# Sue Grafton Interview (merged)



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

My interview with Sue Grafton. http://louisvilleky.com/2012/08/louisville-author-spotlight-welcomes-sue-grafton/

I hesitate to offer more commentary than this, but suffice it to say there is an indie author component. And I interviewed John Locke for this same column months ago.

Enjoy.


----------



## cecilia_writer (Dec 28, 2010)

Thanks for posting this - it was interesting. Actually I gave up on Sue Grafton's books a while ago, having read one too many of them and lost interest! I liked your point about whether she regretted starting an alphabet series. It sounds like a grim slog through all the letters. I felt sort of the same about the Janet Evanovich series (the Stephanie Plum ones) and I was really pleased to find some new ones in the local library that had different characters.
As a series writer myself, I must remember this lesson about when to stop!
I suppose it's not surprising that someone who has come through the traditional publishing process should feel a bit defensive about the whole topic of indie authors. But I feel that she is generalising from a small amount of experience.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2012)

Yet another author stuck in the last century.  Self-publishing has not only spurred me to work harder, it has helped me to take more responsibility for my writing and my career.


----------



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

T.L Haddix, yep, he's local.  I don't know how near Louisville you are, but get in touch with me if you want to be interviewed, as well.  Happy to have you, although there's a bit of a wait.  The email and all that stuff's at the end of each article.  And you can find John's interview by clicking on my name at the top.  It brings up all my articles on the site.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Having judged hundreds of contest entries and beta read for God knows how many more, I think she's right in some areas. I have yet to give advice and have anyone but my CPs say "You're right. I need to learn more. I need more practice." They've all assumed I was wrong and even though they may have started writing last week, they were fantastic. And since no professional I know would mail off their book to her and ask for a quote, I'm guessing it's the less than desirable who have done so - that's her basis for her assumption. It's probably not pretty.

It is also insulting to people who take the time to learn craft for someone to assume Word processing program = Writer. Come on, don't tell me you haven't been insulted when someone you know - plumber, dentist, etc. - decides they're going to be a writer because of all the money you're making. 

Now, that being said, I don't agree that self-publishing is a sign of laziness. Certainly it is for some, but clearly not for all. But for authors who have been making big money for decades, I think everyone should give up on them "getting it." They're not going to. And quite frankly, I don't care if they do. More market share for me.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Jana, it's very generous of you to try to see through Grafton's filter on this issue. I can see where her opinions might be colored. Unfortunately, she doesn't come off as very gracious or generous in the interview. For that, her books will always seem not quite as inviting from now on. I really wish artists of any medium would find some humility when it comes to speaking about those who come after them. We, after all, are often their biggest fans...or at least used to be.

We talked about "those" type of people recently. At my glass conference this year, two artists I used to admire greatly have been put on my never buy from list due to ego and attitude. Sad really. Their art is beautiful, but their treatment of others and entitlement isn't something I'd like to reward.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

LOL Deanna - I guess I was being generous although that's not exactly normal for me in some areas, especially bad behavior. 

I honestly think there are two main reasons that big NY writers have that attitude - the first is fear of losing their gig and the second is an age thing - and I don't necessarily mean chronological age, but number of years as a trad pubbed author age. A lot of the people griping are older and have no desire to learn anything about the business of publishing. They've been catered to for decades. 

There are some that think being out of touch is somehow cool or cute. I don't get it.


----------



## Claudia Lefeve (Dec 17, 2010)

Enjoyed the interview, and while I was a little offended by Sue Grafton's thoughts on self-published authors, I decided to take her own advice: "I think we’d all be well-advised to ignore the opinions of others... It’s easy to be judgmental and critical; hard to be steadfast, conscientious, and inventive."


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Deanna Chase said:


> Unfortunately, she doesn't come off as very gracious or generous in the interview.


No, she doesn't. Probably for a very good reason.

I honestly wish people like her would just leave the issue alone. Assume you're talking to people who plan to write and query when you give advice, and leave it at that. There's no need to insult others. There just isn't. And it's not even sound advice.

It would be different if she told young writers to spend time learning the craft, experimenting with submission once they'd been writing for a while, and not to rush into self-publishing as a short-cut. That's good advice. Too many people do rush out and think they're brilliant--it's a fact. But saying that is so different than painting everyone who self-pubs as a lazy wannabe. To insult everyone who has self-published, and essentially dismiss it even though some make a living is just ridiculous. Also, she brought up Hocking and that type of success story as a rarity. Sure, it is. But why do so few people accept making a decent living as success? Why does it have to be millions of dollars and a trade-pub deal and not just a good living, or even an extra part-time income?

God, I am so over people with that attitude.

My compliments on an engaging interview--I don't want to belittle that. It was her remarks that soured me, not your interview in general.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

> Do you ever regret the alphabet series of titles? I've read some reviews that weren't so kind. Ever wish you could have just dropped the line, at, say, letter L?
> 
> Never. I'm sure every writer suffers unkind reviews. What does that have to do with anything? I love my work and I'm happy being challenged. I really didn't think the series would take off, but that's been a happy form of astonishment. I think we'd all be well-advised to ignore the opinions of others. There's always someone who wants to tear you down. Most of them haven't written even one book, let alone 22 so who cares about their point of view? It's easy to be judgmental and critical; hard to be steadfast, conscientious, and inventive.


Great advice.

And I don't think she's all that hard on self-pubbing. She sees what she sees, which is crappy work coming across her desk:



> Obviously, I'm not talking about the rare few writers who manage to break out. The indie success stories aren't the rule. They're the exception. The self-published books I've read are often amateurish. I've got one sitting on my desk right now and I've received hundreds of them over the years. Sorry about that, but it's the truth. The hard work is taking the rejection, learning the lessons, and mastering the craft over a period of time. I see way too many writers who complete one novel and start looking for the fame and fortune they're sure they're entitled to. To me, it seems disrespectful&#8230;that a 'wannabe' assumes it's all so easy s/he can put out a 'published novel' without bothering to read, study, or do the research. Learning to construct a narrative and create character, learning to balance pace, description, exposition, and dialogue takes a long time. This is not an quick do-it-yourself home project. Self-publishing is a short cut and I don't believe in short cuts when it comes to the arts. I compare self-publishing to a student managing to conquer Five Easy Pieces on the piano and then wondering if s/he's ready to be booked into Carnegie Hall. Don't get me started. Oops..you already did.


To which I wonder, why are crappy self-published books on her desk anyway? Like, does she read them? What kind of person would SEND their novel to Sue Grafton? I would NEVER EVER send one of my novels, unsolicited, to a trad-pubbed author. Never. Not a million years.

Maybe the true filter here is that people who send unsolicited crime novels to Sue Grafton are a little confused?


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

dalya said:


> Great advice.
> 
> And I don't think she's all that hard on self-pubbing. She sees what she sees, which is crappy work coming across her desk:


I think she's pretty hard on it when she tells people not to self-publish because that's as good as admitting they're too lazy to do the hard work.


----------



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

Thanks for the kind words about the interview.

I tried to be fair about her advice.  I truly believed that was SOLID five years ago.  In that five years, my prospects have changed a lot.  Hers really haven't, have they?  So why would she need to look outside what's working for her?  

Wish I'd thought to ask her about Jackie Collins' indie experiment.  Oh, well.


----------



## Claudia Lefeve (Dec 17, 2010)

RedTash said:


> Thanks for the kind words about the interview.
> I tried to be fair about her advice.


You're truly a class act, Red


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I honestly think there are two main reasons that big NY writers have that attitude - the first is fear of losing their gig and the second is an age thing - and I don't necessarily mean chronological age, but number of years as a trad pubbed author age. A lot of the people griping are older and have no desire to learn anything about the business of publishing. They've been catered to for decades.


I'm sure this is true, but for the life of me can't figure out why they are so scared. I mean really. Grafton and Picoult have a huge fan base, not to mention if they have any smarts at all, a load of cash behind them to hire someone to figure all the stuff out should they need to. They are smart women. Why put down other people? Unless they are just so out of touch they honestly think we are living in 2002 and not 2012.

All the writer's associations are circling the self-pub movement. I find it hard to believe they don't realize the business opportunity self-pubbing brings.

Red, I thought you did a fine job on the interview.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Deanna - perhaps they're all scared of that "brutal" 1500 words a day output level.....?

I think all the circling makes sense if you look at the organizations in terms of what they were established and are qualified to give advice on. They were all established to help writers further their careers. They were not established to help writers learn how to run a business. Those are two completely different things. Quite frankly, I wonder if there's really enough money and time for organizations to address both and do any kind of decent job at it.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Deanna - perhaps they're all scared of that "brutal" 1500 words a day output level.....?


Bahahahahah...that was funny.

I could just as easily characterize all older traditionally published authors are big ol' crabapples. But of course, that's silly. We are all individuals. Sue should look that word up, maybe she needs a refresher on what it takes to "make it". She certainly has no idea how hard I work, nor I her. So why even go there?

To me it signals a nasty undertone that she'd be careful to hide a little better. I was never a fan, so she loses nothing by insulting me in a collective manner. But you know, I'm sure there are lots of self-published authors that are fans and just went WTF


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

Joe Vasicek said:


> Yet another author stuck in the last century.  Self-publishing has not only spurred me to work harder, it has helped me to take more responsibility for my writing and my career.


But the point she's making is that most DON'T hone their craft. A lot of us do work vigorously to produce the best work possible, and we should. The process takes years to perfect, and some just think it's something anyone can do. Leslea says: "Bad books have a way of weeding themselves out of the marketplace." While this is true, is it fair for a reader to buy a "badly" written novel?

And for those who have polished their work to the best quality possible, one can learn a lot from her about negative reviews when she says: "I think we'd all be well-advised to ignore the opinions of others. There's always someone who wants to tear you down. Most of them haven't written even one book, let alone 22 so who cares about their point of view? It's easy to be judgmental and critical; hard to be steadfast, conscientious, and inventive."

Grafton has definitely paid her dues and has earned much success from working hard. We Indie authors can learn a lot from her.


----------



## kayakruthie (Jan 28, 2010)

At a seminar, I once asked Sue Grafton how she approaches rewriting.  She said, "I don't rewrite."  So there you go.  She's a delightful speaker, but I'd say take everything she says with a grain of salt.  She doesn't rewrite?  Pleeeeease.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2012)

LeonardDHilleyII said:


> But the point she's making is that most DON'T hone their craft. A lot of us do work vigorously to produce the best work possible, and we should. The process takes years to perfect, and some just think it's something anyone can do. Leslea says: "Bad books have a way of weeding themselves out of the marketplace." While this is true, is it fair for a reader to buy a "badly" written novel?
> 
> And for those who have polished their work to the best quality possible, one can learn a lot from her about negative reviews when she says: "I think we'd all be well-advised to ignore the opinions of others. There's always someone who wants to tear you down. Most of them haven't written even one book, let alone 22 so who cares about their point of view? It's easy to be judgmental and critical; hard to be steadfast, conscientious, and inventive."
> 
> Grafton has definitely paid her dues and has earned much success from working hard. We Indie authors can learn a lot from her.


Indie writers who don't hone their craft are going to spend a lot of time in the school of hard knocks. And if they do manage to make it big right out of the starting gate, then maybe the advice to spend years honing their craft was misplaced. Of course we all need to continually work on perfecting our craft, but if people love your work, then you're probably doing something right. And if they don't, then you learn as you go along.

Either way, I think she's out of touch. Great interview, though--thanks.

ETA: I don't deny she's got some good advice in there too, particularly on the subject of reviews. A lot of writers can have good advice in one area and be completely off in another. When it comes to her views on self-publishing, it's pretty clear that she hasn't yet caught up to the times.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

kayakruthie said:


> At a seminar, I once asked Sue Grafton how she approaches rewriting. She said, "I don't rewrite." So there you go. She's a delightful speaker, but I'd say take everything she says with a grain of salt. She doesn't rewrite? Pleeeeease.


What's so hard to believe about this? A lot of long-term authors don't rewrite. Once you've achieved a certain level of skill, it's possible to write good books on the first draft if that's the kind of writer you are (some writers enjoy rewriting, but not all of us do).


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Deanna - perhaps they're all scared of that "brutal" 1500 words a day output level.....?


lol, maybe.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

kayakruthie said:


> At a seminar, I once asked Sue Grafton how she approaches rewriting. She said, "I don't rewrite." So there you go. She's a delightful speaker, but I'd say take everything she says with a grain of salt. She doesn't rewrite? Pleeeeease.


Exactly. Ray Bradbury is a hero of mine. He remained staunchly anti-computer until his death, urging writers to use typewriters instead.

A grain of salt is good to always have on hand.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

If poor Sue had simply used the word "many" and "some" a few times, the answers wouldn't have had the same effect.

I mean, come on. We all know "many" people think self-pubbing is absolutely horrible, but then a little switch flips over, and they suddenly believe it to be the one true path to instant riches. They load up that unvarnished bad boy, and say, "Once I go viral, I'll roll the profits into some proper editing and cover art."

How many people putting out their first book on Amazon would that describe? Few of the KB folks, for sure, but of the unfiltered stuff that just pops on up there, wouldn't you say it's a good-sized chunk?

