Self-publishing Stigma

Independently-produced films are sneered at with some regularity, probably as much as self-pubbed books.

Quality is quality no matter how it comes to light. Problem is that barrier to entry into self-publishing is much lower than movies.

With electronic publishing growing in popularity the stigma is slowly diminishing. I have to say that there is a plethora of free e-books for Kindle and many of them are worth exactly what you pay for them. There is a certain level of "quality assurance" in an offering from a legit press. Remember that publishing is about product and with that comes a certain level of quality. Too many self-pubbed things have grammatical errors that any level of line edit would catch, but yet it still gets published...self-published that is.

The simple reason is that manuscripts that pass through the sluice gates of the publishing industry are subject to some degree of vetting. Self-published manuscripts aren't.

Ipso facto, traditionally published works are statistically more likely to be of higher quality than self-pubbed.

Is it always the case? Of course not. There are some self-pubbed gems and there are plenty of trad-pubbed stinkers. But we're talking about the probabilities which lead to generalized perceptions.

Your comparison isn't quite right. Indie movies are more comparable to small presses (not micropresses). Self-publishing is more like folks with a home movie camera posting on YouTube. Some of those home movies on YouTube are bloody fantastic, and so are some self-published books. Most, however, are not.

I once decided to try self- and vanity-published books, so I obtained six of them with the intention of posting reviews on my blog when I was done. I say "with the intention" because I couldn't finish two, so they never got reviewed.

Of the other four, one was excellent. The other three ranged from flawed to unbelievably bad. One in six is not good odds for me. As a result, I'm not likely to read or review self-published books again (unless they're by an author whom I know is great, or they've received fantastic reviews from known sources - meaning someone else has already screened them).

So I know from a personal standpoint why there's a stigma against self-published books.

Jack Newcastle said:

I really should like to know why in this day and age that self-publishing is still frowned upon, yet in the film business, independently financed projects aren't. I seem to recall that Tarantino couldn't get backing for Reservoir Dogs and that after he got the script to Keitel, they scrounged for the money themselves. Of course, there are scores of other indie films that have gone on to be acknowledged as classics (and true, a great many more that haven't), so i simply want to know from the powers that be, why that canard exists in the literary field. Frankly, I'm baffled.


Kind regards,

Jack

Click to expand...

I agree with what's been said, but I'd like to add that technology today has made it very easy, and very inexpensive to self publish a book. And becuase of that, a lot of people are self publishing. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it means your book might be lumped in with the bad, just by association. There are some self-published books, though, that really do stand out. If you are thinking about heading down that road, you really should try to find a few self-published books that have been reviewed positively on Amazon/goodreads/etc (and not just by one or two people that you know are personal friends of the author), and drop those authors an email. What you'll find is that those authors did not take the cheap route when they brought their product to market. Their books are well edited, well designed (and not just the covers), and they actually have a history of developing as a writer before self publishing. You'll also likely find that those authors know a thing-or-two about marketing.

There are a couple AW authors whose books I purchased to see the quality and I had to admit that they were extremely well written and really well designed. Their handles are, AXLER and ZPETEMAN, you might want to PM them or at least find some of their posts. I'm sure there are many others here too, but those two guys just happen to be the ones I've read.

Have you ever watched any of those shows like "American Idol"? They show a couple of mediocre people, focus on the people good enough to get through, and they throw in a solid portion of comic relief with the people who have no idea how to carry a tune - yet really really believe that they can.

The first few episodes of those shows are all like that, but then they get past the auditions, and you only see the people who "passed the cut".

Now imagine that, instead of those couple of hour-long shows, there was a show called "All Idol" which showed all the auditions. Every one. Most of them are only ten to thirty seconds before the judges kick them out, but the line is three times around the block and that's just the first city. You can practically see the judges cry little tears when they find someone who can really really sing instead of being mediocre or bad. "All Idol" would be the most hated show on television.

Now apply that to the next book you're looking to buy, but (except in the case of the truly abysmal) with much longer than ten to thirty seconds to tell the book is one which really "sings". Unlike a bad drawing, or a bad movie, it can be a significant time investment to tell a mediocre book from a good one.

Would you shop at "Idol" or would you shop at "All Idol"? As a reader, I know where I shop.

