A question for those who are self-published

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by iansales

This is relevant - At Last! Writer Beware Blogs! A.C. Crispin and Victoria Strauss Reveal All!: Victoria Strauss -- Lessons for Self-Publishers

That viewpoint seems to be a bit dated. When you're publishing through a service like Lulu (no I don't work for them and no I don't use them), what you see is what you get. There are no "shills" trying to take you for everything you've got. Most of the "publishing companies" that required you to pay them have evaporated because of iUniverse, Lulu and others who could do it better, cheaper and more honestly.

And of course, the flip side to that article would be the extremely low acceptance rate at the "traditional publishers." If you never get a story published with them, then how are you to get started as a professional writer? Sure it makes sense to submit to the traditional publishers first, but if you're not getting anywhere going that route why not self-publish and get your work in print (and make some sales)? Traditional publisher will likely take you more seriously the next time around if you say in your cover letter that you had successfully sold x number of copies of your self-published work.

[iansales]

I think the blog makes some valid points - i.e., if you're going to self-publish you're going to have work very hard to succeed. And even then there's no guarantee. A handful of success stories (some of which, the blog points out, are not entirely true) are bandied around so often they could persuade people that self-publishing is a) easy and b) sure to succeed.

[Havlen]

Originally Posted by DMatusik

That viewpoint seems to be a bit dated. When you're publishing through a service like Lulu (no I don't work for them and no I don't use them), what you see is what you get. There are no "shills" trying to take you for everything you've got. Most of the "publishing companies" that required you to pay them have evaporated because of iUniverse, Lulu and others who could do it better, cheaper and more honestly.

And of course, the flip side to that article would be the extremely low acceptance rate at the "traditional publishers." If you never get a story published with them, then how are you to get started as a professional writer? Sure it makes sense to submit to the traditional publishers first, but if you're not getting anywhere going that route why not self-publish and get your work in print (and make some sales)? Traditional publisher will likely take you more seriously the next time around if you say in your cover letter that you had successfully sold x number of copies of your self-published work.

False, and False.

First, there are still many different companies trying to make money off of authors and more popping up every day. While Lulu is upfront about its services, they are still in the business of making money off of would-be authors. And I have seen new "publishers" pop up that -- for a fee -- will publish an author's book through Lulu. And this isn't to say the others have vanished. They are still around, and they are still popping up, everything from standard old-fashioned vanity publishers to subsidy publishers to partnerships publishers (subsidy publishers putting a different spin on it).

Second, a traditional publisher is not going to take an author more seriously because they have self-published a previous book. All that will tell the publisher is that the author has failed to gain a traditional publisher with a previous book -- which is to say that it's probably a much better idea not to mention it at all.

Now, if you sold 5,000 copies of your self-published books, sure, a traditional publisher will take notice. But, as the article suggests, those that sell 5,000 copies are the rare exception, certainly not the standard.

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by Havlen

False, and False.

First, there are still many different companies trying to make money off of authors and more popping up every day. While Lulu is upfront about its services, they are still in the business of making money off of would-be authors. And I have seen new "publishers" pop up that -- for a fee -- will publish an author's book through Lulu. And this isn't to say the others have vanished. They are still around, and they are still popping up, everything from standard old-fashioned vanity publishers to subsidy publishers to partnerships publishers (subsidy publishers putting a different spin on it).

That may be - but their numbers are dropping (the shills). Before places like Lulu sprung up -they were the only game in town. Nowadays the information and the facts are widely available. Plenty of info online at places like SFWA and this message board ...

Second, a traditional publisher is not going to take an author more seriously because they have self-published a previous book. All that will tell the publisher is that the author has failed to gain a traditional publisher with a previous book -- which is to say that it's probably a much better idea not to mention it at all.

Now, if you sold 5,000 copies of your self-published books, sure, a traditional publisher will take notice. But, as the article suggests, those that sell 5,000 copies are the rare exception, certainly not the standard.

