So here is the thing…
There is a lot of talk about the “stigma” of self-publishing. But for the most part this stigma is rather contained. For example:
Mainstream Publishers/Agents: They don’t really care whether you self-publish or not. I mean think about this for a moment. If you’re self-publishing, you’re one less manuscript in their slush pile. If you fail, they don’t have to deal with you. If you succeed, then you are a proven quantity to them… a sure thing, which is something publishers like. So exactly why would they care? Publishers and agents reject bad writing all the time. They don’t remember the bad writing because they see so much of it, it all bleeds together (from one of the horses’ mouths.)
Agents DO discourage self-publishing very often on their blogs and such, but the stigma doesn’t really flow from them. More about that in a minute…
And while there is much talk about how if you self-publish you’ll ruin your future chances at a career because bookstores won’t order your books from a publisher because your self-pubbed books sold so poorly, that’s not a very strong argument and I’d like someone to bring in an actual bookstore book purchaser to confirm this. BOOKS are all returnable inside the brick and mortar bookstore system. They don’t HAVE to assess risk with a major publisher.
Chances are really good they NEVER stocked your book. So… if you’ve got bad sales, and since everyone claims brick and mortar distribution is Distribution Mecca, then… oh gee, maybe they’ll “get” that it may be a distribution issue and not that the book isn’t good. The double standards out there are astounding. Either way though, with a major publisher backing a book and taking their sales people around, do you really think bookstores are doing intensive background checks? Who cares if you self-pubbed a book?
Bookstores: With bookstores the stigma isn’t so much stigma as shelf-space. While it’s a common belief that self-published books can’t get shelved on brick and mortar bookstore shelves, this is BS. There is a vetting process whereby small press and self-published authors can get their books vetted and into the store, even the MAJOR chains. I know of many self-pubbed authors whose books are sitting on major bookstore shelves.
But if you WANT that, you have to do the legwork necessary. You have to produce a quality book and you have to get into Ingram and Baker and Taylor (the primary distributors of the book trade), but it can be done. At the end of the day it isn’t “stigma” that keeps a self-pubbed book off a bookstore shelf… it is the self-publishing author’s lack of education about the process to do it or willingness to do it, or the quality of their book. Plain as that.
Also, even if you can’t get on bookstore shelves, you should ask yourself whether or not this is something that’s necessary for you. The bookstore returns system can cannibalize your sales and for a small operator, that might not be the place you want to be at. Especially not in the beginning as an indie. Though your mileage may vary.
So far we’ve established that agents, publishers, and bookstores don’t really “care” whether or not you self-publish. If you’ll note bookstores don’t start big blogs ranting and whining about self-publishing. Neither do publishers. In fact, many are open to the idea of finding authors to sign among those who are successfully self-publishing. They understand due to distribution issues that it’s still hard for an indie to sell a lot of books and they adjust their expectations accordingly. While agents may discourage writers from self-publishing… it would kind of be contradictory to their business model to do anything else. It’s called self-interest, folks, not empirical reality.
If an author self-publishes and THEN gets picked up by a publisher, the agent wasn’t needed to scout out and find the talent. The author is then the one in the power chair. And that author is unlikely to call up that agent for representation. They may call AN agent, or they may call an intellectual property lawyer to handle their contract. But the important part in this scenario is that the author has the power, not the agent… more about that in a minute.
Now granted, the odds of succeeding as an indie are slim (but the odds of succeeding ANYWAY are slim.) If you’ve got the goods, you’ve got them, no matter how you publish. Agents have to wade through a lot of crap to find gems but right now their job is still necessary. If all hopefuls were to start self-publishing, or even if ENOUGH of them did, that publishers got all the work they needed from successfully self-published books, then the agents’ job description all but disappears.
Most of the “self-publishing stigma” hinges on the idea that all self-published books are bad and written by deluded morons who can’t really write. The moment enough truly GOOD writers buck the system and self-publish, this stops being true. In order for the stigma to continue, it must remain a self-fulfilling prophecy. And in order for THAT to happen, everyone WITHIN the system must heavily discourage anyone working outside it by appealing to their vanity and their fear of being ostracized from the community.
And if the agent’s job doesn’t completely disappear (i.e. they could go back to just doing what they were supposed to be doing: contract negotiation), their perceived power among writers does, because then their position in the system as the writer’s employee, is reinforced. I believe many of the agents out there on the Internet who verbally abuse the writer community every change they get, enjoy this false power they’ve been temporarily granted. But, if there is an easier and more drama-free way for publishers to find talent, besides the slush pile and agents, then agents go back to being employees and not a second round of gatekeeper.
I find it insane that while many in traditional publishing will pontificate about how indie authors aren’t “vetted,” GUESS WHAT? Agents aren’t vetted. Anyone can call themselves an agent and a bad agent is worse than no agent at all. Most top agents aren’t taking on new clients because they don’t have to. They’ve got enough good authors making them plenty of money.
Reviewers: What about all the review sources who won’t review your book? Another myth. There ARE self-pubbed books that are reviewed in major sources. If you do things the right way the issue of whether or not your book is self-published shouldn’t even come up. i.e. You have an imprint that isn’t YOUR name (like not Sally’s Books), you have a professional-quality book, and you’re presenting yourself as a professional.
You may still not get reviewed, but… it’s not because of the stigma of self-publishing. It’s because of ALL the books out there and how competitive it is. Most trad published books don’t get reviewed in major sources either. Also, most major sources for reviews are drying up and being replaced by the voice of readers on book reviewer blogs that gain a following. It is a WHOLE different landscape out there, and yet many are still functioning as if it’s 1999.
Readers: I don’t care what anyone says, readers are why writers write. There is no other reason. If you want to make money you can find something that will pay you far better than writing. Writing is what you do because you have something to express and share with the world. So reader opinions? The buck stops with them I’m afraid.
You just can’t delete readers from the equation no matter how much the industry seems to want to. They are the end consumer of the book. And the more the traditional publishing system abuses and disregards the wants and needs of the readers, the more readers will shrug and go find other entertainment options, whether it be small press and indie books, or reality TV. Either way, they’ll get tired of the shit eventually.
So what do readers think? Well, for the most part, since most of them aren’t exposed to bad self pubbed work, since crap doesn’t rise to the top, they don’t care. They don’t know who your publisher is and they don’t care who your publisher is. While there are SOME readers who have either somehow been exposed to a lot of bad self-pubbed work and got a bad taste in their mouth over it, or who are plugged in enough to the pulse of the publishing industry that they have become influenced by the “stigma”, most readers don’t know about all this bullshit politics. Nor do they really care one way or the other.
You don’t have to overcome reader objections to your method of publication if you produce a quality book. The reason you don’t is that publishers never branded THEMSELVES. No one knows who Dan Brown or Stephen King’s publisher is… or not average readers anyway. They don’t know the different imprint names or publisher names for most mainstream-produced book. They can’t tell a small press imprint, from a division of a larger well-known publisher. SOME of them, can’t even tell AuthorHouse from Random House (This one is Henry Baum’s brilliance, not my own.)
So you don’t have to overcome reader issues. In fact, if I didn’t interact at all with the writing community on the Internet, and just went about my business self-publishing, I’d never run into any drama whatsoever about my method of publication. I choose, for better or worse, to get into the debates that I do, because while I know I won’t change the pig-headed views of the person I’m talking with most likely, I *may* influence the view of someone reading who hasn’t made up their mind yet. And that, to me, is worth it.
Okay… so if the source of the stigma isn’t “really” agents, publishers, bookstores, reviewers, or readers, what is it?
OTHER WRITERS.
Traditionally published authors who get bent out of shape about self-publishing, may, in fact, have a partly altruistic motive of protecting authors from making bad business decisions, though I think the better alternative is to teach a writer how to assess business risk, rather than making up asinine rules like “money always flows to the author.”
