Writers: Would you rather:?

[Gemi]

1) Commercial success IS literary success. The "elites" value their profit margin, not the number of critics you impressed. But if authors gain critical acclaim, they tend to also be commercially successful. So they go hand-in-hand regardless. Anyway, I'd rather write for commercial success. I need to support my family and am trying to do that via writing. If my writing wasn't selling it would defeat the purpose to writing it. I'm not writing it to hear myself think.

2) University level. I have very little patience with high school antics and a teenager's level of skill/understanding.

3) Online, with videos. More freedom and flexibility with schedule.

4) Short story for quick pocket money. Novel for real cash. Overall, I prefer writing novels.

5) Neither b/c they aren't worth the effort. Only a very select few of your particular reader demographic would be present in each. I'd rather have my own website and blog. But if I had to choose: blog tour.

5) Both Facebook and Twitter. Whichever my fans subscribe to more is what I'd prefer. I need to keep them update, after all.

6) I have no preference for series or standalone stories. It depends on what the story requires.

7) Novel. Serializing a novel is tedious if you're writing as you go, especially when you have to break your writing process to edit each chapter before submitting it to the magazine. But, if I was strapped for cash, serializing is a decent way to make fast money.

8) I will only self publish electronically. That means I'd have to sell print rights to a trade publisher. Sadly, publishers fight tooth and nail for ebook subsidiary rights.

9) Title. Cover means nothing and authors have very little say regardless. If a reader is dissuaded by a cover, they're likely not my reader demographic anyway. I write fantasy and require readers with an imagination.

10) Depends on the quality of director/producer. A movie could yield more money unless produced at a low budget/with poor vision. Tv sitcoms are too volatile. They break contracts all the time.

11) Stephen King. I don't and will never value Rowling's opinion. And I personally wouldn't want her endorsement associated with my name.

EDIT:
If a book gained critical acclaim (awards/reviews), then it provides additional publicity, which results in more commercial success than it would've received without the reviews. "50 Shades" received more publicity from its negative reviews, resulting in its commercial success. That doesn't mean that commercial success is synonymous with "bad writing," as you suggest. That was the point I was making. Literary success is defined by its contribution/influence to literature. You can't influence anyone if they haven't heard of you, and you need commercial success to be heard of.

Either way, I'd personally rather make money than receive the well-wishes of some critic. Money feeds my family. All a critic does is give me free publicity. He's just a freelance writer selling articles to periodicals like 'Publishers Weekly.'

And yes, 'Twilight' could be considered a literary success, as it influenced '50 Shades of Grey'. Similarly, '50 Shades of Grey' will influence forthcoming literature. Do they lack substance? To you and I they might, but not to those who find quality in them.