So, I came across this article from Levo (and I love the title they gave it in the coding; very clever!), a brief discussion on whether it may be better to be a big fish in a little pond or a small fish in a big pond. Both have their merits, as well as their downsides, and I got curious as to what my readers think and feel. Would you rather be a big fish in a little pond, or a small fish in a big pond?
Me, I’m definitely a small fish in a big pond. A very small fish. Like, minnow-scule (see what I did there?). Would I rather be a bigger fish in a small pond? Hmmm, it’s a good question, and I think it begs to ask another question: what kind of pond are we talking about? If we’re talking about the grander, big old ocean that is the literary world in general, I think I’m going to be a small fish for a while, but the nice thing is that fish will sometimes grow according to the space their put in. Keep a goldfish in a bowl, it’s going to stay small. Put him in a koi pond, he might get a lot bigger. So if I need to start out a minnow before I become a record-breaking catch, I’m okay with that. There’s plenty of other little fish to keep me company.
Now, if we look at, say, a small pond, a niche market, like fantasy or science fiction, I’m not as content to be just a little fish. I want to be a big fish in that pond for sure. But would I prefer it? I’m not sure. I like playing with genre, I like the idea of being more than just a fantasy or science fiction writer, because I am so much more than just that. Of course it would be an awesome to be a big fish in that pond, but would I always want to jump into the bigger one and wade around with larger fish than myself?
Time will tell. Right now, I’m pretty much a tiny fish in any pond. I’m a tiny fish in a little puddle. But eventually I’ll get there, and then I’ll let you know. How about you? Would you rather be a big fish in a little pond, or a little fish in a big pond?