I’ve receieved a number of emails lately inquiring about the validity of self-publishing. It’s a well-worn topic and my personal perspective isn’t much different than everyone else’s. In the right conditions, handled properly, with realistic attitudes, self-publishing can be a viable business decision for certain people. But I don’t believe in resorting to it just because you think the mainstream publishing industry is comprised of meanies who aren’t smart enough to comprehend your art.
In addition to these queries about the validity of printing your own books, a handful of the emailers also wanted to know why self-publishing is so reviled. I think there are a couple of factors that contribute to the negative perception. First, there are undoubtedly snobs who look for a chance to sneer and chuckle. Elitist assholes exist in every industry so it’s absurd to think there aren’t folks in the publishing biz who love nothing more than an opportunity to pooh-pooh the self-published hoi polloi. Second, not every one, but some self-published authors invite the very ridicule they hate.
You remember Bobby? That weird kid in high school who went out of his way to wear plaid pants, day-glo sneakers, a green mohawk, maybe a little goth makeup, and sucked on a pacifier all day? Bobby spent more time planning his anti-conformity outfit (because, “you know, he just does his own thing, he’s such an individual“) every morning than Jenny the Cheerleader dedicated to her hair. But then he always bitched and moaned about how Pam the Prom Queen ignored him. Some self-published authors are the same way. They act like idiots and then wonder why they face such disdain.
Not Just an Author, but a Published Author!
I’m lucky enough to spend a fair amount of time in the company of writers. I’ve been around bestsellers and the most beloved literary icons. And not once, not ever, have I heard these people introduce themselves as a “published author.” They meet a non-bookish person and they say “I’m a writer.” They don’t ever feel the need to include the published qualifier.
In 1932, when Clark Gable famously asked Willliam Faulkner “Oh, do you write?” Faulkner responded with one of the best zingers in the history of literature. He did not respond with “yes, I am a published author!”
However, the type of person who gives self-publishing a bad name adores that phrase. These misguided folks thrust business cards that proclaim ”Joe Blow, Published Author.” Mr. Blow strong arms the local bookstore in holding a signing and he takes out an ad that entices readers to “come meet published author Joe Blow!” He talks about how “they” can focus their efforts on stealing an athlete’s championship memories or a country boy’s high school diplomas, because he’s a published author and ”they” can never take that away from him. Joe Blow gets a PUBLSHD1 vanity license plate on his 1984 Plymouth Reliant K and he pre-orders his tombstone that reads:
Here lies Joe Blow, Published Author,
Ignored by the Industry, in all their hauteur.
Since he lacked a famous last name,
editors wouldn’t play his game,
but his writing meshed, and for all eternity
he will remain, forever Pub-lished!
For the people who invite the derision, their obsession with the ”published” tag makes all the difference in the world. And they don’t seem to realize how it’s a meaningless title when you bestow it upon yourself. If I go down to the YMCA and play a round of pickup basketball, then pay myself afterwards, does that give me the right to claim to be a professional athlete? If I form my own team, can I insinuate to friends that there’s no difference between me and Kobe?
I’ll Just Create My Own University!
The current mainstream method of selecting books for publication, editing them, and distributing those texts is archaic, ineffecient, ineffective, often ill-informed, and frequently unfair. I won’t deny that. But, it remains the system that we have. Does that system pump out horrendous books that are the literary equivalent of roadkill? Absolutely. Does that system overlook and ignore worthy authors and genius books in favor of celebrity crap? Definitely. Nevertheless, it is still the system we have and the system we all understand.
When you self-publish, or go with one of the more questionable print-on-demand services, you are essentially going around that system. You’re taking your ball, going home, and making up your own game in the backyard. Your game might be fun, it might be valid exercise, it might be the perfect thing for your situation, but it’s not the same way all the other kids play. And to pretend otherwise is to invite scorn and derision.
It’s probably safe to assume that virtually all of this website’s readers graduated from either high school or college. Maybe a few of you had to repeat 4th grade a few times, but that’s okay, I did the same thing with college algebra. I was in that class so many semesters in a row that the professor said to me, “you sure are small to be a football player.” The key here is that you made it, eventually, out of either high school or college.
Now, when someone says they are a college graduate, we know what that entails. They had to take standardized tests, write essays, gain admission, complete required courses, accumulate a certain number of hours, pass final exams, and maintain a certain GPA in order to graduate. You might have gone to Harvard, Indiana University, or Northeastern Southern Central Nebraska A&T State at Lincoln but regardless of the rigor of your school, you had to meet these same basic requirements. Everyone understands, roughly, what it means to be a college graduate.
We also know people who are intelligent, hard-working, determined, and valid contributors to society who didn’t graduate from college. Bill Gates, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Frank Lloyd Wright are but a few icons of this society who didn’t finish higher education.
Now, let’s say that Rejected Rob applies to every college in this country and they all reject me. His GPA isn’t good enough, his test scores are poor, and he smells bad. Or maybe they just don’t understand a truly individual brand of personal genius. Not a single college or university admits Rejected Rob.
“What do those people know?” he rants. “Bill Gates didn’t finish college, big deal! Plenty of intelligent people fall through the cracks and don’t get in while legacies and rich kids are welcomed with open arms. Who are they to judge me? Once I get into the work force, I’ll succeed or fail based on my own merits. All I need is a chance!”
So, fueled by his rage at being excluded by higher education in this country, Rejected Rob decides to form my own college. He incorporates the name Rob’s Kick Ass Institute of Learning and print his own diploma. Not content with a dot matrix diploma, he orders a bunch of business cards that read “Rejected Rob: College Graduate.” He places advertisements in the local newspaper to “come down on Saturday and meet college graduate Rejected Rob!” He tells people at the local coffeeshop that his achievement is just as impressive as that of a M.I.T. graduate. He appears at job interviews that require have a college degree because, you know, he deserves a shot just as much as all you elitists who went to fancy schools. And whenever Rejected Rob faces any criticism, he chalks it up to the fact that all you bigtime college graduates are snobs intent on protecting your priviledged position.
Naturally, everyone would be scornful and dismissive of his delusions about the prestige of a Rejected Rob Kick Ass Institute of Learning.
The same thing is true of the crazed self-published folks.
Not all self-publishing proponents fall into this trap. Most of them understand their position in regards to mainstream publishing and they realistically and objectively make their publishing choices. They are living proof that self-publishing, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it can be quite effective and lucrative.
Unfortunately, these reasonable self-publishing advocates suffer the indignities brought on by their obsessed “published author” colleagues.
I’m not going to tell the people who emailed me they should not, under any circumstances, self-publish. I’ll just warn them about being realistic, objective, and honest. I’ll encourage them to focus on sales and quality of writing if they choose that route and not to lean back and applaud themselves for being a “published author.” Self-publishing is not necessarily better or worse the mainstream book industry, but it’s definitely not the same.
Remember, self-publishing doesn’t embarrass people. Idiotic, delusional self- “published authors” embarrass people.
great commentary. as you say, self-publishing isn’t a bad thing. it’s just the few nutty authors who give it a bad reputation. thanks for a balanced, fair discussion.
Good piece! I appreciate that fact that you don’t blast self-publishing or POD itself. I chose to go with a POD option for my book and I’m proud of it and I’ve done well. I understand that it’s a different route than mainstream and I don’t get all crazy about calling myself published. I do believe POD will revolutionize the industry eventually, but for the time being, I’m not going to pretend my experience is the same as Stephen Kings or Jonathan Safran Foer.
