PDA

View Full Version : eBooks



livetojibe
10-19-2011, 06:58 AM
I published my 153,000 word book on Amazon as a Kindle. "Power to the Nth Degree" by Donald Lee Hogan. I'm told in theory I can still pursue having it published in hardback. Does it's status as a Kindle conflict with this as far as paper publishers are concerned. Also, I know it's too long. Can a shortened version be published in paper media?

jamiehall
10-19-2011, 07:15 AM
We have various sub-forums for specific questions, it'd probably be best to ask this question in E-Publishing (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=208).

livetojibe
10-19-2011, 08:42 AM
I will do that, and read your blog. Thanks

GreenEpic
10-19-2011, 09:51 AM
Congrats. Since you have only 2 posts, I'll assume you're new and welcome you anyways. Welcome!

CACTUSWENDY
10-19-2011, 11:24 AM
Welcome to AW. Hope you enjoy your stay with us.
How do you like your popcorn?

If you go to the bottom of the page to the 'forum jump' you can scroll down and find all the areas of this place. After you post 50 posts you can use the SYW areas to get help there. The password for some of the areas is…..vista. A word to the wise, it would be a good idea to participate first in helping others before you think about posting your own work. After you have been around here for awhile, then post something of your own for help. Good luck.

Nickie
10-19-2011, 01:10 PM
Hi there as well!

regdog
10-19-2011, 01:20 PM
Moving thread to e-publishing
Please keep your hands and feet inside the thread while it's in motion. Thank you

girlyswot
10-19-2011, 03:55 PM
It's extremely rare for a traditional publishing house to want anything which has already been published (in any format). So no, I wouldn't bother querying agents or publishers with it. Write your next book and if your self-pubbed books sells well, say so in the query letter for that one.

scarletpeaches
10-19-2011, 03:58 PM
This isn't an epublishing question; it's a self-publishing question.

Old Hack
10-19-2011, 05:09 PM
Don, I don't know why you just sent me a PM asking me exactly the same questions as you've asked in this thread, but in future please don't double up on messages like that: it wastes people's time. Thanks.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, so I'll assume you've self-published your Kindle edition and are asking if you can now find a trade publisher for a hardback edition of your book. If that's the case then this is neither an e-publishing question nor a self-publishing one: please let me know and I'll move this thread once again to a more appropriate part of AW. If I've got it wrong and you're asking if you're able to self-publish a hardback edition then your answer is yes.

But please note for future reference: it's far better to research things like this before you take action, and not after. It usually gives you more options.

PeteDutcher
10-21-2011, 12:01 AM
It's extremely rare for a traditional publishing house to want anything which has already been published (in any format). So no, I wouldn't bother querying agents or publishers with it. Write your next book and if your self-pubbed books sells well, say so in the query letter for that one.

I believe this is true.

I was planning to turn on of my books into an eSerial for an experiment. I chose one of my completed novels that I had submitted to about 30 agents and heard from close to ten of them (rejection to my queries).

Months have passed. I figured no one was interested. So when I decided to use it, I sent messages to the agents I liked most out of those I submitted to, thinking to give them at least a week to let me know if they were interested in the book.

Meanwhile, after sending those messages, I started preparing the novel into eSerial format. 30,000 words per part.

The week passed. I was literally a couple days from publishing the first part on Amazon...had the .mobo files done...the covers done.

And then one of the agents requested a full...and asked me to hold off on the eSerial release.

I still want to do the eSerial option as an experiment but may have to use a different book. The problem is, I think my other books are going to sell traditionally as well.

Sooooo...now I'm working on writing a true eSerial...a story intended from the start to be just that.

I'll be talking about it more in the near future, but the likely title is "Magic Rising".

livetojibe
10-21-2011, 08:24 AM
I appreciate the reply. I'll try to answer but it would be helpful if you view it thru an "extreme newbie" filter. Most of what you take for granted about how this site works is totally unclear to me and accepted etiquette completely unknown.

The second question was generated because I saw something somewhere on the site saying directing questions directly to a super moderator was a fine idea and someone had already told me I'd posted in the wrong spot.

As for researching first, I did, sort of. Hard to research what you don't know. I originally only looked to see if I gave up any rights by self publishing which as I understand it, I don't. I have read enough success stories about authors starting with an eBook, having success, and then a traditional publisher picks them up. With that information, it doesn't scream to me that in general publishers will not want to have anything to do with you if you have published the book as an eBook.

