# Konrath & Goldberg on Self-Publishing



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

My friend Joe Konrath was kind enough to invite me to post on is blog today about my Kindle experience and it's prompted a lively, interesting and thoughtful discussion. You might want to check it out, if you haven't already.

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-lee-goldberg.html

Lee


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

Interesting debate, and bound to go on for quite a while.


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Really really a very interesting article/blog.. Both views are well stated and clear. Personally as a reader, I tend to agree a bit more with Konrath's view, but with a bit of Goldberg's thrown in.

Indies write those books and publish them, and IF you manage to get a book deal out of it, TAKE it for the exposure, get yourself a "NAME" in the biz, then go back to being indie. Take the Money and run.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

I read it - it was a great blog.  However, I do disagree with you on the point of new authors waiting for a traditional publishing deal.  I agree an author needs to be sure they are offering a good product - but, after that , I believe new authors need to consider e-publishing as a viable and exciting new choice.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Interesting blog.

I can see where Lee is coming from. I really can. There is a lot of crap out there, and readers can be wary of self-published books if they buy a few and those are all junk.

But at the same time, if I'd stuck to the old model and waited for a publisher, 33 A.D. would still be just another file on my hard drive instead of a Kindle novel that has been making my car, credit card, and grocery payments for the last six months.

Tough call, really. Joe and Lee both make good points.


----------



## Mel Comley (Oct 13, 2010)

I'm with Terri as usual, the lady talks a lot of sense.

Mel


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Mr. Goldberg has just inspired a new blog post on my own blog. 

I wonder if most self-pubbed ebooks are so bad, why have I come across so many great ones?  Is it my buying habits?  possibly. 

I only shop on amazon, and "the cream always floats to the top" as they say.  When I search for "fantasy" for example, all the good ones (best and better selling) always pop up first. 

The bad ones sink like a stone, until the author either makes improvements to his craft and his product...or gives up, and pulls it from the market.  

I guarantee you all the bad books are ones I've never heard of...and ones the majority of the general public have never heard of either.

And, there's a lot more publishers out there to "vet" you than just the big 6.  What about small presses? Print magazines? 
And how about education? College level writing courses? Article writing on assignment?  There are other ways to "validate" an author as "good enough" to give ebook publication a try.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I've been following the debate in the comments on that post, but haven't felt the need to jump in.  I, frankly, agree with both sides on this.  I think there is a certain amount of "the blind men and the elephant" going on.

Here's my take on what beginners and what is the best path:

Beginners always want to move forward before they're ready.  Traditional publishing is so glacially slow, it doesn't do any harm to go after it -- you're not going to get a deal before you actually figure out what you want to do anyway.  So there is no harm in making the submission rounds.  It might slow you down a little bit at first, but that's to the good.

IMHO, though, the better option than traditional book publishing (which is not only SLOW, but not very responsive) is to go after the short markets.  Get experience with other people reacting to your work.  Get experience with being edited (and learn the good, the bad and the ugly of professional editing).  And gain an audience.  Then you not only have experience when you get started, you also have published work to put out there as ebooks.

Camille


----------



## Ruth Harris (Dec 26, 2010)

Hi Lee,  I note a link to Stewart Williams on your site.  Did he create your excellent covers?  He does mine & I'm so pleased with him and the quality of his work!

I wonder if I know you?  I started out writing for the men's magazines during the post-pulp era  & over time became a NYTimes bestseller.  But back in the good old days, I wrote combat stories, rugged adventure stories and How To Get Laid stories.  One a week!  For years!  What a great period when writers could learn their craft & make a living, publishers made money and editors (I was an ed and EIC at Lancer) were dynamic and creative (if I say so myself & I do).


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

melcom said:


> I'm with Terri as usual, the lady talks a lot of sense.
> 
> Mel


Mel - can I be your best friend?


----------



## Some Writer Cat (Sep 22, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> My friend Joe Konrath was kind enough to invite me to post on is blog today about my Kindle experience and it's prompted a lively, interesting and thoughtful discussion. You might want to check it out, if you haven't already.
> 
> http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-lee-goldberg.html
> 
> Lee


Lee, it was a great blog post and a lively discussion. Thanks for linking to it. But this strange worry about "swill" is just bizarre to me. Do you own an e-reader? This worry just doesn't jive with the way readers are finding authors on most of the e-book platforms. The bad stuff just sinks. Nobody notices it. And because of sampling, most readers don't buy the badly written stuff even if the author has paid for a professional cover.

So while I still think writers should pursue the traditional avenue for books (I certainly will for some books), I'm with Joe: No reason to wait. If it's bad, it'll just fade. The writers I know who make it in this business are the ones who have two necessary qualities: 1) they work hard and don't quit, and 2) they have the capacity to improve. That's all it takes, regardless of which route you choose.

Lively debate, though. Got me thinking.


----------



## bellaandre (Dec 10, 2010)

Lee,

Great post on Joe's blog & I *adored* the links to your daughter's books!  My son is definitely inspired by his mother's writing - he's constantly stapling together books that he writes/illustrates.
 Bella


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Ruth Harris said:


> Hi Lee, I note a link to Stewart Williams on your site. Did he create your excellent covers? He does mine & I'm so pleased with him and the quality of his work!


There's a link to Stewart Williams on my site? Really? Because I don't know him. My covers were designed by Carl Graves, who did a terrific job.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

David McAfee said:


> Interesting blog.
> 
> I can see where Lee is coming from. I really can. There is a lot of crap out there, and readers can be wary of self-published books if they buy a few and those are all junk.
> 
> ...


I would argue, though, that 33 AD is an exception. It is, by far, the best self-published book I have read.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Scott William Carter said:


> Lee, it was a great blog post and a lively discussion. Thanks for linking to it. But this strange worry about "swill" is just bizarre to me. Do you own an e-reader?


Are you kidding? I am on my second Kindle. I love it!



> This worry just doesn't jive with the way readers are finding authors on most of the e-book platforms. The bad stuff just sinks. Nobody notices it. And because of sampling, most readers don't buy the badly written stuff even if the author has paid for a professional cover.


I have downloaded well over 100 samples of self-published work in the last few months...mostly in the detective/thriller/mystery and general fiction categories, with a few vampire/zombie/horror stuff thrown in for the hell of it. My God. Anybody who says 99% of it isn't unreadable, unpublishable swill hasn't sampled it. And I fear once people do, they will just write-off self-published work as a whole because so much of it is so bad (and so obviously self-published). And that hurts ALL of us. I don't have the answer to the problem...but I believe it is a real problem and that there will be blowback from readers as a result.



> The writers I know who make it in this business are the ones who have two necessary qualities: 1) they work hard and don't quit, and 2) they have the capacity to improve. That's all it takes, regardless of which route you choose.


You left out two other important qualities... talent and skill. Without those, working hard makes no difference.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

What is good enough to pay for is subjective, though, right?

I mean, some people will read a sample of my book and really not like it.  But it's a romance... and some people just don't like romance.  Even at 99 cents.

Others have really enjoyed my book.  So I say, if people are liking it and enjoying it, I'm much better off than not having published it.  And earning $7,000 this month isn't too shabby either.

Vicki


----------



## Some Writer Cat (Sep 22, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> You left out two other important qualities... talent and skill. Without those, working hard makes no difference.
> 
> Lee


Not really. If you work hard and have the capacity to improve, you acquire skill. And talent is just the word people who believe in talent use to describe someone who has acquired a lot of skill. 

Regarding the swill thing -- no doubt there's bad stuff out there. But I just don't buy that it's hurting the good stuff. If anything, it really makes a well-written book stand out. Once a reader finds a good author, regardless of how they've found them, they'll keep coming back for more.

So I say, the more swill out there the better! 

~Scott


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Are you kidding? I am on my second Kindle. I love it!
> 
> I have downloaded well over 100 samples of self-published work in the last few months...mostly in the detective/thriller/mystery and general fiction categories, with a few vampire/zombie/horror stuff thrown in for the hell of it. My God. Anybody who says 99% of it isn't unreadable, unpublishable swill hasn't sampled it. And I fear once people do, they will just write-off self-published work as a whole because so much of it is so bad (and so obviously self-published). And that hurts ALL of us. I don't have the answer to the problem...but I believe it is a real problem and that there will be blowback from readers as a result.
> 
> ...


I agree that there is some really bad writing out there - but I think readers, rather than running away from self-publishing screaming - will learn to download the samples and save themselves time and money. And, I don't think traditional publishing necessarily means good writing...


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for the link, Lee. Interesting debate. 

I must say, publishing on Kindle has been great for me. I've been writing seriously for over ten years--and all I've heard from the traditional publishing industry is gloom and doom. I've had two agents, have studied with NYT bestselling authors (and received their praise), but got none of my books published, until Blake Crouch convinced me to publish on Kindle. I see the current state of epublishing as a revolution comparable to what's occurred in the music and film industry. Time will tell.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> I'm much better off than not having published it. And earning $7,000 this month isn't too shabby either.


You're making $7,000-a-month on a 99 cent title?

If I am calculating this right, that means you're selling 20,000 copies-a-month.

If so, a) *WOW*! and b) you're insane not to raise the price to $2.99. Even if sales plummet to 4,000 copies-a-month, you will still be earning more on far fewer copies sold.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> You're making $7,000-a-month on a 99 cent title?
> 
> If I am calculating this right, that means you're selling 20,000 copies-a-month.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm well on my way to 20,000 sold.

I'm keeping my 99 cent price. When my 2nd book comes out, I'll try an Amanda Hocking and price that at $2.99. If I can get BOTH books up in the top 100 like Amanda, I'll be much better off. And I have a larger audience to sell my third book to.

Vicki


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> I wonder if most self-pubbed ebooks are so bad, why have I come across so many great ones? Is it my buying habits? possibly.


Do you check samples before you buy? That's the best way to weed out the egregiously poor ones. Also, it's often very obvious from a promo if someone has no grasp of the English language. You probably don't bother clicking on promos if the author clearly can't write. I think we all use judgment on what to spend our time looking at, probably more than we realize.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> Yes, I'm well on my way to 20,000 sold.
> Vicki


Forgive me, I am confused. Are you on your way to selling 20,000 copies *monthly*, which is the impression I got from your previous post, or in total since the book was published?

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Forgive me, I am confused. Are you on your way to selling 20,000 copies *monthly*, which is the impression I got from your previous post, or in total since the book was published?
> 
> Lee


20,000 in January. December was 11,000 sold, so this month I'll almost double my sales. This is the first month I've reached the top 100 and stayed there.

Vicki


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I have downloaded well over 100 samples of self-published work in the last few months...mostly in the detective/thriller/mystery and general fiction categories, with a few vampire/zombie/horror stuff thrown in for the hell of it. My God. Anybody who says 99% of it isn't unreadable, unpublishable swill hasn't sampled it. And I fear once people do, they will just write-off self-published work as a whole because so much of it is so bad (and so obviously self-published).


If you've downloaded that many samples, I'm guessing others have too.

Cautious readers will avoid the bad, and buy the good. But I don't believe readers are going to avoid self-pubbed completely. They'll browse using the same old habits, looking at covers and ratings and rankings and samples, and they'll buy what looks good.

One of the interesting notes about those selling well on Kindle--they don't look self-pubbed. Whenever I cruise the bestseller lists to count indie authors, I often have to look very closely to figure out if a book is indie or note. If I'm having trouble telling the difference, so is the average reader.

At the end of the day, it comes down to: is it a good book.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Victorine said:


> 20,000 in January. December was 11,000 sold, so this month I'll almost double my sales. This is the first month I've reached the top 100 and stayed there.


That's a pretty darn good argument for 99 cents, ain't it?


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> My daughter is in her mid-20s now, but she was a prodigious writer and illustrator when she was younger.


My daughter (fifteen and a half) wrote a full novel for NaNoWriMo, which she is entering in the ABNA contest. I am very proud of her efforts. And Bella, my five (almost six) year old likes to write and staple little books together, too.



> 20,000 in January. December was 11,000 sold, so this month I'll almost double my sales.


Amazing, Vicki!


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> 20,000 in January. December was 11,000 sold, so this month I'll almost double my sales. This is the first month I've reached the top 100 and stayed there.
> 
> Vicki


*AMAZING!*

But I believe you are needlessly screwing yourself out of a LOT of money by staying at 99 cents after this month.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> *AMAZING!*
> 
> But I believe you are needlessly screwing yourself out of a LOT of money by staying at 99 cents after this month.
> 
> Lee


I look at it this way. Amazon is recommending my book to thousands of people who like similar books. You can't pay enough for this kind of advertising. So I am losing money, but I'm gaining great advertising.

Vicki


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> If so, a) *WOW*! and b) you're insane not to raise the price to $2.99. Even if sales plummet to 4,000 copies-a-month, you will still be earning more on far fewer copies sold.


I'm glad you brought that up, Lee.

Vic, I've been meaning to tell you this same exact thing. You're #40-something in the overall Kindle store. Now is the *perfect* time to get back to $2.99.


----------



## Some Writer Cat (Sep 22, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> One of the interesting notes about those selling well on Kindle--they don't look self-pubbed. Whenever I cruise the bestseller lists to count indie authors, I often have to look very closely to figure out if a book is indie or note. If I'm having trouble telling the difference, so is the average reader.
> 
> At the end of the day, it comes down to: is it a good book.


Absolutely. That's always been my point, too. If I'm doing my job, then the reader shouldn't be able to tell whether a book I publish via my little publishing company is any different than one put out by S&S. It's also why I think of myself as having two roles: writer and publisher. When I put on the publisher hat, I try to think like one. How does a publisher write a blurb? How does a publisher design a cover? I keep making subtle improvements to my titles with this goal in mind.

Incidentally, it's also why I hate the terms "indy author" and "Kindle author." Why would I want to separate myself from other writers right from the get go? Let's just be writers who happen to put on the publisher hat when it suits us.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I would argue, though, that 33 AD is an exception. It is, by far, the best self-published book I have read.
> 
> Lee


I'll let you have that argument, just because I so enjoy reading it.  (Thanks again, BTW)



Jack Kilborn said:


> Cautious readers will avoid the bad, and buy the good. But I don't believe readers are going to avoid self-pubbed completely. They'll browse using the same old habits, looking at covers and ratings and rankings and samples, and they'll buy what looks good.


Another excellent point. When I'm browsing books at B&N, I usually read the cover copy, then any blurbs, then the first few pages. Sampling. Just like on Kindle. If any of those three things set off my suck detector, I don't buy it.

Kindlers do that too, right?

If so, the crap _should_ sink, and the cream _should_ rise. I know that's not always the case, though.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> I look at it this way. Amazon is recommending my book to thousands of people who like similar books. You can't pay enough for this kind of advertising. So I am losing money, but I'm gaining great advertising.
> 
> Vicki


You've ALREADY paid for it. You paid Amazon $22,660 last month...and this month you're paying them $41,200 (while you make $7000).

Enough already. Wouldn't YOU prefer to earn $41,000 and give them $7000 for advertising?

Lee


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> That's a pretty darn good argument for 99 cents, ain't it?


The best. And the only one that keeps working on me -- though I am nowhere near in Vicki's league.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I kind of like making $7,000 this month.  It's working for me!  

I'll let you know how my next book sells.  

Vicki


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I have downloaded well over 100 samples of self-published work in the last few months...mostly in the detective/thriller/mystery and general fiction categories, with a few vampire/zombie/horror stuff thrown in for the hell of it. My God. Anybody who says 99% of it isn't unreadable, unpublishable swill hasn't sampled it. And I fear once people do, they will just write-off self-published work as a whole because so much of it is so bad (and so obviously self-published). And that hurts ALL of us. I don't have the answer to the problem...but I believe it is a real problem and that there will be blowback from readers as a result.


Lee -- most of the audience out there is used to that. It's called the internet. Books are now like blogs and websites and YouTube videos. People will find the ones they want, and will ignore the HUGE majority of ones that don't interest them (regardless of quality). Quality, frankly is just one of many concerns and nobody has time to judge it separately. Most of the time it's irrelevant.

(And yes, everything you are saying now used to be said about the web. "It'll never last because the readers will see how awful most of it is and give up in disgust and frustration!" Seriously, there was a time when smart pundits were convinced that this web thing wasn't going to fly for exactly the reasons you cite on indie publishing.)

The other thing to remember is that, like junky blogs, that "unpublishable swill" very often does have an audience. As I just mentioned on Joe's blog -- there are people who just LOVE Mary Sue stories. They may be a bunch of hopeless narcissists, but they exist, and who is to say that they can't write stories for each other?

Literature will survive.

Camille


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> The other thing to remember is that, like junky blogs, that "unpublishable swill" very often does have an audience. As I just mentioned on Joe's blog -- there are people who just LOVE Mary Sue stories. They may be a bunch of hopeless narcissists, but they exist, and who is to say that they can't write stories for each other?
> 
> Camille


This, exactly. Who died and made us the literature police? I've picked up samples of Kindle books that I thought were truly awful and unreadable, yet they were ranked in the top 1,000 and had hundreds of glowing reviews. Clearly, there is an audience for just about anything, so who shall be king and decide what's "good enough" or of publishable quality, now that the big publishing houses have relinquished control? Personally, Kurt Cobain made my ears hurt, but millions and millions of people thought he was a musical genius, and so it will be with ebooks.

--Maria


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> That's a pretty darn good argument for 99 cents, ain't it?


I wish I had those results with the 99 cent price. I had a massive initial influx of sales, then PLBBBBBBT.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Are you kidding? I am on my second Kindle. I love it!
> 
> I have downloaded well over 100 samples of self-published work in the last few months...mostly in the detective/thriller/mystery and general fiction categories, with a few vampire/zombie/horror stuff thrown in for the hell of it. My God. Anybody who says 99% of it isn't unreadable, unpublishable swill hasn't sampled it. And I fear once people do, they will just write-off self-published work as a whole because so much of it is so bad (and so obviously self-published). And that hurts ALL of us. I don't have the answer to the problem...but I believe it is a real problem and that there will be blowback from readers as a result.
> 
> ...


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

meromana said:


> This, exactly. Who died and made us the literature police? I've picked up samples of Kindle books that I thought were truly awful and unreadable, yet they were ranked in the top 1,000 and had hundreds of glowing reviews. Clearly, there is an audience for just about anything, so who shall be king and decide what's "good enough" or of publishable quality, now that the big publishing houses have relinquished control? Personally, Kurt Cobain made my ears hurt, but millions and millions of people thought he was a musical genius, and so it will be with ebooks.
> 
> --Maria


Maria,

Good point, about swill that folks find swell. And if it's making money for Amazon, would they attempt to winnow it out? I doubt it. Caveat emptor.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> Do you check samples before you buy? That's the best way to weed out the egregiously poor ones. Also, it's often very obvious from a promo if someone has no grasp of the English language. You probably don't bother clicking on promos if the author clearly can't write. I think we all use judgment on what to spend our time looking at, probably more than we realize.


Oh absolutely! I sample everything that I read, EVERYTHING regardless if it's "traditionally" published or indie. Even if it's by an author that I'm a fan of, there's no guarantee that I'd like the book. It might just not suit my taste.

Yes, if the book blurb is poorly written or overly-bland, then it's probably true that the whole book is as well.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm an extraordinarily picky reader.

I've come across a few self-published books I thought were not so great, and I can't even remember the titles...(well the bad cover art from one of them is burned into my mind's eye! ouch!)
But I haven't seen them pop up since.

The truly bad self-published books you never hear of. They don't get good reviews, nor do they get mentioned on anyone's blogs. They aren't recommended to anyone. Nobody ever asks if you read them or heard of them. They virtually disappear.

(I wish the same were true of bad traditionally published titles...like _Twilight_.  )


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

meromana said:


> Personally, Kurt Cobain made my ears hurt, but millions and millions of people thought he was a musical genius, and so it will be with ebooks.
> 
> --Maria


Bob Dylan for me (except for Lay Lady Lay)

There are quite a few traditional books out there that I've read and, although I wouldn't classify them as swill, I often shook my head in wonder. For example, I never thought the Twilight Series was great writing. But Stephanie Meyers hit a niche and was incredibly successful. And, opened up a whole new genre in romance fiction. If there's a market - who are we to judge?


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

terrireid said:


> Bob Dylan for me (except for Lay Lady Lay)
> 
> There are quite a few traditional books out there that I've read and, although I wouldn't classify them as swill, I often shook my head in wonder. For example, I never thought the Twilight Series was great writing. But Stephanie Meyers hit a niche and was incredibly successful. And, opened up a whole new genre in romance fiction. If there's a market - who are we to judge?


If you liked, Lay Lady Lay, give Blood on the Tracks a listen. It's beautiful, most of it, anyway. And was that a whole new genre that Meyers opened up, or a vein?


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

I don't think the "vetting" process of agent/editor hard-copy publishing works that well. There's a whole lotta junk out there on paper, and a lot the traditional houses miss that is great work. Kindle is just like indie music. You can record and sell your own CDs, and it might be junk, and it might be gold. Letter the listener decide. Let the reader decide. If you have some skills and believe in it, put it out there and see what happens.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

callingcrow said:


> If you liked, Lay Lady Lay, give Blood on the Tracks a listen. It's beautiful, most of it, anyway. And was that a whole new genre that Meyers opened up, or a vein?


Thanks, I will. And - LOL - I guess it was a vein!


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

BTackitt said:


> Indies write those books and publish them, and IF you manage to get a book deal out of it, TAKE it for the exposure, get yourself a "NAME" in the biz, then go back to being indie. Take the Money and run.


The only thing I disagree with here is your last sentence "Take the money and run". The issue (at least in my mind) is you will lose money but gain "Name" in the biz. I'm starting to think of it as...use the traditional publisher as a marketing machine that you don't have to buy but you pay for out of decreased revenue while they are promoting you.


----------



## Vicki Keire (Dec 17, 2010)

I like to think of it this way:
An ebook is not a novel.
It is an emergent genre, closely related to the novel. It's so new, there really are no experts except us ebook writers.
Editors at major publishing houses, experts in editing novels, are not necessarily experts at editing ebooks. 
I am therefore unclear about the advantages traditional publishers have to offer ebook authors, unless it is less competition by acting as gatekeepers.

The same debates happened when the novel was first invented less than three hundred years ago. Same discussion, same reaction, same fear that the sudden influx of novelty crap (hence the word "novel") would somehow ruin writing/writers/your daughter's virtue. (I'm not kidding about the daughter's virtue part.)

I follow Mr. Konrath's blog. I read the original post.
Mr. Goldberg seems to have shifted his argument from new ebook authors profiting from traditional publishing contracts to something about the market being flooded with crap. Perhaps I got lost somewhere in there.
In 1740, Samuel Richardson published _Pamela: or, Virtue Rewarded_. Heard of it? I hadn't, until I was forced to read it to get my Ph. D. It was the first English novel, and it's pretty crappy. But it sold like the Dickens. Who wouldn't, of course, have been writing at all without Mr. Richardson's first crappy novel.
And neither would we.
 VK


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Jon Olson said:


> I don't think the "vetting" process of agent/editor hard-copy publishing works that well. There's a whole lotta junk out there on paper, and a lot the traditional houses miss that is great work.


Yes, exactly. I've had this discussion with someone else on another site, and at the end of the argument we mutually agreed that some editors must just have bad taste. I have no idea how Twilight got published, or The Lovely Bones for that matter.

We can say "to each his own" all we want...but still wonder how someone can overlook just bad storytelling, horrid prose, and a plot that is either trite or convoluted.



Jon Olson said:


> Kindle is just like indie music. You can record and sell your own CDs, and it might be junk, and it might be gold. Letter the listener decide. Let the reader decide. If you have some skills and believe in it, put it out there and see what happens.


Amen. And, there's a lot of great indie music out there...
Just like there are a lot of great indie books out there.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> An ebook is not a novel.
> It is an emergent genre, closely related to the novel. It's so new, there really are no experts except us ebook writers.


An ebook is not a particularly new concept. I've been writing ebooks since 2003. There have been commercial e-publishers since at least 1998. There were people making pretty significant money in ebooks at least five years ago. Admittedly the concept is far from ancient , but I do think people tend to think of ebooks as never having existed until the Kindle came along, and that just isn't the case.


----------



## Vicki Keire (Dec 17, 2010)

Right, and before ereaders were commercially available, there were academic databases, PDFs, and more.
I just mean that ebooks and novels are not the same, in the way that short stories and novels are different. Exactly how they are different is still evolving (emergent.) So people who are experts on novels are not necessarily experts on ebooks. We are experts on ebooks- us- the ones who make, read, and sell them. We're the ones who will set the standards. 
I just think it's really exciting to be a part of creating a whole new literary genre. 
I think it's also the reason why standards are so loose and differ wildly. As a genre, it's still being invented.


----------



## Vicki Keire (Dec 17, 2010)

But medium influences media. Just as television scripts differ from stage plays, ebooks will and do differ from novels. Novels are still the dominant form (90%, you say,) making ebooks "emergent" with 10%, and more in the future.


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

Interesting blog, Lee and Joe, and interesting comments here.

One element I haven't yet seen addressed in the discussion of whether newbie authors should think e-book first is which genre or sub-genre they're writing in.

Trad publishing serves certain genres/sub-genres quite well. Others not so much. And some it doesn't serve at all.
One of the beauties of e-pub is that it is financially viable for an author to publish books that don't fit into trad pub's current hot ticket. For those books, e-book first makes great sense.

OTOH a traditionally published book can get you to readers that an author on his/her own simply can't reach. That has to be taken into consideration, too.

I don't think there is a blanket answer either way -- it's my favorite response for most things: It depends.


----------



## terrireid (Aug 19, 2010)

In your blog, you said:


> If you've never been in print before, I believe you'd be a fool not to take a mid-list paperback or a hardcover deal&#8230;even a terrible one&#8230;over self-publishing on the Kindle. Financially, you might make less (either in failure or modest success)...but the difference will be more than made up for in editing, marketing, wider readership, wider name recognition, and professional prestige (and that prestige does mean something, whether you want to admit it or not).


My sister has sold four books through traditional publishing. I edited most of her books - she was good. Actually she was very good. She received good reviews and a fan following. Then, her books stopped selling as quickly as the publisher wanted and she was dropped. She was an early writer for the female "Lara Croft Tomb Raider" kind of heroine. She had to do all the marketing. She did the book tours. She spent days - not writing - but selling for her publisher.

Now, about ten years later - there is no prestige. There are people who say...oh, (her name), I remember her. She was good.

I will probably earn close to her first advance this month. I've sold nearly 10,000 copies of my first book - published in August. And I have a base of readers who are looking for the next in my series.

Perhaps in your "hay-day" that all was true - but today, if you can get a traditional publishing contract - you don't get the kind of support you are talking about - unless, perhaps, you're Stephanie Meyers.


----------



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

meromana said:


> so who shall be king and decide what's "good enough" or of publishable quality, now that the big publishing houses have relinquished control?


Lee Goldberg evidently.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Patricia McLinn said:


> Interesting blog, Lee and Joe, and interesting comments here.
> 
> One element I haven't yet seen addressed in the discussion of whether newbie authors should think e-book first is which genre or sub-genre they're writing in.
> 
> ...