“So, fueled by his rage at being excluded by higher education in this country, Rejected Rob decides to form my own college. He incorporates the name Rob’s Kick Ass Institute of Learning and prints his own diploma.”
But this is not Rejected Rob’s real alternative. That would be to educate himself and forget about the false standards applied by the institutions he doesn’t really respect anyway. This would be closer to the actions taken by self-publishers who don’t want to fool with the “book business.” Your cautions to be aware of the consequences of this are entirely valid, however.
What was Wm. Faulkner’s response to Clark Gable? Inquiring minds (or at least one of them) want to know.
“But this is not Rejected Rob’s real alternative. That would be to educate himself and forget about the false standards applied by the institutions he doesn’t really respect anyway. This would be closer to the actions taken by self-publishers who don’t want to fool with the “book business.” Your cautions to be aware of the consequences of this are entirely valid, however.”
I disagree. 99.999% of self-publishers all tried to go the normal route. They just couldn’t cut it there. We all have our quibbles with the publishing industry and we all know it has problems (like anything else), but we all recognize that there is plenty of validity in its methods and models as well.
So do the self-publishers. So they really do respect, for hte most part, the standards and goals of the publishing industry, they just failed at it so have to use a plan B.
The guy who applies to all the Ivy Leagues and is rejected can later come up with a rationale to allow his ego to cope, but he still respects the Ivies deep down (or he wouldn’t have applied in the first place). Same here.
buuuuuuuut… more to the point, I think the article’s metaphor is a good one. Mainly because of this: When someone says “i’m a published author” the info being implied is much more than mere techincal publication. The implication is that the author has had his work go through the process of the publishing industry, had it be edited and reviewed and judged worthy by others and had others decide that the work was worth a financial risk. (it also, therefore, implies a level of quality)
Self-publishing, especially POD, doesn’t imply any of that. Any tripe can be made POD.
Its like trying to compare “having magazine plublications” (meaning pieces in the New Yorker or Paris Review that were accepted from a competative pool by an outside source) to “having magazine publications” (meaning making 10 copies of your “chap book” at kinkos and passing them out to friends)
His reply was:
“Yes. And what do you do, Mr. Gable?”
When Clark Gable asked Faulkner who the best living writers were during his ill-fated stint in Hollywood, Faulkner replied: “Ernest Hemingway, Willa Cather, Thomas Mann, John Dos Passos, and myself.”
Google: I’m feeling lucky. (your search took approximately 0.02 seconds)
“we all recognize that there is plenty of validity in its methods and models as well”
Who do you mean by “we”?
i think that the problem with a lot of self-publishing, is when writers assume that it only takes one person to write a book.
It doesn’t.
It takes an author, yes. But it also takes a publisher, editor, designer, copyeditor, proofreader and typesetter.
Too often have I put down a self-published book that is physically difficult to read because of narrow margins and gutters, bad fonts and too many typos.
LS: Any honest writer with half a brain.
Your argument is fine as far as it goes, but it would be a lot stronger if it dealt with the increasing tendency of the major publishing houses to substantially wall themselves off from emerging writers. This may not justify the increasing trend toward self-publishing, but it helps explain it.
I recently ran an SF con here in Dublin. As a courtesy, I provided a table for authors to bring copies of their books to sell to the attendees, which is usually attached to one of the secondhand book tables. One American lady fantasy writer brought her Celtic fantasy novel, as well as several anthologies she appeared in, all POD. Any time one of the attendees went anywhere near the table of books, she immediately came up to them, offering to sign a copy for them, and generally browbeating people into buying her books. I am convinced that she badly damaged any chance any of the other writers (all mainstream-published, and all prepared to leave the bookselling to the booksellers) had of selling their books, and it is only the fact that I was too busy running the con that prevented me being fully aware of it at the time, and doing something about it. However, I had several complaints about her behaviour from the booksellers, as well as some of the other writers, and even some attendees. Suffice it to say that she won’t be asked back to anything I ever have anything to do with, and I’ll do everything I can to make sure she never gets asked to anything in Ireland ever again. It has also, of course, made me deeply wary of any self-published or POS authors.
Generally, I agree with the commentary, although it sounds like of a “straw man” argument to me. How many self-proclaimed “published authors” of the kind described here really exist?
This kind of comment above is ill-informed: “99.999% of self-publishers all tried to go the normal route. They just couldn’t cut it there.” My partner and I used POD not because we had been rejected by mainstream publishers, but in order to get their attention. We had a product (Harlequin-style romance novels for gay men) that we believed would be better pitched as a concept than any individual book. Thus, we created the website, brand, four novels (POD), and a marketing plan. Only then did we pitch agents (got one) and find a publisher (Warner Books). I know from my experience with other authors in a online writers group I belong to that this approach is not unique. So the commentator’s 99.9999 figure is silly and betrays a disrespectful and assured-of-my-own-preconceived-beliefs-and-damn-the-truth attitude that is irritating at best.
Moreover, major publishers are often unwilling to take risks for certain niche markets (e.g. GLBT) and the few GLBT-specific houses are often too small and underfunded to take on all worthy books and, more important, help market them. Thus, for an entrepreneurial gay author, POD CAN make eminent sense. Thus our current publishing system may systematically underserve niche markets; it’s not a question of “not making it.”
All that said, we would be the first to agree that self-publishing is not for everyone. In our first books, we committed some of the sins above, especially with regard to inadequate proofing. Moreover, if you are the type of author who is not willing to do marketing, then self-publishing is certainly not for you. (Of course, there is the problem of overly aggressive, actually physically abusive marketing described by the Irishman above… sad for that woman and sadder for the brush with which she has managed to paint other sane self-published folks.)
At Romentics.com, we are equally proud of our self-published work as well as our Warner Books-published work. And we do not believe that we constitute .001% of our colleagues (assuming I did the math right).
I’ve worked in the POD industry since its inception. I have been a literary agent and a POD author. Does that make me less of an author? Doubtful. In fact because of the platform I’ve built for myself my books have just been picked up by a mainstream publisher. The point here being that if you do your homework and realize that you’re facing an industry that publishers nearly 500 new books each day you’ll be well on your way to building a solid career - no matter *how* you decide to publish.
I disagree with the author who says that self-publishing is for those who “couldn’t cut it” - let’s face it, 99% of what any agent or publisher gets is rejected, those are just the odds. Publishers are no longer willing to take risks on untested authors. Self-publishing is a means to get your book out there and if you work hard enough you might get it noticed too.
I always tell authors that there’s nothing wrong with self-publishing as long as your book doesn’t look self-published. Save the science projects for your kids and remember, your book is your resume. Make it perfect.
Wishing you publishing success,
Penny
Author Marketing Experts, Inc.
www.amarketingexpert.com
99% of what agents and publishers get they reject. Sure.
The same is true of literary magazines and MFA programs (well, maybe more like 96% there).
But at the same time, at least 90% (and maybe as high as 98.9%) of what they get is crap. Ever worked for a literary magazine? I worked for a small one once and it was amazing how horrible the work was. It was a real challange just to scrape enough decent material together for a 100 page issue twice a year.
There is absolutely no doubt that good work falls through the cracks at literary magazines, MFAs and publishing houses. And probably more at the publishing level. But I do think its important to keep in mind that most of it is trash that gets rejected. The really steller quality work that gets rejected from everywhere is a tiny fraction of that and its a lot less likely to get rejected than the total crap.
No doubt the publishing industry sells a lot of crap, but its mostly crap they know will sell. Crap by celebrities, crap with a gimmick people like, crap by perviously succesful authors, etc.
