Quality Control for Self-Publishing
People say that I shouldn’t get into these debates online about self-publishing because those who are so vehemently opposed to self-publishing are never going to change their mind. But I like a good debate and I really do believe that for the stigma around self-publishing to fade it’s important to chip away at the criticism in debates like this one. The writer’s basic premise is that self-publishing is deserving of its stigma because:
- There is no quality control of self-published books so book customers are led to buy inferior work.
- Self-publishers are naturally bad writers who just couldn’t hack it in the traditional system.
- The vast majority of self-published books are bad, so statistically you are more likely to read a bad book if it’s self-published than traditionally-published books.
The second and third are easy to refute and I’m frankly sick of refuting them. The traditional system rewards crappy writing frequently and does not reward innovation. Small presses are more open to new writers, but small presses have less money – and not necessarily a better distribution apparatus than self-publishing. Re: #3 – truly bad self-published books are going to be ignored by reviewers and readers alike. And as time goes on there’s an increasing number of self-published books that are gaining attention because of their quality – not just a “small fraction” of self-published books. Etc.
Honestly, I don’t know what “appalling” self-published books these people are seeing. As editor of this site I see A LOT of self-published books. They may not all be great, but a rare few of them are offensive to the English language. It’s true, people are self-publishing books that shouldn’t necessarily be put in between covers – but so what? In all mediums there’s bad work, but (repeating myself again) it’s only in self-publishing where writers are blamed for the bad work of other writers. It makes no sense at all.
I’m more interested in point #1 – because he has some interesting ideas, such as a self-published books should come with a stamp that it has been properly edited by a professional, so buyers can have some assurance that the book’s not a mess before shelling out $15. An interesting idea. Many self-published writers already do this in the acknowledgments, but it’s like he’s asking for a site that only lists these books. One of the reasons I was such a vociferous advocate of Indie Reader is because this site could speak specifically to this type of reader, someone with so many preconceptions – which is to say a lot of potential readers.
Where the posters go afield is saying that they never trust Amazon reviews because they’re all plants – basically stating that all the ways self-publishers can gain some credibility – online reviews – count for nothing. There are many serious and legitimate reviewers reviewing self-published books, so there are plenty of ways that a self-published book can be vetted beyond having a publisher’s imprint. A poster even goes to say that it is “deceitful” to put a publisher’s imprint on a self-published book – because it makes it seem as if it’s gone through an editorial process. It’s at this point that I should have stopped caring about people’s bias. That outlook is conservative to the point of echoing those who criticize blogging as being an illegitimate form of writing. The new media is here, get used to it.
I will freely admit that self-publishing is like a teenager – it’s not fully aged to where it’s going to be. At some point we will have a system where self-publishers can:
- Be distributed more freely through widespread use of in-store print on demand machines and the widespread use of ereaders.
- Be a part of an expanded vetting system as well – through online reviewers, social networks, and self-publishing being taken more seriously by traditional print reviewers.
- Be part of a traditional publishing system that is also utilizing print on demand, peer review sites and other methods of reaching readers that are not yet fully mainstream.
But that’s not here yet: still, it will be. Publishing is becoming more narrow in their criteria for publishing books right at a time when there are more people writing books than ever before. That’s not a system that can work for a growing list of writers. To say that all those writers – a great many who may be very good – are not worth the attention because it doesn’t have the stamp of a publisher (that may be putting out inferior work) is giving way too much power where it doesn’t belong: to the publishers and not the artists. Self-publishing is about giving writers back their voice – yes, some people are releasing books before their voice is fully formed, but count on it: more writers are going to be asking themselves, “Why am I waiting a year just to get another rejection, when people honestly like my book?” These writers need a platform.
Update: Read Zoe Winters’ Why Self-Published Music Sux – she handles this way better than I did.
You’re fighting the Good Fight, Henry (except when it comes to IndieReader, of course
).
Did you ask that fellow to name some of the titles of those horrible self-published books that he’s read and explain why they were bad? That’s the question that should be put to these people when they make the unwarranted generalization that “all self-published books are bad”. If this is guy is aware of so many bad s-p books, he ought to be able to name three or four and articulate why they were so inferior compared to the work of modern literary geniuses like Stephanie Meyer and Dan Brown.
I agree on all counts Henry. I posted a link to an article on the peeps where it was stated that review sites like Goodreads have now become the legitimate gatekeepers, not just for self-publishing but for the entire literary community at large.
What we need is more legitimate review sites — ones that give balanced insightful reviews. Unfortunately, the Indie book review world suffers from the same ailment as the Indie writing community: There are a lot of badly written self-published books, and there are a lot of badly written reviews. This stands true for mainstream publishing as well.
I also agree that to focus on the bad books is self-defeating. Why bother. There are so many great self-published books out there, andt we, as reviewers, need to be focusing on them.
“modern literary geniuses” Nice … very nice Reep. I needed that this morning.
Good post, Henry. Very interesting. I totally disagree with the statement that “all self-published books are bad.” There are more bad books published by traditional publishers than self-publishers, in my experience. I have a hard time finding anything good to read — it doesn’t matter who published it. BIG publishers pump out a lot of crap, which must really bother the poor writer trying to get an agent for his novel. “They publish this junk, but they won’t even look at mine!”
LOL Henry, Mojo is defined as “people” plural here? hehehe.
And thanks for the shout out!
