Amazon ABNA made it look like I self-published my novel, but I didn't...

flickharrison · Nov 5, 2013

So here's my problem - I'm wondering about any advice folks have.

I submitted my novel to the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award contest a few years back. I also set up a self-publishing project on CreateSpace but never published it - it's been sitting there just so I could print a couple proofs for fun, test out the site etc.

Somewhere in there, the Internets have decided that my novel has been self-published and it is now listed in B&N, Google Books, and a few other places. I won't link them here in case it increases their google mojo.

None of these places are trying to sell it on me, but I'm afraid that publishers considering my query might google the title and think I've self-published, which would put me on the wrong side of their submission rules and also make me look like an unprofessional dope. I've spent so much time sending out queries and waiting for responses, I'd hate to think every single one of them has been trashed unread due to this.

I actually did a test where I changed some of the text in my Createspace project (to say "This novel is not published, it has been indexed on the web by accident") and it soon showed up in updated listings. So even after I told Amazon that their system was letting info about unpublished projects onto the internet, it was still happening.

But there are still a few places listing the original text. SO even my makeshift solution has been stymied.

Halp!

Old Hack · Nov 5, 2013

A quick Google of your title brought up an ISBN associated with your title. If you didn't publish it, how has it acquired an ISBN?

With Lulu.com there's an option you can take which allows you to keep your book private, so that it isn't published.

With CreateSpace, I don't think there is.

I suspect that you did publish it, but didn't realise what you'd done.

However, if your book hasn't sold any copies and isn't really available for sale I think you're worrying about nothing. If and when you get an agent's attention, explain this to them BEFORE they submit your book anywhere, and all should be ok.

flickharrison · Nov 5, 2013

Thanks for the response, Old Hack... I just joined after many moons lurking.

You're probably right that it's not much of a worry, but it's so sloooow waiting for publishers to respond... and any sign of boobishness could get you deleted without mercy.

The fact that you thought I had accidentally published it, even after I explained the situation, just emphasizes how dumb this makes me look.

The Createspace project created an ISBN - it was one of the choices during setup.

No, it hasn't been published yet - it's still at "awaiting proof approval" in Createspace.

On 2013-06-24, at 14:03 , CreateSpace Member Services wrote:

"Our Technical Services team confirmed that the title information for ISBN 1438298692 was prematurely sent to Bowker, in error. Our team advised that through Bowker, third parties, such as Google Books, picked up on the listings and displayed the title information in search results.

Unfortunately, at this point, we are unable to remove this information from Bowker's database and are therefore unable to control the third party listings that resulted. I am sorry for the inconvenience presented.

We sincerely appreciate you bringing this error to our attention. We are working to ensure this does not happen again in the future. At this time, I am sorry we are unable to resolve your issue any further."

Grrrr internets.

merrihiatt · Nov 5, 2013

I think the takeaway lesson is not to have an ISBN assigned to a book until you're ready to have it published. This is good information to pass along. I have recommended Createspace to people and told them not to approve their proof but did not tell them to bypass the assign an ISBN option. It is part of the step-by-step process and I should have mentioned it as a caution.

cornflake · Nov 5, 2013

Outside of the original issue, as I have no knowledge, I just have to ask - you're querying publishers?

It sounds like you've got a novel, but you're querying publishers only? Just given the other, and not that it's my business, is there a reason you're not looking for an agent?

Old Hack · Nov 5, 2013

flickharrison said:
You're probably right that it's not much of a worry, but it's so sloooow waiting for publishers to respond... and any sign of boobishness could get you deleted without mercy.

Don't worry about boobishness. When you submit your work to agents you're far more likely to have it rejected because it's not good enough.

While there are publishers and agents who will reject your work unread if they think it's already published, plenty more will be wiling to ignore that if the work catches their attention. If you make sure your work is as good as you can get it, and that you send it to the most appropriate places, you'll be ok.

flickharrison · Nov 5, 2013

cornflake said:
It sounds like you've got a novel, but you're querying publishers only? Just given the other, and not that it's my business, is there a reason you're not looking for an agent?

I don't have a publishing track record in SF so I decided to hit up good publishers that accept unsolicited MS's, especially if there were particular things about them that I thought made a good fit.