My question now can be refined to this (I hope it's refined). My ebook has sold so far only 10 copies (not really unexpected). In my logical mind (I'm currently an engineer), if I un-publish it, take off Amazon, does it really matter to a publisher? And if so, why? It would seem to me no damage done; only ten people in the world looked at the book.

Old Hack
10-21-2011, 12:39 PM
I appreciate the reply. I'll try to answer but it would be helpful if you view it thru an "extreme newbie" filter. Most of what you take for granted about how this site works is totally unclear to me and accepted etiquette completely unknown.

Livetojibe, I assume you were responding to my earlier post: if there are lots of comments between yours and the one you're responding to, it makes it clearer for everyone if you quote the message you're responding to. There's a "quote" button in the bottom right corner of every post which helps you do that.


The second question was generated because I saw something somewhere on the site saying directing questions directly to a super moderator was a fine idea and someone had already told me I'd posted in the wrong spot.


Ah, I understand. Yes, AW is so big it can be confusing but if you give it a bit of time you'll soon get the hang of it. I recommend that you start a thread in the Newbies section of AW if you haven't done so already and do read the Newbies Guide, which will help you in all sorts of ways.

If you have a question about how AW works, then yes, contact a moderator: if you have a more general question, like the one you started this thread with, then you're better off staying out in the open with it. OK?


As for researching first, I did, sort of. Hard to research what you don't know.

I don't suppose anyone researches what they already know. But yes, research is hard work: that doesn't mean we can avoid it.

You'll find a lot of information, help and advice here, though, so you're in the right place.


I originally only looked to see if I gave up any rights by self publishing which as I understand it, I don't.

Well, you give up your first rights, for a start. And there are plenty of publishers who only want those first rights.


I have read enough success stories about authors starting with an eBook, having success, and then a traditional publisher picks them up. With that information, it doesn't scream to me that in general publishers will not want to have anything to do with you if you have published the book as an eBook.

Lots of those stories are hyped, exaggerated, and pretty inaccurate. And compared to the number of writers who get their trade publishers via the usual submit-and-wait route, the number who find them via self-publishing is miniscule.

There are publishers who might still be interested, but there are plenty others who won't.


My question now can be refined to this (I hope it's refined). My ebook has sold so far only 10 copies (not really unexpected). In my logical mind (I'm currently an engineer), if I un-publish it, take off Amazon, does it really matter to a publisher? And if so, why? It would seem to me no damage done; only ten people in the world looked at the book.

You can't un-publish your book. You can stop selling it on Amazon but there will still be a record of it there, there will still be records of its publication, and it will still have been published. If you find an agent or publisher willing to take it on you will have to tell them that it has been previously published; but you can qualify that by saying that only ten people bought it.

The problem with that is that you'll be telling them, indirectly, that only ten people were interested enough in your book to buy it, which implies that it's not going to garner enough interest to make it commercially successful--which some are going to consider a big strike against your book.

Katrina S. Forest
10-21-2011, 02:32 PM
The week passed. I was literally a couple days from publishing the first part on Amazon...had the .mobo files done...the covers done.

And then one of the agents requested a full...and asked me to hold off on the eSerial release.

Wow, congrats on that. But how long did you wait? If it was only two months, there's plenty of agents who state outright that their response time to queries is longer than that. Many of the "no response means no" types also tell you when you can assume a no. (Though not all, which is a pet peeve of mine.)

Anyways, unless you were dealing with the last group, you shouldn't have had to guess when agents were done with the query.

livetojibe
10-22-2011, 01:33 AM
You can't un-publish your book. You can stop selling it on Amazon but there will still be a record of it there, there will still be records of its publication, and it will still have been published. If you find an agent or publisher willing to take it on you will have to tell them that it has been previously published; but you can qualify that by saying that only ten people bought it.

The problem with that is that you'll be telling them, indirectly, that only ten people were interested enough in your book to buy it, which implies that it's not going to garner enough interest to make it commercially successful--which some are going to consider a big strike against your book.[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is quite informative. I am questioning here, not challenging altough I'm aware it can sound that way. I'm totally ignornant in this world and as my day job is that of a design engineer, questioning everything is sort of a way of life.