We shouldn't be so offended when people accurately describe the vast majority of the group we're in, eh?


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2012)

I'm not offended at all by her comments.  She's certainly entitled to her own opinion, as we all are.  But I don't think she has a grasp on how much the publishing scene has changed.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

T.L. Haddix said:


> The argument has been hashed, rehashed, and hashed again


MMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Hash browns!

/Homer Simpson


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

I have to question why it is that Traditionally published authors, many of them well respected (who's bottom lines are not affected at all by self-publishing), feel the need to bash self-publishing. What I mean to say is, who cares? Does it really make a bit of difference to how they do their job? That's the thing that really bothers me in this whole debate over who is better. It really doesn't matter at all. We're all writing books, we're all hoping people will read them. Why does there have to be such animosity for someone who is not doing it the same way _you _are? Seriously, it is so petty.

Sorry, rant done. I'll get off my soap box and go write something fun now.


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I don't read articles like this anymore, where "professional" or "successful" people in the business put down self-publishing--not worth raising my bloodpressure over. 

Judging by the comments of those who did read it, I'd just have to shake my head. Is there some kind of meme going around the trade publishing world, or a clause in the contracts, something that makes these people go off like that?

Seriously, these same "lazy" people she talks about have _always_ been there. It's just that before self-publishing came along they were languishing in the dregs of the slush pile. They either gave up sending manuscripts in, or they went to vanity publishers.

Nowadays, they languish at the bottom of the new slush pile--Amazon, B & N, etc. In the future, it may turn out that they give up when they don't make sales, or maybe they learn to write better.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

She wasn't gracious in her answers, but I can see where she might be coming from. I just don't think she gets it. I think she's so far removed from Indie Publishing that she really has no frame of reference. It wasn't an option when she was first trying to be published, and until recently, it was very much looked down on as something no good author would ever do. I think a lot of authors in her shoes who had to jump through hoops to get published, to keep improving their work until it was good enough, may be bristling at this new world where it's easy to throw a book up on Kindle and start making money. To them it seems like an unfair short cut, that these new writers haven't paid their dues.

I just see it as a shift. As others have mentioned, the slush pile has moved online, and at least you get paid money while your book is out there, instead of waiting painfully for months on end for an agent or editor to respond to a submission. 

There are no doubt books that are being released before they are really ready, but so what? That is the author's choice, and ultimately the market determines what happens next.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

W is for Who cares what Sue Grafton thinks...


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

LOL Adam! Now that one, I might read.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Sheila_Guthrie said:


> LOL Adam! Now that one, I might read.


You should. It's a fine read. The Great Cosmic Gods of the Universe all took time out of their busy schedules of creating galaxies and sucking up space matter just to make sure it was published!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I think Sue means well in that interview, like my grandmother would be and in many ways they are just behind the times. A bit ignorant about some things. Her paragraph of advice would be helpful to some or many who just want to immediately write and self publish and...get rich quick. 

Most won't get rich quick throwing up a poor story. In fact, I don't know of any who do? Usually they have a good story that readers relate to and isn't that most writers try to do?


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

What a horrible, ill-informed, disrespectful attitude. And lazy. It does make me sad, because reading her alphabet series was one of my major influences. It still will be, and I'll still read the upcoming books because reading is part of learning my craft. But my "hero-worship" has taken a sharp nose-dive.


----------



## Nicole Ciacchella (May 21, 2012)

I really like to think about the flip side of the equation here: the readers.  People are buying indie books.  In fact, people are buying TONS of indie books.  It's as if those who dismiss indie books are telling readers, "Don't you know you're buying junk??"  Thanks, but I'll make my own decisions about what equal quality and what doesn't.

I'm not just an author, I'm also an avid reader, and I like having many, many more choices now.  I like that I can take a chance on a book and, if I don't like it, I've only spent a few dollars on it, as opposed to having spent several times that on a traditionally published novel.  The simple fact of the matter is that I've started buying books again, something I haven't done in years because I find indie books affordable.  In fact, the only books I do buy are: 1) Indie books and 2) Very low-priced traditionally published books that are offered as a Kindle Daily Deal or some such.  If I want to read a traditionally published book that costs $10 or more in ebook format, I go to the library.  I've been a very loyal patron of my local libraries for many, many years now precisely because book buying became far too cost prohibitive for me, considering I read upwards of 70 books a year.

What's more, I like knowing that I'm supporting someone.  I don't get that same feeling with traditionally published authors, because I know they're only getting a very small cut of the profits.

There's also the matter of choice.  Publishers can only publish so many novels per year.  So what if you're a reader who likes a specific, niche genre?  That means you don't get much choice.  Thanks to the advent of ebook publishing, those same readers now have many more choices available to them.

So, yeah, I'm kind of annoyed by what Grafton said, which is a shame because I've been reading her series ever since she published the first book, and I'm sorry that my view of her will now be colored by what she said.  At the end of the day, though, I don't care what she thinks.  When she became an author, she didn't have the same options available, so she had no choice but to go the traditional route.  I, on the other hand, did tons of research and put a lot of thought into my decisions to self-publish, and I couldn't be happier about the fact that I had the freedom to choose which route to take.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

Just wanted to say I'm amazed at how many writers are in the Louisville area.

Wouldn't it be great to meet for coffee some day?


----------



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

K. A. Jordan said:


> Just wanted to say I'm amazed at how many writers are in the Louisville area.
> 
> Wouldn't it be great to meet for coffee some day?


Yes. Same here. I am *boggled* by how many are here. Email me anytime.


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

Ms Grafton's probably spent her professional career bombarded by crap from hopeful "wannabes," so her dismissive tone may be understandable in that context.

I think, rather than lambasting her for that dismissive tone, which is the easy response, we would do better to consider carefully what she is saying, even if it requires a hard, appraising look in the mirror. It's just possible that her many years in the traditional publishing industry have given her some small insight into the writing/publication process!

In the traditional publishing model, the "wannabe" writer is forced by endless rejection to "improve." The writer is compelled to face up to the fact that his or her work just isn't up to standard. The writer must then buckle down and bring that work up to standard. Eventually, through an arduous and lengthy process, the writer manages to produce work that meets the professional standards demanded of traditionally published authors. (I'm well aware of (and sympathetic to) the contention that traditional publishing itself doesn't meet its own standards, but that's another argument!)

In the self-published model, Ms Grafton is spot-on -- it's the lazy way out. There is no rejection. The writer is not forced to "improve." The writer simply slaps a cover, a blurb, and a price tag on whatever steaming pile he's just churned out, and he can release it into the world proudly displayed next to all the rest of the steaming crap. And even if he's hired an editor, that editor is being paid to edit _that_ book, not potentially _reject_ it. So the editor maybe blows on it a bit until the steam scatters, and it's just plain old vanilla crap with no objectionable typos or grammatical howlers. Ready for the world! (And the proud writer never even had to "improve." He's ready to start writing that next steaming pile that's no better than the first steaming pile. He's got a big smile on his face, this writer. He really loves himself! Cause he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it ... people love him!  )

And I'm sorry, but the Kindle Store _is bursting at the gills_ with steaming crap. I have so very painfully tried to find good stuff there. At best, I've found fine mediocrity. Or mediocre fineness. (Unsure of the most politic phrase here!  ) I've only been at it a few months, true, but it shouldn't take anyone this long to find a good book. I can find a good book at my local Barnes & Noble in less than an hour.

And I shall agree with anyone right away that there is _plenty_ of mediocrity from traditional publishers; but on the other hand, it is not at all difficult to find _good_, even _great_ work put out on a regular basis by traditional publishers (many of them small and independent -- i.e., not Big 6 and not from NY).

The point of my harsh tone here is this: _writers need to be rejected._ There is a cycle of building and destruction and rebuilding that _creates_ an artist. This cycle is broken with self-publishing. There's no destruction phase. It's all building.

And I want to state: having zero or close to zero sales in the Kindle Store does not count as "rejection." The readers aren't deciding anything there. What's being decided is the efficacy of the author's marketing campaign, or the vastness and quality of his or her social network, or Amazon's algorithms, or whatever it is that fuels memes and Internet viral phenomena, etc. Readers simply won't buy a book they can't find or that hasn't magically found them through the various propagation tools.

Besides, if a writer has zero sales for his ebook in the Kindle Store, does that tell him that his craft needs improvement? No, it tells him that he needs _50_ ebooks in the Kindle Store in order to achieve the Tipping Point of DWS Hot VooDoo Sales Mojo!

And the sad thing is, this hypothetical writer is probably right. He'll probably _get_ the sales he wants when he gets to 50 titles because of all those mysterious forces at work, those algorithms and network effects; and the gullible readers will continue to expect less and less from their authors. They'll satisfy themselves with all that steaming indie crap because it's cheaper than the traditionally published crap, allowing them to consume _more_ crap in _less_ time than they ever dreamed possible!

(Postscript: Please note that I am given to rampant hyperbole on a regular basis. It's possible I'm exaggerating things a _wee_ bit up there, but it's for _effect_, you know? I'm all about _effect_!)


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Shelley Altamont said:


> The point of my harsh tone here is this: _writers need to be rejected._ There is a cycle of building and destruction and rebuilding that _creates_ an artist. This cycle is broken with self-publishing. There's no destruction phase. It's all building.


Can an artist be created in no other way?

B.


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Can an artist be created in no other way?


Ha ha! Perhaps you could suggest one? I'm open to it!


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Shelley Altamont said:


> Ha ha! Perhaps you could suggest one? I'm open to it!


Perhaps critique does not have to be intrinsically linked to rejection.

Perhaps feedback from writing classes, critique groups, trusted friends, beta readers, and/or paid editorial staff could be substituted for the lengthy (and often feedback-free) modern rejection cycle. This is how authors did it before publishing houses existed, and I still find works like _The Odyssey_ riveting.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: Self-publishing is a proud tradition that reaches back millennia. Industrialized publishing is the recent oddity. A writer must do only what is right for their story. They can feel free to ignore everything else.

B.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> Perhaps critique does not have to be intrinsically linked to rejection.
> 
> Perhaps feedback from writing classes, critique groups, trusted friends, beta readers, and/or paid editorial staff could be substituted for the lengthy (and often feedback-free) modern rejection cycle. This is how authors did it before publishing houses existed, and I still find works like _The Odyssey_ riveting.


I was going to say something similar.

Also in today's climate of no response means no, how exactly does that help a writer grow? Maybe it helps them develop a thick skin, but it doesn't help them refine their craft.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Writers who are driven to learn and get better will learn and get better. Going through the traditional meat grinder is just one method of learning, and it's a rather brutal and inefficient method of learning.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> Writers who are driven to learn and get better will learn and get better. Going through the traditional meat grinder is just one method of learning, and it's a rather brutal and inefficient method of learning.


I'll second that! There are plenty of methods of honing your craft. And any which way you do it, that is the right path for you.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Shelley Altamont said:


> In the self-published model, Ms Grafton is spot-on -- it's the lazy way out. There is no rejection. The writer is not forced to "improve." The writer simply slaps a cover, a blurb, and a price tag on whatever steaming pile he's just churned out, and he can release it into the world proudly displayed next to all the rest of the steaming crap. And even if he's hired an editor, that editor is being paid to edit _that_ book, not potentially _reject_ it. So the editor maybe blows on it a bit until the steam scatters, and it's just plain old vanilla crap with no objectionable typos or grammatical howlers. Ready for the world! (And the proud writer never even had to "improve." He's ready to start writing that next steaming pile that's no better than the first steaming pile. He's got a big smile on his face, this writer. He really loves himself! Cause he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it ... people love him!  )


Speak for yourself. What you describe is certainly not how I work.



> And I'm sorry, but the Kindle Store _is bursting at the gills_ with steaming crap. I have so very painfully tried to find good stuff there. At best, I've found fine mediocrity. Or mediocre fineness. (Unsure of the most politic phrase here!  ) I've only been at it a few months, true, but it shouldn't take anyone this long to find a good book. I can find a good book at my local Barnes & Noble in less than an hour.
> 
> And I shall agree with anyone right away that there is _plenty_ of mediocrity from traditional publishers; but on the other hand, it is not at all difficult to find _good_, even _great_ work put out on a regular basis by traditional publishers (many of them small and independent -- i.e., not Big 6 and not from NY).


Maybe the problem is your taste in books? I've had my share of terrible books, in both types of publishing. Finding a writer you love is not easy, at least for me it's not.



> The point of my harsh tone here is this: _writers need to be rejected._ There is a cycle of building and destruction and rebuilding that _creates_ an artist. This cycle is broken with self-publishing. There's no destruction phase. It's all building.


Writers get rejected in self-publishing, just at a different stage. By customers. But see, here's the thing you're completely missing - some people like that crap you call crap. Like I said, perhaps it's YOU? Because most writers get some sales. Maybe they don't make it big, and maybe they don't become best-sellers. But they still sell stuff. Which by definition means someone thinks their stuff IS NOT crap.



> And I want to state: having zero or close to zero sales in the Kindle Store does not count as "rejection."


Says WHO? YOU? Why would another writer give a crap about what you think their rejection should look like?