The one that burns me the most, and I went back and said as much on dude’s blog after I’d cooled down, because yesterday my emo-volume was a little loud… but…
The idea of an indie author having a publisher imprint being deceitful. This is a guy who is planning on starting his own small imprint to publish someone else. (So by this logic I’m suddenly legit if I get my neighbor down the street to publish me. Maybe we need to bring back patrons of the arts) He wasn’t aware of LSI and instead was going to use Lulu as a printer.
Well most of Lulu’s printing is done by LSI and they’re a middle man even if you use your own imprint and ISBNs.
So here we had someone who wasn’t even aware of the main print on demand printer used by actual publishers, telling us we’re not real publishers. I find that more than just a tiny bit insulting.
In order to use LSI you have to have your own imprint and ISBN numbers. When someone can give me an actual legitimate reason why someone who publishes someone else has more of a right to use LSI than me, I’d love to hear about it. That would veer very close to discriminatory business practices, IMO.
And we really need to look at this in perspective. We’re talking about entertainment here. We aren’t talking about being an unlicensed doctor or lawyer. You’d think according to some people that publishing a book was some big massive issue.
It’s a book, not donating a kidney. People need to just calm down on the issue.
Plus I think it’s easy enough not to be “fooled” by a bad self published book, by just behaving like a normal responsible consumer and checking out a product before you buy it. i.e. does it look good, do people say good things about it, if you test out a little bit of it, are you happy?
LMFAO @ JM: “If this is guy is aware of so many bad s-p books, he ought to be able to name three or four and articulate why they were so inferior compared to the work of modern literary geniuses like Stephanie Meyer and Dan Brown.”
I hear you, Zoe. The clueless are always more apt to speak. Why is that?
I felt the same when I posted my article on the term “Indie.” Why should anyone else but us give a rat’s fart in a breeze what we call ourselves? Same thing with a publishing imprint. It’s not deceitful; it’s entrepreneurial. Branding yourself as an author is a viable marketing tactic. Your voice is your brand, so why not. Plus, there are business advantages as well: the ability to use LSI directly being but one of them.
I think what it boils down to is that the majority of people feel threatened by others who challenge the norm — the norm being anything, not just publishing. To them, we are anarchists, and that makes certain types of people very uncomfortable, so they want to label us, judge us, and try their damndest to get us to fit in the slotted ideal box that they have created in their mind for us.
And really, are those people ever going to read an Indie book? Doubtful, so who cares. They are not our chosen audience, and we won’t be able to change their perception, no matter what we do. Doesn’t mean we should slink off into the shadows; it just means we focus our collective energy elsewhere.
As for being fooled? Buyer beware, ignorant buyer beware of thy own self. When I visit a bookstore, which is a rarity, I open a book to a random page and read it before I make a decision. I have my own individual definition of dreck, and I know when I see it and when I don’t. I saw a new release from Morrow today that had my head in a cliché spin fest. The mainstream reviewer had comments that echoed my own sentiments. All we can do is stay focused and move forward. Commentators like that guy, Zoe, are just so much static.
Hey Cheryl,
Unfortunately though, his arguments aren’t new. The fact that these are common arguments put forth against self publishing is the problem I think. If dude was the only one saying it, we could all form a collective eyeroll and move on.
Are their arguments ever new? No, and their stale rhetoric bores me. The niave opinionated slurs bore me. The banlity bores me.
I can spend my days charging head first into the brick wall, or, I can ignore the wall by building a trebuchet and flinging myself and my anarchist opinions over it.
I much prefer flying to eyerolling anyway. I don’t get that horrible kink in my neck anymore.
Hehe Cheryl. I have emo days and less emo days.
That would be Banality. Get the mainstream typo police out after me now.
I didn’t even notice the typo Cheryl, cause i’m self pubbed.
Me too … call my editor, no wait, that’s me. Crap! I spell like a gorilla when I get hot under the housecoat. Two in one post. I have shamed myself for an eternity.
I have my emo days too. I have my total anarchist screw the system says as well, but I got a battery powered thingie that helps me with that affliction, so the world is safe. Well, at least as long as the bunny keeps on goin’.
Okay, you said “says” instead of “days” I did catch that typo. You have to leave now. You just have a completely disregard for the English language.
OMG I can’t believe you mentioned the bunny, lol.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH but I made a typo. hahahaha
should have been ‘you have a complete disregard’ not completely.
hahahaha how can I effectively shame you for your typos when I keep making them?
No! Just like “There is no crying in baseball.” There is no shame in Indie Publishing — typos or otherwise. I think we can leave the shame to those with the chicago style manual shoved up their butts.
LOL!
This was from my weekly column over on the peeps site. I think it applies to our discussion here as well.
Art is not a mirror to reflect the world but a hammer with which to shape it.
– Vladimir Mayakovsky
It is the function of art to renew our perception. What we are familiar with we cease to see. The writer shakes up the familiar scene, and, as if by magic, we see a new meaning in it.
– Anais Nin
I think these two quotes go hand in hand. Our world is our perception of it. In order to change the world, we must first hammer away at perception. Quite a daunting task if you ask me, since everyone’s perception of the world is slightly different. So, how can an artist approach an obstacle of this magnitude? Well, we can use the familiar to our advantage. We can decisively attack those perceptions which have become so familiar and so widely accepted that they have become dogma. True that there is no new story, but simply by changing the perception of it, we create it anew. Our modus operandi might be a hammer and chisel, or a paintbrush, or a whisper, but however we choose to manipulate the truth through fiction, it’s our perception of the truth that hopefully will affect change. Then again, art requires a bit of an intuitive approach, so, not everyone will see the truth even if we bludgeon them with a hammer.