A recurrent theme I hear is that publishers are getting more and more picky, yet obviously they need to publish. It's not rocket science to know they are all looking for the next Clancy, Coben, Grisham . . . If one could get my book to a publisher, from a reputable agent, whom I've convinced I have not one book in me but at least dozens, would not said publisher be considered very short sighted if he/she/it let the fact I put the Kindle version out there for a few weeks, naked and with no advertising override the fact the book is great.(We have to assume great for argument's sake.) Publishers certainly would know under the circumstances that sales amounting to 10 cannot be any reflection on quality. I daresay if Grisham did the same thing using a different pen name, he wouldn't sell either. It seems ludicrous that this would stop publishers dying to find the next great multi-book author from taking on the book. What am I missing? Is there some contractural pitfall here? How does the publisher come out on the short end because of this?

veinglory
10-22-2011, 01:37 AM
If the editor or agents reads it and thinks you are the next Grisham, they won't care.

But editors and agents tend to be slightly more pragmatic and they are more likely to read 50 manuscripts that month that are all reasonably promising. So it pays not to give them reasons to choose someone else.

J. Tanner
10-22-2011, 10:20 AM
Keep in mind no one knew Grisham was the next Grisham before sales took off on The Firm.

There are no rules. But there are typical results and what you're suggesting is atypical enough that it might as well not even be considered, much like winning Lotto is not a good business plan to consider. If it happens great, but you shouldn't risk your day job on the possibility.

The book is now published. You should consider it pretty well over as far as trade publishing goes. Maybe you win Lotto down the road if your self publishing venture is atypical but I wouldn't recommend pursuing the typical querry routine with that book for an agent or trade publisher. If Lotto happens, it'll come to you.

livetojibe
10-25-2011, 08:06 AM
I've approached this question in another forum but didn't get an answer I can buy so I'm trying it here.

Let's assume I am fortunate enough to get my 90,000 word book to an agent and the agent likes it; likes it a lot. Likes it so much it is the one in one hundred that makes it's way to the publisher and the publisher likes it.

At that point, the publisher learns that there was a 50,000-word version self published as a Kindle for two weeks which sold 11 copies. The book was pulled from Amazon. Clearly the two versions share little but the basic plot. The quality of the current book has been established as being worthy of publishing.

I have been told elsewhere that the stint on Amazon has spoiled any chance of getting this book published and I don't see why. Giving up First Rights has been quoted as the reason, but given up to whom? I self-published. I still have all the rights to whatever, do I not? The book is off the shelves, there is no competition from another published version. The book that wouldn't sell, even if you ignore zero publicity and exposure, is not the same book the publisher now likes. It could again be published as an eBook by anyone I choose, could it not? Published in any format I agree to correct?

I'm failing to see why there is any problem here at all other than no doubt a deep seated knee jerk reaction to the fact the thing was published at sometime, somewhere, end of story.

I really don't want to argue with anyone and am not here to be stubborn or prove I'm right. So far the answers I've seen would seem to be no deeper than, "You just can't do that-give it up." I've yet to hear how this actually would somehow lessen earning potential for the publisher. I'm hoping if I am indeed wrong, someone can explain it to me.

BenPanced
10-25-2011, 08:19 AM
You've self-published. Anything after that is a reprint. Most publishers aren't willing to shell out for a reprint unless there are significant sales numbers that show it has feet.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6666425&postcount=13

If you have further questions on a thread you've started, it'd be a good idea to keep them in that thread rather than starting another one. Mods get cranky when they have to clean house.

Cyia
10-25-2011, 08:26 AM
First rights are just that - the first publication of a book. It doesn't matter if it's in print from a commercial house, or self-published, the fact remains that a version of the book has already existed in the wild, for sale, and did not do well.

Considering the extra work you've done on the MS, this isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but you still have to inform the agent and publisher. Even if they agree that the new version is different enough to be considered a new and separate work, you're no longer a "debut" writer, and can't be marketed as such. That's leverage you can't get back.

CACTUSWENDY
10-25-2011, 08:45 AM
Once a book is published it has a SBN assigned to it. That is for the life of the book.

It is my understanding that even if you have added/altered/changed the first book it still has that number.

When you see or get a copy of a movie that is called a directors cut, it is one that has many extra scenes in it. It is still the same movie, but with extra stuff. It is not a remake.

Several old time writers that have died have told of keeping some of their work done in short stories but finally added them to a full length novel. The shorts were published. So, I'm not real sure how that works. (Someone may remember us talking about who some of these guys were. It was a couple of years ago.)

Drachen Jager
10-25-2011, 09:05 AM
I think if the book was revised that heavily it might not count.

