# Chuck Wendig's Response to Hugh Howey's Salon Article



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Someone in another forum mentioned this post which is sort of a rebuttal. *sigh*

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/04/04/self-publishing-is-the-blah-blah-and-floo-dee-doo-and-poop-noise/

Here is a very short quote from it:


> I distrust fortune-tellers, to be honest.
> 
> Mostly because it's made-up horsehockey.
> 
> Further, you can't just canvass a handful of successful people and immediately declare that their success draws the map to the One Shining Path Up Authornuts Mountain.


ETA: I'm giggling because Kboards changed the original word to 'horsehockey'. heh. Let's just say it wasn't nearly as nice of a word in the original quote.


----------



## penrefe (Nov 30, 2011)

Oh noes! Two of my favourite and most respected self-pubbed people have different opinions! What am I going to do?!


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

Ooookay. I suppose he's free to believe whatever he wants. You can't convince someone whose mind is already made up.


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

Maybe he found out that mentioning Hugh's name leads to books sales. I thought that was our little secret.


----------



## Steverino (Jan 5, 2011)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Maybe he found out that mentioning Hugh's name leads to books sales. I thought that was our little secret.


Gah! You *had* to say it!


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

Not sure I'd call it a rebuttal.  More just saying that there isn't a magic formula for success.  Quite possible to agree with both articles.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> Maybe he found out that mentioning Hugh's name leads to books sales. I thought that was our little secret.


   The secret is out. I better get my use out of it while I can. "Hugh Howey! Hugh Howey! Hugh Howey!" (I'm assuming it works kind of like Beetlejuice's name?  )


----------



## burke_KB (Jan 28, 2013)

That's one negative line in a piece that complements Hugh and is pretty level headed. 

He pokes fun at poll methodology while saying writers should write and try to get their stuff out anyway they can.

It made me laugh.


----------



## Accord64 (Mar 12, 2012)

Both articles make good points.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

I'm always happy to hear about how "lucky" Hugh is. It gives me hope that my drivel can sell like that just as long as I get that lucky.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

My problem with the article is that he is arguing against something Hugh never said: that self-publishing is the only way to go and we should all "put our eggs in one basket". Since Hugh neither said nor implied any such thing, that made it a rather bad article imo although he points in and of themselves weren't necessarily totally wrong. I disagree with his belief that it is not easier to get your start (for most of us) by self-publishing, but that is easier in something that is difficult either way. Perhaps, less difficult is a better phrase.


----------



## Susan Brassfield Cogan (Mar 25, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> Someone in another forum mentioned this post which is sort of a rebuttal. *sigh*
> 
> http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/04/04/self-publishing-is-the-blah-blah-and-floo-dee-doo-and-poop-noise/
> 
> ...


Chuck is right. Do it all. Self and Trad publish. Put your stuff out there everywhere. It's all just another revenue stream. Regular publishing isn't going anywhere. It's not as good for non-famous authors as it used to be and you'll never again be able to "just let [them] take care of it." You'll have to hire an IP attorney and not rely on an agent. But that said, it's worth it. Try it all.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> My problem with the article is that he is arguing against something Hugh never said: that self-publishing is the only way to go and we should all "put our eggs in one basket".


Which is why I left a comment saying "way to miss the point y'all" . . .


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

MrsCogan said:


> Chuck is right. Do it all. Self and Trad publish. Put your stuff out there everywhere. It's all just another revenue stream. Regular publishing isn't going anywhere. It's not as good for non-famous authors as it used to be and you'll never again be able to "just let [them] take care of it." You'll have to hire an IP attorney and not rely on an agent. But that said, it's worth it. Try it all.


I fail to see how wasting time writing letters is better than writing the next thing and publishing it.

Tradpub requires a) wasting time doing the aforementioned letter-writing or b) selfpubbing and becoming so successful you get offers.

So in what way does "doing it all" logically start with anything OTHER than self-pub in 2013?


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

Chuck's article was hilarious! And full of win!

Both articles were. Both made good points. I'm glad we're getting more articles out by people who actually know what they are talking about.

We all know KBs is not the rest of the self pub world. People here research, they care, and they are WAY more likely to have good sales and do well than the people who Google self pubbing and shell out a couple grand to a vanity shop.

So both guys are right.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

Differing anecdotal evidence between aces.  When you fly by the seat of your pants, it is alarming to glance over and note that your hotshot co-pilot isn't wearing any.

(This has only a little to do with the thread and that's okay.)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I fail to see how wasting time writing letters is better than writing the next thing and publishing it.
> 
> Tradpub requires a) wasting time doing the aforementioned letter-writing or b) selfpubbing and becoming so successful you get offers.
> 
> So in what way does "doing it all" logically start with anything OTHER than self-pub in 2013?


I agree, but strictly for myself. I'm not going to tell anyone else what to do. I have had an agent come to me since I self-published and I turned him down flat. If a publisher did, I'd look at the offer which I think is pretty much what Hugh did. A good enough offer, I would take or negotiate if it looked close. A bad one I wouldn't.

I don't consider that "putting my eggs in one basket" so much as making intelligent use of my time. I get nothing out of sending out queries and some intern looking at my submission. Come with money in hand and the whole story changes.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> My problem with the article is that he is arguing against something Hugh never said: that self-publishing is the only way to go and we should all "put our eggs in one basket". Since Hugh neither said nor implied any such thing, that made it a rather bad article imo although he points in and of themselves weren't necessarily totally wrong. I disagree with his belief that it is not easier to get your start (for most of us) by self-publishing, but that is easier in something that is difficult either way. Perhaps, less difficult is a better phrase.


Yes, that was what I got out of it too. It wasn't bashing self-publishing, it just seemed like he didn't get the point of Hugh's article--or maybe I didn't? I take it to mean for the average author, they can make more money self-publishing than they can with traditional publishing. Chuck Wendig is already traditionally published and has been for a long time. I'm not quite sure he knows how it is out in the trenches where authors are querying agents and all praying to be the one or two authors an agent may take on that year, and then praying even harder that a publisher will buy the book. After all that, they then have to hope the book actually makes it in front of some readers before the next book by the publisher comes down the conveyor belt and pushes it off the shelf. Whew! Yes, it works for some and for a few, that system works very well. It didn't work for me, and for many of us, it wasn't a matter of traditional publishing or self-publishing, it was a matter of self-publishing or trunking our books.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> I agree, but strictly for myself. I'm not going to tell anyone else what to do. I have had an agent come to me since I self-published and I turned him down flat. If a publisher did, I'd look at the offer which I think is pretty much what Hugh did. A good enough offer, I would take or negotiate if it looked close. A bad one I wouldn't.
> 
> I don't consider that "putting my eggs in one basket" so much as making intelligent use of my time. I get nothing out of sending out queries and some intern looking at my submission. Come with money in hand and the whole story changes.


That's exactly my point. There's nothing to be gained by throwing out letter after letter which will (history bears this out) almost never result in a positive response and (current trends bear this out) will generally have an advance attached to it which is pathetic compared to what even a modocum of self-pubbed success can bring and will take years to get your title to market.

Tradpub is fine. I'd take the right deal.

But actively seeking it? Wasting all that time?

WHen I could be posting on KB? No way.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Wendig has been doing a lot of passive-aggressive self-pub bashing. I don't know if it's just for attention or something else. Yeah, I realize he's self-pubbed some work. But then I don't care much for his style or advice, not in a personal way but in a does nothing for me way. Maybe I'm misreading what he says, but I definitely detect an undercurrent of self-pub disdain. I'd hope that it's just me.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

It's not just you, David. He reads that way to me as well, and I check his blog regularly because I think he's funny. But definitely an edge of defensiveness about traditional publishing there, which isn't all that unusual really.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Chuck Wendig is a lightweight in love with his bodily outlets, making a sloppy, hipshot blog entry. Come see, come saw, time to make a noise and take a nap. The fact is, indie publishing has made a dent in the world of publishing and Hugh has articulated that. To say that both worlds are the same is, as I said, sloppy. Time to put on airs, release air, and take a nap.

If traditional publishing had taken on more _independent thinking writers_, it wouldn't be taking the heat it is today. The fact that so many indie authors are making a buck or two or lots of bucks--no thanks to the literary establishment--is the measure of the book industry's failure to more fully serve the reading public.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Ugh, everyone thinks they have all the Placebo.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Glad it's not just me. Or maybe not. I'd rather he wasn't that way.



Hudson Owen said:


> Chuck Wendig is a lightweight in love with his bodily outlets, making a sloppy, hipshot blog entry. Come see, come saw, time to make a noise and take a nap. The fact is, indie publishing has made a dent in the world of publishing and Hugh has articulated that. To say that both worlds are the same is, as I said, sloppy. Time to put on airs, release air, and take a nap.


That was rather poetic, and is a good summary of how I feel about his style.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I thought maybe it's me or the way I read it?

Seems to me that Hugh wrote a fairly accurate piece in Salon and Wendig replies or comments what his opinion is on his blog. Where High's piece is well written, I find Wendig far less so. More like a brain zzzzz. He likes to hear himself type. Swill.

Now maybe Wendig has a comedy blog and I missed that? People can self-pub or have a publisher... no big deal.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

To me, Chuck's blog is like seeing a heavy metal concert with my mother. She thinks its really cool and edgy but once you get past the leather pants and loud guitars it's all kinda lame and radio-friendly corporate rock.


----------



## kurzon (Feb 26, 2011)

A friend of mine keeps linking to these self-publishing articles by Chuck Wendig.  They've all been variations of "Self-publishing is an option; let me pour cold water on it."

Reminds me of being on AW.


----------



## Fredster (Apr 11, 2011)

Now all we need is a "[fill in a name]'s response to Chuck Wendig's response to Hugh Howey's response to Salon" discussion.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

I posted some reasoned comments over there, but really, what I should have said was:


----------



## terribleminds (Apr 4, 2013)

Hey, guys.

I'm Chuck Wendig, author of the blog post.

Just wanted to clarify -- I'm pro-indie (and in fact am speaking at the self-publishing symposium at Writer's Digest East tomorrow). I have seven books that I published myself and more will come. I also have four "traditionally" published books with quite a few of those on the way, too.

I do both. I've seen the ups and downs of both. I like both and will continue this way.

I've used Kickstarter successfully. I've published at Amazon. I transitioned some of my self-published work into deals with Writer's Digest and Amazon Children's Publishing (now Skyscape). I like the opportunities that self-publishing affords us as authors.

I'm simply advocating that people find the way that best suits them, their books, their time, and their desires. I pulled that quote out of the Howey article -- and I did like some of what Howey put forward -- because it made it clear he felt that the best way forward for authors was self-publishing, bar none. And I don't automatically agree. I think it's ideal for some people. While other writers just don't have the skills or don't want to invest the time necessary to self-publish.

So, just to clarify: I'm not anti-indie. Nor am I a legacy author on the traditional side of things.

Be well, everyone.

-- c.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

terribleminds said:


> Hey, guys.
> 
> I'm Chuck Wendig, author of the blog post.
> 
> ...


Hey, Chuck. 

Both of the arguments you cited for why it's not a good fit are cop outs in my book. Don't have the skills? Learn. Nothing in self-pub is too hard for someone capable of writing at a professional level.

Don't have the time? How is writing query letters not time-consuming? (Oh, and demoralizing.)

Other than that, I know you don't hate self/indie. I just took issue with the stance that Hugh was advocating indie all the way, when it's obvious he published hybrid too.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Thanks for stopping by to clarify Chuck.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

What Hugh Howey said is that self publishing is the best and only way to _start_ out publishing in today's publishing industry because it gets our work out into the world sooner, pays the best initially, and has the best chance for exposure and connection to readers. He also states that going hybrid/trad or trad later on is a valid career choice. Taking one passage out of context and mocking Hugh is disingenuous, Chuck.

I am a reader of books by both authors in question, for the record.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

So am I. Thanks for commenting, Chuck.


----------



## terribleminds (Apr 4, 2013)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Hey, Chuck.
> 
> Both of the arguments you cited for why it's not a good fit are cop outs in my book. Don't have the skills? Learn. Nothing in self-pub is too hard for someone capable of writing at a professional level.
> 
> Don't have the time? How is writing query letters not time-consuming? (Oh, and demoralizing.)


It's not a cop-out and that's a little presumptuous of you to say what other people should or should not do. You are your own boss. Not the boss of everyone else. Writing and self-publishing are two entirely different skill-sets. Further, traditional-publishing and self-publishing require two different risk/reward proposals. Not everyone is comfortable with one or the other.

For instance: you find query letters time consuming and demoralizing. Should I tell you that's a cop out? That if you can't hack a simple query letter, you should learn? I won't tell you that. You don't think it's worth it? Don't do it.

Point overall is, don't presume to tell people what they should do, particularly in something like writing -- which is a career with many peculiar and particular in-roads. Or, as I'm fond to say, we all dig our own tunnels into a writing career. What I do, what Hugh Howey does, what you do, can and should look very different from one another.

-- Chuck


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

Victoria Champion said:


> What Hugh Howey said is that self publishing is the best and only way to _start_ out publishing in today's publishing industry because it gets our work out into the world sooner, pays the best initially, and has the best chance for exposure and connection to readers. He also states that going hybrid/trad or trad later on is a valid career choice. Taking one passage out of context and mocking Hugh is disingenuous, Chuck.
> 
> I am a reader of books by both authors in question, for the record.


I'm happy that Chuck came over to clarify what he meant, and I have the deepest respect for that. Still, apart from the line about mocking, I must agree with Victoria. I also agree with Hugh. I'm getting my start by self-publishing and it was a choice that has helped me financially more than once. My self-published stories have actually been paying my car payment since the last few months of 2012. If I had continued going the traditional route (I have sold a few short stories that way, but I haven't bothered in a while) I would still be waiting on responses to queries and probably not have a way to pay for my car, since my freelance technical writing job is drying up.

To me, the idea that my fiction is paying for my car, gas and car insurance is crazy. Those bills are actually covered until July because of self-publishing. Sure, if I wrote something that prompted a publisher to offer me a "print only" deal, I would probably take it. It's been a dream of mine to see my book in a bricks and mortar store. It's not something I need at this time, though.

As for my wife, publishing cookbooks would not have been possible through the traditional route. She's not a well-known chef. She's someone who loves to come up with new ideas and interesting recipes. She's shared that with the world, and has made close to $3,000 over February and March.

In short, I can see the positives and negatives of both sides. With that said, while they may offer differing methods, I look towards Howey, Konrath and other successful indies when I ponder where to tread next. While I may not do exactly what they do, I can certainly learn what not to do by reading into what they caution against. That alone is a big help and a major push in the right direction.


----------



## terribleminds (Apr 4, 2013)

Victoria Champion said:


> What Hugh Howey said is that self publishing is the best and only way to _start_ out publishing in today's publishing industry because it gets our work out into the world sooner, pays the best initially, and has the best chance for exposure and connection to readers. He also states that going hybrid/trad or trad later on is a valid career choice. Taking one passage out of context and mocking Hugh is disingenuous, Chuck.
> 
> I am a reader of books by both authors in question, for the record.


Victoria:

I assure you, I am not mocking Hugh Howey, whose success should be celebrated.

But I also assure you, self-publishing is not automatically the "best" or most certainly the "only" way to start out publishing. That's absurd and is disproven by countless others who have done and are doing differently. Just as no one in traditional publishing should tell you their way is the only way, nor should you be so autocratic as to tell them you have all the answers and what they're doing is somehow wrong.

-- Chuck


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

terribleminds said:


> Victoria:
> 
> I assure you, I am not mocking Hugh Howey, whose success should be celebrated.
> 
> ...


Well, I have to agree with Hugh that it's the only approach that makes sense in the new world of publishing. Slush pile? No thanks.


----------



## terribleminds (Apr 4, 2013)

Victoria Champion said:


> Well, I have to agree with Hugh that it's the only approach that makes sense in the new world of publishing. Slush pile? No thanks.


And that's great. It makes sense for you, so more power to you. It does not always make sense for everyone else. Which is the overarching point: there is no One Size Fits All approach for writers and how they choose to publish.

-- Chuck


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

While watching the back and forth from the two Salon articles (the one on failure and Hugh's) as well as Chuck's response, the one thing I'm picking up is that it seems like there's a lot of success for different people. As someone who is hoping to do something with her first manuscript, I appreciate hearing all sides of publishing - seeing what works and what doesn't work. Then I get to choose my path.

I'm a huge fan of Hugh's writing, and very excited to see that the traditional publishing world is willing to change and consider hybrid deals. I'm also very much aware of several indie authors who are experiencing different levels of financial success with their self-published works. 

I get that people are proud of how things have worked for them as they should be. But I have to ask - is there not room for more than one opinion and more than one way to get their written word out there? I would like to think that Kboards is a place where everyone's opinion is valued. More and more, I feel like it's indie or nothing - self-published good/ other ways horrible and against self-published authors.

And yes, there is space to disagree with what Chuck posted on his blog (but again, it's his blog). Have a dialogue about it. Share your experiences. But allow for more than one way to get things done. And if anyone thinks I'm saying this because I'm anti being self-published, they need to read my comments on Hugh's Salon article under JR Falls.

No one needs to win this argument. Writers can win by however they find success. And may everyone here find success. In other words - can't we all just get along?


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

terribleminds said:


> And that's great. It makes sense for you, so more power to you. It does not always make sense for everyone else. Which is the overarching point: there is no One Size Fits All approach for writers and how they choose to publish.
> 
> -- Chuck


Okay, I see your point. I do.

