I have a question.

[Lasournoise]

MacAllister, I have a few questions for you:

“Made even more special with that absolutely ludicrous assertion "If you are considering being published by a traditional publisher, the best way to do it is to publish on your own first - in both e-book and POD" -- which is patent nonsense.”

This is ludicrous?! Are you joking?! Please, do explain. Please show me why this is ludicrous since the facts are that indie authors are being constantly approached by agents and traditional publishers. And the fact that traditional publishers are constantly watching the Amazon sales data for authors that stand out. It isn’t ludricrous. It is the truth. Are you afraid of it?


“We don't start new threads to continue the arguments that happen in closed threads, here, Lasournoise.”

Why was the thread closed in the first place? Do you feel threatened by some of the comments that people placed on it? Is that why those people were banned? Because they told you the truth and you can't handle it?


“Please don't attempt to do this again.”

Don’t worry, I won’t even be reading or posting here anymore. It is obvious to me that this forum is controlled by Big Brother who doesn’t want to hear what is really going on and who has to censor anyone who tells him the truth.

 

[Guardian]

This really should have been a private message.

But the entire discussion makes me wonder - is it legit to self-publish on kindle first, or does it really kill your chances of publishing the same book traditionally? That's the question, right?

I have no clue about publishing at all, so I have to rely on other people telling me the truth. And I'm prone to believing conspiracies. Who is the one messing with me?

 

[Guardian]

And what does indie even mean? People keep throwing that word around... *goes to find a dictionary and clear her confused head*

Oh, it means independent. Well, I just find that word stupid, then. :/ I'm gonna go back to working.

 

[Lasournoise]

"But the entire discussion makes me wonder - is it legit to self-publish on kindle first, or does it really kill your chances of publishing the same book traditionally? That's the question, right?"

Guardian, it doesn't kill your chances of being traditionally published at all. It helps them. There are many, I repeat, many indie authors (independently published authors, independent meaning published without a traditional publisher) being approached by traditional publishers. This is already happening. Also, I know quite a few authors that are doing both - indie and trad. So don't worry if you want to both indie publish and traditional publish. Many out there are doing both.

 

[Guardian]

I suppose that if you're good, you're good, and someone will be smart enough to pick up your book. Still not sure why this discussion has drawn blood, so to speak.

 

[fourlittlebees]

Here's the main issue: for every Amanda Hocking, there are hundreds of self-pubbed authors who see 100 copies or less sold. If you can self-pub and sell millions of your books? Or even tens of thousands? Then yes, the publishing houses are looking to sign you. But if you are one of the authors who only sells a few copies? Then, no, you aren't going to be sought out by any publishing house, and if an agent takes a gander at Bookscan and sees that you weren't selling, you become more of a risk than someone who's never been published at all. Does that make sense?

The way I see it, it's like putting your novel into a machine that spits out a lottery ticket, instead of inserting a $5 bill. Very few of us -- if any -- on AW who self-pub are ever going to be the next Amanda Hocking, just like very few of us -- if any -- are going to be the next JK Rowling.

The publishing industry is changing rapidly, but it isn't quite there yet for self-pub. With the marketing, editing, design of a major house, there is still a better chance of becoming a mid-lister than there is of becoming a breakout success in self-pub and getting picked up by a big six publishing house.

In other words, it all depends on how much you want to gamble, and how much of a marketing guru you feel you are. Right now, it's all a matter of placing your bets. You can always self-pub after you've exhausted trying out the traditional route, but because self-pubbing gives up first publication rights (usually a part of any traditional contract), it's much harder to self-pub and then try traditional, at least with the same book.

Does that make more sense?

 

[MacAllister]

Why was the thread closed in the first place? Do you feel threatened by some of the comments that people placed on it? Is that why those people were banned? Because they told you the truth and you can't handle it?


“Please don't attempt to do this again.”

Don’t worry, I won’t even be reading or posting here anymore. It is obvious to me that this forum is controlled by Big Brother who doesn’t want to hear what is really going on and who has to censor anyone who tells him the truth.

Since you're so transparently here from recently-banned-Robin Sullivan's fan-club, Lasournoise, and you've already PMed me to flounce and taken the opportunity to cry "Censorship!" and accused me of all manner of nefarious motives while you were at it, I'll be happy to help you find the door, since you seem to be having some trouble letting yourself out.

*MUAHAHAHAHHAHA!!! :: twirls big black mustache ::

 

[BenPanced]

 

[Guardian]

Here's the main issue: for every Amanda Hocking, there are hundreds of self-pubbed authors who see 100 copies or less sold. If you can self-pub and sell millions of your books? Or even tens of thousands? Then yes, the publishing houses are looking to sign you. But if you are one of the authors who only sells a few copies? Then, no, you aren't going to be sought out by any publishing house, and if an agent takes a gander at Bookscan and sees that you weren't selling, you become more of a risk than someone who's never been published at all. Does that make sense?