Many times a novella has been published in a journal only to be turned into a novel a few years later. I'd say the same rule applies here. Call your first one a novella, say the new one is a novel based on the novella. Shouldn't be too much of a problem.

livetojibe
10-25-2011, 10:00 AM
[QUOTE=Cyia;6678079]First rights are just that - the first publication of a book. It doesn't matter if it's in print from a commercial house, or self-published, the fact remains that a version of the book has already existed in the wild, for sale, and did not do well.

This is probably the point I stumble across the most. Anyone would know, especially a publisher, that given the circumstances of how the book was published, (self published, eBook, unknown author, no publicity, available for two weeks) the fact there were no sales can in no way reflect anything about how good the book might or might not be. No book, no matter how good it is will sell under those circumstances.

I buy that losing the opportunity to "debut" is valid, but at the same time, I know as a rather voracious reader myself, I do not seek out "debut", one book authors; they are usually no good. I personally seek out authors that have written many books because I know I have a backlog of good stuff to catch up on. If I've caught the attention of a publisher and I myself represent a possible multi-book author, that would over-ride any concern over some self-published effort that everyone involved would by that time know reflects not at all on the work they might want to publish.

Someone here is going to shortly tell me to put up or shut up and prove the whole thing one way or the other: "Go sell the thing or try, and see what happens." My whole interest here has been to determine whether or not to go to the work to re-write the thing. I can say no one has convinced me otherwise.

The one thing I haven't heard addressed and was waiting for is discussion on the timing of when it would be learned of the book's history. There certainly is no way the history could be revealed up front; that would certainly kill it. Does it need to be revealed up front. But because I personally believe no one will care if they have a very good manuscript in hand, I don't see it as a problem. I don't see a publisher telling me on Monday to take the book he loved on Friday to someone else. The caveat would be is if that information is asked for upfront in some way. This I don't know. Actually, I don't know a lot which is why I'm here.

SRHowen
10-25-2011, 10:56 AM
Personally, I would say upfront that it was self published and that you pulled it when you realized your mistake in doing so. (even if you don't think it is a mistake) otherwise you risk alienating an agent or publisher. A lie by omission kind of thing. It sets up a very poor relationship with your publisher or agent and would be grounds to as you say tell you to take the novel they loved on Monday somewhere else on Friday once they find out you did not give them the full history of the novel.

Now, if things have been changed to the point of it is no longer the same story, name changed etc., then it is based on that earlier work, but is no longer the same book and would not have the same ISBN number either. I've sold novels based on short stories previously published.

Old Hack
10-25-2011, 12:10 PM
I've approached this question in another forum but didn't get an answer I can buy so I'm trying it here.

I get that you didn't like the answers you got first time round. But starting a new thread, asking exactly the same question, and hoping to get a different set of answers, isn't going to work. I've merged this with your previous thread. Please don't do this again.


Let's assume I am fortunate enough to get my 90,000 word book to an agent and the agent likes it; likes it a lot. Likes it so much it is the one in one hundred that makes it's way to the publisher and the publisher likes it.Far fewer than one manuscript out of every hundred in an agent's slush pile will reach an editor's desk: that one per cent is probably the amount that moves past the query stage.


At that point, the publisher learns that there was a 50,000-word version self published as a Kindle for two weeks which sold 11 copies. The book was pulled from Amazon. Clearly the two versions share little but the basic plot. The quality of the current book has been established as being worthy of publishing.My bold.

How is this clear? All the publisher knows is that the book has already been published. At which point many publishers will refuse the book: they want to publish new books, not books which have already been published by other publishers.


I have been told elsewhere that the stint on Amazon has spoiled any chance of getting this book published and I don't see why. No, you've been told that there are publishers who won't want your book. This is what you were advised:


It's extremely rare for a traditional publishing house to want anything which has already been published (in any format). So no, I wouldn't bother querying agents or publishers with it. Write your next book and if your self-pubbed books sells well, say so in the query letter for that one.


Well, you give up your first rights, for a start. And there are plenty of publishers who only want those first rights.

There are publishers who might still be interested, but there are plenty others who won't.


If the editor or agents reads it and thinks you are the next Grisham, they won't care.

But editors and agents tend to be slightly more pragmatic and they are more likely to read 50 manuscripts that month that are all reasonably promising. So it pays not to give them reasons to choose someone else.