Last comment about that: I think that Hugh's article makes a salient point that the struggle to be published traditionally is essentially equal to unnecessary suffering.

Hey, Chuck, are you gonna officially join us over here at KBoards? Fill out your profile and sig? Come on, it'll be fun. It's so funny how you are on your best behavior over here, it's like talking to an alter-ego Chuck Wendig.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

terribleminds said:


> It's not a cop-out...


Yes, it is.



> ...and that's a little presumptuous of you to say what other people should or should not do.


I'm not saying what they should or should not do. I am saying that there are better and worse plans. Better plans involve actually making headway. Worse ones involve waiting on validation from agents/editors. People can still do as they please. Does not make all plans equally brilliant.



> You are your own boss.


I know. I'm terrible to work for too. I hate me. 



> Not the boss of everyone else. Writing and self-publishing are two entirely different skill-sets. Further, traditional-publishing and self-publishing require two different risk/reward proposals. Not everyone is comfortable with one or the other.


Entirely different skill sets? I would love for you to tell me what precisely a selfpub author needs to do that is so radically "out there" that it is "radically different" . . . the ability to use a computer? To upload a file? To pay someone to design a cover? (10$-50$ premades abound.) To trade edits/beta reads? (Like tradpub authors never do critiques?)



> For instance: you find query letters time consuming and demoralizing. Should I tell you that's a cop out? That if you can't hack a simple query letter, you should learn? I won't tell you that. You don't think it's worth it? Don't do it.


It's not writing a letter ( to quote you: "zzz") that's the problem. I can do that in my sleep. Any writer can. But find me a traditionally published author who finds rejection invigorating. Pleasurable. A joy. They don't. It's not fun. (There's entire books written on how to deal with the process of rejection. How not to get down. How to keep on.) But in the end, it's necessary.

Only it's not anymore. You don't have to do that crap to publish.



> Point overall is, don't presume to tell people what they should do, particularly in something like writing -- which is a career with many peculiar and particular in-roads. Or, as I'm fond to say, we all dig our own tunnels into a writing career. What I do, what Hugh Howey does, what you do, can and should look very different from one another.


I don't disagree with you. But I think you've made the assumption that me pointing out what is generally a wiser path means I am trying to force people to take it. By all means, I am not. I firmly believe in doing things the way one feels they should be done.

But that involves making mistakes. Be it via tradpub or selfpub, we will ALL make mistakes. I'm not any more right to do any of the things that I have done than anyone else is. What matters is where we end up and how we feel. I do believe (and so do a number of others, of course) that given the paradigm shift of the past half decade, tradpub is currently lacking very good selling points as a path into writing. The biggest one seems to be that you don't need to learn how to do anything but write. Only that's complete crap, because pretty much all marketing is left up to a newbie author anyway. One in what, a hundred . . . a thousand? . . . one will get amazing pushes from their publisher because they write the next Twilight. All others will sink or swim on their own sweat.

I maintain: if you're smart enough to write at a professional level (and not everyone is, but we have to go from the standpoint of talking about people who are) you're going to be able to master the few basic tasks it takes to format and upload an ebook/POD book. Beyond that, as I said, you're in territory you share with tradpub: you need to market your book, because unless you're one of the anointed few, you're SOL as far as marketing muscle.

For some reason you are equating people pointing out that tradpub is generally a waste of time with people forcing others to do something in specific. I can no more force another writer to self publish than I can make you (apparently) recognize that selfpub is about as difficult to learn as driving a car. (I think it took me more time to learn to drive the car, actually.)

*shrug*

People can do as they please. Lets all make our own mistakes, by all means. But why not be honest with each other about the possibilities, and how difficult they truly are. (As in, I really wish people would make it sound like selfpub is so horrendously complex...it's not.)


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Chuck, I appreciate that you took time to come over here. But I have to tell you. The statement someone else made that it sounds like you say self-pub is an option but then pour cold water on it. A lot of people are getting that vibe from you. I did. My best friend just told me about the article, not knowing I'd already read it. And that's the vibe they had gotten from that article and others by you. And they're not self-pubbed. You may not intend it but people are getting that sense of things from you.

I'm not hot and bothered about it, though. My business is good and I long ago realized that most authors are terrible at running their careers as a business. I'm not going to try to run their businesses for them and tell them what to do. I pretty much limit my rah-rah, such that it is, to the choir.

I have written successful query letters and I'm having success self-publishing. Different skill sets? Maybe. But if it's your business, you have to learn it whether you want to or not. I did. Just like doing taxes. My dad was a farmer. He hated working with chemicals but had to do it as the business changed. And it was difficult but he did it. That's life. An author shouldn't make their decisions based on what's easy for them or requires new skills but what's best for their business.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

David Alastair Hayden said:


> Chuck, I appreciate that you took time to come over here. But I have to tell you. The statement someone else made that it sounds like you say self-pub is an option but then pour cold water on it. A lot of people are getting that vibe from you. I did. My best friend just told me about the article, not knowing I'd already read it. And that's the vibe they had gotten from that article and others by you. And they're not self-pubbed. You may not intend it but people are getting that sense of things from you.
> 
> I'm not hot and bothered about it, though. My business is good and I long ago realized that most authors are terrible at running their careers as a business. I'm not going to try to run their businesses for them and tell them what to do. I pretty much limit my rah-rah, such that it is, to the choir.
> 
> I have written successful query letters and I'm having success self-publishing. Different skill sets? Maybe. But if it's your business, you have to learn it whether you want to or not. I did. Just like doing taxes. My dad was a farmer. He hated working with chemicals but had to do it as the business changed. And it was difficult but he did it. That's life. An author shouldn't make their decisions based on what's easy for them or requires new skills but what's best for their business.


That's something some authors don't realize: that self-publishing is the same as starting a small business. Most small businesses stay in the red for the first 3-5 years. The owners have to work 24-7. It's not something to be taken lightly. Self-publishers need to learn the ins and outs of business and the craft of writing. I never even touched a spreadsheet until I got into this trade.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

terribleminds said:


> It's not a cop-out and that's a little presumptuous of you to say what other people should or should not do. You are your own boss. Not the boss of everyone else. Writing and self-publishing are two entirely different skill-sets. Further, traditional-publishing and self-publishing require two different risk/reward proposals. Not everyone is comfortable with one or the other.
> 
> For instance: you find query letters time consuming and demoralizing. Should I tell you that's a cop out? That if you can't hack a simple query letter, you should learn? I won't tell you that. You don't think it's worth it? Don't do it.
> 
> ...


D*mn I wish we had a raised eyebrows icon.

Let's start with that "simple query letter": yeah the one that an author spend weeks polishing for each and every separate agent or publisher you query, because you know d*mn will that no one writes just one. Didn't you mean HUNDREDS of query letters and tracking the results and following up on who has requested partials and fulls and whether they've responded in the time they said they would. And then follow-up queries to find out why the agent who requested a full manuscript hasn't said a thing although he said he would have a response within six weeks?

Then again, how long has it been since you've been in that position. Maybe you don't have a clue what it is like starting off in the current publishing environment.

What's more, you blatantly misrepresented what Hugh said. He NEVER said not to consider trad publishing. Considering the size of his trad contract, that would be rather ridiculous.


----------



## ShaunaG (Jun 16, 2011)

I am so confused by some of the reactions. Hugh made good points. Chuck made good points. I don't agree with Hugh's statement that self-publishing is "better" as a start, but it's obvious why he would think that. The part that I actually disagreed with was, "self-publishing is easier than traditional" because that's just not true for everyone. Some people just don't have the equal balance of creative and business savvy to self-publish and be successful at it. I think we all here, whether you made a couple hundred a month or a couple thousand a month, can agree that you have to be pretty good at the business side of things to do this well. But if you can't, and you can manage to get traditionally published, then that road would be "easier" for you. 

One last comment, this is a quote from Chuck's post:

"Hey, self-publishing is cool!

Traditional publishing is cool, too!

Both have strengths. And also weaknesses.

Not everybody is fit to be their own publisher.

Not everyone is fit to deal with a traditional publisher."

How is that pouring ice water on self-publishing? 

Saying you're willing to consider offers from publishers, while continuing to self-publish, means you aren't putting your eggs in one basket. Just sayin'.


----------



## ShaunaG (Jun 16, 2011)

Victoria Champion said:


> It's so funny how you are on your best behavior over here, it's like talking to an alter-ego Chuck Wendig.


Agreed. But I think the filters would actually explode if he wasn't.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

It's amazing that I'm being painted as an all-or-nothing Konrath disciple. Just because self-publishing is the _best_ way to get started doesn't mean it's the _only_ way. Signing away lifetime rights and control over works that could be available forever is always an option. Just an inferior one.

What I hope to see is that the changes hybrids are forcing on publishing houses will trickle down to the writers who despise us. They won't even know it's happening. Non-compete clauses will simply disappear. Finite terms of license will become the norm. Print and digital rights will be negotiated separately. And I won't care one bit who causes this, only that it happens.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

Here's the thing about this argument: Everyone has the opportunity to be right. All paths could lead to Oz... or no where... Or HN's Football match.

What I'm NOT understanding (and I stopped reading the comments on the article because of this) is all the anger about people not agreeing with you (big you, not any you specifically)... I get it around the aggressive troll people, but people who just have a different view point? 

So what? 

The worst part about this? A big article put out into the world that drew a lot of attention about self-publishing turned into something in the comments I'm glad my name wasn't tied to. 

I'm not angry. I'm not judgmental. I hope we ALL get success and I hope we all get it in the ways that are individually the healthiest for our lifestyles and stress-levels....and with all those variables (how people define success, what is stressful, what they want out of their writing, etc) I REJOICE that there are a several paths to publication now. 

We live in an amazing era to be creative and part of that creativity is finding your own path. Best luck to all.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> It's amazing that I'm being painted as an all-or-nothing Konrath disciple. Just because self-publishing is the _best_ way to get started doesn't mean it's the _only_ way. Signing away lifetime rights and control over works that could be available forever is always an option. Just an inferior one.


EXACTLY.

That's where most of us having an issue with Chuck's response come out. Not at the fact that you do, yes, advocate for self-pub. But that you're cast as only doing so because it worked for you (you self-published long before you broke out) and that you think it's the "only" way . . .



> What I hope to see is that the changes hybrids are forcing on publishing houses will trickle down to the writers who despise us. They won't even know it's happening. Non-compete clauses will simply disappear. Finite terms of license will become the norm. Print and digital rights will be negotiated separately. And I won't care one bit who causes this, only that it happens.


Amen.


----------



## ShaunaG (Jun 16, 2011)

Caitie Quinn said:


> I REJOICE that there are a several paths to publication now.
> 
> We live in an amazing era to be creative and part of that creativity is finding your own path. Best luck to all.


And really, I think that was the message both posts were really trying to say. At least, that was my takeaway. No snark needed from anyone.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> It's amazing that I'm being painted as an all-or-nothing Konrath disciple. Just because self-publishing is the _best_ way to get started doesn't mean it's the _only_ way. Signing away lifetime rights and control over works that could be available forever is always an option. Just an inferior one.
> 
> What I hope to see is that the changes hybrids are forcing on publishing houses will trickle down to the writers who despise us. They won't even know it's happening. Non-compete clauses will simply disappear. Finite terms of license will become the norm. Print and digital rights will be negotiated separately. And I won't care one bit who causes this, only that it happens.


Like I said, I agree with you that self publishing is the only approach that makes sense (at least to me). I find it sad that authors give up power over their creative works in the way you describe. I couldn't do that.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

terribleminds said:


> But I also assure you, self-publishing is not automatically the "best" or most certainly the "only" way to start out publishing. That's absurd and is disproven by countless others who have done and are doing differently.
> -- Chuck


The thing is, for the vast majority the choice is not self publish or traditionally publish, the choice is self publish or dont publish at all.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Adam Pepper said:


> The thing is, for the vast majority the choice is not self publish or traditionally publish, the choice is self publish or dont publish at all.


I look at it as selfpub or play the lottery.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I look at it as selfpub or play the lottery.


Well, every title is a lottery ticket in a sense.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Victoria Champion said:


> Well, every title is a lottery ticket in a sense.


In this case the lottery is to get a chance to play the lottery.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Victoria Champion said:


> That's something some authors don't realize: that self-publishing is the same as starting a small business. Most small businesses stay in the red for the first 3-5 years. The owners have to work 24-7. It's not something to be taken lightly. Self-publishers need to learn the ins and outs of business and the craft of writing. I never even touched a spreadsheet until I got into this trade.


Same here. Learned how to use spreadsheets in high school, not that it's hard, and never needed to until now. I was in the red for the first 9 months.


----------



## terribleminds (Apr 4, 2013)

Hugh Howey said:


> It's amazing that I'm being painted as an all-or-nothing Konrath disciple. Just because self-publishing is the _best_ way to get started doesn't mean it's the _only_ way. Signing away lifetime rights and control over works that could be available forever is always an option. Just an inferior one.
> 
> What I hope to see is that the changes hybrids are forcing on publishing houses will trickle down to the writers who despise us. They won't even know it's happening. Non-compete clauses will simply disappear. Finite terms of license will become the norm. Print and digital rights will be negotiated separately. And I won't care one bit who causes this, only that it happens.


Hugh:

Surely you can see where it rankles a bit that you claim to know the "best" way to do something? Claiming best -- like everything is ranked somehow -- is what makes it sound like One True Way-ism. I know writers for whom self-publishing just doesn't fly. Why would they need to be told differently if they've found success in other ways? Why must there be a sense of superior versus inferior? It smacks of the tribalism that does us all little good.

-- Chuck


----------



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

B.


----------



## Speaker-To-Animals (Feb 21, 2012)

Hugh's right. It's pretty much that simple. 

Maybe my experience is anecdotal, but I've been a latte sipping, NPR listening, BBC watching eastern liberal elitist my whole life and everyone I know writes or wants to write. I knew one person who ever got a trade  book deal and she made "meh" from it. In the last three years I've had dozens of friends quit their jobs, several hit best seller lists, and in my household we've made $500+ per month despite being mediocre writers and terribly lazy in production (oh the joys of a 2 year old). 

I'll take my anecdotal evidence thanks. I'll take it to the bank.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

B. Justin Shier said:


> B.


  Nice.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

TexasGirl said:


> Chuck's article was hilarious! And full of win!
> 
> Both articles were. Both made good points. I'm glad we're getting more articles out by people who actually know what they are talking about.
> 
> ...


The glass can be half-empty and half-full-at exactly the same time!

Also, I'd like to point out that Hugh said he had many examples of authors finding success (enough money to at least equal one advance) from a bunch of authors, too many to list. If my income keeps growing anywhere near the rate it has been, my hubby is going to be a very lucky man in the next few years.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Haha. Nice one B.


----------



## Alan Petersen (May 20, 2011)

Hugh's piece was in response to several anti-self publishing articles posted on Salon, it was meant to show the other side for their readers.  But why focus on that when taking it out of context makes for great link bait, comments, and forum fodder. 

Chuck's article had good points as well (the blah, blah title was annoying, but hey, whatever catches readers attention).


----------



## Vince Dickinson (Mar 5, 2013)

What makes sense to me is querying agents, but not holding my breath. Self-publishing can be a way to test the waters. You can see if you have decent marketing skills, or if you reach the right audience, or even if what you wrote is great, good, mediocre or something else. 

What I've run into recently is that agents don't reply at all. They even say on their websites that they won't reply unless they want to see more. And I know they're busy. I know they see a lot of garbage. But if you really wait six weeks for each of these non-responses, it would take decades to exhaust all the agent-querying possibilities for each book. I don't wait six weeks. But all I hear is crickets.

So go ahead and query. Maybe you get some responses. Awesome. And if you get an agent, and if they get you a big-time publisher, than amazing doors can open for you. 

But self-publishing gets you an opportunity for an audience, too. Now.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

terribleminds said:


> Hugh:
> 
> Surely you can see where it rankles a bit that you claim to know the "best" way to do something? Claiming best -- like everything is ranked somehow -- is what makes it sound like One True Way-ism. I know writers for whom self-publishing just doesn't fly. Why would they need to be told differently if they've found success in other ways? Why must there be a sense of superior versus inferior? It smacks of the tribalism that does us all little good.
> 
> -- Chuck


Don't we all claim to know the best way? Isn't that what our biases are? It's all just opinion; we have to substantiate it however we can.

You claim that both ways are perfectly equal. Or that all ways are perfectly equal. Or that no way is better than any other way. Or that each writer will find their own way. All of that is wrong in my opinion. In your opinion, I am wrong. I feel like we're on equal footing, here, and I suspect we respect the other even as we disagree. You seem like a cool dude. I enjoy a healthy disagreement.

We also seem to be using our private anecdotes to support our biases. You know people. I know people. It seems like everyone we know is doing great. That's great!

Something I'll admit to: I hang around people who feed into my biases and strengthen them. I also just watched my big 6 publisher and the #1 brick and mortar bookstore in the land get into a spat while I was on a 12-city tour that prevented my book from getting into stores despite a strong demand and cracking the NYT list. There are serious problems with this industry, and I want to fight to make the world a better place for artists. That's my only objective.

I really do think self-publishing is a better business and artistic decision in this climate, and I have a litany of reasons for thinking so. Doesn't mean I don't think people can or should publish in other ways. They should just view those as methods of last resort (IE: I can't be bothered to learn how to self-publish. I don't want to invest $1,000 in having someone else self-publish my book for me. I'd rather give up lifetime rights for paltry royalties in order to get a spine-out book in a bookstore for six months [while there are any bookstores left]). If someone exhausts all other avenues and resorts to this, that's great. But it's not on equal footing to self-publishing, not today.