However, don’t ever be led to believe it is merely altruism that causes a traditionally published author to rail against self-publishing. Self-publishing is a threat. It doesn’t matter that a lot of self-published work is bad… many trad pubbed authors suffered through years of rejection to get “accepted.” They have been validated by a certain system.
If it becomes socially acceptable to work outside that system, then where does their validation go? It becomes less valuable because readers already don’t care. Bookstores already don’t care. The only people who REALLY care are other writers. And so it’s important to set up this “cult of truth” for writers and make everyone goose step and ostracize those who don’t.
If someone won’t march in line like the rest, you attack the quality of their writing, their character, and their mental state or capacity. They aren’t good enough, they haven’t been validated, they are lazy or taking a shortcut. They are delusional. They are naive. And if none of that works, you define them as “the exception” and say they shouldn’t encourage anyone else to do what you’re doing. Writers are so desperate for validation that often they will ignore their own will in favor of being accepted by their peers.
But guess what? Indies have their OWN peers.
Unpublished writers generally want to be accepted by those they look up to. And so because the self-published author is the only one “beneath them” on the food chain, they join in the mob to attack as well.
So let’s sum up… in a really competitive industry the stigma against going outside the system is your competition.
Have a different view about that stigma now? The moment you stop associating with these people and focus on the readers, they just fall off your radar. I’ve chosen under this name, to be loud and out there about being indie and to confront stupid arguments head on because I know for many it’s too hard to stand up to the people who have either been elevated or elevated themselves to grand high potentates of publishing.
Though now I need to probably take a bit of a break from arguing, so I can get something worthwhile accomplished… like I don’t know… publishing.
Cross-posted from zoewinters.wordpress.com.
About the Author: Zoe Winters
John Mellor said on March 25, 2010
I think Zoe’s original point is that many traditionally published authors are horrified that ‘the coveted moniker of “published author”’ is no longer the preserve of those who have been accepted, and thus validated by traditional publishers – anyone with a secondhand computer can now become one. Oh dear. The sky is falling in. RF’s somewhat patronising and sweeping comments do little to place him outside the realms of those to whom she refers.
I actually think that most self-publishers, whether using vanity presses or taking their own road, do so simply because they want to produce a book. If a traditional publisher will not do it for them they will do it themselves or pay someone else to do so. I really do not see this as such an affront to society as to warrant the extraordinary vitriol that I have come across since taking up the game myself.
I actually have a foot in both camps, having had twelve non-fiction books put out by traditional publishers. I chose to publish my current novel myself simply because it was outside my accepted genre and I could not face the prospect of trailing round the conventional route for months or years, possibly fruitlessly. The fact that thousands of self-published books are considered ‘awful’ by professional standards is quite irrelevant to the business of self-publishing. Many will simply sink without trace; many will bring great pleasure to family and friends; some will even sell in respectable numbers to total strangers. All will support the printers, freelance editors, designers etc who will work in what is clearly developing into a full-blown industry. Why should the likes of RF care about it, unless Zoe is right?
RF said on March 25, 2010
SleepyJohn, I’m solely interested in the issue of vanity-publishing (different, I emphasise again, from self-publishing, which is usually pursued by people with a broader understanding of the publishing industry) because I don’t wish to see people lose a lot of money in pursuing their dreams. You’re right that anyone can adopt the moniker “published author” irrespective of quality of book or level of sales, but it has always been thus: the old-fashioned vanity publishers like Dorrance have been with us for decades. As I said before, the average self-published book sells fewer than 100 copies: good luck to the authors concerned, but in terms of my own work they don’t even register on my radar.
Zoe Winters said on March 25, 2010
RF,
You and I are both on the same side when it comes to not wanting authors to lose their money in pursuit of their dream, but from my perspective it’s more about realistic expectations and wanting people to have all the facts before they make a decision.
Unfortunately most writers just badmouth and mock self-publishing writers instead of carrying on a productive dialogue meant to inform writers. Most of these writers you want to protect are grown adults. If they don’t have two brain cells to rub together to research and verify before spending money, there might not be much you can do to help them.
Also, in the interest of shooting down this 100 books sold idea, that’s true of vanity press, not true of true self-publishing. When you do it right your odds go up to small press odds since you ARE a small press in essence, and those sales odds are average 500-3000 copies. Though that’s still “average,” some do much better. Some do worse.
I’ve sold inching very close to 5,000 copies of my novella on Amazon Kindle. Caveats of course is that it’s only $1.00. I doubt I would sell that many of a hardcopy in the same time period. Still, it’s a proof that audience is out there and many of these readers will buy my next release at the $2.99 ebook price point I’ve set it at, or in print.
I also don’t say that to brag. This isn’t the “pinnacle” for me, but it’s a decent start with test marketing.
Zoe Winters said on March 25, 2010
Nathan,
Yeah, I worry sometimes that something I say might draw someone into self-publishing who shouldn’t be doing it, not necessarily cause they’re a “bad writer,” but because they might not be wired to be their own publisher.
If someone is a bad writer and can’t take the steps necessary to improve, they aren’t succeeding the trad way either.
At the same time I say all the crap I say because it’s not my place to judge someone else’s abilities or aptitude and where someone is today isn’t where they’ll be tomorrow. I’m thankful for the people who wrote about self-publishing and got me interested in it. If they hadn’t taken the time to write about it, I wouldn’t have known I could even try it.
I really don’t think it has to be “us vs. them,” though I’m sure sometimes I come off that way to people, but that’s because so many people are determined to ostracize and stigmatize anyone who self-publishes. It smacks of a type of censorship to me that raises my hackles.
If people would just take each book they stumbled upon as it came and judged it only on itself and not on it’s method of publication, I wouldn’t have anything left to whine about.
Zoe Winters said on March 25, 2010
RF,
Sorry this is so long. I don’t know how to be concise in a discussion apparently.
True self-publishers are entrepreneurs. We know the risks we take. But IF we succeed the rewards can be very big. And many of us don’t like a system where we can’t control as many variables as possible. That’s just part of the entrepreneurial mindset. I am the WORST employee in the world. I can’t stand working for others and to me trad publishing is too much of me not being in charge. (yes, I’m very type A)
As an indie I control far more variables than I could trad published. Something which suits me fine.
Yes, I probably won’t sell as many copies as a trad pubbed author, but… consider other factors here. An author’s career is built over many books, not just one.
Once you beat the odds to get traditionally published, MOST trad published authors do not get a second contract. Of those that do many are eventually dropped by their publisher. Of those that aren’t dropped by their publisher, most of their backlist is “out of print” and not making them any new money. To compound that problem, many books are out of print several years before the rights revert back to the author.
An indie by contrast, never gets dropped by their publisher. They can take as long as it takes to build an audience because aside from their ultimate death, they have forever. They can keep every single one of their books in print, so when they have ten books out, they are actually making money from 10 different books, and not 2 or 3 while the rest are “out of print.”
They also make 4-5 times what a traditionally published author makes per book. So in order to reach the same level of financial success they have to sell a fourth or fifth of what their trad published counterparts have to sell.
You argue from the majority. But the fact is that the majority of everything fails. 95% of ALL small businesses fail and yet most people don’t spend all that much time discouraging people from opening flower shops and restaurants.
Self-publishing isn’t right for everybody, or even most people. But trad publishing isn’t right for everybody either. And unfortunately within writing circles the general assumption continues to be self-publishers self-publish because they had no other options. That’s not always true. Many self-publishers do it because they love the act of publishing as much as the act of writing.
It is true that trad published books have better distribution “right now.” However, savvy self-publishers have more and more distribution options open to them. For the most part that doesn’t include chain store distribution, but I’m not sure how long chain bookstores are really going to survive. Especially as we move into the future.
I truly believe that at some point probably sooner than we all think, ebooks will be the primary delivery method, which means purchasing will be digital. So this brings us to online platform.
There are plenty of ways to build audience through online platform. Free reads, podcasts, interacting with readers online. Yes, a lot of other people are competing to do this, but many trad published authors have to do a lot of their own marketing anyway. So this is stuff you’d have to do anyway.
