Self-Published or Traditionally Published

You might want to ask those in the self-publishing sub forum, as that's where people with the most experience hang out.

(And, FWIW, self-published books are not "taking over" the market. Very few sell enough copies to even get noticed; those that have sold exceptionally well are making news because it's the "new" thing of the moment.)

There's a difference between ebooks and self publishing. Publishers are taking full advantage of the new technology. Even Amazon has its own traditional imprint now. If self publishing was taking over and publishers were losing out, Amazon in no way would be investing in paying for such quality editors to come on board, or such high advances to its authors.

Further, of course you're likely to have self published books dwarf traditionally published books. There are more authors who couldn't get publishers than those that could. Everyone who was ever rejected now just puts their stuff out there. Because of course it wasn't rejected because it was bad, it was rejected because publishers are idiots /sarcasm. (okay, that's me being very mean - I am well aware publishers are far from perfect - two of the best books I've read recently have been treated horribly by publishers. One had the rights reverted recently, the other couldn't find any kind of home until a small press took it on. My point is simply I am really sad that many writers these days don't take the time to evaluate their own work and see if maybe there was a reason it was rejected, and work to improve it, as opposed to just assuming it's perfect and posting it online).

Now, that's absolutely not saying that there aren't best selling self published authors out there, and that self publishing isn't a viable alternative for some authors. A viable alternative even for me maybe, I'm definitely thinking about it for one of my books which suits the ebook format I think. But the numbers don't always say what some with a vested interest think they are saying.

Witness the interview interviewing a one Mr. Konrath. That's all the evidence I need of a biased article. Oh, also Mr. Konrath signed a publishing deal with Amazon, so clearly he doesn't feel that self publishing - despite all his success - is the only way to go. No matter what he insists elsewhere.

I should also point out that when someone is hugely successful, or even decently successful with a self published work, the news is spread like wildfire. By the industry, but also by all those hopefuls who want to use the news as validation that they too will be that successful when they self publish. The fact is, you still have traditionally published authors doing just fine, but that isn't news. And it's fairly common in fact. Because success in self publishing is so new and rare, you hear about it more. Giving the impression that publishers are suffering horribly.

Now I'm not saying that things aren't changing. And I will admit to getting frustrated with some publishers for not being more forward thinking. Especially with regards to ebook royalty rates and pricing. But things aren't always how they seem.

I guess for me what it comes down to is an article that is all speculation. And interviews with people clearly invested in the self publishing niche. Though I will admit this is a more balanced article than most, you still notice not one of the Big Six was interviewed.

Anyway . . . all this is in response to your posting this article link.



To answer your actual question:

I chose traditional because I wanted to focus on being a writer first. I wanted to work with a team, an editor, a marketing department, a design team. I wanted people who were good at their jobs helping me make the best book I could. And all for free. Further, I actually got paid to write. AND my book will exist as a physical book. And say what you will about ereaders (I do love my Kobo), there's nothing quite like a real live book.

Toothpaste said:

. A viable alternative even for me maybe, I'm definitely thinking about it for one of my books which suits the ebook format I think.

Click to expand...

Ditto this. I have a book that I know won't make it in the current commercial market, but I love the story and refuse to give up on because it's not something I can sell the usual way.

Everything else (so far), however - commercial publication all the way.

The poll lacks a very important option, which makes it impossible for me to vote in:

NOT published.

I would choose this over "self-published", for a novel. "Self-published", which any imbecile can accomplish, is to me an open admission of utter abysmal failure at writing. I can deal with the endless rejection in attempt to get something published via a traditional route, though it most certainly doesn't make me happy. But the point is that that response is the judgment of an impersonal audience. Self-publication of a novel is nothing but vanity publication, and that's not my goal.

There are things worthy of self-publication, but I can't see a novel being one of those, in any form. If I can't get a novel accepted for traditional publication, it means the damn thing isn't good enough to interest readers. Readers is what I want. If I can't interest those, it means, simply, the stuff I write ain't good enough.

caw

blacbird said:

The poll lacks a very important option, which makes it impossible for me to vote in:

NOT published.

