Publishing and Creative Control

Old Hack said:

If you feel those changes aren't appropriate then you shouldn't sign the contract. You could look elsewhere, or choose not to publish, or choose to self publish. But not one of these options demands that a writer should make changes to their books that they're not happy with.

Click to expand...

I think you draw too broad an argument here.

If we're talking about creative control of a book within trade publishing, then not publishing or self publishing are not part of the argument. They are the alternative. Only looking for another trade publisher who makes fewer or more palatable demands is part of the argument. And it's entirely possible you've already found the best or only trade publishing opportunity. Thus, to remain within the system you must relinquish more control than you prefer.

Of course, publishers have every right to only publish books they love or believe can make money from.

But I don't think you can tell self-publishers they don't lose creative control within trade publishing because they can always self-publish if they don't like the cover, title, changes, whathaveyou, that trade publishing may (at times) demand of a particular book to remain within the system.

(Please note that I don't dispute that every one of these requirements from the publisher could be in the author's best interest. It's just about where the creative control is while the book stays in the system.)

Does that make sense?

I'm not all that worried about cover decisions for the most part. But I have a 10-year plan for what books I want to write (should I succeed in the business), and one of them will feature a black protagonist.

So in that case, if it's still an problem in the industry, I would feel very strongly about not ending up with a white-washed cover. Can you negotiate that kind of thing in your contract?

Old Hack said:

I've seen how much work it takes to just edit one book properly, and am overwhelmed by the idea of doing that while also doing all the other publishing stuff too ...

Click to expand...

For the past 30+ years I’ve designed and typeset books for publishers in New York and London (HarperCollins, Random House, and St. Martin’s Press, among others). Part of my work has involved full-service book production (fiction as well as financial and medical textbooks) which means I’ve worked closely with authors, developmental editors, copy editors, proofreaders, indexers, and illustrators … so I understand this process very well. I’m also trade published in women’s fiction and MG fiction, so I understand that process a little bit, too.

In other words, I have a reasonable chunk of experience in the world of book publishing. Two years ago I drew on all that experience by self-publishing my new series of horse books for children that seems to be doing quite well for itself — currently topping the charts in Amazon’s horse books for kids and earning me a healthy paycheck every month.

Even with all that background, I still spent six months researching ebook formatting and how to produce squeaky-clean files that would pass validation, before I uploaded the first book.

But what staggers me are the authors with no previous experience in writing or publishing who plunge into the DIY world, then jump into online forums looking for help because things haven’t worked out quite the way they hoped.

Book publishing is a wonderful and quirky business. It's hard enough for people with experience to fully understand it. For newcomers, it must be totally baffling.

It's important to define what each person means by "creative control."

Generally, when I see that used, it seems to encompass EVERYTHING. The author wants to design the cover (or choose exactly what goes on it), do the formatting (or choose the various options for typeface, etc.), write the cover copy or marketing description, choose the SEO terms, plan the marketing (or lack thereof), execute the marketing, and whatever else you can think of. The impression that's given is that to give up total and absolute say over ANY of these elements is going to violate the author's integrity.

In that case, I think it's just a silly reason for wanting to self-publish, since it's very unlikely that the author has a clue what a good cover, formatting, marketing, etc. is. Or at least unlikely that the author has a clue (and skill) in ALL of those categories, and they seem worried that giving up even one, where they're admittedly either clueless or incompetent, is unacceptable.

There's a middle ground, of course, where an author has control over sub-contractors. The author hires a cover artist and editor and formatter and marketer and business planner, etc. Yes, the author has "control" over the outcome, making the final decision. But even then, it's not as clear-cut as it might seem at first. For one thing, if the author doesn't actually know what an effective cover is, having control over that decision is just as likely to hurt the author's career as help it. (Sure, the author then can take full responsibility for the failure, without sharing it, but that's sort of cutting off the book's nose to spit its face, since, if the author ceded some control to someone with actual expertise, the book might have succeeded.) And why pay big bucks (or even not-so-big bucks) for an expert and then completely reject the expertise? Plus, I'm not sure how that scenario is terribly different from trade publishing, where the author generally has input into the cover, editing, back-cover copy, marketing, etc., just not the FINAL say, which is ceded to someone who's got actual expertise in the field. Sure, it depends where an author is in the ranks of other authors (bestselling, midlist or debut), how much of a say they'll have in the various elements, but it's wrong to suggest that it's all or nothing, or that "control" is necessarily a good thing, when the matter is something the controller knows nothing about.