Most trad published books just don’t get great marketing, they don’t earn out, and the author is gone and forgotten. When I originally decided to self-publish it was because I wanted a platform. I didn’t want to risk my “one big shot” being wasted as a one book author.
But the more I got into it, the more I discovered I loved self-publishing for the sake of self-publishing and the lure would have to be damn big to pull me away from it. (And I’ve said this before, but I’ll be REALLY glad when I get this next book out under the Zoe Winters name, because one little novella isn’t all I have out in the world, it’s just all I have out under this particular pen name.)
One other point is that I think a lot of people like to argue odds of success by assuming a trad publishing contract. MOST writers will never get a major NY contract (and a small press can’t do more for you than you can do for yourself if you know how to publish. They’ve got the same distribution challenges an indie author has.)
But if we take Writer A and Writer B both as unpublished writers who are GOOD writers and also well-informed individuals, and we set them both on different paths, one down trad publishing and one down self publishing, I think the odds of either of them “hitting it big” are about even.
Why? Because the indie author who is really good and sells several thousand copies will have publishers calling them wanting to pick up their rights. That’s not “my” goal. But it’s no more unrealistic than starting out the other way either.
I also don’t think this site necessarily is promoting vanity publishing. I use print on demand, but NOT a vanity POD press. There is a difference. Lightning Source is a POD printer utilized by university presses, small presses, mid-sized presses and some larger presses for their backlists. They also have a lot of automatic distribution channels. So it’s still “real self publishing.”
Most of the people involved in SPR are doing real self-publishing. And I think someone can still do it if they’re using a vanity POD press, BUT I think it’s a poor decision from a profit and loss standpoint.
Some indies start out using something like Lulu or iUniverse and then they change to CreateSpace or better yet, Lightning Source.
But we all gotta start somewhere and self publishing is a HUGE learning curve. I discourage people from using author services companies but… sometimes people have to start there, get their feet wet, figure out the landscape, and then upgrade to something better.
RF said on March 25, 2010
The only bit I’d strongly disagree with is your final statement about “author services companies”. I suspect what you’re referring to is what I’d call, in blunter language, vanity publishers. Yes, some authors have published with these businesses and moved on to better things; the vast majority have never been published again.
Why? Because these companies flatter to deceive, whether it’s PublishAmerica describing itself as a “traditional publisher” or AuthorHouse talking about its £600-per-year returnability programme making its books more attractive to bookshops. In both cases, there is the thinly veiled suggestion that the author will find her books on shelves, while in reality there’s a 99.9% probability that she won’t. What will that kind of disappointment (coupled with the loss of hundreds or thousands of pounds in the case of AuthorHouse and publishing rights for seven years in the case of PA) do to a writer? Do you think she will have the confidence to write and seek publication again?
This is even leaving aside the issue that this type of publisher is totally non-selective: they will cheerfully publish barely edited first drafts, clumsy writing or even borderline gibberish. Pity help the vanity-published author who does beat the system and make it big, as her juvenilia could be floating around to embarrass her for years to come (especially as both the firms I mentioned have been accused of not taking authors’ books out of print when the contract ostensibly ends).
Zoe Winters said on March 25, 2010
Hey RF, yes author services companies and vanity POD presses are the same thing and I don’t “endorse” them, but when you’re talking about someone who wants to go indie, for whatever reason, they aren’t all created equal.
My friend and indie author RJ Keller wrote a wonderful book called “Waiting for Spring.” She published it on Lulu. Granted she was smart and used the free publishing option and didn’t buy any “packages.”
Then she switched to CreateSpace and I think she’s about to jump again over to Lightning Source.
But I didn’t consider her less of a self-publisher or less of an indie author when she used Lulu because she was just taking advantage of the best option she knew at the time and she was still in charge of everything.
It’s a learning curve. A lot of indies use a vanity POD press before they learn about a better option. I’d never encourage someone to use one, but hey it happens. It’s not the end of the world. Usually no one dies from doing this.
It’s not the best option from a financial profit and loss perspective but it’s also not exactly world-in-peril stuff. Anyone who self-publishes and gets involved with the indie author community and hangs around a little bit, eventually figures out CreateSpace is a smarter option than Authorhouse and once they get the learning curve, that Lightning Source is the best option of all.
But it takes some time. LSI is a pretty well-kept secret as far as the average wannabe self-pubbing author finding out about them. I discovered them cause I read probably every book written in the past two decades on self-publishing before deciding to do it. But most beginner indies don’t know yet.
They get in, they learn, they pick a better option for the next book. It’s all about learning and making better choices as you go. The first book isn’t the only book and it doesn’t have to be that epic.
Also, I think any writer who can’t handle the kind of disappointment you just described, will never make it anyway. You have to be tough to be a writer. Pansies need not apply. Someone who is going to make a bad decision with a POD vanity press, then pack up their card table and go home was never meant for this business in the first place.
You know that’s true. What about the disappointment authors face who get hundreds of rejection letters? Won’t THEY also give up writing? Either someone has the staying power to keep going or they don’t. If they can’t pick themselves up after an initial poor self-publishing decision (meaning choosing a vanity POD press and spending too much money), then they wouldn’t make it in trad publishing either.
RJ Keller said on March 26, 2010
Thanks for the mention, Z. Just to clarify, though (and forgive me for taking this wildly off topic):
I chose Lulu because, as you mentioned, while at the bottom of my personal learning curve it was the easiest option. Very “Push Here Dummy”-type of formatting, which is exactly what I needed at that time. Also, it was free to set up…another big plus.
However, the price for readers was out-frigging-rageous. That’s when I turned to Create Space (free set up because I “won” NaNoWriMo, and you get a coupon), which made Waiting For Spring available on Amazon without the hoops-jumping Lulu required (I think they’ve since changed, but I’m not 100% sure). I did use an ISBN provided by Create Space, so they are listed as publisher.
Whatever. It may seem like a big deal to other indies, and someday I probably will buy my own block of numbahs and go through LSI, but right now that’s a matter of semantics to me. Maybe I don’t care as much because my book sells far more on Kindle and Smashwords than it does in print. I don’t know.
But there are still a lot of very good writers who put out excellent stuff who use Lulu. For them it’s the right way to go, and I respect that.
Zoe Winters said on March 26, 2010
Totally Agreed, Kel. Thanks for your input!
I think there has to be a serious line drawn between the concept of:
1. Best dollars and cents option
and
2. What makes you a “real” indie author.
I think it’s unhealthy for us to create haves and have nots. personally I would rather list among my indie friends people who put out AMAZING books with Lulu, than people who use LSI but put out crap.
Who your printer is is not the defining characteristic of whether or not you’re an indie. Yes, you’ll make crap money on Lulu, if any at all, so it’s not the soundest business decision, but if you’ve cared enough to get your book up to a good quality standard, chances are you’re mingling with other indies, and you’ll find out about your other options soon enough.
And truthfully no matter who owns the ISBN, I think it’s a good idea for many indies to start out on CreateSpace. It’s just an easier place to start. And it gets your feet wet and lets you learn what you’re doing. THEN if you determine LSI is right for you, awesome. But I know several indies where CS meets their needs just fine. And if they’re happy, I’m happy.
I’m certainly not going to look down on my nose at them from on high and act like I’m better. Especially since many of them can write circles around me.
Karen Crumley said on March 25, 2010
Zoe, I admit I almost made the HUGE mistake of using Xlibris when I first considered self-publishing. But after they hounded me and hounded me for a manuscript that wasn’t even revised & edited yet, let alone press-ready…and one of their sales reps showed their true colors…I thought twice. Thank Heaven.
I did use Lulu for the anthology though, and learned from that mistake. I am a firm believer in having your own imprint & ISBN’s.
Zoe Winters said on March 25, 2010
If you’d used Xlibris you would have learned and dusted yourself off and tried again, just like you did after Lulu. In the end no one died.