Many of the people I'm celebrating in the Salon article would* never have gotten published if they followed the traditional path.* This story is not about me, but I'm in that camp as well. WOOL never would've been published traditionally. It was serialized novelettes that repeatedly killed the POV character. The fact that I can name several hundred people who are making hundreds of dollars a month when the alternative would have been for them to collect rejection letters is the story here. What's controversial about that? The writing community in its infinite wisdom is telling these people to shut up, take zero money, collect snub letters, and "work on their craft until they get through the gauntlet."

That seems cut and dry to me. Housewives are writing romance and inventing new genres and making a killing by supplying a demand that publishers weren't even aware of. Gay romance is going gangbusters. Authors are mixing genres, something that would doom a manuscript to a slush pile because bookstores have no place to shelve the works, and they are paying a bill or two. Hell, yeah. Poop noises. And all the cool bacon hipster slang.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

It's reasonable to contrast two business strategies based on cost/benefit. It's also reasonable to find one superior to the other. Those with the talent to exploit the superior strategy usually win over those with the talent to exploit the inferior strategy.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

If there's anything in Chuck's article that kind of rubbed me the wrong way, it was this:

"Don't join cults."

And it wasn't so much his saying it, but that I felt it fed into a larger sense that we self-pubbers over here are delusional zealots trying to convince you all to abandon your big six dreams for some kool-aid that will kill your career.

When actually we're just like, "Holy strawberries, Batman, I'm making money from writing!!!" Which is kind of exciting for us, because it's a fulfillment of a lifelong dream, and we want to tell everyone about it, 'cause it freaking rocks. 

Sorry if we sound like we're trying to recruit you to some weird religious thing. It might not work for you. But it's also probably not going to be nearly as detrimental as taking the trip to Jonestown--not for your career, and definitely not for your life. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

fallswriter said:


> I would like to think that Kboards is a place where everyone's opinion is valued. More and more, I feel like it's indie or nothing - self-published good/ other ways horrible and against self-published authors.


I may be wrong, and if I am I know others will pounce correct me, but I joined KBoards more than 3 years ago, before I ever had a thought of indie pubbling. I'd just gotten a Kindle and was looking for places to discuss it with others. I'm not sure if it was KBoards or one of the other forums I joined, but it was on a forum that I first saw posts about people like me being able to self-pub ebooks on Amazon (free! I didn't believe it at first).

Back then writers' discussion posts were mixed in with promo posts and everything else in the Book Bazaar, and then Writers' Cafe was broken out. It's always been my impression that this was primarily a safe and supportive place for indie writers. Some indies who came here had been traditionally published first, and over time some took traditional deals and became hybrid that way. However, I never got the impression that this was the ideal place for someone only interested in traditional publishing.

Three years ago indies needed a safe and supportive place. I know when my first romance became popular I got torn to pieces in another forum. Every fan of my book was a shill, I was a $%%^^&&* personally and had done all sorts of evil things (none of which I actually did). That anti-indie attitude may be muted now somewhat because of the success of people like Hugh, but it's still alive and out there.

As to the what's-best debate. I don't know - I'm one of those who never would have been published traditionally because I looked at what was necessary and how much I'd earn doing that and decided not to bother. My opinion of spending years writing query letters is rather like Mathew's. However, it's been interesting to read Kris Rusch's and Dean Wesley Smith's blogs these last years and see their opinions on indie do a total 180.

If I were determined to publish traditionally, I'd look for forums like Absolute Write for support.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

terribleminds said:


> Hugh:
> 
> Surely you can see where it rankles a bit that you claim to know the "best" way to do something? Claiming best -- like everything is ranked somehow -- is what makes it sound like One True Way-ism. I know writers for whom self-publishing just doesn't fly. Why would they need to be told differently if they've found success in other ways? Why must there be a sense of superior versus inferior? It smacks of the tribalism that does us all little good.
> 
> -- Chuck


What about instead of 'best way' to start out, it was 'the way that makes the most sense right now'? Things change and what was true two years ago is no longer true and what is true today could change by next year. I agree with Hugh that RIGHT NOW, the way that makes the most sense is self-publishing. I believe that the chances for success for the author who does his/her research is greater for an author with a manuscript than spending all the time trying to find agent bios and guessing from the little info if they will like your book. (Of course, only to find out later that the agent may never have even seen your query as an intern with the agency made the decision.)

I spent months doing that and it was literally the biggest waste of time and I regret every letter I sent out and not because I was rejected, but because I could have had my book on Amazon very early on when KDP first started instead of losing six months.

I do believe things will change and the reason they will change is because of authors like Hugh, Bella Andre and others who have stood their ground and received fair contracts. There is an alternative now-- a very viable one and that gives authors leverage they have never had before. Like you, some will be hybrid by choice and isn't great that you have that choice?


----------



## Maggie Dana (Oct 26, 2011)

Dalya said:


> Ugh, everyone thinks they have all the Placebo.


If it's not too much trouble, I'd like a few prawns with that placebo, please.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> Many of the people I'm celebrating in the Salon article would* never have gotten published if they followed the traditional path.* This story is not about me, but I'm in that camp as well. WOOL never would've been published traditionally. It was serialized novelettes that repeatedly killed the POV character. The fact that I can name several hundred people who are making hundreds of dollars a month when the alternative would have been for them to collect rejection letters is the story here. What's controversial about that? The writing community in its infinite wisdom is telling these people to shut up, take zero money, collect snub letters, and "work on their craft until they get through the gauntlet."
> 
> That seems cut and dry to me. Housewives are writing romance and inventing new genres and making a killing by supplying a demand that publishers weren't even aware of. Gay romance is going gangbusters. Authors are mixing genres, something that would doom a manuscript to a slush pile because bookstores have no place to shelve the works, and they are paying a bill or two. Hell, yeah. Poop noises. And all the cool bacon hipster slang.


I'm one of those who was getting agents to say, "send me the manuscript", from my query letters. I had an agent sit on my manuscript for seven moths, and said he was taking it to a big six who was looking for something in YA like my book. After waiting patiently for the seven months, I called him and found out he never did shop it around, still wanted to, but had been busy putting out fires for existing clients.

I self-published at that point. In March, I had over three hundred readers pay for my books and another 5,000+ download it for free, and not all numbers from all sellers are in yet. Over 60,000 of my ebooks are out there just through the numbers I know from Amazon and some reporting from Smashwords. Not block buster numbers, but growing monthly at a nice, increasing clip.

I do have another agent now (because of the movie deal the movie producer arranged for him to represent me), so I'm holding off on releasing the last two ebooks in the series to see if it helps get me a better publication deal.

To me, the most important part is I'm building readers. I get reader email daily. Every book I publish, I work on writing a better product.
I'm working on my third series, and the second book in my second series. I love writing and publishing. Getting read is icing on the cake. I see how when I have twenty books out, not just six, I can make a nice living without being a household name.

Recently, I ran into a high school teacher at an event I attended. She teaches in a public high school in a different county. She mentioned she was reading my book, and was pleasantly surprised when half the class said they had read it, too. Now for me to find this out, is awesome.

I remember a conversation I had with a traditionally published author friend of mine who would never consider self publishing. She has over thirty books published. She also has enough traditionally contracted projects to keep her busy writing for the next two years. She said she queried for five years before she got her agent and said I should expect to do that, too.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Any writer with the slightest bit of intelligence should be able to see that the advent of digital self-publishing is opening up a whole new worlds for both the writer and the reader. Self-published writers now have a viable marketplace where they can test their wares, twist their genres, and invent tales that never would have been considered by traditional publishing houses. Those of us here all understand this. I am quite sure that the readers understand it.

I find it unbelievably odd that some writers still believe that being picked up by a traditional publisher somehow equates to a stamp of approval of their ability as a writer. It has been quite obvious for eons that publishers select manuscripts based on what they think will sell in the current market, not on what is "well written." (By whatever stick you wish to measure the prose.) I suspect that the writers that seem most threatened by the rise of the self-pubbed masses are the very same ones that need that validation.

Self-pubbing took me from a life of misery, debt, and failing health to one of happiness, financial prosperity and vastly improved health. All within one year. And I am not that good of a writer. Show me a traditionally published author that has experienced the same sudden shift in life in such short order. Granted, this may not happen to everyone, but it happens to plenty of them in varying degrees. 

As usual, I reserve the right to be full of it.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Any writer with the slightest bit of intelligence should be able to see that the advent of digital self-publishing is opening up a whole new worlds for both the writer and the reader. Self-published writers now have a viable marketplace where they can test their wares, twist their genres, and invent tales that never would have been considered by traditional publishing houses. Those of us here all understand this. I am quite sure that the readers understand it.
> 
> I find it unbelievably odd that some writers still believe that being picked up by a traditional publisher somehow equates to a stamp of approval of their ability as a writer. It has been quite obvious for eons that publishers select manuscripts based on what they think will sell in the current market, not on what is "well written." (By whatever stick you wish to measure the prose.) I suspect that the writers that seem most threatened by the rise of the self-pubbed masses are the very same ones that need that validation.
> 
> ...


Everything you said, Ryk. I agree with it entirely. I can't understand that people don't see that self-pub is obviously the best way to start out now. I know some people want the traditional deal for whatever their reasons, but starting self-pub is the best way.

The four years I had an agent, back before self-pub existed, it was hell. I liked my agent, but that whole process. I already had depression and it sent me spiralling down into the depths. I got over that depression thing and got back to writing to discover self-pub.

And not only do publishers buy based on the market, that market can change in a heartbeat, or their estimation of it anyway. Largely they're guessing. A sudden market shift quite possibly cost me a traditional deal seven years ago.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

Control is key.  Self-publishing gives more control, and diversifying that beyond Amazon maximizes the author's control of works.  The traditional route involves sacrificing control to disinterested parties at the very outset, meaning it's a bad way to go for most people.  The few people it's good for are the ones who are going to get published traditionally; and since that cannot be predicted (unless you wrote Eragon), that's a bad lottery to play.

In my opinion.

Insert anecdotal counter-argument below.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

As Adam Pepper and others have noted, you cannot choose traditional publishing from a menu listing of equally attainable choices.  Traditional publishing chooses you.  Trad publishing is not just a business model, it's a culture, a clubhouse, certainly in areas such as the social novel.  If you just graduated from Swarthmore or Vassar and have a literary friend in New York, you have a much better chance at obtaining an entry-level position at Redbook, say, than Jane Goode from flyover country.  And you can go places with that business card.

You can cash it in for drinks at the Algonquin with Old Possum who tippled with John Cheever, Renata Adler  and other New Yorker alums, and swears he once saw the ghost of F. Scott Fitzgerald.  Or dinner at Elaine's, in the old days, and you sat two tables from a brooding J.D. Salinger--and he glanced your way.

This is what the Old Guard doesn't want to do--give you a seat at the table.  God, it's getting crowded in New York, and there are only so many august chairs in Gotham.  Sure. you can live in Winston Salem and get that electric phone call, or email, from a publisher or agent; just like you can live in Kansas City and sell a screenplay to Hollywood for a million.  You can win the lottery, too.

I once worked as a temp in an editorial office of Big Pub.  My assignment was to type rejection slips.  "Dear Blank, we have read your manuscript with careful consideration..."  One such dart of doom seemed unnecessarily cruel to me and I got up from my chair and walked unannounced into the editor's pre-email office.  I saw scripts on all the surfaces all around the room, but especially on the floor, in three foot stacks--a thousand, at least.  The young editor, with dreams of her own, was clearly swamped and at her wit's end.

Politely, I made my point about the letter to Dear Blank.  She took a quick peek and agreed with me.  Minutes later, she returned with a kinder, gentler 'no.'  I felt better about my day at the office as I pushed through the evening rush at Grand Central Terminal to board my train for Brooklyn.  I had struck a small blow, you see, for decency toward the toiling writer, a tiny echo of which may have reached the far shores of independent publishing.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "This is what the Old Guard doesn't want to do--give you a seat at the table. "


I suspect one source of dismay is fewer people are waiting for tables.


----------



## cdvsmx5 (May 23, 2012)

Hugh's point is self publishing success is about more than just the big numbers that capture the media's attention. 
But, Chuck, it's not about you.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

The big news here: Salon accepted an article which was not anti-selfpublishing.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Reading Wendig's article, I didn't feel it added anything useful to the discussion/debate concerning indie and traditional publishing that's been waged these last few years. If anything, it read like a blog post in which someone throws a tantrum because -- oh, no! -- someone else out there in the universe doesn't see every little thing exactly the way you do and doesn't phrase every single word they've ever written or said in exactly the way you would.

Sorry, but Hugh's Salon article did none of the things Wendig mentioned, and the one pull-out quote was taken out of context. Was Hugh's article fully comprehensive of every single publishing possibility in the entire known universe? No, of course not. It wasn't meant to be. It _shouldn't _be expected to be.

But I'm sure any response here on KB is suspect because everyone here is obviously a member of the Howey fan club.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

I'm a big fan of self publishing but I think an overly rosy picture of it is presented in this thread. Obviously because most of the people here are very successful at it. Chuck makes a lot of good points. 

Someone said that self publishing is like starting a small business, which is true. How does that line up with the fact that self-publishing should be the first choice regardless of someone's ability or desire to run a small business?

Someone said that going through the query process and dealing with the rejection is hell. What about self-publishing and receiving a multitude of 1 star reviews? Your work is out in public for anyone to criticize which might be worse than the private rejection of a query letter rejection.

What about if your output level is one literary novel every 3 years? Seems that trad publishing might be a better option than self publishing. What about if you don't care about the money or going pro, you just want the prestige of appearing in bookstores? What about if you have only one book in you, and you are not much of a marketeer? What about if you badly need an editor and you haven't two cents to rub together? 

And even though a great number on these boards have found success, the majority of people who self-publish are still not going to sell more than a handful of copies.

Edit: I think Hugh's article was dead on, I just think that Chuck is right too when he says that it's not One Size Fits All.


----------



## terribleminds (Apr 4, 2013)

I'm tired of ringing the same bell here -- "Nothing wrong with self-pub, just might not be for everyone; no one best, superior way exists." 

Blah blah blah. You don't want to hear it. That's okay.

As such, I think we're done here.

Good luck with all your writing endeavors going forward.

-- Chuck


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

David J Normoyle said:


> I'm a big fan of self publishing but I think an overly rosy picture of it is presented in this thread. Obviously because most of the people here are very successful at it. Chuck makes a lot of good points.


Really? Seriously? So . . . I mean at what point do you judge success? After all, if you make a single sale as a self-pubbed author you've already beaten any tradpub aspirant who has yet to get picked up. Pretty d*mn low bar if you ask me.



> Someone said that self publishing is like starting a small business, which is true. How does that line up with the fact that self-publishing should be the first choice regardless of someone's ability or desire to run a small business?


All writers are in effect small business people. No matter how you cut it, you have to market. (Unless you're one of the anointed few, and even then, it's a damned good idea to do it anyway.) If you don't want to be a small business person: don't write.



> Someone said that going through the query process and dealing with the rejection is hell. What about self-publishing and receiving a multitude of 1 star reviews? Your work is out in public for anyone to criticize which might be worse than the private rejection of a query letter rejection.


Yes, because everyone knows that tradpub authors are completely immune to one-stars!?



> And even though a great number on these boards have found success, the majority of people who self-publish are still not going to sell more than a handful of copies.


And will thus have STILL made more than they would have by writing query letters. A book that doesn't find an audience at all is highly unlikely to be one that is picked up by anyone in tradpub.



> Edit: I think Hugh's article was dead on, I just think that Chuck is right too when he says that it's not One Size Fits All.


I have yet to see a good argument for not self-pubbing. It's not like you can't continue to submit previously published work to traditional publishing houses. YOU CAN. It's not like you can't find people to help you shore up the bits of selfpub you're not adept at, or like you can't possibly learn how to do something new. YOU CAN. It's not like you can't get your print books on store shelves as a selfpub author. YOU CAN.



terribleminds said:


> Blah blah blah. You don't want to hear it. That's okay.


Everything that doesn't fit your publishing world view seems to be blah blah or poop dee doop. 

Including that in 2013 the vast majority of writers will be better served by publishing themselves than by running a tradpub gauntlet, I suppose. *shrug*

But hey, easier to make it all blah blah than to actually come up with solid examples of situations which can only possibly be solved by submissions to traditional publishing houses. At least David tried.

Have a good one, Chuck.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Hudson Owen said:


> As Adam Pepper and others have noted, you cannot choose traditional publishing from a menu listing of equally attainable choices. Traditional publishing chooses you. Trad publishing is not just a business model, it's a culture, a clubhouse, certainly in areas such as the social novel. If you just graduated from Swarthmore or Vassar and have a literary friend in New York, you have a much better chance at obtaining an entry-level position at Redbook, say, than Jane Goode from flyover country. And you can go places with that business card.
> 
> This is what the Old Guard doesn't want to do--give you a seat at the table. God, it's getting crowded in New York, and there are only so many august chairs in Gotham. Sure. you can live in Winston Salem and get that electric phone call, or email, from a publisher or agent; just like you can live in Kansas City and sell a screenplay to Hollywood for a million. You can win the lottery, too.
> 
> ...


I was accepted into the novel writing portion (only 22 accepted) of a fairly well known craft workshop taught by some of the best award winning trade novelists around.

Several had cut their teeth working as first paragraph only manuscript readers for large agencies. There were definite "don'ts" that would relegate your manuscripts to slush piles forever. They had a session where they read examples from attendees (anonymously) and gave their advice as to why it would never make it front of the agent.