Finally, I think the decision to not submit to a publisher that doesn't publish the author's stories is just not part of the "control" discussion, and it muddies the water. In that situation, the choice between trade and self is no different from the choice between submitting to trade publisher A or trade publisher B, based on their market. EVERY author has that control. If I'm writing cozy mysteries, I control the choice of where to submit. My stories aren't going to fit any of Harlequin's lines (I don't think they do cozy mysteries), for obvious reasons, just as they aren't going to fit any of a sf/f publisher's lines. That type of control is different from deciding, "Publisher A does a heck of a great job with cozy mysteries, but I'm afraid I won't have exactly the cover I envisioned on my book, so I'm going to self-publish instead." Or "Publisher B does a heck of a great job with cozy mysteries, but they won't let me have final say on the cover copy [and/or other elements], so I'm going to self-publish instead."

I guess I just don't get the passion with which some authors cling to the idea of controlling things that they really don't have any expertise in. It's particularly confounding when the person is someone brand new to the industry, who doesn't have ANY information about the process at all, and yet is determined to do what takes a dozen or more people to carry off in a trade setting.

Just as an example, we see lots of query letters in QLH, many of which are actually more like cover copy, and authors CONSTANTLY say that it was far easier to write the 400-page manuscript than to write the one-page query or cover copy. It's definitely not easy to write cover copy, and it's a specialized art, I think. I know I'm abysmal at it, and would be THRILLED to hand over the responsibility to someone else! I just don't get why the chance to do something I suck at is somehow a bonus.

Ultimately, I think it may come down to a personality thing. Some people have more control issues than others. I do like to control things, but I'm comfortable letting go of the stuff that I'm miserable doing or that I suck at. I'm guessing that the flip side of that personality is someone who likes control AND enjoys the challenge of learning to do the things they suck at.

And now I'm rambling.

TL;DR: whenever anyone says "I want control, therefore I self-publish," I really wish they'd say WHAT, exactly, they're planning to control, and what their bona fides are for being able to control it.

GinJones said:

The impression that's given is that to give up total and absolute say over ANY of these elements is going to violate the author's integrity.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. No one in this thread has suggested it's a question of integrity, or that trade publishing compromises integrity. It's a matter of choice.

In that case, I think it's just a silly reason for wanting to self-publish, since it's very unlikely that the author has a clue what a good cover, formatting, marketing, etc. is. Or at least unlikely that the author has a clue (and skill) in ALL of those categories, and they seem worried that giving up even one, where they're admittedly either clueless or incompetent, is unacceptable.

Click to expand...

I honestly think you're setting up a straw man here. None of the selfpublishers in this thread (or indeed, any that I've seen in the forum) claim to be experts in all these areas.

There's a middle ground, of course, where an author has control over sub-contractors.

Click to expand...

Right.

Sure, the author then can take full responsibility for the failure, without sharing it, but that's sort of cutting off the book's nose to spit its face, since, if the author ceded some control to someone with actual expertise, the book might have succeeded.

Click to expand...

No, that's exactly the point. You take control, you take responsibility, you take risks, you take the rewards. That's what entrepreneurs do. It's not for everyone and it doesn't always (often?) pay off.

Finally, I think the decision to not submit to a publisher that doesn't publish the author's stories is just not part of the "control" discussion, and it muddies the water. In that situation, the choice between trade and self is no different from the choice between submitting to trade publisher A or trade publisher B, based on their market. EVERY author has that control.

Click to expand...