> Besides, if a writer has zero sales for his ebook in the Kindle Store, does that tell him that his craft needs improvement? No, it tells him that he needs _50_ ebooks in the Kindle Store in order to achieve the Tipping Point of DWS Hot VooDoo Sales Mojo!


And like I said, if people are buying them, then people must like that crap you call crap. Which means, to some people - it's not crap.



> And the sad thing is, this hypothetical writer is probably right. He'll probably _get_ the sales he wants when he gets to 50 titles because of all those mysterious forces at work, those algorithms and network effects; and the gullible readers will continue to expect less and less from their authors. They'll satisfy themselves with all that steaming indie crap because it's cheaper than the traditionally published crap, allowing them to consume _more_ crap in _less_ time than they ever dreamed possible!


Which means your point is mute. Who cares what you think of another writer's writing? It's not up to your standards? Don't buy it. If they're happy with where they're at, let them be.



> (Postscript: Please note that I am given to rampant hyperbole on a regular basis. It's possible I'm exaggerating things a _wee_ bit up there, but it's for _effect_, you know? I'm all about _effect_!)


Right. What a waste of time, then.

(postscript: Please note that too, was all for _effect_. I'm all about _effect _as well.)


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

JanneCO, I was responding to the hyperbolic dogpile that was occurring upon poor ol' Ms Grafton's head. I figured hyperbole was necessary to combat it!

Her opinion of self-publishing was solicited by the interviewer, not offered gratuitously. It was part of a conversation. And yet, respondents here felt the need to bash her rather than consider her reasons.

In any case, I have found a few things worth reading among the _crap_, so that was an exaggeration.  And I always maintain a hope of finding great books.

As for the rejection cycle, often the reasons for rejection have nothing to do with the quality of the work. It's just that there are so many submissions! It's about as difficult to get your work noticed by editors as it is, say, to get your work noticed by readers ...


----------



## Jeroen Steenbeeke (Feb 3, 2012)

I don't think I have much to add to this conversation, but I can understand Sue Grafton's reasoning considering her perspective. If all she ever sees of indie writers is crap, then it's hard to imagine indie writers producing good quality work. I don't agree of course, but I can understand the reasoning.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2012)

Shelley Altamont said:


> Ms Grafton's probably spent her professional career bombarded by crap from hopeful "wannabes," so her dismissive tone may be understandable in that context.
> 
> I think, rather than lambasting her for that dismissive tone, which is the easy response, we would do better to consider carefully what she is saying, even if it requires a hard, appraising look in the mirror. It's just possible that her many years in the traditional publishing industry have given her some small insight into the writing/publication process!
> 
> ...


I wasn't offended at all by Ms. Grafton's comments, but this post makes my hackles rise.

There is nothing easier or lazier about self-publishing. The biggest difference is that it's not like trying to win the lottery. When I give myself a good, hard look in the mirror--and yes, I do this frequently--I do not see someone who's lazy. Rather, I see someone who is working his *ss off and taking responsibility for his career.

The idea that a rejection/acceptance from a publisher is fundamentally a judgment of quality is both misguided and self-destructive. It's a business decision--nothing more. Yes, they reject most of the truly awful works, but they also have a track record of rejecting many of the truly excellent works as well. Good writing is neither necessary nor sufficient to get picked up by a major publisher, and never was.

And honestly, the idea that you have to run through a gauntlet of hope-crushing rejections before you can call yourself a true writer...that just makes me feel sad. There are far too many negative and destructive influences in this world already for us to feel that we need to flagellate ourselves for our art.


----------



## Jeroen Steenbeeke (Feb 3, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> And honestly, the idea that you have to run through a gauntlet of hope-crushing rejections before you can call yourself a true writer...that just makes me feel sad.


That particular bit played a large part in my decision not to even attempt to follow a traditional publishing route.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Joe Vasicek said:


> The idea that a rejection/acceptance from a publisher is fundamentally a judgment of quality is both misguided and self-destructive. It's a business decision--nothing more. Yes, they reject most of the truly awful works, but they also have a track record of rejecting many of the truly excellent works as well. Good writing is neither necessary nor sufficient to get picked up by a major publisher, and never was.


I agree 100% and would add that publishers don't make decisions based off good writing. They can (and will) edit your writing. They make decisions based on trends and potential profit.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Shelly I think Sue was misinformed about all indie authors, but you do take it much farther. Sure there is some crap, but there are also thousands of good books too. 

Back when Sue first got published the publishing business was a very different business and I can understand her allegiance to it--it's what got her to where she is today. If she were to begin trying to be published today she might be singing a very different tune. Today her view is myopic and I understand she's 73 and a bit behind the times. 

Today there are many roads to Rome, not just one.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

This cannard about quality and the Big 6 is just baffling how we, those who have chosen another route, continue to perpetuate even among ourselves. 

As was pointed out by Joe Vasicek being picked up by a publisher is a risk assessment in investment. Genre and a certain level of quality of idea or execution is what is judged. There are too many examples of ghost written books about celebs and the current crop of fanfic knockoffs to know that a publisher decides on what is going to make them a return and we also see that it is not an exact science. The already debunked arguments by those trying to defend the collusion with Apple over price fixing stand in mute contrast to what we can plainly see; what sells and what they bargain will sell is what gets the contract. The rejection cycle producing quality in the end is nonsense. Reality is they can be picky and have been picky, producing this idea they are picking quality by self fulfilled prophecy. What they pick must be quality, right? What they pick is what is going to sell based on trends and marketing to the biggest mass of the market they can. 

Is Grafton a good writer? Yes, if by the self fulfilled prophecy of the current trad paradigm or by practice who can say. I think the dues paying that the current bigs in the trad world had to do is what is at the basis of this stinky attitude towards the unwashed masses of indies that are selling works without the aegis of this cycle that is only needed if you survive on print books now.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

phil1861 said:


> Is Grafton a good writer? Yes, if by the self fulfilled prophecy of the current trad paradigm or by practice who can say. I think the dues paying that the current bigs in the trad world had to do is what is at the basis of this stinky attitude towards the unwashed masses of indies that are selling works without the aegis of this cycle that is only needed if you survive on print books now.


Yeah, I think you're right. They probably waded through a lot of BS to get to the middle of the pond and they see us jumping on a raft and paddling out towards them, avoiding many of the issues they had to navigate. (Oddly, I'm now playing Frogger in my head...)

When you look at it that way it comes off sorta sad. I get it, they had to do these things and it was difficult. But times have changed. Not _are changing_. Literally - _have changed_. That old way of doing things is gone, and even if lots of writers still want to go traditional, that old way is _still gone_. And it's not coming back barring the zombie apocalypse shutting down the internet.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

the zombie apacolypse is always a threat!

As I wait for the next season of Walking Dead I'm reminded of the thought of 'what a boring existence, no internet!' Maybe that's why one character or other is always doing something stupid every other episode, they aren't online saying something stupid.


----------



## Lisa J. Yarde (Jul 15, 2010)

There are more ignorant generalizations about SP on the internet than I care to read, but the most stupid from Grafton are the blanket assumptions about laziness and SP being the "easy way out" - as if writing, editing, getting feedback from crit groups and betas, learning formatting, cover design, interior layout and ebook conversion can be done with a wave of a magic wand. If SP is supposed to be easy, I just might be doing it the wrong way.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

Of course she's correct.  Of course there are many, many writers that need to hone their craft, that need to explore what it means to be a writer ... however, she got it wrong when she aligned that notion with Indies -- and Indies alone.  There are PLENTY, plenty, plenty of trade published writers who write boring, sluggish books ... 

She comes off as very self-righteous and smug ... two qualities that she shouldn't be.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

JanneCO said:


> I agree 100% and would add that publishers don't make decisions based off good writing. They can (and will) edit your writing. They make decisions based on trends and potential profit.


 Publishers are looking for good writing first, hopefully within a hot trend.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

PamelaKelley said:


> Publishers are looking for good writing first, hopefully within a hot trend.


_Good writing_ is almost unquantifiable - so no, not really. They're looking for someone who can tell a story - yes I'll accept that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2012)

PamelaKelley said:


> Publishers are looking for good writing first, hopefully within a hot trend.


No. Publishers are running a business, and like any business, the overarching objective is to make a profit. Storytelling and good writing are just means to that end.


----------



## Dave Adams (Apr 25, 2012)

I could generalize, too, and say authors like Sue Grafton that have made it rehash the same junk, and the publishers would rather take the same-old-same-old from a name than try something new. Considering she's doing the alphabet thing, and doesn't rewrite (probably has an editor for that) might confirm this is the case.

Considering I've never read one of her books, this would be unfair...but she hasn't read mine either, and I have been anything but lazy over twenty-plus years of writing, so that is simply cheap shot.  Anyone that lumps whole groups does that group, and themsleves, a disservice.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> _Good writing_ is almost unquantifiable - so no, not really. They're looking for someone who can tell a story - yes I'll accept that.


Yes, and there is where we find where the breakdown happens in story tellers as we all have unique visions and ways of telling those stories. Trad pubs gamble that X story will sell. That is it. What the Kindle has done is shine light on this whole business and expose the hitherto lie of trad contract = good writer/author.

I have 10K to invest in a money making venture. I solicit entries. I choose who I think is going to make me the safest money. I produce the book and invest most of that into marketing and production and some to the lucky winner of my "lottery". Suddenly, I've produced "quality". Perhaps I missed and the book doesn't sell. I move on. When you have the monopoly on producing the books that people buy, you establish what becomes quality in the absence of another delivery method that can compete.

Now, consumers are deciding what they want to read without having to even think about who produced it and all from their own homes.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

As William Goldman says, "Nobody knows anything."

It's all about media companies creating scarcity. Always has been.

They're the gatekeepers: they let a few titles through the gates every year. Therefore, they create scarcity. They don't create quality. Or art. The writers do that, and for every piece of quality that gets through, there are dozens of pigs wearing lipstick.

Because nobody knows anything. Otherwise the Big Six would turn out nothing but artistic, bestselling works, and movie studios would only release quality hits, TV networks would have only high quality shows, instead of ten seasons of _Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman_ (or insert name of show you hate.) 

So this notion that it's the _Gatekeepers_ that create the artists is just a lot of nonsense.

It's like saying, it's the miners that create the gold.

Nobody knows anything. Including me. Including Ms. Grafton.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

PamelaKelley said:


> Publishers are looking for good writing first, hopefully within a hot trend.


This is true of small imprints. It is simply not true of the Big 6. There is no vetting. The big 6 are looking for numbers. The irony is the big 6 do little market research so don't actually know what might sell. Hence the deluge of copycat dreck. Without their inside track, overblown advertising, and discounts with big retailers, the big 6 would have gone Chapter 11 long ago.

And having an "alphabet series", churning out pulp fiction, does not qualify *Sue-Who? *to assess anyone else's writing ability.

If you've ever attended a pitch conference, the reps sent from Big 6 publishers are 20somethings with minimal experience. They are pathetically excited to be at the conference, let alone out of the office. That's a "gatekeeper"? Puhleeze. What a joke.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

BRONZEAGE said:


> If you've ever attended a pitch conference, the reps sent from Big 6 publishers are 20somethings with minimal experience. They are pathetically excited to be at the conference, let alone out of the office. That's a "gatekeeper"? Puhleeze. What a joke.


I'm going to disagree. While writing for Dorchester was a bust as far as actually getting paid for what I wrote (until I self published it), working with my editor (and yes, she looked like she was 12) there honed my timing, pacing and character/plot development more than I'd ever have achieved through workshops and CPs. Some people are just experts in drawing out the very best in your work (my agent is another), and if you're fortunate enough to work with them, it will elevate your writing.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I'm going to disagree. While writing for Dorchester was a bust as far as actually getting paid for what I wrote (until I self published it), working with my editor (and yes, she looked like she was 12) there honed my timing, pacing and character/plot development more than I'd ever have achieved through workshops and CPs. Some people are just experts in drawing out the very best in your work (my agent is another), and if you're fortunate enough to work with them, it will elevate your writing.


Ah, but that was an experienced editor. And experienced editors are not unique to the big 6 nor held captive in NYC.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

BRONZEAGE said:


> And experienced editors are not unique to the big 6 nor held captive in NYC.


Of course not. And how many indie writers are hiring them - NOT for line editing or proofing, but for developmental and content editing? I'm guess the number is very, very low, especially in new authors, the ones who need it the most.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Of course not. And how many indie writers are hiring them - NOT for line editing or proofing, but for developmental and content editing? I'm guess the number is very, very low, especially in new authors, the ones who need it the most.


Yes, per earlier posts, there is now an online slush pile. A few people hitting Upload too soon. Well, more than a few.

That still doesn't make a case ( as implied by the Interview comments) that aspiring authors should improve by building a stack of rejection letters.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Of course not. And how many indie writers are hiring them - NOT for line editing or proofing, but for developmental and content editing? I'm guess the number is very, very low, especially in new authors, the ones who need it the most.


We're starting to get drawn into the same old circle again. How many authors submitting to the publishing industry ever get to the stage where a developmental edit is offered? Very few. How many indie authors get quality editing? Very few. How many authors succeed via ANY path? Very few.