I once gave that list here in a Kboards thread (trying to be helpful, hey, I paid good money to get the tips I was sharing for free) and had people arguing with their tips. They couldn't believe that out of a stack of a thousand manuscripts their beginning paragraph would be so like another a hundred in the pile that it would never get any further.

This experience taught me what I need to do. Also, who you know is more likely to get you a look and a read. Meeting agents and editors is crucial if you want to go the trade route. The lady who wrote "The Help" had sixty some rejections first (she states she kept improving her manuscript after each rejection), BUT she also had connections in the business, which ultimately helped her on her path when her book was ready.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> I'm a big fan of self publishing but I think an overly rosy picture of it is presented in this thread. Obviously because most of the people here are very successful at it. Chuck makes a lot of good points.
> 
> Someone said that self publishing is like starting a small business, which is true. How does that line up with the fact that self-publishing should be the first choice regardless of someone's ability or desire to run a small business?
> 
> ...


(Edited for coherence because it's 6AM  )

You talk as though trad publishing were an option. It is closer to a lottery ticket.

The chances of a novel "badly in need of an editor" being picked up by a publisher are way beyond astronomical. You're better off saving up for an editor.

We often scoff at the poor quality of trad published novels, but unless you're a celebrity author, you have to work at developing at least a minimum level of skill for success in either path. The chances for that someone who doesn't like writing but wants the "prestige" of having been in a bookstore putting in the work for success? (By the way, typically novels don't stay there more than a few weeks so it is soon a 'has been' proposition) They won't succeed either in trad or indie publishing because they don't care about writing.

I see no _good_ argument for someone who has ambitions as an author to be trad published not attempting to go the same route as Hugh did and self-publish and then try like Hell to make a success of it to the point of being picked up by a publisher. Are the chances high? Frankly, no. But the chances of getting through the slush pile into an agent's roster and that agent actually SELLING the work (they don't about 80% of what they represent) are so small as to be laughable.

And like Hugh, it gives them the chops to bargain for a good instead of a lousy contract which is the best argument of all.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> And like Hugh, it gives them the chops to bargain for a good instead of a lousy contract which is the best argument of all.


Another great argument (there are so many to choose from!):

Self-publishing is the *top-down approach*. You can self-publish and THEN query agents to your heart's delight. You might get a sale or two and pay for any SASEs that old-fashioned agents might require. Self-publishing is no longer the death of a work. Now, *it's the opposite*. When you traditionally publish, you have killed your work. It will live on the shelf for a few months, and then it is dead. If you think it's going to be the next Harry Potter or Hunger Games, then assume it's going to be the next self-published blockbuster. Both are incredibly unlikely.

The fact is, if you traditionally publish that puppy, it's going to have a limited shelf life. The ebook will NOT be priced to sell for the long term. The physical edition will go out of print. Bookstores will stop carrying it. If you don't happen to intersect with your audience in that limited timeframe, you missed. Now you need to write another. And another. And hope that your advances hit the $50,000 range so you can earn a living. Most won't.

Most won't through self-publishing, either. But you can sit in the slush pile or publish and earn gas money. And if your book is the next great thing, you're still better off owning the thing rather than giving it away for pennies on the dollar.


----------



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

fallswriter said:


> ..Is there not room for more than one opinion and more than one way to get their written word out there? I would like to think that Kboards is a place where everyone's opinion is valued. More and more, I feel like it's indie or nothing - self-published good/ other ways horrible and against self-published authors.
> ...
> No one needs to win this argument. Writers can win by however they find success. And may everyone here find success. In other words - can't we all just get along?


Amen.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Let's summarize:

Pros of going Self-Pub:

Immediate access to potential readers
Immediate access to potential sales
Complete control of your work
Complete control over how much time and effort is spent on writing/marketing
Considerably higher royalties per sale
More frequent royalty payments
Much longer window to "break out" since your books remain available for purchase for a much longer period (potentially forever)

Cons of going Self-Pub:

Small learning curve (greatly reduced by this board)
Small $ investment for editing/cover art (which can be done yourself if desired)
Potential for having to do considerable online marketing in order to be noticed
No big royalty advance

Pros of going Trad-Pub:

No $ investment for editing/cover art
You get a royalty bonus up front (although the size seems to be dwindling)
Greater potential to be on the shelves of brick & mortar bookstores
Greater potential to be one of the anointed few authors (not going to list names, too subjective)
You get the "validation" of knowing that someone from the world of Trad-pub tells you "you're one of us now"

Cons of going Trad-Pub:

Lose control of your work
Greatly reduced royalty rate
Less frequent royalty payments
Lose all rights to your work for an extended period (possibly your lifetime)
Short window for your work to "break out" and become successful before it gets bumped from store shelves
No control of how much "effort" the publisher will make to sell your work
You're still going to have to market (just someone will tell you what to do)

Regardless of which route you take, it seems logical to;

Have your feet in both camps
Learn as much as you can about all sides of the business (not just writing)
Don't blindly follow the advice of anyone, regardless of how successful and/or convincing they might be. THINK FOR YOURSELF!
Don't denigrate those that do not choose the same path as you. It only makes you look foolish.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> Self-publishing is the *top-down approach*. You can self-publish and THEN query agents to your heart's delight. You might get a sale or two and pay for any SASEs that old-fashioned agents might require. Self-publishing is no longer the death of a work. Now, *it's the opposite*.





Rykymus said:


> Regardless of which route you take, it seems logical to;
> 
> Have your feet in both camps
> Learn as much as you can about all sides of the business (not just writing)
> ...


See, I was pretty much going to say all this myself, but Hugh and Rykymus have done the leg work for me, leaving me much more time for eating Pringles. Woo hoo!

_*Betsy pondered just removing the post but got enough energy up to edit.*_


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

terribleminds said:


> "Nothing wrong with self-pub, just might not be for everyone; no one best, superior way exists."


Heard it. Hearing it. Living it.

But Howey said nothing about others not having options. And the rebuff smacked more of bitterness than it did of a cogent response.

Part of what I see as the big problem with such a discussion is that both sides are far too sensitive. Just because someone touts one side does not mean the other side is automatically wrong or bad.


----------



## burke_KB (Jan 28, 2013)

BrianKittrell said:


> The big news here: Salon accepted an article which was not anti-selfpublishing.


Agreed.


----------



## Carry Lada (Oct 30, 2012)

penrefe said:


> Oh noes! Two of my favourite and most respected self-pubbed people have different opinions! What am I going to do?!


----------



## RoseInTheTardis (Feb 2, 2013)

Wow.

I respect Hugh and Chuck and everyone on this board but this thread is kind of embarrassing. All Chuck is (was) saying is that self-publishing is not for everyone and there's no ONE TRUE WAY to publish. Just like there's no ONE TRUE WAY to write. I get a lot of people here apparently disagree with the former but no one is attacking self-publishing and everyone's jumping on the defensive.

I joined this board because as a writing community, it's been more amicable and fun and easy-going than some of the others out there (like AW, where every problem is met with "Put your X in our X forum and let us have a go at it" which I just don't find helpful). I still fully intend to try and trad-publish when I finish my YA novel. I'd also like to self-pub some short stuff. As people have pointed out, there are pros and cons to every approach. 

If Indie All the Way is right for you, that's awesome and go you. It's not right for everyone and I'm actually shocked to see people so vehemently arguing that it is when normally I find this board to be less close-minded and PULL UP THE DRAW BRIDGE.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

Lots of people here swing both ways. I don't think that's even controversial on this board.

We are also surrounded by example after example of authors making money self-publishing. And that goes well beyond the bestselling stars. I think that's the main thing Hugh wanted to point out with this article, and what he was talking about when he started his other thread on the subject. The well of writers making money self-publishing is much deeper than most people realize. A read through that other thread ("the self-published authors I want to hear from") is instructive.


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Recently, I ran into a high school teacher at an event I attended. She teaches in a public high school in a different county. She mentioned she was reading my book, and was pleasantly surprised when half the class said they had read it, too. Now for me to find this out, is awesome.


That's amazing. Congrats!

It's kind of like I mentioned in another thread, I just saw a copy of Wool sitting on the shelf next to my held/reserved books at the library the other day. Then if you go and check WorldCat, you can see his books have gotten all over the place in the library system...all over the U.S. And it's more than just Wool...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "What about if your output level is one literary novel every 3 years? Seems that trad publishing might be a better option than self publishing. What about if you don't care about the money or going pro, you just want the prestige of appearing in bookstores? What about if you have only one book in you, and you are not much of a marketeer? What about if you badly need an editor and you haven't two cents to rub together? "


The market doesn't care. It will select for people who are skilled at using the most effective and efficient strategy. Those it does not select with dollars will be ignored. That may mean the person you have described will not succeed in the market either as an independent or with a for-profit publisher.

However, the same technology that fosters eBook sales can also be used by those more interested in the literary art form. If they don't care about the money, they can make their books available to a group that appreciates their concerns and shares their values. They don't need Amazon, publishers, or bookstores to do that. Those are all part commercial market.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Really? Seriously? So . . . I mean at what point do you judge success? After all, if you make a single sale as a self-pubbed author you've already beaten any tradpub aspirant who has yet to get picked up. Pretty d*mn low bar if you ask me.


If I had the choice between less than 100 sales and never being published, I would chose not being published. If I had the choice between not being published and publishing something which I later find out is terrible, I would choose not being published. Just having a book available for sale does not put me ahead of tradpub aspirants, in my opinion.



Mathew Reuther said:


> All writers are in effect small business people. No matter how you cut it, you have to market. (Unless you're one of the anointed few, and even then, it's a damned good idea to do it anyway.) If you don't want to be a small business person: don't write.


What, you aren't allowed to write for yourself without wanting to be a business person? And I'm sure many tradpub authors can get away with no marketing. Might mean that they don't sell many copies and are never picked up again, but that is their choice. Choosing to write is not the same as choosing to be a small business owner.



Mathew Reuther said:


> Yes, because everyone knows that tradpub authors are completely immune to one-stars!?


Tradpub authors have been through a selection process than has them nominated as one out of a thousand. A selfpub author is someone who decided to that they were good enough themselves and the validation they get on that decision is reviews and sales. If they have poor reviews and little sales, then perhaps they were wrong in that decision.



Mathew Reuther said:


> And will thus have STILL made more than they would have by writing query letters. A book that doesn't find an audience at all is highly unlikely to be one that is picked up by anyone in tradpub.


Surely I'm not the only person down money from selfpublishing at the moment. I put money into cover art and editing. I accept the risks that I'll never see that back. Any tradpub author who hasn't been picked up is far ahead of me monetarily, not to mention the extra work I've put in in terms of figuring out how to selfpublish. Formatting, finding editors and cover artists, looking for reviews, lurking on kindleboards looking for the magic bullet. I don't begrudge any of the money or effort, but right now, having selfpublished doesn't put me ahead of a tradpub aspirant in any way.



Mathew Reuther said:


> I have yet to see a good argument for not self-pubbing. It's not like you can't continue to submit previously published work to traditional publishing houses. YOU CAN. It's not like you can't find people to help you shore up the bits of selfpub you're not adept at, or like you can't possibly learn how to do something new. YOU CAN. It's not like you can't get your print books on store shelves as a selfpub author. YOU CAN.


First of all, getting a tradpub deal is really tough. I know that. If you manage to do that before you selfpub, then the tradpub offers a number of advantages.
Visibility in bookstores, likelihood of a few thousand sales, at a minimum.
Free and high quality editing and cover art.
Possibly some free marketing.
Much less work in terms of getting your work to market.
(Look at someone like Amanda Hocking who choose tradpub which likely means less money because she has to worry less about the business aspects of selfpubbing.)

Anyway, I'm normally arguing for selfpublishing. That's my chosen route and , in 2013, probably most who wish to build a career should start there. But I don't think it's something that should be ventured into lightly. And I think for some people, going down the tradpub route may still be their best option.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

RoseInTheTardis said:


> Wow.
> 
> I respect Hugh and Chuck and everyone on this board but this thread is kind of embarrassing. All Chuck is (was) saying is that self-publishing is not for everyone and there's no ONE TRUE WAY to publish. Just like there's no ONE TRUE WAY to write. I get a lot of people here apparently disagree with the former but no one is attacking self-publishing and everyone's jumping on the defensive.
> 
> ...


You really are missing the point. If it were what you said, why on EARTH would Hugh (signed with a big publishing company for print rights) be preaching it. You have totally misinterpreted what we're saying here.

The point is not 'Indie All the Way'. Seriously. The point is 'Indie First' as an entry point. Then an author may want to sign with publishers or not. But she is in a position to make that decision with sales under her belt and something on the table to negotiate with. And if the publisher thing never comes around, which it won't for most writers, she's still getting her work out there.


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

Indie First as an entry point is one of the ways that has been suggested here. But let's not pretend that there hasn't been a tone of "Indie best" that's pervaded this thread. I still remain concerned about the blanket statement that self-publishing is the only way (or in the parlance of this thread, the superior way) to go and works for every type of writing. And while it may and does work for a lot of people, there are those who are asking for it not be treated as the line that shall not be crossed. Otherwise, this thread (and in turn Kboards) may become a self-publishers only place rather than a place to find all kinds of writing resources and support for anyone's journeys.

There are book genres where, for the moment, going the traditional publishing path will have the desired outcome for those pursuing the publishing, and a self-publishing-first model may not work. For some, it may be a presence in places where self-published authors haven't gotten yet. I believe there may need to be a compromise between the two to get there. I hope that more and more rights are given to the authors as the traditional publishing world responds (way too slowly) to those who are blazing trails right here. But let's not exclude those who do their research to find the best way to publish for them, even if it is to pursue traditional publishing. And I think that's been the request from several people that I would like to echo as one who intends to pursue different options for different books.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

Indie First (TM) <-- I think Hugh should get the rights to this

I think the Indie First idea that Hugh espouses in his article - that it's best to _start_ in indie publishing for your author career - is going to become completely non-controversial in just a few short years. He's just the first to articulate it in a high profile way - many authors are figuring this out for themselves every day. Something that was mentioned on these very boards a while ago stuck with me: in five years, or ten, there will be an entire generation of authors who "grew up" with indie publishing. Authors who either went Indie First, or had indie save their author career after their trad-pub sales tanked, or who went indie with their backlist and made more than their trad-pub front list. This is already happening of course, but in time, the effect on authors' careers, their livelihoods, their ability to make a living with their words, will be more and more clear. The controversy will fade, because the facts on the ground will overwhelm it. Hugh just gets mad props for saying it first (also: trademark rights).


----------



## ADMartinez (Apr 5, 2013)

Very long time lurker. Have Wool on my Kindle and just bought the paper version for my bro.

"It was serialized novelettes


Spoiler



that repeatedly killed the POV character."



Sigh. I don't want to talk about it. Since I haven't read it all by now, it's my fault.

"Hell, yeah. Poop noises. And all the cool bacon hipster slang."

And now I'm really a fan.

Come to the NYC already.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

In genre fiction, with a dedicated core of super-readers armed with Kindles, self publishing is clearly the right way to go.

It's less clear for my book--an introduction to economics for a lay audience. Books that I know in this niche are all traditionally published. I haven't heard any self-publishing success stories. But I have no doubt that self-publishing is still the right choice because regardless of where things are right now, _the direction is crystal clear_. With every passing year, self-publishing will become more attractive compared to traditional publishing. It'll eventually happen in my niche as well. It just doesn't make sense for me to try to chase down a traditional deal with lousy terms when the tides are turning, regardless of where things stand today.


----------



## tensen (May 17, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Entirely different skill sets? I would love for you to tell me what precisely a selfpub author needs to do that is so radically "out there" that it is "radically different" . . . the ability to use a computer? To upload a file? To pay someone to design a cover? (10$-50$ premades abound.) To trade edits/beta reads? (Like tradpub authors never do critiques?)


Yes, different in the same way that every person working a job today doesn't need or want to be a small businessman or an entrepeneur. It isn't that they potentially can't.


----------



## Julie Christensen (Oct 13, 2010)

I LOVED Hugh's article.  I thought he was dead on.  That Chuck doesn't agree is, simply put, his loss.  I can't believe this is even controversial.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

David J Normoyle said:


> Any tradpub author who hasn't been picked up is far ahead of me monetarily, not to mention the extra work I've put in in terms of figuring out how to selfpublish.


I'm not so sure about that. When I investigated traditional publishing, admittedly some years ago, it seemed all the hopefuls spent their time going to writers' conferences, workshops, etc., all of which have cost. My sister signed me up for the first writers' conference I ever went to and dragged me off, and my first impression was that they were scams set up to take money from hopeful authors. My opinion did change, and I came to see the value, but there's still some part of me that thinks there are whole industries set up to take money from hopeful writers. Admittedly self-pubbers spend money on conferences, workshops, etc., too, but as much? Online self-education is cheaper, and if you aren't determined to try to meet editors and agents you can somehow interest, are you as inclined to spend money on conferences and to actually travel to workshops?

I'm not sure, but my guess is most people seeking traditional deals are out-of-pocket up front quite a lot whether they succeed or not.

One of the things that turned me off to doing a traditional quest was seeing two people in my critique group succeed. One worked full time and had to. She couldn't take off and travel and didn't have the money to do most promotional efforts. That was years ago, and that one book is still the only one I see published in her name. The second was a guy who spent every cent of his advance on a PR person, traveled all over and promoted like gangbusters. I know he had several other books published after the first.