Good point! Which brings up one of the major reasons I chose to self-publish. My book is cross-genre, fantasy/mystery. There really isn't a traditional publishing "home" for it...at least not to my knowledge.

Hard to fit and niche titles are usually better off indie published. 
(Although some of them have gained popularity, and were thus picked up by traditional publishers afterward.)


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

terrireid said:


> In your blog, you said:
> My sister has sold four books through traditional publishing. I edited most of her books - she was good. Actually she was very good. She received good reviews and a fan following. Then, her books stopped selling as quickly as the publisher wanted and she was dropped. She was an early writer for the female "Lara Croft Tomb Raider" kind of heroine. She had to do all the marketing. She did the book tours. She spent days - not writing - but selling for her publisher.
> 
> Now, about ten years later - there is no prestige. There are people who say...oh, (her name), I remember her. She was good.
> ...


I agree with you, Terri. I posted a comment about this on the blog. I just don't see taking a publishing deal as any guarantee at all of wider audience reach. Plus, you lose all control. I know published authors who are expected to promote, but because they get no immediate feedback on sales, they have no idea what promotion is or isn't working. I think we're in an age when new authors should really look carefully at both sides, taking into account all of their publishing goals, before taking a publishing deal. Those who are offered one anyway!!!! 

Karen


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

"even today I still wouldn't recommend self-publishing for a first-time author."

C'mon, Lee, you can not have it both ways and still be right...The *future* of e-publishing resides not in traditionally-published authors who take out their back-list for a spin (and nothing bad with that) but in the newcomers - the first time authors. People who are not afraid to take a risk. And are comfortable enough with who they are that they do not need "recognition."

The e-era is just starting.

Gabriela


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Gabriela Popa said:


> "even today I still wouldn't recommend self-publishing for a first-time author."
> 
> C'mon, Lee, you can not have it both ways and still be right...The *future* of e-publishing resides not in traditionally-published authors who take out their back-list for a spin (and nothing bad with that) but in the newcomers - the first time authors. People who are not afraid to take a risk. And are comfortable enough with who they are that they do not need "recognition."
> 
> ...


Exactly. My first novel was picked up by AmazonEncore _because _I took the initiative to put it out on my own, _because _I had confidence in it and in myself, and the drive to market it. If I hadn't it would be collecting dust on a shelf. I shudder to think of the books we could be enjoying right now but aren't because too many writers are taking that advice.


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

Patricia McLinn said:


> Interesting blog, Lee and Joe, and interesting comments here.
> 
> One element I haven't yet seen addressed in the discussion of whether newbie authors should think e-book first is which genre or sub-genre they're writing in.
> 
> ...


Patricia, good point re genre. The reason I turned to self-publishing is because traditional publishers are not buying the genre I write in--chick lit. They still publish Jennifer Weiner, Emily Giffin, Sophie Kinsella, and Jane Green, but that's it. However, I realize now I'm better off being an indie.

Penguin/NAL paid me a $10K advance for ROMANTICALLY CHALLENGED in 2006. It went out of print within a few years and I self-published it myself on Kindle last summer. It's been for sale as an ebook for 7 months, and I have already made more money on it as an "indie" than I was paid as an advance by a traditional publisher.

When my agent shopped my latest book, HOW I LEARNED TO LOVE THE WALRUS, last year she told me I shouldn't expect more than a $5K advance. After ten months of "we don't know how to sell it"/"we don't know how to market it" I pulled the book back and published it myself in November. In less than three months I've already earned half of that $5K advance, and the sales are rising.

I'm no longer interested in trying to sell my books to a traditional domestic publisher. I'm better off being an indie.


----------



## Steph H (Oct 28, 2008)

Victorine said:


> I kind of like making $7,000 this month. It's working for me!
> 
> I'll let you know how my next book sells.
> 
> Vicki


Vicki, I applaud you for not slapping some folks silly who continually (in thread after thread, not just this one) try to tell YOU how you should price YOUR book no matter how many times you've confidently laid out your planning for the current book and the next ones. If you came here asking for advice on your price plans, that would be one thing, but you have continued to explain your reasons for keeping your book at 99 cents and some folks just can't seem to take it at face value. I know it's driving me crazy, and I have nothing to do with any of it personally! 

So kudos to you for knowing what you want to do with it, at least at this point in time, and not allowing others to bludgeon you into changing your plans.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Steph H said:


> Vicki, I applaud you for not slapping some folks silly who continually (in thread after thread, not just this one) try to tell YOU how you should price YOUR book no matter how many times you've confidently laid out your planning for the current book and the next ones. If you came here asking for advice on your price plans, that would be one thing, but you have continued to explain your reasons for keeping your book at 99 cents and some folks just can't seem to take it at face value. I know it's driving me crazy, and I have nothing to do with any of it personally!
> 
> So kudos to you for knowing what you want to do with it, at least at this point in time, and not allowing others to bludgeon you into changing your plans.


I'm feeling a huge urge to hug you, Steph. 

Vicki


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

What Goldberg says is pretty reasonable. He identified two sets of writers:

1. Those who have never had a print book AND have a print offer. He says take the print deal because it will be a boost to subsequent books.

2. Those who have never had a print book AND do not have a print offer. He says if you self-publish make sure it is a quality job.

OK. I doubt many would take issue with #2. And #1... I don't see how a print book can hurt subsequent books. Most likely it will help them.

The only controversial thing he offers is the idea that making less on #1 is worth the subsequent boost for later books. We don't know that unless we know 1) how much one will make on print for #1, 2) how much one would make on self-publish on #1, and 3) how much print would help profit on subsequent books. We also have to discount the value of a future cash flow vs a present cash flow. It's informed opinion.

I note he does NOT say an author with a quality book should sit on his hands and do nothing if he lacks a print contract.

So, he offers informed opinion on a print contract vs a self-publishing when both are available, and he advises when a print contract is not available that self-publishers have a quality product. OK.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

I don't know. Daniel Arendt (think that's his name, Firefly Island guy) on these boards had a print deal initially. Has that really translated into more sales of his subsequent self-pubbed books? I don't think readers who didn't know him before look at his books and have any idea one was traditionally published, at least from the thumbnails. (I'm assuming he mentions something about it in the descriptions.)

It seems to me the real value of the traditional deal is the shot and hitting it big. If you're going to do a book and remain a midlist writer, the reality is that the vast majority of readers will not know who you are anyway. Honestly, I had never heard of either Konrath or Goldberg before I stumbled upon Konrath's blog. I had heard of and seen the Monk TV show, but I had no idea who the writer was and never looked at a Monk book in the bookstore -- I tend to stay away from books based on TV series and movies. 

But your chances of hitting it big are much better with a traditional deal than through self-pubbing, it seems to me.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"But medium influences media. Just as television scripts differ from stage plays, ebooks will and do differ from novels. Novels are still the dominant form (90%, you say,) making ebooks "emergent" with 10%, and more in the future."_

Good point. I have noticed it's easier to get lost in dialogue on a Kindle than on the printed page because the Kindle shows fewer words per page. It might be easy to keep track of who is saying what on a paper page, but when we have a smaller window it becomes harder. It's even harder on an iPhone.

So I find it's necessary to put more structure into dialogue with "He said,..." or "He turned and said,..." The medium is indeed influencing the media. A perfectly good book on paper can become confusing in another medium.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"But medium influences media. Just as television scripts differ from stage plays, ebooks will and do differ from novels. Novels are still the dominant form (90%, you say,) making ebooks "emergent" with 10%, and more in the future."_
> 
> Good point. I have noticed it's easier to get lost in dialogue on a Kindle than on the printed page because the Kindle shows fewer words per page. It might be easy to keep track of who is saying what on a paper page, but when we have a smaller window it becomes harder. It's even harder on an iPhone.
> 
> So I find it's necessary to put more structure into dialogue with "He said,..." or "He turned and said,..." The medium is indeed influencing the media. A perfectly good book on paper can become confusing in another medium.


On the other hand, I've sold over 10K ebooks by now and not one reviewer has mentioned getting lost in regard to speaker attribution.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_'On the other hand, I've sold over 10K ebooks by now and not one reviewer has mentioned getting lost in regard to speaker attribution.'_

Guess I'm one in ten thousand.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So I find it's necessary to put more structure into dialogue with "He said,..." or "He turned and said,..." The medium is indeed influencing the media. A perfectly good book on paper can become confusing in another medium.


FYI, "He turned and said" is a waste of words. All you need is "He turned" then the dialog, as in, for example: _He turned. "What's for dinner?"_


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"FYI, "He turned and said" is a waste of words. All you need is "He turned" then the dialog, as in, for example: He turned. "What's for dinner?""_

Thanks. I'll use that in my next forum example.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> What Goldberg says is pretty reasonable. He identified two sets of writers:
> 
> 1. Those who have never had a print book AND have a print offer. He says take the print deal because it will be a boost to subsequent books.
> 
> ...


Thank you so much, Terrence! You just saved me the time of replying to several posts here that got what I said all wrong.

Lee


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Hey Lee, I've got a book making the rounds in NY right now, so you know I agree with you regarding the value of the trad path.

On the other hand, I don't see it as a danger when an unpublished author puts crap up for the Kindle. Let's face it, if you don't have the skilz, then you can't recognize your crap as crap. So it's going to happen anyway whether there are people preaching against publishing crap or not. Have I said crap enough yet? Publish crap and obscurity is your just reward, and if you develop and start publishing good shit, then no one will be aware of the earlier crap.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _'On the other hand, I've sold over 10K ebooks by now and not one reviewer has mentioned getting lost in regard to speaker attribution.'_
> 
> Guess I'm one in ten thousand.


I've been thinking about this, Terrence, and I've read many novels now on my Kindle, some slick genre stuff and a handful of classics, and can't recall having problems with speaker attributions, even though I use a LARGE font on my Kindle. I think that if the dialog is well crafted, then it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe you really are one in ten thousand.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Eric C said:


> I've been thinking about this, Terrence, and I've read many novels now on my Kindle, some slick genre stuff and a handful of classics, and can't recall having problems with speaker attributions, even though I use a LARGE font on my Kindle. I think that if the dialog is well crafted, then it shouldn't be a problem. Maybe you really are one in ten thousand.


Eric, different people's brains are wired differently. I can very much believe what he says, and I don't think he's that unusual. Different media, page sizes, fonts, contrast, etc. can have a big effect on each reader's experience.

Me, I've always been mildly dyslexic, and reading on a small screen was GREAT for me. As it turns out it probably isn't the dyslexia but rather an eye tracking problem. I physically lose my place easily, especially when the line is long. (I always used a book mark under the line I was reading to keep my place with paper.) A small screen helps me keep my place. But I can believe that others have different issues.

(BTW, not everybody likes the Hemingway-esque lack of attribution. It's not just a matter of "keeping track" it's also a matter of voice. Cut something too deep, and the timing is off and unnatural.)

Camille


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> Eric, different people's brains are wired differently. I can very much believe what he says, and I don't think he's that unusual. Different media, page sizes, fonts, contrast, etc. can have a big effect on each reader's experience.
> 
> Me, I've always been mildly dyslexic, and reading on a small screen was GREAT for me. As it turns out it probably isn't the dyslexia but rather an eye tracking problem. I physically lose my place easily, especially when the line is long. (I always used a book mark under the line I was reading to keep my place with paper.) A small screen helps me keep my place. But I can believe that others have different issues.
> 
> (BTW, not everybody likes the Hemingway-esque lack of attribution. It's not just a matter of "keeping track" it's also a matter of voice. Cut something too deep, and the timing is off and unnatural.)


Well I suppose we'll have to wait for the cognitive studies to determine how the reading experience on ereaders versus print really differs. In the meantime I suggest we write for the majority, and until I have evidence saying otherwise, I'll assume the majority read like me. 

Regarding the speaker attribution topic, I follow a theory, taught to me originally by an award winning mystery novelist, that any wasted words waste the reader's time, and s/he notices, if not often consciously. Waste enough words and the book closes shut and gets put down.

What constitutes a wasted word isn't always easy to determine, but a redundancy is fairly obvious, and most redundancies should go. I would say all redundancies should go, but there is the issue of voice, as you mention, and sentence rhythm, and there are probably a few more issues, exceptions to a general rule followed by an awfully high proportion of good authors.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Asher MacDonald said:


> I don't know. Daniel Arendt (think that's his name, Firefly Island guy) on these boards had a print deal initially. Has that really translated into more sales of his subsequent self-pubbed books? I don't think readers who didn't know him before look at his books and have any idea one was traditionally published, at least from the thumbnails. (I'm assuming he mentions something about it in the descriptions.)


*waves*

My ears are burning. I think you're talking about me--Daniel Arenson.

Yes, _Firefly Island_ was first published in hardcover by Five Star Publishing. Interestingly, I believe this is the same publisher who first published Lee Goldberg's _The Walk_ (correct me if I'm wrong, Lee).

Now, Five Star is no Random House or Penguin. It's a respected publisher, and tends to pay four-figure advances, but it's still a small publisher. They print hardcovers and sell mostly to libraries. Your local library might have a copy of _Firefly Island_; your local bookshop doesn't.

_Firefly Island_'s product description doesn't mention its publication history, and a couple of its amazon reviews refer to it as an "indie book" (which I suppose it is now; the ebook version is indie). I could be wrong, but I suspect that the published vs. indie debate is largely contained within the author community. I'd wager that few readers know the difference or would care.

When I watch a youtube video, I don't care if a film studio made it, or a guy with his personal camcorder; I just know it's a good video. When I listen to a song, I don't think about whether a major label released it, or if the musician is indie; I just hear a good song. I'm guessing that most readers on Amazon (or other ebook stores) don't spend much time considering the difference between published and self-published.

I do, however, sort of understand where Lee is coming from. I'm releasing my next novel directly to Kindle, without sending it to publishers or agents, but I'm glad that my first novel was traditionally published. I don't think that my _Firefly Island_ hardcover helped me achieve fame or prestige, but I feel that it helped me as an author.

Ultimately, writing a novel is easy. A person can write a novel in three weeks. Selling a novel to a traditional publisher, even a small publisher like Five Star, is hard. To stand out in the slush pile, you're forced to hook an editor with a great opening, to revise to perfection, to create a novel that'll shine in a crowd. Maybe _Firefly Island_ just got lucky (it's a possibility), but for argument's sake, let's pretend that it achieved these things. Because I started writing before ereaders, and publishers were the only option (I don't count iUniverse as a real option), I was forced to learn these skills. I don't send my work to publishers anymore, but I still apply these skills to my new work.

I don't necessarily agree with Lee that a print deal will give you "prestige". At most, I think, it can give you some validation. On days when I look at a rough manuscript, can't solve a plot hole, and feel like I don't know what I'm doing... I can shake myself and say, "Daniel, come on, you sold a hardcover to Five Star; you can do this."  If for no other reason, my experience with Five Star is priceless.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Ultimately, writing a novel is easy. A person can write a novel in three weeks. Selling a novel to a traditional publisher, even a small publisher like Five Star, is hard. To stand out in the slush pile, you're forced to hook an editor with a great opening, to revise to perfection, to create a novel that'll shine in a crowd. Maybe _Firefly Island_ just got lucky (it's a possibility), but for argument's sake, let's pretend that it achieved these things. Because I started writing before ereaders, and publishers were the only option (I don't count iUniverse as a real option), I was forced to learn these skills. I don't send my work to publishers anymore, but I still apply these skills to my new work.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with Lee that a print deal will give you "prestige". At most, I think, it can give you some validation. On days when I look at a rough manuscript, can't solve a plot hole, and feel like I don't know what I'm doing... I can shake myself and say, "Daniel, come on, you sold a hardcover to Five Star; you can do this."  If for no other reason, my experience with Five Star is priceless.


Yes, THE WALK and THE MAN WITH THE IRON-ON BADGE, my most widely-acclaimed book, were published by Five Star. They are selling far better, and earning me vastly more money, than they ever did in hardcover. That said, the reviews and acclaim I received for BADGE did wonders for my career and, I know for certain, played a role in me getting the eight-book DIAGNOSIS MURDER tie-in gig (even more so than me writing & producing the series) and that, in turn, led to my current gig writing the very successful MONK books (I am on my 13th now!). I don't think I could get that kind of acclaim today writing novels for the Kindle...though at this stage in my career, my priorities have changed.

What you learn in the struggle to become published, and what you learn after being published, are invaluable skills. You experience with Five Star undoubtedly helped you as a writer. But you got more than that. I noticed the glowing Booklist and Library Journal reviews in your signature...reviews that came from your hardcover books. You got those because you were professional published. That's an outgrowth of the prestige that comes from professional publication. I mean no offense to Red Adept or Harriet Klausner, because I appreciate every review that I get, but a review from the Los Angeles Times or Publishers Weekly will do a lot more for your career...and are more respected by readers (though maybe not those who frequent Kindleboards).

When I say "prestige," i don't mean people will fall to their knees or gasp in admiration when they see you. I mean that after being published by a reputable house, you will be regarded as a professional, published author. That you will be reviewed. That you will be sold in bookstores. That you will be eligible for all the major literary awards and membership in professional writing organizations. That kind of attention and the connections that come from professional associations will help your career in ways you can't measure (there's a reason why I can get blurbs from Janet Evanovich, Lee Child and Rick Riordan for my work...and a newbie, self-published Kindle probably author can't). Professional publication also impresses universities and colleges and people in other industries where you might someday want to work, consult, speak or teach. Now maybe all of those perks of professional publication will evaporate or become irrelevant in the new world of Digitial Books...but for now, it still holds true.

Lee


----------



## Gerald (Dec 11, 2010)

Daniel Arenson said:


> When I watch a youtube video, I don't care if a film studio made it, or a guy with his personal camcorder; I just know it's a good video. When I listen to a song, I don't think about whether a major label released it, or if the musician is indie; I just hear a good song. I'm guessing that most readers on Amazon (or other ebook stores) don't spend much time considering the difference between published and self-published.


Great analogy. We've all been amused / entertained by hand-held, shaky videos of pets / kids / guys with guitars. Writing is about entertainment, and if someone is entertained by us, we've done our job.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> What Goldberg says is pretty reasonable. He identified two sets of writers:
> 
> 1. Those who have never had a print book AND have a print offer. He says take the print deal because it will be a boost to subsequent books.
> 
> 2. Those who have never had a print book AND do not have a print offer. He says if you self-publish make sure it is a quality job.


But what about this scenario.

3. Those who have books on the market making good money now (and probably will make less after the traditional print deal) and have an offer with a big-six publisher?


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> What you learn in the struggle to become published, and what you learn after being published, are invaluable skills. You experience with Five Star undoubtedly helped you as a writer. But you got more than that. I noticed the glowing Booklist and Library Journal reviews in your signature...reviews that came from your hardcover books. You got those because you were professional published. That's an outgrowth of the prestige that comes from professional publication. I mean no offense to Red Adept or Harriet Klausner, because I appreciate every review that I get, but a review from the Los Angeles Times or Publishers Weekly will do a lot more for your career...and are more respected by readers (though maybe not those who frequent Kindleboards).


Consider, however, young authors such as Amanda Hocking or David Dalglish. They're kids. I believe that Amanda is 26 years old. Dalglish, I think, is only two months older than Amanda. They were born into the digital era. Ebooks are not a revolution for them; they are simply the way people read. And these authors sell. Their work might not have earned them professional accolades. It might be a little rough around the edges. You might catch a typo here or there. But darn it, they're selling machines. Hocking has sold nearly a million ebooks, as far as I know. Dalglish has sold well over ten thousand, I believe. I know you enjoyed _33 AD_, Lee. Consider David McAfee, who sells thousands of ebooks a month. These guys were never professionally published. They didn't need to be.

When I was Amanda's age, I was dreaming of someday seeing my novel in print. That eventually happened, but it took years. It took a couple years to sell _Firefly Island_, and then a couple years to see it printed. If I were starting out now, I don't know that I'd want to wait so long. Why not upload to Kindle and possibly sell many thousands of ebooks?

Four months ago, I uploaded my second novel, _Flaming Dove_, independently. It doesn't sell as much as a Hocking book, but it's already earned me more money than Five Star paid for _Firefly Island_. I don't think the people who bought _Flaming Dove_ knew I was traditionally published, or cared. I think they just thought _Flaming Dove_ would be a good story. (For what it's worth, I think _Flaming Dove_ is a better novel than _Firefly Island_.)

If a young author wrote a great first novel, and asked me for advice, I'd probably tell them to go ebook-indie. Time is precious. In the many hours you spend searching for an agent or publisher, you could write a new book. In the years it can take to get a hardcover deal, you could sell many ebooks and find many fans. I think that's more valuable than a Booklist or Library Journal quote.

Again, I'm grateful that I started out before ebooks, and saw _Firefly Island_ traditionally published; I see the advantages. But I started writing in the 1990s. If I were starting out today, I'd probably choose a different path.

The one disadvantage I can see to ebooks? It's too easy to embarrass yourself. Some of my early work was horrible. But when I wrote it, I was sure it was great. I think many authors share this experience. It's so easy right now to write a horrible book, believe it's terrific, and upload. Traditional publishers forced to you hone your craft before anyone read your work. With ebooks, anything goes. I don't have a solution to this problem.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> The one disadvantage I can see to ebooks? It's too easy to embarrass yourself. Some of my early work was horrible. But when I wrote it, I was sure it was great. I think many authors share this experience. It's so easy right now to write a horrible book, believe it's terrific, and upload. Traditional publishers forced to you hone your craft before anyone read your work. With ebooks, anything goes. I don't have a solution to this problem.


I agree with this. I blogged yesterday about my first, genuinely horrible book, which I believed was terrific at the time, but which I now remember with genuine loathing. If I'd had access to Kindle, I probably would have uploaded that sucker (I was 22 at the time, so I can be forgiven some lack of judgment, I think), and I would have been shocked and heartbroken when people laughed at it. I don't imagine this would have destroyed my career, because there are always pen names. I would probably be writing under a different name now, though.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2011)

Ok, I've read this entire thread and the blog post. I've swallowed all your ideas and I'm digesting them to see what comes out the other side.

As authors, we are always learning. Our next book should always be better than our last, and so waiting for that perfect book to finally publish with, either in print or self, is a mistake. Produce works to the best of your ability, get help on things you can't do yourself to make it of professional quality, and listen to reader feedback.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

This debate is very timely particarly for Michael and H.P. who are on the cusp of real decisions between staying indie or taking a publishing deal. I've been debating this in my head for several months now and change my mind as often as I change socks.

So...A few things I've come to the conclusion on.


If the pubilsher is offering a deal that is midlist then I think you should stay indie
If the publisher sees the potential in your current success to invest $$ and significant money in the hopes of taking you to the next level (ie breakout novelist) then that's another thing entirely
I think a "successful indie" (we know the people currently on this list and there are more than a handful but less than 50) you can make $250,000 - $400,000 a year as an indie but I "think" you'll max out there
Maxing out at the above range is much more than most of us would have ever thought possible
If you are in that $250,000 - $400,000 range you'll lose money .... substanial money... going traditional but you will gain things you can't buy no matter how much money you have

When cycling there is a trick you do called "drafting" - basically you stay behind a leader letting them break the wind resistance for you and you bike along much more easily. If you go traditional, you can basically draft them. Let them make a higher % of the sales on the book they produce. Work with them to make it the best possible and the highest sales possible. But...continue to publish your other works as you have in the past. The audience that the traditional publisher gains you will follow you to the other works even if they are harder to purchase (i.e. only available online and not in the bookstores). I'm starting to think of the "jump" as a pretty expensive marketing campaign that I don't have to spend "real dollars on" but simply defer earnings that I "probably" would have made.


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> As authors, we are always learning. Our next book should always be better than our last, and so waiting for that perfect book to finally publish with, either in print or self, is a mistake. Produce works to the best of your ability, get help on things you can't do yourself to make it of professional quality, and listen to reader feedback.


This.

BTW, I guess the new BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE is going to be a bloody fantastic film since that was green-lit by a major studio...


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I agree with those who've said that epublishing allows a writer to put out work before it may be ready. I thought my first novel (a novel I wrote years ago called *Rosey's Dream*), was ready for publication. Then I attended a writers' retreat and had my eyes opened. I listened, learned, hired a writing coach, did a rewrite with expert guidance, and learned a lot about writing a novel. I continue to learn by reading and writing.

My favorite authors include Jane Austen and D.H. Lawrence, and I have to wonder if they would manage to get published today. Probably not. A lot of what gets published by traditional publishers is not great writing. Traditional publishers publish what they believe will sell--and these days that's often determined by their marketing departments. On top of that, writing is subjective. Even grammar and punctuation can be subjective--look at Faulkner.

Hopefully, as writers, we are constantly working to perfect our craft. Striving to advance as writers. But maybe not. Some extremely successful writers seem to go downhill, becoming lazy, telling the same story over-and-over--their writing becomes, not just formulaic, but boring. Bad. And yet it sells.

I like what's currently happening with epublishing, because it allows many voices to tell stories in many ways. I believe, as writers, it's our job to learn our craft, so we can tell our stories in a clear voice, a strong voice, a strange voice--OUR TRUE VOICE. Thank goodness all those voices can be different! There are only so many stories, but myriad ways to tell them. That's what makes writing (and reading) interesting--in my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2011)

Michael Crane said:


> This.
> 
> BTW, I guess the new BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE is going to be a bloody fantastic film since that was green-lit by a major studio...


I'm still salivating over the sequel to NORBERT.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> I'm still salivating over the sequel to NORBERT.


Pfft, please. Big Momma's House and Norbert are trash. How could you watch those things? Me, I'm waiting for the next Nutty Professor.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2011)

Daniel Arenson said:


> Pfft, please. Big Momma's House and Norbert are trash. How could you watch those things? Me, I'm waiting for the next Nutty Professor.


Oh, no you didn't! Nutty P is nothing compared to Malibu's Most Wanted!


----------



## karencantwell (Jun 17, 2010)

Michael Crane said:


> BTW, I guess the new BIG MOMMA'S HOUSE is going to be a bloody fantastic film since that was green-lit by a major studio...


. . . sure to win many awards . . .


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Well Lee, be proud.. your thread stayed on topic for over 3 pages. that may be a record.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> I think a "successful indie" (we know the people currently on this list and there are more than a handful but less than 50) you can make $250,000 - $400,000 a year as an indie but I "think" you'll max out there
> Maxing out at the above range is much more than most of us would have ever thought possible


I'm looking at Amanda and shaking my head. If I'm selling 20,000 books this month alone at a lower rank than she has with 4 of her books, 2 of which are $2.99... she's earning over a million dollars this year just with those four books, and just on Kindle.

I think the max out range is a lot higher than what you're predicting. I no longer think you have to have a traditional deal in order to make a LOT of money. We can do it on our own.