Of course every author has control over where they submit. But having the freedom to publish the story that doesn't fit any publisher's requirements is huge. Actually, I think creative freedom, rather than creative control, is the main draw for me.

I really wish they'd say WHAT, exactly, they're planning to control, and what their bona fides are for being able to control it.

Click to expand...

They don't need to provide any bona fides to you. Why should they? Self-publishers' work, like any publisher's output, stands on the merits of the finished product. The readers can judge that.

Old Hack said:

A writer signs with a publisher, knowing what changes they want to make to her book. She agrees that the changes will improve her book, and she's happy to make those changes.

A writer receives an offer of publication, but in order to accept that offer she'd have to make changes to her book which she's not happy with. She has the choice of accepting the offer, knowing she'll have to make those changes, or refusing the offer and hoping to find a different publisher for that book.

How is any control relinquished here? The author controls whether she accepts the publisher's offer or not; the author controls whose editing she accepts or rejects.

Are we talking at cross purposes, do you think? I am genuinely confused now.

Click to expand...

Maybe. I think it may be a question of personality. What feels like giving up control to one person doesn't necessarily feel that way to someone else. To me, in the scenarios you describe, the author is choosing whether or not to relinquish some control to her publisher and editor. To you, the author is in complete control. I agree that no one is compelling the author to do anything against her wishes, but I still think that one of the options on the table involves ceding some control.

GinJones said:

I guess I just don't get the passion with which some authors cling to the idea of controlling things that they really don't have any expertise in. It's particularly confounding when the person is someone brand new to the industry, who doesn't have ANY information about the process at all, and yet is determined to do what takes a dozen or more people to carry off in a trade setting.

Click to expand...

It's exciting. Some people hit the ground running. There's a wealth of information on the internet. Things move at a fast pace.

There are many reasons why self-publishers like doing what they do.

There's also a big community of people who share information. Expertise is shared around pretty quickly and efficiently.

I enjoy laying out books and creating covers, though I doubt I'd self-publish for that reason alone. I see the biggest area of creative control as selection. Some stories won't get a trade publishing acceptance because they don't classify neatly, or they're not hitting expectations for that genre or the publisher just doesn't think there's a market. Self-publishers have more room to take creative risks, because if it doesn't work out, it's not that big a deal.

New Adult is a good example of where it worked out. Trade publishers couldn't afford the risk of setting up a new category. Self-publishers could take that chance.

Not that I think anything I'm doing will be New-Adult successful, but I like the freedom to experiment with formats and stories that don't fit. Anything that is more trade-publishery will go that route first, because I don't think they're going to stomp on my vision... it's more that I recognise some of what I write doesn't fit their vision of what they want to accept.

Trade publishers couldn't afford the risk of setting up a new category. Self-publishers could take that chance.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but to me this is more of the self publishing kool-aid I keep hearing about. It sounds great but the realities are far different... Why?

A self publisher can create all the categories they wish, but where will the distributor and seller stock the books. Even on Amazon, if I want to search for a SF ebook, I search that category. Amazon is not going to create a new category for a handful of books and the bookstores sure are not going to create a shelf for a new category with no more than a handful of books...

thothguard51 said:

I know what you mean, but to me this is more of the self publishing kool-aid I keep hearing about. It sounds great but the realities are far different... Why?

Click to expand...

And yet, it happened. One person can't make it happen, exactly, although one book which has breakout success might. Then others follow and suddenly you've got a new genre and B&N are re-labelling their shelves in stores. You can't plan for that, but on the other hand, it won't happen until someone (self publisher or trade) tries.

It is far easier for the trade publishers because they have sale reps talking to the book chain reps. Once the book chains buy into a new genre, the e-sellers will follow.

I am not saying it can not happen. Look at fanfic for example. While bookstore don't have a shelf for fanfic, there are lots of websites and now Amazon is onboard with Kindle Worlds. Not sure how well that is going to go over, but it is a start.

A writer signs with a publisher, knowing what changes they want to make to her book. She agrees that the changes will improve her book, and she's happy to make those changes.