If we agree that creative destruction is critical to the development of an artist, the avenue that offers the most constructive criticism at the fastest rate would be the superior one, but people need to make their own decisions on how to improve their craft-or if improving their craft is even a priority. I don't care how the sausage is made. I just want to read quality stories.

B.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

BRONZEAGE said:


> That still doesn't make a case ( as implied by the Interview comments) that aspiring authors should improve by building a stack of rejection letters.


I never said it did, although if you infer "rejection" to mean "someone who knows more than me said my work isn't ready" then yeah, maybe that's exactly what they should do.


----------



## B. Justin Shier (Apr 1, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I never said it did, although if you infer "rejection" to mean "someone who knows more than me said my work isn't ready" then yeah, maybe that's exactly what they should do.


I can divide the classes I took in college into two groups.

Group A: The ones that handed back graded tests with comments.

Group B: The ones that handed back a score.

I learned a lot from Group A classes. I passed a lot of Group B classes.

B.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I never said it did, although if you infer "rejection" to mean "someone who knows more than me said my work isn't ready" then yeah, maybe that's exactly what they should do.


That assumes that _Batman _reads all the _Robin _ queries. That isn't true of the query/rejection processs and querying doesn't give Robin the input that Robin needs. Over half of queries go unanswered. The querying process itself isn't feedback.

My comments are directed at the interview. In terms of your response: 
The Interview implies that the old model/ process is the only valid one. That isn't true. It doesn't matter if you had a Dorchester editor. Robin doesn't have a Dorchester editor, but doesn't mean Robin cannot write or that Robin is lazy. It does mean that Robin doesn't have to hold his/her breath for decades waiting for a nonexistent validation from the big 6.

And now, my limit for virtual exchanges on virtual issues has been reached. I'm planning a trip across the pond to pour a bronze sword. For real.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I can divide the classes I took in college into two groups.
> 
> Group A: The ones that handed back graded tests with comments.
> 
> ...


I totally agree. It's one of the reasons I hate the Golden Heart and RITA contests although I understand they can't get enough people to judge as it is. That would only get worse if they had to leave comments.

I was/am supremely fortunate to have had a woman who studied under Jack Bickham (Scene and Structure) take me on as her student. I guarantee you, I would never have sold a book or it would have taken me years longer without her help.


----------



## Nicole Ciacchella (May 21, 2012)

Gutman said:


> Because nobody knows anything. Otherwise the Big Six would turn out nothing but artistic, bestselling works, and movie studios would only release quality hits, TV networks would have only high quality shows, instead of ten seasons of _Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman_ (or insert name of show you hate.)


Wait, this _isn't_ what happens in the real world? 



There are two big things I like about self-publishing: it empowers me as an author, and it empowers readers. When MySpace was the place to be and a bunch of bands and singers were getting discovered there because fans like them so much, I cheered. I like democracy in my consumerism. I like not being limited by what a select few decide to offer. Thanks to the Internet, people are making music that would otherwise never have been heard, and authors are writing books that would otherwise never have been read. I can't wait until this spreads to the movie industry. And if you've never been there, you really ought to give Etsy a try. Before the Internet, we pretty much had to buy mass-produced goods, but now artists have a marketplace for their hand-crafted goods.

I recently got an ice cream maker, and I think what excites me about it more than anything is knowing that I can choose exactly what goes in the ice cream/frozen yogurt/sorbet. I don't have to go to the grocery store and be limited by what's in the freezer case. I can mix together my own ingredients and have exactly what I want. Some people are happy with just choosing what's in the freezer case and I say more power to them. They can buy their ice cream at the store, I can make mine at home, and everyone is happy.

The fact of the matter is that living in a world with both traditional publishing and self publishing means consumers have an unprecedented amount of choice, so if some people want to stick with novels from traditional publishers, I wish them well, but that's no longer the only option. If you ask me, this is just as exciting a time to be a reader as it is to be an author.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

BRONZEAGE said:


> My comments are directed at the interview. In terms of your response:
> The Interview implies that the old model/ process is the only valid one.


No, that's not what I meant at all. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I think that ANYONE who knows more than you can help you improve your work. I don't think it's possible to improve when you don't know what you're doing and what's wrong. So criticism (ie rejection) from those that know more than you is essential. How you get to that criticism is your own journey.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

Nicole Ciacchella said:


> If you ask me, this is just as exciting a time to be a reader as it is to be an author.


I totally agree. The choices, both as a business person and a consumer, are better now than I've ever known. Makes me very happy.

I totally love etsy, too.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

xtine said:


> Though I agree in essence with what you say, I don't think querying and getting form rejections that say "....wasn't for me....subjective....good luck....hope this finds a home....etc etc" is in any way conducive to improving one's writing.


I totally agree. When I was querying, I got some rejections that were quite literally red stamped replies on my own letter. However, I did get quite a bit of quality feedback.

But that's still not the entire point I'm making. When you're traditionally published, you STILL get rejected - even by your current house and current editor. Someone is constantly overlooking your work to see where it can be made better/more marketable. Unless you have a network of qualified people or are paying for that service, you do not get that feedback as an indie author. And I do think it's critical for improvement. Indie authors must find a way to get the education and feedback necessary to learn craft. Otherwise, the Internet will continue to flood with crap.

Look at all those fools who are dead serious trying out for American Idol but would make dogs cringe. Someone a LONG time ago needed to tell them just how awful they are. Instead, they have family and friends telling them how great they are. I suspect many indie artists, in all forms, are much like that.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2012)

Quote:

*"Publishers are looking for good writing first"*

They were NOT looking in the pile of manuscripts hopeful writers sent them over the years.
I've hear two many stories of manuscripts being pulled out of envelopes by mail room workers and immediately stuffed in the enclosed return envelopes the same day with form rejection slips.

In an effort to trim their costs, publishers insisted that writers find an agent who would perform the function of their mail room workers. Then the agents' mail staff largely did the same thing.

There are many hopeful writers who butted heads against the publishing wall for years. Then they turned to the new ebook technology and started selling the books that had been rejected before.

Now indie authors pose big competition to the established authors who still don't get that 70% royalties beat 15%, and monthly payments are better than quarterly or semi-annual payments.

And indie authors don't have to battle against "used" copies of their ebooks.


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

The idea that creative excellence only comes through repeated rejection is plain silly. No, it's not just silly. It's idiotic. 

Grafton's hubris in making that remark reminds me a great deal of several of my professors in grad school. When they stuck to what they knew in class, they came across as wise and measured (and rightly so). However, when they strayed away from their disciplines to pontificate on whatever topic it was that they wanted to pontificate on, they frequently came across as clueless. They assumed their PhD and deeply narrow knowledge in their field gave them the right to pontificate in all other fields and still command our respect as students.

Creativity and excellence flower in countless different ways. Some people are born with it (a la Mozart composing at the age of 5--how much crushing, repeated rejection did he receive from ages 1-4?). Some people grow into it (William Saroyan's first published story was rejected around 7,000 times). Some people take a really long time to grow into it (Alan Rickman didn't get his first film role until he was 46--he loafed around the theater scene up until then, pretty much getting no parts). Julia Child? Etc, etc.

As far as traditional publishing and it's purported excellence and skill in finding great writers...phooey. Traditional publishing is not primarily about writing. It's primarily about marketing. What book will achieve our aim in the market? Sometimes that certainly does coincide with great writing. Sometimes not. Though, I'm not saying the independent scene is more righteous in any way. They're just very different.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Jana DeLeon said:


> Look at all those fools who are dead serious trying out for American Idol but would make dogs cringe. Someone a LONG time ago needed to tell them just how awful they are. Instead, they have family and friends telling them how great they are. I suspect many indie artists, in all forms, are much like that.


But MAYBE - they are there to get attention and then see where it takes them? I'd bet that there are a LOT of people like that. You know that one kid who was so bad they made him famous as they made fun of him?

Self-publishing is field with all different kinds of people and perhaps some of them are only there to make a quick buck (if they can) or maybe some of them are there just to say they "published" a book. These people have no real interest in being an author.

I'm a prolific writer - I'm talking with a capital P. I could've put out a ton of things by now in both fiction and non-fiction and made some quick money. But you know what stopped me? I have a reputation. (Yes, and it's actually quite good.)  I stopped myself from doing that on purpose so that I could keep that reputation intact.

Now, I don't know how it's all gonna shake out with the fiction stuff, that remains to be seen because I have three books being released in October. But I hired the editor, I studied the craft, I learned how to create worlds and characters, and hit all the plot points. I took the long road.

What more do the Sues of the world want me to do to prove I've "paid my dues"? (That's rhetorical, I could give a crap what they think). I have no right to say all mid-list authors are lazy and write crap because they can't make it big. Or ditto to those who lose their book deal after the first flop. It's absurd.

I think Sue, and many other "old-timers" in the biz, are jealous of us because we're breaking all the rules and then rewriting them, making them up as we go.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> But MAYBE - they are there to get attention and then see where it takes them? I'd bet that there are a LOT of people like that. You know that one kid who was so bad they made him famous as they made fun of him?


But where are they now? If they only want their 15 minutes of fame and even being labeled a fool is okay, then yea, success. But I'm talking about the people who are crushed and angry that someone dare tell them they weren't up to snuff. You can tell the difference.



> Now, I don't know how it's all gonna shake out with the fiction stuff, that remains to be seen because I have three books being released in October. But I hired the editor, I studied the craft, I learned how to create worlds and characters, and hit all the plot points. I took the long road.


That's great! And the quality of your work will reflect it.



> What more do the Sues of the world want me to do to prove I've "paid my dues"? (That's rhetorical, I could give a crap what they think). I have no right to say all mid-list authors are lazy and write crap because they can't make it big. Or ditto to those who lose their book deal after the first flop. It's absurd.


Traditionally published authors careers are controlled by the publisher. Bestsellers are made in committee, not in the bookstore. So it's impossible to make a good comparison between business models. *I* don't want anyone proving anything to me, and I doubt Sue does, either. But I would like people to learn craft and work hard at it instead of just assuming it's easy and they're great. That's offensive to everyone like you who did the hard work.



> I think Sue, and many other "old-timers" in the biz, are jealous of us because we're breaking all the rules and then rewriting them, making them up as we go.


I don't think she's jealous. I don't think any of them are jealous. I honestly don't think they care at all except to be annoyed that indie publishing is constantly thrown in their face. People who have attained their level of success are not at risk of losing, even with indie publishers coming out of the woodwork. I know a lot of indies think they are all bitter, but I would argue that they likely don't think of any of us at all unless asked.


----------



## Lefty (Apr 7, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I don't think she's jealous. I don't think any of them are jealous. I honestly don't think they care at all except to be annoyed that indie publishing is constantly thrown in their face. People who have attained their level of success are not at risk of losing, even with indie publishers coming out of the woodwork. I know a lot of indies think they are all bitter, but I would argue that they likely don't think of any of us at all unless asked.


Si.


----------



## Guest (Aug 9, 2012)

Thank God that Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, Erle Stanley Gardner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Charles Dickens, Ernest Hemingway, Ed McBain, Mickey Spillane, John O'Hara, and others kept turning out great stories instead of sitting on their thumbs to keep their reputations intact.

And yes, their reputations were pretty good.


----------



## Vera R. (Jun 13, 2011)

It was a good interview. While I didn't agree with all of what she said about self-pubbed authors, the part where she mentions someone publishing _a_ book and all of a sudden they're famous and demand respect did make me think of a few self-pubbed authors I know. Not anyone on this board but in general.

I don't think self-pubbing is a shortcut by any means. You can put a book out but it doesn't mean it will sell.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I don't think she's jealous. I don't think any of them are jealous. I honestly don't think they care at all except to be annoyed that indie publishing is constantly thrown in their face. People who have attained their level of success are not at risk of losing, even with indie publishers coming out of the woodwork. I know a lot of indies think they are all bitter, but I would argue that they likely don't think of any of us at all unless asked.


Maybe bitter would be a better word - she _certainly _came across bitter. There is just no other way to explain her poor choice of words - and she's an author. Someone who knows that words have meaning.

I think you're right about one thing though - they probably are tired of hearing about the indies. Especially when people like Konrath, Rusch, and Smith are all out there spilling the beans about royalties and contracts day after day after day.

Like I said, she didn't lose me as a fan because I was never a fan. Not because she's a bad writer or anything like that - I've just never been that interested in mysteries. But there are probably a lot of people trying out this self-publishing thing who just got slapped in the face by someone they admired. And I get it, she doesn't have to care about them, she's made it so big that fans must hardly matter to her anymore. And if that's true (and it probably isn't, the more plausible reason is that she's pissed off about it, and not trying to deliberately insult people) then it's time to just retire. Maybe there is no W, X, Y or Z in her future.

Either way, she insulted an entire group of people, stereotyped them into one large lazy lump. She doesn't have to feel bad about it, but she should.


----------



## Verbena (Sep 1, 2011)

I don't agree with her points on self-publisher，the book they write maybe not  professional like her ，but they are also trying hard


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Verbena said:


> I don't agree with her points on self-publisher，the book they write maybe not professional like her ，but they are also trying hard


Yeah, that's a good point. It's like Barry Bonds talking crap about kids in Little League or dad's who play pick up games in the park...it's just, low. Not everyone will be is SG's league, not all writers want to make it a career. So for Pete's sake, be gracious to those who are just starting out or maybe just want to know what it feels like to hold a book with their name on it.

