Ebooks vs. paper books

The issue with self-publishing an e-book is the same as self-publishing a print copy, you still need a platform - marketing. If you can't get the word out there, no-one will know the book is there.

Citing writers like Konrath and Hocking is a white elephant. Konrath had a platform with an established readership and Hocking was able to utilize word of mouth.

A writer friend of mine is having a first book published soon. She received her authors copies a few days ago, she spent hour touching and smelling them. I want that.

I love my Sony Reader, but I love print books too. I'm greedy I want both. My book deserves a 'traditional' agent and publisher who will put my books out as print and ebook editions.

I'm such a technophobe when it comes to ebooks. I can't get over the idea that I won't be holding the book in my hands and turning the pages and smelling the paper. Books are a bit of a sensory experience for me.

I would hate to see scams like PublishAmerica use that argument to lure gullible writers into signing more contracts with them. "Look, your book would be a sensation and you'll learn 90% royalty!" 90% of $0 is still $0. But there's now no cost for them -- just turn your wonderful ms. into text and voila PA is done.

As indicated by the ridiculous subhead, "Writers are self-publishing their way to fame and fortune as e-books take over," the article conflates two different questions: whether the expanding e-book market will make print books obsolete; and whether e-books make self-publishing more viable.

Electronic formats make it easy to self-publish; that doesn't magically cause people to be willing to pay to read your book.

If your book is good enough, a real publisher will professionally edit it (and even the best, most established novelists need an editor), produce the book in print and/or electronic form, and handle marketing and distribution. When a reader browsing in a bookstore or on a major bookseller's website looks at a new book, he starts with some assurance of a basic level of quality, knowing that the piece was at least good enough for a publisher to invest some time and money in getting it to the public.

Here's my take on it.

A FEW writers are self-publishing and making good money. Most of that FEW are already well-known authors; some are self-pubbing projects that their agents can't sell ( because of genre cross-over or other industry reasons, not because of quality). These authors already have a following, have promotional platforms, have well-trafficed websites and blogs and devoted readers who will buy any book they write. But the majority of self-published books have NO platform, NO readership, NO name recognition, NO readership, NO devoted readers and NO chance to succeed. They also don't have editing, good cover art, reviews from well-respected media, basic proofreading or any web presence. And why is that, you ask?

Go to Amazon.com and take a look at how many books there are on that site. There are currently 14,578 books JUST in the Fantasy genre; over 14,000 in just contemporary romance. How is a customer going to find a single self-published title without any notice in the industry among so many? They certainly aren't going to flip through all those pages and read synopses and excerpts. No. Readers go to Amazon in search of a specific title or author the majority of the time, and that self-published title will sit there, unnoticed and unsold. There are books with reputable e-publishers--e-publishers that do promote their products--that sell maybe one or two copies a month. If that.

So yes--if JK Rowling self-published Harry Potter 8, she would make hundreds of millions of dollars. But 99.8% of unknown authors who self-publish MIGHT make a hundred bucks. After a couple of years. If their friends all buy a copy.

Manuel Royal said:

As indicated by the ridiculous subhead, "Writers are self-publishing their way to fame and fortune as e-books take over," the article conflates two different questions: whether the expanding e-book market will make print books obsolete; and whether e-books make self-publishing more viable.

.

Click to expand...

yeah, that right there should have been a fair clue they're cherry-picking, as damn few published writers by percentage, electronic or print, have "published their way to fame and fortune"......very few have even "published their way to quitting their shitty day job".

I'm not saying not to write, or to try to publish, by either means, but that sort of hyperbole is usually a good red flag in the name of all things bullshit

I predict that not too long from now -- the way things are going -- agents and editors, and especially reviewers, will morph into critic-advocates, and we'll mostly be looking to them for ebook recommendations. Publishers, especially for mainstream material, have a limited future. Even Amazon, I suspect, has a limited future.

LaceWing said:

I predict that not too long from now -- the way things are going -- agents and editors, and especially reviewers, will morph into critic-advocates, and we'll mostly be looking to them for ebook recommendations. Publishers, especially for mainstream material, have a limited future. Even Amazon, I suspect, has a limited future.