Moving on, you ask:


Giving up First Rights has been quoted as the reason, but given up to whom? I self-published. I still have all the rights to whatever, do I not? You haven't given your first rights to anyone: you've used them up yourself by publishing your book. You can only ever do anything for the first time once, and that goes for publishing a book. You've published your book: that's its first time gone. Used up. It cannot happen again. It doesn't matter that you've now withdrawn your book from sale: the book has been published, and as I said to you upstream, you cannot now unpublish it.


It could again be published as an eBook by anyone I choose, could it not? Published in any format I agree to correct?
Of course it could, so long as you can find a publisher who is interested in publishing it.


I'm failing to see why there is any problem here at all other than no doubt a deep seated knee jerk reaction to the fact the thing was published at sometime, somewhere, end of story.I'll try to explain this one to you again.

Publishers have far more submissions than they have publishing slots--probably several hundred, if not several thousand submissions per slot. Therefore they can be very, very picky about what they do publish.

If anything about a book isn't absolutely what they want they can reject it knowing that they'll have another wave of submissions due in any second, and that among that wave of submissions there will be other books just as good as the one they rejected only without the problem that made them say no. Publishers don't need to sign books that have problems associated with them, like potential conflicts over different earlier editions (no matter how small and insignificant those conflicts might appear to the writers of those books); they can just sign up a different book which is unencumbered by such problems.

There are publishers which are prepared to overlook these things: but others will reject your book unread because it has already been published.


I really don't want to argue with anyone and am not here to be stubborn or prove I'm right. So far the answers I've seen would seem to be no deeper than, "You just can't do that-give it up." I've yet to hear how this actually would somehow lessen earning potential for the publisher. I'm hoping if I am indeed wrong, someone can explain it to me.If you don't understand the answers you've been given then by all means ask for clarification, or ask for more information. But do not start a new thread about a question you've already had answered; and don't you dare dismiss as shallow or misleading the good advice that the members of AW have given you just because you didn't like it. Our members--some of whom have extensive experience in publishing--have been kind enough to give you their time and their expertise for free. They deserve more respect than that.

gothicangel
10-25-2011, 12:21 PM
Point it out if I am wrong, I don't really know the fine print of Amazon's self-publishing arm [and my brain is a bit confuddled as I'm in the middle of moving.] But self-publishing through Amazon, is not true self-publishing is it? The author is not the publisher, but they sign certain rights over to be published by Amazon - the same rights as I would sign over to Random House, correct?

Cyia
10-25-2011, 02:52 PM
The one thing I haven't heard addressed and was waiting for is discussion on the timing of when it would be learned of the book's history. There certainly is no way the history could be revealed up front; that would certainly kill it. Does it need to be revealed up front. But because I personally believe no one will care if they have a very good manuscript in hand, I don't see it as a problem. I don't see a publisher telling me on Monday to take the book he loved on Friday to someone else. The caveat would be is if that information is asked for upfront in some way. This I don't know. Actually, I don't know a lot which is why I'm here.

You MUST tell the agent/publisher upfront. AFAIK, it's standard wording in publishing contracts that you affirm a new contracted work has never been previously published in any form. (Those pesky first rights again.)

And while readers may not care if someone is new or not, publishers absolutely do. If someone has a sales record, they WILL and DO search it out to see how well this person sold. They use those sales numbers to determine (in part) how much to risk on the book, or to decide that a given project isn't worth the risk at all. The circumstances of the book not selling are (usually) beside the point; all they know is the numbers.

quicklime
10-25-2011, 03:57 PM
Live,

you're an engineer. You've stated this repeatedly. I know you don't want to hear it, but the analytical part of your mind must also know, on some level, that what you are hearing here, over and over, is true. Your book may be beautiful. It may be incredible, rare, special. BUT, it is out there--that book's cherry is popped.

you can't reclaim your virginity, or your first rights.


Not telling them it was out there is at best bad faith, at worst, misrepresentation--not the way to begin a business relationship. Telling them means you have to explain First Rights are gone, and as an aside, you will have to mention they're gone AND the book underperformed. This is also not a great way to begin a business relationship, although at least you don't look untrustworthy and conniving in this case. It is just a very low-odds sell. Most agents will reject without even looking at sample pages when they realize they can't un-pop your book's cherry and it has already been doing sordid things in an old Econoline van behind the local bowling alley.