I would choose this over "self-published", for a novel. "Self-published", which any imbecile can accomplish, is to me an open admission of utter abysmal failure at writing. I can deal with the endless rejection in attempt to get something published via a traditional route, though it most certainly doesn't make me happy. But the point is that that response is the judgment of an impersonal audience. Self-publication of a novel is nothing but vanity publication, and that's not my goal.

There are things worthy of self-publication, but I can't see a novel being one of those, in any form. If I can't get a novel accepted for traditional publication, it means the damn thing isn't good enough to interest readers. Readers is what I want. If I can't interest those, it means, simply, the stuff I write ain't good enough.

caw

Click to expand...

I disagree. While traditional publishers act as gatekeepers, it's important to remember that what gets published through them goes through many subjective opinions, and therefore, a perfectly good book may never be picked up by an agent because it wasn't queried to the right people, or they had similar projects, or what have you.

While I'll admit that there's a lot of poorly written self-published books out there, there's also a lot of traditionally published books that are seen as just as bad. It's all a matter of opinion.

Though I'm trying the traditional route first (I've just begun querying), I'm very interested in self-publishing. The idea of complete control of the novel, from start to finish, intriques me. However, I'd much rather have someone else do the marketing, and let someone else deal with some of the finer intricacies. If I self-published, I'd want to hire a formal editor to look over the work, find a substantial number of beta readers, decide whether my illustation style fits for the book as a cover or not, and whether I should hire someone, as well as what sort of marketing techniques I'd need to go through to fully push the book to its full potential.

So I lean both ways. I'm interested in both. Both take a lot of work, and both have thier pros and cons. Not published yet, but I'm querying now.

blacbird said:

The poll lacks a very important option, which makes it impossible for me to vote in:

NOT published.

I would choose this over "self-published", for a novel. "Self-published", which any imbecile can accomplish, is to me an open admission of utter abysmal failure at writing. I can deal with the endless rejection in attempt to get something published via a traditional route, though it most certainly doesn't make me happy. But the point is that that response is the judgment of an impersonal audience. Self-publication of a novel is nothing but vanity publication, and that's not my goal.

There are things worthy of self-publication, but I can't see a novel being one of those, in any form. If I can't get a novel accepted for traditional publication, it means the damn thing isn't good enough to interest readers. Readers is what I want. If I can't interest those, it means, simply, the stuff I write ain't good enough.

caw

Click to expand...

I think there's a distinction that needs to be made, between what readers actually like, and what editors think readers will like, and what agents think editors will think readers will like.

Off the top of my head, I know that The Princess Diaries took something like a year to sell, got plenty of rejections. Some agents would have given up by then, in which case the novel wouldn't have sold. There are just so many different factors that go into whether a novel gets picked up or not.

Say what you will about self-publication, but the impersonal audience is still there. Whether said audience will know that your book even exists is another question entirely.

Hilldawg said:

I'm curious about those published authors who have chosen the self-published path over the traditional path.

Click to expand...

It's "trade publishing", not "traditional publishing".

self-published books are rapidly taking over the market while traditional publishing houses are shrinking and disappearing daily.

Click to expand...

Trade publishers are enjoying these difficult financial times about as much as any other business but most are pretty sound.

There are now more books self-published each year than the trade publishers put out: but the average sales per title of trade-published books outranks the average sales per title of self-published books by a considerable factor (I don't have statistics on this but I'd guess that trade published books sell on average ten times as many copies as self-published books, title for title). And that's being conservative.

blacbird said:

"Self-published", which any imbecile can accomplish, is to me an open admission of utter abysmal failure at writing. I can deal with the endless rejection in attempt to get something published via a traditional route, though it most certainly doesn't make me happy. But the point is that that response is the judgment of an impersonal audience. Self-publication of a novel is nothing but vanity publication, and that's not my goal.

Click to expand...

Blacbird: respect your fellow writer. You know better than that.