I figured that was more likely to succeed at my stage in the game than hitting the big NY agencies. My plan was to approach agents once I got an acceptance but before signing anything.

It's been a long process so I can't remember precisely every factor that led me to this strategy but it was after many discussions, workshops and readings.

Lately, everyone is advising me to self-publish and generate attention while I write the next book. In my DIY arts scene, that is the preferred approach but I've been doing that in film and video for years and I want to go a bit bigger with the writing.

flickharrison · Nov 5, 2013

robert j sawyer advice

Eg:

http://sfwriter.com/agent.htm

"It's very hard to get a good literary agent to represent your first novel unless you have substantial short-fiction or other relevant credentials. And a bad agent can be worse than no agent at all. Most authors sell their first novel by submitting it to publishers (one at a time) themselves; once they've got an offer in hand, they call up an agent. "

Little Ming · Nov 5, 2013

flickharrison said:
I don't have a publishing track record in SF so I decided to hit up good publishers that accept unsolicited MS's, especially if there were particular things about them that I thought made a good fit. You don't need a track record to get an agent. Agents take on new writers all the time.

I figured that was more likely to succeed at my stage in the game than hitting the big NY agencies. I don't think so. If anything an agent will be more knowledgeable about who to submit to, have more connections, and even help you make your MS better before submitting to publishers. My plan was to approach agents once I got an acceptance but before signing anything. But this plan only works if you get an acceptance from a publisher. But here's the thing, even if you are universally rejected by every agent ever, you can still approach publishers on your own. If, OTOH, you are universally rejected by publishers first, you are far, far less likely to find an agent because you generally only going to submit an MS to a publisher once. With your strategy you might effectively limiting your options.

It's been a long process so I can't remember precisely every factor that led me to this strategy but it was after many discussions, workshops and readings. I suggest you read around these forums. I suspect that a lot of the resources you've consulted might be outdated. (There's a very well known Stephen King article about agents that's almost 30 years old.)

Lately, everyone is advising me to self-publish and generate attention while I write the next book. In my DIY arts scene, that is the preferred approach but I've been doing that in film and video for years and I want to go a bit bigger with the writing.

Publishing is different from film and arts. You don't have to "generate attention" to get published.

And going into self-publishing as a stepping stone to trade publishing is a mistake.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279681

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=279504

Little Ming · Nov 5, 2013

flickharrison said:
Eg:

http://sfwriter.com/agent.htm
"It's very hard to get a good literary agent to represent your first novel unless you have substantial short-fiction or other relevant credentials. And a bad agent can be worse than no agent at all. Most authors sell their first novel by submitting it to publishers (one at a time) themselves; once they've got an offer in hand, they call up an agent. "

Ah, no wonder. That article is over 15 years old, times have changed.

triceretops · Nov 5, 2013

flickharrison said:
Eg:

http://sfwriter.com/agent.htm

"It's very hard to get a good literary agent to represent your first novel unless you have substantial short-fiction or other relevant credentials. And a bad agent can be worse than no agent at all. Most authors sell their first novel by submitting it to publishers (one at a time) themselves; once they've got an offer in hand, they call up an agent. "

Oh, gosh. I don't agree with this at all. On both counts. How far back in time was this article clip? First-time novelists are a precious commodity for agents. His first point works in the case of non-fiction--a credit history or background that establishes a platform. Secondly, it's a better idea to contact agents first. And what agent will want to work with just any old publisher that offers a contract, one that might provide a very small advance, or royalty only deal? An offer from Tor, Daw or Baen? Sure! From Eternal Mundania? Eh eh.

triceretops · Nov 5, 2013

Little Ming said:
Ah, no wonder. That article is over 15 years old, times have changed.

Ah, you beat me to the bag!

cornflake · Nov 5, 2013

flickharrison said:
I don't have a publishing track record in SF so I decided to hit up good publishers that accept unsolicited MS's, especially if there were particular things about them that I thought made a good fit.

I figured that was more likely to succeed at my stage in the game than hitting the big NY agencies. My plan was to approach agents once I got an acceptance but before signing anything.