Basically what I’m saying is that publishing is hard, but people who have quality work shouldn’t be totally discouraged. I know young writers who so scared of rejection and of the odds they don’t even submit to magazines, not realizing that if their work is good the odds aren’t as horrible as everyone says.
Reminds me of the New Yorker article about Brandenn Bremmer, the super-high I.Q. kid who apparently committed suicide. The mother, as I recall, wrote mystery novels and published them herself, because (I couldn’t find my Jan. 16 issue, so I am paraphrasing) she didn’t want an editor placing boundaries on her creativity.
I am not poking fun at her, but I wondered if she realized that editors can actually be helpful, that they are not all misguided know-it-alls intent on undermining others’ work.
There are a lot of people out there who want to be writers. Who want to call themselves writers, I should say. But I think, in terms of self-publishing, the outlandish phonies with the tacky business cards are indeed a minority within a minority. They manage, however, to thoroughly inferiorize the whole sector. Mr. Pomfret’s post was spot-on and reinforced Rob’s main point: self-publishing works best when the author has a plan, particularly on the business side. Pomfret also illustrated that for him, POD was more or less a means to an end, not the end itself.
I don’t like rejection letters. But of the major literary magazines and reviews in this country the vast majority publish worthwhile material. Gardner makes it very clear in The Art of Fiction that anyone who puts in the time will, eventually, get published. Right?
Very interesting discussion. The question of publication vs self published to me comes down to what you want to accomplish. If you self pub because you speak and want to sell your book great. If you want to write down your memories and pass them on to the grandkids -nice idea. If like the comment above you want to blaze a new trail with something new like gay romance I say go for it. (great idea by the way) If however you self pub because you want to feel that you have “arrived” and that you are sticking one to the man who didn’t recognize your gifts. You are fooling yourself.
Very interesting piece, but I think publishing options are best analyzed as business decisions, as opposed to issues of prestige or social acceptance. Self-publishing would be seen as a respectable alternative if more authors actually found a way to sell books this way. The opinions of those employing competing models would mean little in the face of substantial sales.
Now it does seem to me that some progress has been made in this regard. I myself have put out a novel through a POD service and enjoyed some modest success. I suspect many authors could do far better (and indeed a few have) were they to develop realistic marketing and promotional plans. After all, promotion is the principle role of the publisher in a world where printing is a commodity business and few readers actually buy a book based on the name of the publisher. That process of marketing is a daunting one, and many authors have neither the skills nor resources to engage in that enterprise with any rational expectation of a positive outcome. Yet as some experiment with the kind of models that POD and the Web make possible, viable business models may be emerging. If this happens, more writers will try those models, not to “stick it to the man” but simply to make money, like anyone else in business. But they will not be able to find freedom from the approval of traditional publishers without securing the approval of actual customers. Until that happens, there will be those who will contend that no one will read something that has not been blessed by an established gatekeeper. But the very fact that you’re reading these words in a self-published blog informs against that line of reasoning.
And, as regards the academic analogy, I’m a graduate of MIT who also attended Yale and holds a PhD from the Wharton School. I can assure any interested party that there are those bearing even the most prestigious of institutional imprimaturs who recognize the potential value of book dissemination outside of accepted publishing channels. There is much to be said for the embrace of prestige, but nothing convinces one of the value of freedom from the establishment like making one’s way within it.
I deal with consignment books at an Independant bookstore and therefore see self-published authors all the time. The biggest problem they face is a lack of distribution. The only stores that will carry their books are the stores they can physically get to to request it. POD titles, while they have wider distribution will generally not be stocked by bookstore unless they are specifically requested by customers because the books are non-returnable. Neither of these limitations should necessarily stop authors from self-publishing but for the most part they should acknowledge that they are publishing primarily for themselves. With a few exceptions they will barely make their printing costs back, nevermind make much money from their books. I understand the frustrations of these authors and do what I can to keep their books in the store for as long as sales can justify it but I am one store and the work on the part of the authors is huge. (Unfortunately I also have to acknowledge the self-published authors whose books have been rejected by mainstream publishing because they’re bad. Editors are very helpful.)
I think Elissa’s post points out a key fact about POD self-publishing: it is of necessity a creature of the Internet. True POD is supposed to match supply with demand on a book by book, just in time basis with no need to retain inventory of any appreciable size. This is ideal for “stackless” online retail, for which the issue of non-returnable inventory is a non-issue. Unfortunately, physical bookstores may not be a distribution channel conducive to POD in its present form. Without the ability to do returns, the risk may simply be too high. Of course, this also constitutes a competitive disadvantage that has allowed online booksellers to prosper at the expense of physical bookstores.
As for the value of editors, some authors do indeed need an editor as a content collaborator, and others cannot be saved even with such assistance. Neither type is a likely candidate for self-publishing. Proofreading aside, however, it would be a stretch to argue that all authors are incapable of producing quality work without the guidance of an editor. For those who can create in an independent manner, POD holds promise beyond mere self-indulgence, as a small number of authors have begun to prove.
This may be apples and oranges, and perhaps a bit off topic, but the derision aimed at the self-published author has always confused me — because in the music world, owning your own label and publishing rights and basically putting out your music when you’re ready to do so is considered to be noble, and in some ways a goal for independent artists. You may not sell much, but you control and own your work. So why do you suppose the two art forms engender such different reactions when their practitioners strike out on their own?
As I said on Bookninja, I think you are incorrect about self-publishing in music.
There are a few subgenres where owning your own record label is a fine thing, mainly DIY punk/hardcore, but even there the focus is more on independent labels, not your own label.
When you see someone ont he subway trying to sell you a CDr of his rap group (Print-On-Demand), does anyone not assume its crap? I think we all do.
In the music world you have two kinds of self-published work.
a) Local, small bands who want something to sell at shows and are probably trying to use to get on a bigger label
b) A big indie band where one member happens to own a big label (say Fugazi and Dischord for example)
a) is what most self-publishing is. As long as people, like some commentators here, realize they are using their CDrs or PODs to try to get somewhere else and dont’ pretend that printing their own CDR doesn’t make them in the same league as Radiohead, everything is fine. People don’t really look down on either, though people assume (rightfully 99% of the time) that the work won’t be as good as work of the same genre on a real label.
So I dont’ think there really is much of a difference between the music and publishing here.
B) Has an analogy in the publishing world too. It is a publishing house like McSweneey’s publishing one of Dave Eggars work. No one looks down on this, and no one looks down on Dischord and Fugazi.
For one thing, both Fugazi and Eggars SELL, they actually ahve fans and demand.
On the other hand, most self-published authors do not. In fact, most self-published authors have even less demand than your random local band, who will probably still sell a fair amount of CDs at their show.
The post picks out the figure of the self-proclaimed “Published Author” - a person who I think is equally onerous whether self-published or with publisher book contract in hand. Is this person, some “Jon Doe, Ph.D.!!,” unique to or largely predominant in self-publishing? I’m not sure….
At any rate, many of the right issues are raised here. Yes, the vetting and editorial process is often immensely valuable. Yes, the claim to published status sometimes represents a kind of social benchmark (although this may be changing), so people playing by other rules should be honest. “I’m a self-published author” would seem to cover it, and of course “I write” is always appropriate.
The general idea however that writers either play by the rules or try to and fail (thus most non-contracted writers are failures) seems… off. Put another way: the publishing industry has been around for a while now. Historically, how many poets, essayists and novelists have created works of lasting value that were originally distributed privately or not at all? Not just the big names, but what proportion? Looking over my bookshelves, and looking over my blog feeds, I think if there will ever be a first era of 99% professional publishing, this one doesn’t look like it.