Vicki


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I'm looking at Amanda and shaking my head. If I'm selling 20,000 books this month alone at a lower rank than she has with 4 of her books, 2 of which are $2.99... she's earning over a million dollars this year just with those four books, and just on Kindle.
> 
> I think the max out range is a lot higher than what you're predicting. I no longer think you have to have a traditional deal in order to make a LOT of money. We can do it on our own.
> 
> Vicki


You rule, Vicki! It's a Brave New World.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

There's no doubt Amanda is making a fortune - but let's not focus on an exception. Instead let's look at the other people who are in the 1,000 BOM club (yourself included Vicki). I think these people will max out in the ranges I'm talking about (And much less if they stay at $0.99 - $2.99).  Michael is track for about 1/2 your sales but because of his selling point he'll make $32,000 in January which  if he sold that every month would be $384,000.  I think Joe's last numbers were 1,300 a day so that is $474,000.  Those are where I was getting my numbers from.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I don't know. Before I publish anything, I look around for some writer's ring to kiss, so maybe I get a little pat on the head and be told I may be okay if I just stick out in the fields tilling the soil, as long as the fruit is packed into the elevator and sent up to the top of the tower where the real writers dwell.

You do not need anyone's permission to write. You don't need anyone's permission to follow your dream. The only rule is there are no rules. The faster I broke my "traditional publisher" training and brainwashing, the faster I saw real success, to where for the first time in my life both my goals and dreams are within reach. No, not within reach--I hold them.

I am now a full-time, professional fiction writer, after 15 years of doing it the Old Way and always waiting for permission. What really irks some "established" writers, and it's not even superficial, is that other people can achieve the lofty position they once held along with a privileged few. Elitism is not very fetching. But I understand it. Five years ago, I'd have said the same thing.

Now, I see the power of living your dream rather than waiting for permission. The world is yours if you want it.

Scott Nicholson


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

scottnicholson said:


> I don't know. Before I publish anything, I look around for some writer's ring to kiss, so maybe I get a little pat on the head and be told I may be okay if I just stick out in the fields tilling the soil, as long as the fruit is packed into the elevator and sent up to the top of the tower where the real writers dwell.
> 
> You do not need anyone's permission to write. You don't need anyone's permission to follow your dream. The only rule is there are no rules. The faster I broke my "traditional publisher" training and brainwashing, the faster I saw real success, to where for the first time in my life both my goals and dreams are within reach. No, not within reach--I hold them.
> 
> ...


BRAVO!


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> BRAVO!


Agreed! Well said, Scott!


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Scott, I like the cut of your jib.

(Sorry, that doesn't contribute much to the conversation... I've just always wanted to use that phrase.)


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2011)

scottnicholson said:


> I am now a full-time, professional fiction writer, after 15 years of doing it the Old Way and always waiting for permission. What really irks some "established" writers, and it's not even superficial, is that other people can achieve the lofty position they once held along with a privileged few. Elitism is not very fetching. But I understand it. Five years ago, I'd have said the same thing.


True that. My favorite way of putting this is that all traditionally published authors have left to hold onto is a hollow feeling of smug superiority.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> True that. My favorite way of putting this is that all traditionally published authors have left to hold onto is a hollow feeling of smug superiority.


How dare you speaketh to me thus, foul peasant? Away with you, lest my cane find your backside!


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2011)

Daniel Arenson said:


> How dare you speaketh to me thus, foul peasant? Away with you, lest my cane find your backside!


Help! I'm being repressed!


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Daniel, Jason, I lubs you guys.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Well said, Scott.  I totally agree.

@Robin - I honestly think if you gave your 99 cent price a few months, you'd be making more than a million dollars this year too.  If your first book can get into the top 100 and bring your others to that kind of selling point... well you can do the math.  But I don't know if you're willing to let that low intro price ride that long.  I know how you feel about the 99 cent price.  And we're all just guessing at this game, so I admit I don't know the future.

Vicki


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

scottnicholson said:


> I don't know. Before I publish anything, I look around for some writer's ring to kiss, so maybe I get a little pat on the head and be told I may be okay if I just stick out in the fields tilling the soil, as long as the fruit is packed into the elevator and sent up to the top of the tower where the real writers dwell.
> 
> You do not need anyone's permission to write. You don't need anyone's permission to follow your dream. The only rule is there are no rules. The faster I broke my "traditional publisher" training and brainwashing, the faster I saw real success, to where for the first time in my life both my goals and dreams are within reach. No, not within reach--I hold them.
> 
> ...


Such an inspiring post. Thanks, Scott.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

BTackitt said:


> Daniel, Jason, I lubs you guys.


Me, too, BT. Thanks for the giggles. I just cracked up over here  {{{hugs all around}}}


----------



## Nancy C. Johnson Author (Apr 28, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> You've ALREADY paid for it. You paid Amazon $22,660 last month...and this month you're paying them $41,200 (while you make $7000).
> 
> Enough already. Wouldn't YOU prefer to earn $41,000 and give them $7000 for advertising?
> 
> Lee


Wait, am I missing something here? Vicki gets 35 percent, and Amazon gets 65 percent of $.99, a little less than twice what Vicki gets. So, wouldn't Amazon be getting quite a bit less than you mentioned? It seems that if Vicki gets $7000, Amazon would get a little less than $14,000, not $41,000... And yes, $14,000 is a lot, but it's not $41,000. Just concerned about the math.

Got here late, but I've just read all of the previous posts. Quite a discussion!

Nancy


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Nancy C. Johnson said:


> Wait, am I missing something here? Vicki gets 35 percent, and Amazon gets 65 percent of $.99, a little less than half of what Vicki gets. So, wouldn't Amazon be getting quite a bit less than you mentioned here? It seems that if Vicki gets $7000, Amazon would get a little less than $14000, not $41,000... And yes, 14,000 is a lot, but it's not $41,000. Just concerned about the math here.
> 
> Nancy


And they have employees to pay and whispernet fees, and credit card fees... so in the end I feel like I'm getting a pretty good deal. 

Vicki


----------



## Michael Crane (Jul 22, 2010)

Victorine said:


> And they have employees to pay and whispernet fees, and credit card fees... so in the end I feel like I'm getting a pretty good deal.
> 
> Vicki


Vicki, you need to price your books at 500 bucks a pop! You're a fancy girl who deserves fancy things!!!


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Is there reason to think the traditional path will exist for fiction writers much longer? When electronics moved in on other traditions, the move was very fast. Many in those traditions grossly underestimated just how fast it would be.


----------



## Jnassise (Mar 22, 2010)

Given that electronic books don't even account for 15% of overall book sales, I'd say traditional books will be here for quite some time.


----------



## Budo von Stahl (Aug 31, 2010)

I am more or less in agreement with Mr. Goldberg.  The majority of offerings is sub-par.  As always, if allowed to do so, the market will be the Great Editor/Correct-er/Delete-r.  If a 'no-hurdles' platform produces nothing but crap, it will fail.  If it produces enough new, innovative, exciting entertainment to make sifting the swill worthwhile, it will be immensely popular.  The Kindle has been out long enough now, and enjoying such a level of popularity, that Amazon's 'no hurdles' policy seems to have been justified.  As Mr. Goldberg points out, though, it does nothing to justify the swill itself.  
I personally think that the future of Indie publishing success will be the Indie book reviewers.  A few of the better ones will float to the top, the books they recommend will be bought from a link in the review, everyone gets a cut, and the swill continues to go unnoticed.  New industries (more aptly, new industriousness) always spring up around new industries.  What percent of the population, do you think, can tell you what is on the NYT list?  Exactly.  That said, I'd finish any Indie discussion by saying I do believe traditional publishing is dead, by suicide, but that is another topic for another thread.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Well said, Scott. I totally agree.
> 
> @Robin - I honestly think if you gave your 99 cent price a few months, you'd be making more than a million dollars this year too. If your first book can get into the top 100 and bring your others to that kind of selling point... well you can do the math. But I don't know if you're willing to let that low intro price ride that long. I know how you feel about the 99 cent price. And we're all just guessing at this game, so I admit I don't know the future.


Vicki, I respect your decision to stay with the .99 price point, but I gotta say this is what annoys me. You've done this with one book. You refuse to experiment and test your theories - I respect that. It's your personal choice to not "jinx" your luck with experimentation. But Robin is the one who HAS done the experimentation, she has also done her research. She has a huge amount of data. She's not really guessing.

No one can predict the future, and we can all play games with data points. That doesn't mean that one can't have a good foundation for a conclusion. That doesn't mean there isn't a HUGE difference between a well-researched conclusion and a guestimate or gut feeling.

Camille


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Vicki, I respect your decision to stay with the .99 price point, but I gotta say this is what annoys me. You've done this with one book. You refuse to experiment and test your theories - I respect that. It's your personal choice to not "jinx" your luck with experimentation. But Robin is the one who HAS done the experimentation, she has also done her research. She has a huge amount of data. She's not really guessing.
> 
> No one can predict the future, and we can all play games with data points. That doesn't mean that one can't have a good foundation for a conclusion. That doesn't mean there isn't a HUGE difference between a well-researched conclusion and a guestimate or gut feeling.
> 
> Camille


Well, she did just admit on another thread that she thought her first book might jump into the top 100 right away after her price decrease. I think we're all just guessing. But doing research makes it more of an educated guess.

I watch a lot of novels. I see what happens when people go from 99 cents to $2.99. I've already raised my price after seeing a nice increase in sales, and then I watched what happened. It's not that I don't want to jinx it, it's that I want one book in the top 100 when I come out with my next one. Like I said, I watch other novels. I've ran the numbers and have done my research. I think I can have my 2nd book in a better rank with my first still in the top 100.

Vicki


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

As a reader, I had a hard time for many years finding books that I liked. I can walk into a bookstore and frankly find lots of traditionally published books that I don't like!

Amazon.com made my reading life a LOT easier with reviews and recommendations. I now have stacks of books waiting their turn that I actually am interested in and will enjoy .

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not a fan of the majority of traditionally published books. If we agree that the majority of directly published books aren't great - how is that different?

I have discovered a lot of artists whose work I am interested in. Yeah, some of it isn't finished getting polished, but the promise here is amazing! Writing several books a month, interacting with each other and with their readers is going to turn this community into something really special. From a creative standpoint, this "revolution" is an INCREDIBLY positive event.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I would argue, though, that 33 AD is an exception. It is, by far, the best self-published book I have read.
> 
> Lee


I'm not sure I buy into this idea of an exception. I'm sure many of us can say, "All indie authors produce drek except for ________." In many cases, we would be listing different authors. I've read various and sundry indie authors I found quite enjoyable - some are on KB, but not all of them. I don't deny that there are truly awful books - but those aren't just written by indie authors, although a number of them are. I would tend to say there is a body of indie authors who are learning/have learned their craft and are putting out average to great books. The others will tend to sink into oblivion.

Saying that readers will find a bad indie author and be turned off to all indie authors because of that is unfair to readers. Just because many book, movie, music and TV companies think we're sheep to be led around doesn't make it so. I think the vast majority of people are capable of recognizing the difference between quality and pap - and that many underestimate the ability of the Great Unwashed to make choices for them/ourselves.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not a fan of the majority of traditionally published books. If we agree that the majority of directly published books aren't great - how is that different?


IMO, Traditional publishers tend to play it safe. Many tend to churn out the same book over and over because they know book A will sell X copies. I think the experimentation has always been out on the fringe and not really wanted by the big houses.

ebooks are giving us more access to those fringes and more, original ideas seem to be surfacing. I think its a good thing.


----------



## Jnassise (Mar 22, 2010)

Yes, traditional publishers play it safe.  They are corporations after all, beholden to shareholders, owners, and the like, and have a fiscal responsibility to maintain the viability of the entity itself.  Experimentation will be limited, though not entirely absent.  After all, they need to find the next big thing in order to gain market share and presence, which translates to profits.

Indie authors are only beholden to themselves and therefore can do whatever they like.

Yes, traditional publishers can publish crap.  Yes, indie authors can publish crap.  But if you step back and look at the market as a whole, I would venture that traditional publisher get it right a much higher percentage of the time than indie publishers.   I can walk into a bookstore anywhere in the country and be relatively certain that any book I pick up off the shelves will meet a certain level of standard.  

That doesn't hold true if I were doing the same from a random selection of indie published works, on Amazon or anywhere else.

I'm not talking about a book you buy and decide you don't like - that's individual taste.  I'm talking about writing that just simply doesn't measure up to the same level of quality that most traditionally published works automatically meet as a result of the process they go through.

We all want to think our books are "good" but the simple fact of the matter is the person least likely to objectively know whether they book they've written is good or not is the writer themselves.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Well, she did just admit on another thread that she thought her first book might jump into the top 100 right away after her price decrease. I think we're all just guessing. But doing research makes it more of an educated guess.
> 
> I watch a lot of novels. I see what happens when people go from 99 cents to $2.99. I've already raised my price after seeing a nice increase in sales, and then I watched what happened. It's not that I don't want to jinx it, it's that I want one book in the top 100 when I come out with my next one. Like I said, I watch other novels. I've ran the numbers and have done my research. I think I can have my 2nd book in a better rank with my first still in the top 100.


Okay, I'll grant you that. Like I said, even if I disagree with some of your points on theory, I don't think people should be pressuring you to change (although it partly happens because you are the poster child for 99 cent pricing - lightening rod ).

Camille


----------



## 28612 (Dec 7, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> True that. My favorite way of putting this is that all traditionally published authors have left to hold onto is a hollow feeling of smug superiority.


Elitism. Smug superiority.

Interesting.

I had a different take. Judging from Terrence O'Brien's recap as well as the original blog by Lee with comments by Joe K, it struck me as experienced, professional authors sharing their thoughts and conclusions with the hope of benefiting others.

I hope they -- and others -- will continue to generously share their experiences and thoughts. Doesn't mean I'll follow all or any of their recommendations, but I sure like having the input to consider.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Okay, I'll grant you that. Like I said, even if I disagree with some of your points on theory, I don't think people should be pressuring you to change (although it partly happens because *you are the poster child for 99 cent pricing - lightening rod* ).
> 
> Camille


Yeah, I know... how did that happen? I guess DB Henson, Vicki Tyley, and Nancy C. Johnson don't post here as much... and they're not as vocal as I am. 

Vicki


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

Jnassise said:


> Yes, traditional publishers can publish crap. Yes, indie authors can publish crap. But if you step back and look at the market as a whole, I would venture that traditional publisher get it right a much higher percentage of the time than indie publishers.


An interesting thought is that we have no reason to care about the "percentage." I suspect we are quickly heading in the direction of more books being published directly than traditionally. (That sounds so much better than "independently! Thanks Amazon!) Reviews and sales will tell you which ones are decent. All that should really matter is the raw number of books that are worth reading.

If 1,000,000 directly published books are published and 10,000 are of quality, that means 10,000 directly-published quality books!


----------



## Jnassise (Mar 22, 2010)

Noah - we're not even close to directly published books overtaking traditionally published books.  Ebooks amount to less than 15% of the entire book market (some studies show less than 9%.)

Even at exponential growth we're a couple of years away from that point.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

Agreed, but a couple of years is nothing...


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Vicki, I respect your decision to stay with the .99 price point, but I gotta say this is what annoys me. You've done this with one book. You refuse to experiment and test your theories - I respect that. It's your personal choice to not "jinx" your luck with experimentation. But Robin is the one who HAS done the experimentation, she has also done her research. She has a huge amount of data. She's not really guessing.


Hey, the number of people who presume to give Vic advice about her price point, ad effing nauseum... I think it's fair enough she gets to dish out some advice straight back.  She's been very patient with a large amount of what I consider arrogance and rudeness on the part of her peers. Go on, let her advise!!!


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Jnassise said:


> Noah - we're not even close to directly published books overtaking traditionally published books. Ebooks amount to less than 15% of the entire book market (some studies show less than 9%.)


There's a new book on book publishing out, Merchants of Culture (Polity Press 2010), by Cambridge University professor John Thompson, and when interviewed recently he said ebooks are 5% of the industry if you go by revenue as opposed to sales. (Wouldn't be surprised if it's up to 7% already though, the way the last couple of months have gone.)


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Victorine said:


> @Robin - I honestly think if you gave your 99 cent price a few months, you'd be making more than a million dollars this year too. If your first book can get into the top 100 and bring your others to that kind of selling point... well you can do the math. But I don't know if you're willing to let that low intro price ride that long. I know how you feel about the 99 cent price. And we're all just guessing at this game, so I admit I don't know the future.
> 
> Vicki


I agree Vicki, neither of us can say which is right - unless this were a video game where we could 'save game' and try different alternatives and then review the data with 20/20 vision.

I've been opposed tot he 99 cent price "out of principle" but I didn't want that prejudice to cloud my reasoning skills and hence why I tried/am trying the $0.99 experiment. I "thought" it could get me into the top 100 but it did not. I'm not sure that keeping it there will cause any difference - the lower price point seemed to move me from like 600 ranking to 300 ranking but it's hit a plateau.

Most, and as I recall you, said you saw an immediate impact on a $2.99 to $0.99 so I'm not sure that leaving it at $0.99 will make a difference but in the meantime I'm losing a lot of money each day that it is at that price point. So yeah I think my experiment is over.

But the one thing I do think -- is experimentation is good. I know you are tired of people telling you to raise your price (heck I've been one of them) but only because I really want you to make more than $7,000 on 20,000 copies. I know that may seem like a lot but in marketing we hate "leaving money on the table" and I'm afraid that is what you are doing. My experiment to $0.99 didn't work the way I had hoped but I gave it the college try and can now go back to what was working armed with more data than I had before.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Has anyone seen a breakdown of the electronic market vs paper by general category? Fiction? Non-fiction? Textbooks?...

If electronic represents X% of all sales revenue, and Y% of all units sold, we can't assume it also represents X% and Y% for fiction. Maybe it's 2X, 3X, or .5X.

Anyone have good data?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"But the one thing I do think -- is experimentation is good.'_

Capital One is an extremely successful financial services firm, and it makes extensive use of experimantation. They don't change anything until they have run market experiments and analyzed the data. If you get a solicitation from them, someone else has also received one with a single variable changed. They see which works best and incorporate that into their business model. They certainly have many more opportunities to experiment than we do, but the approach is sound.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Capital One is an extremely successful financial services firm, and it makes extensive use of experimantation. They don't change anything until they have run market experiments and analyzed the data. If you get a solicitation from them, someone else has also received one with a single variable changed. They see which works best and incorporate that into their business model. They certainly have many more opportunities to experiment than we do, but the approach is sound.


The approach is sound when you have enough data and KNOWN variables to modify. I'm unconvinced that indies have enough data to make their experimentation particularly useful to themselves. To experiment with any hope of solid results, you'd need at least a hundred - probably more like a thousand - books to work with.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

AAP (Association of American Publishers) in December 2010 reported " E Book Sales Hold Steady At Nearly 9% of Trade Book Sales "

Publisher's Weekly States:

Electronic books continue to show explosive growth in the Association of American Publishers Monthly Sales report. The AAP reports that June 2010 gross e-books sales were $29.9 million, an increase of 118.9% over the $13.7 million in sales reported for the same period in 2009. Gross e-book sales for the first six months of calendar year 2010 are $180 million, a 203.8% increase in sales over the $59.2 million sales reported for the same calendar year date in 2009.

From AAP October Sales Report:

E-book sales growth slowed in October, but still easily outdistanced the growth rates in any other subject category, according to AAP's monthly sales estimates. October e-book sales rose 112.4% in the month, to $40.7 million, from the 14 reporting companies. For the first 10 months of 2010, e-book sales were up 171.3%, to $345.3 million.


 CATEGORY	 % CHANGE Oct	 % CHANGE YTD	 Adult Hard (17)*	 -6.50%	 -7.70%	 Adult Paper (19)	 -11.8	 0	 Mass Market (9)	 -1.1	 -14.3	 Children's Hard (14)	 13.9	 -11.1	 Children's Paper (14)	 -3.3	 -6.5	 Audio (22)	 -20.5	 -13.5	 Aud. Download (9)	 20.7	 38.6	 Electronic (14)	 112.4	 171.3	 Religious (1  -4.1	 -0.7	 Higher Ed. (10)	 12	 10.6	 Univ. Pr. Hard (34)	 -15.6	 1.9	 Univ. Pr. Paper (34)	 -13.2	 4.1	 Professional ( 8 )	 -6.1	 8.4	 Elhi (9)	 -10.8	 3.8


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Robin, are those all ebooks and all retailers, or are there some unspecified restrictions on data - like published by members of the AAP, sales in America only, etc?


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

nomesque said:


> Robin, are those all ebooks and all retailers, or are there some unspecified restrictions on data - like published by members of the AAP, sales in America only, etc?


The AAP numbers are "the best source" we have, but they are not great. (If only Amazon and B&N would publish their numbers). It only reports data from 14 of the top publishers so of course "indies" are not represented - I posted on this in the past. But it is the only source we have to go on - if nothing else we can say it is equally skewed overtime so if, as they report % of ebooks was 1.4% in 2008 and 3% in 2009 and 6% in 2010 it might be "underreported" but equally so over time.

USA Today BestSellers is now reporting ebooks and I believe they are taking into account sales reported from both Amazon and B&N.com.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"The approach is sound when you have enough data and KNOWN variables to modify. I'm unconvinced that indies have enough data to make their experimentation particularly useful to themselves. To experiment with any hope of solid results, you'd need at least a hundred - probably more like a thousand - books to work with."_

I wouldn't dispute statistical significance. But I would have to evaluate each decision method against the best available alternatives. It seems for an independent with a few books, all methods are flawed, and all data incomplete. Yet we still have to enter a price. I suspect it all comes down to an informed guess.

But you bring up an interesting point about thousands of books to work with. Just who might have all that data stashed away on their machines? With that kind of data, will Amazon someday take price control from authors? Might they set an internal min/max for each book where they think they max their overall profit? I admit they haven't even called me yet, but that would be a fun project to work on.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"The approach is sound when you have enough data and KNOWN variables to modify. I'm unconvinced that indies have enough data to make their experimentation particularly useful to themselves. To experiment with any hope of solid results, you'd need at least a hundred - probably more like a thousand - books to work with."_


When trying to find "your book's" sweet spot you need to have a significant number of sales - a 2x increase from 10 to 20 is not telling but a 2x increase from 300 to 600 is. When doing my test I was careful to change only one variable - price. No new promotions, no new releases, etc etc. It may not be perfect but it is the best we can hope for.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Here's why I think we should get off Vicki's back:

She's only got one book.  She can't experiment properly.  She'll have more soon but even two isn't much to experiment with.  

That's also a reason not to extrapolate too much from her experience to your own book.  She's one data point.

And the fact that she's sticking to it may or may not be to her benefit, but sticking to your guns allows for a "control" in terms of understanding other elements.  If she changes her price point, and her sales plummet, she will never know if it was the price point, or if that book just peaked.  If she leaves it for a year or more, she will have some idea of the arc of a book over a year, at least.  If she leaves it for a couple of years, she will have even more information.

So... I love ya, Vicki and want you to make more money, and I fear that others get stars in their eyes looking at your example (because all the people who didn't succeed at 99 cents are invisible and not as fun to watch).  But sticking to your guns actually helps us ALL.  

And even if you could make a heck of a lot more money on this book, this isn't going to be your only book. 

Camille


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> Here's why I think we should get off Vicki's back:
> 
> She's only got one book. She can't experiment properly. She'll have more soon but even two isn't much to experiment with.
> 
> ...


I'm in violent agreement.


----------



## Jason G. Anderson (Sep 29, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> But the one thing I do think -- is experimentation is good. I know you are tired of people telling you to raise your price (heck I've been one of them) but only because I really want you to make more than $7,000 on 20,000 copies. I know that may seem like a lot but in marketing we hate "leaving money on the table" and I'm afraid that is what you are doing.


In general I'd agree with you that experimentation is good. But I've read and heard countless authors say that they had good sales/rankings at $0.99, raised their price (which caused their sales to plummet), then lowered it again but never got back their old sales/rankings. I don't think I've ever heard an author with a large volume of sales say they raised their price, then lowered it and got back (or better) than where they were previously. So Vicki would be taking a huge risk by altering her price - potentially "leaving money on the table" in the name of experimention.

Of course, none of us know what would really happen so this is all wild speculation


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

modwitch said:


> And nobody touched this? Jason, what are you, teflon? My photoshop skills are not up to this, but someone's should be
> 
> Okay, back to your regularly scheduled conversation... I have a chapter to go write.


Jason - I luv it. Keep it up.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2011)

Thanks, Ed and Debora. Somehow my points always seem to get lost.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Thanks, Ed and Debora. Somehow my points always seem to get lost.


I'm sorry that I didn't make a joke about your poo. That was really insensitive of me!


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> I've been opposed tot he 99 cent price "out of principle" but I didn't want that prejudice to cloud my reasoning skills and hence why I tried/am trying the $0.99 experiment. I "thought" it could get me into the top 100 but it did not. I'm not sure that keeping it there will cause any difference - the lower price point seemed to move me from like 600 ranking to 300 ranking but it's hit a plateau.


My fantasy hit a plateau at 99c also, but one thing to keep in mind is that we only experimented with that price for a short time. If Vicki had given up after her first or second "plateau," she would not likely be selling the way she is. Even if many of us think she can make more money by raising her price, there's no refuting that 99c is working for her book far better than $2.99 is working for mine. 

How many plateaus did Not What She Seems hit along the way? How many times did she approach the top 100 and not reach it, then approach it and get in, only to end up there now, lower than she'd ever hoped to be? Leaving a book at 99c for a couple weeks and giving up because it didn't plummet to the top 100 may not be a fair test of that price point.

And this coming from someone who's not a fan of the 99c price point to begin with.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> Thanks, Ed and Debora. Somehow my points always seem to get lost.


Not on me! LOL


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2011)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> I'm sorry that I didn't make a joke about your poo. That was really insensitive of me!


I forgive you, Noah. I am a wellspring of forgiveness.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

foreverjuly said:


> I forgive you, Noah. I am a wellspring of forgiveness.


And I am a wellspring of pee!!!

LOLOL!


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

kcmay said:


> My fantasy hit a plateau at 99c also, but one thing to keep in mind is that we only experimented with that price for a short time. If Vicki had given up after her first or second "plateau," she would not likely be selling the way she is. Even if many of us think she can make more money by raising her price, there's no refuting that 99c is working for her book far better than $2.99 is working for mine.
> 
> How many plateaus did Not What She Seems hit along the way? How many times did she approach the top 100 and not reach it, then approach it and get in, only to end up there now, lower than she'd ever hoped to be? Leaving a book at 99c for a couple weeks and giving up because it didn't plummet to the top 100 may not be a fair test of that price point.
> 
> And this coming from someone who's not a fan of the 99c price point to begin with.


Point taken...hey Vicki can you share the amount of time from lowering your price to where you are now. I know you "briefly" entered top 100 and immediately fell out but you've been "there to stay for some time now -how long did it take you to get to "this level".

My problem is I have to lose ALOT of money in the meantime.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> Point taken...hey Vicki can you share the amount of time from lowering your price to where you are now. I know you "briefly" entered top 100 and immediately fell out but you've been "there to stay for some time now -how long did it take you to get to "this level".
> 
> My problem is I have to lose ALOT of money in the meantime.


Why not just leave the first book at 99 cents and the rest at a normal price? Even if you are losing money on that book it should function as a loss leader.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> My problem is I have to lose ALOT of money in the meantime.