Diane Mott Davidson gave the keynote speech at a conference I attended in Denver many year ago. She said she and her husband decided to give it their all when her first book was accepted. They _mortgaged their house for money for promotional efforts_.


----------



## jasonzc (Dec 23, 2011)

I'd like to point out how cool it is that we rub elbows with and learn from some of the biggest indie authors around.  Neato.

Even if you're trying a purely traditional publishing approach, you really should be adopting indie work practices. You still should have a social media presence, blog, mailing list, fan base. So I'm almost not sure what the argument is, at this point. The only difference seems to be that one group has books for sale, and another does not. 

I know I'd rather be selling books.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Just to start, I want to make it clear that I am "Indie-First" in outlook. I would never in a million years suggest to anyone (and that's regardless of genre, sorry folks) that they NOT go self-pub even if they plan on submitting to trad houses. I have yet to see a single reason I don't view as a cop-out for skipping self pub and going trad.



tensen said:


> Yes, different in the same way that every person working a job today doesn't need or want to be a small businessman or an entrepeneur. It isn't that they potentially can't.


And here I was thinking that being a writer meant having a modocum of intellect and the ability to learn.

My bad.



(Also, I think you're selling FEAR short. Competent people are often AFRAID, not incapable.)



David J Normoyle said:


> If I had the choice between less than 100 sales and never being published, I would chose not being published. If I had the choice between not being published and publishing something which I later find out is terrible, I would choose not being published. Just having a book available for sale does not put me ahead of tradpub aspirants, in my opinion.


What an odd opinion to have. That having reached out and found some kind of audience is worse than having a book rot in the slush pile...I just don't get it.

*shrug*



> What, you aren't allowed to write for yourself without wanting to be a business person?


Loads of people do. They also don't publish, period.



> And I'm sure many tradpub authors can get away with no marketing. Might mean that they don't sell many copies and are never picked up again, but that is their choice. Choosing to write is not the same as choosing to be a small business owner.


So you're saying people can choose to be bad at their job. I don't disagree with you. This does not invalidate the stance that in order to be good at your job, you are making a decision to engage in learning new skills. People can also choose to simple write poorly and never hone their craft. I suspect you'd consider that a bad plan. Still their right, though, isn't it?

All I am saying is that it is simply unwise to follow certain courses just because one feels outside of one's comfort zone otherwise. Surely that is not so d*mning (look, I filtered myself!) an idea?



> Tradpub authors have been through a selection process than has them nominated as one out of a thousand.


With ZERO guarantees that that process was wise, just, or otherwise competent. There are some absolute bombs put out by tradpub every year. In the end, who are we publishing for? Readers. And they're making fewer and fewer distinctions between traditionally published and independently published all the time, because what they want is good work. They are the end all and be all of decision-makers. What sense does it make to hammer against the tradpub wall only to come out two years later and find that vampire romance books are passe, when at the time you had finished the novel, they were topping the charts?



> A selfpub author is someone who decided to that they were good enough themselves and the validation they get on that decision is reviews and sales. If they have poor reviews and little sales, then perhaps they were wrong in that decision.


A selfpub author is someone who published themselves. They can have as many motivations as you might imagine. Not all of them get validation from reader feedback of any kind. That also doesn't mean anything to the quality of their work. (There's people on KB who I think are brilliant. There are others I find terrible. All a self pub author needs to do is find the people who like their work. All a tradpub author has to do is appeal to the expectations of tradpub editors.)



> Surely I'm not the only person down money from selfpublishing at the moment.


I'd imagine not. (I may or may not be. I don't track everything super closely, but I've not heavily invested because I have built in resources.)

But in any case, _time is money_, and the years it takes to get traditionally published is time you don't get back. (The rights you give up are also something you don't get back, but hey, the more successful self-pub authors who fight for better contracts, the closer we might come to getting some boilerplate that sucks a little less. Hugh has pointed this out clearly and regularly. It's all about what SP authors do while negotiating.)



> Any tradpub author who hasn't been picked up is far ahead of me monetarily, not to mention the extra work I've put in in terms of figuring out how to selfpublish. Formatting, finding editors and cover artists, looking for reviews, lurking on kindleboards looking for the magic bullet. I don't begrudge any of the money or effort, but right now, having selfpublished doesn't put me ahead of a tradpub aspirant in any way.


Your experience due to the choices you made. Editing can be traded for or replaced by workshopping/beta circles/skilled relatives. Cover art can be more/less expensive depending on who you know and what kind of cover you're willing to have. (I was shocked to hear about people dropping high hundreds of dollars on covers for a debut novel, but some people will do that. Look at Hugh's covers and formatting and tell me he spent a load on them. Self pub success doesn't come so much from how much money you drop, but how well you write. That, and luck. Same as trad.)

Not saying you're wrong for spending how you did. Just saying others can and do manage to get away with less outlay. Those with no money (*raises hand*) to spend will find a way to out out product anyway. And (again, speaking from experience) it won't necessarily be sub-standard.



> First of all, getting a tradpub deal is really tough. I know that. If you manage to do that before you selfpub, then the tradpub offers a number of advantages.
> Visibility in bookstores, likelihood of a few thousand sales, at a minimum.


I think you will find that you have an overly optimistic view of sales numbers. First books by unknown authors do not get a few thousand sales on average. (New names fail more often than they succeed. Hence the churn.)

In any case a few thousand isn't enough to get you a second book in most cases. In many cases you've burned your name (pen or real) for tradpub if you don't manage 5-10k, and that's HARD unless your publisher is throwing real effort behind you. Most won't. So you're down to your marketing (which you claim is not needed) and luck...



> Free and high quality editing and cover art.


You're giving up a lot, so it's hardly "free" and the "high quality" is wildly debatable. You get no say in your editor/cover art. Many tradpub books have shoddy editing because editing costs money and debut authors are an unknown quantity. (Read nearly any set of reviews from a tradpub debut author and you will find complaints about the quality of the editing.)

I think we can all agree that there's some awful covers out there. Ask any formerly tradpub author on these boards who has gotten rights back if they were happy at getting a new cover on their book. The majority will say: YES, DEAR SWEET WRITINGS GODS, YES. 



> Possibly some free marketing.


Again, anointed few.



> Much less work in terms of getting your work to market.


Much less than hardly any is not much of a saving. Getting a book out is a matter of formatting (D2D does great work for free no restrictions; Smashwords works for many; Calibre, Scrivener, Sigil, etc. are all options with a reasonable curve) and uploading. Beyond that all you really need to handle is cover art. Editing is a part of both ends. You may not need to find an editor, but you still have to interact with them, and they're in control in tradpub, not the other way around. (Which, sorry, but editors do not, by default, make a book better . . . so being forced to make changes does NOT guarantee a better product!)



> (Look at someone like Amanda Hocking who choose tradpub which likely means less money because she has to worry less about the business aspects of selfpubbing.)


Look at her SEVEN FIGURE DEAL.

Give me a million and I'll sign. Seriously. Do it.

Give me six figures and I'll seriously consider it.

But we're not talking about six or seven figures.

We're talking *four*...



> Anyway, I'm normally arguing for selfpublishing. That's my chosen route and , in 2013, probably most who wish to build a career should start there. But I don't think it's something that should be ventured into lightly. And I think for some people, going down the tradpub route may still be their best option.


I get there's some devil's advocate going on, I do. And I'm not really trying to gut you like a fish or anything. I appreciate that you're trying to offer up some reasons why, and sure, there's always reasons why.

But in writing if you sit and say "I can't x, y, or z" you're doing your craft no service. You're not pushing and growing. It's the exact same when you say "I couldn;t possibly arrange for my own cover art."

Self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not really real...just something imposed upon oneself that drags one down and sells oneself short.

In closing:

_*Publishers need books, and thus authors...but authors don't need publishers to write or sell books.*_


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> Diane Mott Davidson gave the keynote speech at a conference I attended in Denver many year ago. She said she and her husband decided to give it their all when her first book was accepted. They _mortgaged their house for money for promotional efforts_.


Wow. I'm glad she had confidence in her work, but... wow.


----------



## David J Normoyle (Jun 22, 2012)

Mathew Reuther said:


> What an odd opinion to have. That having reached out and found some kind of audience is worse than having a book rot in the slush pile...I just don't get it.
> 
> *shrug*


It's a matter of quality. If I was learning to be carpenter, I might not sell the first chair I made. I might throw it away. Until I felt I was good enough to make chairs that I thought were good enough to sell. And if I never made any good chairs, I'd prefer to give up and try a new profession rather than put my name on substandard chairs and try to sell them anyway.



Mathew Reuther said:


> So you're saying people can choose to be bad at their job. I don't disagree with you. This does not invalidate the stance that in order to be good at your job, you are making a decision to engage in learning new skills. People can also choose to simple write poorly and never hone their craft. I suspect you'd consider that a bad plan. Still their right, though, isn't it?


Not everyone wants to be a fulltime writer. Some people just want to write on the side, and if their book is good enough, then let the publishers do most of the rest of the work. And if they get lucky they could win the writing lotto and end up being the next Stephanie Meyer or JK Rowling.



Mathew Reuther said:


> All I am saying is that it is simply unwise to follow certain courses just because one feels outside of one's comfort zone otherwise. Surely that is not so d*mning (look, I filtered myself!) an idea?


There's a lot of things you can chose to do in life. Choosing to write does not mean you have to dedicate your life to it, force yourself to do and learn things you don't want to. You can just write a book, make it the best you can, then play the query letter lottery and move on with the rest of your life, doing other things. If you win the query letter lottery, maybe you'll win the trade publishing lottery and then you can make bigger plans to make writing more a career path.



Mathew Reuther said:


> Your experience due to the choices you made. Editing can be traded for or replaced by workshopping/beta circles/skilled relatives. Cover art can be more/less expensive depending on who you know and what kind of cover you're willing to have. (I was shocked to hear about people dropping high hundreds of dollars on covers for a debut novel, but some people will do that. Look at Hugh's covers and formatting and tell me he spent a load on them. Self pub success doesn't come so much from how much money you drop, but how well you write. That, and luck. Same as trad.)


To give yourself the most chance at success at selfpubbing, cover art is important, as is editing. (You can get away without either, but they both improve your chances.) And for me, I care more about producing a quality novel than I do about making money. So I would choose to hire an editor before publishing even if I was 100% sure I wouldn't get the money back.



Mathew Reuther said:


> Look at her SEVEN FIGURE DEAL.
> 
> Give me a million and I'll sign. Seriously. Do it.
> 
> ...


So you'll sleep with the enemy but they better make it worth your while. It's not that you are against trade publishing, it's that you are against the terms that you think they might give you. Which is fair enough, but have have to accept there are some advantages to trade publishing. Just that for you, with the present terms, the disadvantages heavily outweigh the advantages.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

David J Normoyle said:


> It's a matter of quality. If I was learning to be carpenter, I might not sell the first chair I made. I might throw it away. Until I felt I was good enough to make chairs that I thought were good enough to sell. And if I never made any good chairs, I'd prefer to give up and try a new profession rather than put my name on substandard chairs and try to sell them anyway.


I've written probably a million words of fiction before publishing anything. I'm not advocating skipping the "figuring out how it works" . . . I'm advocating that once you feel comfortable (which when you are submitting to tradpub you should already be) that the first place you turn is self pub.

That's all.



> Not everyone wants to be a fulltime writer. Some people just want to write on the side, and if their book is good enough, then let the publishers do most of the rest of the work. And if they get lucky they could win the writing lotto and end up being the next Stephanie Meyer or JK Rowling.


Self pub doesn't eliminate you from tradpub. Cover quality requirements are a great myth in many ways. (Many poor covers are on books that have sold plenty.) Basic ebook formatting is as simple as using a word processor. We're talking literally a day's worth of work for a whole novel to be finalized. Even hobbyists can do this.



> There's a lot of things you can chose to do in life. Choosing to write does not mean you have to dedicate your life to it, force yourself to do and learn things you don't want to. You can just write a book, make it the best you can, then play the query letter lottery and move on with the rest of your life, doing other things. If you win the query letter lottery, maybe you'll win the trade publishing lottery and then you can make bigger plans to make writing more a career path.


Or you can take the aforementioned day and see returns and still query away.



> To give yourself the most chance at success at selfpubbing, cover art is important, as is editing. (You can get away without either, but they both improve your chances.) And for me, I care more about producing a quality novel than I do about making money. So I would choose to hire an editor before publishing even if I was 100% sure I wouldn't get the money back.


Sure, but you're already illustrating people who are not so thunderously enthused about so much, why should we assume that all of the sudden they care about finding the absolute perfect art? And as I've said, editing does not always cost (money) so it's hardly a requirement to drop cash for everyone. (And honestly, most people can find a way around paid editing if they work at it. There are a lot of resources available for barter/exchange/free/extremely low cost.)



> So you'll sleep with the enemy but they better make it worth your while. It's not that you are against trade publishing, it's that you are against the terms that you think they might give you. Which is fair enough, but have have to accept there are some advantages to trade publishing. Just that for you, with the present terms, the disadvantages heavily outweigh the advantages.


My point is that if we want to extend the lottery analogy there's people out there winning the "free ticket" and "$20" and "$80" prizes a LOT more often than those winning the big jackpots. The terms are nearly never good, while with self-pub you're almost guaranteed to win something. All while not eliminating yourself from winning big with the same ticket.

My point is that it's not even worth my time to query. Posting on KB is worth more than writing a query letter.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

David J Normoyle said:


> So you'll sleep with the enemy but they better make it worth your while. It's not that you are against trade publishing, it's that you are against the terms that you think they might give you. Which is fair enough, but have have to accept there are some advantages to trade publishing. Just that for you, with the present terms, the disadvantages heavily outweigh the advantages.


I think very few writers here, if any, think of traditional publishers as the enemy. Most are not against trade publishing (well I am, but I have emotional issues with the submission process). I don't really understand why people keep responding as if Hugh and somehow this whole board are just ranting against traditional publishing. I don't see it at all.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

jnfr said:


> I think very few writers here, if any, think of traditional publishers as the enemy. Most are not against trade publishing (well I am, but I have emotional issues with the submission process). I don't really understand why people keep responding as if Hugh and somehow this whole board are just ranting against traditional publishing. I don't see it at all.


Exactly. I have tradpubbed friends. I read tradpubbed books. I would happily look at any offer I was handed by a traditional publishing house, big or small.

But I'm not going to advise anyone to do anything other than self pub and THEN query if they still feel the need to do it. In 2013 there's simply no legitimate reason (again, I think so much comes down to FEAR and DOUBT) not to self pub even while pursuing a tradpub career.

Now, the ONE thing I will say upon deep reflection is that if you really want to get your short stories in magazines, then you should do 6 months to a year of queries first before self-pubbing them. This is because first rights do matter to shorts. (They don't to novels.) So yeah, upon further thought there's a single genre (short form fiction) that has unique rules to it where I would say that you can make a case for needing to go traditionally published first.

But bear in mind (almost always) no editing gets done on shorts, and they're wrapped in a magazine cover...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Opportunity attracts the people who can best exploit it. The others don't matter.


----------



## RoseInTheTardis (Feb 2, 2013)

JRTomlin said:


> You really are missing the point. If it were what you said, why on EARTH would Hugh (signed with a big publishing company for print rights) be preaching it. You have totally misinterpreted what we're saying here.
> 
> The point is not 'Indie All the Way'. Seriously. The point is 'Indie First' as an entry point. Then an author may want to sign with publishers or not. But she is in a position to make that decision with sales under her belt and something on the table to negotiate with. And if the publisher thing never comes around, which it won't for most writers, she's still getting her work out there.


No, I'm not missing the point. I'm not saying that Hugh or anyone else here should sign with a big publisher or that everyone would go trade. Or even bother with trying to go trade. For a lot of people, Indie First (with the possible option of trade later or not) is great. It works.

*My problem with this thread is Indie First is also not the path for everyone.*

Saying that it is makes you exactly like the people who say Trade Pub is the only way. It's not. Neither one is. People are different. Books are different. What works for one won't work for another.

That's all I'm saying and it's all Chuck was saying. Discussion of how Indie isn't always the best option for every single writer on the planet or even every book on the planet is not an attack on Indie First or Indie All the Way or any of the amazing, talented authors here who Indie Pub and love it. It's just pointing out that ONE THING does not work for EVERY SINGLE PERSON.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

RoseInTheTardis said:


> *My problem with this thread is Indie First is also not the path for everyone.*


I have yet to see a good example of why this is outside of "I wanna tradpub" which is in the end just a decision to ignore the benefits of selfpub.

Do you have a better example than anyone else has managed to provide? Because honestly, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge a real reason (like shorts, as I just did) but I have yet to see something that was really legitimate. It all generally boils down to fear, doubt, etc.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Is the horse dead yet?  Mathew, don't you have somewhere else to be?  Another thread, perhaps?


Betsy


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Is the horse dead yet? Mathew, don't you have somewhere else to be? Another thread, perhaps?
> 
> Betsy


*checking*

Still has a pulse.



Nobody has been saying anything remotely controversial, unfortunately. *sigh*

Anyone want to start a piracy thread? *evil grin*

(Besides, Betsy, I'm legitimately interested in knowing of good reasons that extend beyond vanity/ego stroking . . . amusing, yes, that vanity is now the purview of traditionally publishing . . . for ignoring selfpub to query. How is that wrong?)


----------



## RoseInTheTardis (Feb 2, 2013)

Mathew Reuther said:


> I have yet to see a good example of why this is outside of "I wanna tradpub" which is in the end just a decision to ignore the benefits of selfpub.


