I've been seeing this term being bandied around quite a lot lately. Well, it seems to flare up every now and again. But is this advice about building platforms being spread in a helpful manner? How and when does "building a platform" apply?

Firstly, I define "platform" seperately from networking. The definition of platform I'm accustomed to applies to non-fiction writers. A platform establishes them as an expert in their field, essentially what they "stand on". It's not limited to keeping a blog or website or any other form of social media but also tours, workshops, etc. In essence not just being able to say "I'm an expert" but being recognized as an expert. So what use is a platform then to fiction writers? There's no requirement that says we have to establish ourselves as a fantasy writer, sci-fi writer, crime writer, etc in the same sense as a non-fiction writer. At least not via social media. Of course it's great if you've gained many followers or readers on your blog, many being actual readers and not just fellow writers, that would certainly only work in your favour. If people are that interested in your blog they're certainly going to be interested in your book. But it's not going to make or break your chances of being published. A publisher is not going to look at a work that's really caught their interest, check out the writer's blog and reject it because said writer has a low number of readers. That isn't how publishing works. Publishers buy stories because they believe they can sell them, and they have all the tools and know-how to market the book to readers. It is not our job to market ourselves and our work unless we're self-publishing. Promote? Naturally. Network? Sure. But market? Not our job. If a publisher can't sell our work, we're not supposed to step in and do it for them (micro publishing exempted, as that works quite differently from large, medium and small publishing). So what's an aspiring writer to do?

Best advice I've received for aspiring authors is to write something worth selling. All promotion and blogs and twitters and such aside, we're writers first and foremost. That shouldn't be forgotten or put to the wayside in favour of creating a "brand" or "platform" or whathaveyou. Because even the greatest platform or largest reader base isn't going to mean a darn thing if you're not producing something worth buying. It certainly doesn't hurt to network, work on your blog or reach out in the meantime, but don't let it become your main focus. After all, when was the last time you heard about someone getting rejected on the basis of their blog readers and not their novel? ;)

I read a great blog entry by Chuck Wendig yesterday about self-publishing, which you can also read right here. It gave a great side to the whole self-publishing venture and touches on points I've tried to blog about in the past. He's done a much better job and made a very good point: they aren't serving readers. The biggest problem I find with a lot of these sites and services designed to "help promote your book" that self-pubbed authors join and even create miss one thing - readers. The only people on those sites are other writers. But there are other ways, as mentioned in the article. I don't want to sum it up too much because you really should check it out, but from a reader point of view I can say a lot of its points really do apply:

Bad cover art: You don't have to be a graphic artist to spot a hasty photoshopped cover when you see it. Like it or not, a fair amount of readers do judge by cover. Admittedly, I'm one of them. If the cover art is obviously a cheap job, I'm done. I can overlook an okay cover, but bad cheap covers are a deal breaker. Yes some readers may look past cover art; many won't. But if you want to attract as many readers as possible you have to appeal to them in as many ways as possible.

Poor/no editing: yes, you do need it. I need it. J.K. Rowling needs it. All your favourite published authors need it. Anne Rice needs it. We all need it! Needing editing is not an implication of whether you suck or not, or whether your book sucks or not. Needing editing is needing that unbiased critical set of eyes going through your story and picking out errors and inconsistances you may miss because you're just too close to the story. And if you're going to be a writer, you have to buck up to someone saying "this doesn't work". No one's perfect. Editing is a valuable tool that ever writer should have. Utilize beta readers (and not family or friends, unless they're the type who will be 100% honest), get a good editor. Sometimes you can find a freelancer who's either just starting their own practice or a student just graduated who'll either charge a discount rate or do it for free in exchange for references. But please don't think that because pro books have errors on occassion it means you don't have to worry about editing, or think that the story will shine through the errors, or that your words are so perfect that you don't need editing.

*The argument that published books have errors is completely redundant. Just because they might doesn't give you a pass to make the same mistakes.*

A couple other things that turn me off as a writer: Overpromotion. If you're taking every opportunity to talk about your book, you're going to kill my interest. Don't be a pushy salesperson and constantly mention it every time, or always try to drive the conversation back to your book. I understand that you've got to promote your book, but there is such a thing as promoting too much. If people are interested, they'll ask more about your book. If they're not, take the hint. Push too much and you'll just push readers away. Another thing are fluffy reviews. You know the type, praise for a book that the reviewer clearly hasn't read. Don't get your friends, family or other writers to post reviews of your book as a favour. I personally don't put much stock in reviews because tastes are subjective. But if I do read a review, I want to know why the reviewer thought it was a good book. I don't want to read mindless praise.

Bottom line, to quote Chuck: give us the whole ass.