Right. It's probably not as risky for me because I only average 2-10 sales per day on that book anyway. Still, my novella has been 99c for months, and it's sold 4 copies in January. Of course, I don't market it other than to list it in my sig and web site -- that's a great example of how 99c alone doesn't sell books! 

But... I didn't really mean to turn this into another price discussion. I've read all the posts here and Lee's post on Joe's blog, and I tend to agree that yes, there's probably far more self-published crap than good fiction out there, but buyers aren't dumb. The ones who take a leap of faith and get burned may not try again any time soon, and that's unfortunate, but I still think they're the minority. I can't count the number of times I see someone on Facebook or even here ask "what's an indie" because lots of readers don't know the difference between an indie and a tradpub author, and maybe they don't care. As long as the books are good, there's no reason they should.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> Why not just leave the first book at 99 cents and the rest at a normal price? Even if you are losing money on that book it should function as a loss leader.


The thing is, Michael's books sell wonderfully at the regular price. He doesn't need a loss leader.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> Why not just leave the first book at 99 cents and the rest at a normal price? Even if you are losing money on that book it should function as a loss leader.


20,000 @ $0.99 = $6,390 (With Viki's ranking) 
2,790 @ $4.95 = $9,670 (With my previous ranking)

That's a minor loss of $40,000 a year. The real question is will the other books rise? Yes I think so (and I'm tracking this as well) but keep in mind that many of those $0.99 are impulse buys that may never be read whereas a $4.95 buy is probably bought and read fairly soon thereafter. So I'm more likely of getting a "repeat" buy from the $4.95 rather than the $0.99.


----------



## Lynn Mixon (Jan 2, 2011)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> Why not just leave the first book at 99 cents and the rest at a normal price? Even if you are losing money on that book it should function as a loss leader.


With their sales, it doesn't sound like they need a loss leader. In my mind, one only needs one where there is trouble drawing people to the next book.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> 20,000 @ $0.99 = $6,390 (With Viki's ranking)
> 2,790 @ $4.95 = $9,670 (With my previous ranking)
> 
> That's a minor loss of $40,000 a year. The real question is will the other books rise? Yes I think so (and I'm tracking this as well) but keep in mind that many of those $0.99 are impulse buys that may never be read whereas a $4.95 buy is probably bought and read fairly soon thereafter. So I'm more likely of getting a "repeat" buy from the $4.95 rather than the $0.99.


Excellent points. If I were in your shoes I'd want the 40k and figure out how to simply buy more publicity with a portion of it! 

Btw, I just (as in tonight) read the preview for The Crown Conspiracy and I REALLY enjoyed it. I then picked up the whole book for 99 cents.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> Excellent points. If I were in your shoes I'd want the 40k and figure out how to simply buy more publicity with a portion of it!
> 
> Btw, I just (as in tonight) read the preview for The Crown Conspiracy and I REALLY enjoyed it. I then picked up the whole book for 99 cents.


Glad to hear it - thanks for the support -- and congratz for getting in at the $0.99 test price. I've already "ended" the promotion and just waiting for Amazon to put it back to $4.95 so you saved $4.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Sorry, I went upstairs to eat dinner!  

To be fair, I was only selling a handful of books each day before I lowered my price to 99 cents.  So it was easy for me to stick with it, because I was making more money right away.  I only needed to sell 17 books each day to make what I had been earning, and I easily met that goal.  So I can see where it would be harder to stick with a 99 cent price if you're losing money each day.

After lowering my price, I started out with 40 sales a day.  I lowered my price right at the end of September.  For rank, I found myself sticking with around 550 for the month of October.  Then I stuck around 350 for the month of November.  December was my month to stick around 150, with a brief breaking of the top 100 for two hours... but then it went back to 150.  I honestly believe Amazon increased my exposure after staying one month at one rank.  I can't possibly attribute it to anything else I've done.  And it was weird how the rank would increase right around the 30 day mark.  Strange.  I wonder what will happen at the end of Jan.

If you are interested in actual sales data, I keep track of my daily sales and would be happy to send you those numbers.  I think being informed is good.

And of course, not everyone sells like mine has at 99 cents.  But it is worth mentioning that Amanda Hocking has had My Blood Approves at 99 cents for months and it just recently made it into the top 100.  In fact, she didn't have any of her books in the top 100 until very recently.  So it does take time to climb the ranks, IMHO.

Vicki


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

kcmay said:


> But... I didn't really mean to turn this into another price discussion. I've read all the posts here and Lee's post on Joe's blog, and I tend to agree that yes, there's probably far more self-published crap than good fiction out there, but buyers aren't dumb. The ones who take a leap of faith and get burned may not try again any time soon, and that's unfortunate, but I still think they're the minority. I can't count the number of times I see someone on Facebook or even here ask "what's an indie" because lots of readers don't know the difference between an indie and a tradpub author, and maybe they don't care. As long as the books are good, there's no reason they should.


Right, KC. A good book is a good book regardless of who publishes it. And, I agree that the majority of the general public either doesn't know or doesn't care who publishes it. I don't see a lot of people saying "I only read Dell Rey books" like some women pride themselves on only carrying Coach handbags. 

If so, that would be a really silly mentality.

Besides, with really good well written and well produced books, you really are taking away the "self-published" look and feel. Heck, I confess that sometimes I can't tell the difference between a self-published title under an indie author's imprint or a book released under some new small press.

Readers are picky about genre (I have a good friend who reads only fantasy, and will not touch my horror stories.). Others are picky about authors. Some people do not like short stories because they feel they "cannot get into them" as much.

Good books are good books. _ Period. _

This past year, I've read two horrible traditionally published books and 4 that were "just okay." But, that didn't stop me from ever reading another commercially published title.

I'm not saying you won't find people who have been "burned" by SP books and never want to read another one, but I think if someone came across a GOOD self-published book they would give it a chance (especially if they can't tell it's self-published). Again, sampling has a lot to do with it. If anyone buys a book without sampling it first, they're taking the risk.

If I had pizza that was bad, it wouldn't sour my taste on pizza for the rest of my life. I'd just be a lot more choosy about which pizza shops I frequent.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

The 99 cent novel at  Amazon will come into its own if Smashwords is able to negotiate a better royalty for them than the 35% Amazon offers. Getting 60% of every sale would make the 99 cent to $1.99 price bracket far more appealing to many authors.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Victorine said:


> Sorry, I went upstairs to eat dinner!
> 
> To be fair, I was only selling a handful of books each day before I lowered my price to 99 cents. So it was easy for me to stick with it, because I was making more money right away. I only needed to sell 17 books each day to make what I had been earning, and I easily met that goal. So I can see where it would be harder to stick with a 99 cent price if you're losing money each day.
> 
> ...


Thanks Vicki that is helpful. It's interesting because I'm in the 350 now and it is pretty consistent. So I was thinking "this is about as good as this book has". Since I've already switched to $4.95 (although it has not taken effect yet) I'll have to let things stablilze back at that again before trying again. The other thing though is the sixth and final book in the series is due in April (if we don't take the deal with the NY publisher) and in general each new release has done wonders for the ranking so I might be the first of our little clan to hit 100 at $4.95. I got close once - 103. I'd love to break that barrier.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> Thanks Vicki that is helpful. It's interesting because I'm in the 350 now and it is pretty consistent. So I was thinking "this is about as good as this book has". Since I've already switched to $4.95 (although it has not taken effect yet) I'll have to let things stablilze back at that again before trying again. The other thing though is the sixth and final book in the series is due in April (if we don't take the deal with the NY publisher) and in general each new release has done wonders for the ranking so I might be the first of our little clan to hit 100 at $4.95. I got close once - 103. I'd love to break that barrier.


That would be awesome to have you break that barrier at $4.95. 

Vicki


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

"If I had pizza that was bad, it wouldn't sour my taste on pizza for the rest of my life.  I'd just be a lot more choosy about which pizza shops I frequent. "


I just want to mention, that I support indie pizza parlors. Generally, they offer a better product than the traditional chains.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> "If I had pizza that was bad, it wouldn't sour my taste on pizza for the rest of my life. I'd just be a lot more choosy about which pizza shops I frequent. "
> 
> I just want to mention, that I support indie pizza parlors. Generally, they offer a better product than the traditional chains.


I would never chose a chain pizzeria! A completely inferior product!


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> "If I had pizza that was bad, it wouldn't sour my taste on pizza for the rest of my life. I'd just be a lot more choosy about which pizza shops I frequent. "
> 
> I just want to mention, that I support indie pizza parlors. Generally, they offer a better product than the traditional chains.





NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> I would never chose a chain pizzeria! A completely inferior product!


Oh abso-friggin-lutely! Small "mom & pop" pizza shops are usually much better than, for example, Pizza Hut.


----------



## docnoir (Jan 21, 2011)

Lee,

Yeah, as much as it hurts to say it, I might have to swallow my pride and agree that you and (ugh, painful even to form the words) Konrath are probably right about this crazy train after all.

Neil


----------



## Miriam Minger (Nov 27, 2010)

I've published my formerly out-of-print backlist on Kindle, Smashwords, and B&N, and so far it's been a very positive experience. I have a number of author peers who are doing the same, with similar results. If you're interested, check out http://www.backlistebooks.com/ to find some great reads by other authors publishing their backlists. You can't go wrong.

Miriam Minger


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Miriam Minger said:


> I've published my formerly out-of-print backlist on Kindle, Smashwords, and B&N, and so far it's been a very positive experience. I have a number of author peers who are doing the same, with similar results. If you're interested, check out http://www.backlistebooks.com/ to find some great reads by other authors publishing their backlists. You can't go wrong.
> 
> Miriam Minger


You're right, I don't think you can go wrong publishing your backlists. The debate seems to be whether it's smart to self-publish rather then take a small press deal. Personally, I'm making a lot more self-publishing than taking a small press deal. Plus I'm almost positive I am reaching more customers, and building a bigger fan base.

So my vote is not to take a traditional deal. But we all have different experiences. 

Vicki


----------



## bellaandre (Dec 10, 2010)

Victorine said:


> That would be awesome to have you break that barrier at $4.95.
> 
> Vicki


Agreed. Go Robin! 

I haven't broken the top 100 on Amazon, but I did hit #55 on the BN.com top 100 Nookbooks with Game For Love at $5.99 in December - and stayed in the top 100 for almost a week. The book has been hanging in the 600-700s on Amazon (which is blowing my mind with the kind of volume going on there right now). Of course, I'm really hopeful it will keep moving in the right direction. 

Bella


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

foreverjuly said:


> True that. My favorite way of putting this is that all traditionally published authors have left to hold onto is a hollow feeling of smug superiority.


I'm sure that's exactly what Michael Connelly, John Grisham, Stephen King, Janet Evanovich, Stephanie Meyer, JK Rowling, Sue Grafton, Robert Crais, Harlan Coben, Larry McMurty, Elmore Leonard, Nora Roberts, Dennis Lehane, Scott Turow, John Irving, Jonathan Franzen, Anita Shreve, Joy Fielding, Patricia Cornwell, etc....and all those thousands of other highly successful print authors have left. It's not like they have millions of sales internationally, or millions of dollars, or tens of millions of fans, or global critical acclaim, or movies & TV series based on their work to enjoy and profit from. They just wish they could sell their books for 99 cents on the Kindle and so they can be in the top 100 on the Amazon.

Get real!

Yes, there is no question ebooks are the future, and that print publishing is facing serious changes, but the big publishers and big authors still dominate BOTH the digital and print mediums. Readers are still going to gravitate towards names they know and publishers they recognize...even more so, perhaps, in the ebook future when they've got to wade through that tsunami of swill. Who were the first million-sellers on Amazon? Major name writers from major publishers. Like Stieg Larsson. And remember, although the ebook business is surging, for the moment the majority of readers are still buying and reading their books the "old fashioned" way: in print. So you're deluding yourself if you think that print is already dead, that professional publication is meaningless, and that accolades don't matter. (And remember, I say this as a guy who has decided that, for his career, it doesn't make financial sense to write for publishers any more!).

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

scottnicholson said:


> I don't know. Before I publish anything, I look around for some writer's ring to kiss, so maybe I get a little pat on the head and be told I may be okay if I just stick out in the fields tilling the soil, as long as the fruit is packed into the elevator and sent up to the top of the tower where the real writers dwell.


Oh, spare me. Nobody has said anything about having to "kiss some writer's ring" to get published. Careful, your bitterness towards publishers and published writers is showing.

And if recognition from professional writers organizations (which is what I suspect you are alluding to with your "tower where the real writers dwell" stuff) is so meaningless, why do so many self-published writers want it so desperately? Why do they complain so loudly about not being eligible for active membership in professional writers organizations or for consideration for the major professional literary awards? And if print publishing is dead, why do self-published authors rush to congratulate those among them who are fortunate enough to snag big publishing deals?

You can't have it both ways.

Lee


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

"...when they've got to wade through that tsunami of swill." 

The comment you made, quoted above, is nasty and inflammatory. Why, I wonder, do you post on a forum largely populated by indie authors, and then insult us? Most writers I've met--and I've met a number of highly successful writers--wouldn't act the way you're acting. Very strange.

Initially, I was interested in what you have to say. But now you seem to be ranting.

I hope you feel better soon.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

rsullivan9597 said:


> 20,000 @ $0.99 = $6,390 (With Viki's ranking)
> 2,790 @ $4.95 = $9,670 (With my previous ranking)
> 
> That's a minor loss of $40,000 a year. The real question is will the other books rise? Yes I think so (and I'm tracking this as well) but keep in mind that many of those $0.99 are impulse buys that may never be read whereas a $4.95 buy is probably bought and read fairly soon thereafter. So I'm more likely of getting a "repeat" buy from the $4.95 rather than the $0.99.


I hope people are paying attention because you are making some excellent points. People here are way too hung up on Kindle ranking...and paying dearly for it. Believe me, you can make a huge amount of money remaining comfortably in the top 2000 and with books priced at $2.99.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

docnoir said:


> Lee,
> 
> Yeah, as much as it hurts to say it, I might have to swallow my pride and agree that you and (ugh, painful even to form the words) Konrath are probably right about this crazy train after all.
> 
> Neil


I just bought your book, btw, based on Gischler's rave. Looking forward to it.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> "...when they've got to wade through that tsunami of swill."
> 
> The comment you made, quoted above, is nasty and inflammatory. Why, I wonder, do you post on a forum largely populated by indie authors, and then insult us? Most writers I've met--and I've met a number of highly successful writers--wouldn't act the way you're acting. Very strange.
> 
> Initially, I was interested in what you have to say. But now you seem to be ranting.


You must not have read my post on Konrath's blog, where I also talked in detail about the tsunami of swill (or the comments section, where others are also addressing it). This board is not an accurate reflection of what is going on out there. Lots of people, readers and authors and pundits alike, are talking seriously about the huge amount of truly awful self-published work that's showing up on Amazon and the problems it poses. You are living in a cave, and denying reality, if you think I'm the only one talking about it and that it's not an issue.

Lee


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I'm sure that's exactly what Michael Connelly, John Grisham, Stephen King, Janet Evanovich, Stephanie Meyer, JK Rowling, Sue Grafton, Robert Crais, Harlan Coben, Larry McMurty, Elmore Leonard, Nora Roberts, Dennis Lehane, Scott Turow, John Irving, Jonathan Franzen, Anita Shreve, Joy Fielding, Patricia Cornwell, etc....and all those thousands of other highly successful print authors have left. It's not like they have millions of sales internationally, or millions of dollars, or tens of millions of fans, or global critical acclaim, or movies & TV series based on their work to enjoy and profit from. They just wish they could sell their books for 99 cents on the Kindle and so they can be in the top 100 on the Amazon.
> 
> Get real!
> 
> ...


Digital distribution will no doubt eventually overtake paper as the dominant distribution media for print products. The generation following us - kids going through school now - have no sentimental attachment to print books like we do and it will be they who finally see print relegated to a niche industry. That spells bad news for the big publishers because if the buying public turns away from paper, they will be forced to make the best of the new media. Organisations like Amazon and Smashwords have already rocked their boat, and we are still in the infancy of the technology, and I'm sure there is more to come. But even the newcomers are in for a tough ride. We've already seen Amazon try to force ebook prices up with only limited success. Some of the more independently minded indies have not signed up for the higher royalty rate and are doing just fine.

There is no doubt that big publishing is not dead and that they will continue to influence publishing in all formats for years to come. What is in doubt is just how much influence they will have. When it was all print, they had 100% control of the industry and could set prices and control the entrance of new products into the public sphere. Digital distribution takes this control away from them. The question that no one can answer with any authority at the moment is how much power will the traditional publishing industry lose due to digital distribution? What is certain is that they will lose _something_.

Who knows, maybe we will see major authors publishing their own books on the Kindle and pricing them at 99 cents. Isn't there already an indie author who is selling 100,000 books every month. I'm sure I've seen that figure somewhere, possibly in a post on Joe Konrath's blog. I'd say anyone selling 100,000 books every month can be considered a big name.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> You must not have read my post on Konrath's blog, where I also talked in detail about the tsunami of swill (or the comments section, where others are also addressing it). This board is not an accurate reflection of what is going on out there. Lots of people, readers and authors and pundits alike, are talking seriously about the huge amount of truly awful self-published work that's showing up on Amazon and the problems it poses. You are living in a cave, and denying reality, if you think I'm the only one talking about it and that it's not an issue.
> 
> Lee


Thank you for clarifying. I did read Joe's blog, but I didn't read all the comments. As others have mentioned, a reader's best defense is sampling.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Before people get too up in arms over Lee's "tsunami of swill" let us not forget Sturgeon's Law. ("Ninety percent of everything is crap.")  Lee didn't single out anyone, or even claim that the people here produce swill.

The truth is, there is a lot of crap out there.  Unlike Lee, I don't think it is even slightly relevant to the rest of us.  We are each responsible for our own standards.  We are in a new age, where everything is available to everyone, and we have all already learned to deal with it. (Those of us who have been using the web extensively for the past ten years have anyway.)

Yes, there has been a tsunami of swill out there for many many years.  It's just that the publishing industry hasn't noticed it.  Like it or not, famous authors are (and have been) competing with millions of other things for the reader's time.  Not just the good, bad and ugly of other books, but blogs and twitter and YouTube videos of cats riding roombas, and apps where birds launch themselves at pigs in a furious effort at revenge.

If Robert Crais isn't afraid of "Mittens And His Roving Vacuum," he shouldn't be afraid of any number of books with misspelled titles and awful covers.  And neither should the rest of us be.  (Nor should be we offended at the acknowledgment that there are, indeed, really bad indie books out there.)

Camille


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> There is no doubt that big publishing is not dead and that they will continue to influence publishing in all formats for years to come. What is in doubt is just how much influence they will have. When it was all print, they had 100% control of the industry and could set prices and control the entrance of new products into the public sphere. Digital distribution takes this control away from them. The question that no one can answer with any authority at the moment is how much power will the traditional publishing industry lose due to digital distribution? What is certain is that they will lose _something_.


And everyone thought when TV came along, all the big networks and studios that ruled radio would disappear. Wrong. The same networks and studios controlled TV. 
And everyone thought when TV came along, the movie business would die. Wrong. The movie business actually grew.
I think print and ebooks will co-exist in much the same way as TV and movies have. And I think it's inevitable that the big media conglomerates are going to control the lions share of digital entertainment as well (anyone notice that the FCC approved the Comcast/NBC/Universal deal?). But I would love to be wrong about that.



> Who knows, maybe we will see major authors publishing their own books on the Kindle and pricing them at 99 cents. Isn't there already an indie author who is selling 100,000 books every month. I'm sure I've seen that figure somewhere, possibly in a post on Joe Konrath's blog. I'd say anyone selling 100,000 books every month can be considered a big name.


I don't think any self-published author on the Kindle has yet broken through in public awareness the way Stephanie Meyers has, or Dan Brown, or Michael Connelly, etc. But I have no doubt it will happen...perhaps not as quickly, or as frequently, as it can happen in print at this stage of the game.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Well, the tsunami of swill doesn't seem to be affecting my sales.  Doesn't seem to be affecting yours either, Lee.  You readily admit you're selling more now than you were before, and earning more money.  Heck, I'm earning more money than I ever have in my life.

Honestly, I don't think we have much to worry about.  If Kindle sales start to slow down because of people complaining about badly written swill, I'll admit I was wrong.

Vicki


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> And everyone thought when TV came along, all the big networks and studios that ruled radio would disappear. Wrong. The same networks and studios controlled TV.
> And everyone thought when TV came along, the movie business would die. Wrong. The movie business actually grew.
> I think print and ebooks will co-exist in much the same way as TV and movies have. And I think it's inevitable that the big media conglomerates are going to control the lions share of digital entertainment as well (anyone notice that the FCC approved the Comcast/NBC/Universal deal?). But I would love to be wrong about that.
> 
> ...


TV and radio are slightly different because they are mass broadcasting systems. With books, it's not the paper and ink you are buying but the literature on the pages.

The number of cassettes and magnetic tapes that you can find about the place is very small. Nor are there that many video cassettes in the shops. Even CD's are fading away with the advent of the DVD.

The truth is that electronic gadgets are lighter and more versatile than paper. Eventually, every student in the country will have an ereader/tablet so that they can carry all their books and notes in one small device instead of one massive bag, and they will use those ereaders/tablets to read their personal stuff as well. The phrase 'I'd be lost without my Kindle/iPad/nook' will become ubiquitous. Paper will not disappear completely, of course, but why would you buy a paper book if you could get a digital version?

As for capturing the public's eye, it is still far too early for that. Electronic books are still only a small proportion of the total books sales and still have a way to go before they become truly mainstream. But it will happen eventually as ebooks capture more of the total sales pie.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The more immediate effect of digital will probably be felt by print retailers rather than publishers. Using a simple model, an increase in digital sales is a decrease in retail print sales. If digital is now X%, and it doubles to 2X%, that is an incremental X% drop in print retail sales. 

What will be the effect of an incremental X% drop in retail print sales on the print retailer? And how will that effect the publisher? We already see Borders trying to convince publishers to take notes rather than cash. If pubs take notes, that curtails cash to other operations. If they don't take notes and Borders seeks Ch 11 protection, pubs still lose cash flow from receivables on their books, and probable lower sales to a CH 11 Borders. That means they have less for othere things - like bringing out new books, paying advances, etc.

It may be that a modest increase in eBook market share is enough to have a much larger effect on retailers, and that would flow back on publishers. In a weak economy, eBooks may not have to gain market dominance to have a quick and lasting effect.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

The tone of these discussions that Mr. Goldberg prompts often decays into "them versus us" because of the use of words like _swill_. Sadly, it's a perfectly appropriate term for some self-published work. How could it not be when anyone with a computer and a little technical knowledge can publish a book?

The other side of that coin are the few truly wonderful books and the many _diamonds in the rough_ that are emerging every day. I've had the opportunity to read dozens of well told stories by self-published authors that I would have never had without this new technology. Admittedly, some were desperately in need of basic proof-reading, copy editing and formatting, however I've also read some eBooks by established authors that have the same problems. Case in point: _Dances With Wolves_ by award winning writer Michael Blake published by ZOVA Books. The book is amateurishly formatted, fraught with typos and other glaring errors. Fortunately the tale is so well told by Mr. Blake that the book is still a pleasure to read.

My intent here is not to throw stones at Mr. Goldberg, ZOVA Books or traditional publishers but to ask how we as members of this new community can help clean up the "swill" that's been discussed and improve the terrific books that just need some polish. My own approach has been to makes notes of typos and other errors while reading and then offering my notes to the author or publisher. I've had one or two "mind your own business" replies, but most are gracious if not grateful. I also offer free formatting and other technical help that might be useful to anyone who asks. Perhaps some of you have a little extra time. If nothing else, couching public comments in a positive manner might be helpful.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2011)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I'm sure that's exactly what Michael Connelly, John Grisham, Stephen King, Janet Evanovich, Stephanie Meyer, JK Rowling, Sue Grafton, Robert Crais, Harlan Coben, Larry McMurty, Elmore Leonard, Nora Roberts, Dennis Lehane, Scott Turow, John Irving, Jonathan Franzen, Anita Shreve, Joy Fielding, Patricia Cornwell, etc....and all those thousands of other highly successful print authors have left. It's not like they have millions of sales internationally, or millions of dollars, or tens of millions of fans, or global critical acclaim, or movies & TV series based on their work to enjoy and profit from. They just wish they could sell their books for 99 cents on the Kindle and so they can be in the top 100 on the Amazon.
> 
> Get real!
> 
> Lee


I'm sorry, but your comment deserves a big fat *LOL!* and maybe a *WTF?* on top of it. All of those things you are touting about the big shots are just as available to us. That's what I'm saying. Print and movie deals, millions of sales, we can have that too! Of course, not all of us are going to have that, but you chose to look at the cream of the crop with your list of names. I thought after talking to Konrath you'd have figured out that those things were possible.

So I'd tell you to Get A Clue! but that would probably require you to spend less time giving your books 5-star ratings. Ever heard of a product description?


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Jeff said:


> My own approach has been to makes notes of typos and other errors while reading and then offering my notes to the author or publisher. I've had one or two "mind your own business" replies, but most are gracious if not grateful.


I think that's a great thing to do, Jeff. I once had a reader let me know that I'd used "palate" instead of "palette" at a particularly poignant point in my book. After banging my head against the nearest hard surface (a la Dobby the house elf) for several minutes, I fixed the error. Fortunately it was just before sales started to pick up, so there are only a few readers who imagine that my protagonist was chugging paint instead of putting it on a canvas. I'll always be grateful to that brave and observant reader, so keep it up, Jeff. The right sort of writer won't tell you to mind your own business.

Edited to add: Shoot, I didn't mean to imply that I am "the right kind of writer." That would be arrogant and obnoxious. I only meant...well, I'm sure you know what I meant, Jeff, 'cause you're the right kind of writer and reader.


----------



## Gabriela Popa (Apr 7, 2010)

While I am not moved by Mr. Goldberg's arguments (arguments that seem to contradict each other from post to post) I am moved, and not in a necessarily pleasant way, by his superior, condescending tone in his interventions here.  

Perhaps a superiority complex, Lee?

Let's try to keep it polite and civil.  No need to mention about people "hiding in a cave", or tell people to "get real."  

Thanks...

Gabriela


----------



## Some Writer Cat (Sep 22, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I hope people are paying attention because you are making some excellent points. People here are way too hung up on Kindle ranking...and paying dearly for it. Believe me, you can make a huge amount of money remaining comfortably in the top 2000 and with books priced at $2.99.


Yes. This.

And I have no problem with Lee's tone. He started the thread, folks. You're not required to post here. If he offends you, just move on. I may think his FEAR OF THE SWILL is pretty nonsensical, but I don't get offended by it. Why would I? I don't write swill. Do you?

But I completely agree with Lee that there's still a place for traditional publishing, one I plan to fully take advantage of. Why wouldn't I? Right now, they're still the best game in town as far as distribution and building a readership. I've sold books to Simon and Schuster and hope to sell others. I also publish under my own imprint. To me, it's just about getting my work in front of as many readers as possible. You just evaluate each choice as it comes along and not rule out anything from the get go. No need for an either-or, false choice approach.