It's been a long process so I can't remember precisely every factor that led me to this strategy but it was after many discussions, workshops and readings.

Lately, everyone is advising me to self-publish and generate attention while I write the next book. In my DIY arts scene, that is the preferred approach but I've been doing that in film and video for years and I want to go a bit bigger with the writing.

Oh dear. You're obviously more than able to choose any route you wish but if you're basing any decisions off that quote, I'm afraid you were terribly misinformed.

That may have been true at some point, but it's absolutely not true now or anytime close to now.

The best, most likely way to get a contract with a trade publisher is through an agent.

The problem with querying publishing houses and thinking you'll then get an agent is that, if none happen to be interested, then what? Or what if one is? An agent might then come on board, but be unable (at least in that case less able) to leverage the offer because other houses will have already passed on it. The agent can't go to his or her contacts and say 'hey, look at this great new author I just signed!' The best that could happen would be 'hey, you passed on this guy, but someone else wants the book, are you into it now?'

If the houses pass, which is likely, just given the numbers, and then you decide to look for an agent, the agent would have nothing to do because you'd already have sent your stuff everyplace. Agents won't be interested in repping something everyone has rejected.

Self-publishing is not really a way to generate attention, for the vast majority of authors. Check the self-pub forums here and see how it works, how people get attention for their work, etc.

Old Hack · Nov 5, 2013

I agree with the others: agents love debut authors. I do agree, however, that a bad agent is worse than no agent at all.

If you'd like a shot at getting an agent, STOP SENDING YOUR WORK TO PUBLISHERS. It's diminishing the market open to any agent you might get.

shaldna · Nov 5, 2013

Just thinking that the title of this thread should be changed as it's a bit misleading.

flickharrison said:
Eg:

http://sfwriter.com/agent.htm

"It's very hard to get a good literary agent to represent your first novel unless you have substantial short-fiction or other relevant credentials. And a bad agent can be worse than no agent at all. Most authors sell their first novel by submitting it to publishers (one at a time) themselves; once they've got an offer in hand, they call up an agent. "

No. Just no. Bad advice that was already incredibly outdated and inaccurate when it was written many years ago.

The best way to find a good publisher or agent is to write a good book, query a good agent with a good query. Rinse and repeat.

If you are a new writer or a seasoned one, all that matters is the writing.

And just to note - short stories and articles are very, very different to novels and require a whole different skill set and method. Just because you can write one doesn't mean you can write the other.

There are many good resources out there on publishing and how it works.

flickharrison · Nov 6, 2013

Boobishness on parade?

Thanks to everyone for their responses - this one catches me out a bit though -

Old Hack said:
Don't worry about boobishness. When you submit your work to agents you're far more likely to have it rejected because it's not good enough.

Even if I didn't follow their submission guidelines, and sent something they don't want - a book that had already been self-published - they would overlook this if the writing is really good?

If true, this blows my mind. Why would they even look at the writing if I present myself prima facie as a boob?

I mean, how boobish is too boobish?

I've worked in lots of different show-biz modes - Hollywood casting, film festivals, arts juries. One unifying factor I've seen is the eye-roll of the gatekeeper while tossing something boobish off the slush pile.

flickharrison · Nov 6, 2013

cornflake said:
If the houses pass, which is likely, just given the numbers, and then you decide to look for an agent, the agent would have nothing to do because you'd already have sent your stuff everyplace. Agents won't be interested in repping something everyone has rejected.

My impression was that the biggest houses don't take unsolicited MS's. There's only a few majors in SF who do. Therefore the really big fish are still in play when the agent comes on board.

If the publisher and the agent are using the same set of criteria, which they should be, why would it be any easier to get an agent than a publisher?

If the publisher is going to reject my direct submission, isn't it only shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic to have used an agent instead? We're talking hypothetically - I sent a query to the publisher, they rejected it, but I SHOULD have gone through an agent. So they could reject it from them.

The agent's main job is to negotiate the contract, n'est-ce-pas? Sure, they could improve my pitch - and choose the right markets - but only assuming my more-amateur pitch entices them in the first place, and that I've chosen the right agents to hit up.

Sheryl Nantus · Nov 6, 2013

Any chance we can drop the term "boobish"?

