BBC talks self-publishing

"It's democratised the publishing world and allowed anyone to make a book," said Teresa Pereira from online publisher Blurb.

Click to expand...

Yeah and that's the problem with it.

http://ireaderreview.com/2009/11/29/kindle-independent-authors-novel-gets-optioned-for-film/

food for thought. Or maybe not.

"Quantity over quality"? Shudder.

Democratizing of an industry, to me, simply means the power belongs to individual people, rather than a few. It's a model of individual freedom. Unless the government starts requiring reading of self-published books, what negative impact do self-pubbed books have on the market? I don't think they're legitimately competing in most instances. And if they out-sell you, or get optioned for a movie, that just means they wrote a book more people want to read, and did it their way.

A writer's goals will reflect whether or not they take this road if/when it gets to that.

For an example of why self-publishing is (I think) an important crux in the industry, Steve Almond approached his editor with a collection of prose poem type writings and essays on fiction, which the editor rejected. He self-published it, I bought it. It's of the same quality of writing his other stuff is, it's just that he is in control. Take that for what you will, but these small successes or outlets self-publishing provides seem to help explain the avenue's worth.

It's not for everyone, but I don't get the immense amount of hate it gets from traditional authors.

I don't think authors hate self-publishing . . .

I think many authors hate the fact that other authors dive into self-publishing, (or worse, vanity publishing), without any thought other than, "I have to get this published".

I've been a self-publisher (albeit in comic books where self-publishing is considered a badge of honor in many circles . . . the little guy sticking it to the Marvels and DCs of the world, but I digress . . . ) and I can tell you self-publishing is a time consuming, money consuming, patience consuming business. You can't just put the book together and then sit back and wait for the money to come rolling in.

I don't think I ever hustled so hard in the three years I tried to make Nightwolf Graphics a successful small press. I spent time and money dealing with recalcitrant artists, inkers who disappeared for months at a shot, crabby distributors, printers who lost entire print runs (found them on the back dock a month after they were supposed to have been delivered to the distributor and then wanted to charge me shipping to mail them to me so I could mail them to the distributor . . . *sigh*), dealing with comic shops, doing direct mailings, mailing out free copies to comic shops, going to conventions around the country, waiting for money to come in from distributors so I could pay my artists . . .

Yeah, it's a bunch of work.

Oh yeah, and in among all that? I had to write the next issue, do the editing and layout and play at being a soldier too.

And I still lost money on the venture.

Now, I'm not saying this because I'm going for the "poor little me". I'm saying this because if an author is NOT willing to put that kind of time and attention into their book, then they're fooling themselves into thinking they can make it as a self-publisher.

Self publishing is going to cost them time.
Self publishing is going to cost them money.

If they realize that going in, then absolutely, more power to them.

If they haven't done their homework, it's going to be a very miserable time.

Richard White said:

I think many authors hate the fact that other authors dive into self-publishing, (or worse, vanity publishing), without any thought other than, "I have to get this published".

Click to expand...

Or they have a right to have their work published.

BenPanced said:

Or they have a right to have their work published.

Click to expand...

Why shouldn't they?

BenPanced said:

Or they have a right to have their work published.

Click to expand...

I see writing a book to "publishable" standards in the same light I see learning a foreign language or, in my case, becoming a cryptanalyst.

Everyone can learn the basic ideas behind the concept.

Some have the talent to do it right off the bat and only need a little refining. (Those people annoy me, but I credit them for their talents. )

Some have the talent but have to struggle to master the skill. (My definition of how I learn a foreign language is, "I grab it by the throat and hang on until it gives up and lets me learn it." Not too different from my writing technique.)

Some have the desire to learn but their talents lie elsewhere. There's no shame in not being able to write a publishable manuscript. Just like there's no shame in not being able to learn a foreign language or learn how to decipher cryptograms or play professional basketball or sing with the Metropolitan Opera. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses.

I mean, I can sing, but no one's going to mistake me for Jon Bon Jovi anytime soon. (Anyone looking at my scores in Rock Band would testify to that. *grin*)

________________________________

I think the biggest problem I have with self- or vanity-publishing is I wonder could the author have made it a publishable manuscript with a little more wrestling with their work and did they just give in to the impulse of "I want it now" or was it as good as it was going to get? Does the availablity of all these vanity-presses encourage authors not to give it "one more try" to get it right?

Having too many choices paralyzes me. It's like staring at the chip aisle trying to parse through all the different flavors of Doritos and ending up not buying anything because I can't choose.

I have no desire to rummage through a slush pile of self-pubbed work to find the gems. I'd rather have agents and publishers do most of the heavy lifting for me. Sure, some crap will get through, but at least I know they've screened out the worst 99% of it.