In fact, I'm really beginning to hate using terms like "traditional" publishing and "indy" publishing. You will never hear me refer to myself as an _indy _writer. Why would I want to distinguish myself from other writers? By doing so, you're already branding yourself to most readers as a second class writer. I'm a writer just like Stephen King, John Grisham, James Patterson, and all the other names Lee mentions, and I can guarantee you they'd never refer to themselves with any term that would limit them in any way. I may not have their audience yet, but if you're like me and you hope to get there someday, the first thing you have to do is start thinking of yourself the same way they think of themselves.

As writers. Period.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Scott, agree with most of what you said, except the part about using the term "Indie."

Yes, on a thread like this, some people are using "indie" as a defiant identifier.  But that's not how everybody uses it, and that's not even how those people use it all the time. 

Frankly, I think most of us don't see it as "us vs. them."  It's two processes.  Two routes.  When we talk about them, we can't just say "that one" - we have to have a word for it.  (I'm dyslexic; I can't tell left from right without a lot of serious thought, so giving directions is difficult.  Especially if the person you give directions to can't tell "north, south, east, west" at all.  Trust me, having a common word for a direction is good.)

It doesn't help us to get all defensive about being indie publishers.  We are what we are -- and that includes those who straddle both routes, or go all traditional.  We are what we are.  I gotta say it: 

Being proud of being an indie doesn't hurt anybody.  As a matter of fact being proud and relaxed and professional about it simply makes it a flavor of being professional overall.  But being angry and defensive and unprofessional about it sullies the term.

Camille


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

As a reader, not a writer, I can tell you the cream certainly DOES rise, and the crapola sinks. a year ago, I was reading 1 or 2 "indie" books per month, and 25+ "normal".. Now, I read almost exclusively indie. 
I read 300+ books a year.

If even a 50% percentage of what I read was crap, do you think I'd still be reading "indies"? no, I would have moved on. However, I am able to use Amazon ratings, reviews, blurbs to figure out which books are worth my time, normally. I still have issues with some books not being labled as a short story and sold as full books, but I am quickly remembering to look at file size as a guide.

I also use these forums as my first filter. If someone cannot string a coherent phrase together here in a message, why in the world would I think they could do it for a book? There used to be a member here who had atrocious writing skills & interpersonal skills, yet bragged about the wonderful, amazing, Uber-Fantastic stories they wrote. There is no way on the Earth I would ever have picked up their novels. I know the works were not edited in any way because that was also something else that they bragged about. *shudder*
---
Back to a comment I made earlier however, I said "take the $ and run." I meant If you get an offer by a publisher, take it, get the exposure from them, then.. get away from them for subsequent books. take the "prestige" & help, and use it for yourself.


----------



## TLH (Jan 20, 2011)

Scott William Carter said:


> In fact, I'm really beginning to hate using terms like "traditional" publishing and "indy" publishing. You will never hear me refer to myself as an _indy _writer. Why would I want to distinguish myself from other writers? By doing so, you're already branding yourself to most readers as a second class writer. I'm a writer just like Stephen King, John Grisham, James Patterson, and all the other names Lee mentions, and I can guarantee you they'd never refer to themselves with any term that would limit them in any way. I may not have their audience yet, but if you're like me and you hope to get there someday, the first thing you have to do is start thinking of yourself the same way they think of themselves.
> 
> As writers. Period.


I'm with you on this thinking.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Scott William Carter said:


> He started the thread, folks. You're not required to post here. If he offends you, just move on.


I don't think that there are any rules here that make it mandatory to agree with the original poster.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I could put my sandals on my head, but this is what I think the Buddha meant:


----------



## Budo von Stahl (Aug 31, 2010)

A quote can only be nasty and inflammatory if it isn't true.  If it is true, at most it might have been 'better put'.  I have looked and looked and looked and looked, and most of what I find on the Kindle is pretty bad.  I, however, do not think this will always be the case.  To a certain degree? Yes.  Aspiring authors have not been in short supply since the first bestseller came out.  Reading has been around for a long time, but ereading is fairly new.  Once the reality sinks in that you still need a readable product to have success on Kindle, I think the swill ratio will swing the other way (hopefully accompanied by a reduction in gross titles, meaning some of what's up now will come down out of modesty).  We could do our part by mentioning that fact loud and long.  As I stated earlier, I think we are the future of the industry.  Trad pubbers used to provide the sifting, editing, and promoting necessary for a successful book, and it naturally came out of the gross receipts.  All that work still needs to be done to be successful, but now we get to do it (and do it from home!), thus we get to control the cost of it, and get to brag about the results.  Amazon imposed no hurdles, but that doesn't mean jumping through a few fiery hoops won't get you noticed.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Scott William Carter said:


> Yes. This.
> 
> And I have no problem with Lee's tone. He started the thread, folks. You're not required to post here. If he offends you, just move on. I may think his FEAR OF THE SWILL is pretty nonsensical, but I don't get offended by it. Why would I? I don't write swill. Do you?


As Jeff mentioned, everyone here is entitled to an opinion. This is a discussion forum. Not a lecture.

Regarding the term "Indie," I certainly think of myself as a writer first and foremost. However, I publish independently, and I'm proud of it. I like the term Indie. In my mind, Indie represents freedom and innovation--I often prefer independent films and independent music to what's being produced by the mainstream. But I've always been rather avant garde. That's what comes from growing up in New York and being in the theater and new wave music scene in the 1970s and early 80s--yeah I'm dating myself. I worked in cable television at it's inception, when MTV was a discussion and synthesizers had just been born (by a company I worked with). So, to me, Indie is an excellent term signifying an overdue revolution in the publishing industry.

But everyone is welcome to call themselves whatever they want.

That's the beauty of this board.

Welcome!

Suzanne


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, let's keep discussing the points Lee has been making, and that others have made, rather than characterizing each other's posts, please?  If you think something that's been posted is inappropriate, feel free to report it.

Thanks!  (I can always count on Lee to start a rousing conversation here on KindleBoards... )

Betsy
KB Moderato


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The Swells vs Swills reminds me of Jon Klein who was president of CNN a few years back. He appeared on a news show and said a blogger was a "guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing what he thinks." His supporters told us repeatedly about the layers of editors and fact checkers the Swells had at their disposal, and how the lack of such seasoned intellectual prowess doomed the Swills to footnote status.

Well, the Swell was right about the Swills. There were a lot of bloggers who were nuts. There still are. But somehow quality Swill emerged from the trough and it's readily available and identifiable. Some Swills remained independent. Others became aggregators, and some of them began generating original content. The Swills' successful transition to somewhere continues.

At the same time, the Swells' decline continued. Circulation, employment, and ad revenue continue to fall. A Swill just took over Newsweek, and more and more Swells are jumping ship into the Swills' trough. Except for News Corp, few Swells have duplicated the kind of success the radio nets had when they encountered TV.

So, I am indifferent to waves of swill. We have proven very adept at finding the quality Swills in digital media. People who study this call it the network effect. I'm not sure we really understand how it works, but history shows it does.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> Regarding the term "Indie," I certainly think of myself as a writer first and foremost. However, I publish independently, and I'm proud of it. I like the term Indie. In my mind, Indie represents freedom and innovation--I often prefer independent films and independent music to what's being produced by the mainstream. But I've always been rather avant garde. That's what comes from growing up in New York and being in the theater and new wave music scene in the 1970s and early 80s--yeah I'm dating myself. I worked in cable television at it's inception, when MTV was a discussion and synthesizers had just been born (by a company I worked with). So, to me, Indie is an excellent term signifying an overdue revolution in the publishing industry.
> 
> But everyone is welcome to call themselves whatever they want.
> 
> ...


I'm taking my cue from Amazon's name change. We're no longer "Independently published authors." We're "_Directly_ published authors." Make a note of it! 

btw, at a glance I am surprised to see how many reviewers are commenting on Mr Goldberg's books being badly edited and filled with typos. What's the pot calling the kettle now?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

NoahMullette-Gillman said:


> btw, at a glance I am surprised to see how many reviewers are commenting on Mr Goldberg's books being badly edited and filled with typos. What's the pot calling the kettle now?


Just at a guess, most of those reviewers are disgruntled indies. He's never been anything but honest about how he feels, but there are a number of people (many I suspect don't post here) who really seem to be out to get him for honestly saying what he thinks. It's ridiculous and gives us all a bad name.

Camille


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

daringnovelist said:


> Just at a guess, most of those reviewers are disgruntled indies.


I'm afraid you're right. I don't remember seeing any editing issues in his books.


----------



## NoahMullette-Gillman (Jul 29, 2010)

If that's true, that's reprehensible!


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Tee shirt for Lee (and for those with any sense of self-deprecation): "Fear the swill!"


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Let's get back to the original discussion.  I'm not going to take the time to do the research to see how many of the reviewers of Lee's zillion books actually commented on the editing, nor do I think it is particularly germaine to the discussion....  

Betsy


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> And everyone thought when TV came along, all the big networks and studios that ruled radio would disappear. Wrong. The same networks and studios controlled TV.
> And everyone thought when TV came along, the movie business would die. Wrong. The movie business actually grew.
> I think print and ebooks will co-exist in much the same way as TV and movies have. *And I think it's inevitable that the big media conglomerates are going to control the lions share of digital entertainment as well (anyone notice that the FCC approved the Comcast/NBC/Universal deal?)*. But I would love to be wrong about that.
> 
> Lee


What are you saying here, Lee? Are you suggesting you think one of the Big 6 is going to buy Amazon or B&N?

And yes, I did notice that the FCC approved that deal. And yes, I do wonder why no one, least of all the FCC, is enforcing the laws prohibiting vertical integration. But that discussion is perhaps better left for a separate thread.


----------



## Susanne O (Feb 8, 2010)

Scott William Carter said:


> Lee, it was a great blog post and a lively discussion. Thanks for linking to it. But this strange worry about "swill" is just bizarre to me. Do you own an e-reader? This worry just doesn't jive with the way readers are finding authors on most of the e-book platforms. The bad stuff just sinks. Nobody notices it. And because of sampling, most readers don't buy the badly written stuff even if the author has paid for a professional cover.
> 
> So while I still think writers should pursue the traditional avenue for books (I certainly will for some books), I'm with Joe: No reason to wait. If it's bad, it'll just fade. The writers I know who make it in this business are the ones who have two necessary qualities: 1) they work hard and don't quit, and 2) they have the capacity to improve. That's all it takes, regardless of which route you choose.
> 
> Lively debate, though. Got me thinking.


Very, very good post. The bad will sink and the good will rise to the top. To assume that every 'indie' writer is someone who has self-published because they couldn't get a deal from a publisher, is wrong. Personally, I am a published author who got tired of agents and publishers taking my money. I recently got an offer from a publisher for my historical novel but turned it down. They wanted my e-book rights and I didn't want to give them up. I have regained all rights to my published books and e-published them myself. Couldn't be happier with my decision.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Jeff said:


> I don't think that there are any rules here that make it mandatory to agree with the original poster.


I agree!

I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me. How boring would that be? And how would I ever learn anything? (And no, I am not being sarcastic).

Lee


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Beth O said:


> What are you saying here, Lee? Are you suggesting you think one of the Big 6 is going to buy Amazon or B&N?


I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't go the other way around - Amazon buying major publishers or booksellers. Although I expect Google will be more likely on that one....

Except -- in reading the industry news and blogs, I noticed a trend of what some Big 6 insiders seem to be expecting (which is a sign of what they're angling for). They're angling to be media producers. They're talking about the next wave in publishing as being enhanced ebooks (which they seem to define as early generation video games -- but they are suits). I read one major executive declare that ordinary prose fiction is dead.

And once you stop laughing, pause to think about HIS point of view. IMHO he was saying that it was dead _to him_. The fact is, big business is not going to go away. Sure the buy and sell buildings and brand names, but the big powers pulling the strings just jump from business to business. If the paradigm changes and they can't make the same money the same way as they used to, they'll push their product profile in a direction that does fit the business model they want.

When enough of the public has gone to ereaders (not all, or even most, just enough to bother the parent companies) don't be surprised if the Big 6 starts to bail out of the book business. Yes, they'll sell best sellers, but from the way they're talking, they're looking at finding better ways to package properties for handheld devices in ways that only major media companies can do.

Basically, they'll go into a new variation of the game industry, with film, story, interactivity merged. I mean, look at how film and gaming have merged more and more. I was looking at IMDb for the latest news on Bond 23, and I noticed that they're treating games as new movies -- major projects which get news releases because Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are doing voice work for the Bond games. (And these appear in their credits, right along with the feature work.)

There are independent developers doing apps, but few of them can afford star power. It's the one place that the Big 6 can go and still keep the interest of their parent companies.

In the meantime, books and small apps will chug along as before, they'll just be invisible to the big companies or thought of as a consumer thing -- like YouTube and Blogging and Squidoo -- a place to advertise and find customers, not a competitor.

Camille


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Coming home from the grocery store, my husband made an interesting observation about traditional publishing.

"It's like college. You don't have to go there to make money, but there are many jobs you can't apply to if you don't have a degree. It's hard to get into, and can cost a lot but in general, those who go through college will "in the long run" make more than those who go directly into the work world. But...you don't HAVE to go to college to make a million $'s some of the most successful people never got a degree."

This might be why Lee is suggesting to take a traditional deal if one comes along.


----------



## PeggyI (Jan 9, 2011)

Five years ago this whole self-publishing industry was a different game. Five years from now it will be totally different from today. 

I think we are on the cusp of major opportunities, and those of us who take advantage of this window will reap the benefits before things change again. 

Now if my magic 8 ball wasn't broken . . .


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> Coming home from the grocery store, my husband made an interesting observation about traditional publishing.
> 
> "It's like college. You don't have to go there to make money, but there are many jobs you can't apply to if you don't have a degree. It's hard to get into, and can cost a lot but in general, those who go through college will "in the long run" make more than those who go directly into the work world. But...you don't HAVE to go to college to make a million $'s some of the most successful people never got a degree."
> 
> This might be why Lee is suggesting to take a traditional deal if one comes along.


This is true at least on one level -- and I really agree with Lee that traditional publishing has lots to offer to the beginner in terms of experience.

Although, re college: Seth Godin did some research on the topic of MBAs, and came to the conclusion that those who just spent the two years interning got as far or farther in their careers than those who spent a lot of money on an MBA.

HOWEVER, both groups (those who got jobs and those who got MBAs) went and learned from experienced people in the business. I suspect Seth would be in favor of those who just jumped straight into business for themselves, but I don't know that even he would support the idea that they could learn as well without the structure and demands of an established business with bosses and mentors to guide the newbie.

That doesn't mean that any particular solution is good for everyone or even a majority, but every solution has its points to be acknowledged.

Camille


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Jeff said:


> The tone of these discussions that Mr. Goldberg prompts often decays into "them versus us" because of the use of words like _swill_. Sadly, it's a perfectly appropriate term for some self-published work. How could it not be when anyone with a computer and a little technical knowledge can publish a book?


You've nailed it. When anyone can publish with a mouse-click, you are going to get inundated with garbage. All you've got to do is browse Smashwords to discover that for yourself.



> The other side of that coin are the few truly wonderful books and the many _diamonds in the rough_ that are emerging every day. I've had the opportunity to read dozens of well told stories by self-published authors that I would have never had without this new technology.


I wholeheartedly agree. But finding them amidst the rising tide of horrific crap isn't easy...and it's not going to get any easier.



> Admittedly, some were desperately in need of basic proof-reading, copy editing and formatting, however I've also read some eBooks by established authors that have the same problems. Case in point: _Dances With Wolves_ by award winning writer Michael Blake published by ZOVA Books. The book is amateurishly formatted, fraught with typos and other glaring errors. Fortunately the tale is so well told by Mr. Blake that the book is still a pleasure to read.


It's not the typos and formatting errors that I am talking about. It's the astonishing number of self-published books written by people who can't compose a simple sentence, who don't understand verb/tense agreement, who are completely confounded by what constitutes a paragraph. I'm talking about books written by people who haven't acquired the basic skills of an average sixth grader. Go to Smashwords, the site is rife with examples.

And then there are those who _can_ write a clear sentence but have no mastery of the basics of creating a character, setting a scene, or telling a story. Clearly, they have never taken a creative writing course to learn the basics. Who cares if a book is properly formatted and typo free if it is totally inept?



> My own approach has been to makes notes of typos and other errors while reading and then offering my notes to the author or publisher. I've had one or two "mind your own business" replies, but most are gracious if not grateful. I also offer free formatting and other technical help that might be useful to anyone who asks. Perhaps some of you have a little extra time. If nothing else, couching public comments in a positive manner might be helpful.


It's extraordinarily helpful and much appreciated. Every time I think I have caught all the errors in my books -- self-published and pro-published -- a reader will catch another one. I can't do much for the pro-published books, but I can at least keep updating the self-published ones!

Lee


----------



## Beth O (Jul 9, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't go the other way around - Amazon buying major publishers or booksellers. Although I expect Google will be more likely on that one....
> 
> Except -- in reading the industry news and blogs, I noticed a trend of what some Big 6 insiders seem to be expecting (which is a sign of what they're angling for). They're angling to be media producers. They're talking about the next wave in publishing as being enhanced ebooks (which they seem to define as early generation video games -- but they are suits). I read one major executive declare that ordinary prose fiction is dead.
> 
> ...


But this is where the big media players (and I'm talking studios/networks/cable channels/mini-majors) have the edge. I do a lot of book deals wearing my other hat--attorney. When an author sells motion picture/tv rights they reserve publication rights. Those reserved publication rights include audio books, and now ebooks, but, so far at least, ebooks have always been limited to *non-moving images*. I don't see the studios, etc. giving that one up. As soon as it starts becoming interactive, they see that as merchandising (which rights they also acquire). And as soon as it starts to contain moving images, it starts to look like what they consider their territory to be. If the author has already given up those rights to a publisher, then the publisher will have to get into business with the studio, but it will not be the publisher controlling the process IMO.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> Just at a guess, most of those reviewers are disgruntled indies. He's never been anything but honest about how he feels, but there are a number of people (many I suspect don't post here) who really seem to be out to get him for honestly saying what he thinks. It's ridiculous and gives us all a bad name.
> 
> Camille


I appreciate the post, Camille. But I have to disagree on one point -- my .357 VIGILANTE/JURY books _were_ badly edited and formatted and rife with errors. It was a problem of my own making and inexperience. Early on, I tried scanning, editing and formatting the books myself and made a huge number of dumb, embarrassing mistakes (like inadvertently publishing my unedited manuscript instead of the corrected one!!). I got smart and hired professional formatters and copy editors to go through all of my books and make sure they are clean and professional. But it's quite possible that someone bought a JURY book a year ago, only got around to reading it now, and is getting slammed by bad formatting and typos that have since been corrected. And it seems no matter how many times I go through those [email protected]#$ JURY books, readers keep finding errors that we missed.

Lee


----------



## Budo von Stahl (Aug 31, 2010)

Lees experience is what I have been hinting at (and I'm guilty as charged, too).  He ended up hiring his own editor(s).  I'll wager a blind bet that it cost him less to have that done than it does a trad outfit with full-time editors on staff at all times.  Hence, he is now in control of what it costs him to prep (which would have come out of his royalties anyway, just less now).  Same with illustration.  Formatters are a new industry, but case in point.  Content editing, however, for Indies, becomes the reviewer.  As the trough fills higher and higher, it will become less and less attractive for buyers to sift through it, and they will eventually gravitate to reviewers' pages.  Of course, this places the onus on reviewers to be consistent and as impartial as possible, but that's biz.  It's new, it's going to change, and those who get in early and work for the changes the industry needs will be the ones who profit most.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I hope people are paying attention because you are making some excellent points. People here are way too hung up on Kindle ranking...*and paying dearly for it.* Believe me, you can make a huge amount of money remaining comfortably in the top 2000 and with books priced at $2.99.
> 
> Lee


Lee, if all 4 of your books were priced at 99 cents and you were in the top 100 in US and UK, you'd be making $28,000 this month, instead of $6,600.

Just sayin...

Vicki


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> (re diamonds in the rough) I wholeheartedly agree. But finding them amidst the rising tide of horrific crap isn't easy...and it's not going to get any easier.


Lee, I've felt this was your main point, or the subtext for it anyway, for the whole thread. (i.e. traditional publishing will help you raise above that mountain of dreck.) I wrote a blog post in response, but I won't be posting it soon, because I'm posting about other things this week. But I'll post it here:

MITTENS AND HIS ROVING VACUUM (and other threats to life as we know it)

Lee Goldberg recently lamented the "tsunami of swill" that is headed our way in the the New World Order of Independent Publishing. He's absolutely right about the amount of crap that is out there. He's wrong to worry about it.

But...but...but how will we ever find good books among all the horrible ones out there?

Well, how do you find books now? Think about that a minute.

(I'll give you a hint, you don't look at every book listed in the Browker catalog.)

How did you find your last cool YouTube video? The one with the cute otters learning to swim, or the cat on the roomba or the really mind-blowing short commentary on some aspect of the world today?

Somebody sent it to you.

Or you already knew you liked a particular thing and you searched on "cat on roomba" or "students backwards lip sync" and voila, a whole bunch of stuff was presented to you, with the most likely candidates at the top (but you could change the sort terms to new or whatever you wanted), and you glanced through them and you probably rated the best ones and sent the very best one to all your cat-vacuum friends.

Or somebody posted it on a blog, or it got to Yahoo Video's top videos, and you never consciously searched for it at all.

It ain't hard.

Don't worry about it.
***

That was the end of the post, but because that was directed at readers, I'll say one more thing for the writers: you get noticed among a mountain of swill the same way you do everything on the internet. To oversimplify it: backlinks. (Which are WAY better than word of mouth.)

You make something really cool, and you start by promoting to those who are open to it. If your work really IS cool, they promote it to their network. You keep spreading the word in small ways as you make MORE cool stuff. In the internet, nearly all these interactions are ON RECORD and stay that way. The more of them you have, the higher the quality of them, the more cachet you have with search engines. (Or as many call it, the more SEO Juice you have.) The key is the words "high quality." Spam interactions tend to be expunged or filtered out, or can get you blacklisted if there's too much of it and not enough quality.

Of course, I am talking in Google terms above -- and that is very relevant to us, but not as relevant as Amazon's algorithms, and the human algorithms of the people you might call "first responders." They're the people who like combing through the swill to find stuff. Those algorithms (human or not) work the same way.

Camille

(And just by way of illustration, I bet most of you have seen this. If not, you just found it without even looking.)


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Good post, Camille, I totally agree with you.

Vicki


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> Lee, if all 4 of your books were priced at 99 cents and you were in the top 100 in US and UK, you'd be making $28,000 this month, instead of $6,600.


How do you figure that?

Admittedly, I am not a math whiz by any stretch (as my wife and daughter will be the first to tell you), but I am sitting here with a calculator and I can't make the numbers work to come up with that result.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> How do you figure that?
> 
> Admittedly, I am not a math whiz by any stretch (as my wife and daughter will be the first to tell you), but I am sitting here with a calculator and I can't make the numbers work to come up with that result.
> 
> Lee


Just going by what I'm selling, I'll make $7,000 this month with one book. If I had four with the same sales, priced the same, I would make $28,000.

Vicki


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Victorine said:


> Just going by what I'm selling, I'll make $7,000 this month with one book. If I had four with the same sales, priced the same, I would make $28,000.
> Vicki


But to throw the "competing" argument into play ....

I'm selling 90 books a day at $4.95 which is = $9,667 so if he put all 4 of his books at $4.95 he would be making $38,670


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> But to throw the "competing" argument into play ....
> 
> I'm selling 90 books a day at $4.95 which is = $9,667 so if he put all 4 of his books at $4.95 he would be making $38,670


Ha! You're right. 

Do you spend money on marketing each month? Just curious.

Vicki


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

rsullivan9597 said:


> But to throw the "competing" argument into play ....
> 
> I'm selling 90 books a day at $4.95 which is = $9,667 so if he put all 4 of his books at $4.95 he would be making $38,670


That's my point. Vicki could be making a LOT more money even if she sells dramatically fewer books. But, and I mean no offense at all by this, Amazon sales rank seems to be more important to her than money.

If she raised her price from 99 cents to $2.99 and only sold 5000 books-a-month instead of 20,000, she'd still be making $10,300...$3K more than she is making now. And that's assuming her sales drop dramatically. Think what she could make if her sales dropped only by half to 10,000-copies-a-month... she'd be earning $20,600 instead of $7K.

To me, raising the price in her case is a no-brainer, but maybe I am putting more value on money than she does on wider reader penetration. Though I would argue that, at this point, she can have her cake an eat it, too. She's already given away at least 31,000 books at 99 cents. She can afford to stop leaving money on the table now.

The bottom line is that I am making about as much money a month as she is while selling only about 3100 books. I don't need sell 20,000 copies to earn as much...or more. Personally, I would take the money over the ranking myself, but that's just me.

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

But, see, I'm betting that I'll be better off coming out with my next novel at $2.99 while my first book is still in the top 100.  I'm hoping I'll be selling at least half as good with the higher priced novel.  If that's the case, I'll be selling 10,000 books each month and making $20,000 a month on book #2.  That's a total of $27,000.  When book three comes out, I hope to do the same as well.

Vicki


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

I like how these topics always get ugly.  

And, as far as "Us vs. Them" please remember that indie authors (or whatever we chose to call ourselves) did not start this war.  Maybe a few of the battles...but not the war itself.  

It's always the trad pub authors looking down their noses at us, and making their sophomoric "mean girlz" comments.  And, then we get offended and stand up for ourselves, which is only natural.  
We verbally snipe in return. 

Look nobody is bothered by bad indie books more than other indie authors.  I really wish some of the self-published authors out there would step up their game. I used to rant about this too. 

But then I realized that I'm not responsible for all of their books.  I'm only responsible for my own.  I need to make my books the best they can be so they get noticed, and subsequently read.  

Sure, I might email someone if I noticed a typo, or poor formatting...or a misspelled word.  But, I am not going to judge it all as "swill" and tell everyone how much better I am.  That's not my style.  

And, as far as pushing indie authors to step up their game...well Julie (Bards & Sages) does a much better job at it, than I do.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Victorine said:


> Ha! You're right.
> 
> Do you spend money on marketing each month? Just curious.
> 
> Vicki


No. I never have. At times I've been active "sending review copies" but I've not done much of that as of late because I already have so many reviews that a few more really won't make a difference - that being said I send out 1 this week and maybe 1 a month or so ago.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> No. I never have. At times I've been active "sending review copies" but I've not done much of that as of late because I already have so many reviews that a few more really won't make a difference - that being said I send out 1 this week and maybe 1 a month or so ago.


Nice.  I think having one of Michael's books go "free" on Amazon really helped.

Hey, I sent you a PM about foreign rights. 