It's not ignoring the benefits of self-pub. It's weighing the options and picking a path. Because there are options. (And that's not a bad thing. Why is everyone acting like that's a bad thing?) And if one doesn't work out, maybe trying the other (and that can go either way).

True, some people can't trade publish because it's not going to sell or a lot of people don't want to and that's fine. No one is saying it's not fine. But some people do want the support of a publisher and an agent. Some people don't want to be in charge of finding a cover and hiring an editor and proofreader and worrying about all of that stuff.

I don't know why anyone is fighting about this. Some people don't want to handle everything themselves. Some people really like that control and freedom and some people don't.

ETA: And I think that varies from book to book for some people, too. There are some projects I'd like to do in the future and go straight Indie with them. There are others I'd like to try querying.


----------



## A.A (Mar 30, 2012)

It *might* be different for YA. From what I see, YA books get a huge push when they're trade published - mostly due to the huge amount of YA blogs and reader groups online. Trade YA books get reviewed by very influential bloggers who will not review indie books. Reader groups get together and review trade YA books. This push goes on for years and years. These books are seen everywhere online that YA readers frequent.
Only break-out indie YA books have anything close to that kind of exposure.

Some of these trade-published YA writers write their own indie books in between their contract books, and with a name already well-established, their indie books have the potential to do extremely well. They can also go full-time indie after they finish their contract books - again, with an established name and reader base.

Of course, it's very hard to get trade published. But I do know some YA writers who wrote their first book and had it snapped up.

And of course, going the indie route from the start - from my point of view - is *usually* the best route, and will make the writer far more money. Just not always.

The best thing that I've seen to come out of all of this is the possibility of negotiating print-only deals with publishers in the future (for those in the position to do so). That seems the best of all worlds and that possibility would never have been on the horizon but for indie publishing and those indie writers who stuck to their guns when negotiating contracts.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Here's the thing...this puppy has been going on for five pages now; and I haven't seen a single person's mind changed.

"OMIGAWD--if ONLY someone had explained it that way to me before, of course you're right!"

Not happening.  Only entrenched positions and people who are on one side feeling browbeaten by people on the other side.  

So, no, I'm not going to lock the thread at this point.  And there's nothing against Forum Decorum. (Edit:  At least not anymore. ) But we had a big discussion about tone here not long ago.  I have heard from people who feel that they aren't welcome here because they don't necessarily agree with the Self Pub First philosophy.  Those of you arguing on either side--is it worth making your point over and over again if it makes other members uncomfortable?  Maybe it is.  It wouldn't be for me.  Just asking you to think about it.  

I'm suggesting that if you've made your point (generic you), it might be a good time to move on.  Lots of other threads. 

Betsy


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Anya said:


> It *might* be different for YA. From what I see, YA books get a huge push when they're trade published - mostly due to the huge amount of YA blogs and reader groups online. Trade YA books get reviewed by very influential bloggers who will not review indie books. Reader groups get together and review trade YA books. This push goes on for years and years. These books are seen everywhere online that YA readers frequent.
> Only break-out indie YA books have anything close to that kind of exposure.


Just as an aside on this point there's a pretty good number of indie-friendly YA outlets and Netgalley is an option for reaching a large number of those who don't take direct submissions. Costs a bit, so it's a matter of time VS. money going on here to some extent. (And some outlets only take Netgalley, so there's a consideration.) I was working on a YA last year and had two dozen or so outlets interested in seeing my title when it was ready. And I hadn't pushed hard to find that mahy and wasn't going through Netgalley. At least half of those were reviewing titles on Goodreads. A portion did Amazon reviews.

Not saying there's nothing to the YA push from tradpub. Just saying that if publicity/blog stuff is your goal YA is probably the single easiest genre to find it in as an indie. Certainly nothing of the like exists for SpecFic.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

RoseInTheTardis said:


> It's not ignoring the benefits of self-pub. It's weighing the options and picking a path. Because there are options. (And that's not a bad thing. Why is everyone acting like that's a bad thing?) And if one doesn't work out, maybe trying the other (and that can go either way).
> 
> True, some people can't trade publish because it's not going to sell or a lot of people don't want to and that's fine. No one is saying it's not fine. But some people do want the support of a publisher and an agent. Some people don't want to be in charge of finding a cover and hiring an editor and proofreader and worrying about all of that stuff.
> 
> ...


I just want to say, RoseInTheTardis (lovely name, by the way), that I hope you have great success in following your chosen path, and I'm sure everyone here would say the same.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

Mathew Reuther said:


> Not saying there's nothing to the YA push from tradpub. Just saying that if publicity/blog stuff is your goal YA is probably the single easiest genre to find it in as an indie. Certainly nothing of the like exists for SpecFic.


I have a YA SpecFic that's done just fine indie published. 

I'm pretty firmly in the Indie First camp, but I do believe there are exceptions. Not as many as most people would think, and I think this is why it's actually _very important_ to talk about Indie First (and not go on and on about how everyone needs to make their own choice - yes, they do, but in general, most people haven't given indie a proper thinking through and they should. Because most of the time, Indie First is absolutely the way to go).

Exceptions:
1) the short stories mentioned above
2) the non-career-author who really isn't interested in, you know, making a career out of writing. This person is highly unlikely to get published trad-pub as well, but there's no reason to stop them from trying
3) Middle Grade and some YA books

The YA books that do well (in my personal observation) as indie are ones who have cross-over appeal to adults. Most indie readers are adult. Many YA readers are adults. There's a good amount of intersection of those two groups, such that a YA book with adult appeal (like mine ) can do well. If you have a young YA that really only appeals to teens, they are not heavily into the indie book scene (yet). Middle Grade is even more segregated from the indie world, because gatekeepers like parents and librarians and MG review journals are not open to indie (yet). I expect both of those to change. But if you're writing a MG book, I would query first - that's your best option for reaching the most readers. If no luck there, you can always self-pub. I've yet to see an MG book do really well as an indie, but with an established fanbase, it could happen. (If someone has an example, please let me know!!)


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> I have a YA SpecFic that's done just fine indie published.


I meant straight up adult SpecFic.

YA gets covered by YA outlets. Doesn't matter if it's contemp, fantasy, dystopian, etc.

I was more lamenting the fact that I think YA blogs outnumber all other genres by about 10 to one. Maybe combined?  Seems like it anyway. LOL. As much as I love my YA series, I back-burnered it for now.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

RoseInTheTardis said:


> No, I'm not missing the point. I'm not saying that Hugh or anyone else here should sign with a big publisher or that everyone would go trade. Or even bother with trying to go trade. For a lot of people, Indie First (with the possible option of trade later or not) is great. It works.
> 
> *My problem with this thread is Indie First is also not the path for everyone.*
> 
> ...


You're not saying that Hugh should sign with a big publisher? Since Hugh DID sign with a big publisher, I seriously don't get your point.

It is NOT an either/or. THAT is what has been said here time after time but some of you keep arguing as though that was what was being said. If you want to have a decent chance at a contract (and a decent contract that doesn't tie up your rights in perpetuity) then it would be very wise to self-publish first.

You can self-publish and still sign a contract with a publisher. Why is that so hard to understand?

ETA: But I'm done with this thread. If people really want to spend their time sending out query after query after query and when no publisher buys the manuscript to stick it in a desk drawer because self publishing "is not for them", that is certainly their right. No one here has argued otherwise.

Some of us strongly argue that is probably not a smart choice, but it is a choice.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JRT,

I've read Rose's post, and my reading is that she understands what you are saying perfectly well; she's just saying that not everyone is going to think "Indie First" is the right option for them.  ETA: People are allowed to make their own choices whether you think they are the right ones or not.  (ETA: As JRT herself says in her post.)  Agree to disagree.

Betsy


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> JRT,
> 
> I've read Rose's post, and my reading is that she understands what you are saying perfectly well; she's just saying that not everyone is going to think "Indie First" is the right option for them. ETA: People are allowed to make their own choices whether you think they are the right ones or not. Agree to disagree.
> 
> Betsy


Betsy, I believe I already said I have nothing more to say on this topic.

WHEN did I say that people aren't allowed to make their own choices? Please point me to that comment. But that's all right. Don't bother. I am done with this thread and, for the time being, with this forum.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jeanne,

I'm not going to argue with you.  We are apparently in total agreement, as usual.  

Let's move on.

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I suspect Howey's article will come to be seen as a turning point. Ain't this a great country?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

I'm staying quiet (because Betsy said so. She has a thing against cruelty to dead horses, it appears). However...



RoseInTheTardis said:


> That's all I'm saying and it's all Chuck was saying. Discussion of how Indie isn't always the best option for every single writer on the planet or even every book on the planet is not an attack on Indie First or Indie All the Way or any of the amazing, talented authors here who Indie Pub and love it. It's just pointing out that ONE THING does not work for EVERY SINGLE PERSON.


...I can't imagine a single person on this forum arguing what this makes it sound like someone is arguing. And Chuck and others haven't retreated to the point of: _well, there might be two or three people out there for which not self-publishing first is a good idea._ If we have gotten to the point where the exceptions prove the rule, then I would say that Betsy was wrong and minds have changed up in here.

The way I read Chuck's response was that all ways are valid and equal and that none should be touted as superior. But I think that's clearly not true. You can self-pub and still query. You can't do it the other way around. Even the quoted bit above seems to be taking the stance that yes, self-pubbing makes the most sense for the most people, but there's probably someone for whom it doesn't make sense (for reasons unspecified), which means Chuck was right to get exasperated (his word) over my response to blatantly unfair criticisms of self-publishing over on Salon.

This entire debate rests on a foundation of straw men and poor reading comprehension. I never implied the [poop noise] that Chuck insinuated I did. A lot of that comes from a title and subtitle of the Salon article that run COUNTER to the content of my story. I asked Salon to change both and got no response from them. I think they enjoy the controversial tone of both. The subtitle makes it sound as if I wrote it, when I didn't. (It's the opposite of the first thing I say in the story).

I also have a feeling that many of the people who disagree with my contention that everyone should self-pub first in order to launch their careers as writers will be dispensing this exact advice within 12 months. The last time I raised a ruckus applying logic to the changing landscape of the publishing industry, I heard this same sort of unreasoned outcry. But who knows . . . perhaps I'm wrong. All I ever set out to do was highlight the self-pubbed successes that aren't getting a lick of media attention, which I think is unfair and a horrible case of burying the lead.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK, now I"m getting a tension headache...

Yes, I object to abuse of dead animals.  But, and apparently I'm incoherent tonight, (perhaps it's the whiskey I'm drowning my headache in or perhaps it's taking care of the tween granddaughter this week...) all I'm asking is that people consider whether they're just reiterating something they've already said or if they're bringing something new to the conversation.  And to be polite.

Betsy


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> OK, now I"m getting a tension headache...
> 
> Yes, I object to abuse of dead animals. But, and apparently I'm incoherent tonight, (perhaps it's the whiskey I'm drowning my headache in or perhaps it's taking care of the tween granddaughter this week...) all I'm asking is that people consider whether they're just reiterating something they've already said or if they're bringing something new to the conversation. And to be polite.
> 
> Betsy


I feel like you're repeating yourself.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Don't make me use the cattle prod on you, Hugh.


Betsy


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

My way is right. The other way is stupid. There is only one way, my way.

And scene.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Don't make me use the cattle prod on you, Monique.



Betsy


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

Hey everybody AMC is replaying the season ender to Walking Dead right now! Let's all go watch! *motions people to their tv sets*


----------



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

"It is a poor sermon that gives no offense; that neither makes the hearer displeased with himself nor with the preacher."

George Whitefield


----------



## J. Tanner (Aug 22, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I also have a feeling that many of the people who disagree with my contention that everyone should self-pub first in order to launch their careers as writers will be dispensing this exact advice within 12 months. The last time I raised a ruckus applying logic to the changing landscape of the publishing industry, I heard this same sort of unreasoned outcry. But who knows . . . perhaps I'm wrong. All I ever set out to do was highlight the self-pubbed successes that aren't getting a lick of media attention, which I think is unfair and a horrible case of burying the lead.


I was there last time you raised a ruckus and met the boot. My how the different audience creates a different feedback loop, but at least you're still keeping the moderators on their toes.  I think a lot of the opposing argument is frustration that a huge chunk of self-publishers end up publishing before they're really ready. That rarely happens in the trade system for obvious reasons. I guess apathy from readers can serve the same purpose as rejection from the establishment, but it's sort of messy having it all out in the public. Still, pros outweigh the cons.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Don't make me use the cattle prod on you, Hugh.
> 
> 
> Betsy


If Betsy uses the cattle prod on Hugh I WANT VIDEO.


----------



## Victoria Champion (Jun 6, 2012)

So what is an appropriate snack for watching gory zombie films anyway?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

J. Tanner said:


> I was there last time you raised a ruckus and met the boot. My how the different audience creates a different feedback loop, but at least you're still keeping the moderators on their toes.


I just want to point out that it's very mean to keep someone with a broken ankle on their toes...


Betsy


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

I've rarely seen people work themselves into such furor while arguing essentially the same point.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Victoria Champion said:


> So what is an appropriate snack for watching gory zombie films anyway?


Jelly doughnuts?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "I think a lot of the opposing argument is frustration that a huge chunk of self-publishers end up publishing before they're really ready. "


I suspect it's frustration that consumers buy those books.


----------



## 48306 (Jul 6, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I also have a feeling that many of the people who disagree with my contention that everyone should self-pub first in order to launch their careers as writers will be dispensing this exact advice within 12 months.


Did you ever think we'd be at the point that the statement above would even be uttered without gasps of shocked horror? Self pub? Oh the horror! 

Publishing has changed SO much in the last three years, I'm just AMAZED! I've been small press and traditionally published since 2003, but Indie publishing is what has allowed me to truly make a good LIVING and do so on my own terms. Yes, Indie publishing isn't for everyone, BUT it is an option and one that wasn't even available as a viable option a few short years ago. I love the freedom to choose and that's what I did with my YA.

BRIGHTEST KIND OF DARKNESS is a commercial type YA, but the market was so tight when my agent at the time tried to shop it to a few NY houses that she told me to shelve it and work on something new. I believed in BKoD and I just couldn't let it go, so BKoD became my first foray into Indie publishing, and OMG I've never looked back! Indie pubbing truly was the BEST thing I ever did for myself and for my career. Now I have foreign rights interest and a base of devoted readers waiting for the next book in the series. I enjoyed publishing my YA so much that I went on to publish my romance back list and more books in my YA series. I would love to sell foreign rights and print rights for all my books to expand my market even more, but for now I'll just keep on releasing new stories and keep my readers happy.

One thing I've learned through all this is...there is no one _right_ path; there's just the path that works for each of us, and I plan to keep on moving forward on mine.


----------



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

> If Betsy uses the cattle prod on Hugh I WANT VIDEO


Was gonna say, bear in mind the large population here that writes about the kinky stuff.

I think the repeated cattle-prod reference is getting some people excited.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Indie First!

(Can I get a prod?)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Oh, yes.  Definitely.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Oh, yes. Definitely.


Yay! 



J. Tanner said:


> I was there last time you raised a ruckus and met the boot. My how the different audience creates a different feedback loop, but at least you're still keeping the moderators on their toes.  I think a lot of the opposing argument is frustration that a huge chunk of self-publishers end up publishing before they're really ready. That rarely happens in the trade system for obvious reasons. I guess apathy from readers can serve the same purpose as rejection from the establishment, but it's sort of messy having it all out in the public. Still, pros outweigh the cons.


I do think there's something to be said for that thought. There seems to be a concern that people who are not (and perhaps never will be) ready to publish getting their stuff out there.

There's probably also some latent resentment for those who are getting success in the new environment without "paying their dues" so to speak. (The decade of rejection required to build character in the old tradpub model.)

Still, my personal take has always been that we can't make self-publishing authors be good. We just hope that people learn to read samples before they buy. *shrug*


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

I did the decade of rejection thing and I actually think it made me a better writer. It doesn't work for everyone for sure, but once I got over the initial shock (the first few when I was 18 or 19 were a bit hard to take!) it became almost a challenge to see how many rejection slips I could collect. There were some years where I made more than 300 submissions to magazines, agents and publishers. I was a member of a website where there were points awarded depending on the rejection (magazine/publisher/agent) with double points for acceptances, and rather than demoralising it was incredibly motivating. Once you have your templates ready to be tailormade to individual markets and your spreadsheets in place, and your listings websites or copy of the Writers and Artists Yearbook handy, it really doesn't take that long. From some of the comments on this thread you'd think writing a query letter would shave years off your life. In the time it took me to read the first four pages of this thread I could probably have made 10 - 15 agent/publisher submissions, for example. Although I am a slow reader ... 

Saying all that, other than a few dozen short story sales a a few manuscript partial requests, it didn't get me anywhere. I think it improved me as a writer, though, because each rejection would stir me on to write better and come up with better plots. Back when I started out in 1998, self-publishing didn't exist like it does now so it wasn't an option. I think now the market is far more open and writers have a lot more choices. For me starting out fifteen years ago it was trad or bust, and I wasn't prepared to go bust. I still think I'd get there eventually but self-publishing is a much easier option and I feel like I have the skills now to compete with the best. People can mock the whole apprenticeship/years of rejection thing as much as they like but I think it equipped me well for self-publishing. I feel like I'm ready, so to speak, whereas in 1998 or even in 2005, I wasn't, and it would have been to my long-term detriment if I had begun self-publishing what I was writing back then at the time because quality of my work then is nowhere near what it is now.