Three crappy books:
Paradise Island
The New Mars
The New Mars (A Family Vacation)
(Three by the same author that I just recently tried to read
And an extra one just so you don’t think I’ve only read one author: The Patokafus Trilogy, which was arguably even worse than the previous three books.
Good ones:
The Dark Dreamweaver
Scott Kessman’s work
Honeycomb
I never once said there were no good books, nor did I indicate that ALL self-published authors by definition “crap.” I said that MOST are. To say that all are would be a lie at best, particularly because there are some good books I’ve read that I stand by that have been SPed. The problem is that the stigma isn’t made up. It’s not like people just invented their dislike of self-publishing. It has a history with issues of quality and it’s primary problem is that there’s no easy way for the consumer to find quality.
And a lot of assumptions are made here based on personal preference. What the consumer largely considers to be of quality is what is being printed by traditional publishers. Do you think for a minute that traditional publishers would print Dan Brown and Meyer books if they didn’t think they would sell? And if they didn’t sell well on their first books, would the publishers still put them out? No. Both those authors have sold loads, and it’s because the consumer/audience has a connection with the work, even if the writing itself is not of the highest, most amazing literary quality. This is what traditional publishing does: it determines quality by what is marketable and what they assume the consumer will want. Since traditional publishing continues to grow, that means they’re getting something right. I don’t like Meyers or Brown, and am not a fan of King, but I am also not the average book consumer…personal preference doesn’t play into the market unless the majority of the market wants the same things.
“This is what traditional publishing does: it determines quality by what is marketable and what they assume the consumer will want. Since traditional publishing continues to grow, that means they’re getting something right.”
If this is really your sentiment, there’s really no point arguing. It’s wrong in so many ways it doesn’t need refuting.
Trad publishing is suffering, cutting, and laying off. One publisher had a total freeze on acquisitions. Don’t know if it’s still in effect. Traditional NY publishing under the bookstore consignment system just is not a feasible business plan. It’s always had problems and those problems have always been fixed with bandaids. And now with the economy in the current state that it’s in, those bandaids aren’t making the bleeding stop.
And yes sales for books went up during the first two quarters following the recession. Layoffs don’t necessarily indicate loss of profit, but likely have more to do with anticipated lower earnings to come. Though the more likely truth is that they’re just reacting for no reason, since most statistics show that books are largely recession proof, with some minor exceptions. But sales haven’t drastically dropped. More people are reading and continue to do so, and sales are still strong. People are just adjusting their buying habits. I suspect this means more and more online sales will be made and the vast majority of bookstores will go out of business. Most indie stores are expected to die anyway because the majority of them cannot compete in the market either from their own doing or because the market is shifting. Borders has pretty much had problems from the start…
Henry: It’s not even my sentiment. It’s an industry sentiment. That’s what the industry does. If it was a faulty plan they would have stopped ages ago, but since books continue to sell in droves, particularly in certain markets, it’s not a surprise at all that traditional publishers will continue to put out similar material based on logical projections on the market. It’s not even that hard to see. Simple economics could explain it, or just simple observation.
Another note: layoffs aren’t even isolated to traditional publishing, but to practically all major industries in the U.S. In some cases it’s logical, since profits in some industries have tanked, but in other instances it’s more or less a knee-jerk reaction to protect the business itself. It happens in almost all recessions. One of those weird human/capitalist things. Something scares us and we react, sometimes irrationally.
If you look at that chart from Ms. Gallager of Bowker, you see that the majority of buyers still depend upon reviews in print media to form buying decisions. We are shut out from most of these by their “no self -published books” rule. Perhaps we need to start a letter-writing campaign to some of the more prominent publications to break down that wall, and , at the same time, also start sending our protests to the big chains who won’t put these books on the shelves because they are not reviewed in the “mainstream” media. It’s only be getting books on the shelves in brick and mortar stores that significant sales can be found. People have to pick up the book and look at it before they are motivated to buy it. We can bitch and moan all we like here, but that’s not going to make much of a difference. And by letters, I mean on paper. E-mails are easy to ignore and discard, but a letter in the US Mail is usually taken as reflecting the sentiments of a hundred more people who didn’t bother to write.
It’s hard for anyone to get book reviews, but part of the duty of the media is to cover cultural events and the rise of self-publishing as a legitimate distribution channel is a story they really can’t continue to ignore.
To get noticed by the mainstream media I think self-publishers need to develop and present a BAD attitude — kind of like punk rockers. They need to be visible, talented, extravagant, quirky and have attitude. “Mad, bad and dangerous to know,” as Caroline Lamb said of Lord Byron. If the SPs can do that, then they’ll get some attention and some publicity. Writers are too invisible, too laid back, too nice.
Hey Randall, along those same lines I think there are still a lot of writers who are too apologetic about being self published. If you seem to come off as not thinking you’re worthy, then others will believe you. However if you can come off with confidence in yourself (without looking too arrogant), people find that far more attractive.
We need to find our defiance though. Not sure we want to be “writers behaving badly” because not all press is good press, but definitely wildly independent and kind of a Viva La Resistance attitude about us.
