To the point of your comment: Clearly, if you are directed in your writing only by what will sell, you are indeed likely (but not inexorably) to compromise creative originality. But that was not my point.

The panel I attended was addressing the question, “Can you make money by writing books?” Five of the six panel members said, “I haven’t, but I’m not sorry; I’ll continue doing what I’ve been doing.” One–though not very loudly–said, “My books are making money, and I expect my future books to do so.” My point: If you want your books to make you money, you must consider not only your need to unburden your creative soul, but also the business end of the deal–the selling of books.

Will that negatively affect your creative expression? Perhaps. If it does, you might want to keep your day job, and express yourself in the way that best suits you.

I believe you can have your cake and eat it too–though I don’t think that writing what you want and profiting from it is in any way more meritorious than just writing what you want. I just want to make the point that it is possible, and that some are doing it.

Some great poets achieved recognition, and even a decent living, during their lifetimes–Robert Frost comes to mind. But Frost was quite commercial in his intent, and that did not detract from his poetry (in my opinion). Most great poets were “discovered” after their death. Is that good? Bad? That depends on what their goals were.

(By the way, I live in Silicon Valley, a short walk away from the headquarters of Google, a bike-ride from Apple and Facebook. This is a place where creativity and originality prosper–and where a lot of creativity and originality never achieve any sort of reward. The stuff that succeeds, financially, is often innovative and creative. The stuff that fails is often at least as creative–but doesn’t meet the needs of the market. You can have it either way with your writing.)

I also question the above advice because present tastes and trends are a poor guide to what people will want two years down the road.

Name me a great poet who wrote for the money?

From this point of view, Mr. Godin is, it seems to me, arguing that the book publishing industry ought to reinvent itself to abandon the “true author” who has something to say (“information”) in favor of becoming the servant of the hordes of would-be cult leaders who each wants to use the printed word to assemble a cult congregation for himself.

I am aware that my viewpoint is dystopic and cynical and that I have not made a case for it nor even sketched it out systematically. (To do that, I would begin by defining “thought steering” and “thought assault”.

Some people become authors because they have something to say and a passion that compels them to say it to anyone who will listen. Those people should ignore your advice until after the book is finished, and then should “retrofit” their book according to your advice if, and only if, that is possible without doing violence to the passion and the inspiration that brought it forth.

Other people become authors because they want to occupy themselves researching and writing books; their passion is for the process, for the occupation, rather than for any particular idea that the person is compelled by passion to give a voice. For these people, your advice should be applied at the very beginning of, and throughout, the project.

Tell your students this 100 times. The “street essay” method of civic speech that I have developed is so effective that the City of Mountain View and the County of Santa Clara have together spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to keep me entangled at court and silenced on the streets.

Your blog page came up just now for the first time as I searched Google; Google has added a “personal” function, and the link to your blog was right at the top of the page. I remember your face; perhaps we’ve seen each other more than once on the streets in Mountain View. Ideas are the most powerful force shaping the course of human culture; they are far more powerful than weapons. But weapons can be used to silence ideas. And they are. Every day. Freedom to speak in the United States only exists until you try to use it. I have been silent for 13 months now. This is not voluntary. Your freedom is an illusion.

To me, the reader must “rise” or “grow” throughout the story for it to be of any value.

Even if there is no cause and effect, zero characters, no transformation, a vague setting and no conflict or resolution, at the end of the story, if the reader is uplifted and feels inspired to be themselves in a new way that transforms how they think and act, it’s a good read.

I’m just playing, as I feel you already understand this from point 3 and simply wanted to be the first to comment on this fantastic post that I enjoyed

If the amount is not reached, nothing at all happens.

I don’t see why you see this as opportunistic or exploitative. And “low esteem”? That’s not a climate; it’s a personal choice. One I would discourage…