Actually there are a fair number of bands with limited but loyal followings that put out their own MP3 and CDs, and the film world obviously embraces indie production far more than publishing. I suspect books are a different matter precisely because they ask so great a commitment in time from the reader, as opposed to the five minutes it takes to listen to a track or the two hours needed to view a film. Its an act of arrogance for any author to ask his or her reader for the time needed to absorb a book, and to do so without others saying that investment is a good idea strikes many as doubly outrageous. By the same token, the solitary nature of writing makes many authors crave the kind of up-front official and social acceptance corporate publishing offers, a need which does not well serve anyone proposing to follow the essentially iconoclastic path of the entrepreneur.
Now I would question whether publication by an established house really gives the reader that much reassurance – its true much indie stuff is junk, but then so is the bulk of what is sold by corporate publishers. I haven’t met many people outside of the industry who really care who publishes a book per se; rather, they are concerned with what they’ve learned about the book from reviews and publicity, which established houses are in a position to facilitate. One should not confuse the ability to generate buzz with the production of actual quality – just look at many of the works discussed on this blog. Corporate publishing can claim an advantage marketing power, but a boast of having discerning taste or even special insight into what will actually sell is far more dubious. On that last point, if these houses really knew what would sell, booksellers would not be so concerned about the ability to return unsold inventory.
Actually there are a fair number of bands with limited but loyal followings that put out their own MP3 and CDs, and the film world obviously embraces indie production far more than publishing. I suspect books are a different matter precisely because they ask so great a commitment in time from the reader, as opposed to the five minutes it takes to listen to a track or the two hours needed to view a film. Its an act of arrogance for any author to ask his or her reader for the time needed to absorb a book, and to do so without others saying that investment is a good idea strikes many as doubly outrageous. By the same token, the solitary nature of writing makes many authors crave the kind of up-front official and social acceptance corporate publishing offers, a need which does not well serve anyone proposing to follow the essentially iconoclastic path of the entrepreneur.
Now I would question whether publication by an established house really gives the reader that much reassurance – its true much indie stuff is junk, but then so is the bulk of what is sold by corporate publishers. I haven’t met many people outside of the industry who really care who publishes a book per se; rather, they are concerned with what they’ve learned about the book from reviews and publicity, which established houses are in a position to facilitate. One should not confuse the ability to generate buzz with the production of actual quality – just look at many of the works discussed on this blog. Corporate publishing can claim an advantage marketing power, but a boast of having discerning taste or even special insight into what will actually sell is far more dubious. On that last point, if these houses really knew what would sell, booksellers would not be so concerned about the ability to return unsold inventory.
No-one has mentioned the burden self-published authors place on libraries. Generous self-published authors offer them as “donations” to libraries and are deeply offended when we reject them, explaining that we use the same standards we would for books we actually select and buy. “But they’re free!” they cry, ignoring the cost of cataloguing and processing their gems. We receive hundreds of copies of self-published books - poetry, cookbooks, inspirational, and copiously illustrated odes to dogs. Up to now we look at each title but the volume has become so great that we’ll have to stop and just reject all unsolicied works. It’s a shame because we do occasionally find a good and useful books (usually local history if you self-publishers ar reading this, but not of your house and please, please not genealogy).
I think this was a fair assessment of the situation. As a realistic self-published author (I prefer Independent) I often wonder if independent publishing will ever reach the apex of acceptability that independent films have. Suddenly, within the last 10 years, it’s ‘in’ to be an independent filmmaker.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see a platform (like Sundance) arise and catapult indpendent publishing into the mainstream. There’s definitely room.
Maybe we should start a Sundance Book Festival!
Again, independet publishing already widely exists. There are lots of indie publishers.
Self-publishing is not necessarily indie publishing in the sense of indie music or indie film (though it can be in some cases).
When we say “indie music” we mean small to large non-corporate labels like Dischord, Matador, etc.
We do not mean random person X record his vocals over bad rap beats and burning them onto a CDr.
Sadly, most self-publishing seems to be more like the latter than the former. But when it is like the former, no one disses it.
I’d like to address the comment by Scott Pomfret above: “Moreover, major publishers are often unwilling to take risks for certain niche markets (e.g. GLBT) and the few GLBT-specific houses are often too small and underfunded to take on all worthy books and, more important, help market them.”
First, one might argue that without promotion a book might as well not be published — I’m not sure that’s quite what you meant — but that’s only if you depend entirely on the publisher for promotion. I think most new authors do a lot of their own promotion; relying on the publisher is usually an exercise in frustration.
More importantly, your statement ” the few GLBT-specific houses are often too small and underfunded to take on all worthy books” — well, perhaps it’s true they won’t take on “all worthy books.” But I know that publishers who address the LGBT niche crave good solid fiction and most of them say there are very few really high quality gay-themed novels every year.
This can be confirmed by looking at the Lambda Award nominations each year. How many of the nominees are really extraordinary books?
In fact indie does equal self-publishing for some people in music and film. For example, the maker of Primer self-produced and distributed his Sundance-winning film, and the band Widespread Panic puts out it concert CDs entirely on its own. The later has the option of producing a studio album through Columbia but has declined to do so for five years and is said to intend never to go this route. These are not the largest enterprises in content, but they are successful and apparently unencumbered by any self-publishing angst. Its odd how, in a culture that so embraces entrepreneurship, only writers seem to nurture such fear and hostility toward independence. One thing’s for sure: this is an attitude that must please the established publishing industry.
As I said, it equals it in some cases, but in many other cases it does not.
Again, when we talk of “indie record labels” we mean record labels not affiliated with a major corporation. These labels range from small to large, but normally they mean labels that actually produce a fair amount of music and actively try to distribute them.
99% of music published on what is normally meant by “indie labels” is not “self-published”…. it is publisehd by an indie label. Which is to say, the majority of an indie label’s roster is not the label head’s band.
You might argue on a techincality that any music, from a dubbed 8 track cassette tape your 8 year old makes to the latest Def Jux release is “independent” but that seems like a pointless semantics game.
I’m not really sure what Widespread Panic has to do with this. They aren’t encumbered by “self-publishing angst,” but as a band that has released over a dozen albums on major labels, why on earth would they?
So they put out their own concert bootlegs in addition to their corporate CDs? That’s like Stephen King having “self-publishing angst” if he decided to self-publish a little chap-book of poetry.
If there is self-publishing angst it seems to me it would be some combination of 1) Not being validated by an outside source 2) not knowing if your work will sell and worryign about yoru financial risk and maybe 3) worry your work will be dismissed since you have no previous credit to your name.
Widespread Panic have been validated by a ton of outside sources, including labels that distribute their music, they have no financial risk (as they have built up a huge fan base by now, sadly AFAIC) and they have no risk of being dismissed, after all their accomplishements, just becasue they self-publish some bootlegs.
“Its odd how, in a culture that so embraces entrepreneurship, only writers seem to nurture such fear and hostility toward independence.”
No one is insulting authors who successfully self-publish. Agian, no one would insult Dave Eggars for “self-publishing” with McSweeneys. People are just justifably weary of random authors with POD books (just as they are of people selling CDrs on the subway or artists who sit by the movie theather downtown trying to sell paintings for 5 bucks a piece). If said author has good entrepreneuarial skills and sells a lot of books, would anyone look down on him? I don’t think so.
One other comment. Several people have talked about indie movies self-publishing.