But, still, occasionally at "All Idol" a really good singer shows up. The judges weep with relief, and give the audience a break by letting that really good singer sing the entire song. And word of mouth (presumably) will let people know to watch _that_ episode of "All Idol".

I don't quite understand people who say they will never read a self-published novel, no matter what. But I perfectly understand people who don't want to sit through all those auditions. And currently there is no effective mechanism (beyond word of mouth or being a persistent marketer with a gift for intriguing people) to let people know a self-publisher can 'sing'.

An indie movie also has to go through "gatekeepers" to be made - the people putting up the money have to like the script and the actors and want the film to be made.

Self-pubbing authors don't have anyone vetting their work but themselves and usually a few friends - which doesn't exactly provide the same level of criticism that a publisher does. Sure, some may be decent but without anyone to judge them other than the author you're more likely to buy a badly-edited tome than a good story. There are always exceptions to the rule but you can't really compare them to indie films or music where there are other factors involved.

imo, of course.

Jack Newcastle said:

Having been a kid in the 70s, I grew up listening to punk, and I've always said that one of the best things about it is that it allowed any kid with a guitar to start a band and get on stage. Of course, the worst thing about it is also that it allowed any kid with a guitar to start a band and get on stage, but in following Kurzon's Idol analogy, the point is that we never judged a band till they actually played. I suppose it's my idealism that puts me in the belief that professionals, in any industry, shouldn't dismiss on presumption or harbor thoughts of 'guilt by association', yet I also understand this is the era of 'whatever', eye-rolling, and snark (God, I hate that word) and that such dismissal is considered a sure sign of being in the know. Ach, I'm the first to admit I'm completely out of touch with these times.


Regards,

Jack

Click to expand...

Truth-be-told, if you spend the money to produce a well edited, well designed product, the people who matter, the readers, will never know the book was self-published. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately for readers, the bulk of self published books are sub-par and can be spotted a hundred yards out by a one-eyed hobo (FYI, one-eyed hobo's happen to be the leading consumer of books ... I mean that literally ... books are a good source of fibre).

Jack Newcastle said:

...but in following Kurzon's Idol analogy, the point is that we never judged a band till they actually played.

Click to expand...

And as far as I can tell, no one's judging individual self-published books. However, we are saying that in general, there's a higher noise-to-signal ratio here, which may make readers understandably wary of spending time and money searching through self-published books to find the gems.

I suppose it's my idealism that puts me in the belief that professionals, in any industry, shouldn't dismiss on presumption or harbor thoughts of 'guilt by association'

Click to expand...

Perhaps so. After struggling through those six self- and vanity-published books, I had precious little idealism left.

If you're at all familiar with fanfic, you'll understand the stigma with self-publishing. There are a wide range of fanfic writers - from those who just do it for a giggle and don't care if only their friends read it all the way to those who spend months and years honing the craft, intending to move into completely original writing. In between are those who don't want to produce schlock but are still just doing it for fun, and those who think their stuff is beyond criticism (ie, they're doing the world a favor by writing). Despite all the variations in quality, fanfic is looked down on and insulted by a great many people.

Well - there you go. Self-publishing is basically the same situation. Because anyone can (and apparently does) self-publish, you get every level of quality in book and author. But who do people remember most? The ones that stink to high heaven. I write fanfic and I can count on one hand the authors who continually and consistently put out high quality writing, versus literally hundreds who put out the 'birdcage floor' stories.

It's hard to be found guilty by association, but after reading so many crap authors who are trying to convince people that they are God's gift to readers, it's understandable. It's going to take some mighty loud successes before people stop looking down their noses when they hear "self-published".

It's not about the writers, it's about the system, man!

Self-publishing is no different than a band playing shows and selling its CD or someone putting together an indie movie and trying to find a distributor. 90% of those bands stink on ice, 90% of those movies are hideous, 90% of those self-published books aren't worth the bytes they're made of.

But that final 10%? That's Fugazi. That's the Blair Witch Project. That's the next Michael Chabon.

The difference between film, music and books aren't the quality of what's being produced, but the means of distribution.

I worked as a writer covering the film industry for years and years (I still do, from time to time) and trust me: for every movie you see in theaters, there are 500 you don't. And for every movie that gets any release whatsoever (DTV, VOD, festival screening only) there are 100 that don't even make it that far. There are hard drives and storage vaults across this country full of movies that ran out of money before their final sound mix or color correction could be completed and have been seized by the lab. I run a film festival and go to a lot of the major markets and you'd be astounded to see how many, and how bad, the selection is out there.