If you self-published and sold 10 copies, then I'd be inclined to agree. However, sales in the high hundreds or thousands shows some decent potential, along with the writer's ability to promote him/her self. What's the alternative? Approaching a firm with 0 sales history and 0 experience with being published?

The idea that the traditional publisher is the be-all end-all of literature is elitist snobbery, pure and simple, and only serves to benefit the established system. Great stories are rejected every day because:
1) a certain genre isn't selling well this quarter
2) they have too many of that type of story
3) they didn't like the cover letter
4) something was wrong with the submission
5) it was an unagented work
...
Authors, agents and editors know these reasons plus the ones I didn't list.

Ultimately it all comes down to what the author wants - are you looking to be the next Stephen King? Self publishing is probably not be the way to go about it. Do you want to get your stories in print, get some experience and some exposure, then SP is great for that.

[Aliénor]

Originally Posted by Knulp

Of course there are the self-published books which then get 'spotted' by a publisher and picked up. That happened with Tunnels on this side of the pond, and didn't something similar happen with Eragon (opinions on that book aside)?

Opinions on that book aside , Eragon was published by the author's mum and dad, who had a small publishing house. Eragon was their third title. Then Paolini toured the country (about two hundred readings and presentations in schools), and sales were going up steady until a major proposed a contract.

I would never have the energy to promote my book from scratch, because you have to, if you want to publish along with the big boys.

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by iansales

I think the blog makes some valid points - i.e., if you're going to self-publish you're going to have work very hard to succeed. And even then there's no guarantee. A handful of success stories (some of which, the blog points out, are not entirely true) are bandied around so often they could persuade people that self-publishing is a) easy and b) sure to succeed.

Agreed - the author's experience is definitely valid here, but when you have "old guard" authors, they tend to view the publishing landscape as it was 10 or more years ago.

Their argument used to be "a self-published book isn't as high of quality as a traditional book." Advances in POD technology, desktop publishing software, etc. have nullified that argument.

Now the argument is "if you self-publish, no one will take you seriously." If you self publish AND succeed they can't ignore you AND be making a wise business decision.

No one is saying SP is a slam dunk - in fact it's the opposite. You, as the author are relegating yourself to perform all duties that a publisher would normally do (unless you are paying someone) - from promotion, design, editing, sales, etc. There's no way anyone in their right mind could think that's easier than letting a pub handle it. BUT: if you just want to see yourself in print, then SP works. If you only want (or need) to sell 100 copies (with the low cost of POD nowadays, that's entirely feasible) then SP can also work.

If you want to reach beyond SP level, try an independent publisher. If you want to go big time, well then stick with the traditional route. In other words, there are options ...

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by Aliénor

Opinions on that book aside , Eragon was published by the author's mum and dad, who had a small publishing house. Eragon was their third title. Then Paolini toured the country (about two hundred readings and presentations in schools), and sales were going up steady until a major proposed a contract.

I would never have the energy to promote my book from scratch, because you have to, if you want to publish along with the big boys.

Right - and I heard his folks had connections, too (which always helps)! LOL. No doubt about it - SP is very much like a grassroots political campaign - lots of thankless legwork involved.

[DMatusik]

[quote=Havlen;979534]False, and False.

First, there are still many different companies trying to make money off of authors and more popping up every day. While Lulu is upfront about its services, they are still in the business of making money off of would-be authors. And I have seen new "publishers" pop up that -- for a fee -- will publish an author's book through Lulu. And this isn't to say the others have vanished. They are still around, and they are still popping up, everything from standard old-fashioned vanity publishers to subsidy publishers to partnerships publishers (subsidy publishers putting a different spin on it).

Just curious - have you or anyone you know been taken advantage of by an unscrupulous publisher? I'm curious to see how widespread it still is and what the personal experiences were like. A lot of the "writer beware" links to dishonest publishers seemed to go to dead links. I'm sure the really bad ones won't give up - once you're good at a con game, you're not likely to change, right?

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by Havlen

False, and False.