The way I see it, it's like putting your novel into a machine that spits out a lottery ticket, instead of inserting a $5 bill. Very few of us -- if any -- on AW who self-pub are ever going to be the next Amanda Hocking, just like very few of us -- if any -- are going to be the next JK Rowling.

The publishing industry is changing rapidly, but it isn't quite there yet for self-pub. With the marketing, editing, design of a major house, there is still a better chance of becoming a mid-lister than there is of becoming a breakout success in self-pub and getting picked up by a big six publishing house.

In other words, it all depends on how much you want to gamble, and how much of a marketing guru you feel you are. Right now, it's all a matter of placing your bets. You can always self-pub after you've exhausted trying out the traditional route, but because self-pubbing gives up first publication rights (usually a part of any traditional contract), it's much harder to self-pub and then try traditional, at least with the same book.

Does that make more sense?

Sure does, at least the first paragraph. I understand that not everyone is gonna become JKR off kindle. Thanks!

 

[fourlittlebees]

And BTW, if anyone is interested in this topic and doesn't want to try to research it extensively, Jose Afonso Furtado (@jafurtado on Twitter) is an AMAZING curator of information about publishing right now and the ways the industry is shifting.

 

[shelleyo]

Here's the main issue: for every Amanda Hocking, there are hundreds of self-pubbed authors who see 100 copies or less sold.

When you look at how many self-published novels there have been just over the last few years, and how many get anywhere near Hocking's success. I'm betting thousands is closer to the mark than hundreds.

The whole recent issue is being waved like a flag to show just how much the whole of AW hates self-publishing, and how hostile the site is to self-publishers. It's not considered that the reason for the banning might have had less to do with the topic than with the personalities involved, the things that were said, and a history of contention regarding those things. Nope, that can't be it, it's this self-proclaimed "war" between commercial publishing and self-publishing that a handful of highly visible writers keep pushing, and this is being represented as more proof of that battle line between the old and new guard. I'm starting to think some people thrive on this type of bullshit, and I, for the life of me, don't know why.

I don't think AW is anti-self-publishing. I think it's anti-hype about self-publishing. There is a damn difference.

There will undoubtedly be more who show up courtesy the agenda the OP came riding in on. It really aggravates someone like me who intends to query agents and seek publication through a publishing house, but is interested in self-publishing for other projects and fascinated watching the changes in the industry (that I think are much less dramatic and deadly for New York as many keep saying).


Shelley

 

[Deleted member 42]

AW is not so much anti-self publishing (ever noticed how many of the mods have self published? Including Jim Macdonald?) as anti-made-up-bullshit-meant-to-promote-individuals-and-exploit-the-community.

 

[Guardian]

Thanks for your words too, shelleyo. They make a lot of sense.

To be honest, the whole debate was confusing and had me shook up with concern. But now I understand, I think. It's not nice to promote self-publishing like it doesn't have an impact, or if it does it's only positive, but in reality the author might have unknowingly shot themselves in the foot. Some people can be discovered that way, but that's like being David Boreanaz and becoming an actor after taking your dog for a walk.

Poor Mac deals with so much flak. Is there an official Appreciation Day yet? This forum is the best for writing I've ever found.

 

[shelleyo]

AW is not so much anti-self publishing (ever noticed how many of the mods have self published? Including Jim Macdonald?) as anti-made-up-bullshit-meant-to-promote-individuals-and-exploit-the-community.

That's exactly what I thought long before I joined, and I lurked for at least a couple of years first.

Shelley

 

[MacAllister]

AW is pro-education, pro-information, and pro-writer.

We're not anti self-publishing, anti-commercial-publishing, anti-subsidy-publishing, or anti-ANY-kind of publishing, for that matter.

If you feel compelled to copy your novel in teeny-tiny typeface on recipe cards and drop them from a helicopter, there are people here who will help you figure out the best way to do that, and not lose your shirt.

But we're not going to let anyone tell you that doing so improves your chances of being picked up by Random House.

 

[shelleyo]

Thanks for your words too, shelleyo. They make a lot of sense.

To be honest, the whole debate was confusing and had me shook up with concern. But now I understand, I think. It's not nice to promote self-publishing like it doesn't have an impact, or if it does it's only positive, but in reality the author might have unknowingly shot themselves in the foot. Some people can be discovered that way, but that's like being David Boreanaz and becoming an actor after taking your dog for a walk.

To suggest that self-pubishing is the best way to get published by a house based on the experiences of very few is mind-blowingly bad advice. (ETA: She says that in the other thread she started. Here she says it will help your chances of getting published by a house. I think that's about as bad.)

I'd have to see some sort of statistic that shows more people getting an agent/publisher by self-pubishing than those who've been querying agents/pubishers. Those stats just don't exist.

Some people are just too fast to take what works for them or a few other people and extrapolate that out into 'usually.'

*shaking my head, mumbling*

Shelley

 

[Guardian]

Unfortunately, it's easy to see a handful of amazing success stories and assume that it's a norm instead of an exception. The millions of failed attempts don't get the same limelight.

 

[Deleted member 42]

I've been a reviewer and Webmaster for a fairly well-known Web-based review zine since 2003.

We receive hoards of un-readable, truly hideously awful self-published fiction.

We have a clear statement regarding not sending us the books unless you email and we ask you to.

I used to try to read them; after about 150, I quit.

These books were heart-breakingly awful in terms of their prose, the dialog, and the total absence of any understanding of character, story, and the necessity of establishing narrative lust in a reader.

I'm seeing exactly the same kinds of very basic problems with the current self-published books, and yes, even the ones hyping their Amazon sales.

Let me tell you about Amazon sales; my friggin' dissertation was in the top 25 Non-fiction Kindle books for about two days, until I took it off the site (which, let me note, was no easy thing and required the help of an Amazon employee and former colleague). It wasn't up that long--six months? Maybe?

My dissertation is so incredibly boring that my own mother hasn't been able to read it.

Chunks of it aren't even in English.

My number of Kindle downloads? Less than 500. 400-something; I don't remember. But it was free.

And I think it was the "free" that drove the "sales."

Do I think that there's good self-published fiction?

I know there is; I have read some of it. I've got one friend with a self-published serial novel whose work is friggin' brilliant, but he's not really keen on the idea of commercial publishing.

But there's an awful lot of hype and even more smoke-and-mirrors.

Also? I'm amused at the number of people lauding the vast riches to be made in self-publishing ebooks who haven't, you know, actually published anything.

 

[mscelina]

Look, here's the deal in a nutshell--people are responding to the claims of a couple of banned members that there's been a "pogrom" of self-publishing advocates from AW.

Yeah, you read that right--a pogrom.

The fact of the matter is that when someone has an agenda they've sunk their entire career and reputation into, anyone who offers up an opinion that differs from them is instantly and unreasonably WRONG. They don't listen to reason and they don't discuss. They argue, and then they get mad, then they get rude and then they get banned. They direct people back to the thread that was the location of the banning to prove how mean and awful that man Mac is (completely ignorant of the fact that she's not a man) and try up support from among their sympathizing friends. Some of those friends harass writers who were involved the thread via other online means. (Like twitter.Or blogs. Not that I'm complaining; I can handle myself.) Others, braver and not quite as smart, decide to come here and beard the mean old man in her den.

But they're not smart enough to wait to promote their agenda. They jump right into the shark pool, make a few dumb accusations and get booted for being trolls. Now they, too, can claim to have be shut up by the AW admins as victims of the anti-self-publishing pogrom, and so the troll train rolls on.

I think the main and most often-repeated advice on self-publishing (and probably the overall best advice) is this: decide upon your personal expectations and goals, research the market and then determine if self-publishing, e-publishing, or gaining an agent and seeking trade publishing opportunities will best allow you to meet those expectations.

If you want to hold your book in your hot little hands ASAP and don't care about making money on it, self-publish.

If you want to maintain creative control and put in the extreme devotion and hours of dedication needed to market your novel on the off-chance that it will either sell tons of books OR attract the notice of a trade publisher and won't be crushed if you only sell ten copies, then self-publish.

If you don't want to spend any of your own money or lose your writing time to the dreary beastie known as promotion, then consider publishing routes other than self-publishing.

There are writers who've made good, even great money self-publishing, then found representation and ended up with multi-million dollar book deals. Not many, but a few. But they are the rare exception, lower than 1% of all the self-published authors out there--not the rule. And if anyone comes to you waving a banner with a very thinly disguised *Get rich quick! Self-publish!* motto on it, they're not being very truthful with you.

I think self-publishing is absolutely a good option for some writers--niche fiction, non-fiction designed for a very specific target market as two examples, but IN MY OPINION, for the overwhelming majority of fiction writers, self-publishing should be the LAST option and not the FIRST.

And yet, somehow this is anti-self-publishing? Or a double standard? Right.