A writer receives an offer of publication, but in order to accept that offer she'd have to make changes to her book which she's not happy with. She has the choice of accepting the offer, knowing she'll have to make those changes, or refusing the offer and hoping to find a different publisher for that book.

Click to expand...

Can it really be that clear-cut a choice at the moment of signing, though? Do trade publishers have a complete critique and requested edits to hand over right then? And how does the scenario work with nonfiction books, which are often sold on proposal and not with a finished MS in hand?

thothguard51 said:

It is far easier for the trade publishers because they have sale reps talking to the book chain reps. Once the book chains buy into a new genre, the e-sellers will follow.

Click to expand...

It's easier for a trade publisher, but the risks are higher. Books centred around college-aged protagonists were an unproven market with an uncertain audience. When you're running a company and you have to pay people's wages, you're going to want to know there's a market before you throw that sort of money at it.

It's harder for self-publishers to write in an area that isn't established, but if it fails, they've not really lost anything. So there aren't as many barriers for giving it a go.

For New Adult, it worked out, because there were several authors and an audience who'd been looking for those books. Those books sold and trade publishers are now taking an interest, because the market is proven. That's not living in a self-publishing dreamland... it's what's ended up happening in that case. Any authors who had relevant books have been able to ride that wave.

Like I said, I doubt anything I write will have that sort of success. But I don't have to pay my staff or office rent, so all I lose is a bit of time. Harper Collins can't be as casual about that (and we wouldn't want them to be, as people's jobs are on the line). They're different business models with different strengths and weaknesses. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge that, because if we do, we can see how they can work together.

Full control, creative control...for me self publishing is all about less stress. I am more creative and productive when I'm under less stress.

I write romance shorts and novellas, my longest book is 40k. I may write longer someday, who knows, but I've published since 2004, all shorts and novellas.

Knocking around the romance epub community I've made online friends and colleagues over the years--other writers, artists, beta readers, editors. Most of my circle of writer types are now involved in self publishing, many are hybrids with books with publishers, too. I'm a hybrid myself but at this point all my future plans are for self pub. I even have editors scheduled for October and March. My job is to get the stories written and to the editor on time--then publish.

I do see my writing in two ways--the creative process and the writing business.

The creative process is unchanged (except that less stress helps me focus).

The business of writing has changed a lot. For me it is easier and funner to self pub. No crazy publisher exploding all over the place, no bankruptcy holding my contract(I was with Triskelion), no missing checks in the mail.

Also, the money is much better. That is a big motivator.

I chose to self-publish because I wanted to choose when my hero and heroine were going to meet. It doesn't always happen in the first, second or third chapter (or whatever "formula" a romance novel is supposed to use). Setting the price was important to me, and being able to change that price whenever I wanted for whatever reason I wanted (promotion, sale, loss leader for the second and third books in a trilogy, etc.). I love cover design and never dread designing one. I can spend hours choosing one image just because I find the process fascinating. I also wanted to choose where my books would be available (online retailers, I had no vision of seeing my book on a bookstore shelf if I self-published). I also felt it was important not to "create" a publisher name to make my book look less self-published. I don't apologize for self-publishing. I enjoy the process and the "work" of it. Some things I'm better at than others and I acknowledge that right up front. The concept of taking an idea that's running around in my head and creating something in physical form (that I can hold and touch and smell) completely from start to finish is amazing. When I first began self-publishing, I quite literally made my own books (bought the paper, designed the cover, printed the cover on special paper and coated it with a sealer, learned how to bind the books myself and bought ISBNs). It was pretty awesome, but there were practically zero sales. I am not as skilled at marketing and promotion and that was where that dream ended. I also had a negative experience with a faux publisher. Paid $99 to get out of that horrific deal. It wasn't until my mom wanted an iPad when she went into a care center that I began learning about e-books and realized how much I enjoyed reading books with the Kindle app. I was hooked. Then I discovered self-publishing via e-books and decided to learn more about it.

