Why Self-Publishing Is Not The Answer To Rejection

Except not all of us self publish because we received rejections, so that kind of a bit of a logical leap if you ask me.

I was in a discussion on another writing forum and dared point out some cautions about self-publishing - not "don't do it" but "be careful of". O...M...G... Suddenly that whole forum was going to close down because of trolls like me making it impossible to discuss self-publishing and scaring away new authors who wanted a safe place to discuss their plans...

Seriously. Makes one want to slap these types upside the head and scream "Are you listening AT ALL?"...

I SO totally agree with this.

To be fair, I know many authors who did NOT go the submission route. Some of them have tremendously good books for sale that are self-published. These ones worked hard on drafts, on edits, on covers, on marketing, etc. These self-published authors are in the business of doing it right.

Then you get the ones suggested in the article. "I wanna see my name on Amazon!" I've read a few SP books that made my skin crawl. Some of them...the author didn't seem to understand the rudimentary aspects of language. For them, grammar meant the odd period and many exclamation marks.

There ARE those horrid creatures who want instant gratification. They have the LOOK AT ME disease. They give the careful and meticulous SP authors a bad name. Some of my favourite books of the last year were SP.

I'm thrilled for everybody who gets agents and book deals from trade publishing, but I didn't and self-publishing is currently paying my rent, so for me at least, it is the answer to rejection.

Awesome that it's paying your rent, Parametric.

I have yet to read the article! (Every time I am about to, something else comes up.) I will though, with luck, right after I post this.

I think Parametric's post is a good reminder that pretty much no statement about anything is going to be true of everyone. I feel sure self-publishing has been the answer to rejection for many, in fact.

But posing any question in either/or terms is another trap. Parametric, I hope you'll forgive me for using you as an example but I expect your paying the rent has a lot to do with hard work, skill, and the quality of your writing, as well as the publishing avenue you chose -- even though you chose it, I gather, after exhausting the trade publishing options you had.

IMO the big issue going on with this is the willingness of those who believe passionately in a cause to allow their thinking to become constrained into either/ors and us-against-thems.

For example, I also am a big fan of instant gratification. Every time I go for a second scoop of ice cream even when I am full, yanno? But if someone else chooses not to, or says they are allergic to chocolate, or would rather wait til later, I am not going to go into attack mode and accuse them of limiting the freedoms of all ice cream lovers the world over.

Hmm, painting with a very broad brush there, maybe too broad, but what I mean is it is the fundamentalist, proselytizing attitude of some in the self-publishing arena which I find troubling, and really not any of the rest of it. If people are going to make mistakes, let them. If they choose a path that seems foolish or for which they don't seem prepared, that's too bad but doesn't really disturb me, although I hope good information about all avenues of publishing can be made even more available to everyone.

It's the feeling of an armed camp, bristling with barely suppressed anger, that I find very unsettling. Because, why?

*goes to read article now*

I can think of several very good self-published books (ones I reviewed at 9-10/10, which I do very rarely) that were rejected by publishers. They were a bit outside the box but certainly deserved to be self-published.

I wouldn't call them "horrid creatures", Kevin. Instant gratification syndrome is something we all suffer from in one form or another. For me, it's chocolate.

But here's the thing: Over and over I've seen posts by writers who have and are successfully navigating the self-publishing waters. The recurring theme here at AbsoluteWrite is that there are very sound reasons for self-publishing, not that self-publishing is wrong. But too many new writers concentrate on the mechanics of self-publishing in order to get the book out there without first evaluating whether their reasons for doing so match their writing career goals, and whether self-publishing is the right path for that book. It can be, especially if the book is a niche book, for one example. But self-publishing is no path to riches, and I think too many new writers have bought into the hype that it is.

Parametric, I saw your post as I was refreshing. Congratulations! Self-publishing can be the right path, as you know. Too many times, though, new writers don't have the skills and knowledge to do it right and don't take the time to learn. A wonderful book that might have found an appreciative audience, regardless of the publishing path chosen, will sink into obscurity or not find a publisher if the author is solely motivated by imagined dollars or impatience. Those are the ones who won't see the success you have.

Again, there are valid reasons for self-publishing. Reasons that align with the writer's career goals. Reasons that best serve the well-edited and thoroughly polished book. Self-publishing is not an easy path, but with forethought, due consideration, and hard work it can be the right path.

Kylabelle said:

For example, I also am a big fan of instant gratification. Every time I go for a second scoop of ice cream even when I am full, yanno? But if someone else chooses not to, or says they are allergic to chocolate, or would rather wait til later, I am not going to go into attack mode and accuse them of limiting the freedoms of all ice cream lovers the world over.

Click to expand...

Bolded bit made me snort with laughter all over my keyboard.

veinglory said:

I can think of several very good self-published books (ones I reviewed at 9-10/10, which I do very rarely) that were rejected by publishers. They were a bit outside the box but certainly deserved to be self-published.