Karen Crumley said on March 25, 2010
LOL so true. It’s all about trial and error.
Sue Collier said on March 25, 2010
What a great discussion!
I have a few more cents of my own to add in response to this (by Zoe): “But if we take Writer A and Writer B both as unpublished writers who are GOOD writers and also well-informed individuals, and we set them both on different paths, one down trad publishing and one down self publishing, I think the odds of either of them “hitting it big” are about even.”
The main reason their odds of hitting it big are even is because both will be responsible for their own marketing and promotions. So why NOT self-publish–and keep all the profits rather than the measly percentage offered by TPs?
I have a TP book coming out this summer; it’s the 5th edition of a book (I’m the coauthor on this edition)–and even though the book has a track record of 100,000 plus in sales, the advance was paltry (half of what was offered for the 4th edition). So even advances are dwindling. We have a second book coming out this fall–and we’ll be self-publishing that one, thank-you-very-much. There is just no benefit to doing it the other way.
Zoe Winters said on March 25, 2010
Hey Sue,
I agree with what you’re saying, but for me the main reason was that the person on the trad pubbed path first had to GET a publishing contract and then had to KEEP a publishing contract, while every single element is fighting against them.
Almost everybody making the arguments against self-publishing are arguing from the assumption of every writer getting a NY contract. Which is insane when you call them out on it, but almost nobody does. They get too distracted by the arguments that ignore that it’s a hypothetical reality JUST LIKE self-publishing success.
I mean a book only gets 3 months on the shelves in traditional publishing to “prove itself” before returns go back.
I think it’s insane to put all your hopes and dreams on a three month opportunity. And yet… tons of writers go for JUST that brass ring. Makes no sense to me. I can’t grok it.
An indie has as long as they need. Sure, if it takes you 5 years to sell 5,000 copies maybe a trad publisher won’t call you (if that’s what you even want to begin with), BUT… if that’s just the first book, maybe the second book you’ll have built up enough platform that you’ll sell better and faster.
And while most self-pubbed books are bad, most writers are bad anyway no matter how they seek to get published. IF you have “the goods” though, and can also market or learn to market, you stand a good shot if you bust ass, to sell enough copies to attract a publisher IF that’s what you want. Then the advance will be bigger because it’s a known quantity.
I think too many people see self-publishing authors as impatient one-book authors. I have 9 books so far planned for this series and I plan to publish them all myself. I’m publishing other things under a different name. I stupidly bought a 10 block of ISBN numbers when I should have bought 100.
John Mellor said on March 26, 2010
I do think it is rather unfortunate that the emotive phrase ‘vanity publishing’ is so casually bandied about in connection with self-publishing. Is there any evidence to support the obvious inference that writers following this road are vainer than those contracted to traditional publishers? When my first book was published the Editor’s Assistant confided to me over lunch that most authors in her experience were insufferably pompous and self-important!
It seems to me that what we are dealing with is not a publisher who ‘preys on the vanity’ of an author, but simply one that offers him a poor or deceitful service. A second-hand car dealer who sells cars stuffed with paint and putty ‘flatters to deceive’, but he is not a ‘vanity car salesman’, he is a crook. Why should dodgy ‘publishers’ be given the excuse of the author’s vanity? Those in the know should be outing them, not mocking their unwitting customers.
There are now increasing numbers of unconventional publishers offering perfectly honourable proposals. Even my local printer offers a publishing service at very fair and reasonable rates, and I am sure he is not alone. We should hope that sufficient publicity will bring these to the attention of authors, in preference to the ‘paint and putty’ brigade.
I cannot see that charging a fair price to publish a book written by a customer is any more wicked than charging a fair price for welding up a gate designed by him – even if both are rubbish. Nor that paying for your book to be published is any more vain than paying for your gate to be welded. I really do not accept that vanity comes into this anywhere. If an author accepts a bad deal from a ‘publishing house’ (or a welder) the cause, it seems to me, is likely to be naivete, impatience, exuberance or stupidity rather than vanity.
The trouble is, ‘vanity publishing’ is such a catchy phrase.
Karen Crumley said on March 26, 2010
Good points SleepyJohn. I once read that “all publishing is vanity publishing.” I see the point of the person I quoted (whose name escapes me for the moment).
In a sense I understand it…all of us want to be published. All of us want to be read and hopefully people will enjoy what we write. I don’t consider that “vanity” though necessarily.
People who think “commercial publishing is the only way” actually seem more vain in thier statements than anyone else. Craving large advances, film adaptations, etc…
Their name in proverbial lights.
Real self-publishing/indie authors seem to me like anything but vain. Self-publishing is a lot of work; a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. And, IMO more true artists are indies/true self-publishers. More CP authors sell out for a dream, and compose based on a formula that is known to sell…
So who’s so vain now?
The term “vanity publishing” just seemed to stick; as the term “vanity publishing company” to a lot of those companies that make landish promises and charge authors an arm & a leg…
I guess it’s just human nature (or something) that puts X-label on something, and everybody else starts calling it the same thing. Like how all facial tissues are refered to as “Kleenex” even if they are not Kleenex brand.
Sometimes a phrase just sticks.
Zoe Winters said on March 26, 2010
LOL KL, I think it was me. I know I’ve blogged about this before and used the phrase “all publishing is vanity publishing” LOL. But, I used that statement to highlight the fact that trad published authors are just as, if not more vain than self-publishing/indie authors.
Most human beings are vain. It’s not just in publishing. If that wasn’t true there would be no market for expensive cars, clothes, jewelry, make-up, etc. Capitalism largely survives based on human vanity in one form or another.
Saying any author is vain is like saying “humans breathe air.”
Sometimes that labeling thing works in our favor though. The term “indie author” seems to really be catching on, and I think that term is cool as hell.
Zoe Winters said on March 26, 2010
That’s a very good point, John! I never thought of it that way before. I do think it’s rather crass to blame the victim, which is what the term “vanity publishing” ultimately does. It may be the author’s fault for not researching more fully, but it’s the publisher’s fault for being dishonest and purposefully conning the author. Even though people should ALWAYS research things, plenty of people get taken by other con artists but their aren’t mocked for it.
I think also this type of mocking sets up a situation where writers are afraid to truly explore all their options or ask questions or learn anything for fear of being mocked or seen as one of those “stupid authors”
As for vanity… IMO there is NOTHING more vain than: “I will never release my words out into the world to touch or inspire or inform or entertain another human being until it says Random House on the spine.”
I mean seriously?
Karen Crumley said on March 26, 2010
Zoe, so true. It’s like those women that only cary Coach or Dooney & Burke purses…
Or only wear Prada shoes.
It’s silly really.
Zoe Winters said on March 26, 2010
Hehe or Manolos or Jimmy Choos.
Or Tiffany.
Though quite frankly I believe every woman should receive a gift in the “blue box” at least once in her life.
RF said on March 29, 2010
An interesting question, John. Based on the evidence I cite below, I would say that some vanity-published authors are indeed more egocentric (not quite the same thing as more egotistical) than their commercially published counterparts. My examples, all collected from the internet:
1 A vanity-published author who issued four volumes of a science fiction series on AuthorHouse before switching to PublishAmerica for the fifth instalment. By his own admission, none of the first four volumes sold more than 20 copies.
2 A book review website — we’ll call it the Novel Nook, although that’s not its real name — staffed by clients of a particular vanity publisher and almost exclusively reviewing books issued by that publisher. Their reviews are essentially interchangeable, and in essence every one is a slight variant upon the following: “This is one of the best [genre] novels I have ever read. [Author]‘s characters feel like old friends from the first page. This book will make you laugh and make you cry. You won’t be able to put it down! I can’t wait for the follow-up! Five stars all round!”