I was completely naive about the publishing industry when I found AW. I still have a ton to learn. The one thing I enjoy doing most is writing, but the second, third, fourth, etc. are all things related to self-publishing.

This is a general comment that goes back to the original post and some of the comments that have followed. Saying an author surrenders control to a trade publisher is on the same level as saying outlining stifles creativity. It can happen in some instances, but as generalities, they are both total crap. I'll admit that with the number of small publishers around, there are many levels of quality in editing and book construction, and many levels of experience in the critical areas of author-editor interactions. And some of these interactions are horrible for their authors. But based on what I've been able to determine, these are not sufficiently common to warrant the generality of control surrender.

I have had experience with three publishers, and in all of the editing interactions, I have not had a single editorial suggestions that changed even subtle aspects of my stories, the tone of the stories, or my voice within those stories. All of the changes came as suggestions with a request for my response (with the right of refusal), and they were all forwarded to increase the clarity and effectiveness of the highlighted passages. With artwork from all three publishers, I was asked for initial input, and for subsequent input throughout the process of cover design. Nothing was forced on me, nor did I feel any decisions were made without my comment and approval.

Old Hack has a good point about the importance of research before signing with a publisher. And I'll reiterate that with so many small publishers, there is a huge range of quality and professionalism in running their publishing businesses. So every author has a personal responsibility to thoroughly research each publisher before submitting. But if an author signs with a publisher who does not live up to the spirit of collaborative editing and production, that shouldn't be extrapolated to trade publishing in general.

NeuroFizz said:

This is a general comment that goes back to the original post and some of the comments that have followed. Saying an author surrenders control to a trade publisher is on the same level as saying outlining stifles creativity. It can happen in some instances, but as generalities, they are both total crap.

Click to expand...

No, they are both matters related to personal opinion and creative practice. Outlining may not stifle your creativity but you don't get to tell me that it doesn't stifle mine. You may not feel that you have ceded any control to your publisher, but that does not change the fact that I feel I have.

I wonder if some of the problem is that 'control' is being defined in all or nothing terms by some posters. Either you have complete control, or you surrender it entirely. For me, it's on a spectrum. There are very few things in life I can control completely, and likewise not many over which I have no influence at all. I think that, when I agree to work with a publisher, I agree to move to a different point on that spectrum than I do when I decide to self-publish.

cornflake said:

Hold up - a writer would pay (handsomely, in many cases), for an editor who wasn't published because being published has nothing to do with being a good, decent or even competent editor.

Being able to write does not in any way convey the ability to edit, the same as being able to edit does not convey the ability to write. Some people do both well. Some people do one or the other. Many professional editors I've known don't write, had no aspirations to write, are not examples of 'those who can't do...' because they never intended to. I also know excellent writers who don't edit, because it's not within their skill set - it's a specific thing. I know people who do both well.

Judging an editor's ability or potential by his or her credits is a dire error, imo.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I said, and certainly didn't mean, that editors need to be writers. That would be silly. I've had many editors, and known many more, and almost none of them were writers. I was referring to writers who represent themselves as freelance editors but don't have the creds to back it up, which IMO would be either having published their own work with major houses, or having seen their clients' work sell---preferably both.

girlyswot said:

Yes, and I think that is one aspect of creative control - or creative freedom - which is inherent to the self-publishing process. It entails the freedom to publish the book you want to write, without having to fit within genre boundaries or publishers' guidelines or market trends or whatever else determines whether a publisher will acquire your book, however brilliantly written it is.

My point was simply that in my specific genre, there are very limited options with respect to other publishers.

Click to expand...

If a book is as brilliantly written as you posit, publishers will buy it first and figure out how to define it later. Take Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series for example. By rights she should have had a hell of a time selling the first book. It was way too long, and worse yet it combined genres: time-travel, historical, and romance. On paper that book was a non-starter. In fact the series was snatched up and has now sold some 20 million copies around the world.