Quite frankly, it shows a lack of good manners.


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> W is for Who cares what Sue Grafton thinks...


As always, thank you Mr. Pepper. Let's run down the list of other "lazy" wannabe's that should never have, or now be taken seriosuly:

- All those silly ivy league and corporate drop-outs who started internet business's in the 90's.

- All the loser bands that pursued digital releases once MP3's became a growing format.

- Every talentless independent filmmaker whose work you've ever seen.

- And now writers.

Could go on all night, but I'll just say: God bless Ms. Grafton for all her success, seems very well earned, both to gain it and to keep it. And yes, while there are many poor examples of quality and undeveloped talent out there on KDP, her broad sweeping criticism does seem very narrow minded and of a sheltered mind set.

Will she continue to be successful as long as she writes, sure, but we'll see how rosy things are when she's just a thumbail like everyone else.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

Just a brief aside:

I apologize to those who were insulted by my post yesterday. I took an extreme position because I felt that Sue Grafton didn't deserve the scorn and derision she received for having honestly answered a question that was put to her. The things people were saying about her felt mean -- especially considering her age and accomplishments -- and I felt a strong desire to trump that meanness with meanness of my own, but of course, when one is on the Internet and the urge to be venomous arises, one should click the little "x" in the corner, not "reply." A lesson I need to relearn every now and then, unfortunately. In any case, I don't ask forgiveness, that would be silly, but do please credit my regret.

Thank you. Carry on!


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Shelley Altamont said:


> I took an extreme position because I felt that Sue Grafton didn't deserve the scorn and derision she received for having honestly answered a question that was put to her.


There is nothing wrong with honesty, but words have consequences so if she wants to deliberately insult people because they don't meet her high standards? Well then she absolutely does deserve the scorn and derision. Lot's of people are accomplished and old, but that doesn't mean they can do or say anything they want without fallout.

(And you took an extreme position and then played it off like it was a joke. Just for effect, right? That was the strangest part of your post as far as I was concerned.)


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

I don't think it matters how many books you've published or millions you've made doing it; one book or millions in print doesn't equate to the indefensible position she took with the wording she used. This wasn't a "oh, sorry, I must have misspoke". She chose those words, "lazy". Sorry, but you don't call me lazy and not expect to be insulting and not get a fight or rise out of me. She spoke her true mind and had plenty of opportunity to change her words before she hit the send button. Who knows, she may have even toned it down from what she really thinks, who knows. 

Her current NY best seller status or what have you does not make her opinions any more valid. That she obviously has an opinion that she chose to air on a topic she knows little about or about a group she cares little about is to her own detriment. She needs no defending on that.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

D.L. Shutter said:


> we'll see how rosy things are when she's just a thumbail like everyone else


Love this....just a thumbnail. Really puts it all into perspective....maybe she's terrified at the idea of it!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Sue Grafton thinks we're lazy. Yeah. Hard to swallow when I look at how many hours I pour into my writing career each week (and weekend). Hell, it took me ten laborious minutes to put the above graphic together!

The interview with Sue isn't worth the weight of the electrons it's comprised of, but I'll link to it anyway. Here's the choicest morsel of the piece:



> Q: Do you have any words of wisdom for young writers?
> 
> A: Quit worrying about publication and master your craft. If you have a good story to tell and if you write it well, the Universe will come to your aid.* Don't self-publish*. That's as good as admitting *you're too lazy* to do the hard work.


My problem with this exchange? Why in the world is this interviewer asking a buggy whip expert about picking out a new car? What does Sue Grafton know about publishing in today's market and with today's tools? Judging by this response, she knows absolutely nothing. Less than nothing, in fact. What she thinks she knows is harmful to aspiring writers.

This is something I've seen elsewhere: people with decades of outdated publishing experience who don't realize that their knowledge makes them a poor source for writing advice. The world has changed, people. And it isn't the exceptions; don't give me that.

One of the standard lines from people like Sue is that the self-publishing success stories are the exception. No shit. The same goes for the traditionally published success stories. 99% of all manuscripts submitted to the traditional machine never even land an agent. 99% of those that do, even if published, end up lost in the shelves with their spines out and nobody looking for them. After a few months, the books are returned. Those same books go out of print, and their authors continue working their day jobs and writing, writing, writing.

Sue thinks being one of the 1% of the 1% is the way to go. I say, if you're going to win the lottery, why not do it in the state of Self-Pub where you keep 70% of the take instead of 15%? And really, who cares about the outliers? I'm more concerned with the midlisters.

Here as well, I'd rather be self-pubbed. The midlister on the traditional trajectory is the one with a $5,000 advance, a spine-out book in a brick and mortar store that fewer and fewer people frequent, and then an out of print book they can't get the rights back to. No thanks.

I have friends who aren't even at mid-list status with their indie books and they are doing better than this. Over the lifetime of their book (which is now forever), they stand to make a lot more than that advance. And rather than suffer the lengthy process of querying, rejection, querying, acceptance, pitching, rejection, pitching, publishing, rejection - all of which can take three or more years from that first query to being returned to the publisher - they can go straight to the source.

And tell me this: why is self-publishing antithetical to "honing one's craft?" Who ever received writing advice in a rejection letter as sound as the worst 1-star review out there? There's far more to learn from engaging the market with your product than there is in form letters that tell you not-a-single-frickin'-thing. What's wrong with testing the waters? Instead of wasting one's time writing query letters, why not work on that next manuscript instead?

There is no better way to break into traditional publishing than self publishing. Period. End of story. Hell, write fan fiction. Another piece of Twilight fan-fic just got a seven-figure advance on the heels of the success of 50 Shades of Grey. Does this mean it's the new norm? No. But it does mean that publishers no longer care how you sell books. They don't care if you self-publish. They don't even care if you write porn based on YA vampire novels. They just want to give readers whatever the hell they want! And readers don't want query letters. They don't want books in slush piles. They want good stories, decently edited, available right now, and as cheap as you please.

When Sue considered trad or self, the latter mean paying for a print run that sat in an author's garage for the rest of their life. Now it means paying nothing. Sue's advice to an aspiring video game designer would be to stop making mods and levels for existing games and go to college instead, submit resumes, anything other than proving you can actually do the work. Her advice to a musician would be to send 8-track demos to Nashville. Just don't upload your work to YouTube for free! That would be lazy.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

Maybe you should send Sue a copy of Wool.   Heck, maybe we should all send her a copy of our books.  Of course her letter carrier might get a hernia...


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

AndreSanThomas said:


> Maybe you should send Sue a copy of Wool.


For her, the price is $14.99.


----------



## Nicole5102 (Mar 12, 2012)

I loved reading this post. Well-said!


----------



## Kay Bratt (Dec 28, 2011)

You tell 'em, Hugh!


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

:::Clap Clap Clap::: 

Hugh be the man.

Thank you, you said it so much better than I could...(and that's why they pay you the big bucks!)


----------



## AnneMarie Novark (Aug 15, 2010)

When I think of all the hours I put in, all the hats I wear, all the books I've written and still want to write . . . this is the hardest I've ever worked in my life.

Well said, Hugh!!!


----------



## Morgan Curtis (May 15, 2012)

I won't read those books, but I'd be happy to read the titles to her out loud and in the order presented.


----------



## AmberC (Mar 28, 2012)

Well said.


----------



## Remington Kane (Feb 19, 2011)

STFU? Oh wait, I get it.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Thanks for that graphic,  I'll still be laughing 3 days from now.


----------



## JETaylor (Jan 25, 2011)

I think that some of the teeth gnashing we're seeing in the traditional side of the fence are those that feel authors who self publish haven't paid their dues and in some ways this burns them.  

There are some authors that rush to publishing without any editing because it is so easy and they utilize the massess as their beta readers and those are the ones I think her post is aimed at. 

I don't share her viewpoint - but I do think patience in making sure what we have created is in the best shape possible before we press that go live button is missing these days from the majority. 

I used to be prolific - writing 8 full length novels in a little over 15 months - but not one of those novels was ready for publication as soon as it was done.  It took another two years of editing and 'honing my craft' before that first one was any where near ready to go.  

The risk of putting something out there before it is ready is alienating your audience and in a way making folks shy away from the indy market.  But as someone said in another post somewhere - there is a lot of garbage out there both from the indy perspective as well as the traditional house perspective, so either way it's a crap shoot and as you pointed out below - I'd rather be on this side of the fence and in control of a great deal of my destiny as opposed to still waiting for the traditional agent/publisher to pick up my books. 

I do think Ms Grafton is more than a bit out of touch.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


>


LOL! Love it! 



> This is something I've seen elsewhere: people with decades of outdated publishing experience who don't realize that their knowledge makes them a poor source for writing advice. The world has changed, people. And it isn't the exceptions; don't give me that.


I know! There are a few people on another forum that I won't name who think they know Absolutely everything about publishing and even self-publishing, but much of their info is outdated. One even said that bookstores weren't endangered. I just checked a map for the nearest one and there are two, one is an hour in one direction, the other an hour in the opposite. While I live in a small town, I'm pretty much smack dab between Chicago and Milwaukee--hardly the boonies.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> My problem with this exchange? Why in the world is this interviewer asking a buggy whip expert about picking out a new car? What does Sue Grafton know about publishing in today's market and with today's tools? Judging by this response, she knows absolutely nothing. Less than nothing, in fact. What she thinks she knows is harmful to aspiring writers.


Love that piece, Hugh!

I hate to admit, but I'm old enough that during my first year of college we were still using typewriters. My sophomore year, there was a shiny new computer lab where we could sign up for computer time. It was sooo cool.

Old school professors saw using computers to write reports as cheating, since you didn't sweat over a typewriter, getting high on correction fluid (okay, that part I miss). We were lazy.

Her statement just shows how out of touch she is. "If you have a good story to tell and if you write it well", get it into the hands of as many readers as you can and keep 70% of the royalty.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

I like how she just threw that in there about self publishing. It's not like she was asked "hey, what do you think about ..." 

Asking a Trad author what they think about self publishing is like asking a Dinosaur what it thinks about those new fangled mama ls running around everywhere, always under foot. Warm blooded and furry, what's up with that? Lazy good for nothing wannabees. 

I don't think Hugh was insulting the interviewer but the tripe the interviewee was spilling being hardly worth the 0s and 1s used to carry it through cyber space. It was hardly worth giving an F is for Fugitive over. 

*edited to fix my typos.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Merging two threads about the Sue Grafton interview.  Thanks for understanding.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

Loving Hugh more than normal now...and still laughing at STFU.

I Zombie, pre-ordered and waiting to be read on the 15'th. Can't wait for Hugh's next batch of "laziness."


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Wasn't there another author, a few months ago, who screamed "whatever you do, don't self-publish?" It seems you stumble over her books _everywhere_, but I can't remember the poor woman's name. Then there are those articles in the Guardian - every other month it seems - that proclaim the imminent demise of either self-publishing or literature and civilization as we know it. There are also the many, many blog and forum posts that warn us that self-publishing makes paupers out of every traditionally published author (as if most of them aren't just two steps away from the poor house already), drowns young readers in mindless drivel and dross, strangles your puppy and makes out with your mother behind your back&#8230;

I always liked this proverb: "The dogs are barking but the caravan moves on."


----------



## D.L. Shutter (Jul 9, 2011)

> Then there are those articles in the Guardian - every other month it seems


Please don't day his name here, had enough of him to last the rest of the year. Among the many things he said (I think it was in a reply to a comment, don't have the stomach to go back to the page to double check) that American capitalism is the cause of the current downfall of culture.

F*&@ing nimrod.


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

Is this still going on? 

I would like to point out that although we are technically independent publishers of our own work, we rely for the most part on a small number of large corporations to move our wares for us. So, in practice, we aren't necessarily as "independent" as we might prefer to think ourselves. Readers flock to those stores for their reading materials, not to the websites of authors.

At any time, Amazon could change its tune with regard to indies. And B&N, Kobo, maybe even Smashwords ... they'll all move in lockstep with the leader. The process by which we purvey our materials to a readership is pretty much out of our control. Indeed, there are threads every day on this forum attempting to penetrate the mystery of Amazon's infamous "algorithms," which work behind the scenes to determine the life or death of an author's titles. These algorithms are always changing -- and, it appears, increasingly to the detriment of indie authors.

These corporations may provide us with better terms than the traditional publishing model (currently), but we are no less beholden to them (in aggregate) than Sue Grafton is to her publisher (or indeed than her publisher is to Amazon/B&N!).

Just sayin', etc.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Shelley Altamont said:


> Is this still going on?
> 
> I would like to point out that although we are technically independent publishers of our own work, we rely for the most part on a small number of large corporations to move our wares for us. So, in practice, we aren't necessarily as "independent" as we might prefer to think ourselves. Readers flock to those stores for their reading materials, not to the websites of authors.
> 
> ...


