![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92){kind=small}
What am I talking about? Ridiculing the concept of self-published novels.
It's almost a joke in the writing community that authors who self-publish their novels are idiotic narcissist who are so infatuated with their own words (or impatient) that they will pay people to publish them. Money flows to the writer. It's a well known writer axiom.
The problem with most axioms though, there is usually another one that is just as true but states the exact opposite thing. What about the one regarding risk and reward? Basically, if you take the risk, you'll get the reward.
Also consider the fact how 'big' a joke self-published novels are to a vast majority of writers. It's almost a universal concept in its hilarity. But, you know what?
So were people who said the Earth was round. Everyone knew it was flat.
When I take true/false tests I'm usually skeptical about any phrase that has these words:
Always, Never, No one, Everyone, Forever
Try it!
1. I'll always love paper books.
2. I'll never buy an e-Reader.
3. No one should ever self publish.
4. Everyone knows/was doing...( If you tell this one to your parents, they usually bring up something about a bridge)
5. I'll love you forever.
Hmmm...do you think some of those comments are dubious?
Here's where I'm coming from though. Times are changing. They may change fast. They may change slow. I'm not looking at today as I write this post. I'm gazing upon tomorrow.
Life is change. Any industry, any entity, must realize that and be able to adapt. Sometimes the changes are so minor that they become easily incorporated into the way things are--the system goes on as usual. Sometimes they are so powerful, there is revolution. Revolution does not happen often, but when it does, watch out. The system will get turned upside down.
Can you think of any recent devices/inventions/concepts that may cause revolution in the publishing industry?
I can. E-Books.
#Where we are today
Publishers:
In the publishing industry today, we have gatekeepers. Publishers, editors, and agents who judge the quality of the fiction that is sent to them. If it's good enough they buy it. If it's not good enough they don't. For the most part. There are other barriers that could cause a writer to get a rejection besides the quality of the work--editor's preferences, similar story already published recently, good but not better than other stories being considered, too many quality works & not enough room, a niche that the publishers can't/don't want to fill, and yes for a vast majority--JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH ( I'm being nice ).
These gatekeepers then pay the writer a flat rate ( usually for stories ) or an advance with a percentage of the book once the advance is covered ( the percentage is usually a lot smaller than theirs--they are taking most of the risk after all ). With this acceptance they also provide a large part of the ingredients to make the book happen: editorial skills, book design, distribution, marketing & promotion.
The writer can relax and focus on their next project. :)
Self-publishers:
There is a reason why a lot of writers look down on self-published works. A lot of times they do not get the effort put into them that publishers provide. Since the writer is bearing the cost of the book, the publisher has no other incentive or need to see that it's successful. They got their money...an oh, here's your book.
The writer now has to do more of the work traditional publishers would do. Because writers write, their skill set and time will be going to something they are not well equipped to do--which results in a less than inspiring end result.
There are however, instances where self-publishing can work better. For instance if you write in an area that has a very small niche the big publishers may not want to spend money on. Having such a niche might give the writer the audience they need to be successful.
#Some truths (a.k.a. my opinions)
1. The product that the publishing industry is based on--is created by the writer.
2. Readers care little about the publisher. The brand they are looking for is the writer's name.
3. More and more, writers are asked to do more of the marketing. ( Yikes! To many mores, I need an editor )
4. More and more, writers are asked to have a platform and a way to bring people to the party.
5. Writers need to know how the publishing industry works.
6. e-Books will continue to increase in sales.
7. When readers get mad about prices, covers ( for example racial diversity/consistency ), the availability of books based on a time table ( to protect the current model ): authors are often blamed for this, even though those items are usually beyond their control.
#Where I think we're going ( IMO )
e-book sales will continue to rise. I think publishers will adjust their business model in order to succeed (or survive). Publishers may have smaller departments ( editorial staff, book design, marketing ), smaller advances to spent on unknown writers while the big bucks are used to lure known commodities. Writers will need to do even more marketing & promotion. Distribution will change, drastically. Basically, I'm thinking writers may earn less and be required to do more. I think self-publishing will become easier in the new format, but marketing/platform will become more important. Some of those truths from above will still be true.
1. Writers create the product. New forms of publishers are emerging and offering more favorable percentages to the writer. The costs of creating the book is different, but so is the format of the creation ( it may be easier to do yourself ).
2. The writer is the brand. #3 Marketing & #4 Platform. This will benefit writers who already have their name out there. A writer with fans or following will have a better ability to be a separate entity. Lesser known writers may want to continue to use traditional publishers until there names are also known commodities.
Important Blogs & links that have shaped my thought processes and opened my eyes to what could be the new reality.
Mike Shatzkin: The Shatzkin Files check out a lot of his posts on the e-book.