Click to expand...

This is something I find myself mentioning to a lot of trade published authors (those who look down their noses at SP) - there are a lot of reasons for rejection besides quality.

Just wanted to add - a few years ago, I was one of those authors who looked down at self-publishing. But I learned a lot (mainly here) and now, though it's not something I want to do, I no longer feel it's "just for losers". Open and honest discussion can be beneficial for all writers.

I believe that a majority shouldn't run off and self-publish, just as a majority shouldn't enroll in medical school. It has nothing to do with profits or creative control. It has to do talent and being ready. If I would have self-published my first novel when I thought it was ready, it would not have sold a single copy. I know it wouldn't have. It was horrible, laced with POV and tense issues. That would have discouraged me enough to never write again. But because I went the agent route, I received a lot of feedback that I put into revisions and a second novel. And so goes the third novel (still querying). There are many making great money self-publishing, but there's one point that all the big advocates aren't mentioning. Those that are paying the rent with their writing have talent. They either had it right out of the gates, or they learned it over time. There is absolutely no way in hell that every person that writes a novel is good enough to publish, especially that first novel. If you're talented enough to make money self-publishing you have to realize that the majority of writers are not. You can't sugar coat it. Writing is like every other profession. You have to practice and learn and continue to do so your entire profession. Many many beginning writers ignore this.

The hurry up attitude out of everything else is the reason self-publishing will continue to have the stigma. Because everyone with a keyboard thinks they can become a doctor.

If I was ever going to self-publish it would be because I'm so close to getting an agent/editor that I know feel my writing is good enough to put out there.

shadowwalker said:

This is something I find myself mentioning to a lot of trade published authors (those who look down their noses at SP) - there are a lot of reasons for rejection besides quality.

Just wanted to add - a few years ago, I was one of those authors who looked down at self-publishing. But I learned a lot (mainly here) and now, though it's not something I want to do, I no longer feel it's "just for losers". Open and honest discussion can be beneficial for all writers.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this.

shadowwalker said:

This is something I find myself mentioning to a lot of trade published authors (those who look down their noses at SP) - there are a lot of reasons for rejection besides quality.

Click to expand...

Often the decision to self-publish has to do with artistic vision and quality control, in non-fiction.

There are a number of writers in scholarly fields who have self-published because of things like the expense of licensing images for large print runs makes them prohibitive (licensing a fine art image for 30 thousand impressions can be $1500.00), but printing a couple thousand copies is quite possible, and for scholarly books, a couple thousand is a decent size print run because they tend to be very very niche-driven.

I keep vacillating on this, and it's cost me years. I have had famous authors and editors tell me that my writing is excellent. Yet I cannot get an agent or publisher's attention. As best as I can tell, I use themes and tone in non-standard ways and that scares anyone in traditional publishing. It's not a matter of quality -- besides, I'm writing in a vacuum with no feedback, so I'm not going to get any better.

One would think that I could find a niche and a faithful audience by self-publishing. But the effort to do it right is enormous, and I am no good at promoting myself or making friends. Charisma is part of the recipe for a successful indie author, and I do not have it.

But traditional publishing shows no sign of wanting to take a chance with me. If they haven't by now, there's no reason to think they ever will.

It's a Catch-22. You have to prove you can sell before the gatekeepers will take a chance on you, but to do that you have to be better at their job than they are. Haven't figured a way out of that box yet.

The main thing I feel potential self-publishers should realize: They're proposing to run a small business, so they better have a solid business plan in place before they jump in. What's the work's potential market? How will you reach it? What steps will you take to make sure your product is at its shiniest before you put it in the shop window? How will you finance your start-up expenses? And so on.

Lots of work, wearing (or hiring) all the hats. Be ready for it.

Zealots

I have self published one novel.

The reason I self published wasn't because I had been rejected, I never submitted it to a trade publisher. It also wasn't becasue I expected it to make me rich. My original goal was to try and get at least ten sales. I just wanted to see if ten people who weren't friends or family would actually pay money to read my book. The reason I self published was that I had written something I was proud of and wanted to make it available to others. I didn't want to have to get approval from someone else or spend months or years waiting to see it on the market.

The novel sold a lot more than ten copies. Not enough to make me rich or pay my rent, but enough to pay some of my bills and put a little in my bank account. I am writing a second novel which I also intend to self publish. For me self publishing was a good choice.

That said, I may try and trade publish in the future. I love self publishing, but don't see it as the be all end all. I certainly have no issue with those who choose the other route or want to try both.

The problem isn't with self publishing, it's with zealotry.

I attended a southern university, won't say which one. Once each Spring a preacher would come and stand on the steps of our library. He would spend the entire day; morning, noon, and early evening SCREAMING at everyone who passed by. All he would really say was that if you didn't love Jesus then you were damned to Hell. If someone would try to debate him he would just ignore that person and keep on screaming at us. He had no interest in debate or in listening to the views of others. He knew what was right and just wanted to make us listen. Regardless of our own opinions.

