When should a starting writer get his own webpage?
I've heard and read from many vlogger and blogger authors that an aspiring writer should have his own webpage as early as possible. Being published or not doesn't come to it.
Now, if I created a webpage for myself, I assume I need to post my writings on it. Do my posts need to be periodical, or at least regular? What if I'm occupied with my current book and don't have the brains to write on various topics periodically just to establish a presence? And isn't that just blogging?
Not take away from any bloggers, but it isn't what I like to do. Blogging to me is very similar to journalism, which I consider a soul-draining occupation and sits at the opposite end of the writing spectrum from fiction writing.
Disclaimer
My only audience so far is family and friends.
At the very least, I would try to reserve the URL for your real name (or pen name), and any others that may be relevant …
5y ago
Bloggers and vloggers by definition have an online platform on which they've built their success. Their input on the nec …
5y ago
Every non-fiction writer should have a blog covering the topics they write about. You are trying to establish yourself …
5y ago
I would like to break down your description into parts while answering this question. > I've heard and read from many v …
5y ago
Personally, I think that's a crock. It's understandable why someone would think having a website would be a benefit, bu …
5y ago
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/43687. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
5 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I would like to break down your description into parts while answering this question.
I've heard and read from many vlogger and blogger authors that an aspiring writer should have his own webpage as early as possible. Being published or not doesn't come to it.
This completely depends on you. But your audience is limited. Today, in the world of the Internet, your online presence can make a huge difference. You can grow your audience manifolds. You can interact with the audience and get reviews on your content. Thus, there is no harm if you start early or at least once your work is being recognised.
Now, if I created a webpage for myself, I assume I need to post my writings on it. Do my posts need to be periodical, or at least regular? What if I'm occupied with my current book and don't have the brains to write on various topics periodically just to establish a presence? And isn't that just blogging?
First of all, I will recommend you to create a website using https://www.blogger.com
(I am NOT advertising it).
I say this because it is the easiest way. You can create a blog for free, and once you think your website is doing good, you can purchase the domain. Therefore, you don't need to worry about the frequency of your posts and unnecessary financial costs. (Although it is recommended to post something worth reading once or twice a month). Moreover, I believe you should do it out of fun. Once you think this way, you will understand that this is not just blogging. (my opinion)
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43697. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Personally, I think that's a crock.
It's understandable why someone would think having a website would be a benefit, but if you have it too early-on, it will come across as amateurish at best or becomes an unnecessary financial cost at worst.
As for content, if you do make a website, it doesn't have to require constant content updates, but it should be a place where you advertise your works and sell yourself as an author. A periodical blog post telling people about your writing progress wouldn't be remiss, but you should make sure you note things that would matter to your readers at the very least.
That said, I wouldn't do it until I have something I want to share with the public and sell, either literally or figuratively.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43688. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Bloggers and vloggers by definition have an online platform on which they've built their success. Their input on the necessity of having an online platform is biased. They cannot speak for all writers. At best, they can speak for vloggers/bloggers.
Think of it this way: I'm trying to become a bodybuilder. With that goal in mind, I exercise daily, tell my wife I love her daily, and I drink three raw eggs for breakfast. Years down the line, I am a known bodybuilder, and people ask me on what I think aspiring bodybuilders need to do to get where I am.
And I tell them to exercise daily, drink three raw eggs for breakfast, and tell your spouse you love them daily.
However, did the raw eggs really matter? Can I really claim that these eggs are required to be sucessful? What about telling my wife I love her daily? Did that really contribute to my success, or is it just something I happened to do?
What's much more likely is that I'm reverse engineering my advice. I don't know that drinking the eggs or telling my wife I love her were necessary components to my success, but I think to myself "well, I drank those raw eggs and told my wife I love her; and I'm successful today, so I assume that this must have caused my success".
And that is a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc, "after this, therefore because of this").
What I would put a lot more stock in, is to hear this advice from writers who did not have an online platform to launch their career, because these people may have a much more meaningful insight into what an online platform really adds to their popularity.
But don't take their word for it either. People are always biased based on what they did(n't) do and whether they did(n't) end up being successful. But unless they can empirically prove their argument, it is nothing more than a biased observation.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43711. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Every non-fiction writer should have a blog covering the topics they write about. You are trying to establish yourself as an authority on the subject, an influencer of ideas and opinions, or a curator of taste. If you write about historical subjects (or tea, or cocker spaniels), a blog about your topic/research is a great idea. People may discover your website while searching for the topic and be interested in your approach and even buy your books because of it.
A fiction writer should consider why they have a blog – whether it is intended to advertise their books, add meta-content to existing stories (a worldbuilding wiki, for example), discuss their writing process (a writer's blog about writing), or some other purpose that boosts your profile as an experienced author (your schedule of public appearances, for example).
At minimum, every author should buy a web domain that is as close to your name (pseudonym) as possible, and treat it as a professional business card with contact info, a bio, and bibliography.
Do not use social media platforms as your only contact page since these platforms lock out viewers for arbitrary reasons (not actually arbitrary, they want everyone viewing your info to be a member of their platform).
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/43708. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
At the very least, I would try to reserve the URL for your real name (or pen name), and any others that may be relevant - such as the book's name, if that's coming soon. Get a dot-com if it is available. Also reserve your name on gMail if you can.
It will be easy to link a free blogger blog to that URL, or to create something from scratch later on. But the names are the most restricted resource.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads