Exactly how smart is it to self-publish? What are to benefits? What are the disadvantages? What exactly do you do when you self-publish? Is it better than the publishing houses? I've heard mixed opinions about self-publishing. I would like to hear what you all have to say about it.
Exactly how smart is it to self-publish?
- Thread starter Jewel101
- Start date
- Status
My opinion is that it is the last resort of a writer who can't get traditionally published. The only good reason I see to use it is if you have a very specific type of book with a target audience and you have a marketing strategy of your own.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 814
- Reaction score
- 182
- Location
- Inside a cursed painting
- Website
- www.harryjconnolly.com
Some books are traditionally and sensibly self-published. If you give seminars and want to sell books at a table in the back, if you have compiled an extensive list of resources for expentant mothers in the Savannah, GA area, if you have written an indepth treatise on a local historical figure, then consider self-publishing. The book you've created may not sell well enough to make it worth a publisher's attention.
If you've written a novel, or a book that ought to have a wide audience, don't bother self-publishing. A self-published book faces lots of obstacles when it competes with professionally published books.
If you've written the type of book you see offered by major publishing houses, you should try to place it with them. If you've written the type of book you see offered by small presses, you should try for the majors and then the small presses. If you've written the type of book you never see offered by anyone, send it to the majors, then small presses, then, once everyone else has given you the ixnay, consider self-publishing.
Huh. Maybe I should delete everything but the third paragraph, but I'm not going to. I'm self-publishing this post, and I don't have to do rewrites! (whoo-hoo!
)
If you've written a novel, or a book that ought to have a wide audience, don't bother self-publishing. A self-published book faces lots of obstacles when it competes with professionally published books.
If you've written the type of book you see offered by major publishing houses, you should try to place it with them. If you've written the type of book you see offered by small presses, you should try for the majors and then the small presses. If you've written the type of book you never see offered by anyone, send it to the majors, then small presses, then, once everyone else has given you the ixnay, consider self-publishing.
Huh. Maybe I should delete everything but the third paragraph, but I'm not going to. I'm self-publishing this post, and I don't have to do rewrites! (whoo-hoo!
)Self-publishing
By and large, self-publishing fiction is a fool's game. You'll hear success stories here and there, but they're so rare you'll be better off playing the lottery. And nearly all successful self-published novels have two things in common: 1. They're very well-written. 2. They were never given a legitimate chance with real publishers.
There is no money at all in it for 99.99999% of all self-published writers. The average self-published novel will sell around 100 copies, mostly to friends and family.
And darned near 100% of self-published novels stick on ice. The world of self-published novels makes what you find in slush piles look like Tolstoy. When you self-publish a novel, even a good one, it's buried under a mountain of other novels so bad it will make your teeth hurt to read the first page. In fact, the world of self-published novels is primarily made up of the sludge left over from slush piles. It's the stuff there at the bottom that no one wanted to touch.
And your competition is all the traditionally published books out there. Your competition is the chain bookstores. Your competition is people who can really write.
You can sell some of anything. Package snail poop, hustle enough, and you'll sell a number of bags. This is the world of the self-published novel. It's all about hustling horribly written novels to people who don't want them and don't need them.
The only people you'll hear mixed opinions from are those who were silly enough to self-publish their own "novels," and those who run the various self-publishing companies.
If yu can actually write well enough to make people want to read your novel, you don't need to self-publish, and no matter what anyone tells you, you will always make far more money with a traditional publisher. You'll also get respect, something no self-published novel I've ever read deserves.
There are no advantages to self-publishing a novel, and anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up a place where you don't want smoke.
Seriously, look around and read some samples of self-published novels. If you can do this without laughing out loud, or losing your lunch, you're a better person than I.
On the other hand, self-publishing can be good for niche nonfiction where the traditional market simply isn't large enough to support the book.
Simply put, if you can actually write, there's no logical reason on earth to seff-publish, and a thousand good reasons not to. And if you can't write, why would you want to self-publish and hustle something that's no good?
Jewel101 said:
By and large, self-publishing fiction is a fool's game. You'll hear success stories here and there, but they're so rare you'll be better off playing the lottery. And nearly all successful self-published novels have two things in common: 1. They're very well-written. 2. They were never given a legitimate chance with real publishers.
There is no money at all in it for 99.99999% of all self-published writers. The average self-published novel will sell around 100 copies, mostly to friends and family.
And darned near 100% of self-published novels stick on ice. The world of self-published novels makes what you find in slush piles look like Tolstoy. When you self-publish a novel, even a good one, it's buried under a mountain of other novels so bad it will make your teeth hurt to read the first page. In fact, the world of self-published novels is primarily made up of the sludge left over from slush piles. It's the stuff there at the bottom that no one wanted to touch.
And your competition is all the traditionally published books out there. Your competition is the chain bookstores. Your competition is people who can really write.
You can sell some of anything. Package snail poop, hustle enough, and you'll sell a number of bags. This is the world of the self-published novel. It's all about hustling horribly written novels to people who don't want them and don't need them.
The only people you'll hear mixed opinions from are those who were silly enough to self-publish their own "novels," and those who run the various self-publishing companies.
If yu can actually write well enough to make people want to read your novel, you don't need to self-publish, and no matter what anyone tells you, you will always make far more money with a traditional publisher. You'll also get respect, something no self-published novel I've ever read deserves.
There are no advantages to self-publishing a novel, and anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing smoke up a place where you don't want smoke.
Seriously, look around and read some samples of self-published novels. If you can do this without laughing out loud, or losing your lunch, you're a better person than I.
On the other hand, self-publishing can be good for niche nonfiction where the traditional market simply isn't large enough to support the book.
Simply put, if you can actually write, there's no logical reason on earth to seff-publish, and a thousand good reasons not to. And if you can't write, why would you want to self-publish and hustle something that's no good?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 570
- Reaction score
- 195
- Location
- Vancouver Island, BC
- Website
- thegaloot.blogspot.com
Change a few words to reflect a particular vanity P(A)ublisher and this entire post would be a good copy and paste candidate for a certain thread I know of.Jamesaritchie said:
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 43,746
- Reaction score
- 8,652
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- www.amazon.com
If you write non-fiction and if you are a guru/expert on something, you might consider self-publishing. You sell books through seminars, conventions, etc. and you keep the profits of your sales.
For fiction writers, it's usually a better idea to find a traditional publisher.
For fiction writers, it's usually a better idea to find a traditional publisher.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 145
what maestrowork and galoot said, and . . .
I WANT MONEY TO COME TO ME!
yes i am selfish, self centered, broke, dying for cig, and in need of a "big break."
seriously though, i've said it before and i'll say it again--paying upfront for a standard market novel is a bad idea. good books will find agents and publishers, just as bad books will find . . . well we know what they find.
I WANT MONEY TO COME TO ME!
yes i am selfish, self centered, broke, dying for cig, and in need of a "big break."
seriously though, i've said it before and i'll say it again--paying upfront for a standard market novel is a bad idea. good books will find agents and publishers, just as bad books will find . . . well we know what they find.
The chief benefit of self-publishing, as opposed to not publishing, is that with self-publishing you have books that people might read, and even like, while if you don't publish you have a book that you alone will read.
Don't self-publish if you can be published traditionally.
(I cannot agree with the fanatical hatred of self-publishing fiction shown by Jamesaritchie, which seems, here and elsewhere, a hysterical reaction.)
Don't self-publish if you can be published traditionally.
(I cannot agree with the fanatical hatred of self-publishing fiction shown by Jamesaritchie, which seems, here and elsewhere, a hysterical reaction.)
Jamesaritchie is on the money!
And what he wrote was filled with the truth and nothing but the whole truth!
Good job.
People, if they learn, learn by example or by failure. I hope the readers of his post learn from it and don't make the mistake of self-publishing.
In the literary world, for the most part, people that self-publish are not thought too highly of. Of course, there are exceptions to every thought...even this post!
I hope everyone here is a winner and gets published. If you write a good story, find the right agent who can get your work in front of the right editor / publisher then they will gladly invest their money in you. Again, when you self-publish it is not thought to highly of. What it says to the world and publishing community is this: No one thought enough of my work to publish it. And believe it or not, it is about money when it comes right down to it--all the way around.
Good wishes to you to find the right agent then publisher! And if you choose to go another route, all good wishes for a HUGE success.
And what he wrote was filled with the truth and nothing but the whole truth!
Good job.
People, if they learn, learn by example or by failure. I hope the readers of his post learn from it and don't make the mistake of self-publishing.
In the literary world, for the most part, people that self-publish are not thought too highly of. Of course, there are exceptions to every thought...even this post!
I hope everyone here is a winner and gets published. If you write a good story, find the right agent who can get your work in front of the right editor / publisher then they will gladly invest their money in you. Again, when you self-publish it is not thought to highly of. What it says to the world and publishing community is this: No one thought enough of my work to publish it. And believe it or not, it is about money when it comes right down to it--all the way around.
Good wishes to you to find the right agent then publisher! And if you choose to go another route, all good wishes for a HUGE success.
Daughter of Faulkner said:
A few points (note that I haven't self-published and don't have plans to at this time):
1. If someone can't find a publisher, it might be because the publishing community doesn't think their work is marketable. It may have nothing to do with the quality of the writing or the story being told. You said it yourself - it's all about money.
1a. It may also be because the author can't write a decent query letter. It's often said that a publishable (and marketable) manuscript will find a home. I believe that was probably true when full manuscripts could be sent to any editor, but these days I'm not entirely convinced.
2. For some authors, money isn't the primary motivation for publishing their work.
3. For some authors, earning respect from the publishing community isn't the primary motivation for publishing their work.
4. Yes, a lot of self-published novels are dreck. Traditional publishers also publish dreck.
5. I don't get the over the top reactions to self-publishing. I agree that authors should try to go the traditional route first, but if someone chooses to self-publish with their eyes open, what's the big deal?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 570
- Reaction score
- 195
- Location
- Vancouver Island, BC
- Website
- thegaloot.blogspot.com
Heh.
Hey James, you're an over-the-top fanatic filled with hate! When did that happen?
There's an easier way to make a buck than by juggling chainsaws. Some people manage it, but only a very few. Saying so isn't hateful or fanatical, it's just the way it is.
Hey James, you're an over-the-top fanatic filled with hate! When did that happen?
There's an easier way to make a buck than by juggling chainsaws. Some people manage it, but only a very few. Saying so isn't hateful or fanatical, it's just the way it is.
brinkett said:
Compared to standard publishers, a vastly larger proportion of what you find via self-publishing is dreck. I can count on the fingers of one hand how many times I've bought something from a standard house that has turned out to be poorly edited.
A browse through a self-pub ebook archive shows that there's a sea of dreck out there -- someone might have a great novel buried in there, but the vast majority of readers will never find it.
So, sure, if it's a market with a limited work, self-publishing might be the way to go. If you want people who're more than once or twice removed from your sales pitch to purchase it, probably not.
Ps. Galoot! I hate it when I go to dinner and come back to finish a post and someone's said what I wanted to say only pithier and better. I need a cookie now.
It's only a big deal if
if you want to be a published author--book, novel, whatever in hand and before the world. And being a successful money-making author is what you do with your life, gifts, talents, give back or to the world and so forth. That's all.
That's the great fortune about being a writer is that: You can do anything with your life that your heart desires.
All good wishes I send your way!
if you want to be a published author--book, novel, whatever in hand and before the world. And being a successful money-making author is what you do with your life, gifts, talents, give back or to the world and so forth. That's all.
That's the great fortune about being a writer is that: You can do anything with your life that your heart desires.
All good wishes I send your way!
Yes, but the attitude seems to be that by default, a traditionally published novel is good and a self-published novel is bad. But really, you have to judge each book individually. I agree that the odds of finding a book that's not well written are greater if you surf a self-pub archive than go to a bookstore, but I don't know what that has to do with the question "is self-publishing a viable option?"soloset said:
You can say the same thing in different ways.Galoot said:
Let's just say some ways of saying things are grander than others. When a reasonable question is asked, I'm more likely to listen to (and take seriously) responses that don't unnecessarily put down the work of others, but that could just be me.
Variety is the spice of life. See, I like James Ritchie's style, he tells it like it is, doesn't candy coat his words, and I'd rather hear the truth anyday than be coddled to. But that's just me. And I went back and read his post and saw nothing that was insulting, only honest. We all look at the world through different lenses, and I still call that grand.
Me too. But you can tell the truth without putting down others. I don't buy the "but I'm only being honest" excuse for being mean.wurdwise said:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,173
- Reaction score
- 156
- Location
- In a state of psychosis
- Website
- www.bethamos.com
As others have mentioned, if you have a nonfiction work you want to self publish that has a built-in audience then it might well be a viable option. For fiction it's not likely to be viable at all. I have a mystery novel I wrote that I decided to self-publish so I could see what was involved. I went at it in a very business like manner and spent a lot of time exploring the options, comparing methods, and weighing the pros and cons. I developed a business plan, a budget, and a marketing plan. I was a multi-published novelist (by one of the NYC big guys) going into this venture, so it's somewhat safe to assume that my writing is halfway decent and I also had a bit of a built-in audience since my other books all sold between 60,000 and 100,000 copies.
I detailed my experiences, including my plans, budget, market analysis, and actual results, and have shared them in an ongoing column in my bimonthly newsletter. (I am also organizing it all into book form and may very well consider self publishing it -- it stands a better chance of selling, I think, than my fiction.) Anyone who is interested can sign up for the newsletter at my web site (it's free and you can drop it at any time) and access back issues. Bottom line, self publishing is a tough row to hoe and the likelihood of selling anything more than 50 - 100 books total is pretty slim.
Beth
I detailed my experiences, including my plans, budget, market analysis, and actual results, and have shared them in an ongoing column in my bimonthly newsletter. (I am also organizing it all into book form and may very well consider self publishing it -- it stands a better chance of selling, I think, than my fiction.) Anyone who is interested can sign up for the newsletter at my web site (it's free and you can drop it at any time) and access back issues. Bottom line, self publishing is a tough row to hoe and the likelihood of selling anything more than 50 - 100 books total is pretty slim.
Beth
brinkett said:
Brinkett, you are the only one who seems to think he was being mean! I don't know why you making a big stink out of this, for one, you haven't self published, and two, the person who started this thread wanted people's opinions, they didn't say, "I have already self published, now tell me how foolish i was." James gave her the unvarnished truth, but WHO is was he being mean to? You are a party of one in this thread, and this is the last I have to say on the subject, grow thicker skin and stop taking something personal that has nothing to do with you. James is an invaluable asset to this board, so stop doggin him, it's beginning to get on my nerves. YOu can have the last word, by the way.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
Self-publishing might possibly make sense if you've written:
a) poetry
b) specialized non-fiction
c) niche fiction
Otherwise it probably doesn't.
If you've written a book where you will either know all of your potential readers by name, or reasonably expect to be looking them in the eye when money changes hands, then self-publishing is probably your only choice.
a) poetry
b) specialized non-fiction
c) niche fiction
Otherwise it probably doesn't.
If you've written a book where you will either know all of your potential readers by name, or reasonably expect to be looking them in the eye when money changes hands, then self-publishing is probably your only choice.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 814
- Reaction score
- 182
- Location
- Inside a cursed painting
- Website
- www.harryjconnolly.com
brinkett said:
It's the central point in the self-publishing question.
Not every reader has the time or inclination to judge each book individually. If there's a way to quickly winnow out products they are not likely to want, they'll take it.
Most self-published fiction is slush pile stuff, and I'm not going to search through the dross for Jewel's jewel. I have better things to do with my time. Sure, some professionally published fiction sucks, but I'm much more likely to find what I want in the professional books.
If you self-publish fiction, even if your work is good, it will be mixed in with a lot of self-published crapola. It's pretty rare for that stuff to be discovered by the reading public at large.
Me, I'm in this for the readership.
I doubt it.wurdwise said:
Read the thread again. Even if I am the only one holding the opinion, does that mean I shouldn't express it?
I didn't take it personally. I don't see any posts where I came across as emotionally distressed by the whole thing. All I said was that I think an honest answer could have been given in a kinder fashion.
I agree, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he says and the way he says it.
I don't think I was dogging him. Demanding that someone stop posting an opinion because it's getting on your nerves is a little unreasonable, I think.
Thanks. I agree that it should be dropped at this point.
That's true. The good stuff would get lost in all the noise. But as Vomaxx said, if for some reason a person does have a decently written novel on their hands, but traditional publishers won't touch it because it's not marketable or their lists are full or whatever, then it might be better to self-publish than to have it sit in a drawer where it's guaranteed that nobody will ever read it. Like everyone in the thread, I agree that self-publishing fiction should only be considered when the traditional route has failed.HConn said:
brinkett said:
As I quoted in my post, I was mainly responding to your earlier point #4, "Yes, a lot of self-published novels are dreck. Traditional publishers also publish dreck."
It applies in that it's not very smart to publish via self-publishing if your work is going to be buried among thousands upon thousands of other works that are largely crap.
A lot of the other points made in this thread are also good ones to consider, but that's the main one I was discussing.
- Status