Same with bands. Pick up an NYC paper. There are a few hundred performers putting on shows almost every Saturday night in the city, from jazz vocalists, to queercore bands, to DJ's, to classical quintets. And almost every single one of them will be selling a CD at their show. But the distribution channels of music, more than in any other art form, are divided so cleverly that if you're an early music fan you will never run across tracks from the biggest New Jersey punk outfit, but you will have access to almost every early music group of any value (and many of none) from around the world.

The problem with books is that it's still the Wild West. There is all kinds of access, so many channels for distribution, but not enough curation. Right now, the curators/gatekeepers are a tiny little band of well-paid publishers with high overhead who have done a lousy job of keeping up with technology.

The bigger question is who's out there in the Wild West curating the selfpublished stuff? Who's reliably calling attention to the wheat and pointing out that it's different from the chaff? Who is building a reputation as a critic or a curator with taste that can be trusted?

GradyHendrix said:

. . . Who's reliably calling attention to the wheat and pointing out that it's different from the chaff? Who is building a reputation as a critic or a curator with taste that can be trusted?

Click to expand...

Publisher's Weekly and other recognized review venues. Self-publishers who do everything right can and do get reviewed in recognized venues. If they've done it right, there is no way to know that the author is also the publisher without investigating ownership of the publishing company (or quality of the product makes the overlap of no real interest even if known).

I've seen occasional reviews of self-published books -- recognizable as such -- in niche (F&SF, for example) and local (Sacramento Bee) periodicals. It is not necessary for the reviewers to distinguish the literary wheat from the chaff. They review books worth reviewing and have no need to contrast with others -- not in the sense you suggest, anyway. (They are not going to publish a list headed "The Following Are Chaff." Not worth the newsprint or bandwidth to do so.)

As for "reliability" -- dunno about that. Most commercially published books are not reviewed by the big venues (PW, NYT, etc.), as there are way, way, WAY too many of them. A far smaller proportion of self-published books presumably are even sent to such venues, let alone reviewed.

Maybe more on target for your question, though, ForeWord magazine is probably the go-to publication. Again, they would not be drawing invidious comparisons, which are not relevant to their mission, but rather reviewing books worth reviewing.

My views, FWIW.

--Ken

I hear you...

...but it does help, especially in a field like self-publishing that wears a leper's bell more often than not, for critics to engage with the bad. It establishes a framework for their reviews, and when you're looking at a field like books in which there is so much product you often make the assumption that Book X has no review not because it's bad and the critic thought it wasn't worth engaging with, but because no one had time to review it.

You're right that the places you mention do review some self-published fiction (some!) but the fact remains that it's a distribution channel glutted with product that has few good reviewers tackling it on a consistent and reliable basis (ie, a dedicated, regular process of ongoing reviews from named reviewers whose taste you can determine and that stays consistent).

I keep thinking that the movement of the mob is one way of looking at what's popular on Smashwords but it would be nice to have the equivalent of Roger Ebert or Michiko Kakutani out there tackling this huge wad of self-published fiction.

You are definitely right from an aesthetic POV that there's no point in differentiating between self-published and not, but a lot of the early punk and music zines often reviewed label releases and homebrewed releases in separate columns because there are different expectations brought to both and it was a nice service to the consumer to note that.

Old Hack here at AW has a blog with reviews for self-published books sent to her:

http://theselfpublishingreview.blogspot.com/

From her site:

Here are the rules. You send me a copy of your self-published book, and I'll read it. If I like it I'll review it here, and will be generous with my praise.

What's the catch? I'm an editor, and expect published books to be polished. I'm going to count all the errors I find in spelling, punctuation and grammar and when I reach fifteen I'm going to stop reading. I'll work my way through up to five pages of boring prose or bad writing before I give up. And I'll list on this blog every single book I'm sent, including the books I've not completed, along with how far I got through each one.

Click to expand...

I assume that people would send in their books for review only if they thought they were pretty good. Whether they're actually good, well . . .

Ha! Thanks for posting a link to my blog, Bubastes. Just a heads-up: it's moving over to Wordpress tomorrow morning, so you'll need to change your links, everyone.