At the end of the day I don't put myself in one court or the other, I just use whatever method works best for me. I'm not pro- or anti- anything and I enjoyed and understood the various stances in both Hugh's and Chuck's articles. I thought they both made good points. I think the decision to go indie or try for trad or do a bit of both is up to an individual writer and what they consider their goals and expectations.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

Just wondering what would happen if everyone stopped querying and started self-pubbing instead. How long would it take for the publishing houses to totally change their approach. Imagine, they come begging to self-pubbed author who are having reasonable sales, offering top dollar to be able to print and distribute.

Pretty cool, huh? 

Sometime, and probably soon, one big publishing house is going to see the light, and start shopping indie's/SP's. The only thing they can do that we can't is widespread print distribution. (And more effective marketing, if they stepped up their game.) With all the money they'd save on editing and cover design (since it's already done) they'd have more to spend on marketing.

It will happen. Just a matter of when. It will be glorious.

(P.S.  GO THUNDER!)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Sometime, and probably soon, one big publishing house is going to see the light, and start shopping indie's/SP's. The only thing they can do that we can't is widespread print distribution. (And more effective marketing, if they stepped up their game.) With all the money they'd save on editing and cover design (since it's already done) they'd have more to spend on marketing."


With editing and cover done, what's the publisher add? B&N could do that and cut out the publisher.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,  

I've removed a post and a couple of responses to it that had nothing to do with this topic, as far as I could tell.  I didn't just split them out because the initial post had a political overtone, and political discussions are not allowed here on KBoards.

Thanks for understanding.

Betsy


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Even when a disruptive change is upon them many want and try to cling to the old ways of doing things. It is to be expected. As more people realize the potential of SP the more it will continue to grow.

Pubs will still be here but will decline as less will need their services. In the old days they were the only way to author and distribute--they controlled the entire market. Those days will soon be a memory.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> With editing and cover done, what's the publisher add? B&N could do that and cut out the publisher.


I'm surprised B&N isn't doing this already. They could do it tomorrow if they got their act together. The inertia is just mind-boggling.


----------



## 56139 (Jan 21, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> With editing and cover done, what's the publisher add? B&N could do that and cut out the publisher.


Wouldn't that be awesome if that was the "big announcement"?


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Folks,
> 
> I've removed a post and a couple of responses to it that had nothing to do with this topic, as far as I could tell. I didn't just split them out because the initial post had a political overtone, and political discussions are not allowed here on KBoards.
> 
> ...


That would be my post about the famous March on the Pentagon in 1967...as an allegory of two different sides each claiming it was right, which was the animating spirit of this long thread, trad vs.indie. Maybe I should have bolded certain words or put a title on the post to make my purpose clear. It was not meant to be a political discussion of the late Sixties.


----------



## Wo3lf (Jan 30, 2013)

In my humble opinion (I'm a humble sort)--and it isn't based on years and years of experience, only from a year's worth of reading other people's opinions and experiences, watching news, and having one book on Amazon--the new climate demands a practical approach and that is to write your book and publish it yourself. In fact, I think it is even more difficult now to approach agents and publishers because they are all watching Amazon and other platforms for the next breakout star (I know this is a gross generalization, but it is happening). I'd say the best strategy is to get eyeballs on your edited work and have it out there earning money while you write the next one. The money you make you can reinvest in your next book. Repeat. 

At the end of the day, and the reason why one shouldn't necessarily make this a battle between right and wrong, your strategy depends on your priorities, and that will inform your choice of which approach fits you best. And I think both Chuck and Hugh are saying this.

Hugh's article was good. I see nothing wrong with it. Chuck's rebuttal seemed a bit snippy, but he made some good points, but it's like my wife always tell me, "It's not what I say, but how I say it", and maybe that is why Chuck's post got the reaction it did. Both these writers are awesome, and I will keep supporting them, or until one of them kicks me in the nuts (using Rothfuss' own words here, only I'm not as forgiving when it comes to people kicking me in the nuts).


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

Wo3lf said:


> Hugh's article was good. I see nothing wrong with it. Chuck's rebuttal seemed a bit snippy, but he made some good points, but it's like my wife always tell me, "It's not what I say, but how I say it", and maybe that is why Chuck's post got the reaction it did. Both these writers are awesome, and I will keep supporting them, or until one of them kicks me in the nuts (using Rothfuss' own words here, only I'm not as forgiving when it comes to people kicking me in the nuts).


Ok, you get some power up points for this!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hudson Owen said:


> That would be my post about the famous March on the Pentagon in 1967...as an allegory of two different sides each claiming it was right, which was the animating spirit of this long thread, trad vs.indie. Maybe I should have bolded certain words or put a title on the post to make my purpose clear. It was not meant to be a political discussion of the late Sixties.


Aaah. The allegorical bit was lost on me, and the responses to it focused on the political aspects. I did feel bad as it was obvious you'd put a lot of work into it. Sorry, Hudson, leaving it in would have derailed the thread.


Betsy


----------



## David Kazzie (Sep 16, 2010)

The thing that troubled me most about this thread was the sense that if you did not agree with Hugh in every way, or if you didn't think Chuck was a total buffoon, that there was something wrong with you. 

I respect the h-e-double-hockey-sticks out of both Hugh and Chuck, as what they've been able to acccomplish in the last couple years is nothing short of astonishing. I consider both to be friends, or as friendly as one can be with someone you've never met in person. I agree with certain things each said, and I disagree with points each made. But that's just me. 

However, I must say that because I continue to consider traditional publishing as an option, I feel less and less welcome on Kboards. That's really upsetting, because I've been able to share my highest highs and lowest lows with the folks on these boards. Perhaps this thread will prove once and for all that there is no one way to do anything. Everyone's pot of gold is different. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Hudson Owen (May 18, 2012)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Aaah. The allegorical bit was lost on me, and the responses to it focused on the political aspects. I did feel bad as it was obvious you'd put a lot of work into it. Sorry, Hudson, leaving it in would have derailed the thread.
> 
> 
> Betsy


As you recall, the thread was getting quite heated late Friday night; a short time earlier you had threatened to bayonet, er, prod Hugh. Well, I thought, that's no good. I'll put a different spin on this undead horse. I take no offense at your actions, Betsy. Peace & Love.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hudson Owen said:


> As you recall, the thread was getting quite heated late Friday night; a short time earlier you had threatened to bayonet, er, prod Hugh. Well, I thought, that's no good. I'll put a different spin on this undead horse. I take no offense at your actions, Betsy. Peace & Love.


Prodding Hugh is just a side benefit of the job.


Thanks for understanding, Hudson! Have a great evening.

Betsy


----------



## Wo3lf (Jan 30, 2013)

fallswriter said:


> Ok, you get some power up points for this!


I'm fairly new here, but that sounds promising. Is it a Power Ranger thing?


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

New to the boards, but found this thread because I follow(ed) Chuck Wendig and Hugh Howey on Twitter. I'm a fan of both men's work, but finally had to unfollow Chuck on Twitter. In many ways, I do think there is some misunderstanding on both sides. But I mostly think it's the TONE that Chuck takes, both in his "[poop noises]" post at his blog and when I tried to engage with him in discussing the straw man he uses to attack the indie-first position. He just seems really ANGRY about it all for some reason, and intent on using those straw men to prove he's right.

For me, I came into this with a completely open mind. I've read a lot about traditional publishing (bought Writer's Market and all that), and had recently been exploring the self-publishing side of things. Reading through this discussion, I am now of the belief that going indie first IS the best (not only, just "best") route to take. So maybe this discussion thread WASN'T just "sound and fury" as some have seemed to fear. I know I've definitely been swayed by Hugh's calm, measured take, in both the article and this discussion.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Welcome, djameson!

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

Betsy
KBoards Moderator



*sheathes cattleprod.*


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Welcome, djameson!
> 
> Thanks for a thoughtful response.
> 
> ...


Hah! Not sure how I feel about getting you to put the cattle prod away...

Oh, I also should say that "Dean Jameson" is a nom de plume I've adopted as a tribute to my late father. On the boards here, I think I'll go by my given name, which is "Kevin." Not sure how to do the sigs and all, or how to change my username to reflect that.

K


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Kevin--

you can go to Profile in the top blue menu bar on every forum page, select Account Related Settings on the left, and change the user display name to your author name.

For your signature, from your profile, select Forum Profile Information on the left, and scroll down to the signature box. Or check out the Tips for KBoards Authors at the top of the Writers' Café; one of the tips is a cool signature creator that our site owner Harvey developed.

Betsy


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Kevin--
> 
> you can go to Profile in the top blue menu bar on every forum page, select Account Related Settings on the left, and change the user display name to your author name.
> 
> ...


Oh, "Dean Jameson" is the name I use online, both with my Twitter presence, and when I was reviewing movies for GoWilkes.com. I just thought I might use my real, actual name in this forum, since it seemed many are doing so.


----------



## GMSkarka (Apr 6, 2013)

I guess I'm not seeing the controversy.

Chuck's position is "there is no one-size-fits-all "best" way, every author is different", which seems to be common sense to me.  

For example -- people who just want to write, and either aren't comfortable with, or skilled in, any of the myriad other things which self-publishers must do (or hire others to do for them):  Design, layout, promotion, marketing, etc. -- might not find self-publishing to be the "best" way to do this.      Makes sense, right?

A friend of mine once said that being a self-publisher is basically the same thing as running a small publishing company -- only the manuscript acquisitions are different, since you're only acquiring from one author:  yourself.  But the rest of it?  Handling or hiring out for editing, design, layout, promotion, marketing, customer service, etc.    Pretty much the same.

Some folks don't want to run a publishing operation.  They just want to write.  Which is fine.  Telling somebody like that this is the "best way", when it obviously isn't for them, is counter-productive.  So perhaps we should stop?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

djameson74 said:


> Oh, "Dean Jameson" is the name I use online, both with my Twitter presence, and when I was reviewing movies for GoWilkes.com. I just thought I might use my real, actual name in this forum, since it seemed many are doing so.


And you can do that, too. 

Betsy


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Some folks don't want to run a publishing operation. They just want to write. Which is fine.


I wonder if just writing is an option for anyone. Taking the traditional route, one has to spend a considerable amount of time securing an agent and publisher. Then there is the contracting. From accounts I have read from people who are traditionally published, the publisher expects them to do lots of promoting that falls outside the writing realm.

Will a publisher or agent work with someone who will do nothing beyond writing? I don't know. Never been in the situation. Does the market have any place for the guy who wants to just write?

From what people relate, I'm getting the idea the dream of just writing is really just a dream for all but a few.



> "Telling somebody like that this is the "best way", when it obviously isn't for them, is counter-productive. So perhaps we should stop?"


I don't think suppressing analysis of business strategies does anyone any good. A business strategy presumes it is being executed by people who are competent, capable, and willing to execute it. That applies to any strategy. The merits of the strategy don't depend on any individual's personal situation. This applies to dealing with widgets, oil drilling bits, or books.

Once the analyses of the strategies are available, the firm or individual decides if they can implement it. If it can, the firm will engage people who are competent, capable, and willing. The individual has to make his own decision about that. But the best decisions are made with all the pertinent information.

So it's reasonable to expect some firms or individuals will not be able to exploit the superior strategy. But that's no reason to stop the discussion or analysis of the strategies.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

That's what I don't understand. For whom is "just writing" an option? One thing I've definitely read a lot from trad pubbed authors is that they spend a lot of time and money doing self-promo. (Most recently: that Elisabeth Naughton blog post.) _(Edit by Betsy: The Elisabeth Naughton post is being discussed separately here., just sayin'.)_

I would love, love, love to hear Amanda Hocking (or, hey, dare I say it...Hugh) describe how the writing life is different now with an excellent trad pub contract as opposed to doing everything indie. Is getting into Walmart/Target/remaining bookstores with hard copy worth the tradeoff? Do you not make as much on one book...but you make it up with greater reach on your entire list?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Diane Patterson said:


> That's what I don't understand. For whom is "just writing" an option?


If you want to be published, whether self or trad, this isn't an option for anyone except the massively rich and famous who can either wave their hand and have other people paid to do everything, or their fame is such that no handler in the world can force them to do anything they want to do.

If you are an aspiring writer -- and these are the people I care about -- you are going to have to work your butt off no matter which way you go. You may have to work HARDER if you go the traditional route. I know that I've never been busier than AFTER signing with publishers. I just spent five weeks away from home and am about to spend two weeks in Australia. I have four more trips planned this year, none of which I would have taken if I were only self-published. All are at publishers' behests. All require brutal 12 - 16 hour days. I answer dozens of emails a week (sometimes a day) from my agent and 25+ publishers. I wish I could go back to the days when I just wrote, which is what I did before WOOL took off!

I spent more time agonizing over how to query and who to query as I shopped around my first manuscript than I spent making cover art and figuring out how to upload to KDP (both of which took a day each). I could have spent $60 on a bit of cover art and $60 for an e-book formatter. If you told me I could give someone $120 and they would query agents for me until one of them said "yes," I would faint. Every author in the industry would take that deal. Which is why I shake my head when people pretend that self-pubbing is harder. It's several magnitudes easier, whether that means affording to pay someone else or sorting it out yourself.

I can tell you from talking to a dozen imprints at the big 6 publishers that even with my sales history and platform, if I had told ANY of them that I "just wanted to write," they wouldn't have offered me a contract. Everyone wanted to know what my marketing strategy would be going forward. They all checked my Twitter account and FB page to see how much clout I had. They probably checked my Klout score! I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled up site metrics for my home page. I know they looked at how many comments my posts got (several commented on this). They expected me to have a business plan.

There is no commercial future in traditional publishing for an unknown writer who wants to simply write. None. No how. No way. Forget about it.

If you want to write and post your musings online for free, you can do that. But the challenge of setting up a blog and posting to it is just as simple as self-publishing. And hey, you could do that and possibly make some money.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Rykymus said:


> Just wondering what would happen if everyone stopped querying and started self-pubbing instead. How long would it take for the publishing houses to totally change their approach. Imagine, they come begging to self-pubbed author who are having reasonable sales, offering top dollar to be able to print and distribute.
> 
> Pretty cool, huh?
> 
> ...


My feeling? I agree more with Hugh than Chuck.

And I think publishers are starting to use self publishers' work as a slush pile. As authors build fan bases and get on genre best seller lists, publishers will make offers to authors because of these authors' proven ability to build a fan base. Some authors will take deals, and some will decline. As more publishers see these deals become profitable for the publishers, more will jump on the bandwagon.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> I can tell you from talking to a dozen imprints at the big 6 publishers that even with my sales history and platform, if I had told ANY of them that I "just wanted to write," they wouldn't have offered me a contract. Everyone wanted to know what my marketing strategy would be going forward. They all checked my Twitter account and FB page to see how much clout I had. They probably checked my Klout score! I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled up site metrics for my home page. I know they looked at how many comments my posts got (several commented on this). They expected me to have a business plan.


I've had to write a business plan for my movie producer and for my agent. I have to update it as new developments happen. I'm buiding my presence in social media as it's a little weak.


----------



## sunnycoast (Sep 10, 2010)

@Hugh:



Hugh Howey said:


> I know that I've never been busier than AFTER signing with publishers.


For me, none of what you wrote in that comment sounds like a remotely enjoyable experience. In fact, I'd probably PAY to get out of that kind of experience!


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

At the risk of reviving that dead horse (sorry Betsy!), Chuck posted another response, particularly to comments made on this board.

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/04/09/indie-first-what-is-best-in-publishing/

Although I'm one of those aspiring authors who will likely/eventually go the "Indie First" route, I understand and respect what Chuck is saying. (And am sorry the thread got kind of hostile!) I think there are some ways of publishing that might earn a midlist author more money, for sure -- just as there are ways of publishing that offer more prestige, or more control, etc. etc. But to say what is "right" or "best" for someone else? I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that, since a statement like that would probably depend on an individual's priorities, desires, and so on.

The great thing is that no one has to be "right" in this discussion -- I'm grateful to have two very successful authors willing to (calmly and wisely) discuss the publishing climate/options, so that as an author, I can look at all the information, and make the best decision for myself. I'm a fan of both Chuck and Hugh, and this whole discussion has been enlightening and inspiring.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

Diana Gabrielle said:


> At the risk of reviving that dead horse (sorry Betsy!), Chuck posted another response, particularly to comments made on this board.
> 
> http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/04/09/indie-first-what-is-best-in-publishing/


Now this sounds much more reasonable. Maybe I just wasn't understanding Chuck before, or maybe I didn't like his earlier approach. Maybe I was having a bad day, or maybe he was. Either way, this post explained a lot. I still think going indie is the better move for most writers (at least those wanting to be professionals), but to each his own.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

It's a measure of how revolutionary the Indie First idea is, that it's gained a lot of traction and the need for multiple rebuttals so quickly. Powerful ideas are that way.

I won't fisk every point that Chuck has in his article, but I did submit a comment that countered his genre-may-be-a-problem point:



> I publish indie YA and have done well. I'm far from alone. You remember Amanda Hocking wrote YA, yes? I know a lot of successful YA indie authors. You _almost_ got this right, in that it's really an age issue: YA books that appeal solely to young teens, and especially middle grade and picture books, still rely heavily on print distribution and "gatekeepers" like parents, teachers, and librarians who rely on reviews/recommendations not (currently) available to indie authors. But if you have a YA book that appeals to adults, the adults-who-read-YA market is HUGE.
> 
> For books that appeal to anyone over the age of 13, anything that sells well traditionally will sell well as an indie book - and likely better, because indie authors price lower.


