What Is the Point of Writing a Book If You Have No Online Presence?

In a post titled, "What Is the Point of Writing a Book If You Have No Online Presence?", someone (or something) called "Bubble Cow" writes:

Let’s face it, [these days] writers need a strong online presence. In a world where self-publishing is a realistic option, and big publishers are telling us that having an online presence is essential to getting a book deal, writers are left with little option but to embrace technology and start building. 

If you're comfortable with social media and the Internet, it certainly can't hurt. But don't think it's necessary. If you've written the next To Kill a Mockingbird, no publisher is going to reject your manuscript because you aren't on Twitter or don't have a website. Such thinking is absurd. If you go the "traditional publishing" route, your publisher will almost certainly create a page for you on their own website. Such a presence is sufficient for many authors. (For example, type in JonathanFranzen.com, and you'll be redirected to http://us.macmillan.com/author/jonathanfranzen.) Sure, you may leave yourself open to parody as an aging dinosaur in a world of mammals. But you need to be true to yourself, and not to what you think publishers (or the public) expect.

As for the question, "What is the point of writing a book if you have no online presence?", the answer should be obvious: The point of writing a book is the same as it's always been. Authors wrote books for hundreds of years before the Internet was invented, and they will continue to. Writing is like robbing a bank: Some do it for the money. Some do it for the thrill. And some do it because they can't do anything else.

(via BubbleCow.net)

Comments

[80sMomKara]

Thanks for saying that. To run the risk of looking like a complete and total idiot, I quote Will Schuster from Glee: “Glee Club is not just about expressing yourself to everyone else...it’s about expressing yourself to yourself.”

[Benoit Lelievre]

Indeed, so many "aspiring" writers are really wasting an enormous amount of hours saying nothing important on the web, instead of writing. Some like to talk about writing better than what they write. As a crime writer, I always take example of Scott Wolven. He went the Cormac-McCarthy hermit route and got picked up by the big six anyway. Why? Because he can write.

[BubbleCow]

I actually wrote the post referred to in this article. If you read the full post you will find a link to a video in which ex-ceo of publisher Thomas Nelson explains that they look for writers with a good online presence.

The problem is the perception that all books are considered on an equal footing by publishers, this is just not the case. As a writer you are competing for a limited number of publishing contracts. The publisher is going to publish the book that they feel will sell the most copies. Unfortunately, quality of writing is only one factor in this process.

In addition, publishers have very little budget to promote and market writers. This means that if you approach them with a good manuscript, but ALSO a proven track record of being able to gather fans and promote yourself online, this will make you a much more attractive proposition.

Here's a link to the video - http://www.therisetothetop.com/interviews-guests/michael-hyatt-on-the-future-of-publishing-publishers/

[Andrew Shaffer]

@BubbleCow - Thanks for stopping by and sharing the link. I read the full post and saw the video, but was just responding to the headline (not the content of your post).

I think Hyatt has a valid point for nonfiction authors. For fiction writers, it doesn't seem that any amount of social media pimping has much effect on sales (witness the thousands of self-published writers endlessly pushing their own product on a public with little interest). I blog and tweet because I enjoy doing them, but it's painful to see writers force themselves to be "social" when their time could better be spent improving their writing.

Thanks for starting the conversation!