A little thought experiment.

A little thought experiment.

From the start, I've wondered about the connection between the quality of a book and how well it sells. Quality is subjective, I suppose, and individual. It's obvious that some good books fail to sell well and some bad books become bestsellers.

But fundamentally, I still wanted to believe that quality will out.

I've asked some established writers over the years if: "a good book that was simply put out onto the market without any other push would do well" and the answer, every time, was a flat "No."

"Deadfall Ridge" has sold so much better than my other books that that it's clear that unless you have something like a  BookBub promotion, it's very hard to make headway. On the other hand, there is a fellow writer I know who has been doing fantastic with his series of books. I haven't seen that he's done anything but write some books that people like and been consistent about how he presents them.

Most of the other writers who seem to do well are very active in their promotion, and clever in their use of social media. From my perspective, it looks exhausting and unpleasant. Heh.

Anyway, as I've mentioned, I've slowed way down in my writing. I've written a bunch of books, published about half of them.

But the other day I asked myself a little question. It's more or less a thought experiment.

1.) Could I write a book better than anything I've done so far?

The answer is Yes, Undoubtedly.

2.) Would that book fare any better than any of my other books?

And the answer came back a solid, without a doubt, "No."

So in a backward sort of way, I've answered that question that I've been mulling since the beginning of my second writing career. Coming at it backwards has given me an answer that seems true and undeniable.

Not sure if it makes a real difference in how I approach things. I've always tried to write the best book I could. But it has puts things in perspective for me--and I'm a person who can accept anything as long as I know what's going on.