It's sort of freaking me out.

Little Ming · Nov 6, 2013

flickharrison said:
Thanks to everyone for their responses - this one catches me out a bit though -

Even if I didn't follow their submission guidelines, and sent something they don't want - a book that had already been self-published - they would overlook this if the writing is really good?

If true, this blows my mind. Why would they even look at the writing if I present myself prima facie as a boob?

I mean, how boobish is too boobish?

I've worked in lots of different show-biz modes - Hollywood casting, film festivals, arts juries. One unifying factor I've seen is the eye-roll of the gatekeeper while tossing something boobish off the slush pile.

Really it depends.

While I'm not familiar with the "show-biz" industry, I do know that there are many published authors, editors and agents on AW--and they're here because they are trying to help new writers. If you really don't want to appear like an amateur I suggest you read around the forums here.

And I do know many members here who had no prior "track record," but still signed with agents and have gotten contracts with publishers, so it is definitely possible if you are willing to work for it.

flickharrison said:
My impression was that the biggest houses don't take unsolicited MS's. There's only a few majors in SF who do. Therefore the really big fish are still in play when the agent comes on board.

If the publisher and the agent are using the same set of criteria, which they should be, why would it be any easier to get an agent than a publisher? Didn't say it was easier. But you are increasing your chances.

Also, do you personally know the editors at these publishing houses? Do you know specifically what they have signed recently? What they are looking for right now? Do you know if a editor might be changing houses? Do you know it a publisher is about to hire a new editor who might be looking specifically for your book?

An agent isn't just going to toss your MS into the slush and hope for the best (assuming you have a *good* agent). They are going to sell it for you. They know more about the industry than you do, they have the inside connections.

If the publisher is going to reject my direct submission, isn't it only shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic to have used an agent instead? We're talking hypothetically - I sent a query to the publisher, they rejected it, but I SHOULD have gone through an agent. So they could reject it from them. Agents can also help you revise, edit and polish your MC before it goes out. Again, they have inside knowledge about what a specific editor might want. It doesn't mean changing your MS into something it's not, but if you can find a different angle to sell your MS, it helps.

The agent's main job is to negotiate the contract, n'est-ce-pas? No. Sure, they could improve my pitch - and choose the right markets - but only assuming my more-amateur pitch entices them in the first place, and that I've chosen the right agents to hit up.

Read this thread about what else agents do. Negotiating the contract is the very tip of the iceberg. Of course you don't have to get an agent, many writers don't have one, but you do need to know what an agent does and whether you want to take on that responsibility yourself.

cornflake · Nov 6, 2013

flickharrison said:
My impression was that the biggest houses don't take unsolicited MS's. There's only a few majors in SF who do. Therefore the really big fish are still in play when the agent comes on board.

If the publisher and the agent are using the same set of criteria, which they should be, why would it be any easier to get an agent than a publisher?

If the publisher is going to reject my direct submission, isn't it only shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic to have used an agent instead? We're talking hypothetically - I sent a query to the publisher, they rejected it, but I SHOULD have gone through an agent. So they could reject it from them.

The agent's main job is to negotiate the contract, n'est-ce-pas? Sure, they could improve my pitch - and choose the right markets - but only assuming my more-amateur pitch entices them in the first place, and that I've chosen the right agents to hit up.

You're operating under several misapprehensions.

No, they're not using the same criteria. An agent is looking for things to sell to publishing houses. Houses are looking for books to sell to the public - that fit with their lists, their style, whatever.

No, that's not close to what an agent's main job is. Also, don't have a more-amateur pitch. Have a stellar query and an ms. to back it up.

No, it's not the same being rejected by a publishing house as by an agent. There are entirely different people doing the rejecting - the one contacted by the agent is contacted by the agent because the agent knows the person, knows what the person wants, likes, etc. The person at the house doing the sorting of slush is just sorting slush and doesn't know what Editor Sue upstairs has been looking for specifically.

It's not about the really big fish being in play, it's about the correct fish being in play, and the more you take out of contention, the less attractive your ms. is to agents, because they then don't have anyplace to try to place it.