Oh [crap], (sorry about the profanity) that post was pretty much the last straw for my BS meter today. LOL...  Just sayin' (barf)


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

genevieveaclark said:


> The interviewer who conducted this interview "not worth its weight in electrons" is a Kindleboards member, and a self-published author. She posted about the interview here:
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,122589.0.html
> 
> Maybe you could have taken a look at the discussion already underway? Obviously that wouldn't have given you an opportunity to start your own thread, but these things happen.


Argh! Sorry about that. I did look, but not hard enough.

And no offense meant to the interviewer. I admired the way they attempted to steer Sue to water and watched helplessly as she refused to drink. My response would have been more thoughtful were I not so damn lazy!


----------



## RedTash (Aug 14, 2011)

Sue Grafton sent me this today after a lengthy back & forth of emails since this interview came out. I hope you'll give it a read:

http://louisvilleky.com/2012/08/more-from-sue-grafton-on-publishing-indie-writers/

It may not fix all the hard feelings, but will perhaps shed a little more light on the paradigm she was speaking from. Although I obviously can't speak for her, I do believe she was chagrined at the realization she inadvertently hurt others who she actually wishes to encourage. That was the impression I got, anyway. She didn't have to respond at all, but I got the sense it was important to her to reach out and try to set things right.


----------



## AmberC (Mar 28, 2012)

Pretty classy of her if you ask me. I may even read one of her books.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Sweetapple said:


> Pretty classy of her if you ask me.


I agree. When you've reached her level of success, you certainly dont need to be humble, which makes me respect her all the more for it.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

If you look very, very closely, you can see the tempest.


----------



## Bilinda Ní Siodacaín (Jun 16, 2011)

Just stumbled upon this thread now. As far as I'm concerned I wish her all the success in the world. I'm not in the least bit hurt or insulted by what she said. I spent my time learning and honing my craft, I still am. I have plenty of rejections. I also have a few acceptances, all but one I turned down. The advances as far as I was concerned were not to the level that I could earn myself. The one I did accept was for a charity anthology so as far as I'm concerned it never really counted 

I do admire her for readdressing the issue and clarifying her standpoint. As my mother says, Each to their own.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

dalya said:


> If you look very, very closely, you can see the tempest.


Isnt that every day on the internet?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

That was a class reply for her gaffe. When she began in the 60's publishing was a different game with publishers being families who were interested in books. Not corporations chasing profit. She was there before writers needed an agent and pubs nurtured new authors. She has probably no idea of what it is like today.


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

RedTash said:


> My interview with Sue Grafton. http://louisvilleky.com/2012/08/louisville-author-spotlight-welcomes-sue-grafton/
> 
> I hesitate to offer more commentary than this, but suffice it to say there is an indie author component. And I interviewed John Locke for this same column months ago.
> 
> Enjoy.


She totally ignores all those who actually make a decent living at this or have additional income because of it. Never mind the million-dollar-wonders....but there are many of us out there making more than we ever would have made with our manuscripts sitting on our shelves.


----------



## Blue Bull Book Design (Sep 18, 2011)

Very graceful response from Ms. Grafton and very interesting discussion here! I always appreciate it when a public figure is actually willing to go back and admit that they didn't fully understand what they were talking about. Indie publishing is a business decision these days, not a last resort.


----------



## Donna White Glaser (Jan 12, 2011)

I'll take that offered olive branch. I've said stupid things on the 'net and wished I had either informed myself more before saying them or just shut up. In this case, Sue Grafton admits that she has an antiquated (my word) outlook on self-publishing. I don't find that surprising at all. It's my belief that Putnam is keeping her very, very sheltered about this "new wave" in publishing. Mustn't let the talent learn about 35-70% earnings, right? They probably have specially made Sue Grafton-earplugs and -blinders for her. =)


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

The reality is Grafton has an antiquated view of publishing because she CAN. She doesn't need to know, understand, or change to new business models. She was writing before I was born and I'm sure, doesn't need more money or to rehab her career. 

I think a lot of people got offended without bothering to think about what she's actually aware of. Why should she know what's going on in other avenues of publishing? Why waste head space on something she doesn't need? She's at the age where she should be sitting on a deck somewhere, overlooking an ocean and watching kids play. When I'm her age and if I have that kind of retirement, I have zero desire to know what everyone under 40 is doing.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Jana DeLeon said:


> The reality is Grafton has an antiquated view of publishing because she CAN. She doesn't need to know, understand, or change to new business models. She was writing before I was born and I'm sure, doesn't need more money or to rehab her career.
> 
> I think a lot of people got offended without bothering to think about what she's actually aware of. Why should she know what's going on in other avenues of publishing? Why waste head space on something she doesn't need? She's at the age where she should be sitting on a deck somewhere, overlooking an ocean and watching kids play. When I'm her age and if I have that kind of retirement, I have zero desire to know what everyone under 40 is doing.


Then she should have kept her mouth shut.

Some people are young, poor and inexperienced enough to NEED good advice. And she wasn't giving it. She was flapping her rich, successful, ignorant mouth about a subject she didn't (need to) know anything about.

For which she has apologized. Now _there_ is something to admire.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

She was asked to do an interview. So she should have refused?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Then she should have kept her mouth shut.


Or done some research.

And I'm not buying her explanation. Her first response was infused with an air of superiority. She never mentioned charlatans or vanity publishers; she just made fun of "wannabes" who weren't creating high art such as she. She concluded her rant against my kind by admitting that she was on a rant. We are the unwashed masses, and she, by dint of her father's publisher, is the chosen one.

I compared this on my website today as the publishing revolution's Marie Antoinette moment. Sue Grafton looked out over the starving artists who were drawing with chalk on the sidewalk and asked us to eat cake and be happy about it. And when we complained, she didn't even say she was sorry. She accused us of not understanding her lovely royal accent. She ranged our responses from angry to hateful. When I thought mine was kinda funny.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Sue Grafton responds and clarifies here, 
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/2012/more-from-sue-grafton-on-publishing-indie-writers/


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't blame her much. She was raised in the "self-publishing bad, traditional-publishing-good" school of writing - and I've opened my mouth way too many times and said the wrong thing - just thankfully never been quoted on it.

Still, I've got to wonder if she hasn't taken a look at some of the numbers and is contemplating her own indie venture...


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> When I thought mine was kinda funny.


My mom thought your post was kinda funny too! 

Somehow I'm the first Facebook post on that apology article - I don't understand why, I wasn't the first to post. But whatever. I don't buy her "apology", she's in damage control for reasons known only to her.

But now that Brad Thor remark in the Forbes article hurt. Seriously, I admire that guy. And once again, that's HORRIBLE advice. Horrible with a capital H is for Homicide. It's like he's telling writers to dream and wait, but don't go out there and make it happen now that all the tools are literally at your fingertips. I just can't stand it and it makes me want to pull my hair out.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> She was asked to do an interview. So she should have refused?


No, but by the question she was asked she, by her own initiative, decided to throw that little zinger in, don't self publish. Now, what did that have to do with asking "What advice would you give to aspiring writers?" and if that wasn't enough, she had to further qualify that with "lazy".

Hmmm, there's little to misinterperet here. Sorry Sue, being sorry we were upset and being sorry you opened your mouth to insert the foot are different. And yes, Hugh, yours was pretty clever and funny.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Sue Grafton must be reeling from the fallout from her remarks a few days ago. Who'd have thought the use of the word " *lazy* " would be enough to bring on such a backlash.

And, yes, I think more than anything else she said that one word was her downfall.

Still... Shrug.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Jana DeLeon said:


> She was asked to do an interview. So she should have refused?


No. She should have said: "I don't know the first thing about that subject. Ask me something else."


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Andrew Ashling said:


> No. She should have said: "I don't know the first thing about that subject. Ask me something else."


Or she could've said, "Back in my day...self-publishing was the kiss of death. But now, I have no idea. It's seems to be in the news a lot but I don't keep up with those crazy newfangled fads..." 

We would've all went, yawn. OK, good to know Sue. Thanks.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JanneCO said:


> But now that Brad Thor remark in the Forbes article hurt.


Did it? Maybe I have to reread, but all I got from Thor was "If you have a good book, you should be able to find a publisher."

I just shrugged. "Should" is hardly conclusive and it basically falls under the "what does he know" category. At the end of the day, this all goes back to the same point, why does anyone care what any successful novelist thinks about breaking in? They arent the person to ask. Craft quesitons. By all means. But business questions, they are so far removed from it. The business is changing on a daily basis, and any practical experience they had with breaking in was years or decades ago.


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

This has been a distinctly nasty and unedifying thread in all corners. (I certainly do not exempt myself from this verdict!) 

If I were a "reader," i.e. someone unaffiliated with either camp, I'd say:

"A plague o' both your houses."

(And I'll ask the person from Colorado to kindly refrain from "barfing" on me or scanning me with that ol' "BS-meter." Thank you in advance.)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> The reality is Grafton has an antiquated view of publishing because she CAN. She doesn't need to know, understand, or change to new business models. She was writing before I was born and I'm sure, doesn't need more money or to rehab her career.
> 
> I think a lot of people got offended without bothering to think about what she's actually aware of. Why should she know what's going on in other avenues of publishing? Why waste head space on something she doesn't need? She's at the age where she should be sitting on a deck somewhere, overlooking an ocean and watching kids play. When I'm her age and if I have that kind of retirement, I have zero desire to know what everyone under 40 is doing.


Not really true. Someone who is intelligent doesn't simply ignore trends in their own industry, whether they are already successful or not. By the by, one heck of a lot of indie authors are over 40. You might want to look information on a gentleman by the name of Lawrence Block.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Here. I'll be the flippant "youngish" person to respond to Sue Grafton.

"Aww Grandma, come here and I'll show you how work your Kindle."

Seriously. She's 72 years old. My Mom is 57 and STILL calls me on her cell phone and then yells at me that I'm not one of my sisters that she was TRYING to call. LOL. There are more techno-phobes in that generation than anywhere else. Now anyone HERE that is of Sue Grafton's peer group, or my mother's , I applaud you staying hip and up to date. I wouldn't look at you and talk down to you. In fact, between us I don't think age is a big thing. Now in Mrs. Grafton's case... if the shoe fits...

By the time any of this matters FOR HER, more than likely it will be her estate collecting royalties. Why are we all offended and upset someone from the WWII generation thinks I'm lazy for not querying? I know I'm not, I know I did my research and knew my book wasn't right for NY. But where is the value in trying to argue with her? Fear that "new" authors will read Sue Grafton's warning not to self-publish and they will give up on their dreams? Please. You need to be made of sterner stuff than that to make it through any kind of publishing! 

She was snobbish, she chose poor words, and I won't write a blog post about it because quite frankly, I had never heard of her before this day and I refuse to introduce her to a younger crowd that is my various website's audiences with an attitude like that. 

Sincerely,
Young Whipper-Snapper


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> And I'm not buying her explanation.


Something does seem "off" with her follow-up comments. In the first interview, she says she has received hundreds of self-published books over the years. Were they all from "vanity presses"? Was the quality that bad on all of them?

The other thing is that her books are available in a wide range of formats...audiobooks, e-books, hardcovers, etc. All the way back to "A is for Alibi". As someone with such a large market presence, how could she not be aware industry changes? Wouldn't those changes impact her royalty statements? Does she not communicate with her agent? Or read the industry news?


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Shelley Altamont said:


> This has been a distinctly nasty and unedifying thread in all corners. (I certainly do not exempt myself from this verdict!)
> 
> If I were a "reader," i.e. someone unaffiliated with either camp, I'd say:
> 
> ...


Barf...


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

MGalloway said:


> Something does seem "off" with her follow-up comments. In the first interview, she says she has received hundreds of self-published books over the years. Were they all from "vanity presses"? Was the quality that bad on all of them?
> 
> The other thing is that her books are available in a wide range of formats...audiobooks, e-books, hardcovers, etc. All the way back to "A is for Alibi". As someone with such a large market presence, how could she not be aware industry changes? Wouldn't those changes impact her royalty statements? Does she not communicate with her agent? Or read the industry news?


Probably not. She doesn't NEED to. We lazy self-publishers, of all ages, stay up on this stuff because we HAVE to. We wear all of the hats. Sue Grafton appears to be one of the real life examples given to justify traditional publishing... you can JUST write. More than likely, the books she got from "Self-publishers" were not people truly attempting a professional business at doing so, but people who wrote a book and wanted Sue Grafton to endorse it etc. to get their share of the royalty riches pie.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I am hardly disparaging older people. I am merely stating that past a certain point of success and age, most people don't care any longer about climbing hills. They're already sitting on top.

I actually spent 10 years working in senior housing and still do volunteer work for seniors. You?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

*sigh*  You know, Sue Grafton has no idea who you all are (most of you) and is not talking about any of you personally.  Don't take it personally any more than I'm going to take personally the implication that us older folk are looking for the hand crank on our iPhones.   I'm going to get my gang of senior citizens onto their walkers and we're going to beat you with our iPhones, iPads, Kindles, and wireless hard drives.  

As for "senior" cred, some of my best friends are WWII era folk who are just fine with technology, thank you very much.  (Leaving out my 76 year old hubby, who is a complete Luddite, but that hasn't changed any in the thirty plus years we've been a couple. )

As always, no name calling, which includes saying someone isn't nice, JRT.  Posts have been edited.  Can't we all just get along?