3 A vanity-published author who contributed to a well-known writers’ forum defending her choice of publisher. When a respected and prolific author who posts there suggested that the publisher might be a poor option due to their lack of editing and willingness to issue unaltered first drafts, the vanity-published author responded that unlike her commercially published counterpart, her first drafts were flawless and needed no additional work. When another member inevitably critiqued some of the writing on her website, the vanity-published author exploded with rage and responded with a stream of abuse.
The common denominator? None of these writers is particularly interested in readers. The first has issued four books that sold appallingly, even by the standards of vanity publications; whilst it must be obvious to him that no-one except himself is interested in his writing, he just keeps on publishing. The Novel Nook reviews are utterly useless to readers: they offer no proper critique of the works under discussion, eschewing even the most basic synopses for saccharine, gushing praise. Their only purpose is to bolster the author’s ego, and nobody would dare offer constructive criticism because the reviewers’ own novels are uniformly appalling. In the case of the final writer, she believes that anybody who does not consider her writing brilliant is “stupid” (her choice of word).
Commercial novelists live or die by readability. To some vanity-published authors, this is a totally alien concept, since they have no readership to begin with.
Zoe Winters said on March 29, 2010
RF why is it automatically vanity if a book only sells a few copies? And what is WRONG with wanting your work in a bound book form? If I come up with a T-shirt slogan, and I want to print a T-shirt on cafe press, does that make me vain? Good lord. I think people need to look up vanity in the dictionary before going out of their way to apply it to others.
So your view then is that because he sold less than 20 copies the books shouldn’t exist at all? Not even for him and his friends? WTF?
What does example 2 have to do with the vanity of authors? They’re being scammed out of their money. (Many of these types of reviews are paid reviews. For non-paid it seems to be a case of “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine”.) I would say those authors are more naive than vain. They need to research and become educated about the publishing industry but there are a LOT of morons in this industry. Some of them in the upper strata.
Example 3 sounds more deluded than anything and also common among newbie writers in general, not just those who jump the gun and fall for a vanity press scam.
What you’re forgetting fundamentally in all of this is that most unpublished authors in the slush pile have similar viewpoints. And self-publishing IS the slush pile. There will be some gems, but I can’t stop tards from self-publishing or “vanity” publishing. I have NO power there.
Should we equate seeking trad publication with vanity as well? There are just as many vain and deluded morons in both camps. It’s only in self-publishing where all of the slush is visible to those who are looking. That doesn’t make one path more or less “vain” than the other.
And I realize you make a distinction between self-publishing and vanity publishing but the problem with that is, you would probably consider Lulu or CreateSpace “vanity publishing.” Your issue doesn’t seem to really be about financial scams perpetrated on authors but on some easy way to pigeon-hole people (my assumption only based on this discussion).
At the end of the day someone can publish on Lulu and have all their sh*t together, but not know about LSI yet. Or maybe they want to get their feet wet and can’t yet afford a big block of ISBNs. And someone can have their own ISBNs, and self-publish the “proper way” but still be putting crap out into the world.
So of those two, who is vain? Vanity is a pointless concept to argue in publishing. The very idea that you could write words on a page that other human beings want to pay money for, is kind of vain. It’s all just a sliding scale.
And I stand by my view that MANY on the trad train are equally vain since many won’t put their words into the world without Random House’s name on the spine.
Plenty of trad pubbed authors and those seeking trad publication don’t care about the readers either. They just want the validation and ego petting. I am aware of a few fairly successful trad published authors who show an almost contempt for their readers and their readers opinions of their work. Most on the trad train don’t seem to be doing it “for the readers” because they get too wrapped up in the “business of publishing” and the politics of the publishing industry. They care what their publishers think, not the end reader.
Do SOME trad pubbed authors care about the end reader? Sure. But that’s true of self-pubbed authors as well. You really can’t point to one group as being more “vain” than the other.
I think all writers are vain. The ones who become very successful are just good at hiding it because they recognize vanity is a personality flaw. But it seems to be a flaw existent in one form or another and to one degree or another in nearly every writer. Show me a writer who isn’t in some way vain. Go ahead. I’ll wait.
RF said on March 30, 2010
Zoë:
There’s nothing wrong at all with wanting your work in book form, even if nobody wishes to read it: writing can be an extremely pleasurable hobby. But your original article suggested that commercially published authors were in some way afraid of those who self- or vanity-publish, and this gentleman’s minuscule sales record is another good reason why we’re not. Besides, I think my original point was correct: publishing five novels that nobody wants to read is a somewhat self-involved activity, is it not? On this basis, I’d strongly disagree with your assertion that “the very idea that you could write words on a page that other human beings want to pay money for, is kind of vain”. Far from it: putting out words that nobody wants to pay for is far more egocentric, in my view.
As for example two, writers with that particular vanity press are indeed frequently targeted by scammers of all kinds. “The Novel Nook” isn’t one of them: it’s free, and operated as a favour by other authors with the same press. “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” sums it up perfectly: it exists to bolster the writers’ egos and make them feel good, with the needs of potential readers not entering into the equation.
Example three was like watching a car crash in slow motion: a little searching around the web should locate you the thread. That sort of arrogance is certainly common among newbie writers, but it was magnified in this case by a vanity press posing as a commercial publisher: she really thought they’d admired her first draft so much that it had made the cut.
But your most interesting observation is that “self-publishing IS the slush pile”. How very right you are. And that, I would argue, is the true source of stigma against it, rather than whatever writers like myself may feel. I’m not really in the business of pigeonholing people as you suggest, but there is such a thing as stigma by association: in other words, the minority of truly brilliant self- and vanity-published books very easily get overlooked amid the slush.
I could not, however, agree that commercial publishing can be equated with its vanity counterpart. Doubtless, plenty of “vain and deluded morons” have indeed landed mainstream publishing deals, but they’re vain and deluded morons who could write to a certain minimum standard and/or generate ideas that tap into the zeitgeist.
Finally, you want me to show you a writer who isn’t motivated in any way by vanity? You’ll just have to keep waiting.
John:
You’re right in a pedantic sense, I suppose: a writer who has sold 20 books has sold 20 more than one who has never published anything. But in the global scheme of things, both are utterly irrelevant to the mainstream book business.
The “419” presses did indeed make me smile, but much as I may dislike some of their business methods, vanity presses have their use. Our friend who sells 20 copies of each of his novels is a good example, and if his idea of fun is spending £1000 or so on production to earn £20 back in royalties, then the very best of luck to him.
Zoe Winters said on March 30, 2010
RF
Have you even read anything I’ve said from the article onward? I’m not trying to be nasty with you but I was very explicit about what I meant by self-publishing being a threat to trad-published authors. It has NOTHING to do with how much any one given book sells. NOTHING.
PLEASE listen to what I’m actually saying and HAVE been saying this whole time. THIS is why it’s a threat, please cease and desist reading things into it that I didn’t put there:
If self-publishing is seen as “valid” in ANY way, and I don’t just mean sales numbers, I mean SOCIALLY VALID, then where is trad validation? You have all these people right now standing in lines to “be published.” But if they can publish themselves and there is no real stigma against it, then the trad path becomes a little less shiny.
Sure, most people don’t make a living self-publishing, but most people don’t make a living publishing with NY either. Either they dont’ GET a NY contract, or they do and don’t keep it, or they keep it but the advances aren’t good enough to live on. I know of many NY pubbed authors who still have full time jobs and they’ve all been in this business for awhile.
Another way in which self-publishing is a threat… again having NOTHING to do with how much any one individual book sells is:
We are moving toward a digital age. If you want to deny it, that is fine, but talk to me again in a decade. At that time the majority of reading is IMO going to be via digital devices. Now I may be wrong and if I am you can come to me and say neener neener, but I sincerely believe I am right and until the time passes you can’t say I’m “wrong.”
In a digital world where print is a subsidiary right like audio is now… where most of the money is in digital publishing, it’s all online. There is NO shelf space. Indies can get in.