You don't want to hear it, but that doesn't make it any less true: Move on. Write something new and start over. The simple odds are your book isn't the next Grisham, but even if it is, that's immaterial. If you're thinking of, for example, "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell," that want on to a second, paper print because the e-book sold well enough to convince them there was a market. It was a fluke, but on top of that, it benefitted from unusual circumstances your book does not have. I know it sounds harsh, but if you're gonna publish, you will sooner by letting go now than by wasting another year or three on this one book, proving to yourself we weren't all trying to build some elaborate hoax.

James D. Macdonald
10-25-2011, 07:03 PM
A book that isn't available on Amazon and that only had ten downloads might as well be unpublished. Most folks' books have been read by far more--friends, writing groups, beta-readers--by the time they're submitted.

If an agent or publisher loves your book, when submitted through normal channels, then they love it.

But writing another work isn't a bad idea anyway.

Old Hack
10-25-2011, 08:08 PM
A book that isn't available on Amazon and that only had ten downloads might as well be unpublished. Most folks' books have been read by far more--friends, writing groups, beta-readers--by the time they're submitted.

I agree with this completely.

But technically the book has already been published, and an agent or publisher would still need to know that before they put any time into considering the title.

As I've already said it won't put all of them off, but there are plenty who won't be interested in it no matter how few sales it had.

I'm not sure that this is a good stance for them to take but for now, it is how things work.

Torgo
10-25-2011, 08:26 PM
Here's a possible reason for a publisher to be wary of a book that's already had a life: booksellers can look up its sales figures when they're deciding whether to stock it. They look up the book, find it's sold 11 copies, and think, why would it do any better this time? So they pass on it.

In this case, because it had its first life as an ebook, it may well be that the sales figures can't be looked up. So I'm not saying that this particular problem will necessarily be a problem for you. But as a publisher, having someone send me a book that they self-published unsuccessfully is just a bit less attractive than one that is a) unpublished or b) self-published successfully.

Uncarved
10-25-2011, 09:03 PM
First rights is like virginity. You give them up once and you can't go back and "fix it". That book's cherry has popped. Now someone else may want a piece of her, but it can't take what isn't there -i.e. first rights.

Does this make any more sense to you?


EDITED TO ADD: Damn, didn't see quicklime's post. Ah yes then. So ignore this repeated post ;)

James D. Macdonald
10-25-2011, 09:57 PM
1) Follow the publishers'/agents' guidelines to the letter.
2) Be honest. You expect your editor/agent to be honest to you--it's a two-way street.

Write another book. You're going to write another book anyway, aren't you? What's wrong with today?

Old Hack
10-25-2011, 10:09 PM
1) Follow the publishers'/agents' guidelines to the letter.
2) Be honest. You expect your editor/agent to be honest to you--it's a two-way street.

Write another book. You're going to write another book anyway, aren't you? What's wrong with today?

QFT.

girlyswot
10-25-2011, 11:17 PM
Point it out if I am wrong, I don't really know the fine print of Amazon's self-publishing arm [and my brain is a bit confuddled as I'm in the middle of moving.] But self-publishing through Amazon, is not true self-publishing is it? The author is not the publisher, but they sign certain rights over to be published by Amazon - the same rights as I would sign over to Random House, correct?

Depends how you do it, I think. Who pays for the ISBN is the key to who is listed as the publisher.

Old Hack
10-26-2011, 11:41 AM
Once a book is published it has a SBN assigned to it. That is for the life of the book.

It is my understanding that even if you have added/altered/changed the first book it still has that number.

A new ISBN is assigned to every new edition of a book--so, the hardback edition of a title will have a different ISBN to the paperback edition of that same title, and when a new edition of the book is published (not a reprint, a new edition) then that new edition will have a new ISBN.

This can make it difficult to work out what a book's overall sales are, as you need to know how many editions of the book have been published in order to get a true picture.


I buy that losing the opportunity to "debut" is valid, but at the same time, I know as a rather voracious reader myself, I do not seek out "debut", one book authors; they are usually no good.

Two points. First, publishers like to publish debut authors, as the authors' debut status is a good hook for the publishers to hang their promotional efforts on. People love a success story, and there are many column inches to be had here.

Second, my bold. Debut books are "usually no good"? That's an incredibly patronising, dismissive and sweeping statement, and it's insulting to all writers who have ever been published. I strongly suggest that you take time to think about what Respect Your Fellow Writer means (you know, the one rule you agreed to follow when you signed up here).