Vicki


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

This whole argument about swill and rough diamonds in the indie ranks assumes that traditionally published books are all diamonds, but this is simply not true. There is a fair amount of swill put out by paper publishers, and it fills the bargain bins and shelves of my local department store to the brim with books that don't sell, written by anonymous authors who have sold fewer books than many independent ebook publishers.

And how would you rate poorly written 'celebrity' books that have no literary or cultural value and are just cash cows? Shouldn't they be considered swill, despite often selling millions of units?

You are right, a sweep through Smashwords reveals a wealth of dross, but most of it is so obviously dross that it is easily ignored. The same can't be said for traditionally published books, where the dross is often hidden behind slick marketing and fake reviews. I recently bought _Yoga For People Who Can't Be Bothered_ and it was terrible. The inane ramblings of a self absorbed goose. It was like _Eat Prey Love_ for the spiritually bereft.

The point I'm trying to make (I may be rambling a bit because my son keeps hitting me with a foam sword and breaking my concentration) is that swill is prevalent in both trad and indie published worlds. Whether it is anonymous books filling shelves at the supermarket or heavily marketed crap making promises that the books don't deliver, trad publishing has swill too.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Victorine said:


> But, see, I'm betting that I'll be better off coming out with my next novel at $2.99 while my first book is still in the top 100. I'm hoping I'll be selling at least half as good with the higher priced novel. If that's the case, I'll be selling 10,000 books each month and making $20,000 a month on book #2. That's a total of $27,000. When book three comes out, I hope to do the same as well.
> 
> Vicki


Great. But where's the second book? If it's months down the road, I believe you are screwing yourself big time. If it's next week, that's another matter and I would leave your book priced as it is.

For instance, if I had a series of four books in my back list that I was bringing to the Kindle, I might price the first one in the series at 99 cents and leave it there for months while pricing all the others at $2.99... as long as the other books are there to be bought. But your second book doesn't exist for purchase yet. And by the time it does, how much money will you have lost?

Lee


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I hope to have it out next month.  

Vicki


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> This whole argument about swill and rough diamonds in the indie ranks assumes that traditionally published books are all diamonds, but this is simply not true. There is a fair amount of swill put out by paper publishers, and it fills the bargain bins and shelves of my local department store to the brim with books that don't sell, written by anonymous authors who have sold fewer books than many independent ebook publishers.
> 
> And how would you rate poorly written 'celebrity' books that have no literary or cultural value and are just cash cows? Shouldn't they be considered swill, despite often selling millions of units?
> 
> ...


Exactly. Very well said.


----------



## Abigail (Apr 27, 2010)

Steph H said:


> Vicki, I applaud you for not slapping some folks silly who continually (in thread after thread, not just this one) try to tell YOU how you should price YOUR book no matter how many times you've confidently laid out your planning for the current book and the next ones. If you came here asking for advice on your price plans, that would be one thing, but you have continued to explain your reasons for keeping your book at 99 cents and some folks just can't seem to take it at face value. I know it's driving me crazy, and I have nothing to do with any of it personally!
> 
> So kudos to you for knowing what you want to do with it, at least at this point in time, and not allowing others to bludgeon you into changing your plans.


Here here.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> The point I'm trying to make (I may be rambling a bit because my son keeps hitting me with a foam sword and breaking my concentration) is that swill is prevalent in both trad and indie published worlds. Whether it is anonymous books filling shelves at the supermarket or heavily marketed crap making promises that the books don't deliver, trad publishing has swill too.


Oh, I agree. But I would argue the percentage of self-published books that are swill is far higher than the percentage you'll find among professionally published books. FAR, far higher.

Lee


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Oh, I agree. But I would argue the percentage of self-published books that are swill is far higher than the percentage you'll find among professionally published books. FAR, far higher.
> 
> Lee


But the point is the dreck amoungst self-published titles gets *IGNORED*. Nobody really sees it.

Nobody is twisting your arm to buy them. You ignore them, and move on to find _better books._ And, I bet you've even forgot the titles of half of those books.

(Okay, if you go to lulu or smashwords to do your book buying than maybe you _see more_
of it. I stay away from Smashwords as a customer, because it kind of reminds me of a 70's porno book store. LOL)

You can't say the same for books like _Twilight_, which are laughably bad yet shoved into our faces. I don't care how many books it's sold, I can't even get through the first page of it. But it's out there for all of the world to see that the Emperor has no clothes.

And Paris Hilton? You can't tell me she's a literary genius just because she's commercially published. She's published because of her family's fame and money (which is how she gets through life.) 
Her book was a friggin' joke! Seriously. 
I thumbed through a copy at Borders, in which she went on about what track suits were sexier to wear.


----------



## Miriam Minger (Nov 27, 2010)

In regard to Smashwords, many formerly out-of-print authors have published their books there to reach Smashwords affiliates such as Apple, Sony, Diesel, Kobo, Amazon, and B&N--as well as Smashwords own customers.  These authors are critically acclaimed, multi-published, and proven bestsellers.  I've been very happy with my experience there and will continue to publish with them.

Miriam Minger


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> You can't say the same for books like _Twilight_, which are laughably bad yet shoved into our faces. I don't care how many books it's sold, I can't even get through the first page of it. But it's out there for all of the world to see that the Emperor has no clothes.
> 
> And Paris Hilton? You can't tell me she's a literary genius just because she's commercially published. She's published because of her family's fame and money (which is how she gets through life.) Her book was a friggin' joke! Seriously. I thumbed through a copy at Borders, in which she went on about what track suits were sexier to wear.


^^This^^

There's no doubt there's a ton of indie "swill" out there, but it's easy to ignore it. When publishers release the stuff, it's hard to avoid it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2011)

Daniel Arenson said:


> ^^This^^
> 
> There's no doubt there's a ton of indie "swill" out there, but it's easy to ignore it. When publishers release the stuff, it's hard to avoid it.


I heard Snooki's a New York Times best-selling author now. Literature professors better make room in their syllabi!


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

Miriam Minger said:


> In regard to Smashwords, many formerly out-of-print authors have published their books there to reach Smashwords affiliates such as Apple, Sony, Diesel, Kobo, Amazon, and B&N--as well as Smashwords own customers. These authors are critically acclaimed, multi-published, and proven bestsellers. I've been very happy with my experience there and will continue to publish with them.
> 
> Miriam Minger


Smashwords still has a very high percentage of crap. Do you go to Smashwords when you're looking for something new to read?


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Asher MacDonald said:


> Smashwords still has a very high percentage of crap. Do you go to Smashwords when you're looking for something new to read?


Do readers encounter the crap by browsing Smashwords, though? I only go there (as a reader) when I've followed a link to a book I'm already interested in.


----------



## Rye (Nov 18, 2008)

RJ Keller said:


> Do readers encounter the crap by browsing Smashwords, though? I only go there (as a reader) when I've followed a link to a book I'm already interested in.


I've heard of some readers who buy mostly from Smashwords. Though I'm not aware if they browse there or they do their browsing elsewhere and just purchase through them.


----------



## Stuffeshead (Jan 19, 2011)

Hello, all - First post here (been lurking for weeks).

I'm curious to hear Lee's thought on a $.99 price point as a kickoff to get reviews and some word-of-mouth momentum (say, something like 90 days), followed by an increase to the $2.99 price point.  I'm encouraged by the writers here and their good experiences, and I'm considering a couple of publishing efforts to jump into the fray.  Before I do, I'd like to gather even more opinions on the Amazon/Kindle price philosophies.

Stuffeshead


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

RJ Keller said:


> Do readers encounter the crap by browsing Smashwords, though? I only go there (as a reader) when I've followed a link to a book I'm already interested in.


I sent my daughter a link to book on Smashwords and she accused me of sending her to a pornography site.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

Jeff said:


> I sent my daughter a link to book on Smashwords and she accused me of sending her to a pornography site.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Thought experiment:

Suppose we do arrive at a point where ebooks dominate fiction, and paper fiction is rare? In that world, how would the prestige Goldberg assigns to being published by a publishing company accrue to an author? In that world, how would any fiction author answer the observatuion that 98% of it is swill?


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

Hi all,

Great discussion here. I'll add some additional perspective related to recent comments on the thread.

Sales at Smashwords.com are up nearly 50% in January from December levels, and traffic for the trailing 30 day period is up 30% over the prior month. This, despite the fact that we've never considered ourselves a retailer. We're a publishing and distribution platform. When we launched 3 years ago, we offered the retailing piece so our authors could use us as their transaction processing platform, because at the time few retailers accepted indie ebooks. Later, we offered distribution to Apple, Sony, B&N, Kobo and others. Our main focus at Smashwords is distribution, which is where the bulk of our sales come from.

Authors are wise to obtain the widest possible distribution for their books. Let the reader decide where they prefer to purchase. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if readers purchase our books at Smashwords or at one of our retailers, as long as they purchase them. The retailers earn every penny of their commission, so it's a win win for all of us.

We have always encouraged our authors to link directly to their book pages - not to avoid erotica - but because a direct link offers the customer the best experience. You want to minimize the clickstream so the reader can go straight to sampling and purchasing. If you're sending readers to purchase your book at Amazon, you're wise to do a direct link as well. Otherwise you risk losing the reader to the five listings of Crest toothpaste I'm now seeing on their home page.

For folks concerned about erotica at Smashwords, I share your concern. My concern is that we're pushing it in the faces of readers who aren't asking for it or looking for it. This is due to our current publishing workflow that lists the latest releases on the home page, as they come in. We're planning to move to a permission-based system. We'll still list the content, and in some ways make it even more discoverable to people who are looking for it, while at the same time insulating first time visitors who hit the home page from getting an unintentional eyeful of surprise. I addressed some of the plans we're considering in my Smashwords year in review: http://blog.smashwords.com/2010/12/smashwords-year-in-review-plans-for.html

Thanks all.

Mark


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

Stuffeshead said:


> Hello, all - First post here (been lurking for weeks).
> 
> I'm curious to hear Lee's thought on a $.99 price point as a kickoff to get reviews and some word-of-mouth momentum (say, something like 90 days), followed by an increase to the $2.99 price point. I'm encouraged by the writers here and their good experiences, and I'm considering a couple of publishing efforts to jump into the fray. Before I do, I'd like to gather even more opinions on the Amazon/Kindle price philosophies.
> 
> Stuffeshead


Stuff,

I'm in the process of doing that myself. Calling Crow, first in my three book series, is on sale till April for 99 cents. After which it will rise to $2.99. Stay tuned!


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

MarkCoker said:


> Hi all,
> 
> we've never considered ourselves a retailer. We're a publishing and distribution platform. When we launched 3 years ago, we offered the retailing piece so our authors could use us as their transaction processing platform, because at the time few retailers accepted indie ebooks. Later, we offered distribution to Apple, Sony, B&N, Kobo and others. Our main focus at Smashwords is distribution, which is where the bulk of our sales come from.
> 
> We have always encouraged our authors to link directly to their book pages - not to avoid erotica - but because a direct link offers the customer the best experience. You want to minimize the clickstream so the reader can go straight to sampling and purchasing. If you're sending readers to purchase your book at Amazon, you're wise to do a direct link as well. Otherwise you risk losing the reader to the five listings of Crest toothpaste I'm now seeing on their home page.


Yep. It's like YouTube. I don't go there and scroll through endless pages of videos, hoping something will catch my eye. I'm either sent to a specific video from a link someone has posted, or I do a search for something specific. Smashwords is the same way, so there's really no reason to worry about whether readers will find you amongst the "swill."


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

MarkCoker said:


> For folks concerned about erotica at Smashwords, I share your concern. My concern is that we're pushing it in the faces of readers who aren't asking for it or looking for it. This is due to our current publishing workflow that lists the latest releases on the home page, as they come in. We're planning to move to a permission-based system.


Just moving the prude filter to the TOP of the page, rather the bottom might help. Make it more easily findable and prominent.

And thanks, Mark, for the wonderful opportunities you've given us. (My only complaint is not really a complaint. I'm just impatient -- I think I'm doing really well at B&N this month based on rankings, but I don't know for sure, and it's really hard to wait for those numbers....)

Camille


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> This whole argument about swill and rough diamonds in the indie ranks assumes that traditionally published books are all diamonds, but this is simply not true. There is a fair amount of swill put out by paper publishers, and it fills the bargain bins and shelves of my local department store to the brim with books that don't sell, written by anonymous authors who have sold fewer books than many independent ebook publishers.
> 
> And how would you rate poorly written 'celebrity' books that have no literary or cultural value and are just cash cows? Shouldn't they be considered swill, despite often selling millions of units?
> 
> ...


That is SO true! (Well, I can't confirm the foam sword part, but the rest  )


----------



## bobavey (Sep 14, 2010)

Interesting article. Like most, I can see merit in both points of view.


----------



## MarkCoker (Feb 15, 2009)

RJ Keller said:


> Yep. It's like YouTube. I don't go there and scroll through endless pages of videos, hoping something will catch my eye. I'm either sent to a specific video from a link someone has posted, or I do a search for something specific. Smashwords is the same way, so there's really no reason to worry about whether readers will find you amongst the "swill."


Exactly, RJ. If you think about it, whatever would never interest the reader is unwanted, and by that definition 95% of the books found in the average brick and mortar bookstore fall into that category of clutter that gets in the way. The advantage of online retailing is that you can click on that category link, and suddenly you're transported into a narrowly defined custom bookstore of your own making, and with another click you can read what your peers with common interests are reading, as voted on by their pocketbooks and reviews. Good stuff is more accessible to readers than ever before, and like so many posters here correctly pointed out, the bad stuff disappears quickly.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Mark,

Thanks for the post. I know we all appreciate the free and easy access that Smashwords has given writers to so many e-platforms. I do wish, however, that Smashwords would let us upload epubs directly rather than relying on your "meatgrinder" to make them for us.

Lee


----------



## Molly Lewis (Jan 25, 2011)

Jeff said:


> Case in point: _Dances With Wolves_ by award winning writer Michael Blake published by ZOVA Books. The book is amateurishly formatted, fraught with typos and other glaring errors. Fortunately the tale is so well told by Mr. Blake that the book is still a pleasure to read.
> 
> My intent here is not to throw stones at Mr. Goldberg, ZOVA Books or traditional publishers but to ask how we as members of this new community can help clean up the "swill" that's been discussed and improve the terrific books that just need some polish. My own approach has been to makes notes of typos and other errors while reading and then offering my notes to the author or publisher. I've had one or two "mind your own business" replies, but most are gracious if not grateful. I also offer free formatting and other technical help that might be useful to anyone who asks. Perhaps some of you have a little extra time. If nothing else, couching public comments in a positive manner might be helpful.


I am the publisher of ZOVA Books and Mr. Blake's e-book version of Dances With Wolves. I agree with Jeff. We do not want a poor product on the market, do not want "swill," and do not want to put any of our work through the "meat grinder." The errors in Dances came from having to scan the original manuscript - there is no electronic version of the book available (it was originally released in 198. Once we read Jeff's post, we immediately went to work and line edited the book again to clean up the typos. Now, sentence structure, etc. is purely on the author, but putting out a version of the book that is faithful to the classic is our number one priority. If Jeff hadn't given us a head's up, we wouldn't have stopped the presses and cleaned up the document. I don't want our company to be associated with swill, especially considering that the author is a personal friend and we have the utmost respect for him and his work. Thank you, Jeff.

Molly Lewis
Publisher
ZOVA Books


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

That's great news. _Dances With Wolves_ is a wonderful book and worthy of first class treatment as an ebook. I'll go see if I can take down my 4 star review from Amazon.

Edited to add: The review has been removed.


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I do wish, however, that Smashwords would let us upload epubs directly rather than relying on your "meatgrinder" to make them for us.


I'll second this. Due to extensive page links throughout my text, the meatgrinder is the sole thing keeping my book off of Smashwords.


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Oh, I agree. But I would argue the percentage of self-published books that are swill is far higher than the percentage you'll find among professionally published books. FAR, far higher.
> 
> Lee


Yep. Thank you, Lee, for speaking for readers who are discerning and knowledgable. I'm not sure that your intention is necessarily to speak for readers, but many of your posts in this thread resonate that way for me. Because I don't have a horse in the race, I don't find any of it offensive, although I do note that some authors have become defensive. Yes, you are blunt. I like blunt fine. Naturally, I don't like blunt when it has a message that doesn't fit with my world. But your comments don't upset my *reader* world at all.

I have to admit that my jaw is on the floor sometimes when I read posts here. Readers appear to be completely underestimated by authors, and I can't help but think that it is convenient to underestimate them in order to fit in with a particular world view ... or business plan, if you will. It doesn't always jibe with *reality* - at least not mine.

I personally don't know anybody who doesn't know the difference between a trad pub and an indie, but I'm sure there are probably readers out there who have no clue. I just don't hang out with anybody, online or IRL, who is as naive as those readers whom authors on this board appear to be discussing. Heck, even my mother can spot most indies when she has no clue one way or the other. I gave her one of my favorite indie ebooks to read - I mean straight indie, never been trad-pubbed - and she remarked, "I liked the story, but the writing was pretty basic, don't you think." I agreed. I also realized that I give leeway for some indies with promise, and I almost have a school teacher's love of this promising student. But I do not believe they are yet able to play with the 'big boys'. This particular book I gave my mother was cleanly edited, so there were no errors to report, but she sensed the difference. This was before she knew about the "Go to" function on the Kindle where you can see the cover and the publisher imprint. She started the book at the "beginning." She reads like a fiend - mostly trad-pub. She loves Konrath, but she doesn't know the publishing history. He reads like a trad-pub because he was once. She does know the difference, rather instinctively. Discerning readers usually do, frankly.

I'm not saying there aren't fabulous indies who are just as good as anything I can get from a publisher because there are. I've read them. I've bubbled about them. (I've read a lot of crap too. I'm nice enough not to mention them.)

But the fact remains that I have to wade through tons of samples to find one book to read, and this is a big mess for readers. I have one-clicked titles based on glowing recommendations from indie fans (some of them might qualify as 'groupies'), and I have regretted it. I am now a very careful buyer. I know what I'm buying and why I'm buying it.

But as to the mentality that if I buy a $.99 book, I'll expect $.99 quality - bleh. That is rubbish to me. A good book is a good book. I'm not a K-mart blue light special shopper who thinks that I'll take garbage just because it's cheap. When I read a book, it's a book. Standards apply. If it's $.99 and it's crap, I don't say "it was okay for the money." It was either good or it wasn't. Money is not a factor in my perception of how the book reads. So when I read that indies want to influence 'perceived value' by jacking up prices, I shake my head. This does not help my perception of value. I understand the indie market. I know why prices are low. I judge a book by its content. Period. If I see willy-nilly price hiking, I just think its an author trying to get more money. But that's just me.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Good points, but I want to clarify what I think is one of the issues:

When writers here say that readers can't tell the difference between an indie and a traditionally published author, they don't mean that the reader can't tell the difference in _quality_.

What they mean is that if you do a professional job -- in the writing, the editing, the cover, the blurb -- most readers don't know or care who the publisher is.

If the quality suffers, of course they know. That's not an issue here at all. People say it in response to those who wring their hands and say "but the world is MEAN to judge indies so unfairly." If you aren't doing a professional job, then it's not an unfair judgment. If you _are_ doing a professional job, then you aren't being judged.

There are sophisticated readers like you who frequent various forums and are aware of all the issues. But most readers don't know there is any controversy. They don't care how the book came to publication. They look at the cover, the blurb and the sample and say "not for me" if it's crap. A lot of them don't even bother to judge why, unless the book has something that got their interest. That doesn't mean they don't have an ability to judge. Far from it. They just don't want to waste one second of energy on something that doesn't interest them.

When people say this, they're actually giving the readers credit for being able to judge BY quality, rather than by labels.

Otherwise, good points. I do think in other areas of this forum, you do see a lot of pockets of disrespect for the reader -- a lot of promotion seems aimed at just racking points, and not actually connecting with readers. People tag and trade promotions on books they haven't read. There are sometimes discussions about reviews that disturb me a lot -- entitlements, trading.

I do think, though, that in this thread, it's respectful toward the readers to admit that they can and do identify crap just fine and they deal with it.

Camille


----------



## Scamp (Dec 31, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Good points, but I want to clarify what I think is one of the issues:
> 
> When writers here say that readers can't tell the difference between an indie and a traditionally published author, they don't mean that the reader can't tell the difference in _quality_.
> 
> What they mean is that if you do a professional job -- in the writing, the editing, the cover, the blurb -- most readers don't know or care who the publisher is.


That is an important distinction, and I thank you for pointing it out. I can say that, as a reader, whether I know it's indie or not, I won't care one whit who published it if the book is professional. I won't be loath to pay professional rates for a book of professional quality either, but I would think long and hard about paying higher rates for unknown authors. If I bought from Amazon, I would feel more comfortable because of the money-back guarantee. (I have another ereader, though, and divide my business.) There are too many variables with indie work, which make me uncomfortable about trusting a sample before I 1-click. (Endings. Many endings just bite. Many stories fall apart in the plotting at about the 2/3 point - I can almost look at the percentage read indicator and see the pattern begin.)

Here's the thing. I think that there are many indie authors who themselves don't see the difference in quality between their own work and trad-pub work, I guess in part because they are too close to their own work. They engage in a lot of self-talk that enhances their confidence, but it's not necessarily real-world grounded. I hear indies say things like "there is just as much good indie work as trad-pub." I do not agree. Some authors will see a particular author doing well, and they think they can mimic that author and do just as well. Okay, not always. Just as one example, not everyone can raise their prices to $4.95 just because Michael Sullivan can and hope to see anywhere near the results he has. They may think that if they lower their price they can hit the top 100 like Victorine has. Okay, again, not always. (Usually not.)

I won't go too deeply into the issue of indies not getting professional editing because I've talked that one to death, but I think it goes without saying that it's a problem. I do think that relying on a bunch of beta readers and calling it editing will not work for the vast majority of authors. There are some authors, rare though they may be, who have the skill level to get by with that, but not many.

Anyway, I think you are right about my perception being colored by living in a more knowledgable realm, although this is not just from online forums but also real life. My real life friends know indie music, indie film, indie books, indie games and know there are gems in a mass of mediocrity among all these art forms. All appreciate finding these gems and in fact pride themselves on doing so. Yes, I do live in something of a bubble. I do think, however, that more readers are aware of self-publishing than most authors are aware of. I see too many reviews that allude to this not to think that authors are in some cases seriously underestimating the *average* reader. Who knows? Just guessing - like everybody else here.

To be very clear, these are not observations that I make from "Kindle Boards authors," but of authors here, there, and everywhere. In fact, I would say from my own personal sampling of indie books, that you probably have a higher percentage of the cream of the crop here at KB than in the 'big world out there'. It happens to be one of the better places for 'book tasting' - I can go elsewhere for 'whine tasting'. (yuk yuk )

The reason I plague you all with my thoughts rather than post them elsewhere is that I feel/sense/believe that I have a more thoughtful and intelligent audience here. I also appreciate that I feel comfortable speaking my mind, in larage part because of the people who frequent this place.

I know I'm a pain in the backside, but I'm treated with courtesy anyway. Thanks.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Scamp said:


> Here's the thing. I think that there are many indie authors who themselves don't see the difference in quality between their own work and trad-pub work, I guess in part because they are too close to their own work. They engage in a lot of self-talk that enhances their confidence, but it's not necessarily real-world grounded. I hear indies say things like "there is just as much good indie work as trad-pub." I do not agree.


Oy, have you got that right. But I don't think it's just that they are fooling themselves. Many writers simply don't know. They lack the tools, experience and knowledge. The one thing, above all other things IMHO, that traditional publishing gave people is that it was SLOW, and therefore people had a chance to learn their craft and learn to be professional before they really got out and about.

Of course, once you do know your craft and are professional, the slowness is one of the worst things. Which is why so many pros are making the leap. Which is another point: when people talk about indie publishing, they're not just talking about the unwashed masses. There are a lot of published writers making the jump.



> The reason I plague you all with my thoughts rather than post them elsewhere is that I feel/sense/believe that I have a more thoughtful and intelligent audience here. I also appreciate that I feel comfortable speaking my mind, in larage part because of the people who frequent this place.
> 
> I know I'm a pain in the backside, but I'm treated with courtesy anyway. Thanks.


You're not plaguing anyone. You're enhancing the discussion with another perspective.

Camille


----------



## tonyaplank (Jun 14, 2010)

Not to get off topic (I have been thinking of Lee's arguments, just haven't come to my own conclusion yet) but since Mark is here, I just want to say one thing I think would improve Smashwords sales is allowing authors more room in their book descriptions to list any awards they may have won, as well as editorial reviews. I know you can put those inside the book, but I'd think people would be more tempted to download the sample or the book in the first place if the reviews were front and center on the book's description page. And then I assume those larger description pages with reviews would transfer to the distributees. 

My two cents. 

Thank you Mark!

And thank you Lee for a very thought-provoking discussion.


----------



## Jason G. Anderson (Sep 29, 2010)

tonyaplank said:


> I just want to say one thing I think would improve Smashwords sales is allowing authors more room in their book descriptions


They just (in the last week or two) increased the size of the description you can use for your book.


----------



## BarbaraSilkstone (Feb 18, 2010)

Publishing on Kindle was the best decision I ever made. 
This from a woman who flipped a coin to decide whether to get married or not.

Alice and the thug bunny are loving Kindle so much, they've recommended it to _Wendy & the Lost Boys. _

I love reading Konrath's blog for Newbies. It's been an inspiration.


----------



## JJWestendarp (Nov 2, 2010)

Scamp said:


> Readers appear to be completely underestimated by authors, and I can't help but think that it is convenient to underestimate them in order to fit in with a particular world view ... or business plan, if you will. It doesn't always jibe with *reality* - at least not mine.


I agree with both of your posts, but I wanted to point this one portion out.

I don't underestimate readers. I think it would be an insult to them to do so. I consider readers to be a very smart bunch, and I've seen people dissect a novel like it was vital to national security. But then I run into people who read a book _and just don't get it._ It's like they throw out all ability to reason through what the author is relaying to them. I mean, I've seen a person complain about the way the author explains what's going on, but then completely not understand the things not explained.

So if any author steps back and underestimates readers, they probably ran into too many of those types of people. Keep in mind too that usually the most vocal people are those not entirely happy with their experience. That's why it's probably a good idea for authors in general to just be happy to have reviews and ignore what they're saying. Less stressful that way.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Well, Lee, you sure do know how to get folks talkin'.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

Yes--it's been really enlightening to read Konrath's blog and I recently found another one which I found to be very inspiring and helpful: http://mlouisalocke.wordpress.com/ .

I only had one self-published book (the rest are small e-press) but I'm now considering starting a line of historical mysteries and self-publishing them. I have two in the polishing stage and one in the second draft stage, and I'm frankly tired of submitting, waiting, discussing changes, etc. I'm also tired of getting bad covers. hahaha (Not that ones I create would be better...although I would hope they would be.)

All my writer cronies are trying to dissuade me. They are all either NY published or still locked into that mind-set. Since I've now gotten at least one contract (Five Star/Gale) with a bigger publisher and five with small pubs, I feel better prepared to try self-publishing again and more seriously than my first meager attempt.