I'm not that interested in self-publishing in the slightest. It's not just the promotion, but the time, effort and expense of putting together a industry standard book [ie: editing/proof-reading, jacket design etc]

I downloaded an app yesterday so I can read Kindle on my PC [I have a Sony Reader] so I could download Nicola Morgan's new book. I'm considering whether to download a few SP'ed Kindle books similiar to mine [Roman historicals] to see what the competition are up to, and why they where rejected. But that's as far as my interest goes.

IMHO: I bought my sister Amanda Hocking's traditional edition of Switched yesterday.

I'm not published, but I'm interested in both "traditional" and self-publishing.

I love the idea of self-publishing. I love the idea of having full control over the process. So I can't see myself going my whole life without self-publishing anything, especially since I have some projects that may be niche enough that it could be tough to find a publisher for them.

But I also recognize that working with a publisher has a lot of benefits, and that I don't have the means right now to publish a book up to industry standards. I also know that with the amount of competition out there and the lack of gatekeepers with self-publishing, it can be really challenging to get your book noticed. I don't need thousands of readers, but more than 10 or 20 would be nice.

I've published with e-publishers (m/m romance, so a niche market) and plan to continue doing so, but I'd like to experiment with self-publishing as well. I've got a bit of a name, so hopefully I can use that to persuade readers to give my self-pubbed stuff a try. If they read something they like from me, I think mostly they'd look for more stuff written by ME, not for more stuff from the same publisher.

It'll be an interesting experiment. If it took me years to write a single book, I'd be less inclined to take a risk, but I write pretty quickly, so I'm okay with risking a couple months' work. I'll pay for cover art and editing, but I've formatted a few freebies myself without much trouble, so I can handle that part.

I don't think self-published automatically means the book is of poor quality but after eight years of working in a library, I have yet to come across a self-published book that I would consider good enough for a trade publisher to accept.

I'm a little leery of self-publishing...my experience has been that it's a perfect example of Sturgeon's Law - most of what I've read has been mediocre at best, or has had great potential but lacks the polish and fine-tuning it needs to be great. (Of course, I've also read traditionally published stuff that has been appalling, so...)

Of course, I'm still terrified of Kindles, so what do I know?

Hilldawg said:

Here's a very interesting article on the topic:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704912004575253132121412028.html

Click to expand...

That article is a year and a half old. That's like dog years in the digital self-pub world.

Old Hack said:

It's "trade publishing", not "traditional publishing".

Click to expand...

This bears repeating. If we're going to compare methods, let's at least use the correct terms.

The poll also lacks another selection that breaks down trade publishing even further, which is print versus digital.

And considering the fact that during the holidays, ebook sales evened out while print sales increased, it's illogical to continue to argue that ebooks are taking over and nudging out print houses. In this rapidly changing market, any data older than a few months is practically useless.

That said, however, I'm shifting this out of novels and down to Round Table for wider discussion. Nonfiction and poetry authors have to make the same kinds of decisions with regards to publication.

I think a combination of the two paradigms seems an attractive option.

Admittedly, I tend to avoid self published books, but when I see an author with a self published book who also has books published through more established presses, I purchase happily. And in those cases, I have actually been very satisfied with what I read. In a way, I think a book requires less vetting than does an author.
do lot triumph tphcm ao chip do dung cho be vay cong so chan vay cong so nu chup anh cho be o ha noi
ETA: Lately, I have taken a chance on some self published authors who didn't have any commercial publishing credits, and again, I was pleasantly surprised. Good self-published books are out there. Amazing ones are out there, in fact, its just sometimes difficult to find them.

I do both. I am traditionally published through an epublisher and I have chosen to self-pub a few other works that don't fit the publisher's requirements. But...

I am a content editor for the epublisher now. I was hired four months after my first novel was published through them. I am good friends with two other editors--a copy editor and another content editor. They edit for me, ruthlessly. I return the favor or design covers for them for their own self-pubbed works.

I realize my situation is a bit different, but my books are going through at least two or three rounds of harsh edits by industry professionals before being self-pubbed.

I don't see that as an admittance of failure at writing. After all, I am published and I am achieving my ultimate goal of working in the publishing industry.