Independent artistic creation is cool. it’s trendy. It’s unique and admirable as hell, but… when we act as if we’re ashamed of what we do, we don’t let those cool facets shine out.
Being an underdog is inherently cool and sympathetic IMO. As long as we pair that with confidence and the willingness to stand up for ourselves and our right to produce our work how we feel is best for us.
I’m with Zoe! She has the attitude!
SMD – the publishing industry is in a panic. The idea that things are going swimmingly because things are selling well “particularly in certain markets” is myopic. If there’s an obscene number of buyers buying one type of book, this is not evidence of a healthy marketplace.
“It determines quality by what is marketable.” If you think quality and marketability are interchangeable, then it’s not much of a challenge to debate that position. It’s anti-art and anti-innovation. I like The Da Vinci Code, but if all novels are Dan Brown-style bestsellers, that’s a kind of nightmare.
LMAO Randall!
On the marketability vs. interchangeable issue… someone, I *think* it was Donald Maas, said something like “All bestsellers are not masterpieces, but all masterpieces are bestsellers.”
I’m not sure I agree with that. Because it still defines masterpiece according to the whim and taste of a certain number of people. But it’s a tiny bit closer to home.
A book can be great quality but just not have a very large or easily reachable market of readers. (Kind of like you could make how-to videos for Amish people, and no matter how great the videos are, it’s doubtful an Amish person will ever see it due to that whole technology thing.)
A book can be highly marketable but be horse poo. (i.e. anything by James Patterson since they’ve started to hire ghostwriters.)
Then there is the third type of book which most authors want to write: High quality PLUS high marketability.
*marketability is interchangeable issue, not “vs.” I swear I don’t know where my head is sometimes.
Good point, Henry. Nowadays most people read JUNK. Very little of quality is published by anyone — big publishers or self-publishers. However, there is probably more quality coming out of SP than the big publishing houses. Simply because the big houses are driven by the bottom line.
“SMD – the publishing industry is in a panic. The idea that things are going swimmingly because things are selling well “particularly in certain markets” is myopic. If there’s an obscene number of buyers buying one type of book, this is not evidence of a healthy marketplace.”
Maybe some publishers are in a panick, and maybe this is only within certain genres, but since I largely pay attention to the SF/F markets, I don’t see any of this panic. I see layoffs, but sales, particularly in fantasy and YA fiction, are still through the roof and even saw a rise, as I said, in those first two quarters (well, sales in general were on rise, and some markets fell, such as crime and I think romances). But as for panic, there really isn’t any sort of logical panic.
And I think your last sentence is debatable. Defining what is a healthy marketplace would be incredibly subjective here, since the market is based on consumer wants and desires, and if all they want is one kind of book (which seems kind of true since Harry Potter reinvigorated the YA market), and they are getting and buying what they want, then really the market is doing fine. And the truth is they don’t want “one” kind of book. They want many, but the majority of consumers want a particular style, which, again, is not indicative of poor healthy so much as simply a consumer desire. I certainly am not a fan of the “poor” quality in bestseller literature (particularly because I prefer more complicated prose these days than the traditional mainstream styles), but I do see why it is as popular as it is, and why it remains so. I don’t think any of us have to like it, but at least people are reading. Some of them will move on to “better” books, and a lot of them won’t. That’s sort of the way it is, and it’s good in general since it keeps a lot of writers working.
“It determines quality by what is marketable.” If you think quality and marketability are interchangeable, then it’s not much of a challenge to debate that position. It’s anti-art and anti-innovation. I like The Da Vinci Code, but if all novels are Dan Brown-style bestsellers, that’s a kind of nightmare.”
Unless I’m misreading, are you saying that publishing must equate with art? If so, that’s not a good position to take pariticularly because publishing is not necessarily interested in “artistic expression” so much as sales. If nobody is buying an artistic novel, one which is more aware of its prose than Brown may be, etc., then traditional publishers are likely not going to print it, or at least not print it at the same level as Brown’s work gets. This is largely why literary fiction has fallen to the wayside, with some exceptions to those novels that have managed to grab more mainstream appeal. The consumer wants a kind of book, and traditional publishers are giving it to them. Dan Brown wouldn’t sell well otherwise. That’s quality to traditional publishing, with some exception to those writers who have managed to snag a good sized fanbase while maintaining a “quality” in their prose.
But art is really not a factor in traditional publishing and hasn’t been for a while. The writers may think they are producing art, but the publisher doesn’t care. You can write the most artistic piece of fiction ever, the most brilliant book in your estimation, but if the publisher doesn’t think it can sell it to people, it won’t take it.
But I agree with you that the proliferation of simplistic, often not-great novels (such as Brown or maybe Meyers, etc.) sucks. I don’t buy that stuff, but again, I understand WHY the consumer buys those things.
Randall: I would agree. Most people do read junk, but this is always already a subjective position. I don’t know if more “quality” is coming out of SP, though. There may be some excellent books out there that are SPed, but small presses have largely taken up the mantle of non-mainstream fiction, but they have many of the same issues as SPers, particularly those that use POD.
Zoe: Agree.
Another note to Francis: There are some reviews who still take self-pub. I know some who stopped primarily because they kept getting sent utter drivel. This is one of my issues as well, and I may retract my change in my submission policy and take self-pub again, but with significantly more attention paid to the work being directed to me. I’d think this website would have a list of folks who take self-pub, but if not, maybe you should make one. They’re out there, but obviously most, if not all, aren’t mainstream. Publisher’s Weekly used to, or still does, have a feature where they read self-pub. Is that still going on or did they can it?