The market is changing so much and so rapidly that I, personally, don't see much difference between self-publishing and traditional publishing. From a reader's perspective, there is no difference. In fact, they have no idea there is a difference for the most part (unless they've tried to write). It's only the writers that continue to maintain the fence between the two worlds. I've seen dreck self-published and dreck from traditional publishers. It's true that there is significantly more dreck from self-publishers since that avenue lacks the initial editor assessment phase, but...I think good writing is available in both worlds.

Anyway, I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this and if they have noticed any difference in acceptance since this revolution started.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

I'm not "underestimating readers."  Think outside the box, for a minute.  

If you buy your own ISBN, and use an imprint name and do a professional job with publishing, formatting, get capable (yet affordable) editing, and have a copyright page that looks like a REAL copyright page, most readers will not know the difference.  

If you use LULU/Createspace/Xlibris and you publish under their ISBN...and the reader just happens to know that those companies are self-publishing companies...then, yes.  They'll know it's self-published.  Will they turn their nose up at it?  Not if it's a good enough book that even if they do have biases, they can be overcome. 

I do confess that sometimes I even confuse a book released by a small press with one that is independently published.  I've seen small press published books that weren't edited well, and I know of indie authors who actually spend a lot of money for the best possible editing services.


----------



## tonyaplank (Jun 14, 2010)

jasonga said:


> They just (in the last week or two) increased the size of the description you can use for your book.


Thank you for letting me know!



Amy Corwin said:


> All my writer cronies are trying to dissuade me. They are all either NY published or still locked into that mind-set.


Me too. All my friends keep telling me to stop this "silliness" and, for my next book, get a "real" publisher. Thing is, with the exception of one friend who's published with a large press, I've sold more books than they have. And I'm not even one of the top sellers here, far from it...


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

If you have the goods, life's too short to wait. Hidden gold is lost gold. The world should not be denied an opportunity to touch the collective imagination. To those who deny both the world and themselves, their larder deserves absolute obscurity. For those who share, obscurity is relative and a spark remains to keep the embers warm.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## LeighSaunders (Jan 17, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> When writers here say that readers can't tell the difference between an indie and a traditionally published author, they don't mean that the reader can't tell the difference in _quality_.
> What they mean is that if you do a professional job -- in the writing, the editing, the cover, the blurb -- most readers don't know or care who the publisher is.


This is so true. While I can name many of my favorite authors without even trying, I would have to go look at their books to see who published them.
And while I'm happy to read self-published work, I've deliberately avoided books that screamed "self-published" (including, sad to say, many from professional publishers) due to poor cover art, awful cover blurb, lack of copyediting, etc. When the author doesn't take the time to present his/her work professionally, I have no confidence about the quality of the content. On the other hand, if a book's presentation is good, and it catches my reader-cookies, I'll have a look at what's inside. 



Amy Corwin said:


> The market is changing so much and so rapidly that I, personally, don't see much difference between self-publishing and traditional publishing. From a reader's perspective, there is no difference. In fact, they have no idea there is a difference for the most part (unless they've tried to write). It's only the writers that continue to maintain the fence between the two worlds. I've seen dreck self-published and dreck from traditional publishers. It's true that there is significantly more dreck from self-publishers since that avenue lacks the initial editor assessment phase, but...I think good writing is available in both worlds.


Yes, yes, and yes. 
All the more reason to put your best work out there, so people can find it. The dreck will sink like a stone.



MarkCoker said:


> Authors are wise to obtain the widest possible distribution for their books. Let the reader decide where they prefer to purchase. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if readers purchase our books at Smashwords or at one of our retailers, as long as they purchase them. The retailers earn every penny of their commission, so it's a win win for all of us.


Thanks, Mark, for all your work (and that of your team) in creating Smashwords. What a great service you've provided to writers -- both new, and those with languishing backlists. Kudos to you, sir! 
And I absolutely agree - let the reader choose how they want to read.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Hidden gold is lost gold.


Nicely put. And so true.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Nicely put. And so true.


Thanks, Jack. I just corrected the paragraph. I composed it on the blackberry and I have fat thumbs. Some words got shifted and I added some need things, like commas. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Miriam Minger (Nov 27, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> If you have the goods, life's too short to wait. Hidden gold is lost gold. The world should not be denied an opportunity to touch the collective imagination. To those who deny both the world and themselves, their larder deserves absolute obscurity. For those who share, obscurity is relative and a spark remains to keep the embers warm.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Love that, Edward!

Miriam Mnger


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Miriam Minger said:


> Love that, Edward!
> 
> Miriam Mnger


Thank you, Miriam. I did too.  So much so, I reported it in my Extempore thread (which will be published in a near term non-fiction book called _*A Reader's Guide to Author's Jargon and other Ravings from the Blogosphere*_. 

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Well said, Ed.


----------



## Miriam Minger (Nov 27, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Thank you, Miriam. I did too.  So much so, I reported it in my Extempore thread (which will be published in a near term non-fiction book called _*A Reader's Guide to Author's Jargon and other Ravings from the Blogosphere*_.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Very cool.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> If you have the goods, life's too short to wait. Hidden gold is lost gold. The world should not be denied an opportunity to touch the collective imagination. To those who deny both the world and themselves, their larder deserves absolute obscurity. For those who share, obscurity is relative and a spark remains to keep the embers warm.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Wow Ed, you should be...a writer


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm considering it.   Thanks.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## J.M Pierce (May 13, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> If you have the goods, life's too short to wait. Hidden gold is lost gold. The world should not be denied an opportunity to touch the collective imagination. To those who deny both the world and themselves, their larder deserves absolute obscurity. For those who share, obscurity is relative and a spark remains to keep the embers warm.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


I'm printing this off and hanging it on my wall. Very inspirational, Ed!


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

I've gotten a lot of flack from some folks here for suggesting that the majority of self-published books are awful... and for saying that the stigma attached to self-published work is often well-deserved.... as if I am the only guy out there who has ever made those observations. Obviously, I'm not. Yesterday, novelist Charlie Wendig wrote a hilarious and genuinely insightful  blog post  about the stigma attached to self-publishing and how to avoid it. Here's a taste:



> I (and I'm sure other capable writers) have noticed and noted that self-publishing bears a certain stigma. With the term comes the distinct aroma of flopsweat born out of the desperation of Amateur Hour - it reeks of late night Karaoke, of meth-addled Venice Beach ukelele players, of middle-aged men who play basketball and still clutch some secret dream of "going pro" despite having a gut that looks like they ate a basketball rather than learned to play with one.
> 
> Self-publishing just can't get no respect. This is, of course, in contrast to other DIY endeavors.[...]This is in part because it's a lot harder to put an album or a film out into the world. You don't just vomit it forth. Some modicum of talent and skill must be present to even contemplate such an endeavor and to attain any kind of distribution. The self-publishing community has no such restriction. It is blissfully easy to be self-published. I could take this blog post, put it up on the Amazon Kindle store and in 24 hours you could download it for ninety-nine cents. It's like being allowed to make my own clothing line out of burlap and pubic hair and being allowed to hang it on the racks at J.C. Penney.


That last line just killed me. And it's not even the funniest bit in his post. What's great is that he doesn't just take cheap shots at some of the bad, self-published writers out there. By using strong examples, he clearly and hilariously illustrates the many cringe-inducing mistakes made by aspiring writers and, at the same time, offers solid advice on how to avoid "gumming up the plumbing with your old underpants." It's a very entertaining read and worthwhile read...and I'd be curious to hear your take on his observations.

Lee


----------



## Shane Jiraiya Cummings (Feb 2, 2011)

Hi Lee,

I agree with you 100%. It's a golden age for self publishing, and I think too much of that shiny golden glare is getting into people's eyes and causing them to have delusions of competence. I come from a traditional publishing background as an author, and until very recently, I staunchly agreed with organisations such as the Horror Writers Association (of which I'm an Active member) that frowned upon self publishing. This month, I stepped onto the ebook self publishing road in a big way with seven books released (part of what I call my Grand Experiment -http://jiraiya.com.au/?tag=grand-experiment), and I'm prepared to get a little tarnished by the stigma of self publishing to prove a point.

However, like you, I've tested myself against the market for years (although I operate largely in the shorter forms - stories and novellas), working with editors to learn, improve, and eventually, master my craft. Sadly, I think too many other self publishers out there don't test themselves - or if they do and fail, many don't take the hint.

Shane


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> ...and I'd be curious to hear your take on his observations.


Frankly, quite brilliant. As a humour writer myself I love reading someone who can make me belly laugh, and that post really did.

The cover was stunning. Anyone who uses comic sans within a hundred feet of their book should be shot on sight.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Writing good. Stirring bad. You tarzan. Me Jane.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

jiraiyac said:


> Hi Lee,
> 
> I agree with you 100%. It's a golden age for self publishing, and I think too much of that shiny golden glare is getting into people's eyes and causing them to have delusions of competence. I come from a traditional publishing background as an author, and until very recently, I staunchly agreed with organisations such as the Horror Writers Association (of which I'm an Active member) that frowned upon self publishing. This month, I stepped onto the ebook self publishing road in a big way with seven books released (part of what I call my Grand Experiment -http://jiraiya.com.au/?tag=grand-experiment), and I'm prepared to get a little tarnished by the stigma of self publishing to prove a point.
> 
> ...


I think it's great that new writers are publishing "unpublishable" work on Kindle/Nook/Kobo/etc!

For every writer who has stuck it out testing themselves against the market I'll bet there are ten more who quit and went on to other pursuits - and this is very bad.

Clearly, given the rush of indie authors now taking prime positions in the bestseller lists, there was something fundamentally wrong with paper publishing. The best simply wasn't rising to the top. The best weren't being published. Paper publishing couldn't recognise the best. Sure, they got a lot right but how many Amanda Hockings retired from the field after a bunch of rejection letters from underpaid halfwit editors?

Think of all those slush piles with little gems sitting in them - gems that would sell 3000 a year for a writer - and every book in them was rejected. What a waste!

I can easily imagine a writer throwing up some garbage that sells two or three copies _and this is enough to keep them writing!_ Their next book may be terrible too and maybe even book three is but book four could be a beautiful shiny wonder that we would have lost if it were up to paper publishing.

This is a golden age for writers and readers and world culture as a whole. Forget worrying about quality or spending a minute writing about it; the self-sorting nature of the web pulls the good to the top much more efficiently than paper publishing ever could.

Besides even if one of these not-so-great books only sells 20 books a year and people had some enjoyment out of reading them, why not?


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

J.M. Pierce said:


> I'm printing this off and hanging it on my wall. Very inspirational, Ed!





Edward C. Patterson said:


> If you have the goods, life's too short to wait. Hidden gold is lost gold. The world should not be denied an opportunity to touch the collective imagination. To those who deny both the world and themselves, their larder deserves absolute obscurity. For those who share, obscurity is relative and a spark remains to keep the embers warm.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Just have to say I love reading Ed's posts. If he's not offering up nuggets of wisdom, he's the one to lower the temperature in an oft-gone wrong discussion. Well done, Ed.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

"You want self-publishing to stand on its own feet? Get your s*** together. You think publishing is full of mean ol' myopic gatekeepers and you can do it better? How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you can't even approach a fraction of the quality found in books on bookstore shelves, books put out by publishers big and small?
You're going to put something out there, make it count. Don't f*** it up for the rest of the authors - you know, the ones who actually put out a kick-*** book. Hell, some of this stuff goes for me, too. I can do better. I can always do better. We should always strive to improve our books, our sales, our connection to the audience.
More succinctly: stop splashing around in the kiddie pool."

Personally, I think you're trolling, but I'll bite anyway.

That's not advice, mate, that's a rant. He's telling all the amateurs out there that because they aren't old-school, they are no-school. The only advice he gives is get an editor and get a cover artist, neither of which is new or particularly ground breaking. Many indie authors _have_ produced kick-*** books as the best seller lists at Amazon show. There are indie authors on this very board that sell thousands of books every month. _Thousands!_ I'm sure that many (if not most) mid list authors would love those sorts of sales numbers. And as I have said before, many times, the supermarkets and department stores are full of traditionally published books that nobody reads, and that struggle to break double figures in sales. 
Pointing to some of the slop out there and saying 'Here is proof that indies are rubbish' isn't helpful. Wouldn't it be better to say 'See these amazing books written by successful indie authors? That is how you should do it.'


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

I thought that blog post was hilarious, personally.

I will say that if authors *must* publish dreadful stuff (and sadly, there are always going to be people publishing stuff that rivals my six-year-old's writing in literary quality), it's better for them to put it up on Kindle than to get mixed up with PublishAmerica or other publishers of... er, shall we say dubious merit?  I'd rather see newbie authors Kindling junk and learning that it's junk from bad reviews, and then being able to pull it down and edit it, than being stuck with a contract they can't get out of for years and years.  It's not good for us as indie authors as a whole, but it's far, far better for them.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I enjoyed the article. Great imagery. And his examples are excellent.

He uses humor to make valid points. Indies need to approach self-publishing as a business.

Thanks for posting.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> I enjoyed the article. Great imagery. And his examples are excellent.
> 
> He uses humor to make valid points. Indies need to approach self-publishing as a business.
> 
> Thanks for posting.


Just don't forget that the reader is not a sales point. Otherwise we're just a bunch of Traditional Publishers and will mistake graffiti for art.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

jiraiyac said:


> However, like you, I've tested myself against the market for years (although I operate largely in the shorter forms - stories and novellas), working with editors to learn, improve, and eventually, master my craft. Sadly, I think too many other self publishers out there don't test themselves - or if they do and fail, many don't take the hint.


(I honestly tried to resist temptation to post in this thread...honest...)

LOOK BUD, I was "traditionally published" as a short story writer, poet, and magazine contributor. I didn't make very much money doing so. I have had offers of publication for children's books, before said small publishers went out of business--which mind you had nothing to do with the quality of my work.

If my short stories & poems were good enough to get published, then yes...my ebooks are too. Years of writing, and improving your craft makes you a _better writer,_ not a worse one. 
But that's just speaking for myself...

As far as other writers, well I know many who have their work published by anyone else, and have written AWESOME books that are selling in the thousands. Zoe Winters and Amanda Hocking to name two, off the top of my head.

Sorry to break your "holier than thou" bubble.


Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> "You want self-publishing to stand on its own feet? Get your s*** together. You think publishing is full of mean ol' myopic gatekeepers and you can do it better? How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you can't even approach a fraction of the quality found in books on bookstore shelves, books put out by publishers big and small?
> You're going to put something out there, make it count. Don't f*** it up for the rest of the authors - you know, the ones who actually put out a kick-*** book. Hell, some of this stuff goes for me, too. I can do better. I can always do better. We should always strive to improve our books, our sales, our connection to the audience.
> More succinctly: stop splashing around in the kiddie pool."
> 
> ...


^^That too!


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> Just don't forget that the reader is not a sales point. Otherwise we're just a bunch of Traditional Publishers and will mistake graffiti for art.
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Thank you, Edward--I agree, the reader isn't a sales point. At least not while I'm writing. I tend to think of each reader as my confidant.

I'd love to spend all my time writing what I love to write, but I've decided to self-publish. Consequently I wear different hats. Initially, I am the writer, the crafter of story, the artist. Then I become the publisher, the editor, the marketing director and the promoter. I need to play all the parts.


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

Thanks for the link, Lee.  That blog post cracks me up.  (So did Suzanne's comment: "What's wrong with a bag of dicks?")


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

This guy is too full of himself: 

"You want self-publishing to stand on its own feet? Get your s*** together. You think publishing is full of mean ol’ myopic gatekeepers and you can do it better? How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you can’t even approach a fraction of the quality found in books on bookstore shelves, books put out by publishers big and small?
You’re going to put something out there, make it count. Don’t f*** it up for the rest of the authors — you know, the ones who actually put out a kick-*** book. Hell, some of this stuff goes for me, too. I can do better. I can always do better. We should always strive to improve our books, our sales, our connection to the audience.
More succinctly: stop splashing around in the kiddie pool."


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Jon Olson said:


> This guy is too full of himself:
> 
> "You want self-publishing to stand on its own feet? Get your s*** together. You think publishing is full of mean ol' myopic gatekeepers and you can do it better? How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you can't even approach a fraction of the quality found in books on bookstore shelves, books put out by publishers big and small?
> You're going to put something out there, make it count. Don't f*** it up for the rest of the authors - you know, the ones who actually put out a kick-*** book. Hell, some of this stuff goes for me, too. I can do better. I can always do better. We should always strive to improve our books, our sales, our connection to the audience.
> More succinctly: stop splashing around in the kiddie pool."


Yeah, let alone the fact that his language is disgusting. Not that I'm a prude, though.
Lee should have put a "NSFW" warning, or something before posting that. LOL

Plus, it's NOT "advice" that we haven't heard before...

MANY, MANY of us do have our "Sh*t together."


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Eh. I found the article amusing. The comments section below it, not so much. Evidently no matter what, if you're selling 10 copies or 10,000,000, you're still a terrible joke of a writer if you're self-published. Yeah. Okay.


----------



## Paul Clayton (Sep 12, 2009)

A funny post.  I have a couple of Indies in my Kindle.  I haven’t read them yet.  I bought them from folks that have been helpful to me here.  I’m hoping that when I get around to reading them they’ll be good. 

And I got angry not long ago when I stumbled on a book by someone who used to workshop his stuff elsewhere on the web, stuff that was juvenile in concept and retarded in presentation—and his stuff is selling on Amazon, four figures in the rankings.  Makes you wonder.

And now I’m trying to get a book in shape for Kindle.  I want it to be really good so I’m taking my time.  And I hope that when I do get it up there it will work its way up to the surface, through the 1,300,000 works that are already there by that time.  

Sometimes I think about the amazing opportunity this whole self-publishing gives us. There are no agents, no acquisition editors, no story editors, line editors, proof readers. There is no one to tell us that this book if flawed. There are no censors to tell us that you can’t publish that.  Or worse, to politely decline our work without telling us why. It’s liberating, but it also should give us pause.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Jon Olson said:


> "You want self-publishing to stand on its own feet? Get your s*** together. You think publishing is full of mean ol' myopic gatekeepers and you can do it better? How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you can't even approach a fraction of the quality found in books on bookstore shelves, books put out by publishers big and small?


It's the answer to that second question where he falls down. I mean, don't get me wrong, it was a funny article and largely true... but true doesn't mean wise.

The first question and answer quoted here is great. It's wise.

The second question is great too.... but the answer falls down on the job, because it makes on logical fallacy -- it assumes that what indies want to do "better" at is the same thing as the old system. Which is neither true nor wise.

If that second question and answer had been "If you think you can do better.... PROVE IT!" then I'd be impressed.

Yes, we've got to get our s**t together, but who is to say that the kiddie pool isn't where its at in the next generation?

Camille


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Eh. I found the article amusing. The comments section below it, not so much. Evidently no matter what, if you're selling 10 copies or 10,000,000, you're still a terrible joke of a writer if you're self-published. Yeah. Okay.


Yeah, I just like extreme vulgarity, I think.  There's not much useful advice - hire an editor, hire a cover artist, duh. I guess I've seen so many successful indie writers like you that this stuff doesn't really bother me anymore. Their information is old. Besides, I noticed this guy has no novels out, and he's still waiting for his first novel to come out in NOVEMBER--I'll have at least two more novels out by then.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

terrireid said:


> I agree that there is some really bad writing out there - but I think readers, rather than running away from self-publishing screaming - will learn to download the samples and save themselves time and money. And, I don't think traditional publishing necessarily means good writing...


All being traditionally published means is that some editor somewhere thought that he or she could sell a story for a particular market and make some money from it. Editors are readers just like the rest of us, and their personal opinions about what will sell and what won't are just that--personal opinions. Established editors and agents told John Grisham over and over again that legal dramas just wouldn't sell in the 1990s and that he'd better write something else. Only after someone in Hollywood picked up _The Firm _ (his second novel) for a movie did his books become runaway bestsellers. We live in a world of advertising hype, which is the only reason I could consider a traditional publishing contract if it were ever offered to me (a big, big if) because I would have the chance at more money to generate hype, which seems to be what sells a lot of books these days, not good writing. Call my grapes sour and cynical, but that's how I see it.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Eh. I found the article amusing. The comments section below it, not so much. Evidently no matter what, if you're selling 10 copies or 10,000,000, you're still a terrible joke of a writer if you're self-published. Yeah. Okay.


Well, if you're selling 10,000,000 copies then you're a "terrible joke" who is laughing your way to the bank! 

That being said "terrible joke" of a writer= Stephanie Meyers. Commercially published. Nuff said.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Why no love for Comic Sans? It makes learning easier: http://tinyurl.com/46puc6d Apologies to Dan Gilbert. (If you're not a basketball fan you won't know what I'm talking about.)


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> Well, if you're selling 10,000,000 copies then you're a "terrible joke" who is laughing your way to the bank!
> 
> That being said "terrible joke" of a writer= Stephanie Meyers. Commercially published. Nuff said.


Next, you'll be implying that Snooki isn't a serious writer...

I like Papyrus font.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

EllenFisher said:


> I will say that if authors *must* publish dreadful stuff (and sadly, there are always going to be people publishing stuff that rivals my six-year-old's writing in literary quality), it's better for them to put it up on Kindle than to get mixed up with PublishAmerica or other publishers of... er, shall we say dubious merit? I'd rather see newbie authors Kindling junk and learning that it's junk from bad reviews, and then being able to pull it down and edit it, than being stuck with a contract they can't get out of for years and years. It's not good for us as indie authors as a whole, but it's far, far better for them.


I agree, Ellen. One of the great things about the ease of self-publishing now is that it's going to put those vanity press scammers out of business.

Lee


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

_Gung-xi Fa-tsai _ - the Year of the Self Published Rabbit (_tu-nien_). 

(_tzi-jia chu-ban_ - self-publishing in Mandarin) 

I am an Indie - _Wo tzi-jia chu-ban shu ba!_
Are you an Indie author? _Ni tzi-jia chu-ban bu chu ban shu?_ if you want a simple answer. If you want a thread - _Ni tzi-jia chu ban shu ma?_

I have published 16 books. _Shr-liu ben shu tou wo chu ban._

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I agree, Ellen. One of the great things about the ease of self-publishing now is that it's going to put those vanity press scammers out of business.
> 
> Lee


Definitely. When I finished writing _Firefly Island_, my first novel, I knew nothing about publishing. I just did some googling for publishers, and sent _Firefly Island_ to a few of them. PublishAmerica accepted it (surprise surprise). I didn't know their reputation; I was happy (and obviously very naive). Luckily, that day I found myself in a chat room with Mike Resnick. If you don't know Mike Resnick, buy a few of his books; he's an extremely talented author. I talked about PublishAmerica, and Mr. Resnick warned me against them. I listened. I bought several Mike Resnick books. And I sold _Firefly Island_ to Five Star Publishing instead. With Kindle, there are fewer desperate authors for these vanity presses to charm.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I agree, Ellen. One of the great things about the ease of self-publishing now is that it's going to put those vanity press scammers out of business.


I don't know. I think there are going to be a lot of scammers out there (and any number of legit agents taking advantage) who will promise to "package" your books for you -- and take care of all that confusing money handling for a percentage. I have to agree with Dean Wesley Smith - buy services for a flat fee. Make sure they're better at it than you are.

Camille


----------



## Archer (Apr 25, 2009)

As with others here, I have resisted throwing my hat into this arena. I probably don't have much to add, but I'm expressing my opinion anyway.

--I agree that there is far more dreck among self-published books, but that dreckiness is not unique to self-published books. Does this have anything to do with me? Not really.
--Some of us chose to self-publish because we wanted to share our work with others, not because we had failed in our attempt to obtain a traditional contract. Does this make one better than another? No.
--The stigma is still present, but is fading in some minds. Others will carry it forth like a battle-flag, hoping that it cannot die. Oh, well. Should I care? Not really.
--Would I like to earn the respect of the gatekeepers and professional writing organizations? Sure. Will I dramatically change my methodology (which has worked well for me) in order to obtain it? Not much.
--Do I lose sleep over the fact that some people disparage my choice of path? Not at all.


This is between me, my artistic vision, and those who share it with me. My books are meticulously edited, my covers are fine. People either love my stuff or they hate it, depending on whether my particular approach to fantasy appeals to their tastes. But I have carved out my style, I am developing it further with each new book, and I have nearly reached my goal of 25,000 readers. I have learned SO much in the past five years it's astounding. I've learned and grown due to input from editors, readers, other authors--and generally helpful people. But the finished product is still between me, my artistic vision, and those who share it with me. That won't change if I can help it.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Here's the way I see it.

It doesn't hurt anything to publish on the Kindle.  You're not out any money, like if you'd been scammed.  

If you suck, you won't sell many, and no one will know.  After beating the pavement for a year and you can't get any sales, you just might take a few writing classes and join a critique group and find out your writing sucked.  So you improve it, upload a new version, and try again.  Remember, no one KNEW you sucked because you only sold 10 books a month.

If you're good, well there's no problem there.  We're only talking about the dross.

Now, what if you suck and just happen to sell a LOT of ebooks.  For example, let's say you sold 50,000 books.  And you get all 1 star reviews and now everyone knows you totally suck and will never again buy another book of yours.  What's the problem?  You just made thousands of dollars and learned a valuable lesson.  You need to improve your writing.  You take some writing classes and join a critique group.  You improve and then put your next book out under a pen name.

There.  Win/win.

I guess the only losers were those that didn't sample first before buying the sucky book.  

Vicki


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I'd be interested in a traditionally published author relating how he will differentiate himself to the consumer if we arrive at a place where eBooks dominate fiction. Will he continue to use publishers and have the publisher send his work to Amazon? Will he publish it himself? 

The red line the traditionally published author now uses to differentiate himself from independents is 1) publisher, and 2) paper in bookstores. If eBooks come to dominate fiction, and there is much less paper fiction in bookstores, will the traditionally published author hold onto publishers so he can maintain half that red line?

If the traditionally published author cuts the tie with publishers, engages his own cover artists and editors, and uploads his own work to Amazon, how will he maintain the differentiation from today's independents? He will be an independent himself. I don't question the quality of his work, simply ask how he will differentiate it if there is no publisher, and no paper? How will he be any different from anyone else who writes a book, engages a cover artist and editor, and publishes a quality product?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'd be interested in a traditionally published author relating how they will differentiate themselves to the consumer if we arrive at a place where eBooks dominate fiction. Will they continue to use publishers and have the publisher send their work to Amazon? Will they publish it themselves?
> 
> The red line traditionally published authors now use to differentiate themselevs from independents is 1) publisher, and 2) paper in bookstores. If eBooks come to dominate fiction, and there is much less paper fiction in bookstores, will traditionally published authors hold onto publishers so they can maintain half that red line?
> 
> If traditionally published authors cut the tie with publishers, engage their own cover artists and editors, and upload their own work to Amazon, how will they maintain the differentiation from today's independents? They will be independents themselves. I don't question the quality of their work, simply ask how they will differentiate it if there is no publisher, and no paper? How will they be any different from anyone else who writes a book, engages a cover artist and editor, and publishes a quality product?