Just my two cents.

blacbird said:

"Self-published", which any imbecile can accomplish, is to me an open admission of utter abysmal failure at writing.

Click to expand...

Screw that. Getting traditionally published is 50-90% luck or perhaps connections. Just the right editor is in just the right mood when s/he picks it up, or they have a hole in their publishing schedule that your book happens to fill, or your shit happens to appeal to a large enough segment of the perceived market.

So you get published. Your book gets 60 days shelved spine outward, in competition with the latest lineup of big-name blockbusters with their own display stands. Then it's off to the shredder, to be turned into paper plates and cardboard box liner.

Finally, you get your royalty statement, with no way of telling whether it's honest or manipulated. With that sneaky 'net' term in your contract, you'll be lucky to earn out your advance no matter how many you sell.

I have two books published with a small niche e-publisher (does that count?), but the paper versions are self-published (upfront cost $19). So far the two channels are earning about the same.

Uh . . . you do know that trade publishers are also publishing in ebook format now too right?

And that not all publishers are lying scum who cheat their authors on their royalty statements?

In your attempt to counter blacbird's admittedly offensive and ignorant post, you managed to be just as offensive and ignorant yourself.

I'm trade-published at the moment - I wanted to see my book in the shops alongside my teen idols like Tolkien and Asimov

Also, we're still in a situation where self-pubbers are second-class citizens unless they are amazing breakout bestsellers like Amanda Hocking. Even though my book isn't out yet, my publishers can get me onto panels at major conventions, and their name on the cover can get my book reviewed by popular print magazines - all sorts of little promotional things that are still off-limits to the self-pub crowd.

I haven't ruled out self-pubbing stuff that's not suitable for a trade house, e.g. if I wrote a novella or novelette, there's very little commercial interest in that length. But I don't have the time and energy to self-pub everything on top of a day-job and the actual writing, so I'm happy to hand over a big chunk of my royalties in return for cash up front and someone taking care of the business side for me.

Toothpaste said:

you managed to be just as offensive and ignorant yourself.

Click to expand...

Heh. I prefer 'provocative'. Blacbird may agree with me.

I see no advantage in perpetuating the absurd notion that there ought to be this war going on between the self published and the trade published. That people on both sides think it's just dandy insulting the other (and yes, implying the main reason I have a publishing deal has nothing to do with my writing, is an insult, just as blacbird implying anyone who self publishes is an imbecile is also one).

Why they hell can't we respect each other? And why would you stoop to "provoke"? What's the point? Now no one respects the core of your point - that blacbird is wrong and there are plenty of valid reasons for someone to choose to self publish - because you've gone so extreme in your own post. So I guess if the only point of your post was to provoke emotion, well done, I'm pissed. But I prefer to use these forums in a constructive manner, to educate and to try to bring people together. Not to push people further apart.

Anne Lyle said:

Also, we're still in a situation where self-pubbers are second-class citizens unless they are amazing breakout bestsellers like Amanda Hocking.

Click to expand...

I think you're second-class only if you've bought into the propaganda from the already-published, who maintain that you will surely be published if only you are good enough, and that self-publication is for losers or the terminally impatient.

I see polarization happening between those who 'believe' in self-publishing and those who 'believe' in the traditional route.

On one side, you're fighting against a lumbering dinosaur of an industry that's focused on finding the next John Grisham, or of creating the next blockbuster from a pile of soggy dog doo, like The Davinci Code. To hell with talent or creativity, it's the name and the synthetic credibility that count.

On the other side, you're faced with making your diamond stand out in a vast and smelly cesspool of published garbage, and of resisting the lure of predators labeling themselves as 'self-publishers' or 'subsidy publishers'.

In the middle is the great crowd of would-be authors, who have been advised to think there is just one correct answer to the traditional/self-pub decision. At the moment, the decision itself is an illusion, or else it's an irrational choice, like choosing a political party. People have been successful, and failed, either way, and sometimes both ways.

EDIT: Toothpaste, could we be arguing in violent agreement here?

I've taken the self publishing route. More control, more power, more profit!