I’m not sure how accurate this is. Film is different than print, but I think a fair generalization would be that in print the publisher has two main functions
a) Financial backing (the cost of printing the book)
b) distrobution (and we can lump marketing in here too)
Film is very expensive and every indie filmmaker I know personally or have read about gets financial backing. Often they cobble it from random places and maybe we can still call that self-”publishing,” I’ll buy that. However, none of them rely on themselves for distrobution. It would be extremely hard. They all constantly are trying to get another company to give them distrobution.
Basically, no one would see a movie that didn’t have distrobution. Movies that don’t get outside help there tend to be ones carried by the filmaker from one small fest to the other then abandoned.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, but like “indie labels” I think the kinds of movies most people conjure to mind when hearing “independent film” have outside distrobution.
I have to say I’ve developed what is probably prejudice against self-published authors becaues I’ve come across so many websites of wannabe authors who’ve self-published, and the samples they posted are all crap or completely uninteresting. It’s worse if the work is self-published, and they try to hide the fact. When you look through all the hype, hiding that fact, there’s no substance.
In music there is of course the story of Gary Wilson (sixpointfour.com) who has only recently received the recognition he deserves. His LPs in the 70’s were all so-called “vanity pressings” but based on these LPs floating around there he developed a small cult following which included some very prominent musicians: Matt Groening, The Residents, Beck and others. But back then no record company would talk to him. Now he’s been released by various indie labels and it’s a happy end.
What would be some examples of self-published books that have later been recognized for their greatness? I can only think of titels that had been rejected numerous times and later become enormous successes, Harry Potter, of course, and Confederacy of Dunces. In Germany there was book “Schlafes Brüder” (The Brother of Sleep?) which was rejected again and again but when published at last became a bestseller and was then made into a movie.
Good article - it prompted me to write an account of my experiences with self-publishing. It’s on my blog (link above) if you want to read it.
Self publishing can be fun as long as you don’t take it too seriously. It’s also become comparitively cheap now, with new print and software technologies. From my blog: “my brother spends more on Guinness and tobacco in six months than I spent publishing those two books.”
Where’s the harm in that and why is everyone so bothered?
It’s not the case that all indie films have outside investors, not do all of them have distribution deals. “Primer” had neither – its maker put up the money and distributed the film himself, arranging limited runs at art houses. There are quite of few other filmmakers who’ve done the same – I was just chatting with one who’s work was featured at the Tribeca Film Festival, and while he certainly looks for distribution, he generally shows his work at many art venues prior to making such a deal (and he has found distribution). As for the Widespread Panic point, as I noted, they have not put out a corporate disk in years, nor do they distribute through a label. Now perhaps some view anyone who ever did business with a corporation as forever forfeiting a claim to self-publishing (that would apply to Eggers too, I suppose) but my own view admits the possibility of emancipation. In any case, there are plenty of bands making at least part of their living through self-produced album sales.
I agree with the statement “If said author has good entrepreneurial skills and sells a lot of books, would anyone look down on him? I don’t think so.” However, among writers and publishing house employees, there’s a very different attitude toward an attempt at author independence, far more hostile that what one finds among people in music and film. That said, I don’t think most reader really know or care who publishes what the read. It’s just a question of whether the author can produce marketable work independent of a publishing firm, and whether he can find a way to get his work noticed on his own.
Further to this point, it’s been interesting to watch the changing attitude towards another form of self-publishing: blogs. While a lot of people in traditional media initially scorned them, lately they’ve been sourcing them as well, for everything from news to fiction. Most of these have little or no outside financial backing (a few have raised money as they’ve grown). And now we have an emerging trend toward turning blogs into books (s-called blooks or bloogs – sigh). The point is once a model begins to work, which is to say attract an audience and display the potential for profit, respectability tends to follow.
Of course this respect is based on sales, not some abstract concept of quality. The angst of solitary writers seeking third party validation is one thing; for many publishers, however, anything that sells commands respect, and anything with unproven marketability is dubious at best. This goes some way to explaining the latter’s antagonism toward something so financially uncertain as self-publishing.
Lovely essay. Thank you for writing it.
All good comments. I decided to toss my hat into the self-publishing ring recently. I think my novel is good, but I have a distant cousin who is self-published (4 novels) and, judging by the one he fosted off on my dad, he should have stayed home.
The bottom line is that anybody can go to the beach wearing a Speedo. Some (most?) people shouldn’t. The ones who shouldn’t get remembered.
I live in a small and somewhat arty — but not big-name arty — town. I recently attended their art / book show, hoping to find soemthing interesting. It was nearly all self-published poets. Also self-published self-help authors. The better self-help authors had made it into the commercial press. Self-published New Age authors. All trying to get you to buy their books, thin PBs that often cost as much as a trade PB. It made me very depressed, and now I understand why.
I do not believe that this town is full of lunatics, so I think the show attracted the lunatics from the larger matropolitan area.
“What would be some examples of self-published books that have later been recognized for their greatness?”
This is probably the crux of the issue.
Putting aide my disagreement that POD/Self-publishign is comparable to “indie film” or “indie music,” the reason those things are respected is because they have produced lots of work that has been declared great. Resevoir dogs, Clerks, Fugazi, Cannibal Ox, etc.
I’ve yet to see a self-published or POD book be respected on its artistic merits yet. It might happen, but I think a more likely scenario is inide publishign will grow.
“Now perhaps some view anyone who ever did business with a corporation as forever forfeiting a claim to self-publishing (that would apply to Eggers too, I suppose) but my own view admits the possibility of emancipation.”
That wasn’t what I was saying. I’m saying a band that has, in its genre (a genre I personally despise, but whatever) has been widely acclaimed and validated at every level including the corporate level is hardly going to have “self-publishing angst” on the level of a musician who has never gotten anyone to use or distribute their work.
They aren’t comparable at all in my mind.
“However, among writers and publishing house employees, there’s a very different attitude toward an attempt at author independence, far more hostile that what one finds among people in music and film.”
Well, I think the attitude is fairly similar. In my experience, totally self-published work in music and film (or print) is just ignored. It doesn’t factor into the literary world or the general film world (with a few possible exceptions).
I sound liek a broken record here, but again, people like McSweeneys, which are really what is more comparable to indie films or indie music, aren’t looked down upon… at least I haven’t experienced it (Well, certain people hate McSweeney’s, but for other reasons)
“It’s just a question of whether the author can produce marketable work independent of a publishing firm, and whether he can find a way to get his work noticed on his own.”
Agreed. The day someone sells as many POD books as Franzen (or better yet Steele) no one will insult them.
Also, Gerrib, I love the speedo analogy.
“Your argument is fine as far as it goes, but it would be a lot stronger if it dealt with the increasing tendency of the major publishing houses to substantially wall themselves off from emerging writers.”
I hear this a lot, but I never see any statistics. And if we’re trading anecdotal evidence, I can, without even thinking very hard, name half a dozen writers of my personal acquaintance who’ve had a first novel published by a major house in the last couple of years. What gives?
For what it’s worth, the YA fantasy novel Eragon was originally self-published before being picked up by Knopf. Apparently, Carl Hiaasen’s stepson read the self-published version, loved it, and word eventually worked its way back to the powers at Knopf. Commerciality ensued.
I’m not sure it’s widely recognized as great, but it seems to be quite commercial.
It has also, of course, made me deeply wary of any self-published or POS authors.
I am loving this typo, if typo it is.
Love the essay too. It makes me more sympathetic to the more sensible self-published folks. As a vegetarian who’s been tarred with the same brush as PETA and other “fluffy-bunny” vegetarians, and a Wiccan who rolls his eyes at the “ooga-booga” witches in their black robes (outdoors! in summer!) and their scary eye makeup and their piles of silver jewelry (sufficient to guarantee they’d pass the Salem Float Test), I understand what it’s like to be embarrassed by the behavior of wackos with whom I nominally share a category!