Also, yes, if the writing is stellar, the story is brilliant, that overcomes almost anything. That's the POINT.

shaldna · Nov 6, 2013

flickharrison said:
Thanks to everyone for their responses - this one catches me out a bit though -

Even if I didn't follow their submission guidelines, and sent something they don't want - a book that had already been self-published - they would overlook this if the writing is really good?

If true, this blows my mind. Why would they even look at the writing if I present myself prima facie as a boob?

I mean, how boobish is too boobish?

Well, for instance, if your query letter is really, really intriguing and well written, then an agent is unlikely to toss your submission aside because you included 10 pages instead of 50.

Because there are lots of aspects to a submission, there are lots of stages to show how good a writer you are - win them over at every stage. If the writing is good enough (be that the query letter, the synopsis, the sample chapter or whatever) then they will KEEP READING.

That said, don't blatantly disregard submission guidelines - it generally annoys people.

flickharrison · Nov 6, 2013

cornflake said:
No, they're not using the same criteria. An agent is looking for things to sell to publishing houses. Houses are looking for books to sell to the public - that fit with their lists, their style, whatever.

But - why would an agent choose books to sell to publishing houses unless they were same books the publishing houses wanted? How would the criteria be different?

cornflake said:
No, that's not close to what an agent's main job is. Also, don't have a more-amateur pitch. Have a stellar query and an ms. to back it up.

*SIGH* I'm not setting out to make a bad pitch. I meant that whatever I cook up, the agent will make the pitch more stellar than the one I sent them, and by that I mean everything - the query, the personal connections, the target-publisher research. Won't they?

I'm not asking "What's the difference between sending a bad query to the wrong publishers versus a good pitch to the right agents?"

I'm wondering why a good cold-query with a good ms has more chance at a properly-targeted agent than a properly-targeted publisher.

If the industry rule nowadays is simply that you should get an agent before approaching publishers, then fine, can't argue with that. Makes sense for them to insert your work into the marketplace at maximum capacity. Then I suppose if all the agents reject you, you can move on to try publishers directly.

Why it's changed since Sawyer's article would be interesting to know. What you folks have said about magazines and short stories being different from novels isn't new, is it?

But, cornflake, I think you misunderstood what I was wondering: how is getting through the agency slush pile different from getting through a publisher slush pile during an open call.

cornflake said:
No, it's not the same being rejected by a publishing house as by an agent. There are entirely different people doing the rejecting - the one contacted by the agent is contacted by the agent because the agent knows the person, knows what the person wants, likes, etc. The person at the house doing the sorting of slush is just sorting slush and doesn't know what Editor Sue upstairs has been looking for specifically.

Yes, I understand that - but you just described the difference between a publisher considering an agented submission and a publisher considering slush. You didn't explain the difference between an agent considering slush and a publisher considering slush.

Agents themselves get unsolicited submissions from all over the place, from, ahem, noobs, etc etc.

At one workshop I took here, the agent talked about how many pitches he got on Monday mornings. People who'd had a couple of days off and had time to cook up their Great Idea, look up his website, and leave him a phone message(!) asking him to rep their just-conceived book.

I've read lots of stories from agents about various crazy / clueless submissions.

So given all that - I'm just wondering how the agent's firewall is more permeable than the publisher's, for the unwashed masses yearning to publish?

flickharrison · Nov 6, 2013

cornflake said:
Outside of the original issue, as I have no knowledge, I just have to ask - you're querying publishers?

PS thanks for getting this conversation started - it's quite helpful.

Torgo · Nov 6, 2013

flickharrison said:
I'm wondering why a good cold-query with a good ms has more chance at a properly-targeted agent than a properly-targeted publisher.

Agents are there partly to filter the unsolicited manuscripts down so that only the best are going to publishers; so publishers tend to be less open to unsoliciteds than agents. They would like to shift the intake further down the food chain so that agents can be the first filter. All else being equal, in general you are going to have more agents available to send your book to than publishers, just because of that.

Just thinking about my industry, children's books in the UK, there are maybe ten publishers that I think of as competition. But there are probably books by twenty or thirty agents represented on our list at one time - more, I'd say. Again, in a pure numbers game, if you consider how many slots we're talking about, and all else being equal, you probably have more people to deal with if you're looking at agents rather than publishers.