Nathan Bransford's blog: Should you self-publish? post; Don't Believe the E-book Skeptics post; Can Bookstores and E-books Coexist?
Pimp My Novel blog: Prithee Inform Me... post; Battle for the Future of E-Books post;
I'm not saying that self-publishing is the way to go--at the moment. I do think, in the future, when technology advances a little more and gives the self-publisher more avenues to reach the reader, lowers the cost of publishing independently, when e-Books make up a larger percentage of the sales, and when people are willing to offer even higher percentages of the profits to the writer--self-publishing might be more ideal.
Will I self-publish something today? No, but I might in the future. Maybe a novella or novelette just to learn the ins and outs of publishing something "real".
My goal at the moment is to improve my writing to professional level, get published and get my name out there, learn even more about publishing, follow the trends and try to figure out where the future will go and then prepare myself to be in a position where I can take advantage of it.
I think it's important for writers to take note of all the good ideas that may spring forth from the discussion of e-Books. Read people's comments as well as the posts on the subject.There is a lot of wisdom passed during the discussion phase following a post. Don't just listen to the people who agree with you and discount those who don't. Ask questions. Is this true? Will it be true tomorrow? Does that work for me? Can I make it work for me?
Basically, the system as it stands today, might not be the system as it stands tomorrow. Question where the industry is headed, don't just accept the reality of the past, because tomorrow may not resemble yesterday.
2010-05-10 04:10 pm (UTC)
Good post and I think you hit all the relevant concepts. I am against self-publishing but there is no doubt the field is changing in such new and dynamic ways we don't know what the real "model" will be ten years (or even less) down the road.
I remember when I first started selling stories to online magazines. A lot of my writer friends looked down on that, and me, and claimed print was the only way to go. Didn't matter I was getting paid professional rates. It was online so it wasn't "as good" as print. I was "wasting my time" and "hurting" my career.
Guess where they're selling now?
But even online you have to do your homework and check your sources to make sure the market is reputable. It's true, a lot of the onus has shifted to writers to market their own work, but this should come as no surprise, either. Writers have always been treated with disrespect from a lot of people.
2010-05-10 04:17 pm (UTC)
"I remember when I first started selling stories to online magazines. A lot of my writer friends looked down on that, and me, and claimed print was the only way to go. Didn't matter I was getting paid professional rates. It was online so it wasn't "as good" as print. I was "wasting my time" and "hurting" my career."
I think getting published online can be helpful because you can link to it. Those links can allow readers to search out more of your stuff and may win you readers who would never have purchased the magazine.
"Writers have always been treated with disrespect from a lot of people."
And sometimes by other writers who do not respect your genre.
2010-05-10 04:59 pm (UTC)
2010-05-10 06:16 pm (UTC)
I agree. I also think the way books are marketed will become a gatekeeper as well.
2010-05-10 05:03 pm (UTC)
Right now, those benefitting FINANCIALLY from self-publishing are those in the niche markets you spoke of. If you're a well-known masseusse traveling to health and wellness workshops and conventions, that self-published book you could't GIVE to a big publisher can do very well. At present, fiction writers (IMO) only benefit on a satisfaction level. With venues like Lulu, they won't lose money like the old vanity presses with their 500 up-front book runs, but they're not going to make much either. There is that one in a million, but...
I can attest to the satisfaction part, I will happily admit. I Lulu-ed my manuscript Beyond the Gate because it was actually cheaper and less frustrating to have them make me a REAL BOOK than it was to print it out myself. My sister wanted a copy, mom, brother--toner is expensive! For less than $10 a copy, I made them all real books (and one for myself, of course!) It was nice to hold that thing in my hand. I didn't offer it up for sale because, a) I still want another go at it--needs editing and b) after editing, I'll shop it around again because I truly believe in the story itself. But even if I thought it was fabooulous as is, I still would keep it private.
2010-05-10 06:27 pm (UTC)
I haven't researched any particular PODs, although I am aware of the concept. How did that work out? Did you have choices in the cover design, binding, etc.? Did it look like a quality production ( bookstore quality )?
2010-05-10 06:36 pm (UTC)
I lulu-ed a collection of short stories as a gift to the Virginia Beach group. I collected a story from each woman in attendance, used a photo one took of the sunrise from a few years ago for the cover, and made a gorgeous book everyone really loved. Because I kept it private, none of those stories is considered published. They all retain their copyrights. I should have brought it to show you! Dang.
Check out Lulu. It's pretty cool.
2010-05-10 07:06 pm (UTC)
I'll check out that Lulu and see what they have to offer.
