservative to be a good gambler. I’m not sure if I would be classified as, an “Amateur” or a “Novice” in the field of writing, probably a bit of each. An “Amateur” is someone who pursues something as a pastime, while a “Novice” is someone who is new to a field or activity. I do think that I’m really a bit of both. I enjoy sharing my business concepts through writing non-fiction books; “Cover Your Nut” – Practical Accounting in Plain English for the Real World – and “The Business Plan & Beyond” – Don’t Let Your Wheels Fall Off (which is in process). I also enjoy sharing my historical fiction “life series” books – “Gibbon’s Secrets” A Boy’s Memories of the 40’s, & my new book “Back in the Day” – High school to the Navy.
I like your “Poker” comparison, and I quote – “Some authors approach writing as if it were poker. They concentrate on putting forth a professional product. They believe what will win out in the end is good writing. They write and re-write, edit and polish, and sweat over details like the cover and the book description. They emphasize quality.” I’m really trying to accomplish this in my writing.
Thanks for a “neat” insight!
Thanks Bud. I’m glad you enjoyed it. 🙂
I love to gamble and my husband and I are poker players. My husband used to live in Vegas and has played with some of the big named players; I even went to a World Poker Tour boot camp in 2008. It was a lot of fun and playing poker and gambling is a lot of fun for me. But I know if I lived in Vegas I’d be in big trouble and probably be a member of Gambler’s Anonymous. I have lost a lot and I have won a lot. I even live close to a local casino (less than five miles from my house) and have to tell myself I am not working, therefore I don’t have the money to spend there. I have to wait until my husband comes to visit on his vacation before I get to go play.
But this world of writing is hard to predict and it just can’t be done in my opinion. I think 50 shades was just one of the flukes — it just happened. And if we followed what she did, we may not be able to duplicate that success sad to say, because I think we are all in this to achieve that kind of success. The people who write ‘how-to’ books on writing, I believe, only make money by writing those type of books.
Thanks Stephen for a great article.
That’s it. I’m starting my own casino. 😉
Great points. For what it’s worth, I think EL James is a great writer and that the story she told is masterful for what it was about. Great writing and masterful stories don’t all need to linguistic tour de forces. I truly think when you add those two elements to the timing of Fifty Shades and the fact that the story rose out of a “tribe” of adult YA fans it all makes sense. Kind of combo of poker and roulette maybe. Good provocative piece Steve.
I don’t dispute what you say, David. I have not read her and probably never will. I do know she’s gotten a lot of negative reviews, and many of those have to do with the quality of her writing. I’m sure she’s crying all the way to the bank over it. 😉
Poker or roulette? I would say it’s more like poker, a combination of luck and skill.
The problem is, it takes more than one skill to succeed as an Indie author. Yes you have to be a competent writer and produce a compelling narrative, but on top of that, you also have to be a skilled promoter and marketer and that’s where many indie authors fall down. An example of someone very successful at promoting his skilled writing is Christopher Gortner. He has moved very smoothly from indie to trad. As for E.L. James, I have not read Fifty Shades of Gray, and don’t intend to, It’s not my cup of tea. But obviously there was a strong market for her product and very likely she possesses outstanding marketing skills.
I like to visit a casino once every two months or so. It’s not about the thought of coming home with a great win, but I do remember those times. It’s about the enjoyment of doing something you like to do. I’ve learned what doesn’t work that well, and what I have a better chance at. So, I know I’m probably going to lose, but I limit how much fun I’m willing to pay for.
Writing novels is a parallel process. You do it, you enjoy it, you hope for a win, but you’re realistic to know the stars need to be aligned in the right order for success to happen. Despite knowing I’m probably not going to get a great win, I do it because I see just some signs things are getting slightly better each time.
Many of us remember playing Monopoly. You get nothing in return if you just go in circles. You need to buy some houses, then some hotels…you need to make an investment to get a return. The most fun is playing the game with those you meet along the way.
Indies Unlimited is one of the rewards for playing this writing game. I’ve met a new family at IU, and I have to admit if I hadn’t played the writing game, I wouldn’t have met some nice folks, and I also would not feel the way I do about writing.
Thanks Steve for your site and your piece, but thanks for the combined support to how we play the writing game.
Thanks Dick. What a nice sentiment. We are happy to have you with us. 🙂
As a poker player, I approve this message. 🙂
Great comparison, Stephen. When I saw the headline and read the first few sentences I thought I was going to have to take you to task, but you got the difference between poker and most other forms of gambling.
LOL. Thanks, Al. 🙂
I don’t gamble. I don’t even buy lottery tickets — not even for the Really Big Payouts. So why am I in this business? lol
I like to think I’m somewhere between your poker player and your gambler: taking the time to craft a good story and a good product, while doing it as quickly as possible to build my back list. Still, I think the poker player’s attitude is best: play whatever hand you’ve been dealt as well as you can, and hope you hit the jackpot.
Still way better than when the big publishing houses called all the shots. I guess back then the game was 3 card Monty. 😉
I know how to play Blackjack, but I’ve taken a hit when I’ve had a 17. I was sitting in the last seat and really annoyed the guy at the other end of the table. I drew a 3. 🙂
I like to call myself an ‘informed risk taker.’ I do the best I can to understand the playing field and then I just go for it.
I read the first two “50 Shades.” I think she has a good mind for business, and guessed that there might be a market for her story. There were errors and repetitions in the book that became annoying, but the story pulled you through. I did not buy the third book because 9.99 is ridiculous. I spent it on a couple of Indie books.
Excellent post, EM.
Thanks Lois.
I don’t think of myself as a gambler, or even a risk taker. But when you want something bad enough you have to give it a go, even knowing you will likely lose. I just wish I knew more the the strategy to put me in the poker league instead of floundering on the roulette wheel.
Thanks for the comment, Yvonne.
The unique thing about poker, among games of chance and skill, is the bluff.
Ultimately, what matters isn’t what hand you have, but what the other players THINK you have. This is what makes it the ultimate “balls” game.
It’s also a model between the “card-counting skill” and “luck of the wheel” models.
It the world of painting and galleries, it’s almost all bluff and facade. As with any of the arts that work public grants.
And a way bigger part of writing than people realize.
And very much a part of big publishers; game. People read books because they are the books one reads. How do they know they must read this “must read book”? Somebody tells them.
And why should they believe them? Because, well, gee, the way the put it, and after all they’re on TV or in the NYTBR.
Good thoughts, Lin.
I come down firmly on the side of Roulette here. The upheavals in the industry as a whole are too dynamic. Thousands of voices have joined the mainstream chorus of which – certain – books are “good”, and finding that critical mass that makes a break-out explode like 50 Shades did last year must really be pure chance, nothing more.
It certainly appears so. I’m not quite willing to give up on the existence of some curious combination of common factors just yet. Hang in there Chris! 🙂
Okay then, EM – one novel on 16 red, the other on 21 black. Spin the damn wheel 🙂