There's no rule or standard that can't be broken, if you break it with sufficient talent and panache!

heza said:

I'm not all that worried about cover decisions for the most part. But I have a 10-year plan for what books I want to write (should I succeed in the business), and one of them will feature a black protagonist.

So in that case, if it's still an problem in the industry, I would feel very strongly about not ending up with a white-washed cover. Can you negotiate that kind of thing in your contract?

Click to expand...

You can if you insist on it and are willing to go the distance. I once walked away from a major publisher when my editor suggested changing the MC's race. I ended up selling the book to Morrow, and optioning it to a major studio...but I didn't know that would happen when I turned my old house down. Race is still a tricky subject in publishing.

evilrooster said:

I think it's important to be careful here. I know a number of editors who work in trade publishing, and few or none of them ever harbored ambitions to be writers. They get rather irritated at the "editors are failed writers" meme, much I do when people tell me that QA is where failed software developers go (and for the same reason).

This is not to say that there aren't people who are only editing because their writing hasn't worked out. And that's not a very good reason to get into editing. But there may also be, among that population, people who found editing as one finds one's true love, or one's calling.

Click to expand...

Never said or implied that editors are failed writers! Good Lord. All I said is that if you do hire a writer as an editor, make sure they have serious credits.

Parametric said:

I run a business as my day job, so I already handle everything myself from finding clients to filing my own tax returns. Self-publishing is no different for me. I do everything I can myself and hire a professional for the rest.



I'm by no means a self-publishing evangelist and fully understand that most trade publishers are run by hard-working people with good intentions, but I've heard a number of alarming stories from friends published by trade publishers. I can't really go into details in a public forum (which isn't very helpful for this discussion, I know!) but it makes me quite wary. But equally, self-publishing is full of dangers.

Click to expand...

I know plenty of stories, too, and have been through and seen some heartbreaking stuff. Writing is a tough profession, whether you publish or self-publish.

MaggieDana said:

For the past 30+ years I’ve designed and typeset books for publishers in New York and London (HarperCollins, Random House, and St. Martin’s Press, among others). Part of my work has involved full-service book production (fiction as well as financial and medical textbooks) which means I’ve worked closely with authors, developmental editors, copy editors, proofreaders, indexers, and illustrators … so I understand this process very well. I’m also trade published in women’s fiction and MG fiction, so I understand that process a little bit, too.

In other words, I have a reasonable chunk of experience in the world of book publishing. Two years ago I drew on all that experience by self-publishing my new series of horse books for children that seems to be doing quite well for itself — currently topping the charts in Amazon’s horse books for kids and earning me a healthy paycheck every month.

Even with all that background, I still spent six months researching ebook formatting and how to produce squeaky-clean files that would pass validation, before I uploaded the first book.

But what staggers me are the authors with no previous experience in writing or publishing who plunge into the DIY world, then jump into online forums looking for help because things haven’t worked out quite the way they hoped.

Book publishing is a wonderful and quirky business. It's hard enough for people with experience to fully understand it. For newcomers, it must be totally baffling.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear.

GinJones said:

I guess I just don't get the passion with which some authors cling to the idea of controlling things that they really don't have any expertise in. It's particularly confounding when the person is someone brand new to the industry, who doesn't have ANY information about the process at all, and yet is determined to do what takes a dozen or more people to carry off in a trade setting. .

Click to expand...

Wholeheartedly agree with this. But sometimes the decision is made because the writer has tried unsuccessfully to sell the book, and it comes down to a choice between self-publishing and sticking the ms. in a drawer. In that case, I think it's reasonable to self-publish, keep the costs low, and have something real and lasting for friends and family to read. What's not reasonable is expecting strangers to flock to the book, or getting pissed if they don't.

girlyswot said:

No, they are both matters related to personal opinion and creative practice. Outlining may not stifle your creativity but you don't get to tell me that it doesn't stifle mine. You may not feel that you have ceded any control to your publisher, but that does not change the fact that I feel I have.

Click to expand...

