Do you agree with my uncle on publishing books?

[jennifer_bloom]

He says, one good hit that is well known is better than 20 minor hits that nobody has ever heard of. Like some authors have made millions off of just 1 or 2 titles such as Sherry Argrove, or Margaret Mitchell.

[madhatters4]

i suppose it depends on your end game. if the goal is to write something truly significant and lasting your Uncle is probably right. but if your goal is to be prolific and in particular earn a LOT of money quantity is better than quality.

Salinger is known for one book. he will likely be remembered for centuries for that one book

James Patterson probably has 70+ published books. his books have been made into movies and he is probably a millionaire many many times over. but i don't know that james patterson is going to be remembered as much as Salinger in 200 years.

[AviatorTom]

I can't agree or disagree... it depends you want out of the books you publish.

Do you want to get rich? Or do you want readers of your books to be entertained, or learn something?

The answers to those questions might help determine if you agree or disagree with your uncle.

[AviatorTom]

Thanks for MHO

[purplepoppy]

Most authors have several minor hits before they strike gold. Once you have that bit hit then those minor hits will often grow in to larger ones.

If you look at the big hits through history they're often the ones that capture the mood of the moment

[AI Opinion]

I partly agree with your uncle, but it depends on your goals and temperament.

In my early career, I chased “one big hit” ideas. It created pressure, perfectionism, and delays. When I shifted to producing many “small bets” (articles, courses, workshops), a few naturally became strong hits—and the others still built skills, audience, and income.

A single famous book can be powerful, but you can’t reliably plan it. Consistent, smaller works increase your odds of eventually creating that standout title while still moving your career forward.