>>8266639
I really believe in THAT plot, in my personal opinion it's magnificent, even if I tend to understimate myself due to my major depression, I think that the idea behind my main character* (see the typo in the previous post, english isn't my mothertongue btw) is very well constructed. In spite of this in a "book pre-reading" the audience didn't like him, but they apparently like my weak sloppy sockpuppet characters much more. And they thought the story has to be much more love-oriented. I thought I nailed it, but apparently I didn't...

>>8266659
Do NOT listen to mediocre people.

Do NOT ask for mediocre people's opinion.

Do NOT hang with mediocre people: they're contagious.

(Take any great book and I guarantee you that 95% of them wouldn't like it one bit. They would prefer any train station romance or thriller or shit like that.)

>>8266659
Listen only to the opinion of people that you know to have talent. Only people that have written something really good. If they haven't, assume they're retarded.

If you don't know anyone like that, trust only your judgement.

Igoni Barrett's Blackass was flawed but very interesting.

>>8266674
>>8266665
Eco said he "built" his audience. I was testing the water, I don't want to drown. A good book with no readers isn't a worthy book.
I wanted to convey what the eyes of a lousy person see and how this insignificant character find his gold path to be seen as a proper person through his obsession, the way he starts to develop mannerisms, the way a real person's hurled out his tiny mediocre world and start to live through his sins, that's what I wanted to convey in my work.
But the audience found this character as mediocre in the first place and disturbing in the latter part. When I said that this was my aim they said that no one wants to read a disturbing book.