2010-05-10 06:34 pm (UTC)
Just kidding :-)
I think the big problem with self-publishing (or whatever replces it i the future) is that it's an amorphous mass of amateurs unwilling to take te time to learn their craft, and he public knows it.
In the e-future (and I agree that things wil change),there will still be prfessionally produced books (or whatever) and some prodced by amateurs. It will be easy to tell whch is hich,and the gatekeepers will keep out the amateurs. This is a good thing, even if it means that self-pulishers will, once again, be disciminated against.
Te future wil be different, but I' willng to bet te same names, and other who are up to the same standards will dominate it.
Oh, and I also think tha books are not produced by writers; they are producd by writers AND EDITORS (at least the readable ones are). The writer without an editor is worth, in my opinion, EXATLY THE SAME AS the editor without a writer: zero, zilch, nada.
2010-05-10 06:43 pm (UTC)
But opinions vary widely on what is good. Stephanie Meyer. Very successful--but a lot of people don't like her work. Literary novels are often seen as the height of publishing, but how many people choose to read them over speculative fiction.
As far as who produces books: If a writer writes, there is still a story that can be sold. Regardless of its quality.
If a writer doesn't write--what is the editor going to edit? What is the publisher going to publish? what is the reader going to read? The seller sale? The reviewer review?
Nothing.
2010-05-10 06:50 pm (UTC)
The problem is that without the editorial process, the reader would have to wade through all that gunk himself. As a reviewer who has had the misfortune of having had to read SP work, I can tell you that most people would never pick up another book after that experience. Yes, the quality is that bad.
So, in a market where the sheer number of writers is actually the problem, editors become much more valuable, and gatekeepers are priceless. Which is why readers should show their love to agents, publishers and editors.
Now, about Stephanie Meyer, you can say it isn't classic literature, and you'd be right. But whoever allowed her MS through the door knew what he was doing!
2010-05-10 07:03 pm (UTC)
And writers are like air molecules--they're everywhere :)
2010-05-10 09:08 pm (UTC)
2010-05-11 10:56 am (UTC)
2010-05-10 09:18 pm (UTC)
2010-05-11 10:52 am (UTC)
::nods:: Most of them probably changed their tune once they saw how great computers were. And as odd as it may sound there are still people who do their first drafts longhand.
Change is just a part of life. As constant as death and taxes.
2010-05-10 09:23 pm (UTC)
with regards to self-publishing. i think it will always be around. i think it will even rise. but i think people will tolerate crap only so much. granted i have read some published books that i scratch my head and say, "well, if they can get published, so can i." but those are rare instances. i'm not saying every self-published book is crap. not even close (the shack was great). nonetheless, i believe very few people can edit their work well. i know i can't and i was an editor in high school and college. sure i have beta readers. a group of friends who are readers. readers have a different criteria for quality than writers. however, their standards are still high. will they relax those standards for a good story? yes. brian-ohio did a poll on his blog asking would you rather a well-written book with a mediocre story or mediocre writting and great story. most said the story wins. but an abundance of mediocre is wearing. to me anyway. unless you have a self-publishing systems in place that can minimize the mediocre . . . i just don't see it overtaking the big 6.
i believe publishing is going to have to change how it operates. all the editors and agents at the conference said as much. but authors have always had to promote their work. always. self-promotion is not new. several authors who have been around 20+ years, said the requirement for authors to self-promote is not different. it merely looks different with the advent of the internet. the only people who have ever gotten promotion dollars are the house names, the big names. which to me is like giving a free meal to a millionare, but that is the system.
2010-05-11 11:31 am (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by place holder clauses. Could you explain that to me?
"...nonetheless, i believe very few people can edit their work well."
I agree. There are different types of writers. Some are serious about their craft and what they produce. They view it as a business.
To others it's just a hobby.
What I'm referring to though, are the writers who are serious. The ones who are students of not only the craft of writing, but the business of publishing.
If you take the point of view that you are a business, your actions will be different--more in depth--than someone who thinks of writing as a hobby or chooses to get published for the wrong reasons.
"but an abundance of mediocre is wearing. to me anyway. unless you have a self-publishing systems in place that can minimize the mediocre . . . i just don't see it overtaking the big 6."
Again, I agree. Bad writing is bad writing regardless of the package it comes in. But again, I'm referring to writers who view what they do as a business. So I'm speaking of professional writers in attitude and skill.
A writer who publishes their own work has a lower over-head than a huge publisher. Publishers sometimes higher outside sources to handle overflow and control cost.
Writers can subcontract some of the work to other sources: editors, jacket design/artwork, etc. Other areas fall into categories that writers should be investing time into anyway--like marketing and promotion.
Since writers have lower overhead, they can adjust their price points to compete attractively with what the big publishers are charging. Also, because they have lower overhead, they do not need to sale as many units in order to make a considerable profit.
