Okay, moving on....
I had a bit of an eye-opening talk with my agent last week. I have been with her for two years and I have shown her close to a dozen manuscripts. She has subbed and sold two and has not wanted to sub any of the others. My attitude was "Why not give one a shot? What do we have to lose?" In my mind, the worst that could happen was that it doesn't sell. But my agent explained to me that there is something worse. It can sell to a house, but not do well with the public. She said, "Early books with poor sales figures can hurt your career."
Her philosophy is quality over quantity. This actually works for me.
Beth Revis once asked (in early 2009, when she and I first started blogging):
If you could have one book published--but only one book--and that book would 100% for sure be published, and you would 100% for sure have moderate success (a good advance, book tour, signings and readings--but we're not talking JK Rowling here), BUT after this happened you would 100% for sure never publish again (you can write all you want--just not be published)...would you do that instead of staying in the rat race of publication and trying to break out with your own chops, knowing the chances? Which would be better--guaranteed one perfect slam dunk, or just the chance to stay in the game and hope the ball comes your way?
I still remember it well, because I was pretty much the ONLY person who responded that I would take the slam dunk!
I would rather have one -or a small handful of- very successful books, then 30-40 mediocre ones.
How 'bout you?