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.

“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.

“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)

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)

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.)

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?

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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?

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.

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.

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?

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.