If a writer works hard in making their name known by producing quality work, developing a fan base, and establishing themselves as a professional (all of these things should be done anyway) then their name also becomes what sets them apart from other self-published works.
How can a writer do this? Publishing short stories in many different venues, perhaps posting sample chapters of their work on their platform, building a rapport with people who will help spread information by word of mouth.
Twitter, blogging, e-zines, magazines, Facebook, etc. etc. can all be used to build a brand that readers will recognize. Remember, readers go to a store looking for work by writer X. They do not go to a store looking for work by publisher X. How many people notice the publisher?
2010-05-11 11:03 pm (UTC)
I get that you are mean serious writers. I wonder how many self-publishing people are serious. Meaning how many are truly invested on being a strong writer and generating a good book. I'm not saying I can guess. I just wonder. it seems when I come across people who do self-publishing they try to get one book published (usually their first), get rejected and then venture out on their own. My sample of three is a SAD representation. I think writers who are invested in the craft know it takes time to develop yourself and your writing. Which means you can be writing for years before you produce something Good Enough. Now good enough for publishers is different than good enough for public (well, sometime it is anyway. we can agree publishers produce some lackluster stuff sometimes). I get that. I do.
This was a great post by the way. It got a lot of great discussions going. Thanks for sitrring the pot and getting people to think. :)
2010-05-11 11:20 pm (UTC)
Thanks for explaining what you meant :)
2010-05-11 11:22 pm (UTC)
Tomorrow May Not Resemble Yesterday
2010-05-10 09:34 pm (UTC)
Re: Tomorrow May Not Resemble Yesterday
2010-05-11 11:34 am (UTC)
2010-05-11 03:44 am (UTC)
Interestingly, a lot of copy editors these days are free lance worked hired on a book-by-book basis. They are not employees of the publisher, which the regular editor is. the question is, if you self-publish and hire your own copy editor, are you willing to listen to the advice you're paying for?
I would never recommend self publishing as a place to start if you want to write fiction (it's great for family histories and stuff like that, but it does not address the distribution problem. As a last resort, though, it's at least a tiny chance. Think of it as a very expensive lottery ticket.
Also, I do think it's actually easier to spot the typos in the printed book!
2010-05-11 12:07 pm (UTC)
I think any one who is a serious writer should find out how publishing works.
"Editing' is not a one step process. There is substantive editing, which is a lot like a critique, and there is copy editing, which is sort of proof reading on steroids."
Oh, I realize this. I'm not talking about the writer who wants his work published so bad, that he is unwilling to listen to all the rejections.
I'm talking about the writer who knows what it takes to produce quality work.
"Interestingly, a lot of copy editors these days are free lance worked hired on a book-by-book basis. They are not employees of the publisher, which the regular editor is. the question is, if you self-publish and hire your own copy editor, are you willing to listen to the advice you're paying for?"
Correct. If you're a business person--you want to make the best product possible. Those free lance editors can be hired by the self-published writer as well as by the publishers.
"I would never recommend self publishing as a place to start if you want to write fiction (it's great for family histories and stuff like that, but it does not address the distribution problem."
I would not recommend self-publishing to anyone who did not do their homework on the subject. But isn't working in the publishing industry a business that requires the writer to be aware of a great many things?
How to write. How to edit. How to find an agent. How to query the agent. Knowledge about contracts. Knowledge about copyright law. All these and more are important to know--not just for someone who wants to self-publish, but for people who go the traditional route too. Just because they're a reputed publisher, doesn't mean you ignore the terms of the contract in front of you.
As far as distribution goes--e-Books will change some of that. When you buy an eBook you don't have to go to the Barnes & Noble to purchase it. If you buy it online you don't have to wait for the mail to receive it. ::Poof:: You pay for it and you have it right then. The distribution is the device itself.
Self-publishing is not only good for things you want to give to family members, it's also good for niche items. These items are not just stories based on the genres they do not fit in, it can also be stories that because of their size have no benefit for a publisher to publish them.
I mentioned novellas and novelettes. Both are too long for most short story markets, but too short for most book publishers. Also, the cost of writing a novella or novelette is less than the cost it takes to write a novel. The lower cost of producing and editing smaller works will make them good subjects to practice learning what self-publishing may be capable of offering. The cost factor would also translate well to the reader and the longer size over short stories may help to bring in readers that do not like short stories because they do not last long enough to get as complete a story arc.
Imagine a writer using these two forms to draw readers to their brand as a low cost introduction to their work. These items are items that would have little value to either the magazines that publish short stories or the big publishers of novels.
"Think of it as a very expensive lottery ticket."
Exactly! He who takes the risk--gets the reward.