Salt ruins a dish when you use it to hide a flavor and makes the dish when you use it to sharpen one. Controversy in a book works the same way. Used to attract attention it’s transparent and cheap. Used to sharpen an argument it’s the difference between a book people recommend and a book people shelve politely.
Every book I’ve written that did anything for me has annoyed somebody. The ones that annoyed nobody sank without trace, and they weren’t worse books in any way I could point to. They were simply agreeable, and agreeable is the least memorable quality a book can have.
The agreeable book is the saddest failure in publishing to me, because the writer almost always had an opinion and sanded it off before anyone could object. Somebody told them a strong view would cost readers, they believed it, and the book paid for that advice with its whole life.
The ones that annoyed nobody sank without trace, and they weren’t worse books in any way I could point to.Share on X
Why does an agreeable book fail?
Because there’s nothing for the reader to do. A book that takes no position gives the reader a set of observations and asks them to assemble the meaning. Most won’t. They’ll finish the chapter, agree mildly, and by the following week retain nothing, because agreement is a very weak form of engagement.
Disagreement is stronger. A reader who thinks you’re wrong about something has to work out why, and that work makes the book stick. Half the time they come around. The other half they remember the book as the one that made them argue. That’s still a book they remember. I wrote a piece making the real case against hiring a ghostwriter, arguing that for some people it’s the wrong decision. It’s one of the pieces prospective clients mention most. A page insisting everybody needs a ghostwriter would have persuaded nobody.
The book on this: The Enshittification of America is the book where I stopped writing the softer version, and the argument has people on the other side of it.
What is the difference between a position and a fight?
Whether you’d still defend it in two years when the attention has gone.
A cheap fight is a claim chosen because it’ll provoke. It usually overstates, it usually names an enemy, and the writer’s actual view is more moderate than the sentence they published. Those pieces work for a fortnight and then become embarrassing. A defensible position is one you arrived at first and then discovered was unpopular. The order matters. If the conclusion came before the reasoning, readers can tell, and the ones you most wanted are the ones who notice fastest.
The Enshittification of America argues that widespread degradation comes from these particular markets under these particular incentives, and that markets in general don’t have to work that way. That’s a real argument with people on the other side of it. I picked it because two decades inside a large company and a decade of conversations with executives left me unable to write the softer version.
The book on this: The Emasculation of America is the one I expect blowback on, from people who have read it carefully and from people who haven’t.
Does controversy cost you readers?
Yes. That’s the trade, and I’d make it every time. Some people won’t read a book that argues against something they hold. Some will start it and stop. A few will be annoyed enough to say so publicly, which for a nonfiction book is closer to marketing than damage. What you get in exchange is that the people who agree with you know it immediately, and those are the ones who recommend the book to somebody else. Nobody recommends a book everybody mildly likes, because there’s nothing to say about it beyond that it was fine.
I wrote The Emasculation of America about what I was watching on YouTube, a large audience of young men and women arriving at settled hostility toward each other. I expect blowback from people who haven’t read it carefully and from people who have read it carefully and dislike where it goes. Only the second group is worth answering, and they’re the smaller one.
How do you take a position without being a crank?
By arguing against the strongest version of the other side, which almost nobody does.
Nobody recommends a book everybody mildly likes, because there’s nothing to say about it beyond that it was fine.
The sign of a bad controversial book is that the opposing view appears only in its weakest form, easily knocked down and usually paraphrased by the author. A reader who holds that view spots the misrepresentation in one paragraph and stops trusting anything after it. I do the same, even when I agree with the author, because a writer who’ll cheat on the other side’s argument will cheat on the facts too.
State the other position as its own advocates would state it. Then explain why you still disagree. That single discipline separates a book that changes minds from one that confirms the ones already on your side. It also protects you. An argument that survives its strongest counterargument is one you can defend for years. An argument that only works against a straw version collapses the first time somebody serious engages with it.
The book on this: The Villainization of America turns on a distinction between criticism and contempt, a position somebody can reasonably refuse.
What should you never do for controversy?
Manufacture it, and there are three specific ways writers do it. Overstating a moderate view so it hits harder. Attacking a person when the argument is about an idea. Choosing the contrarian side of a question you have no real stake in, because contrarian positions attract attention. All three are detectable and all three age badly. The third makes me angrier than the other two, because a writer with no stake can’t sustain the argument past the opening chapter, and the reader ends up paying for a long defense of a position the author doesn’t even hold.
The useful filter is whether you were already annoyed about it before anybody suggested you write a book. If the annoyance came first, you have a position. If the position came first and the annoyance was assembled afterward, you have a marketing plan.
| Aspect | Defensible position | Cheap fight |
|---|---|---|
| Origin | Arrived at first, then found to be unpopular | Chosen because it will provoke |
| Shelf life | Still defensible in two years | Works for a fortnight, then becomes embarrassing |
| The other side | Stated as its own advocates would state it | Shown in its weakest form, paraphrased by the author |
| Target | An idea | Often a named enemy or a person |
| Writer’s stake | You were annoyed before anybody suggested a book | A contrarian side of a question you don’t care about |
| Strength of claim | Matches what the writer believes | Overstates a view that is more moderate |
My take
Choose a position a reasonable person would refuse, state the other side the way its advocates would, then say why you still disagree. A book nobody argues with won’t get recommended. Never manufacture controversy, and never take the contrarian side of something you don’t care about. If you were annoyed before anyone suggested a book, you have a position. If not, you have a marketing plan.
Should a business book take a position readers can disagree with?
Yes. It needs at least one argument somebody could reasonably refuse, and I’d go further: a business book without one is a waste of the reader’s evening. Most business books have none. They’re surveys of a subject with a structure attached, and every claim in them is one their intended reader already accepts. That’s why they sit unfinished on so many desks.
Becoming inflammatory is the wrong fix. Find the one thing you believe that your peers don’t and make it the spine. It might be small.
It might be that the industry’s standard advice is wrong for one kind of client. I think business writers who sand that belief away to keep everyone comfortable are wasting a year of their lives on a book that’ll end up on the pile of unfinished ones, and they deserve better advice than the advice that got them there.
If you want the rest of this, why some books connect and others don’t covers the reader’s side and the mistakes that sink a book covers the rest. The Ghostwriting Hub collects the practical material, and my ghostwriting service spends a good deal of its time finding the argument a client is avoiding.