Click to expand...

dunno, i have a number of lovely bookcases, and I'm not at all interested in populating them with a few thousand kindles, or even just a few dozen, neatly faced....


e-books are a parallel media but not going to replace hard copies--no resale, no collectors editions, good luck having your favorite author sign one, they hardly fill a bookcase or look nice on a coffee table, not everyone is interested in the buy-in fee or having to keep a charge, etc....

I love e-Books. I think they're going to be more and more popular (and profitable). A few agents and publishers I know read their slush/manuscripts on e-Book readers. Much better than lugging around laptops or a 500-page stack of paper.

It's not for everyone, but people I know who said they would NEVER read e-books are now reading them on their brand spanking new Kindle or Nook or iPad.

That said, I don't see print books to be completely replaced any time soon. There's just something about a physical book. However, for READING pleasure only, I adore the convenience of e-Books, and how I can change the fonts (most books are printed with fonts a few sizes too small for an old man like me), place unlimited bookmarks, insert comments and notes, search, etc. Things I can't do with print. I can carry 1000 books and switch from one to another (I have short attention span); the readers are light and small and easy to carry to coffee shops or the beach. I can read it in bed without trying to hold up a 400-page paperweight or trying to flip the pages when my hands are falling asleep. When I get tired I can just drop the reader on my side and it will go to "sleep mode" automatically. Battery life is like a month without recharge. It remembers which book(s) I was reading and where I left off. No more dog-earing or scrambling to find a bookmark, and no more losing my place. It's just wonderful!

I read so much more and faster now that I'm reading e-Books, and price points are great. I can get most e-books around $6 range and even the best sellers are often under $10. Some retailers allow you to lend/borrow books, too. So that's really nice.

Books are nice on bookshelves, sure. But I don't use books as accessaries or ornaments. I read them.

I also don't keep books as home decor accessories. I read them.

But I also love them. And I make them (I sew my own bindings).

Reading on a screen gives me migraines after a while. It's the light, which flickers minutely, imperceptible to the conscious mind but known to cause eye strain over time, distraction short-term, and to act as a trigger for people who suffer light-sensitive brain events, such as some forms of migraine.

I will never switch from paper books because screen reading makes me sick and causes pain, literally. That's in addition to my positive desire for books for their own sake. I will never buy an e-book if I am not allowed to print it out so I can bind my own hard copy.

muravyets said:

Reading on a screen gives me migraines after a while. It's the light, which flickers minutely, imperceptible to the conscious mind but known to cause eye strain over time, distraction short-term, and to act as a trigger for people who suffer light-sensitive brain events, such as some forms of migraine.

Click to expand...

Obviously you haven't used an e-Book reader that uses e-Ink.



(there's basically no flickering at all with modern LED or LCD displays. Back light is still an issue for prolonged reader, but flickering is not a problem anymore)

maestrowork said:

Obviously you haven't used an e-Book reader that uses e-Ink.



(there's basically no flickering at all with modern LED or LCD displays. Back light is still an issue for prolonged reader, but flickering is not a problem anymore)

Click to expand...

I can vouch for the eye ease - I'm a migraine sufferer and I know how bad the screen can be on the eyes.

My Nook makes me very happy. Grab one at the displays in B&N and take a look - you'll be very surprised, I think!

muravyets said:

I also don't keep books as home decor accessories. I read them.

But I also love them. And I make them (I sew my own bindings).

Reading on a screen gives me migraines after a while. It's the light, which flickers minutely, imperceptible to the conscious mind but known to cause eye strain over time, distraction short-term, and to act as a trigger for people who suffer light-sensitive brain events, such as some forms of migraine.

I will never switch from paper books because screen reading makes me sick and causes pain, literally. That's in addition to my positive desire for books for their own sake. I will never buy an e-book if I am not allowed to print it out so I can bind my own hard copy.

Click to expand...

I read them as well.

But you can also populate a very nice bookcase with very nice books, for your own enjoyment or that of anyone who visits. And the bookcase itself has a nice look.

You can read an e-book or paper, but the e-book doesn't decorate well and there is no secondhand market. You can't assume a trashed e-book from stuffing in a pocket means you're out ten bucks. Can't pick up used e-reads at garage sales, library sales, goodwill, etc. Nothing wrong with e-books at all, but they are separate media with their own set of pros, and cons. Television in homes didn't kill movie theaters, and e-readers aren't killing paper books

Not really a BWQ. I'm going to move this to the epublishing forum.