I used to get lots of press releases from self-published writers via Bostick Communications, which I blogged about on my How Publishing Really Works blog (see link below, and search for Bostick if you're interested). Then one of the writers who found me via Bostick's mailing list (I don't know how I ended up on it, by the way) complained about my rather negative review, and Bostick took my email address off its lists. Never mind. Since that happened the general standard of the books I've received for review has improved slightly: but the percentage of good books I get is still nowhere near the ten per cent that GradyHenrix suggested in comment number 15 in this thread.

Despite enjoying some of the books I've reviewed, I've not yet read a single one which I think would have done well if commercially published; they're just not consistent enough, well-enough written, and so on.

Every time I get a new book for review I hope to have a gem in my hands. Every time, so far, I've been disappointed. I hope that that will change soon: meanwhile, I soldier on.

^ Heh - I'm currently re-reading my Ngaio Marsh collection and I've been amazed at the number of typos (type-setting errors I would presume) in this many-times reprinted author's books. I expect published books to be polished, too, but sometimes it seems it doesn't happen.

I recently re-read a hugely successful trade-published book which has been in print for the last quarter-century. It had a lot of typos--I stopped counting them when I hit thirty in the first 150 pages.

The problems that I take the most notice of when I review self-published books are far more significant than typos, though. Despite my outwardly tough stance I do overlook typos if they're few, and I do my best to be generous towards the writers who have the courage to send me their books. The real problem with most of the books that I've reviewed is that they're badly written: they're confusing, contradictory, they use words which don't actually mean what the writers think they mean, they're dull, plodding and repetitive and so on, often with completely ridiculous plots or premises.

I'd love to have something really, spectacularly good to review: but it's not happened yet; and two of the writers I've recommeneded have since contacted me privately to tell me that with hindsight they don't think they deserved my praise as they've since re-edited their books and realise now how flawed they are.

Old Hack said:

The real problem with most of the books that I've reviewed is that they're badly written: they're confusing, contradictory, they use words which don't actually mean what the writers think they mean, they're dull, plodding and repetitive and so on, often with completely ridiculous plots or premises.

Click to expand...

I think *this* gets overlooked a lot when people compare self-publishing to traditional - there's got to be someone who will look at your work with an unbiased eye and say "No. That Does Not Work." and flip it back to you without fear of retribution or you dropping them from Facebook or whatnot.

Editors do this. Agents do this. Friends, family and beta readers rarely tell you the truth because they love you and don't want to hurt you. There's nothing wrong with that but when you shove your work out into the world you should give it the best chance to be accepted and enjoyed by the most amount of people. And when you've got plot holes larger than my tushie and plain old bad writing...

*shrugs*

I know the current craze is to denounce all these "gatekeepers" as evil ogres keeping you from your True Calling. But they're also there to make you *work* for your writing credit, not hand it over to you like a prize out of a Cracker Jack box.

"Blaze of Glory", my science-fiction/fantasy with Samhain, needed a major rewrite before I was offered a contract. After that the editor beat it into shape by pointing out inconsistent statements, plot holes and timing errors. I was blind to these. If I had tossed it out there I doubt it'd be as successful as it is and I *know* I wouldn't have improved as much as a writer as I have in the last year.

For some people it works - they have the support system, the experience and the ability to make a self-pub work. For the majority, from what I've seen, it's more of a "write the book on Monday, post it on Friday and wait for the money to roll in".

Here's a great blog post that I thought laid it out... the title does have swearing in it, so NSFW.

Jack Newcastle said:

Do you agonize over the intricacies of plot and characterization? I'm certain Little Miss Jersey Shore doesn't, and frankly, as a writer who has intensely studied the craft, I'm insulted when I read of another illiterate who has just got (or gotten, depending on your view of the British vs. American past perfect) a book deal.

Click to expand...

Since literate people also get book deals, I can't say that I feel particularly insulted.

Jack Newcastle said:

Read my above post: adults ought to know better.

Click to expand...

Some do, some don't. Some like reading trashy novels by celebrities, some prefer the classics. So it goes, as Father Kurt would say.

But not all books coming out of NYC are automatically crap. "Water for Elephants". "Devil in the White City". "Memoirs of a Geisha". Right off the top of my head and without glancing at my bookshelf. I've got plenty more on my Nook and on my shelves along with Harlequin romances and science fiction novels.

You seem to have this preconceived notion that all agents and publishers are "crap". May I ask where you got this from?