By your description that publishers don’t care about art then self-publishing makes perfect sense as an alternative because small presses don’t have the money to put out everything they want to publish. I’m not saying that publishing should always equate with art – of course not. But it used to be publishers put out big sure sellers to make some revenue to take chances on untested writers. Now writers aren’t given a chance to grow – if you don’t sell, you’re done. This is an issue covered repeatedly on this site: that’s not usually how art unfolds or even bestsellers unfold. It takes time to build an audience – sometimes. OK, but here’s this, writers build an audience via self-publishing – prove themselves with readers so publishers can know that they’re not taking as large of a gamble. And publishers are now increasingly risk-averse.
Your stance on traditional publishing’s over-reliance on marketing is one of the major arguments for self-publishing. And if throughout history work was released based only on public demand, some of the greatest works of art would never have found an audience. In every decade look at what’s the top seller and what’s endured – in every artistic medium. In 1967, the top record wasn’t the Beatles, it was the Monkees. Should we base everything just on what’s bought and sold? If that were the case, all food should be McDonald’s. There’s some responsibility on the publishing system to foster talent and not be soullessly driven by money. Frankly, I don’t know why I have to make that argument.
SMD: can’t believe we agree on something. I’m going to print it out and frame it and put it on my wall.
Henry: Agree with you on the issues revolving around the length of time it takes to build an audience and the almost necessity of good self publishing to fill in the gaps. And LMAO @ “I don’t know why I have to make that argument.”
“But it used to be publishers put out big sure sellers to make some revenue to take chances on untested writers. Now writers aren’t given a chance to grow – if you don’t sell, you’re done.”
This isn’t so much the publisher’s fault as the consumer’s. Dan Brown sells. You and I and others may not think he’s all that great (and that might say something about our tastes in literature), but a hell of a lot of people think he is. This is the same with Paolini and the dozens of other bestselling authors who write stories that may or may not be all that great. The consumer generally likes this. The biggest problem isn’t the publisher, but the consumer, because publishers are only responding to consumer demands (which is, more or less, how any capitalist economic model works: if nobody wants to drink milk, then they stop putting so much of it in the stores). This is a two fold problem: 1) More people who are not particularly well-read, or who read at a certain level and really don’t want to improve that are now reading books, and thus need books that meet their level of demand (which usually is just to be entertained, which Brown and others do for them), 2) an idiotic educational system that intentionally crams literature that is largely uninteresting (to a lot of folks) into the minds of kids, and in the process it ruins the reading process for a lot of people, who come back to reading only through folks like Brown, etc. and, again, want nothing more than to be entertained. It may even be a three or four fold problem, I don’t know. There are so many things working against what you indicate as the writers that a publisher has a take a chance on.
I don’t agree that publishers aren’t taking chances, though. They are (Salman Rushdie is a prime example, because the publisher was essentially risking life and limb to put his work out there, and Rushdie too, actualy). We just don’t hear about them. They’re drowned out by the overwhelming majority who love a certain kind of book (Brown, etc.). I know, it sucks, and I don’t like it one bit, particularly because I don’t like the vast majority of stuff that shows up on the bestseller’s list (I mean, I like it, sort of, but I like my literature to have a bit more to it than just a plot and some barely fashioned characters). This is why I’m a huge proponent for small presses, many of which really push for “better” novels. That’s subjective, obviously, but some of the best books I’ve ever read came from small presses (The Steam Magnate by Dana Copithorne and pretty much anything published by Aio Books, and a from Fairwood Press and others).
And obviously it takes time to build an audience, but the way the traditional publishing model works now is that if you can’t build that audience, if nobody wants to read your book, then they aren’t willing to keep printing you, because they have to make money, otherwise they perish. This is perhaps why those traditionally published authors who become active in their own marketing are the ones that tend to do better. Honestly, I think traditionally publishers shouldn’t publish as many books as they do to actually give more new authors a chance to be bought, but that’s me. Right now it’s impossible for consumers to read everything printed, which means a lot of stuff doesn’t sell, and is thus lost in history (footnotes, at best).
And yes, there are certain benefits for self-publishing, but that’s not the problem with it. The problem is with those who use SP to produce not just faulty books, but books that are utter drivel, who ruin any respectability that might have been earned by good SP authors who produce good material, who act properly, etc. This is why I think SP needs some way to filter out the noise so the cream can reach the top easier, making it simpler and quicker on the consumer to find what is actually good. As I’ve said, the problem here is that the consumer isn’t going to do the extra work you think they should. Some might, but the majority spend mere seconds looking at a book before deciding to buy it: they don’t read the book or do anything other than see the cover and learn what it’s about. Whether their “respect” or “trust” for the traditional publishing model is logical, that’s how it works for them. SP has to combat against that, and it’s made harder by the fact that so many morons are running around tossing trash into the mix. Imagine it like a stew. All the good folks are the carrots, meat, and potatoes, and the little bits of spices necessary to give it the right flavor, but then someone comes along and dumps a pound of pepper into your pot…there are two ways out of this predicament: increase the size of the stew w/ more veggies and meat, or find out a way to filter out all the extra pepper so that when people taste it they don’t burn their tongues.