I have a Kindle. It's great for quick reads, but for serious study I find it too cumbersome. My guess is that print publishing will continue for academic-type work while e-readers will become the norm for entertainment -- once they find the magical price point.

I suspect a critical, para-industry will rise to screen the inevitable flood of "self-published" work -- or that the "self-publishing" model will suffocate in the cradle because there is no efficient way for the consumer to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Right now I use my Kindle mostly for trips so I can have a variety of reading material on hand, but at home I usually still reach for a book.

Peter Van Alan said:

I have a Kindle. It's great for quick reads, but for serious study I find it too cumbersome. My guess is that print publishing will continue for academic-type work while e-readers will become the norm for entertainment -- once they find the magical price point.

Click to expand...

It's actually the other way around. Us academics have been using downloads and e-journals for years now.

The 'entertainment' group are lagging well behind.

LaceWing said:

I predict that not too long from now -- the way things are going -- agents and editors, and especially reviewers, will morph into critic-advocates, and we'll mostly be looking to them for ebook recommendations. Publishers, especially for mainstream material, have a limited future. Even Amazon, I suspect, has a limited future.

Click to expand...

Actually, The Bookseller reported today that Amazon have a 80% online market share, compared to Waterstones 8%

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/amazon-has-80-online-share-claims-new-survey.html

Publishers are going nowhere.

I have an iPad, a NookColor, a Sylvania 7" mini-tablet, an Acer net book, and a desktop computer. I read on the iPad and the NC. I also read paper publications.

I do NOT believe that ebooks are going to replace paper anytime soon. Paper is too deeply engrained in our culture and civilization. It's been with us for almost 6 thousand years. Paper is part of who we are as a species.

However, ebooks are here to stay and they're going to enlarge and hold their share of the market.

But there are things an ebook cannot do. You cannot convey the striking beauty of a warship as photographed for Jane's All The World's Warships of Whenever via an ebook. You've got to hold that $150 volume in your hand and leaf through its pages.

You cannot enjoy the grand vision of an artist or photographer's art on an ebook. That requires at the very least a massive coffee table book or going to the museum or show to fully appreciate. At the most you might get a peak at the artist or the photographer's vision via an ebook, but there's no way you'll get the full effect.

Paper books and ebooks will ve around for a long, long time together and will, and should, compliment each other.

What ebooks offer is another venue for writers to publish their work. It is not, and should not be, their first and only choice (in fact, for many, it should not be a choice at all, but that's only because they definitely are not ready, do not have the "chops", and do not have any idea that writing is not, generally, a path to riches).

Too damned many people think that they're going to get rich writing their first book (all of, gee, 3 thousand words because, hey, they call it a book, right?) and have no plan for what they want to do in the future, or any future at all. They have the one book or story they want to publish and that's it, that's all they'll ever do - and they expect immediate riches for it.

It doesn't work that way.

Nevertheless, print and ebooks are going to ve around for a long time to come and they will compliment, not supplant, each other.

I used to love print. Owning a Kindle has changed the way I read books.

I travel frequently and the ereader has allowed me to leave books out of my luggage for the first time ever. It's light, it's intuitive, and it let me download Dickens' Christmas Carol last night for free. There's tens of thousands of books available and I love sampling chapters while looking for the next great book. I can do the same thing at my local B&N but not at midnight, in my pj's, while in a motel room.

It's convenient, it's often cheaper, and my old eyes appreciate the ability to enlarge print on demand. My library at home remains stocked with print books only for visitors who don't carry an ereader. I rarely use it any longer.

I'm loving my Kindle, which I've had about three months now. But it will be a very long time, if ever, before they replace paper books entirely. They're fine for books that are pure text, but I personally own lots of art books, full of colour plates. These books are things of beauty worth owning in themselves.

Oh and for we British folks who like to order online, having a Kindle means so many fewer chances of having to deal with Home Delivery Network.

I own a Kindle and a whole lot of books. E-books are just another vehicle for getting the word out. It doesn't have to be one or the other.