Anyone can come onto this board and promote their belief that self-publishing is a great option, a wonderful opportunity for new authors and the best way to go with your fiction as a new, unknown writer--as long as they're able to keep their temper when someone disagrees with them and discuss things in a rational manner. But the main rule here is 'respect your fellow writer'--and Mac is a fellow writer and a very awesome lady. And for people who've spent months denigrating anyone who disagreed with their opinions on self-publishing to accuse Mac and AW of having a double standard breaks that rule ten ways to Sunday.

So much for pogroms. Pfffffft.

 

[Deleted member 42]

For those following along at home, a pogrom is the deliberate, targeted, organized practice of genocide.

Usually it refers to the "organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews."

Kristallnacht is a pogrom.

To apply the word pogrom to the banning of two self-centered, self-promoting, deceitful individuals who were exploiting the community while whining and bad-mouthing the mods and the community as a whole, moves well-beyond disingenuous to revolting.

 

[shaldna]

Tell you what, the first SP author to come here with their Pulitzer wins.

 

[mscelina]

For those following along at home, a pogrom is the deliberate, targeted, organized practice of genocide.

Usually it refers to the "organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews."

Kristallnacht is a pogrom.

To apply the word pogrom to the banning of two self-centered, self-promoting, deceitful individuals who were exploiting the community while whining and bad-mouthing the mods and the community as a whole, moves well-beyond disingenuous to revolting.

Precisely. The banned members have blogged about how mistreated they were and are rallying the troops! Time to get those "harridans" at Absolute Write and teach that man Mac a lesson!

BUT, they very carefully did NOT provide them with links that would reflect upon their behavior in numerous other threads throughout their (mercifully) short (but still not short enough) stay at AW. Or provide links to all the helpful threads about self-publishing on AW. OR provide links to the self-published books by AW members in good standing.

And God knows they didn't provide copies of some of the nasty and pretentious private messages they sent during their (short but not short enough) stay.

Nope. That would make THEM look bad instead of like victims, and that wouldn't help their agendas at all.

For people who know how to behave like adults and discuss topics rationally and reasonably, with the ability to listen to differing opinions without feel victimized--AW is one of the top resources on the internet for writers trying to learn the business.

But if you can't take criticism of your opinions, how are you going to handle criticism of your work?

We all get hot under the collar sometimes; that's part of being human. But when you belong to a community that's held together under the aegis of respect, you need to give more respect than you expect to receive. The banned members were disrespectful and then some--and now they're gone.

Okay, my part of the troll derail is done. I'm off to see the latest nasty messages on my blog comments. And delete them. I reserve the right to practice censorship on my own damn blog, thank you very much.

 

[Izz]

As a related aside: i'm a relatively new mod here (got made one in March) and i've self-published fiction, and will likely do so again in the future.

Somehow i escaped the pogrom.

 

[shelleyo]

I'm still in horrified awe that pogrom was ever used to refer to this. I wasn't aware of that until now. Reminds me of Palin's ignorant blood libel remark.

But writers, of all people, should know better.

Izz, I've recently pointed out elsewhere, in a very respectful discussion, that the claims being made that now the voices of self-publishing have been locked out are not true, since there are many, many people who talk about self-publishing here, who post their numbers and are very enthusiastic about it.

And it's all usually discussed with little or no conflict; imagine it!

*slappy hands*

Shelley

 

[shaldna]

Rather tragically the OP of this thread has skipped off the Robin Sullivan's blog to boast about it as if behaving like a child and blatantly trolling another site is something to be proud of.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of professional and experienced people on this site, and many, many of them have self published, so they do know what they are talking about. You might not like what they are saying, you might not agree with it, but they are the facts.

In regards to the whole SP debate, I'm not an SP fan, but that's because it doesn't suit me as an individual, there's too much hard work in it. But if others want to do it, awesome, they should go for it. I'm not going to tell them not to, but I am going to try and equip them with the facts, the real facts, not some pie-in-the-sky fantasy where everyone ends up kindle millionaires.

And, with regards to the theories this OP has put forward, let's remember that they have never SP'd, and their 'it helps you get a publishing contract with a big house' thing is based on things they have heard other people say, so we'll have to forgive her for her ignorance.

Now, while SOME agents and publishers pick up SP'd authors, they are usually people who have sold tens of thousands of copies. Regardless of how good your book might be, only the really big sellers will be noticed because agents and editors don't have the time to be trawling through every single SP'd or independently published book on Amazon. They will look at the top sellers because they have already shown that they are able to sell, and that enough people thought their work was good enough to spend money on.

It's true that SP can help an author, but more often than not it has no real effect either way because the sales are usually too low for anyone to notice.

But people will believe what they want to, regardless of evidence, and if they want to believe that they are going to get rich SPing then that's fine, some people do, and who knows, they might be one of them. But I might win the lottery.