I have met parents who would become livid if you even hinted their children were less than perfect. I have seen raging flame wars on various forums about romantic pairings on works of fiction. People devote hours of their lives fighting over Harry / Ginny or Harry / Hermione. I have spoken with vegetarians who feel eating a hamburger should be treated like first degree murder.

I agree that there is a faction within self publishing that is being unreasonable. They are zealots. And like all zealots they feel they know what is absolutely right and that if you disagree with them then you are either ignorant or just plain evil.

Also like all zealots they only make up a fraction of the entire community. Unfortunately they are a very loud minority.

Parametric said:

I'm thrilled for everybody who gets agents and book deals from trade publishing, but I didn't and self-publishing is currently paying my rent, so for me at least, it is the answer to rejection.

Click to expand...

1 - awesome

and

2 - Responses like this are why the "curb your enthusiasm" self-publishing articles shouldn't use concrete terms any more than the Rah-Rah articles.

"Self publishing isn't ALWAYS the answer to rejection." or "Slf-publishing isn't the AUTOMATIC answer to rejection." might be more accurate.

If you've weighed your pros and cons, if you know what you're getting into, and if you're willing to shoulder the risk (and reward) squarely on yourself, then more power to you.

It's a business decision, and as such, only the person venturing into said business can make it.

It's just as unreasonable to paint all self-publishers as rejected and bitter zealots after revenege as it is to paint all trade-published authors as whipped dogs licking the boot of the Big 6.


There are many good reasons to self-publish under various circumstances, and the same goes for trade publishing.


The article is correct about a certain subset of self-publishing, but that's certainly not my experience with the entire varied movement.



I also thought it was pretty funny she used the term "traditional publishing"...

gothicangel said:

I think you are misunderstanding my motives for the post.

I posted the article (which I was directed to through Twitter) as a point of debate, and not with a single thought of 'stirring.' Personally, I'm on the fence with this one. I'm seeking a trade publisher, but depending on what kind of responses I get, I will consider self-publishing (although not through KDP.) I posted this because it made me remember about a thread in Rejection and Dejection that said something like getting poor sales was worse than rejection. I think that's something that a potential self-publisher must contemplate before taking the step. Will they genuinely be okay if their book only sells 14 copies and receives no Amazon reviews?

And if I'm honest, the answer for me is no. So maybe self-publishing isn't the right option after all. But that doesn't mean these questions shouldn't be asked or articles debated.

Click to expand...

You may be missing Maryn's point, though. I myself have no doubt that you didn't intend to stir up controversy, but many who read here don't necessarily know that, and since this is such a hot button, things tend to become amplified rather quickly.

Also, we do in fact highly prefer some comment from the OP when linking to an article. We tend to consider threads that only begin with a URL as spam, for instance. It helped that you did quote some key passages, but I'd also appreciate if in the future you could come up with an expression of your own opinion, much like what you offered here, when you start these threads.

I agree, this is an article and set of ideas that are worthy of discussion.

This self-publishing / traditional thing only matters in the western civilization. But outside the U.S., U.K. and few other countries, self-publishing is the primary source of all types of books. This self-published / traditional thing is nothing more than the battle of the endless, but many times backgroundless egos. But authors and publishers should focus on one thing instead; the audience. Who the hell cares that if a book is traditional or self-published? The audience surely don't. Most of them doesn't even know who was the publisher of the book what they read for the last time.

Readers will remember the publisher if the last book they read from that publisher was unsatisfactory.

Not sure why anyone here is getting defensive about self-publishing, the article clearly is all about how self publishing is great in certain ways and trade publishing is good other ways, and how it's likely most authors will be hybrid. The point of the article is that there are some people out there who treat self publishing as a cult, and we here at AW are more than aware of that. And of the people who are the gurus of said cult. He is in no way painting all self publishers as crazy zealots or anything. He is asking people not to judge each other. That's all.

Anyway, it's a good article I think because it is positive about both sides and acknowledges the frustrations on both sides. I don't see the big deal really.

I've stayed away from self publishing. It's not that I think it is a bad way to go, but if I did go that route, I would have to hire someone to edit my work and then pay whatever the cost is to publish it. Even if I did it as an e-book I would still want to hire a good editor. Now, I did self publish my first book after the original publisher went out of business. But it was already edited so I did not have to worry about that. It did not cost me anything. For me, I want my work to be accepted by a publiser just like my first book. I want to pass the muster so I at least feel that my book is sellable.

But, if I felt my work was well edited and ready as is, I would have no problem self publishing. I probably would not with my current WIP, but I have two older books that I would not mind trying. I think a consumer would not care or know if a book was either as long as they have a good, readable product in their hands.