Or something equally as interesting a metaphor.
What self-publishing needs to do is not weed out the drivel, it’s to change the idea that the bad books somehow represent all of self-publishing. I don’t think people are this prejudiced – that they’ll give up on self-publishing forever because of a bad experience. If someone buys a book from Tor that they hate, are they really never going to buy another book on Tor by an entirely different author? Makes no sense. Same goes for self-publishing. Even if they’re burned, they can take a chance on something else if it’s been well-reviewed from a number of different sources. The more self-publishing gains clout and becomes a kind of brand like Tor – which is happening, the stigma is fading – the more people will realize, That’s just a bad book, but there are other good s-p books out there.
I think you have a limited respect for how many people actually care about the process of finding books to read. It’s just with a thousand books released every minute, it’s hard to find potential buyers. That’s what’s happening – the number of books being released (good books, not drivel) is overwhelming the number of people to read them. That’s not an argument that you shouldn’t self-publish, just that it’s harder to sell books. No one’s saying self-publishing is easy. But with the market obsession of traditional publishing, writers need an outlet. The point of writing is to be read, so self-publishing gives writers at least the potential of finding an audience.
But again, you’re assuming that the average consumer pays attention to new media, let alone reviews. Most don’t.
I’m not talking either about reading ONE bad book. I’m talking about being exposed to dozens upon dozens, while only meeting a handful of books that were any good, or even written well. And by bad books, I mean books that are written so poorly they’re almost unreadable, so irritating that I would actually chuck the book across the room if I wasn’t worried about damaging the wall. This is my problem with self-publishing. You keep saying that there are so many great books, but where? I can go on Lulu and find 100 garbage novels and maybe two or three okay ones. Maybe I’ll find a couple really good ones, but I’ve had to do all that work to find those few. For me, it’s not worth the effort when I can go to the bookstore, spend an hour having fun staring at books and smelling the paper (which I don’t get from an online store), and then finding something from a brand I already trust (Tor might release one book out of a dozen that I’m not particularly fond of, which is different from the kinds of things that have come my way through self-publishing). You keep saying that things are changing, but things are getting worse. The easier it becomes for the drivel to find a place in the SP world, the more people who write such things will be flooding through the gates, and are.
And I’m not even asking for something unreasonable: a way to tell the consumer “this is of professional quality and not crap.” What is wrong with that? For traditional publishing it comes in the form of a brand name (Tor, Random House, Knopf, whatever), which tells us “this book was edited by a professional editor, then copyedited, etc.” Why is it so wrong to ask for the same thing from SP? Right now, there isn’t that sort of built in trust, so each author you buy who is SPed is essentially a gamble, particularly for average consumers.
And people are this prejudiced against your industry. If they weren’t they would be buying SP books in droves, because the stuff has been readily available for decades. The problem has always been an issue of quality, and too many bad authors have tainted the efforts of good ones. If a consumer gets hit with ten SP authors who are dreadful (either personally or artistically), and only one good one seeps through, do you honestly expect the consumer to think the process is worth it? Any growth in SP is limited to how well it can weed out the crap, because average consumers (people who impulse buy, who stick with trusted brands, who do not look outside the box or are even willing to do any work to find good products (books)) are never going to deal with SP so long as it gives them what they don’t want. This is the problem: the average consumer wants it now, not later, and not with any extra work on their part. They are not going to read excerpts, most of them may only glance at reviews, at best, and the vast majority are going to go the grocery store or Borders or somewhere else and look for the next bestseller from such and such publisher or such and such author. The best hope for SP is to get as many non-average consumers into their wings as possible, but that will be limited. This isn’t a point of limited respect for how many people care about the process of finding books, its an observation based on statistical evidence and actual bookstore experiences on how the average consumer buys, not just in this industry, but in almost all industries (sometimes even cars). We live in an impulsive society, so it’s no surprise that our consumption habits are largely impulsive.
And I agree, the point of writing is to be read. And of course there is potential in finding an audience with SP. Some have. Good for them. I have an interview with an SP author coming up, actually…
Anyway.
SMD, there is an increasing number of readers who are paying attention to new media. There is also an increasing number of readers slowly becoming aware of this whole “indie author” thing and likening it to indie musicians and filmmakers before us.
You’re operating under a view based on “what is true right this exact second.” It *is* true that a lot of readers are still completely unaware of new media, especially as it relates to books. But you’ll also find that when indie music and indie filmmaking first came out, it started rather small and there were only certain music and film consumers who were aware of what was going on, and acting accordingly.
But as indie musicians and filmmakers made wonderful things, those initial consumers would tell people about it who were more in the mainstream. And those more mainstream consumers would check it out. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Folks like Scott Sigler and JC Hutchins have reached huge numbers of readers primarily through the medium of podcasting and a most definite guerilla/new media approach to marketing it. Podcasts in themselves are in many ways a “new media.” Lots of non-techy people still have no idea what the hell a podcast is.
But that doesn’t matter. Because the internet allows you to target and reach consumers you might otherwise not have a snowball’s chance in hell of finding. (And I would bet that there are far more people aware of new media on the internet than off it. So there is no better place to find these people than… on the internet.) And if *those* people like it, they will start sharing with their friends, some of which may not be as savvy as they are.
So the argument about consumers not knowing about new media is a little thin. In addition there was a time when people said: “No one is going to buy a book off the internet. People like to hold books in their hands and sit in a chair in a bookstore environment to check them out. They’re just not going to buy off the internet.”