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *sigh* You know, Sue Grafton has no idea who you all are (most of you) and is not talking about any of you personally. Don't take it personally any more than I'm going to take personally the implication that us older folk are looking for the hand crank on our iPhones.  I'm going to get my gang of senior citizens onto their walkers and we're going to beat you with our iPhones, iPads, Kindles, and wireless hard drives.
> 
> As for "senior" cred, some of my best friends are WWII era folk who are just fine with technology, thank you very much. (Leaving out my 76 year old hubby, who is a complete Luddite, but that hasn't changed any in the thirty plus years we've been a couple. )
> 
> ...


----------



## Dee Ernst (Jan 10, 2011)

Here's what I don't get - Grafton is a best-selling author who must get trade mags, be invited to conferences, must know other writers, at least has an agent she talks to every once in a while - how could she claim ignorance about self-pubbing?  It's only been talked/written/blogged/tweeted/facebooked/ about for the past, how many years?  As a professional, shouldn't you be aware of the biggest change in your industry since the invention of the printing press? It's like an accountant who suddenly realizes they're not using paper spreadsheets anymore.  Where have these people been?


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Dee Ernst said:


> Here's what I don't get - Grafton is a best-selling author who must get trade mags, be invited to conferences, must know other writers, at least has an agent she talks to every once in a while - how could she claim ignorance about self-pubbing? It's only been talked/written/blogged/tweeted/facebooked/ about for the past, how many years? As a professional, shouldn't you be aware of the biggest change in your industry since the invention of the printing press? It's like an accountant who suddenly realizes they're not using paper spreadsheets anymore. Where have these people been?


In their own little circle where this anti-propaganda is rife.

You can find the same misconceptions in the bi-monthly "Amazon Is The Devil Incarnate But E-Publishing Is Dead Anyway" articles in the Guardian.

I find it refreshing that she is so surprised&#8230; and admits that she has been (let's call it) misinformed. I think she's now doing her own research.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Mysterygirl said:


> ...It's my belief that Putnam is keeping her very, very sheltered about this "new wave" in publishing. Mustn't let the talent learn about 35-70% earnings, right? They probably have specially made Sue Grafton-earplugs and blinders for her. =)


You said exactly what I have been thinking this whole time!


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

I don't think the correct word is "misinformed" ... I think it's probably more accurate to say she is "uninformed".

Do I respect her apology?  Of course.  It's appreciated.  But, it's too little/much too late.  There were hundreds of ways for her answer that question, she opted for the most inflammatory of them all.  She went so far as to give very clear instances ... none of which had to do with anything but the poor writing of self-published authors ... it wasn't about buyer-beware vanity presses.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Andrew Ashling said:


>


No fair posting my baby pics without my permission, Andrew... But see, I had my moderator's hat even then.... 

Betsy


----------



## SBJones (Jun 13, 2011)

Welcome to the Internet Sue Grafton.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> No fair posting my baby pics without my permission, Andrew... But see, I had my moderator's hat even then....
> 
> Betsy


It was actually an impression of me being flabbergasted by your eloquence and persuasive powers. 

Also, I hoped to get those ol' (grand)motherly hormones flowing.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

There, there, sonny....


Betsy


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

You're not old Betsy. I'm so old I remember life before the Internet when you had to actually meet someone and have a conversation before they could tick you off.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jana DeLeon said:


> I am hardly disparaging older people. I am merely stating that past a certain point of success and age, most people don't care any longer about climbing hills. They're already sitting on top.
> 
> I actually spent 10 years working in senior housing and still do volunteer work for seniors. You?


I have grandkids if that answers your question. And yes, your remarks were disparaging and continue to be.

It is utter nonsense that 'past a certain age' people no longer feel like accomplishing or contributing anything or are no longer _capable_ of doing so. Writers still write. Painters still paint. What was the age at which Picasso stopped painting?

Sure someone who is worked to death in a factory may be happy to retire, but you don't stop being creative or having a mind just because you hit 50 or 60 or 70 or even 80.

Edit: Lawrence Block is 74 and is now indie publishing. I work at times with a co-author who is in his 70s and (*gasp of astonishment*) spent his life in IT but in his late 60s took up writing. Maybe the older people you know prefer dying of boredom and never learning anything new but don't assume that of everyone.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

shelleyo1 said:


> It would be different if she told young writers to spend time learning the craft, experimenting with submission once they'd been writing for a while, and not to rush into self-publishing as a short-cut. That's good advice. Too many people do rush out and think they're brilliant--it's a fact. But saying that is so different than painting everyone who self-pubs as a lazy wannabe. To insult everyone who has self-published, and essentially dismiss it even though some make a living is just ridiculous.


Agreed. As she has no experience in that which she criticized, it would be wiser if she'd kept her opinions to herself. Without self-published authors, we'd miss out on so many fantastic stories.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, let's stipulate that we old dogs can learn new tricks and move on.  You're derailing the thread. Thanks.

Betsy
KB Moderator


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Folks, let's stipulate that we old dogs can learn new tricks and move on. You're derailing the thread. Thanks.
> 
> Betsy
> KB Moderator


It must get exhausting moderating all this nonsense on your abacus.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, I did work my way up to a Commodore 64....


Betsy


----------



## Pearson Moore (Mar 14, 2011)

I think Sue Grafton's interview responses reflected a mature and accurate understanding of the aspects of indie books that matter to readers.  I have screened hundreds of indie books.  In general, they are so poorly written, so full of spelling and grammar errors and trite or juvenile constructions, that I can dismiss a book within the first few pages.  70% of the books I screen are difficult to read because of their inability to create a story or correctly utilise the English language.  I find only about 10% worth reading, and perhaps only one of 12 or 15 that might be considered on a par with most traditionally published material.  That's my experience over a seven-year period of offering critiques and reviews.  Sue Grafton gave sterling advice:  Work on your craft.  It's that simple, and that time-consuming.  You just cannot become a writer overnight, and most who think they are writers are not and never will be.  I admire violin players.  But just because I pick up a bow and rest the bout between shoulder and chin does not make me a violinist.  Just as I am ignorant of melody and harmony and the physical, technical movements and rhythms required to coax a series of sounds into something my listeners would recognise as music, so too most wannabe writers are so ignorant of the cadences of the written form of their native tongue that their stories become the most painful and dissonant of scratchings.  Sue Grafton speaks truth.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Pearson Moore said:


> ... I find only about *10% worth reading,* and perhaps only *one of 12 or 15 *that might be considered on a par with most traditionally published material. That's my experience over a seven-year period of offering critiques and reviews. Sue Grafton gave sterling advice: Work on your craft.


That argument confuses the few talented "black swans" getting arbitrarily discovered by the publishing gatekeepers with actual process of filtering out the rats in the slushpile. That argument was debunked decisively and fairly long ago. See: _On The Survival Of Rats In The Slushpile_. http://www.amazon.com/Survival-Rats-Slush-Pile-ebook/dp/B004XDAISY

Also your proportion or percentages of what you _individually_ feel is well written
(rather than the buying public, which doesn't appear to be all that picky if it hoovers up the latest Alphabet Series book and makes a mediocre talent wealthy )
is better odds than any writer has in submitting to the Slush Pile.

If someone has no ear for playing music, then all the practice in the world won't help. But querying agents is not the cure.

*yawn*


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

T.L. Haddix said:


> Sure, there are people publishing who shouldn't be. Lots of them. That's never been something I've said Ms. Grafton got wrong. I took, and still take, exception to her calling us all lazy wannabes who don't take the time to learn the craft, do the job right, etc. She dismissed out of hand an entire industry, based on erroneous assumptions, and she did so with a cavalier attitude that came across as totally elitist. She's better than self-publishers. She works harder than self-publishers. Bully for her. And I don't think her apology was sincere or based on the fact that she insulted an entire group of people she knows nothing about - it was based on the fact that she got called on her response to that question. Substitute any racial group for self-published writers, the circumstances she describes, and the rhetoric is the same as any rant from twenty, thirty, forty years ago. It is ignorant, harmful, hurtful, and totally dismissive of any merits self-published writers might have. I'm sure that will get me censored, but it's the truth. No, I'm not saying she's racist or that self-pubbed writers are their own ethnic group. But to me, her words were just as offensive. Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels that way. That's fine - I can have an opinion that differs from others, and I don't have to be of the popular opinion. I'm used to that. But when a popular author whose word means something in this world, in this industry, speaks up and calls all of us lazy? That's offensive.


You speak for me as well. 100% agreement.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> You speak for me as well. 100% agreement.


Aw, c'mon Hugh. Don't take it personally as someone said.

You know, you could be submitting and honing your craft. You could pay a thousand or two to attend conferences where little dudes from NYC tell you how to Grab And Startle Your Readers,

and how to do that within the first blank space between the chapter heading and word one of your manuscript! You wouldn't even have to bother with a plot, just throw some tension on every page. One tense page after another.

And stop being so subtexty and drawing allusions, or having any subtext that references anything else. You don't want your reader to have to think do you?

Hey buddy, start an alphabet series. Ka-ching !


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Pearson Moore said:


> I think Sue Grafton's interview responses reflected a mature and accurate understanding of the aspects of indie books that matter to readers. I have screened hundreds of indie books. In general, they are so poorly written, so full of spelling and grammar errors and trite or juvenile constructions, that I can dismiss a book within the first few pages. 70% of the books I screen are difficult to read because of their inability to create a story or correctly utilise the English language. I find only about 10% worth reading, and perhaps only one of 12 or 15 that might be considered on a par with most traditionally published material. That's my experience over a seven-year period of offering critiques and reviews. Sue Grafton gave sterling advice: Work on your craft. It's that simple, and that time-consuming. You just cannot become a writer overnight, and most who think they are writers are not and never will be. I admire violin players. But just because I pick up a bow and rest the bout between shoulder and chin does not make me a violinist. Just as I am ignorant of melody and harmony and the physical, technical movements and rhythms required to coax a series of sounds into something my listeners would recognise as music, so too most wannabe writers are so ignorant of the cadences of the written form of their native tongue that their stories become the most painful and dissonant of scratchings. Sue Grafton speaks truth.


Your reasoning is skewered, to say the least. I have dismissed hundreds, if not thousands, of traditionally published books by reading just a page or two in the library. Not even worth taking home for free. Dross. And I'm sure the kind people of the library already kept the most execrable traditionally published pulp from their shelves. I don't think more than 3% of traditionally published books are worth my time. The rest (97%) is grammatically correct, overreaching, boring, seen-it-done-better-hundreds-of-times-before, derivative, difficult to read, unoriginal, pompous, utter drivel.

See? The same is happening in indie publishing. The dross sinks to the bottom. But. Books in genres that couldn't see the light of day if things were left to traditional publishers "because they don't know how to market it," a.k.a. gross incompetence, now get a chance. A chance. That's all.

Because the readers will vote with their wallets.


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> *sigh* You know, Sue Grafton has no idea who you all are (most of you) and is not talking about any of you personally.


I understand...however, initially, the comment was offensive since many of us are working incredibly hard on our books. Personally, I'm trying to write books that combine the strengths of literary fiction along with more genre-related ideas/storylines. I don't know about Sue's working style or long term goals, but for me, that's a very difficult target to hit consistently, especially when it comes to technology related ideas.

In retrospect, her statements were actually reminiscent of another comment I read last year from a lesser-known author who essentially said the same thing, but instead decided to write up very lengthy forum posts that spelled out the position ever further. When pressed on the issue as to whether the author had actually _read_ anything written by those whose work they were commenting on, well...they started to back away a bit from their stance because they hadn't really done that, but decided to rip into people's work ethics anyway by making blanket statements.

I've learned that seems to be a useful follow-up comment to the "lack-of-effort" type angle...simply ask whether they have read [insert author's name]'s books or not. Often times, the answer is no.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Michael--

*takes off moderator hat*  You may not believe this, but I totally understand the reaction...like other art quilters, I've spent decades learning and practicing my craft.  But art quilting/fiber art/textile art is barely accepted in the art world and barely understood in the quilt world (although it's changing gradually).  I see these same discussions in art quilter forums over the comments of art critics and quilt show judges.  I believe those kinds of comments are worth discussing, calmly and rationally, (knowledge IS power) and that it's worth continuing to fight for acceptance of one's art.  I believe one does that by continuing to put forth the best art possible in as many venues as possible, not by haranguing the individual (who is usually not present in the forum) who made the comments.  *shrug*  My .02 worth as an artist.

Betsy the Quilter


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Look at all the trouble caused by a fellow Kindleboards member. 

I think it's just a great discussion to have and it's been cool to see it grow and spread to Forbes. Way to go Leslea Tash!

Special shout out to Robert Bidinotto and Hugh Howey for speaking well for us lazy indies in that great Forbes article.

As a bonus, I picked up several new authors and books I want to read now. 

We're living in exciting times for writers!


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

BRONZEAGE said:


> Hey buddy, start an alphabet series. Ka-ching !


I wouldn't know where to start!


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

I've read or started to read so many poor trade published books that I can't fathom why many people still believe that publishing houses are really gatekeepers. The whole argument seems silly to me.