Don’t judge the garment when all you’ve seen is the fringe, say I.
“I’m saying a band that has, in its genre (a genre I personally despise, but whatever) has been widely acclaimed and validated at every level including the corporate level is hardly going to have “self-publishing angst” on the level of a musician who has never gotten anyone to use or distribute their work. They aren’t comparable at all in my mind.”
Personal taste aside, the more one achieves the more one has to loose, and I’m not at all sure institutionally recognized success attenuates the fear associated with going independent.
“In my experience, totally self-published work in music and film (or print) is just ignored. It doesn’t factor into the literary world or the general film world (with a few possible exceptions).”
No one is arguing this is easy to do, but as with many emerging business models, initial success tends to be the exception rather than the rule. This is not in itself a reason for rejecting a new model.
“The day someone sells as many POD books as Franzen (or better yet Steele) no one will insult them.”
That’s setting the bar a bit higher than that by which house-published work is evaluated; otherwise so few books would be considered successful that I doubt we would have a publishing industry. But the comment does illustrate my point; while I won’t wade into the debate on whether Frazen has genuine literary merit, I’d hope most would agree that Steele’s commercial success demonstrates a certain decoupling of sales from artistic brilliance. When we speak of respect here, we are speaking of it as it applies to economic success and not some subjective assessment of creative achievement. No one should kid themselves that what’s being praised or derided has much to do with art, and those that care about art might consider whether their view on self-published works is colored by a lack of interest in anything that is not massively remunerative.
Meh… one one level, the more you have the more you have to loose. On the other, more realistic level, the more you have the more secure you are. Widespread Panic KNOWS they can sell their work themselves. They have basically no risk involved. Not very similar to a lonely P.O.D. author.
Also, Widespread is safe because, even if they didn’t know if their new model of selling would work, they know they could quickly go back to a big label with no problems.
David Moles: in terms of your response to my comment (I’m pasting in the exhange below), I guess we’re talking across purposes. If you define statistics narrowly, no, I can’t offer any. But if you’re talking about factual proof — yeah, I can offer that. Major houses are walling themselves off by not accepting unsolicitied submissions. (I’m defining a major house as one that publishes literary fiction as well as non-fiction and mass market fiction and has money to spare.) Some houses will be upfront about this policy on their webpages, others have gotten into the annoying (and somewhat creepy) habit of not stating their policy at all while providing no contact or submissions link. You should visit a few sites to see what I mean.
But then maybe what you’re talking about is writers who are agented. But even here, writers aren’t necessarily being as well treated as they might hope: having an agent doesn’t guarantee acceptance by a house, and acceptance by a house doesn’t guarantee career success.
Incidentally, the situation you describe re: your acquaintances is, ah, unusual to say the least. Maybe you could offer more detail.
I wrote: “Your argument is fine as far as it goes, but it would be a lot stronger if it dealt with the increasing tendency of the major publishing houses to substantially wall themselves off from emerging writers.”
David wrote: I hear this a lot, but I never see any statistics. And if we’re trading anecdotal evidence, I can, without even thinking very hard, name half a dozen writers of my personal acquaintance who’ve had a first novel published by a major house in the last couple of years. What gives?
I have occasionally thought of self-publishing, which for me meant, like, hand-binding five or ten copies of something, because I like making things. I think of the early Hogarth Press, Virginia Woolf covered in ink, working the tiny tiny press in their basement or wherever, running off Vanessa’s prints and T.S. Eliot’s poems. I think making your own stuff is awesome, as are, for example, rappers with their own sucky CD-Rs, or their 80s analogue, the sick teenage DJs selling their homemade mixtapes on the street. Despite the disdain with which self-published (by which I mean, dude and his boombox and the high-speed-dubbing function) music is held by some around here, I raise my skinny fist for such cockroach ingenuity/power. As everyone knows, the best noise music in Japan was put out on tiny tape labels, and so on. Also, I would like to give a shout-out to the dude with the green mohawk and the pacifier, yessir you are beautiful, keep it up please.
However as is dissected with cruel precision above, if someone is publishing becuz they have some weird idea of being a PUBLISHED AUTHOR then I don’t really have sympathy for them. This comment is not contra the original post, just sticking up for kids running off CDRs/cassettes/mp3s on myspace (I grudgingly include), of which I have been and will again be a member.
If you want an example of a self-published—>successful book, how ’bout The Education of Henry Adams, or The Seven Pillars of Wisdom by Lawrence of Arabia?
“For what it’s worth, the YA fantasy novel Eragon was originally self-published before being picked up by Knopf.”
Um, yes and no. The author’s parents owned and operated a small commercial publishing company for a number of years before the book was written. So it’s only “self” published because the author is related to the owners.
Finn:
I believe you missed David’s point. I think everyone knows it is hard for a new author to get published and many publishing houses are walled up. The part David was questioning, I think, was the “increasingly” bit. At least, this is what I’d like to see statistics for.
Yes, it is hard to publish a first novel… but is it harder than in 1996? Or 1976? or 1946? Is there any evidence it is “increasingly” getting harder?
The phrasing just reminds me of that silly B.R. Meyers essay from 2000 whose tagline specified he was attacking an “increasing tendency in american prose” and yet his targets were people like Delillo and McCarthy who had been publishing since the 60s and 70s.
If you make a significant profit on the books you self-publish, you are an “independent publisher.”
Good article. I would probably never self publish unless it wa s for a specific reason such as sharing some idea I had that I thought it absolutely essential the public knew, if I were in some kind of missionary zeal a la Julia Cameron. . I did however have the misfortune to take the POD route, which is even more self-delusionary than self publishing. I agree that the problem with both these means comes when the author seludes herself that she can stand alongside of authors whose books have been chosen for publication by those wise enough to judge good writing. A part of me still likes the idea of going against the tide and doing my own thing via POD but I know better. I know that it is only through extensive rewriting and soul searching, if then that my work will be deemed worthy of publication. I have cancelled my comtract with Publish America for the POD novel Teacher on the Run, because I know that it was not subjected to any kind of scrutiny before it was accepted, and that the mere fact it was published does not mean it passes the standard for public exposure. It is a harsh reality but it is true. It imay be true that everybody can write a book but that does not mean that those books will be read by anybody other than their relatives and good friends.
Interesting discussion. Historical note: Walt Whitman was self-published, at least at first.
I predict POD and the net will eventually result in author associations (similar to the way lawyers form small law practices) where authors who produce like-style material will pool their resources to hire editors, marketing folks, distribution representatives, and others to improve their product and get it to the public. Authors would make partner the similar to the way lawyers do. This could probably be done for about what they are paying their agents currently and they could keep more of the profits. Might not get them into bookstores, but it would create an internet site where readers could buy POD with a real assurance of quality.
That is what self-publishing lacks at the moment - consumer confidence in quality.
Here’s a practical problem regarding self-published writers from a writer’s standpoint. It used to mean something to have a book come out. Now, the first question I get asked is, “Oh, who are you going with? I hear Publish America’s good. That’s who I’m with.”
There’s a lot of really bad writing out there. A lot. Now, with good photography and Photoshop, tons of these books are coming out, and they look just like books that have vetted, edited, and paid for. The customer doesn’t know the difference. He picks up a book that reads like crap, and he thinks the book next to it on the shelf is just as bad. You read a few of these in a row, and it’s enough to make you swear off reading completely. Now I know there are exceptions to this; that there are talented people who, for whatever reason, use POD or self-publish. But I’m talking about the rule.