But define crap. This is the critical issue, to me. If punk rockers have a right to burn their own CD's and anyone can express themselves on a canvas and sell it on ebay, why shouldn't authors have that right? It seems like because writing has two lives, one as art and ones as analytical, it's easier for us to draw lines in the sand.

I think that ownership and entitlement are false ideas. You don't actually own things, nor is anyone more entitled than another to something else. These are societal ideas which are man-made and fallible.

Because some authors work hard towards one goal, traditional publishing, I sense a kind of feeling of entitlement to language and the industry produced by such. What are we really striking at when we push our ways on others? It's not fair I had to do so much work and you're doing it the "easy" way? But why are we concerned with what others do anyway? Why do editors get the final say in what deserves a spine?

Don't get me wrong, I'm going the traditional route. But I look at self-published authors the way I look at every writer out there that has some ridiculous sense of entitlement.

SP author: "I deserve to make it big. Read my book! It's amazing!"
Me: *reads book. responds accordingly.

Same response I'd give to any author out there.

There are a lot of snobby authors out there who I think are shitty for my tastes. Meaning, they totally failed to connect to me beneath the text. Assholes come in all shapes and sizes, but writing must speak for itself.

The Lonely One said:

But define crap. This is the critical issue, to me. If punk rockers have a right to burn their own CD's and anyone can express themselves on a canvas and sell it on ebay, why shouldn't authors have that right? It seems like because writing has two lives, one as art and ones as analytical, it's easier for us to draw lines in the sand.

Click to expand...

Um... yeah. I challenge you to pick a self-published book at random and try to read it. Or maybe not waste your money, how about you spend a while at www.fictionpress.com and read some of the novels posted there. That's what we're talking about when we say crap. Horrible, steaming crap. Some books should never see the light of the day, but they will.

Also, you're taking self-publishing as something informed, conscious authors do. You're not taking into account the hundreds of people that self-publish out of desperation, because they were decieved into it, because they didn't know better and think they're traditionally published, etc. People lose a lot of money in these ventures because they've no idea what they're getting into.

I'm not saying self-publishing is the devil, but it does have a lot of downfalls. There are some people who succesfully self-publish (niche writers, writers with a very specific target audience in mind, fund-raising books, etc.), but for most fiction writing, self-publishing is definitely not the way to go. The above mentioned example of you purchasing Steve Almond's book doesn't hold because you already knew this author and you already knew what the quality of his writing was. For established authors with a built-in fan base, of course self-publishing will also make sense.

I love buying books from all kinds of sources, and when I choose one I look for the author’s bio, possibly the publisher, and read at least the first page before making my mind up. My partner buys them because she likes the book’s cover.

I’ve read quite a few of the books she’s purchased that way, or, I’ve started to read them, and after a few lines, not even paragraphs, I know that they’ve been self-published. I’ve even come across such books that are readable, but as a writer I’m far too harsh a critic anyway, and I’ve never finished one.

But I sometimes wonder whether the reading public really care. To get back to the only handy example I can base my public reader on, she’s next door, right now, reading a magazine, I think it’s called Take That, which I find appalling, yet she buys several similar ones on a regular basis. And she then exchanges them among her circle of friends.

She’s not dumb either, she reads Martina Cole and Linda La Plante, along with millions of others (who read those magazines and books). If I put Hemingway in front of her, I’d have to strap her down and promise her a new frock, or even a car, before she would read more than a page of it.

Yet I believe she is more representative of the average reader than possibly most members of this, or similar forums. She’s not interested in writing, she’s a reader, not a critical one, but one that just wants to be entertained.

If, therefore, she represents the average reader, she wouldn’t know the difference between Hodder and Lulu, and the author’s name wouldn’t mean anything to her either. She’s looking for a nice cover and a simple story of love and romance, or a bit of gangster gore.

70% of books are purchased by women aged between 35 and 55; just like the one next door reading Take That, although she could now be on Hello, she bought that as well this morning.

So could it be that self-publishing could be just as successful as the mainstream? I think it could, if the author had half-a-million to spend on promotion. Therein lies the rub.

If she ever reads what I’ve just written, I’m dead.

DamaNegra said:

Um... yeah. I challenge you to pick a self-published book at random and try to read it. Or maybe not waste your money, how about you spend a while at www.fictionpress.com and read some of the novels posted there. That's what we're talking about when we say crap. Horrible, steaming crap. Some books should never see the light of the day, but they will.

Also, you're taking self-publishing as something informed, conscious authors do. You're not taking into account the hundreds of people that self-publish out of desperation, because they were decieved into it, because they didn't know better and think they're traditionally published, etc. People lose a lot of money in these ventures because they've no idea what they're getting into.

I'm not saying self-publishing is the devil, but it does have a lot of downfalls. There are some people who succesfully self-publish (niche writers, writers with a very specific target audience in mind, fund-raising books, etc.), but for most fiction writing, self-publishing is definitely not the way to go. The above mentioned example of you purchasing Steve Almond's book doesn't hold because you already knew this author and you already knew what the quality of his writing was. For established authors with a built-in fan base, of course self-publishing will also make sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, people should be informed, like anything else. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they know what they're getting into. I expect people to take hold of their own destinies in responsible ways. But again, you're defining crap by your own terms. They aren't necessarily my terms. And I'm a reader, shouldn't I have the right to choose my own terms?

For one I don't think this argument is going away and it's been around for some time, especially at venues like AW.

There are authors out there who are writing the same kind of work that Steve is writing, just as well, who aren't getting traditional representation. Should we discredit them because there are crappy (by individual definition) authors out there as well?

I guess what I'm really saying is it isn't black and white, and yes there are scammers. But there are scammers in your email daily. But you have the good sense not to send millions of dollars to a Chinese prostitute who is the daughter of some prince who's fallen on hard times, right?

Discretion is a part of life. Without going much farther (because I don't think I'm going to start winning people over to my POV) I'll say that those who are informed have a right to use the tools available to them. If you know how to bind a book and have the machinery, take it a step further, do THAT yourself. Good for you. I applaud it.

Self-publishing is hard, and pits the odds against you as far as making a profit, but those how know that should have the right to do it.

This response is more to the question of "who has the right to publish" and "who is entitled to be considered an author." Both of which seem inconsequential next to the question, "What do I (reader) want to read?"

Everyone has the right to publish. No one has the right to be published by someone else.

Until and unless 99.9% of the self-published books out there improve beyond the level of completely illiterate crap, not much is going to change except how many new writers will shell out how much money to practice their right of publishing their own work.

Jamesaritchie said:

Everyone has the right to publish. No one has the right to be published by someone else.

Click to expand...

Forget everything I just said. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

@The Lonely One: I am nowhere near an expert on the subject, but I am stunned at your insistence that the people who get into self-publishing do so fully aware of all the work, time, money and possible disappointments that go along with it. I'm not gonna argue over the quality of self-published books versus . . . everything else, I guess. There's good stuff and utter shite in every avenue, and I'm including FictionPress.com in that assessment. Anyone who wants to has the right to at least try to get a book in print. But I would not give anyone the "benefit of the doubt" for knowing what they're getting into if they go the self-publishing route. I would never encourage anyone to self-publish, simply because it seems like it's a lot of work for very little payoff.

I want gatekeepers in the system so when I choose reading material I'm not shovelling my way through an entire sewer's worth of shite.

If no-one else will pay you for your book, a) ASK YOURSELF WHY and b) why the fuck do you expect me to?

Oh, I'm not saying people should not self-publish. As I said somewhere else in this thread, there are situations in which self-publishing makes perfect sense, and can even turn a profit if it worked right. Of course it would make more sense to self-publish my cooking group's recipees and then selling them to the people and families of the atendees. Of course it makes sense to self-publish a niche book with a well-defined target market. Of course it makes sense to self-publish the collection of short-stories for my church fundraiser. Of course it makes sense to self-publish experimental fiction if I'm an author with an audience that can't publish it elsewhere. Of course it makes sense to self-publish if you only have friends and family as your target audience. There are hundreds of legit reasons for self-publishing, but if you're serious about getting a writing career in the mainstream fiction market, then self-publishing is definitely not for you.

I wonder how many people actually realize this?

Well, for most of my career I looked at self-publishing as the last resort of the unpublishable...

That is until the massive shake-up of traditional publishing, starting with last December's "Black Wednesday."

I'm the author of 47 "traditionally" published books, 45 of them novels. I created one of the best-selling SF series of the last 20 years. Since 1996, a minimum of three books of mine have been published per year, like clockwork.

I won't even talk about all my other writing/creative creds in different fields and mediums.

So--

I'm supposed to sh*t-can what I consider my best work because a handful of strangers behind desks screwed up our industry due to self-indulgent bad choices...much like what happened to the automotive industry?

Nah.

I and a lot of other established writers are in similar situations...those strangers have given us two choices in our careers...play by their rules (and they've already proven conclusively their judgement is terrible) or assume the responsibility for getting our work out there.

Some of you may find these meanderings on the topic of interest:

http://markellisink.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=7&Itemid=28

Agent Rachelle Gardner has summed up my feelings on this subject here:

http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-publishing-rant-and-q4u.html

scarletpeaches said:

I want gatekeepers in the system so when I choose reading material I'm not shovelling my way through an entire sewer's worth of shite.