Thing is, though, the pure numbers game is never the whole story. If you want to publish a novel, I'd recommend getting an agent, if only because most of the novels we publish come to us from agents. Though if it's perfect for that one publisher who accepts unagented manuscripts, and they'd do the best job with it, submit it to them first.

Little Ming · Nov 6, 2013

flickharrison said:
But - why would an agent choose books to sell to publishing houses unless they were same books the publishing houses wanted? How would the criteria be different? I don't think it is. See below.

*SIGH* I'm not setting out to make a bad pitch. I meant that whatever I cook up, the agent will make the pitch more stellar than the one I sent them, and by that I mean everything Not necessarily. Sometimes agents send out the query/pitch as is, other times the agent will *guide* the writers themselves to rewrite it better. - the query, the personal connections, the target-publisher research. Won't they?

I'm not asking "What's the difference between sending a bad query to the wrong publishers versus a good pitch to the right agents?"

I'm wondering why a good cold-query with a good ms has more chance at a properly-targeted agent than a properly-targeted publisher. Problem is many writers don't know how to "properly-target publishers," or if they do those editors might be off limits.

If the industry rule nowadays is simply that you should get an agent before approaching publishers, then fine, can't argue with that. Not necessarily. As I said in my previous post there are writers without agents, and some writers get publishers first, then agents later. But, the point I'm trying to make is you *increase your chances* if you try to get an agent first. Makes sense for them to insert your work into the marketplace at maximum capacity. Then I suppose if all the agents reject you, you can move on to try publishers directly. Yes. That's part of the "increase your chances." But note, no one has said it is "easier" to get an agent.

Why it's changed since Sawyer's article would be interesting to know. I'm not sure it has changed that much, more likely that article was already biased when it was written. If you read his article, his advice is based on his own experience with *his* agent, and his agent is specifically only looking for authors with track records. But most agents looking for new clients are just looking for a great book, regardless of track record; just check their submission guidelines What you folks have said about magazines and short stories being different from novels isn't new, is it? Having a good track record is a plus, but not a requirement.

But, cornflake, I think you misunderstood what I was wondering: how is getting through the agency slush pile different from getting through a publisher slush pile during an open call.

Yes, I understand that - but you just described the difference between a publisher considering an agented submission and a publisher considering slush. You didn't explain the difference between an agent considering slush and a publisher considering slush.

Agents themselves get unsolicited submissions from all over the place, from, ahem, noobs, etc etc.

At one workshop I took here, the agent talked about how many pitches he got on Monday mornings. People who'd had a couple of days off and had time to cook up their Great Idea, look up his website, and leave him a phone message(!) asking him to rep their just-conceived book.

I've read lots of stories from agents about various crazy / clueless submissions.

To be clear, if your submission is somewhere along the lines of slushpilehell you're not going to get an agent or a publisher. But we're not talking about those people, are we? We're talking about people who have actually written publishable books, they're just having trouble getting those books into the hands of the right people--and that's where having a good agent who knows his stuff improves the chances of the writer.

So given all that - I'm just wondering how the agent's firewall is more permeable than the publisher's, for the unwashed masses yearning to publish? No one said it was. I think you're confusing "increase your chances" with "easier." It's not the same.

You might have a great book and a great query, problem is you don't have access or connections to that one perfect editor who wants your book. Then you, as the unagented author might be blindingly sending your book to only the publishers who allow open submissions. This is where having a good agent will increase your chances. No one said it was "easier" to get that agent, but if/when you do, many, many more options are opened up to you.

Amazon ABNA made it look like I self-published my novel, but I didn't...

flickharrison

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

flickharrison

merrihiatt

Writing! Writing! Writing!

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

flickharrison

flickharrison

Little Ming

Little Ming

triceretops

triceretops

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman

shaldna

The cake is a lie. But still cake.

flickharrison

flickharrison

Sheryl Nantus

Holding out for a Superhero...

Little Ming

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

shaldna

The cake is a lie. But still cake.

flickharrison

flickharrison

Torgo

Formerly Phantom of Krankor.

Little Ming