And yet… look at Amazon.
We are at a tipping point socially and culturally in how we interact with things being sold to us. In many ways we are going back to the old mom and pop idea of advertising and marketing and selling being built upon relationships.
And that’s what an indie does. They go online, they build relationships with their readers, ,those readers become their core fans. Those core fans are a big part of the group that tells other people.
But what’s necessary for all of this to start to begin with is to write a great book that readers like. And being able to consistently find some readers on your own and fan that flame so that those readers will tell others.
For entertainment (and probably actually most things), the most effective marketing is word of mouth. But you have to get to critical mass first.
And as a clarification here, there has probably ALWAYS been indie music and filmmaking in one form or another. (Though obviously filmmaking is fairly recent in entertainment history) Just like there has always been indie authorship in one form or another (and in fact most books used to come out that way.)
But as a “movement” as a “concept” indie authorship is in it’s infancy, as we watched those movements happen in both music and film. So it’s now happening with books.
And if you don’t think it’s happening with books then you aren’t paying much attention. Self publishing gets a lot of press now. And many individuals and groups who used to scoff at it are now saying… well maybe. Including many agents and others inside of mainstream publishing.
It’s not really that far from a “well maybe” to a “I can see where this can be a good thing for certain writers and readers.”
There is also a drastic difference not only between indie music/films and SP books, but also podcasted novels and SPed books. Podcasted novels have a tendency to harken back to older media forms a la radio, and so have a closer relationship to indie music/film, and music and film have very little, generally speaking, to do with reading, so to make the comparison between the industries is like comparing an apple to a moon rock. The processes of engagement for a consumer of a book and a consumer of music or a film is entirely different.
When 500,000 people buy an SPed book or an podcasted novel, then I’ll agree that things are changing. Right now a lot of people are claiming “we’re changing things,” when really all that’s happened is that traditional publishing is adjusting how it approaches its online market. Whether podcasting came along or not, publishers were going to start doing the things they were doing (and some had been doing it before podcasting). And I don’t agree that publishers are saying “maybe” so much as seeing a handful of individuals with a built in market. They’re not going out of their way to publish podcasted novelists or SPed people. They’re simply seeing the dollars in a couple places, and taking the opportunity. If podcasters disappeared tomorrow, traditional publishing wouldn’t care at all.
And also you’re confusing what I say about the “average consumer” as being applicable to everyone. Average consumers do one of two things: go to a bookstore like Borders or, if they already know what they want, they go to Amazon or a similar store. These same consumers, as I said, buy impulsively (a book stand at a grocery store, randomly showing up at Borders, maybe they see an ad for a new book by an author they love on a website, etc.).
SMD, you’re missing every point I’m making and trying to turn it into something I’m not saying. For this reason I’m going to disengage. This is not worth contributing to carpel tunnel over and I have edits to get to;.
SMD, your arguments are getting inaccurate so it’s hard to continue on.
1. Your “average consumer” doesn’t know the difference between Random House and Author House so probably doesn’t even know that a book is self-published. It’s people who are more savvy – and so people who spend more time reading reviews and hanging out on places like Goodreads – who will know if a book is self-published, not an average reader.
2. An average reader who buys three books a year that are all on the bestseller list are going to be hard to reach for EVERYBODY. You seem to be basing your arguments on what sells the most as being the best litmus test. 50,000 books? Really? Small presses don’t sell those numbers. We’re talking a great success if you sell 5000 books – whether on an independent press or via self-publishing. By your logic, even small presses shouldn’t bother because they’re bound to lose money – if we’re talking statistical probability, which you like to do.
3. Repeating myself: you say that you need the experience of sniffing a book before purchase and then criticize self-publishing because it’s not selling in droves. Yes! It’s harder to sell books without bookstores, we all know that. But with the proliferation of ebook readers it’s going to change how the marketplace works. Frequently I write about here that the new paradigm isn’t here, but it’s coming. We’re basically at the ground floor and you’re criticizing the industry based on past preconceptions.
4. Repeating myself again: the better self-published books will be reviewed more often. The truly poorly-done will sell five books and have limited visibility. I agree, searching for a book on Lulu probably isn’t the best method to find a book, unless you know what you’re looking for. But going to any publisher’s site isn’t the main way people shop for books – they go to bookstores, Amazon/Borders.com/etc. or brick and mortar.
The argument has never been that self-publishing is an easy way to sell books. The argument is that because of the difficulty in getting traditionally published, writers should have an outlet. You yourself acknowledge how market-driven the publishing industry is. The strangest part of your argument is that people don’t search for information. The very mainstream book buyers may be lazy, but the web was built for people to find information. People like using the web. They’re going to be using it more – the iPhone is new. Again, I don’t know why I have to make that argument.
In conclusion, self-publishing is:
• Good, getting better
• Will be better in the future.
Good points, Henry. I keep going back to the idea that SP needs a distribution arm. Someone (venture capital?) needs to step up to the plate and make it happen. It would be tricky, but I think it could be done.
Randall: It would definitely be tricky, but a distribution arm could help the good folks get more recognized in the more mainstream market, amongst more average consumers. Henry is correct that average consumers don’t know the difference between Randomhouse and Authorhouse, but Authorhouse books don’t show up in their traditional bookstores (Borders, B&N, etc.–rare exceptions notwithstanding), so a way of getting the good books into bookstores would definitely be a good venture.