If no-one else will pay you for your book, a) ASK YOURSELF WHY and b) why the fuck do you expect me to?

Click to expand...

Ah but I'm also a reader and I do not wish to have gatekeepers at my door. Not that I think your gatekeeper should be taken away, but I think it's okay if he stays by your gate.

The answer to a.) could be "I just sold a book like that" or "the market has too many of x" or "It's not right for me." Could also be crappy writing, but that doesn't negate the possibility of the others. And b.) can only be answered in the body of text that is my writing. If one trusts editors over writing itself there is nothing I can do to console that sentiment.

I don't think we'll all ever agree on the SP thing but we do have different views and as long as all views are allowed and spoken on I am happy.

I believe I am done arguing this at this point, only because I wuvs you guys and do not want to fight. In the end we're all going to do what is right for us, so it's silly to rehash what's already been rehashed.

Back to the task of writing

DamaNegra said:

Oh, I'm not saying people should not self-publish. As I said somewhere else in this thread, there are situations in which self-publishing makes perfect sense, and can even turn a profit if it worked right. Of course it would make more sense to self-publish my cooking group's recipees and then selling them to the people and families of the atendees. Of course it makes sense to self-publish a niche book with a well-defined target market. Of course it makes sense to self-publish the collection of short-stories for my church fundraiser. Of course it makes sense to self-publish experimental fiction if I'm an author with an audience that can't publish it elsewhere. Of course it makes sense to self-publish if you only have friends and family as your target audience. There are hundreds of legit reasons for self-publishing, but if you're serious about getting a writing career in the mainstream fiction market, then self-publishing is definitely not for you.

I wonder how many people actually realize this?

Click to expand...

Ah. This is a more defined argument which I actually agree with. I think you're right, getting into mainstream fiction with self-publishing is, in general, not the best avenue. I was more speaking on writing in general, which for me includes a lot of experimental stuff or writing off the beaten path.

And at Rhoda: I don't think everyone who gets into it is informed, but I essentially don't care if they are or aren't. It's on them to check out what they're getting into. There are plenty of sources (including AW) on what's a scam and what isn't. Scams are everywhere. You could swipe your card at a gas pump and get scammed if you aren't careful and informed. I expect writers to be informed. If they aren't, that's a flaw they accept of themselves.

I had a discussion with my mother about mainstream v. less structured, or I should say, differently structured creative writing. My view is that I support the efforts of all writers, whatever those efforts might be. If a mainstream author wishes to traditionally publish and make a check, or if the experimental writer wants to give away self-printed pamphlets, I support both. I think our goal is clear by the tradition of storytelling. That is, to tell stories.

The Lonely One said:

Ah but I'm also a reader and I do not wish to have gatekeepers at my door. Not that I think your gatekeeper should be taken away, but I think it's okay if he stays by your gate.

Click to expand...

Okay, think of it as quality control.

Would you buy anything marketed as juice, just because the seller called it that? What if they could put poison in if they so chose, and still sell it as juice?

The Lonely One said:

The answer to a.) could be "I just sold a book like that" or "the market has too many of x" or "It's not right for me."

Click to expand...

Those are usually the last refuge (or excuses) of people who can't sell their book. If a book is good, it will find a home.

The books I wrote years ago? Couldn't sell them. Why? They were shite. End of.

The Lonely One said:

Could also be crappy writing, but that doesn't negate the possibility of the others.

Click to expand...

Sure wouldn't help either.

The Lonely One said:

If one trusts editors over writing itself there is nothing I can do to console that sentiment.

Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say I trust editors over writing itself.

I do trust editors to find good writing.

Or at least filter out the shitest of the shite (yes those are real words).

The Lonely One said:

I don't think we'll all ever agree on the SP thing but we do have different views and as long as all views are allowed and spoken on I am happy.

Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. People might think I'm arguing just to be contrary but it's not 'looking for a fight' at all. It's passion. I love books. I love writing and reading them. I adore the English language. And I always strive to improve. I despise the acceptance of mediocrity (even while being guilty of it myself at times) but none of that means I dislike you, or would call you a twunt for arguing your side. There's room for both of us here.

Though of course, I'm right.

There are examples of self-publishing - there was Samizdat in Russia. There was the Hogarth Press of Leonard and Virginia Woolf. There was Reprise Records and Frank Sinatra. There was William Caxton producing his own "The Game and Playe of Chesse" from his own press in 1475.
This shows that there are all kinds of self-publishing.
It tends to shave off a couple of years of the entire process. Not all are rubbish.