As an indie author RIGHT NOW via the channels I have set up, I can get into Fictionwise (through LSI), booksonboard.com, Kobo, Sony ebookstore, B&N.com, Amazon.com, Apple ibookstore, Smashwords, Scrib’d…
Do you see my point now? Do you truly not see why this is a threat? Do you not understand that in the Amazon Kindle store I’m a threat to you? As is every other indie author? Do you not get that indie authors can price their books much cheaper, and many of them do price between 99 cents and 2.99 meanwhile major publishers want to price ebooks at OVER $9.99?
And before you make the “argument from crap” that many trad authors are so fond of making, I’ve read a LOT of good indie work. And indies having the ability to get wider online distribution and price lower will open many people’s eyes to that fact.
I’m already seeing a lot of Kindle discussions about “where can I find more good indie writers?” And they are NOT writers themselves, but readers. They’ve figured out that there are a lot of good indies out there and their books are cheaper in digital.
That is a threat. It’s a threat to your continued existence as an author. If you don’t have the foresight to see that, I can’t help you. But if you aren’t worried, you should GET worried.
It’s not about any one author’s success self-publishing, it’s about the giant inundation of books in the virtual world to the point where it’s hard for ANYONE to get found online. There will be more slices of the pie, but they will all be smaller. It will be even HARDER for an author of any stripe to make a living writing.
When it’s all virtual, or mostly virtual, and someday it will be, given newer generations as well as the baby boomers having weaker vision and adopting e-readers as a way to be able to read anything they want in larger print on a screen that’s easy on their eyes… (Wow run-on sentence there) then you should be very scared and very threatened.
NOT based on quality or individual sales of any given book, but again, based on the huge amount of stuff out there and available because it no longer mostly passes through the ONE trad publishing funnel.
I hope this has been clear, finally. This is what I’ve been saying from the beginning. You either haven’t seen it or have elected to ignore it and turn it into strawman arguments.
I could wait forever and nobody could ever show me a writer who isn’t vain. So why “self-published authors” are classed as vain and trad published authors get to fly under the vanity radar, I’ll never know. But it’s all the same bullshit.
Zoe Winters said on March 30, 2010
Also, it should be pointed out that the more the stigma for “going indie” as an author, lessens, the more GOOD writers will self-publish.
The bad writers have been self-publishing for ages. The uninformed writers have been self-publishing for ages. They’re too ignorant to know any better. But those who have been “groomed” for traditional publishing to follow all the “rules” etc… those who have crit partners and care about quality and growth as a writer…
Once the stigma drops enough more of THOSE writers, the GOOD ones, will self-publish. That’s when all bets are off. Because the more good indie work out there, the more people will be exposed to it and start actively supporting indie authors as a way to avoid “crass commercialism” etc.
I just see it as a really bad time to be or become a trad published author, no matter what anyone else says. Unless NY is giving you REALLY high advances and your name is everywhere, you aren’t really safe in a world with increasing numbers of “good” indies with competitive sales prices, and wide online distribution.
Another reason it’s a threat is, that all this can hamper a midlist author’s sales, since midlist authors are generally “unknown” to most people. As more readers take chances on more indies and have less reading time to discover trad pubbed midlisters, guess who starts losing contracts?
So yes, it IS a threat. Denial doesn’t change the facts. I don’t wish contract loss on any author, I’m just saying, I “get” why they don’t like self-publishing, especially the direction it’s going in.
RF said on March 31, 2010
Zoë, I have indeed been reading your comments with interest. However, where I think we differ is that my definition of validation rests with sales: anybody can publish a book, but not anybody can make several thousand people buy and pay for it. As for whether I consider self-publishing valid: yes, if it’s a quality product that sells.
Whether ebooks are the way of the future is debatable. I don’t believe that they will capture a vast market share, but I may very well be wrong. My publisher is at the forefront of ebook production, and their view is that it will be very many years before ebooks capture a significant proportion of the market.
But you’re certainly right that if electronic publishing becomes the norm, then that creates a much more equal playing field. However, even here let’s be clear: people do not routinely go online to purchase books they have never heard of, so once again commercial publishers will have the edge (assuming they invest significantly in the marketing of their titles).
Really, what you’re describing is akin to what happened in the rock music world about fifteen or twenty years ago. With the advent of cheap CD production, output of albums increased about tenfold compared to a couple of decades previously. Obviously, this led to reduced shelf space for each band, but big selling bands continued to sell as many of the newer albums on private labels failed to secure national or international distribution.
In other words, self-published titles may well account for the majority of releases, but odds are that they will only account for a minority of sales. Until that changes, I think any threat that self-publishing presents is limited and surmountable.
[Please note: This reply is posted in the wrong place, but I couldn’t find a link to reply under your comment.]
Karen Crumley said on March 30, 2010
Zoe, I agree. Anyone who practices any art form is vain.
The irony though is Indie musicians are not considered “vanity musicians,” nor are artists who don’t have their work procured by museums considered “vanity artists.”
My take is that a lot of Trad pub authors do not care about readership. They don’t have to…they have marketing, publicity, and sales people to do all of that FOR THEM. We true SP/indie authors DO focus on developing their own readership; we have to. We look for new, creative ways to reach readers…
Most trad pub authors don’t have to because they have others doing it for them…
THere are a lot of delusional morons who get trad pubbed; I think a large part of it is due to an editor/publisher having poor taste…or merely looking at “what sells” (ahem*formula*ahem) rather than what is actually well-written.
John Mellor said on March 29, 2010
RF
I really don’t think any of your examples prove anything. Do you brush your hair in the morning? Does that make you vain? Why should someone be considered vain simply because they want to write science fiction books that are read by 20 people? It seems to me they are more successful as authors than those who don’t.
Semantics aside, I am quite sure ‘some vanity-published authors are indeed more egocentric … than their commercially published counterpart’. I am sure many amateur woodturners are more egocentric than their commercial counterparts; and I am equally sure that some unpaid priests are more egocentric than their commercial counterparts. And vice versa. I am equally sure that the sun comes up in the morning.
I am also sure that this world of ours is littered with imperfections, dreams, scams, arrogance and patronising criticism, but I do not see any of these things as reason for not publishing a book if you want to, even if no-one reads it but your cat. Should backyard tomato growing be damned because ‘some tomato growers only sell 20 tomatoes’, or their pals at the market tell everyone how wonderful they are? I really cannot see what vanity has to do with any of it. But if my Editor’s Assistant was right then, as Zoe says, this ‘vanity’ is not the sole prerogative of those who publish outside the mainstream.
PS I hope my bit on 419 presses gives you a chuckle.
Zoe Winters said on March 29, 2010
Dude, your cat can read??? That’s awesome!
Also, your comment was the 100th comment on this post. You get a girl scout cookie. (Made from real girl scouts.)
John Mellor said on March 29, 2010
Hey thanks Zoe. Do you post to New Zealand? I do hope it wasn’t made by a vain self-girl-guide-cookie-baker: I might catch something.
Seriously, it was a good topic and deserved the discussion.
John Mellor said on March 29, 2010
PS My cat can certainly read me like a book. Does that count? And I just noticed my girl guide Englishism; sorry about that. If the postage for real girl scouts is too much I’ll settle for the cookie. And if that’s too much, I’ll just dream.
Karen Crumley said on March 30, 2010
RF,
I posted a longer reponse to you last night but it somehow disappeared. Technichal difficulties, I suppose…but it’s just as well as I was cranky last night and feared it might have come off as mean-spirited (which would not have been my intention).
As to your examples:
1) Well with the sketchy info in your example, I can only guess that the young man needs Marketing 101. LOL Other than that, I see nothing wrong with wanting to put a book into print.
2) Well, yeah that I would call a “vanity review”site (and I think I know exactly which site you are talking about…) Their “rules” are really stupid too, IMO. There are sites/businesses like that for virtually all art forms. Elfwood I think is another prime example. While you cannot really consider it a “vanity pubishing” site for art & literature as we do actually reject about 1/2 of what the members upload…the comments factor is mostly for “back patting” and giving thumbs up to its artists & writers rather than provide any sort of constructive criticism.