But, I don’t think that will happen or do any good if there isn’t a measure of quality control. I don’t know why Henry is so deadset against the prospect of giving a boost to the good SPed books. It seems to me to be against some way to differentiate easily the crap from the good is essentially to condemn SP authors to the stigma we’ve been discussing here. Why wouldn’t you want to help those that deserve it to easily rise above all the crap? Yes, you can run a site like this, you can review them, point out the good ones, etc., but the crap authors are just as good at doing PR as the good ones (some of them, anyway–I’ve seen a lot of the crap ones even manipulate reviews in a way that most people aren’t even going to notice). I’ve been approached by numerous of such authors and unsuspecting buyers probably won’t know any better. Technically their fault for not looking closer, but not really the point. Self-publishing is a double-edged sword, so why you would be against making one edge sharper without having to spend hours at the sharpening wheel is beyond me.
Zoe: Your points about indie music and books was irrelevant because it fails to acknowledge the reality that the mediums are entirely different. The industries may have similarities, but saying that an apple is like an orange doesn’t work. Good luck with the edits.
My points weren’t irrelevant SMD, and I’m not sure why it’s so important to you to try to make them so.
“I don’t know why Henry is so deadset against the prospect of giving a boost to the good SPed books.”
You’re making stuff up. What do you think this site is set up to do? And my defense of services like Indie Reader. It’s all about improving self-published books and improving the attitude towards self-publishing.
Henry: You’re right, it was someone else. My apologies. I mixed you up with someone elsewhere. And I agree, and maybe my problem is that for whatever reason I’m a magnet for so many of the bad ones. If there really are more good ones out there (and I know there are good ones, because I’ve read some of them, and I even was very open to self-pub books for review for several years after starting doing book reviews), why am I only being exposed to the bad ones? I don’t just mean in my review pool (which is particularly horrible), but anywhere. I even said in my original post that a lot of my issues with self-publishing were recent inventions due to some exceptionally horrible experiences. And for me I would drop anyone, even a traditional publisher, if I had those kinds of experiences. If Tor produced five books straight that were so horrible I wanted to chuck them across the room, I would probably stop reading anything by them ever again, even if it was free (and maybe that would change if something changed with Tor; thank goodness they haven’t ruined themselves in that manner, because I’m particularly fond of Tor).
I still don’t think there are drastically more good books than bad ones, but that’s not the point in this particular response.
Zoe: Because comparing two mediums that are completely different in how they are received is making an unsubstantiated argument. I can sit here and argue to you all day why an apple is like an orange, but in the end, is an apple an orange, even if there are similarities? No. Books and movies will never been the same in how they are received by an audience, because they are drastically different mediums. The industries behind them may have very similar practices in how to get the product to the consumer, but the consumer never will look at a movie the same way as a book, because you can’t.
Yeah, movies and music will always be different too. It doesn’t negate the whole “indie concept.”
I guess the only thing left to say to you is, the world, she is changing. See you on the other side.
I’m not negating the “indie concept.” I indicated to you multiple times that the industries themselves may use the same kinds of tools, but that the way consumers buy and consume the mediums is different, thus making the comparison irrelevant. Books are not immediate gratification: they take a considerable amount of time, even with well-written ones, to know if you truly love a book. Music is not: consumers can usually tell if a song is for them right off the bat, and since indie music has always largely been Internet based, it’s built in fanbase has instant methods for testing the product without considerable strain on time. Thirty seconds on a song and that’s pretty much all most need. Movies are very similar, though “indie films” are somewhat different from the model being discussed here precisely because a good portion of films done independently from major studios are funded by external sources, or funded by smaller, non-major studios.
Okay… SMD here is the thing that you don’t seem to be getting… yes, books may take a long time to read and know if you love them, but guess what? That is true of a book no matter how it is published. I know you have this massive faith in the vetting system, but I can tell you 50% or more of the NY published books that I read I hate by about the midpoint and it is a struggle to get through it if I get through it at all.
Further, I offer work for free, so people can test an entire story of mine before plunking down the big bucks.
Books are sold mainly via word of mouth, but you have to make people aware of the book to get that rolling.
Also, your thing you mentioned way back up there about how SP isn’t viable unless someone can sell like 500,000 copies, that’s an insane argument. Most books are lucky if they sell 5,000 copies. No matter HOW they are brought to market. But I will tell you I intend to sell at least 5,000 copies.
My novella in the Amazon kindle store is ranked right now (and it fluctuates, but at this moment) at 1,555 out of 300,000 products. I’ve had over 6500 downloads in various venues since I put it out at the end of November, and I haven’t marketed it nearly as strongly as I could or should. Nevertheless I am working on my author platform.
And unless you are already famous, author platform is built in pretty much the same way with trad and indie authors. One reader at a time. At some point you hope to reach critical mass where the word of mouth snowball gets going.
I’m not sure what goal posts you have set up in your mind, but it seems to me that your goal posts are constantly moving and everchanging because you just plain don’t “like” the idea of self publishing.
You have said yourself that you are starting a small press publishing someone else. How many copies do you expect to sell? What is in it for you? What is the point of your venture? Are you trying to make a profit? Is t just for the love of publishing? Because I’m telling you, as an indie author, I can do just as well as you. Period.
So what is this argument really about?