4 ms·
That's the core problem: I didn't have beta readers. I went straight to publish thinking 'good satire sells itself.' My assumed audience: tech workers frustrate
by lucaherrorpress 10mo ago
That's the core problem: I didn't have beta readers. I went straight to publish thinking 'good satire sells itself.'
My assumed audience: tech workers frustrated with algorithms, digital minimalism crowd, people who loved writers like Mark Manson or Tim Urban's Wait But Why.
But I never validated that audience actually EXISTS on Amazon, or that they'd buy books vs just reading free blogs.
Zero reviews = I can't even test if the content resonates. It's like shouting into a void with no echo back.
- addaon 10mo agoHow do you know if it's good satire if you don't have trusted readers to give feedback? It's nearly impossible to judge the quality of your own work. I notice that the book was "created with the assistance of AI tools"... hopefully you didn't interpret AI's syncophancy as a signal? Part of writing for an audience is engaging with that audience to understand how they perceive the work. If you don't have beta readers from an existing network (writers' workshop, etc), they're available as a paid service.
- lucaherrorpress 10mo agoYou're right - I used Claude heavily as an editor and co-writer in my 'Industrial AI Publishing' model. I generated drafts with GPT, then refined everything with Claude for tone and coherence. I was transparent about this process because I thought 'AI-assisted satire about AI' was meta-interesting. But maybe that's exactly why it doesn't sell: people smell the AI sycophancy you mentioned. The brutal question: can AI-assisted satire ever feel genuinely sharp, or does the tool's politeness always dull the blade? I'm starting to suspect the latter.