It’s harder to talk to booksellers, or get booksignings. Booksellers have been burned so often, they’re wary of anybody who says he’s an “author”.
Fewer newspapers cover books. I have to wonder if the rise of POD books isn’t one of the reasons. Reviewers are inundated by slush, and some of these “published authors” won’t take no for an answer. They’re also taking over organizations like Sisters in Crime etc., so they can talk about their issues, which is mostly about how they can get distribution. Many professional organizations are now limiting members to legitimately published authors only.
If you haven’t really earned it, you’re not published. You’ve got a book. It might be the apple of your eye, but you’re not a pro.
“one [sic] one level, the more you have the more you have to loose. On the other, more realistic level, the more you have the more secure you are. Widespread Panic KNOWS they can sell their work themselves. They have basically no risk involved. ”
Well, I wouldn’t go that far. Look what happened to Prince when he started putting out his own stuff. Past success is no guarantee of the future (that’s sounds like some line from a stockbroker’s ad, but its true).
“There’s a lot of really bad writing out there. A lot.”
That’s very true, but much of it is published commercially, as a casual inspection of the shelves as Boarders will attest. Blaming POD for the decline of letters is a bit like blaming pot smokers for the deterioration of the ozone layer - the later may give off some noxious gas and some of them may be a bit delusional, but they’re not the ones spoiling the atmosphere.
“99.999% of self-publishers all tried to go the normal route. They just couldn’t cut it there.”
Hmm… I’d like to see where that statistic came from, because a whole lot of the folks I’ve met who have gone the vanity route did so because they didn’t know there was another way. They wrote the book first before learning anything about publishing, then looked around and said, “Okay, where do I send it to get it published?” They found an ad in the back of a magazine or looked up “publisher” on the web and lo and behold, there was someone who said the magic words, “We want to publish you!”
In fact, based entirely on anecdotal evidence (mostly comments and questions from people who find out that I write books), I think a large segment of the general public believes that it costs money to get published. Hence there’s no inner critic asking, “Um, why are these people so eager to have my manuscript AND my money?”
But how sad the results can be! I’ve met authors who were trying to hand-sell their hardback, vanity-published novels. After a couple of years of unsuccessful attempts, they were ready to burn their cases of books for firewood, because they couldn’t even give the books away.
I do get a bit testy when I see discussions comparing “POD publishing” and traditional publishing, because POD is a technology, not a type of publisher. POD allows any publisher, vanity, subsidy, or traditional, to produce books on-demand. I see that John Wiley, a well-respected traditional publisher, has POD services for low-demand books. Technically, the definitions are these:
Self-publishing: you take on all the expense, hire a book printer, buy your own ISBN number, file for copyright. You ARE the publisher, and that is why it is called self-publishing.
Vanity publishing: Publishers who accept just about any readable manuscript that comes to them, but authors must pay to have their books put into print. The publishers buys the ISBN numbers and distributes them to the authors, so the ISBN number is associated with the vanity publisher (which can make it hard to get picked up by a distributor).
Subsidy publishing: Small presses sometimes don’t have the funds to cover printing, and ask that the author pay part of the printing costs. Technically, the difference between the vanity and the subsidy publisher is that the subsidy publisher is selective, but you may see the two terms used interchangeably.
Why No Love for the Self Published Folks…
An interesting post at SlushPile.net about self pub.
After you’re done reading, if you’re curious, here’s the answer to the Clark Gable v. William Faulker comeback:
“Yes, Mr. Gable. What do you do?”……
I used to teach classes in how to self-publish, because I had worked for a printer and also published short runs of community anthology stuff. However, my absolute rule was that people understood all the practicalities of self-publishing - that the market for their books would be minimal and they should never think it was a way to get rich and famous.
Consequently my “students” published books that included family histories, language workbooks (for Lithuanian children), a how-to book on guitar playing, an alternative history text, some poetry collections, a short story collection - the list goes on. The point is, all of those books had viable niche markets and part of the course was about how to reach those markets. In the case of the Lithuanian language book, she was a teacher and could not find the resources she needed so wrote her own. Most people published less than 100 copies. They got their books out to the people they were targeting. They did not go around hassling other poor souls, nor did they send their books off to commercial publishers hoping to be discovered. They treated their books as products that satisfied a certain market.
But I have seen plenty of the other kind of self-publisher. In fact, I have a collection of the worst sp books - I keep those that illustrate how to make a book look awful and read worse. In my experience, the worst examples of self-publishing are usually fiction writers.
TL: Your point is well-taken, but the simple answer to your question is unfortunately, no, it’s not the same now as it used to be. I understand the point that you’re making (though I’m not sure it’s the same Dave was making, since he gave so little detail): it’s always been difficult to be a writer — so many have been frustrated by the publishing process. But back then so many things were different: more people read literary novels, for one thing. And, as a writer, you could deal directly with a publisher. That’s over now. In my opinion, big houses should be called on it. They should re-open the doors a little wider. It’s a reasonable request, because ultimately if literary fiction becomes a product funneled exclusively through MFA programs and agents, it will become increasingly plastic. (Sorry to use that adverb again, but it’s suitable.) And in the meantime, writers have to do their bit: keep trying, not become bitter, and, above all, produce good work.
By the way, if you’re interested, I’ve collected some of the comments that have interested me most at my site (www.screen-novel.blogspot.com).
Jeff:
Oddly, prince was a person I was thinking of as an example to prove my point. Sure, he might not have sold as much since he went his own way, but he still sells a lot, his albums still get reviewed in major publications and he can live of goin his own way. It is far easier for Prince to sell a self-published album on a mass level than someone with no connections or fan base from past success.
FH:
“But back then so many things were different: more people read literary novels, for one thing. ”
Did they though? I’m not sure I believe this. I might believe that a higher percentage did, but with population growth… but maybe percent is what you meant. Still… I dunno. It might seem like everyone who was anyone in Germany back in the day read Goethe, but more likely the real masses didn’t read shit.
The fact of the matter is, you can take a NYT best seller list from pretty much any year in the past and al\most all the books will have been forgotten. You are lucky to have one important literary text on a best seller list in a year. This is as true for 2006 as 1956. I might believe you that things have changed… but I’d have to see some real evidence.
Taxi:
I’ve been thinking a lot about your post, because I grew up in the DIY punk scene and have always been a fan of people doing things and doing things themselves. So why am I weary of self-published books? Or at least, much more weary than when I see a self-released CD.
I think it comes down, for the most part, to the what another poster said: “That is what self-publishing lacks at the moment - consumer confidence in quality. ”
More specifically…. despite the fact I own hundreds of DIY records, I AM weary of a random DIY music release. I’m not gonna buy a random CD if I know nothing of the artist. So when I buy one, I buty it because I’ve heard good things from people I trust, or I’ve seen the band live and enjoyed them or I’ve read good reviews in some of the thousands of DIY music zines out there.
What I”m getting at is that their is a culture and community there that works, on some level, as quality control for DIY music. It doesn’t exist yet in books. I don’t see self-published authors read, there aren’t important and quality magazines that review and cover self-published books, etc.
Part of this is inherent to books of course (very few people regularly see writers read and most who do mostly go to see writers they know. You can be pretty assured a concert will be fun if you like the type of music generally, yet sitting still listening to a horrible poet read isn’t a risk most want to take).