3) Well I would consider that childishness & over-sensitivity rather than vanity. LOL. Believe it or not, I’ve come across several TP authors (and writers seeking the TP route) who are exactly the same way. I could name about 2-3 of them (if I was into calling them out on it…which I’m not) which I came across on OWW & Criters.org. These are writers who have sold short stories to paying publications…not self-publishers or vanity publishers.
Some people just cannot take constructive criticism; writers who cannot will never grow or improve in thier craft. But, yes there are writers like that on both sides of the publishing fence.
However, I see your point that that particular writer was misguided (by the vanity publishing co) and assumed that their MS was “accepted” by the publisher and needed no further revisions. There are non-paying markets out there like that (not so much vanity, but just non-paying) and that is a seperate rant of mine entirely….
which brings me to another example of my own:
In college a young aspiring writer & fellow student was so happy he got published (by our College’s own press in their quarterly periodical mind you) that he threw his briefcase up in the air and said “Yes! I’m Published! I’m Published!”
I was also published to, in that same periodical. THey did not pay one dime (unless you entered their contest…and won that). I didn’t enter the contest just submitted a poem. He entered the contest, didn’t win…and they published him anyways because they published all contest entries. Mind you we didn’t have to pay or buy a copy of the issue in question…but there was an entry fee for the contest. However, I still think that some sort of “Vanity” goes along with non-paying markets…and they cannot even list those as paid publishing credits, half the time. Although there are some that screen for quality, you’re still not making a dime. You’re only seeing your name in print. People claim they submit to them for “recognition” but it rarely helps them get discovered…(but like I said, that’s another rant of mine).
Here’s another example of vanity (which you can take with the proverbial grain of salt…or a pillar). A commercially published author comes to a site populated by hard working indies to try to debunk a theory on the SP stigma, but only makes it more clear by exibiting his condescending snobbery, and better-than-thou attitude in almost all of his statements. Quoting misguided/archaic sales figures; stating that self-publishers “don’t even register on his radar” and are not worthy of traveling in the same literary circles as he does.
That, my friend, was Zoe’s point I believe. Not that you are “afraid” of us or intimidated…but that you look down on us as being “Unworthy” of publication by any means.
Although, I have witnessed that there are some other TP writers who are threatened by indie authors who do well, and do “register on thier radar”… It tends to get their shackles up after they had to deal with rejection after rejection…
They have a certain “How dare you!” attitude towards indie authorship, and do feel somewhat threatened by indie authorship. It’s the mentality that comes from resentment that their manuscripts had to languish in slushpile after slush pile for decades…only to have some “sidewinder” beat the system and publish *gasp* an actual book! How dare they?!
As far as “having no readership” well, no writer is actually BORN with a “readership.” Those have to build, and grow over time…
We indies do not have suits in boardrooms to help us with that…we do it all on our own. So it’s a slower buildup of sales, etc…
I’m sure a lot of “true self-publishers” realize this.
Some others may not…And maybe just having a book in print is good enough for them.
Karen Crumley said on March 30, 2010
Pardon the redundancy in my last post…Not enough cafiene in my system yet
John Mellor said on March 26, 2010
Perhaps we should rename vanity publishing to ‘The 419 Presses’ or ‘Nigerian Publishing’. I was amazed to discover, while checking the number 419, that this famous scam is apparently the ‘third to fifth largest industry in Nigeria’!!
“Dear Kindest sir,
My Grate-Uncle and famous Publisher The Noble King Croesus Scammalot has herd of yor wondrus book and would like to publis it in a fitting manna, with gold leef on evry page, hand-rolled on the dusky thighs of young Nigerian virgins, This will be verry expencive, I most Respectfull request that you forwerd yor bank Detals so that your nobel buk may be properly deceratid by these voluptus maydens … ”
Perhaps if the vanity (sorry, 419) adverts were worded like this they would catch out fewer aspiring authors.
Karen Crumley said on March 30, 2010
419 publishing fits. LOL
I think most of them will go buy the wayside soon…
The fact that you can publish elsewhere FREE will certainly be more enticing to aspiring authors than paying $400 or more to a 419 publisher.
Hopefully, anyways…
However, like RF’s example #3 above…I think that they mask themselves too well to unsuspecting by making writers feel thier work was “accepted” and mask themselves as a commercial publisher. IF they crave “acceptance”so bad that they’d pay for it that’s kind of pathetic. but whatever…
John Mellor said on March 30, 2010
KL,
I trust ‘buy’ was a simple typo and not a Freudian slip
Karen Crumley said on March 30, 2010
ROFL!!!
John Mellor said on March 30, 2010
I am posting this at the end as it is a general comment, and also I am in a bit of a muddle about where replies are ending up. And I want to catch Zoe’s attention as there were no girl scouts or even cookies in my post box this morning. I trust that offer was not just a scam to persuade us to post comments.
Although I am the proud 100th commenter and have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, noting the absence of the vitriol and bitchiness that so often accompanies this topic on other blogs, I do think in a way that we are talking about something of nothing. It seems to me that we all have interests in our lives: some of them cost a lot, some a little, some even pay a bit, and some even pay a lot. It seems odd to me that in the world of publishing, so many of those who make it pay quite a lot do seem to look down their noses at those who make it pay little or nothing, or to whom it costs.
There is a local speedway track not far from me where hordes of folk turn up in home-made cars and roar around a track for a few hours (many miles out of my earshot fortunately). I am sure this costs most of them a great deal more than RF’s science fiction writer’s publishing, yet there is no mention in the paper of how dreadful it is that folks other than professional racing drivers are allowed to race round a track. I am sure they, and self-published writers, and potters and beekeepers, and surfers, and fishermen all get pleasure from what they do, regardless of how inefficiently or expensively they do it. And what business is it of ours anyway?
I think there is an irony here, and a rather delicious one, in that the novice writers who aspire so desperately to being ‘PUBLISHED’ do so because the publishing industry has created this mystique that it is somewhat akin to ascending to a higher plane. This aura does not seem to penetrate stock-car racing or angling or music or even art; it seems to be a prerogative of book publishing. Perhaps because it conjures up ancient, dusty private libraries peopled with earnest, high-browed gentlemen residing on a plane way above we mere mortals. It is a remote, almost god-like image that simply is not seen in stock-car racing, or even, interestingly, in art.
Writing is both art and craft, and why shouldn’t anyone have a go at it if they want to? I find it both challenging and fascinating, and I am presumably not alone in that. Seeing a book actually printed and bound is just the final stage of the process, much like racing the lovingly-built stock-car around the track. Who are we to deny even the most obnoxious and ignorant person that culmination of their endeavours? Until the advent of digital publishing, they, unlike other artists and craftsmen, had no chance of ever seeing the manifestation of their dreams. We should be pleased for them; they are not all obnoxious and ignorant.
If professionals do not feel threatened by this, either because of the potential competition or the perceived ‘dumbing down’ of the ‘published author’ status, why is the internet awash with them screaming about how dreadful it all is? I seem to recall one demented author actually claiming that self-publishing was causing the deaths of starving African children! I had to admire her wonderfully convoluted reasoning, and was not surprised she wrote fantasy novels. The really worrying thing was, there were loads of people agreeing with her. Wish I could remember where it was so I could point you.
In terms of its overall importance in life we should perhaps wonder how many African children have starved to death during the time we have spent discussing self-publishing. We should be thankful we have a society in which people live long enough to be able to do it. And that, methinks, is in no small part due to the many writers, craftsmen, engineers, scientists, doctors etc who have been able to pursue their dreams without being stomped on with discouragement.
Zoe Winters said on March 30, 2010
Good words, John!
I couldn’t have said it better. Which is why you must be eliminated. muahahahaha!
Just kidding.
Probably.
John Mellor said on March 30, 2010
There goes my cookie!