If I've caught the attention of a publisher and I myself represent a possible multi-book author, Do you? I thought you'd only written one book. This one (http://www.amazon.com/Power-Nth-Degree-ebook/dp/B005VMBKA6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1319251247&sr=8-1&tag=vglnk-c1189-20), which despite your earlier claims to have withdrawn it from sale seems to still be available at Amazon. Are you being straight with us, Donald?


My whole interest here has been to determine whether or not to go to the work to re-write the thing. I can say no one has convinced me otherwise.You've not asked that, as far as I can see: you've asked if trade publishers would be interested in the book even though it's already been published.


The one thing I haven't heard addressed and was waiting for is discussion on the timing of when it would be learned of the book's history.You need to tell agents and publishers of your book's history upfront.


There certainly is no way the history could be revealed up front; that would certainly kill it.You need to tell agents and publishers of your book's history upfront because if they find out that it's already been published after they've invested time and effort in it, they'll probably be angry with you for not being honest with them.


Does it need to be revealed up front. Yes.

James D. Macdonald
10-26-2011, 12:28 PM
There certainly is no way the history could be revealed up front; that would certainly kill it. They have Google the same as we do. Before anyone starts talking about money, someone somewhere will have hit the ol' search engines.

If you have a book they want, nothing in its history will prevent them from making an offer (though you may get a lowball reprint offer). But that's a darned big "if."

Terie
10-26-2011, 12:48 PM
I buy that losing the opportunity to "debut" is valid, but at the same time, I know as a rather voracious reader myself, I do not seek out "debut", one book authors; they are usually no good.

So if debut authors' books are 'usually no good', why do you expect anyone to be interested in your debut book? Using your logic, it's probably no good.

See the problem with this kind of insulting remark?

SRHowen
10-26-2011, 09:01 PM
I am thinking this is a case of someone thinking one thing and wanting it to be that way, and posting the question here looking for support for that idea.

Several people have given the requested information, and were rebutted with the I haven't heard the answer to my question, which to me says I haven't heard the answer I want.

The short answer do you need to tell the publisher or agent up front--YES

Will they be less interested in it? -- Possibly--if you don't tell them you will be of less interest for lying to them when they find out.

Also, don't assume that you are the only one who can use google or any of the other available search engines out there. None of us like being lied to and publishers don't either, and if you don't tell them up front they will find out that it was published. And you will have burned a number of publishing bridges in the process.

tko
10-27-2011, 05:40 AM
Interesting. It was quite common when I was a boy to read novels who's opening pages stated that the concept was first published as a short story (of the same name) in a magazine. Certainly this happens a lot with Sci Fi, where concepts are very important, and a well received short story could be expanded into a novel.

A recent example is "Brokeback Mountain" was originally published in the New Yorker.

Arthur C. Clark alone:

"Guardian Angel" whose expanded version is "Childhood's End"
"Rescue Party" & "The Star" whose expanded version is "The Songs of Distant Earth""
"Jupiter Five" a shorter version of "Rendezvous with Rama"
"The Hammer of God" was expanded to a novel of the same name
"The Deep Range", the shorter version of novel of the same title

I don't know anything about how magazine rights are handled. Do you keep your own rights after publication?



Several old time writers that have died have told of keeping some of their work done in short stories but finally added them to a full length novel. The shorts were published. So, I'm not real sure how that works. (Someone may remember us talking about who some of these guys were. It was a couple of years ago.)

Dave Hardy
10-27-2011, 06:30 AM
I don't know anything about how magazine rights are handled. Do you keep your own rights after publication?

I think the pulps bought first serial rights and then the book publishers bought book rights. It was typical of the pulp era when stories could be used multiple times. Talbot Mundy, Edgar Rice Burrroughs, Jack Williamson, and many many others published a lot of their best stuff that way. I read stuff in Asimov's that was later turned into novels, The Cool War, Enemy Mine, etc...

It still occurs. I read Michael Chabon's Gentlemen of the Road as a serial in the New York Times (online edition). Of course I think that was intended as a throwback. And Chabon is a Pulitzer winner, and it was the NYT. Not exactly the usual circumstances.

James D. Macdonald
10-27-2011, 07:21 AM
I don't know anything about how magazine rights are handled. Do you keep your own rights after publication?

Like anything else, it depends on the contract.

SRHowen
10-27-2011, 08:02 AM
In this case it is not a short story into a novel though, it is a self published novel that the author wants to find a traditional publisher for.