Likewise, books are such a time investment most people don’t want to take risks. I can listen to a full album in 30 mintues or I can go to a band’s website and check out all theri songs on MP3… nothing really similar goes on with books.
bravo. well-written, informative, and entertaining.
Good editors matter.
POD and self-publishing will only make good editors MORE important and in demand.
Let’s start by taking self-publishing for granted, OK? It’s not going to go away. So where do we take it from there?
A whole new sub-industry of publishing should (and probably will) emerge: Editors hiring their services to self-published authors. High-profile editors will get star status. Authors will buy EDITORS WEEKLY instead of PUBLISHERS WEEKLY.
I anticipate a development where editors will get back the status they lost to publishers’ accountants in the last few decades — and then some.
(if this comment contains typos or mispellings, it’s cos i’ve been up for 30+ hours running on coffee and lipton brisk iced tea, okay?)
Good article. I myself have SP’d some books but only after going through heavy editing and getting others to read the novel at hand for comments and critisizing before sending it off to the printers! The red pen is your friend. You’ll thank it later. ^_^
Finn: I’m a science fiction writer, so my circle of acquaintances includes an inordinate number of science fiction writers, and maybe it just happens to include an inordinate number of lucky science fiction writers, but here’s a list: Elizabeth Bear (Random House/Spectra), Toby Buckell (Tor), Hal Duncan (Macmillan), Justine Larbalestier (Penguin/Razorbill), Tim Pratt (Random House/Spectra), John Scalzi (Tor). Yes, I’m pretty sure they’ve all got agents, and most of them probably had agents before they were published, but they’re all emerging writers and they’ve all sold first novels to major publishing houses; if the houses are walling themselves off, they don’t seem to be doing a particularly effective job of it.
Understand, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that from this emerging writer’s point of view the publishers don’t look much like they’re trying to publish fewer emerging writers. (They may be trying to read less slush, but nobody who’s read slush could really blame them for that. Luck is involved in getting published, yes, but it’s not really a game of chance.) If the claim is that it’s harder for a new writer to get a good book published than it used to be, I’d like to see some numbers — for instance, has the percentage of first novels among the novels published each year declined? If so, how substantially? Emerging writers want to know.
Really the problem isn’t self-publishing so much as the people who are self-publishing. Most of them have big egos with irrational expectations of immediate grandeur. They don’t do the work required that would give them a shot at being successful, rather they rest on their laurels and wait for the world to worship them.
If the world doesn’t notice, they will hold book signings and attend writing groups (especially mine) where they will ignore all feedback on any work they submit because, well, they’re real writers and real writers are too good for critique. They also go to book conferences, where they think self-publishing gives them carte blanche to give bad advice to the ‘unpublished masses’ and corner agents/editors/pro-authors in a misguided belief that they care what these people have to say. I have seen this over and over again.
It’s the behavior of the authors that gives self-publishing a bad name. Self-publishing itself, I think, is a viable option in the publishing industry, but due to the way the self-published authors behave, it’s become synonymous with ‘I’m clueless’.
And yes, I have met exceptions, there are always exceptions–Eragon comes to mind, or even the GLBT romance writers that posted in this comment thread. I love the exceptions, they’re awesome, they’re using self-publishing the way it should be used. BUT the vast majority of the self-published are as I described.
They seem to have forgotten respect is earned, not given simply because their name is on a book cover.
M
Demented Michelle, you nailed it!
Falkner’s real reply: “Up yours Gable! I’m traditionally published, which makes me better than some self-published jerk! I have an agent and editors like me and I get free food at published authors night at Applebee’s. Your a dumb actor and you didn’t get a publisher to like you like I did - so, eeeeeaaaat meeeee!”
more or less
“Oddly, prince was a person I was thinking of as an example to prove my point. Sure, he might not have sold as much since he went his own way, but he still sells a lot, his albums still get reviewed in major publications and he can live of going his own way. It is far easier for Prince to sell a self-published album on a mass level than someone with no connections or fan base from past success.”
Well, this just goes to show that success is a relative thing - in the industry, Prince’s decision to go his own way is generally viewed as a commercial failure. Obviously, anyone with resources (from publishing or any other source) is in more of a position to take risk than someone starting out on his own, but that does not mean there’s no pain to a loss. (Hey, you should hear the screams in Redmond when Microsoft misses an earnings number.)
TL: I don’t know very much about Germany, but I doubt it was the same even when you take percentages into account. Think of Britain from the Elizabethan Period to the Victorian: think of the wide variety of social classes in the audiences for Shakespeare’s plays; think of the greater popularity of poetry; think of the great Victorian novels that were serialized in magazines. All these differences are qualitative, even when you take into account the people who didn’t (or couldn’t) read. I think you’re more on target about the differences between consuming music/movies and books. People need to talk about this more because it really gets to the heart of the matter. A lot of commentary on “the state of the novel” assumes people read in a more-or-less static manner across the ages. I don’t think this is true. My own feeling is people are so influenced by image-based media that we’ve all become similar to directors in our imaginations. (It was when I realized I often did this in my own mind that I got the idea of writing fiction in the form of a screenplay. I don’t know if it’s going to do my career any damn good, but it’s been liberating to sometimes write in this style.)
David: I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on how much publishers are walled off these days or if they’re walled off at all. ONe thing is for sure: it was different as recently as a decade ago. Maybe some big SF publishers are more open to work that comes over the transom, but the big lit houses have become as sealed as forts … and agents hold the key. There’s such a range of agents that it’s impossible to generalize about them. But the number who are both “established” and interested in literary writing is pretty small. If nothing else, it creates an enormous bottleneck.
p.s. I enjoyed the work you posted on your site.
Thanks for a good attempt at a balanced approached. It’s the best I’ve seen yet. I do disagree, though, with the statement that the traditional publishing system “is the one we have,” implying that it’s what writers in this day and age have to live with. I’ve read too many terrific self-published books (and seen too much traditionally published crap on mainstream bookshelves) to buy into that limiting belief system or accept somebody else’s notion of what makes a good read. Writers who believe in their work and want to share it no longer need the blessings or the assistance of old-school publishing houses. And that really seems to eat at some people. Go figure. Aren’t there bigger things to get upset about? Like people who are making bombs instead of books? I suspect that the people who get hot and bothered with those who want to make their own books are really blocked creatives who identify with the “crazy self-publishers” more than they’d like to admit.
Thanks, Finn; glad you liked it. Maybe it’s different in lit-fic; I only know one or two people who’ve gone that way, and I don’t really know whether the traditional-seeming road they’ve taken (MFA school + agent + short fiction = two-book contract for a collection and a novel) is old enough not to count as “these days”. At any rate, I’ll agree that the bottleneck has moved — or maybe been replaced by several different bottlenecks, in series (which is pushing the metaphor about as far as it will go, I think); I’m just not sure whether it’s effectively any narrower, and I really do wonder, if it was, how would we tell?
You fail to note the long and valued tradition of self-published works in America. I feel POD has further tarnished the self-published route, because it requires little or no financial investment. You also assume an author can’t be both self-published and published by traditional publishers, as I am.
Who, exactly, are you addressing DH? And what is the “long and valued tradition” exactly?
SOmeone way back mentioned needing a Sundance Festival to separate the self-published wheat from the chaff. There are a couple of relatively well-known contests that put self-published, small press and university press books together. One is the Foreword Magazine Book of the Year Award and the other is the Independent Publishers Book Awards (IPPY) both of which hold their award ceremonies during Book Expo America. There need to be more ways to vet POD, self-publisher, whatever, books for readers, booksellers and libraries. Disclaimer: I’m self-published and up for awards in both contests.