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

I was very disappointed in Wendig's latest. He STILL claims Howey is saying something that he's not. And in the comments section (which is almost solely made up of "attaboy, Chuck!" messages, he engages in a LOT of snark towards KBoards that I think is very unfair.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

djameson74 said:


> I was very disappointed in Wendig's latest. He STILL claims Howey is saying something that he's not. And in the comments section (which is almost solely made up of "attaboy, Chuck!" messages, he engages in a LOT of snark towards KBoards that I think is very unfair.


I engaged Chuck for a while in the comments section. It took a lot to get him to where he would even address the main point: that Hugh was saying that people had a better chance to _make money_ with indie publishing. Chuck seemed to really conflate saying the indie path made more money with being intolerant of anyone taking another path. The two are not the same - actually not even close. Indie writers are some of the more open-minded people I've ever met! Making the observation that midlist writers are making money on the indie path sure seemed to be a powerful (and threatening) statement, though.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Well, someone has to take over from Scot Turow.


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> I engaged Chuck for a while in the comments section. It took a lot to get him to where he would even address the main point: that Hugh was saying that people had a better chance to _make money_ with indie publishing. Chuck seemed to really conflate saying the indie path made more money with being intolerant of anyone taking another path. The two are not the same - actually not even close. Indie writers are some of the more open-minded people I've ever met! Making the observation that midlist writers are making money on the indie path sure seemed to be a powerful (and threatening) statement, though.


I engaged him a bit on Twitter, after his first post. I tried to explain that he wasn't arguing w/Hugh's actual point so much as he was setting up a straw man, contending that Hugh was saying something that he wasn't really saying. For a bit, it seemed like a good conversation. But then, he chose to end the conversation with an obscenity, which was the point at which I decided to finally check out as one of his Twitter followers. It's sad, really, because he's taking issue with a point that no one is making: that indie is good and traditional publishing is bad. He thinks saying one option is better than the other means that Hugh is saying that traditional publishing is bad or something to that effect. The way I understand Hugh, he's simply saying that it's faster and more straightforward to start EARNING MONEY by going indie. That seems like a fairly straightforward, utterly uncontroversial point to make. In best case scenarios for new authors it's maybe 12-18 months from agent query to published book, with tons of pitfalls along the way. That's not to say that people who choose to do that are doing something BAD, they're just choosing a path that means they'll not start earning out as quickly as if they'd went indie. Why is that position controversial to Chuck, I wonder?


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Well, someone has to take over from Scot Turow.


I don't think that's fair to Chuck. He's not ANTI-self publishing, he just refuses to address the actual heart of Hugh's argument, that the route to actual money-making is faster with going indie. Instead he argues with a straw man of his own construction. Turow is virulently anti-indie.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

Hugh Howey said:


> If you want to be published, whether self or trad, this isn't an option for anyone except the massively rich and famous who can either wave their hand and have other people paid to do everything, or their fame is such that no handler in the world can force them to do anything they want to do.
> 
> If you are an aspiring writer -- and these are the people I care about -- you are going to have to work your butt off no matter which way you go. You may have to work HARDER if you go the traditional route. I know that I've never been busier than AFTER signing with publishers. I just spent five weeks away from home and am about to spend two weeks in Australia. I have four more trips planned this year, none of which I would have taken if I were only self-published. All are at publishers' behests. All require brutal 12 - 16 hour days. I answer dozens of emails a week (sometimes a day) from my agent and 25+ publishers. I wish I could go back to the days when I just wrote, which is what I did before WOOL took off!


It sounds glamorous until you think about it realistically. If I had to travel like that, I would hate it. One trip, sure. Maybe even two, but not for weeks on end. There is just no way I could leave my 12 yo daughter for that long. Maybe in a few years when she's fully into her teens and doesn't want to be seen with me,  but not right now while she still thinks I'm pretty cool and she still likes hugs. Just thinking of leaving her for weeks on end makes my stomach clench up. Nope. I guess I'll just keep plugging along as an indie.

It's not like I have a choice anyway, but I think we all daydream about how fantastic it would be to be going on tour and having readers lining up to buy our books.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

djameson74 said:


> Why is that position controversial to Chuck, I wonder?


I don't think it's controversial so much as compelling. And Chuck has a laundry list of reasons why indie is not the way to go (non-monetary reasons), but most people are going to sit up and take notice when you start putting things in terms of money. He did eventually say that he didn't think indie publishing paid more (which is fine; that's his observation, based on his experience), but that certainly wasn't his main point (which was beating upon the straw man, as you say).


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> I don't think it's controversial so much as compelling. And Chuck has a laundry list of reasons why indie is not the way to go (non-monetary reasons), but most people are going to sit up and take notice when you start putting things in terms of money. He did eventually say that he didn't think indie publishing paid more (which is fine; that's his observation, based on his experience), but that certainly wasn't his main point (which was beating upon the straw man, as you say).


One thing that bothered me is that he keeps referencing the "Taleist (sp?) Survey", but never gives any data from that survey. He just quotes the title, ("Not a Gold Rush") as if that proves something. I looked into the "survey", and you can't look at it's "findings" without paying. I'm not going to pay someone to read a survey, just because Chuck claims it supports his points.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

I like Chuck but it's pretty frustrating that he doesn't mention actual royalty figures.

$2.99 Amazon = $2.06 to the author.
$16.99 paper publishing = $0.40 - $1.00 to the author at 10% net receipts depending on how steep the retailer discount is.

It comes down to some very basic maths and the great thing about maths is that the figures don't lie. 1000 sales in a year as a self-pub and you take home $2060. The same sales with trad pub could get you $400 - $1000 paid out up to six months after the sale happened.

Add in the tiny percentage of authors who end up with traditional publishing contracts, the tiny amount of time a book spends in a bookshop and the failing fortunes of traditional publishing companies and I'm finding it very hard to see how Chuck arrives at his position.

But then again, the guy is a contrarian and loves that juicy juicy web drama that draws people to his website. And no one ever gets smacked hard for presenting what looks like a reasonable position: there is more than one way to the top of the mountain.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

djameson74 said:


> One thing that bothered me is that he keeps referencing the "Taleist (sp?) Survey", but never gives any data from that survey. He just quotes the title, ("Not a Gold Rush") as if that proves something. I looked into the "survey", and you can't look at it's "findings" without paying. I'm not going to pay someone to read a survey, just because Chuck claims it supports his points.


I have a (free) copy of the survey because I participated. It was a great attempt, but still flawed - not least because it didn't take into account how long you had been indie publishing. I participated, but I'd only been published for a couple months. Which made it look like I'd earned very little. Now, a year later, the story is very different. Even if the study was a perfect and true representation of all indie authors, it's not something you can directly compare to trad-pub authors: indies are everyone from the slush pile, whereas trad-pubs are only those who have been picked up by a publisher. But somehow that nuance gets lost.


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> I have a (free) copy of the survey because I participated. It was a great attempt, but still flawed - not least because it didn't take into account how long you had been indie publishing. I participated, but I'd only been published for a couple months. Which made it look like I'd earned very little. Now, a year later, the story is very different. Even if the study was a perfect and true representation of all indie authors, it's not something you can directly compare to trad-pub authors: indies are everyone from the slush pile, whereas trad-pubs are only those who have been picked up by a publisher. But somehow that nuance gets lost.


I probably have a copy of it available to me, or in my email somewhere. I did participate. And for all I know depending on how things were evaluated, I too was responsible for skewing the average towards the bottom...


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

mathewferguson said:


> But then again, the guy is a contrarian and loves that juicy juicy web drama that draws people to his website. And no one ever gets smacked hard for presenting what looks like a reasonable position: there is more than one way to the top of the mountain.


And he's right about that. The problem is, the traditional publishing "way to the top of the mountain" is scattered with obstacles, most of which the author has absolutely no control over. The other also has obstacles, but most of those are actually within the scope of control of the author. He refuses to even entertain the notion that indie could possibly be the BETTER way for MOST aspiring authors to make money SOONER. Won't even consider it.


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

Susan Kaye Quinn said:


> I have a (free) copy of the survey because I participated. It was a great attempt, but still flawed - not least because it didn't take into account how long you had been indie publishing. I participated, but I'd only been published for a couple months. Which made it look like I'd earned very little. Now, a year later, the story is very different. Even if the study was a perfect and true representation of all indie authors, it's not something you can directly compare to trad-pub authors: indies are everyone from the slush pile, whereas trad-pubs are only those who have been picked up by a publisher. But somehow that nuance gets lost.


I'm actually becoming more and more convinced that it doesn't become "lost" so much as it's just intentionally ignored, in pursuance of point-making.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Does the Taleist survey have a self-selected sample? If so, it's not nuance. It's not reliable.


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Does the Taleist survey have a self-selected sample? If so, it's not nuance. It's not reliable.


I think that question was asked of Chuck on Twitter. If I remember right, he didn't have a good answer for that, which makes me think that maybe it was self-selected.


----------



## matthewturner (Aug 1, 2012)

Chuck certainly speaks his mind, and no matter what side of the line you stand on, it's great to see more and more people talking about the legitimacy (or not so) of self-pubbing. 

Matthew


----------



## Mathew Reuther (Jan 14, 2013)

The Taleist Survey was absolutely self-selected. Anyone who wanted to opt in was allowed to do so. AFAIK everyone who opted in and completed the survey was used. There was no random sample from within that self-selected group.


----------



## Edward W. Robertson (May 18, 2010)

Which means it was probably skewed in favor of self-publishing, if anything.


----------



## AbbyBabble (Mar 16, 2013)

The thing is, a new author needs reader exposure more than cash.  I'd rather earn $10 and gain 10,000 new readers than earn $10,000 and gain 10 new readers.  Traditional publishing can mass produce paperbacks and get you into print bookstores.  Self-publishing is at a disadvantage when it comes to exposure.

Or am I wrong?  I'd like to hear the counter-arguments.


----------



## Wo3lf (Jan 30, 2013)

I agree somewhat with you. As an indie you have to invest much more time to get your name out there and even then it wouldn't come close to what the big money can buy. But then, you could hit it lucky and have the right person read your work. I suppose having a traditional publisher invest in marketing for you, this is assuming they view you as the next breakout success, will get your name out quicker. In contrast, a self-publisher will need to work diligently and patiently, and longer, and in time, if his or her books are good, they will amass a following, which, hopefully, will be large enough to move by its own momentum. This is my opinion, I could be wrong.


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

matthewturner said:


> Chuck certainly speaks his mind, and no matter what side of the line you stand on, it's great to see more and more people talking about the legitimacy (or not so) of self-pubbing.
> 
> Matthew


Exactly. Which is why I took the time to engage Chuck, even though he was mostly about shutting down the debate. I wrote a post on my blog afterwards about how the War of Ideas is a good thing for authors.

(And yes, the taleist survey was self-selected. Surveys are great, but when the idea battle is still pitched, it's going to be hard to find one that won't be distrusted and/or misused for point-making, on either side. The cry for "data" will always be made to combat anecdotal data, when it doesn't line up with the point being sought. Personally, I think the anecdotal data has more use at this point - and I'm an engineer by training! But even in the sciences, we want to put the equipment in the field and see how it really runs, under real-life conditions. That's what anecdotal data is - a real-life example. It's not as replicable as science, but the Indie First idea is built on a mountain of real-life examples, i.e. they are no longer outliers.)


----------



## Susan Kaye Quinn (Aug 8, 2011)

AbbyBabble said:


> The thing is, a new author needs reader exposure more than cash. I'd rather earn $10 and gain 10,000 new readers than earn $10,000 and gain 10 new readers. Traditional publishing can mass produce paperbacks and get you into print bookstores. Self-publishing is at a disadvantage when it comes to exposure.
> 
> Or am I wrong? I'd like to hear the counter-arguments.


*I'd rather earn $10 and gain 10,000 new readers than earn $10,000 and gain 10 new readers.*
And a different author might make the opposite choice. Or somewhere in between.

*Traditional publishing can mass produce paperbacks and get you into print bookstores.*
They CAN but WILL they? Assuming you land a contract, the amount of marketing push, and whether you even get on the shelves (or stay there for very long) depends on how good of a bet the pub house thinks your book is - and they're increasingly only taking the more sure bets.

Trad-pub's are coming out with ebook only imprints all the time, and at a furious pace. Why? Because the number of titles being stocked on B&N's shelves continues to shrink, and will for the future. Because this (Self-publishing is at a disadvantage when it comes to exposure) is not actually true, for the cost. The risk-and-cost-for-exposure is very small online, whereas it takes a lot of investment of money to gain "exposure" by placing books on physical bookshelves. At the same time the value of that exposure is dropping (i.e. more people are shopping for books online, finding books via word-of-mouth, not shelf-browsing).

A friend of mine had one of these ebook contract offers from a big house and turned it down; because they weren't offering anything (even the marketing and editing was practically non-existant) that was better than what she could do on her own.


----------



## djameson74 (Apr 6, 2013)

AbbyBabble said:


> The thing is, a new author needs reader exposure more than cash. I'd rather earn $10 and gain 10,000 new readers than earn $10,000 and gain 10 new readers. Traditional publishing can mass produce paperbacks and get you into print bookstores. Self-publishing is at a disadvantage when it comes to exposure.
> 
> Or am I wrong? I'd like to hear the counter-arguments.


As I see it, the only way you're likely to "earn $10,000 and [only] gain 10 new readers" is actually through TRADITIONAL publishing (i.e. a $10K advance, no real promo/marketing, and the book withers and dies), not self-publishing. In self-publishing, because of the greater flexibility in price points, you're very much more likely to earn "$10" while gaining "10,000 new readers." Would it cost you time and (a bit of) money? Sure. But if you're willing to put your work out there at low price points (or even, sometimes, for free) to get some exposure, it's far more likely that you'll gain readers that way than through one of the tradpub deals where they don't throw you much marketing money at all.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

AbbyBabble said:


> The thing is, a new author needs reader exposure more than cash. I'd rather earn $10 and gain 10,000 new readers than earn $10,000 and gain 10 new readers. Traditional publishing can mass produce paperbacks and get you into print bookstores. Self-publishing is at a disadvantage when it comes to exposure.
> 
> Or am I wrong? I'd like to hear the counter-arguments.


I definitely agree with the other two replies to this. The first time I read this, I had to do a double take because I thought you were describing the advantages of self-publishing, not traditional. To me, the $10,000 & 10 readers is a consequence of traditional publishing. I think I read somewhere that ebooks still make up a minority of book sales (25% was the figure I remember?) but increasingly, spots in stores for paper books published traditionally are shrinking and shrinking. They belong to a select few, who the publishers want to throw their weight behind. So that shrinking percentage of paper sales goes to an ever-shrinking group of (often big-name) authors.

For example, I read a lot of YA, which is a popular and lucrative genre. I end up buying most of the books I want (and hear about from YA blogs/Goodreads/etc) on Amazon anyway -- not because of Amazon's discounts, but because they are simply not available in any bookstore in my major urban/metro area. At my Barnes & Noble, the YA section is a huge wall of PNR -- because that's a proven moneymaker.

So ultimately, I don't see distribution as an advantage of trad publishing that you can count on in the slightest.

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I definitely don't discover many new authors by browsing the bookstore anymore. Most of my reading list comes via word-of-mouth -- and that's an aspect of discovery not controlled by traditional publishers.

The returns system is also a huge detriment to distribution. Booksellers stock fewer and fewer books as in the hopes of minimizing returns. If a bookstore orders 10 copies of a novel and only sells 8, then the next time they order 8. Sell through percentage remains the same so they sell 6, and the next time they order only 6. And so on. Which for the midlist or unknown author, is a nightmare.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

AbbyBabble said:


> The thing is, a new author needs reader exposure more than cash. I'd rather earn $10 and gain 10,000 new readers than earn $10,000 and gain 10 new readers. Traditional publishing can mass produce paperbacks and get you into print bookstores. Self-publishing is at a disadvantage when it comes to exposure.
> 
> Or am I wrong? I'd like to hear the counter-arguments.


Bookstore shelves are great exposure. No doubt about it. So is an interview on the _Today Show_. So one has to analyze the probability of getting on shelves or TV when contrasting options.

One can base their choice on expected value. That takes the probability of an event and multiplies by the profit from the event.

Exposure vs cash is an individual choice. That depends on the strategy the author is using.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

Hugh Howey said:


> What I hope to see is that the changes hybrids are forcing on publishing houses will trickle down to the writers who despise us. They won't even know it's happening. Non-compete clauses will simply disappear. Finite terms of license will become the norm. Print and digital rights will be negotiated separately. And I won't care one bit who causes this, only that it happens.


Amen! I feel EXACTLY this same way. Even those who never self-publish will benefit because of what changes that self-publishing will cause the traditional publishers to make.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I see no _good_ argument for someone who has ambitions as an author to be trad published not attempting to go the same route as Hugh did and self-publish and then try like Hell to make a success of it to the point of being picked up by a publisher. Are the chances high? Frankly, no. But the chances of getting through the slush pile into an agent's roster and that agent actually SELLING the work (they don't about 80% of what they represent) are so small as to be laughable.
> 
> And like Hugh, it gives them the chops to bargain for a good instead of a lousy contract which is the best argument of all.


This is probably one of the biggest reasons to go self first. The contract (and advance) offered to a debut author look nothing like what I received when I sold my self-published book to the big-six. What's more I was able to get my non-compete clause de-fanged because there was NO WAY I could sign it as was. Again I had leverage...I could walk and do fine. A new author with no self-publishing history has zero bargaining power.


----------