First, there are still many different companies trying to make money off of authors and more popping up every day. While Lulu is upfront about its services, they are still in the business of making money off of would-be authors. And I have seen new "publishers" pop up that -- for a fee -- will publish an author's book through Lulu. And this isn't to say the others have vanished. They are still around, and they are still popping up, everything from standard old-fashioned vanity publishers to subsidy publishers to partnerships publishers (subsidy publishers putting a different spin on it).

.

I also think we're talking about different things here. I take "shill" to be a publisher that "accepts" your work and offers a contract to publish and THEN asks for money from the author. For publishers that are up-front about the costs (along with Lulu) there is nothing unscrupulous with them trying to make a buck off the author - after all the author sought them out knowing who they were! That's what self-publishing is (all the terms you mentioned - self/partnership/vanity - there is no distinction).

If an author doesn't get traction with the major publishers then I always recommend trying an independent publisher before going the self-publish route. Size them up, ask questions and make sure that you're a good match before committing.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by DMatusik

Ultimately it all comes down to what the author wants - are you looking to be the next Stephen King? Self publishing is probably not be the way to go about it.

In fact, as a self-published author you're not very likely to even make it into the midlist -- or your books into the bookstores -- unless you are a self-promotional dynamo.

A fact which many of the people who sell their services to aspiring self-published authors conveniently leave out.

And it's not snobbery to warn people of the many pitfalls they may not know about, or to urge them to be wary in their dealings with a growing industry that makes its money not by selling books but by selling its services to inexperienced writers, often on the basis of a whole string of misrepresentations.

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

In fact, as a self-published author you're not very likely to even make it into the midlist -- or your books into the bookstores -- unless you are a self-promotional dynamo.

A fact which many of the people who sell their services to aspiring self-published authors conveniently leave out.

And it's not snobbery to warn people of the many pitfalls they may not know about, or to urge them to be wary in their dealings with a growing industry that makes its money not by selling books but by selling its services to inexperienced writers, often on the basis of a whole string of misrepresentations.

No it's not, but the idea that the only good comes from NYC publishers is - which is the prevalent idea on most message boards as well as the SFWA. That's what I was trying to head off. A fair number of people here have self-published and I think the conversation was starting to sound demeaning to their hard work. Maybe I misread.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Self-published authors need to get a thicker skin. Those of us who are traditionally published have to live with a lot of criticism, too, you know.

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

Self-published authors need to get a thicker skin. Those of us who are traditionally published have to live with a lot of criticism, too, you know.

Sorry - I guess I'm too sentimental and feel for them

not trying to be argumentative at all ..

[Teresa Edgerton]

I do feel for them, especially the naïve ones who get their hopes raised and then crushed by people who have a vested interest in doing so.

But for some of them ... I might be a lot more sympathetic if they didn't feel they had to justify what they do by attacking what I do, and if they didn't have a habit of demanding sympathy. I am only talking about a small number of them, but these tend to be the most voluable, and in my opinion they are the ones who give a bad name to self-publishing. (Could somebody please tell some of them that announcing that no one is buying your book is NOT the way to get readers interested?)

I do know self-published writers who are fine writers. One of my two best friends self-published her novel, and at the moment I'm in the process of self-publishing some of my backlist. So I obviously have nothing against self-published writers as a group. But I have also met a lot of people who have chosen that route because they have more money than they have time for writing (which is to say, they don't make time for writing), and who think they can buy their way into a writing career. They drag down the general level of quality and then complain that no one is giving them enough respect.

I think these particular writers do far more to harm the reputation of their fellow self-published writers than any snobbery on the part of the rest of the publishing world.

[DMatusik]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

They drag down the general level of quality and then complain that no one is giving them enough respect.

I think these particular writers do far more to harm the reputation of their fellow self-published writers than any snobbery on the part of the rest of the publishing world.

You know, I proposed a similar concept in this very forum a while back and was jumped on. Conclusion - there are people who can argue both side of this equation without ever coming to any agreeable resolution. There needs to be respect on both sides - taking one extreme and using it for the basis of an argument is never logical.