That's why my quote you included in your post had the phrase "It can happen in some instances." For some people they apply, but they can't be drawn from those personal experiences into generalities. And unless you have tried more than just one or two traditional publishers, you can't extrapolate your experiences to the publishing world in general.

Old Hack said:

I'm always interested in hearing from people who want full control over the publishing of their books.

Click to expand...

I'd prefer that the publisher take control. I am very good at writing. They are very good at publishing (or else I wouldn't be publishing with them). Why would I want to take away the best options our team has of getting my book sold?

I don't walk in with a preconceived vision of my work. While I'll invoke control over the words and phrases when appropriate, that's my skill I bring to the table and that I'm getting paid for. The rest of the publishing process some other, hopefully as skillful, person is getting paid for and rightfully has their control.

It's a business. Not an art form.

Jeff

NeuroFizz said:

For some people they apply, but they can't be drawn from those personal experiences into generalities. And unless you have tried more than just one or two traditional publishers, you can't extrapolate your experiences to the publishing world in general.

Click to expand...

This is what really baffles me.

Considering many uninformed self-published authors hear about the trade industry horror stories, believing they are the rule, not the exception, or don't think to ask the questions of what publisher it is that has produced such a horror? It's hard to make any kind of decision about whether that that is a rule or an exception for that specific publisher because it doesn't hold true across the board to all trade publishers.

So while I can appreciate that many people don't want to name names, I think it is very hard to have any kind of meaningful conversation about the responsibilities of self-publishing and what kind of control is retained or given up when those very same nebulous horror stories are propagated with no substantiation at all. It's all just hearsay.

And very much like the telephone game, getting more exaggerated as the story gets passed along.

The self-publishers here at AW have very specific reasons as to why they feel they have complete control over their work, what they're saying implicitly is that they at least have an understanding of the differences offered between trade publishing and self-publishing.

So while this is a useful conversation to have, I feel it leaves out the biggest segment of self-publishers, and that's the ones who are buying the song-and-dance of people who are in the business of selling their self-publishing agenda. They leap in wholeheartedly, parrot back what these 'gurus' are saying, mouthing all the words with no idea of what it actually means or any experience themselves to base it on.

'But it all sounds really good!'

Barbara R. said:

Wholeheartedly agree with this. But sometimes the decision is made because the writer has tried unsuccessfully to sell the book, and it comes down to a choice between self-publishing and sticking the ms. in a drawer. In that case, I think it's reasonable to self-publish, keep the costs low, and have something real and lasting for friends and family to read. What's not reasonable is expecting strangers to flock to the book, or getting pissed if they don't.

Click to expand...

I kind of agree with this, but only in part. I don't think a person should self-publish because they were rejected. The part you quoted was about authors who don't know what they're doing, and oftentimes the people who haven't done enough research aren't querying correctly or well. Sometimes when a person has 100 rejections and not a single request it's just because they didn't send a proper query, and doing more research and learning will teach them to do it correctly, and then the book will sell.

And I honestly believe that some books just aren't meant to be out there. The vast majority of books are rejected because the writing just isn't good enough yet. And it's not usually even close. A lot of books being submitted have incomprehensible grammar, or writing that is too purple to be easily followed, and so on.

I think a writer who gets a lot of rejections should first check their query, then check their book, and then get some objective third parties to look it over, and any writing errors should be addressed before an author even considers self-publishing.

Even books that have been unpublished later can still show up in different places (especially print), and aside from negative reviews from a low quality book possibly affecting readers later on, I think about the fact that I would be incredibly embarrassed now to think of my first book having been published. A lot of people who aren't very good don't realize yet that they aren't very good, and I just imagine that some people would, after more experience and knowledge, look back on those books and wish they'd left them in a drawer.

Because really, a drawer isn't a bad thing. It doesn't make anyone a failure as an author. Most books in drawers were practice novels, and while we might have loved them and cherished them and thought the world of them at the time, most of us realize as we improve that those books we loved and cherished just weren't worth asking someone to spend money on yet. And that's okay.