I hear this from authors and clients all the time:
That author is making tons of money, with terrible books. My book is way better, so I should be able to make at least that much.
There are several things wrong with that logic, but the one that irks me the most is this:
It’s condescending to the readers.
You’re basically saying, readers only liked that book because they are dumb, or they didn’t have anything better to choose from. They couldn’t have really liked that book, because it sucks. Yours is better so they will like it even more.
There’s a fallacy in assuming better written books are better books. I don’t think that’s true. I think readers have the right to decide what they like, and they vote for what they like by purchasing. Starting out by making another book that you hope will please the same readers, but making it different, because you assume that those readers simply don’t know any better, is belittling.
It’s kind of like going up to a kid who likes strawberry pop tarts and saying,
I made you this artisanal, all natural, gluten free, hand-crafted strawberry concoction. It’s sugar free but tastes better and is healthier. You’re going to love it!
It also leads to bitter resentment later, when (surprise!) those readers who keep buying those shitty books, don’t like your new book which is different from the books they like. You think they just don’t get it, or have poor tastes, or that appreciation for quality literature is dead and education is the problem.
Nobody owes you a living. You don’t get to choose what readers like. Nor do you get to teach them to like something else. What you do get to do, is understand what they like and write a fucking awesome book that they love. You can only do that if you actually know what they like and why they like it – not by projecting what you think they would like if they were smarter people.
I’m a philosophy dropout with a PhD in Literature. I covet a cabin full of cats, where I can write fantasy novels to pay for my cake addiction. Sometimes I live in castles.