Zoe Winters said on March 30, 2010
Yep! Saves me overseas shipping.
Zoe Winters said on March 31, 2010
Hey RF,
Yes the nesting of the replies gets a little wonky after a bit. So I just started over again here.
You equate validation with sales, and that’s okay “for you.” I think the problem comes in though when you assume that what YOU need for validation is what everybody else needs too. And when you label someone who sold 20 copies as necessarily more vain than you, it shows that prejudice.
Everybody gets their validation in different ways. Having had the experience of selling over 4,000 copies of my ebook (and of course I’m not saying this is OMG wow or anything, especially considering that it sells for a dollar), and getting lots of fan mail from readers… I can’t really imagine myself somehow feeling “more” validated with 100,000 more readers. You know?
And if your validation comes from sales numbers, then your validation comes from the EXACT same place mine does, the end reader. And therefore your choice to trad publish seems to be merely a practical issue of distribution. Unless your validation “also” comes from “XYZ publisher thinking you’re ‘good enough.’”
I know what I’ve written is “good enough.” Now it’s not the BEST thing I’ve written according to the people who have read what’s coming out next. (And of course I hope they’re right), but I know beyond any doubt that I’m “good enough” to be “trad published” were that in fact something I wanted for my life. It isn’t.
The issue for me is distribution. However, given my beliefs about ebooks that may not always be a big issue for me.
And I would argue with you that your publisher is on the forefront of ebook production if they are a big publisher. Unless your publisher is Harlequin. Because Harlequin seems to be the least tardtastic of the publishers when it comes to business. Even then though, Epubs like Ellora’s Cave and Samhain have made a successful business model out of epub.
And the big issue here is, as an indie I don’t NEED to sell a GIANT number of copies. Once I get to the point of selling 10,000 copies of ANYTHING I have out in a year, I’m making a decent living. (assuming at least some percentage of this being print copies, and e-copies selling at around $3) That’s not an insurmountable goal at all, given time, quality writing, marketing, and backlist.
If I got to that milestone, then I would have to sell OVER 50,000 copies of a book (instead of 10,000) for it to be really worth my while to have a trad contract financially. Because *I* don’t find 50,000 readers more validating than 10,000, it’s pointless otherwise.
Of course I want as many readers as I can get, but that’s largely about economics. Not validation. Once you get to a reasonable number of people for a good sample you get a general percentage of the people who enjoy your work and think it’s good and those who do not. If that number is scaled, likely the percentages will remain close to the same, provided readers of the book continue to be the book’s target audience.
I mean seriously, once you’ve had a few thousand readers who love your book, what different viewpoint are you waiting to hear?
I, and most other indies I know, don’t “need” validation beyond that, and we don’t “want” it because the sacrifice is often things we aren’t willing to give up like creative and production timeline control.
Again, my validation mileage and yours obviously varies, and that’s okay. But you project what is validating to you onto other people and assume they have the same feelings you do about it. Then you can label them, “vain.”
My goal is to position myself well with ebooks now, and over the next few years while I have the chance, because it will benefit me financially when ebooks do become primary. I realize you don’t think they will, but again, talk to me when 2020 gets here.
Even if your validation comes from “sales” you really can’t see the “threat?”
Let me put it to you this way:
As it stands, most writers feel a lot of social pressure NOT to self-publish. Because it will make them look like a noob or a bad writers or someone taking a shortcut or any of the other asinine stereotypes that gets lobbed at anyone with a DIY ethic.
For awhile this has worked out well.
But then too many things happened. The economy suffered, the Internet got big. It got easier and cheaper to self-publish.
Suddenly, while many “bad writers” are self-publishing, so are many good writers. The more good writers who self publish… the more tempting the option becomes to other good writers.
While most writers think they are “good writers.” Some of them are actually right. Those who are right who self-publish slowly help diminish the overall stigma. Because while you’re right that bad books don’t get found, very often good ones do. So the perception that indie authors are just as valid a concept as indie musicians and indie filmmakers, grows larger.
And you talk about people not buying books they’ve never heard of… well… that’s not entirely true. I do almost all my book buying online. And a LOT of the books I buy now are indie books. While many of them I ‘hear of’ before I buy them, ‘hearing of’ a book doesn’t have to come due to the power of a megacorporation.
Often it’s ‘hearing of’ on a blog, or from an online friend, or even while I’m shopping at Amazon and I see the “customers who bought this book also bought…” list.
So the good stuff will rise to the top. As the good stuff rises to the top and more good stuff is independently published, and increasing numbers of people shop online or buy ebooks… that’s a threat to you, because the competition isn’t limited to just those people who passed through the trad funnel like you.
It’s possible you truly do NOT see this threat. It’s possible that most trad pubbed authors truly do not see this threat. But if that’s the case, all I can call it is denial. You can think I’m too strident and wrong in my assumptions, etc. But as I’m fond of saying, talk to me in 10 years.
If I’m wrong you can sky write “I told you so” with a plane over my house.
John Mellor said on March 31, 2010
As it is already tomorrow where I live I thought you might like a preview of the headlines:
INDIE AUTHORS LAUDED FOR FREE SPIRITS AND INNOVATION
“DIGITAL BOOKS WILL NEVER CATCH ON” – LOST QUOTE FROM THOMAS LUDD
“PAPER BOOKS WILL NEVER CATCH ON” – LOST QUOTE FROM FRED FLINTSTONE
MUSIC BUSINESS CHECKS DICTIONARY FOR MEANING OF ‘CUSTOMER’
RIAA FAILS TO SUE DEAF, DEAD GRANNIE WITH NO COMPUTER; TRIES WITH NEW-BORN
INDIE AUTHOR ARRESTED FOR SELLING ONLY 25 COPIES OF BOOK
“DUE TO THE RISK OF CHANGE THE FUTURE IS ABOLISHED” – THE EU’S POMPOUSLY HIGH REPRESENTATIVE FOR GENERALISED EU IDIOCY
PUBLISHED AUTHOR SUES MAN FOR WRITING BOOK : QUOTES EU POMPOUSLY HIGH REP
“SEE, I TOLD YOU! NOW GET ME A TOWEL” – QUOTE FROM ‘FUTURE SHOCK’ BY KING CANUTE (with apologies to Alvin Toffler)
WOMAN WRITES BOOK WITHOUT PERMISSION – US ECONOMY COLLAPSES: RIOTS IN STREETS
SELF-PUBLISHED BOOK FOUND ON MARS – CLUE TO COLLAPSED MARTIAN CIVILISATION?
“MUST GO, THE GOAT’S OUT OF THE PADDOCK AND EATING THE GARDEN” – SLEEPYJOHN
Zoe Winters said on March 31, 2010
LMAO @ “Woman writes book without permission”
LOLOLOL
Guilty! (But those other women did it too!)
John Mellor said on March 31, 2010
Got the goat back in and sat down with a cup of tea, only to spot these:
“NIGERIAN PUBLISHER NUMBERS STEADY ON 419″ – PUBLISHER’S WEAKLY
GOAT HEARS BIRD SINGING : RIAA LAWYERS ON FULL ALERT
EASTER HOLIDAY CANCELLED, SAY RIAA LAWYERS, LICKING LIPS
GOAT HIDES IN HAY BALE; OBFUSCATES IP ADDRESS : WE WILL SUE THE HAY BALE, SAYS RIAA
and many more like that
What on earth did we find to write about before the media industry was struck down with mental palsy? I didn’t know you could catch such a debilitating disease by not embracing something. Is Facebook responsible for that as well?
Karen Crumley said on March 31, 2010
ROFLMAO!!! @ Sleepyjohn!
John Mellor said on March 31, 2010
KL & Zoe
Glad you enjoyed them. I know these should not appear after noon but I couldn’t resist this final one:
SHOCK! HORROR! PERSON BUYS SELF-PUBLISHED BOOK : MAYAN CALENDAR WRONG, SAYS TRAD AUTHOR
And that is the end of this day for another year.