I think the key to getting trade published is to have the right editor see your piece or query on the right day. Nothing more. 

There are a lot of really skillful trade published writers, but there are a lot of writers that make me cringe involuntarily when I hear their names. There's a couple big name authors at Dragon*Con whose panels I avoid like the plague because they say the dumbest stuff about writing (and their writing is about that level, too). There's a couple small press authors at Dragon*Con whose panels I never miss because they say amazing stuff. I haven't heard many self-published authors at D*Con mainly because the writing track is sponsored by a trade press (and some of the authors probably wouldn't deign to speak if there were self-publishers).


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

LynnBlackmar said:


> I haven't heard many self-published authors at D*Con mainly because the writing track is sponsored by a trade press (and some of the authors probably wouldn't deign to speak if there were self-publishers).


You know what's weird? My wife brought this up the other day. When I go to ChiCon7 at the end of this month, I'll be at a WorldCon, the home of the Hugo Award, the top convention for literature in my primary genre of science fiction. And while I'm freaking out to be invited to sit on any of the panels, my wife reminds me that I might be the top-selling science fiction author at the entire convention. 

I'd never thought about it like that. And conventions generally don't, either. I'm not in bookstores. My sales are _silly_ e-books. I'm _just_ a self-published author.

And so the bias runs deep. It doesn't matter that you sell more copies, have bigger foreign advances, are with such-and-such studio or director. You aren't in their hallowed halls. It's fascinating. Because the stigma is so deep that I share it! I don't feel like a successful author. I don't. I feel like a kid who sits and writes all day and is lucky to be able to afford to do that for a living. And I still have the leftover idolization from being a reader that has be placing all these other authors on pedestals. I even do this with other successful self-published authors like Dalglish. I just assume that they walk around feeling like authors. I don't. And so it feels natural for me to be on a small panel in a back corner of the convention. I'm ecstatic. My wife, meanwhile, thinks it's silly of them.

I believe it will all change. It already is. Soon, it'll just be based on what readers are reading and nothing more. The conventions, in the end, are for them.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

Pearson Moore said:


> I think Sue Grafton's interview responses reflected a mature and accurate understanding of the aspects of indie books that matter to readers. I have screened hundreds of indie books. In general, they are so poorly written, so full of spelling and grammar errors and trite or juvenile constructions, that I can dismiss a book within the first few pages. 70% of the books I screen are difficult to read because of their inability to create a story or correctly utilise the English language. I find only about 10% worth reading, and perhaps only one of 12 or 15 that might be considered on a par with most traditionally published material. That's my experience over a seven-year period of offering critiques and reviews. Sue Grafton gave sterling advice: Work on your craft. It's that simple, and that time-consuming. You just cannot become a writer overnight, and most who think they are writers are not and never will be. I admire violin players. But just because I pick up a bow and rest the bout between shoulder and chin does not make me a violinist. Just as I am ignorant of melody and harmony and the physical, technical movements and rhythms required to coax a series of sounds into something my listeners would recognise as music, so too most wannabe writers are so ignorant of the cadences of the written form of their native tongue that their stories become the most painful and dissonant of scratchings. Sue Grafton speaks truth.


No, sorry, Sue Grafton doesn't speak the truth ... at least not my truth, and not the truth of any of the writers I know.

What Grafton said, if taken out of context and in small doses ... yes, you might find a fiber of truth in it. Writers should study the craft of telling stories. Some do, some don't. Some that study it to death will never be able to write a half-decent novel no matter what. Some that wing it from their home office will go on to move more books that ever imagined, become blockbuster successes and have fame and riches handed to them in spades. That, is the truth. Writing is an unpredictable beast ... welcome, Ms. Grafton, to 2012.

All that aside ...

Let us not mince words ... she called us lazy -- not a minority, not a majority, not a select subset -- she took out her fat, ill-informed brush and painted us all with the same stroke. Why? Because a big publishing house wouldn't pick up our novels -- something is assumed all us lackey Indies _must_ want because it's _traditionally how it's done_ in her world of the highfalutin city folk. She called us lazy, a disgusting assumption, because she hasn't worked outside of her "alphabet series" in twenty-some odd years and has no clue what it's like to just be starting in the face of new-publishing. Not. A. Clue.

She gets no free-passes from me. Sorry.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

LynnBlackmar said:


> I've read or started to read so many poor trade published books that I can't fathom why many people still believe that publishing houses are really gatekeepers. The whole argument seems silly to me.


This.

I recently, as in many months ago, started reading this book ... it was all over the front page of Amazon for my preferred genre ... the author comes with a solid name and good reputation. She is very much trade published.

The book was terrible. I mean, God awful writing, flat, shallow characters, innate motivations to take ridiculous actions, you'd have to strangle your belief to be able to suspend it long enough to wade through the slop. The entire book was par baked at best, on a good day, with a couple drinks in your system, you might be able to read it and like it -- but that's doubtful. It was so horrible, so poorly executed, so blah, white bread bull**** that I was actually just totally turned off from the writer and the genre for a little bit ... or a lot a bit.

Bad books just aren't mutually exclusive to them and us. We can all write s*** if we so choose. Or, we can all do our very bests and respect what the other side is capable of us without feeling that we have to get into some p*ssing contest no one will ever win.


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

Elizabeth Ann West said:


> We lazy self-publishers, of all ages, stay up on this stuff because we HAVE to. We wear all of the hats.


True...and over the years I've read several books on how to start a small business and many of the lessons apply to self-publishing. If anything, it takes _more_ work to go it alone.



Betsy the Quilter said:


> *takes off moderator hat* You may not believe this, but I totally understand the reaction...like other art quilters, I've spent decades learning and practicing my craft. But art quilting/fiber art/textile art is barely accepted in the art world and barely understood in the quilt world (although it's changing gradually). I see these same discussions in art quilter forums over the comments of art critics and quilt show judges. I believe those kinds of comments are worth discussing, calmly and rationally, (knowledge IS power) and that it's worth continuing to fight for acceptance of one's art. I believe one does that by continuing to put forth the best art possible in as many venues as possible, not by haranguing the individual (who is usually not present in the forum) who made the comments. *shrug* My .02 worth as an artist.


These are good points...and there are other parallels I see between these debates and the world of software (which ironically grew up with both large companies producing software and an indie side of things). Some software companies have also been known to use the FUD technique (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Again, some parallels exist here and it's sad.

Regarding the work ethic thing, though...I could go into depth about how I have boxes and boxes of rough drafts and used notebooks sitting around. I know I'm not alone in that. I could go into detail about the extensive amount of work that went into each book I wrote...sort of like how they have behind-the-scenes featurettes for movies...but I really don't know if readers care about those types of things unless they plan on being writers themselves.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

Italiahaircolor said:


> I recently, as in many months ago, started reading this book ... it was all over the front page of Amazon for my preferred genre ... the author comes with a solid name and good reputation. She is very much trade published.


Something else I've noticed is that a lot of big-name authors have some really fantastic early books, and then once they and the publishers depend on the brand name to carry them, they write crap because the publisher stops editing and pushes for faster releases. This may not be especially true of series authors, but I think it's much more noticeable when you're reading in a series. It's obvious they write in a hurry to get the next book out, there's little editing, and the plots are just lame or repetitive.

The publishing industry often expects a near-perfect book for a first book, so you edit and revise for years just to break down the gate, then when you do and you make a name, they stop caring. But I as a reader, HATE when authors do that to me, especially those whose early books I loved. They seem to think they don't need to grow as writers anymore, and they think _Oh, I'll get paid just if I get it done, because I'm awesome already_ or they just don't care about craft as much as getting paid.

One author I can think of wrote some of my favorite early novels. His work is TERRIBLE now. Truly heinous. I've been so disappointed by his work that I avoid it now.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Since most of us grew up on trade publishing, it stands to reason that we'd have a lot of favorite authors that produced these books. But last year when I was still thinking about writing a novel, I decided I should look into all this recent dystopian stuff because I have a futuristic society in my story. Although my books are far after the fact when it comes to how they got into their present situation, so they are not dystopian.

I already read the Hunger Games and I really enjoyed that book. The third one not so much, but the first and second books were very fun.

But then I started reading the traditionally published imitations...and wow. Some of them were really bad. And even the one knock-off that I found to be half-way fun (Enclave by Anne Aguirre) has a pretty lame crisis and climax. And that was absolutely, in my opinion, the best of those Hunger Games copycats. I've read Ann Aguirre before, in fact I really enjoyed her Jax series. But _great writing_? No. She's not a great writer just because she's traditionally published. She writes some fun stories and she writes some bad stories. Her characters can be just as shallow, her plot just as perforated, and her endings just as contrived. It doesn't matter that she's got a house behind her.

So I agree, yes, most of my favorite books are traditionally published. But that's because those authors had no choice. In five years will I still be able to say the same thing? Maybe - or maybe all the great self-publishers take a deal. Or maybe some of the traditionally published authors decide they want to make some real money. There is no way to tell.

And Hugh, that sucks that you don't feel "real" yet, but I know what you mean. Just this week I bragged about my success on my blog (no one reads my blog so I was bragging to myself!) because I'm in the same boat. I pay the bills with my non-fiction writing yet I don't feel "real." My products were chosen by a big-time talk-radio personality to be one of his personal recommendations, I'm listed on his affiliate storefront website, and I'm being interviewed on a pretty big-deal radio show on Monday.

But I hear ya. I'm nobody because I write science textbooks and I'm not Pearson, McGraw-Hill, or Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Who do I think I am teaching kids about science without a publisher behind me? (I actually had people e-mail and ask me that when I started this little venture - who do I think I am?)

That's OK with me. I'd rather stay a nobody paying my bills and plugging along in my quiet life because the joke's on them.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Italiahaircolor said:


> Let us not mince words ... she called us lazy -- not a minority, not a majority, not a select subset -- she took out her fat, ill-informed brush and painted us all with the same stroke. Why? Because a big publishing house wouldn't pick up our novels -- something is assumed all us lackey Indies _must_ want because it's _traditionally how it's done_ in her world of the highfalutin city folk. She called us lazy, a disgusting assumption, because she hasn't worked outside of her "alphabet series" in twenty-some odd years and has no clue what it's like to just be starting in the face of new-publishing. Not. A. Clue.
> 
> She gets no free-passes from me. Sorry.


Exactly. I think this entire debate will look different in a few years when being indie is just as likely because you've turned down publishing contracts or moved from traditional to the other side. Right now, the assumption is you're indie because you have to be. The first wave of successful indies took the fat advances and went to the promised land. From what I've heard from several of them (two privately, so I can't name names. Another, Locke, who seems to have expressed a mix of emotions publicly) are wondering if they made the right choice.

Maybe these front-line vets will stagger back to base camp and tell us it's brutal over there, and boy are we lucky to be on this side of the wire. As for me, I got a peek over that line and decided to turn back. I know others who are doing the same (or going with Amazon, which provides a much fairer deal from what I hear).

The next phase of this revolution is when competition kicks in. That'll be when US publishers offer contracts that expire in 5 or 7 years, which is what they do practically everywhere other than the UK and its territories. They'll also offer 50% ebook royalties on net, or something similar. If they don't, it won't be long before they're gone. I give them 10-15 years for this transition to be mostly complete. If you think that's fast, think about how every mall you ever went into had at least one music store. And a 1-hour photo.


----------



## JFHilborne (Jan 22, 2011)

Lazy people exist in every profession (I've worked with enough of them). Crap is produced by some indie authors and also by some trad-pubbed authors (I've not read Sue Grafton, so I can't comment). I agree with a previous comment about trad-pubbed authors whose later books are a disappointment after the first few good ones - I stopped reading a well-known popular author for this reason. I do know a few trad-pubbed authors whose editors altered their original work so much it hardly seemed to be their own, so the editors/publishers are sometimes part of the problem, not the author. 

Publishers think they know what sells and follow tried and trusted formulas. For them it's about revenue. Indies offer new ideas and break out from "traditional formulas" in ways publishers won't - until they see the indie success stories. Before indies, readers read what the publishers gave them. Now they have more choice.

Traditionally published does not mean better. It might mean that author hit the right agent with the right manuscript at just the right time. Another agent might have dismissed it. To call all traditionally published authors good is as ignorant as calling all self-published authors lazy.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

> I think this entire debate will look different in a few years when being indie is just as likely because you've turned down publishing contracts or moved from traditional to the other side.


This thread, and the Forbes article, have me seriously thinking about the future of publishing (indie/self/trad/direct-mind-jack). One of the Forbes commenters hit on it: there's a whole generation of authors that are "growing up" without the need (or desire) for a traditional publisher. What happens as those authors mature in their craft/careers and really feel-out their indie-ness? I think the tilt toward an author-centric industry has begun and will continue until those who peddle in the snobbery of the past slide off the glacier into the abyss.


----------



## micki (Oct 8, 2010)

Dear Sue Grafton, You're Hopelessly Out of Touch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-devin/dear-sue-grafton-youre-ho_b_1804211.html


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

BTW I blogged about the future and the Incredible Lightness of Being Indie (referencing my thoughts above about authors "growing up" without being published by anyone besides themselves).


----------