There is and has been for years an Indie community. See Independant Authors Group and they publish mostly in paper.


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I've gotten a lot of flack from some folks here for suggesting that the majority of self-published books are awful... and for saying that the stigma attached to self-published work is often well-deserved.... as if I am the only guy out there who has ever made those observations.


Nah, I don't think anyone here thinks you're the only guy who has ever made those observations. I think people are reacting to your habit of coming here (place filled with indie authors) and spouting your observations as though they're something new and wise - information that will revolutionise our world if we only listen to you. Indie authors have been hearing this stuff for years, Lee. You're not getting reactions because you're saying something new, you're getting reactions because people are fed up with self-appointed heroes dashing in to save us from our drecky selves.  Especially when those 'heroes' are simultaneously playing in the same sandpit as we are. People find condescension and posturing irritating, Lee, and that's how your posts in this thread have come across to me - and probably a few others, judging from some of the responses you've received.


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

nomesque said:


> Nah, I don't think anyone here thinks you're the only guy who has ever made those observations. I think people are reacting to your habit of coming here (place filled with indie authors) and spouting your observations as though they're something new and wise - information that will revolutionise our world if we only listen to you. Indie authors have been hearing this stuff for years, Lee. You're not getting reactions because you're saying something new, you're getting reactions because people are fed up with self-appointed heroes dashing in to save us from our drecky selves.  Especially when those 'heroes' are simultaneously playing in the same sandpit as we are. People find condescension and posturing irritating, Lee, and that's how your posts in this thread have come across to me - and probably a few others, judging from some of the responses you've received.


Yep.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'd be interested in a traditionally published author relating how he will differentiate himself to the consumer if we arrive at a place where eBooks dominate fiction. Will he continue to use publishers and have the publisher send his work to Amazon? Will he publish it himself?
> 
> The red line the traditionally published author now uses to differentiate himself from independents is 1) publisher, and 2) paper in bookstores. If eBooks come to dominate fiction, and there is much less paper fiction in bookstores, will the traditionally published author hold onto publishers so he can maintain half that red line?
> 
> If the traditionally published author cuts the tie with publishers, engages his own cover artists and editors, and uploads his own work to Amazon, how will he maintain the differentiation from today's independents? He will be an independent himself. I don't question the quality of his work, simply ask how he will differentiate it if there is no publisher, and no paper? How will he be any different from anyone else who writes a book, engages a cover artist and editor, and publishes a quality product?


I think Joe Konrath has already answered those questions -- He won't give it a second thought.

Now you can say "but ebooks are only starting!" but that's like saying "But Konrath is _different_!"

A pro doesn't bother with what other people are doing except as a matter of information. (I.e. "Oh, Zombie Cat stories are doing well. I should pull out that old "Graveyard Fluffy" story and finish it.")

Or another perspective: Dean Wesley Smith is a professional writer who has no plans to abandon traditional publishing. He makes a _very_ good living at being a mostly unknown midlist writer, mainly because he doesn't set up barriers for himself. He's also having fun with indie publishing, as a sideline. He worries endlessly about young writers who believe in myths that slow down their progress -- like the ones we're talking about here -- but otherwise, he doesn't bother himself with what the other guy does.

Here's what he said in the comments on his blog this morning to a young writer who was worried about his writing being dreck:

"I have a secret for you. One aspect of being a professional writer is knowing that feeling (that your writing is dreck) and then not allowing it to change behavior in any way. For example, all eight of my challenge stories so far this year that I posted for all of you to see sucked as far as my front brain thought. I had the worry every time that I was posting something that was awful. Yet I posted them all and published them all. Not a novel or story I have ever written was any different. And granted, some did suck, but the ones that scared me the most were often the best. It's a nature of writing."

If other people suck, so what? Even if _you_ suck... _so what?_ Keep writing. Keep your eyes on the prize. Get better at what you do.

Camille


----------



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

nomesque said:


> Indie authors have been hearing this stuff for years, Lee. You're not getting reactions because you're saying something new, you're getting reactions because people are fed up with self-appointed heroes dashing in to save us from our drecky selves.  Especially when those 'heroes' are simultaneously playing in the same sandpit as we are. People find condescension and posturing irritating, Lee, and that's how your posts in this thread have come across to me - and probably a few others, judging from some of the responses you've received.


Exactly. However, for me it goes a step further. I get no feeling that the naysayers like Lee are trying to help anyone. What I take from their rants is that they'd like to scare the rest of us into spending our lives sending query letters to traditional publishers so that the indie field is clear for the deserving few. Their fear of tsunamis of dross and drek is actually only a fear that their own superior work will be lost in that flood. If they could make the rest of us go away, they'd have a clear field and undiscerning readers would never have the chance to be confused by drek or to send dollars that should go to the annointed to drek producers.

Konrath comes across to me as trying to help other indies. Goldberg comes across as trying to help himself.


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

I have to agree with Vicki on this one -- if a million people write a million awful books and throw them up on the Kindle, where's the harm? I guess popular wisdom is that independent authors wouldn't have to work so hard to distinguish themselves from dreck if there were less dreck out there. But I'm marketing my book on its own merits. People don't buy it because it compares favorably against some other book. They buy it because they think a zombie choose-your-own-adventure sounds _awesome_.

Maybe the harping on amateurish ebooks comes from people who wish that self-publishing didn't mean lumping themselves together with the unwashed masses. That someday self-published books might command the same automatic respect given to a book that a major publisher decided to take a financial risk on. Well, I say get over it. Lots of amazing opportunities are opening up on ebooks' wild frontier, but the trade -off is that you've got to _earn_ your respect here.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

It _is _a pretty nifty thread though, the way it keeps getting posted to with Goldberg and Konrath together so sweetly on the headline.


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

mattyoungmark said:


> They buy it because they think a zombie choose-your-own-adventure sounds _awesome_.


Um, that _does_ sound pretty awesome. How do you do the choose-your-own adventure part? Did you use hyperlinks?


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

JL Bryan said:


> Um, that _does_ sound pretty awesome. How do you do the choose-your-own adventure part? Did you use hyperlinks?


Yup. It was a bear getting the formating right, but the final result works pretty nicely.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Off with their heads.

Lewis Carroll


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"A pro doesn't bother with what other people are doing except as a matter of information."_

Sure. One simply does his own work, and does the best he can. That's a constant.

I'm curious about how traditionally published authors (TPA) are going to navigate in the kiddie pool. If they can't flash the rubber ducky from the publishers, and don't get a sexy suit with bookstore logos, how will we know who they are?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"A pro doesn't bother with what other people are doing except as a matter of information."_
> 
> Sure. One simply does his own work, and does the best he can. That's a constant.
> 
> I'm curious about how traditionally published authors (TPA) are going to navigate in the kiddie pool. If they can't flash the rubber ducky from the publishers, and don't get a sexy suit with bookstore logos, how will we know who they are?


That's why I brought up Dean... do you know who he is? (I'll give you a hint: I'm sure you don't because he writes a ton of stuff under pseudonyms.) He just writes. And writes. And writes everything.

I thought it was interesting because he and I went to Clarion together back in 1982. His career started to go pretty much like everyone else's until a few years after that when he and Nina Hoffman (who was also at the same Clarion) decide to take up the motto "Dare to be BAD!" And then his career took off.

Oh... I just realized, were you being rhetorical? That is, were you asking, what are the snobs going to do when they no longer have "stars upon thars"? For that I suppose I would look to what college literary professors do.

Camille


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

I find the reactions to the blog post pretty amusing.

What was actually said? That there are self-published authors producing dreck, and others (a "wondrous number", according to Mr. Wendig) producing kick-ass books.

That self-publishing bears a certain stigma, in part because it's so very easy to self-publish--talent and/or skill is not required to write something and upload it to DTP.

The community should police itself--while an author cannot and should not be stopped from self-publishing, those who self-publish dreck should be called out on it.

Then, signs that you may be one of those "dreck" self-published authors: you have a crappy cover, an incompetently written product description, no editing, and/or a terrible sample.

While I don't necessarily agree that the self-publishing community must police itself (readers will determine who is publishing crap and who isn't), I don't think most of what Mr. Wendig wrote is terribly off-base or even earth-shattering (it is funny, though).

So why all the defensiveness from indie authors? Unless you believe he's talking about _you_, what exactly is so offensive? He's not saying people shouldn't self-publish--just that if you publish crap, expect to get a bad reaction. And if you suspect you're publishing crap, take steps to make it better.

Does a mountain of dreck negatively impact indie authors who are producing competent work? That's impossible to say. I think it's certainly probable. I have read more than one comment online from readers who were burned by poorly written/edited self-published books and have sworn them off, assuming they're all cut from the same cloth. Fair? No. But it does happen. I can't fault the guy for wishing that people wouldn't slap any old piece of garbage up for sale.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

mattyoungmark said:


> ... They buy it because they think a zombie choose-your-own-adventure sounds _awesome_.


A zombie choose-your-own-adventure, involving a PINK BUNNY WITH A CHAIN SAW!

Let's not forget how incredibly awesome _that_ is.

Camille


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Oh, let me say this about that . . oh, whoop. In the wrong thead. I thought this was the cream on the dentistry thread. Sorry. Maybe because both threads are not about the OP, but about the PO.   or PP. (Pet Peeve). But if snobbery doesn't work, try terrorism.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> I have read more than one comment online from readers who were burned by poorly written/edited self-published books and have sworn them off, assuming they're all cut from the same cloth.


I don't see that as any worse, or any different, than the people back in the eighties who claimed to have read one crappy sf novel (or romance novel, or what have you) and said they would never read another.

Especially since when questioned, you'll usually find that they had that attitude in the first place. (And with the genre prejudices, if you ask them about what they read, it turns out they had not read any -- except maybe the exceptions they approved of, like "Whimper of Whipped Dogs" and they declared "literary sf" doesn't count. But they'd seen part of an episode of Star Trek once, and that was crap.)

Unlike SF or Romance or other genres, most readers only know they are looking at an indie book if the cover is crappy. And in that case, they wouldn't CARE if it's an indie book. They won't read it anyway. With one exception....

It is true that for a while indies had a cheer-leading squad which didn't do us any favors. (At least on the Amazon Communities.) They would talk up every indie book as if they were brilliant "must-read" for everyone. And of course they pushed people to read them who didn't even like the genre. Now THAT does do us all harm. But that seems to have calmed down a lot lately.

Camille


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> While I don't necessarily agree that the self-publishing community must police itself...


This was the one part of the post I disagreed with, too. I wouldn't like us all to start pointing fingers at each other and yelling publicly, "THIS AUTHOR'S WRITING SUX!!!" It's not professinnal behavior, and besides, "it sux" is so subjective as to be meaningless anyway. Policing other indie authors is not the answer. The only answer I know of is to do our best to produce quality work.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

This whole 'indies are rubbish' debate is approaching the phenomena of digital distribution the wrong way. Those who rant against it assume that everyone who publishes online has done so simply because they want to make money out of their writing. The fact is that, even if you are moderately successful, you won't make all that much money. Sure, two or three extremely talented and driven individuals may make a killing, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

The sad reality is, if you want to make money, Chartered Accountancy is far more lucrative and easier to do _even if you are no good at math_. Many indie authors want to sell their work, obviously, but I don't think it's the money they are after. Writing is an art and people make art in order to express themselves. Digital distribution is simply the new arena for displaying that art.

The annoying thing about criticisms from within the ranks of traditionally published authors is that they have much the same motivation as indie authors. The reality is that being a writer of fiction is not a ticket to fame and fortune except for the talented and driven few. From what the industry has been reporting over the past decade, it is obvious that most traditionally published authors could make more money as Chartered Accountants, and that includes the zero earning time while they learn to overcome their poor numeracy skills.

Times are changing folks. It's time to put away the sour grapes and learn to use the new medium to further your art (and enhance your earning potential).


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"The community should police itself--while an author cannot and should not be stopped from self-publishing, those who self-publish dreck should be called out on it."_

Interesting suggestion. Suppose publisher XYZ puts out a paper book that is drek. Does the community of authors published by XYZ have a responsibility to police itself and call out both author and publisher?


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"The community should police itself--while an author cannot and should not be stopped from self-publishing, those who self-publish dreck should be called out on it."_
> 
> Interesting suggestion. Suppose publisher XYZ puts out a paper book that is drek. Does the community of authors published by XYZ have a responsibility to police itself and call out both author and publisher?


Personally, I think it's unprofessional for any author to call out other authors for writing bad books, unless they have decided to also take up the mantle of book critic and/or reviewer. And even then, I would imagine that if Author A at Publisher XYZ publicly "called out" Author B at Publisher XYZ (and/or the publisher itself) for producing a crappy book, it wouldn't bode well for Author's A relationship with their publisher. I know my publisher would not look kindly on that, and who could blame them?

That's why I don't agree with that part of the blog post...as an author, it's not really in my best interest to publicly insult another author. First, because much about quality is subjective (if someone is grammatically incompetent, that is an objective measure of quality...but if I think someone's story sucked, that's largely subjective). Second, because that type of action rarely casts the one who "calls out" in a favorable light. As much as I may be inclined to agree with Stephen King about Stephenie Meyer, I'm not sure calling her a terrible writer was such a classy move on his part. And though I've never read Nicholas Sparks, I can't stand him after reading his comments about Cormac McCarthy's _Blood Meridian_ (which is regarded by many as a modern classic).

I leave it to readers to weed out the dreck from the gold. Especially because, hey, one person's dreck is another's gold.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

ellenoc said:


> Konrath comes across to me as trying to help other indies. Goldberg comes across as trying to help himself.


Lee is opinionated, but he comes by his opinions fairly, defends them well, and shares them to try and help and/or warn other writers. I also think he's funny.

For years, Lee has been doing the writing world a service by exposing writing scams. His diatribes against self-publishing that directly attacked POD vanity presses should be required reading for all new authors.

As for his opinion about the majority of self-published writers being crummy, he's correct.

But don't take it personally. If your book isn't crummy, he wasn't talking about you.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

flanneryohello said:


> I find the reactions to the blog post pretty amusing.
> 
> What was actually said? That there are self-published authors producing dreck, and others (a "wondrous number", according to Mr. Wendig) producing kick-ass books.
> 
> ...


I'm with you. I find the knee-jerk defensiveness among "indie" authors to Chuck's blog post very telling.

There's a very narrow range of acceptable opinions in the "indie" world...at least here on the Kindleboard...and here they are, in no particular order:

1. the "traditional" publishing system is evil, unfair, and inept. Oh, and it's doomed. It will collapse by next Tuesday.
2. "traditional" publishers are terrified by the talent and imagination of self-published authors. 
3. bestselling authors like Meyer/Rowling/Grisham etc are miserable hacks who owe their success entirely to marketing.
4. any 99 cent indie book by an amateur is going to be as good, if not better, than any "traditionally" published book. 
5. published authors are elitists who fear the democratization of publishing because it offers more choice to readers and threatens their sense of entitlement. 
6. readers can't tell the difference between self-published books and "traditionally" published books because there really is no difference.
7. any published author who criticizes any aspect of self-publishing is criticizing YOU personally and YOUR book. 
8. "beta readers," no matter who they are, are really the best judges of your work, not any editor or agent.
9. there's really no need for experienced editors or copyeditors, since "traditionally" published books often have errors in them.
10. there's no such thing as a bad self-published book.
11. there's no such thing as a bad self-published book cover
12. always encourage "indie" work and never criticize it, no matter how awful it might be.

Any deviation from those accepted attitudes is seen as condescending, destructive, and treasonous. That's not to say there isn't some truth to them, but God forbid anyone in the "indie" ranks should ever acknowledge that:

1. the stigma associated with self-published work is often well-deserved
2. the stigma, if anything, might endure and even become stronger as more unreadable swill is put out there.
3. failing to acknowledge the stigma doesn't make it go away, it only reinforces the negative stereotype that self-published authors have blinders-on and can't tell good writing from slop.
4. self-published work should be judged by the same high creative and editorial standards as "traditionally" published books. (Yes, there are standards, and we all know it).
5. readers *can* tell the difference between amateur, self-published work and professionally-written, "traditionally" published books. Most of the time, there *is* a difference.
6. there are a lot of awful self-published books.
7. there are a lot of awful self-published book covers...and yes, it matters.
8. self-published work could benefit from, and often desperately needs, professional editing, copyediting, and art design (regardless of whether you found a typo is Michael Connelly's last book).
9. relying on inexperienced "beta readers" can often be a case of the blind leading the blind
10. the reason Meyer/Rowling/Grisham etc. are bestselling authors is because they had great ideas for books and wrote them very well...and they might actually be more creative, and better writers, than most of us (it wasn't just luck).
11. it's okay to be critical of self-published work (and when someone is, that doesn't mean they are talking about YOU and YOUR book).

Lee

PS - For what it's worth, I don't see myself as a particularly good writer, or my books as exceptional works of art. Far from it. I am simply a journeyman writer, one of many, who has the minimum level of skill and experience to make a good living as a novelist and screenwriter. I certainly don't consider myself "superior" to anyone here. My opinion has no more value than anyone else's.


----------



## Music &amp; Mayhem (Jun 15, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> Personally, I think it's unprofessional for any author to call out other authors for writing bad books, unless they have decided to also take up the mantle of book critic and/or reviewer. [snip] ...as an author, it's not really in my best interest to publicly insult another author. First, because much about quality is subjective (if someone is grammatically incompetent, that is an objective measure of quality...but if I think someone's story sucked, that's largely subjective). Second, because that type of action rarely casts the one who "calls out" in a favorable light. As much as I may be inclined to agree with Stephen King about Stephenie Meyer, I'm not sure calling her a terrible writer was such a classy move on his part. And though I've never read Nicholas Sparks, I can't stand him after reading his comments about Cormac McCarthy's _Blood Meridian_ (which is regarded by many as a modern classic). I leave it to readers to weed out the dreck from the gold. Especially because, hey, one person's dreck is another's gold.


I agree on many fronts. Same with music biz. I never bad-mouth other trumpet players. Very bad form. Bottom line: whatever biz you're in ... if you don't have something good to say, say nothing.

As for Cormac McCarthy ... I just finished The Road, and it blew me away. What a haunting story. Let's see, Nicholas who??  Yes, there are lots of poorly written self-published books out there. If it's on kindle you can download a sample. If it's not for you, don't buy it.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Flannery,

Sorry. I confused your summary of the blogger with your own views and recommendations. I see now you did not recommend self policing. My error.


----------



## Jason G. Anderson (Sep 29, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Any deviation from those accepted attitudes is seen as condescending, destructive, and treasonous. That's not to say there isn't some truth to them, but God forbid anyone in the "indie" ranks should ever acknowledge that


Oh come on - making ridiculous "absolute" statements like that is silly, and you know it. I'd agree with most of the the items in your second list (some quibbles about a few items, but that's more from your presentation than the actual idea behind it).


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I'm with you. I find the knee-jerk defensiveness among "indie" authors to Chuck's blog post very telling.


People who are attacked tend to defend themselves, it's instinctive. The man was being purposefully offensive- he said so often and with extra vitriol. It is one thing to state an opinion and quite another to go the hack at soft targets.

And you could easily look at it from another perspective. Chuck pointed out what is bad about indie publishing, and we are pointing out what is good about indie publishing. Chuck pointed out the good that comes from institutional publishing, and we pointed out the bad that comes from institutionalised publishing.

Nor are the majority of responces here 'knee-jerk defensiveness'. We read a post that attacked the integrity of what we do and defended ourselves with well thought out and reasoned arguments. These sorts of exchanges are good and healthy and can only lead to a better understanding of where the industry is headed and where it has been. On one side of the debate are those who have done the hard yards the old way, on the other side are those who are blazing a trail using the new systems, and there are even some who are across both. Schism and debate are good and should be encouraged.

So there.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I would just like to point out that Virginia Woolf was self-published. And, I believe, so was Euripides. I don't think he had professional covers--books weren't invented yet. Just scrolls.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I'm with you. I find the knee-jerk defensiveness among "indie" authors very telling.
> 
> There's a very narrow range of acceptable opinions in the "indie" world...at least here on the Kindleboard...and here they are, in no particular order:
> Any deviation from those accepted attitudes is seen as condescending, destructive, and treasonous. That's not to say there isn't some truth to them, but God forbid anyone in the "indie" ranks should ever acknowledge that


Lee you are right that there is some very telling knee-jerk defensiveness on the part of some individuals, but frankly you are being more than unfair to the group with your list. Most of us disagree with just about all of the items on the list all the time.

I have to say that sometimes -- especially with this post -- you are guilty of what people do you you. You seem to willfully misunderstand. And that's to the detriment of everyone, because you do have something important to say.

While some of the overall issues behind the items on your list have been debated to death among the indies here (which in itself should show that those attitudes are definitely not required for acceptance here), I don't know that I've seen any more than one person at at time support any of them. Maybe numbers 1 and 2, which are vague and frankly, Joe is the major proponent of #2. I only hear people here say it in the kind of blow hard context where they might say "If I ran this country, we'd declare a snow day EVERY day."

That's why people are mistaking you for a troll, because you are exaggerating for effect. You never engage people or acknowledge their points. You just make posts like the one above which mischaracterize what they said.

While I've been an active proponent (possibly the main proponent) of the idea that standards are going to change, whether we like it or not, I have made it clear that I ,_don't_ believe there is no such thing as a bad indie book. What I have said is that bad books don't matter, and they don't. So yes, I am offended when you claim that's a rule you can't disagree with. I have to believe you're taking aim at me personally since I'm the one who has talked the most about that particular issue. Yet you have never once addressed what I said, in respectful discussion or even disrespectful discussion.

Now, considering that I've defended you on many of these debates, especially on the issues like 1 and 2, and... well pretty much all of them, I think it's time to chill a little. Yes, defend yourself. You've got good things to say. But don't turn on those who agree with you too..

That's why you get so many people angry with you.

And it's too bad because you have a lot to offer. I know you are not here to "put down" the unwashed masses. You're sharing what you believe in. You hope to help people. But if you want to help, you first have to understand, and it's pretty clear to me that you understand only part of what goes on here -- and you may be accurate on that, but you're missing some really important components.

Camille


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> People who are attacked tend to defend themselves, it's instinctive. The man was being purposefully offensive- he said so often and with extra vitriol. It is one thing to state an opinion and quite another to go the hack at soft targets.
> 
> And you could easily look at it from another perspective. Chuck pointed out what is bad about indie publishing, and we are pointing out what is good about indie publishing. Chuck pointed out the good that comes from institutional publishing, and we pointed out the bad that comes from institutionalised publishing.
> 
> ...


The point I was trying to make before was that the blog post actually acknowledged that there are many wonderful self-published authors, and also many terrible ones. It wasn't an out-and-out attack on all self-published authors, yet many on this board are reacting as though it was. It really wasn't.

If you recognize your books in the list of self-publishing crap indicators (bad cover, poorly written product description, no editing, unimpressive sample), I would think cultivating the desire to improve would be a better reaction than defensiveness. If you don't feel you've written a bad book, or have a crappy cover, then there is no reason to feel attacked. The post acknowledged that there are self-published authors out there who are doing well. Don't you include yourself among them?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

modwitch said:


> Thank you - I needed to hear this today. Now off to find this man's blog. Never heard of him (don't know whether I need to be embarrassed by that or not).
> 
> Found him, and I lie - I do know him. Read several of him, um, higher literary works ... Thanks for another cool blog to read at.


I'm really beginning to enjoy the Bucky the Space Pirate stories. The ones I've read are just... silly, and not for commercial publication, but the limerick-loving tree which is both mentor to and, um, offspring of the hero is... well... disturbingly fun.

Camille


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

That's why I like this thread. I'm all for humor, shallow satire, incendiary wit and water for elephants.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> The point I was trying to make before was that the blog post actually acknowledged that there are many wonderful self-published authors, and also many terrible ones. It wasn't an out-and-out attack on all self-published authors, yet many on this board are reacting as though it was. It really wasn't.
> 
> If you recognize your books in the list of self-publishing crap indicators (bad cover, poorly written product description, no editing, unimpressive sample), I would think cultivating the desire to improve would be a better reaction than defensiveness. If you don't feel you've written a bad book, or have a crappy cover, then there is no reason to feel attacked. The post acknowledged that there are self-published authors out there who are doing well. Don't you include yourself among them?


Do you mean the first 100 words of his blog? The 100 words he spent saying there are wonderful indie writers out there? Or was it the following 1400 words that he spent bagging them?

It's a sop, designed to give his blog post credibility so that he appears worldy wise and heavenly blessed. That first 100 words of his post are similar in substance and intent to something we have all heard before; 'I'm not racist, but...'

Yes, yes, mate. You're the indie writer's friend. You just want to help, right? Right.
(directed at Chuck, not Flannery )


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Any deviation from those accepted attitudes is seen as condescending, destructive, and treasonous.


You forgot blasphamous and worthy of the Scarlet Letter "I"    I tell you, this thread has finally busted me out of my mourning period. Dad would have lliked it, being an avid FOX News-nik.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

modwitch said:


> See, that's what I love about the possibilities of the indie world. Bucky the Space Pirate could live and be read . Heck, look at how Daniel's Evil Puppies is doing. I think people desire that stuff to read more than we think. I sure do. I have a serious job, some very serious stuff in my home life (child with autism) - I like reading silliness. Fluff. Pure entertainment. Now I'm having fun writing it (OK, maybe not as silly as Bucky).


That's exactly it. When I started writing, there was a little room for that sort of thing. Maybe not in the top paying magazines, but it was out there. But in the past twenty years or so, as the markets have gotten tougher, I've seen a change.

Now, listen, what I'm about to say is important, because let's admit that this group (and frankly, an awful lot of others) tend to blame this on publishers and gatekeepers, but it's not their fault. Not at all. *It's OUR fault.*

In the past twenty years I've seen writers get wrapped up in proving their sophistication. In the real world, you don't have to constantly prove you are sophisticated. You can get silly. You can be a full professor and still collect Sponge Bob toys -- and not just as a kind of retro-hip cool thing. But two things have happened that change this for writers.

1.) The slush pile has become so incredibly competitive that every little thing counts (or seems to) so we're all out to prove that we're not yahoos from the very first line of our book. That is, not just trying to write a spiffy first line that hooks the reader, but rather we're out to _prove_ that we're not members of the great unwashed masses who don't know what's what.

2.) Writers workshops and books and magazines, and online networking opportunities all combine to mean that we are ALL super up-to-date on whatever the rule-du-jour is. Things like "don't use a prologue," or "don't write in first person." Don't do anything that beginners like to do, because beginners do them badly and by just using them, the editor/agent/whoever may think you are clueless.

This is NOT the fault of the gatekeepers. This is a side-effect of a clogged system where you have millions trying to get in and only a few slots. Our style gets to be like over-bred show dogs -- with breed characteristics which are exaggerated and unnatural. And the competition is SO fierce, and the culture of learning to write is SO strong, that we can't help it. We've done it to ourselves.

Professional writers knows that they can write a prologue in first person if they want to. They do it all the time. But I do think that the fear of appearing unsophisticated -- which is a deeper and less logical fear, born of the first time somebody made fun of you for carrying a teddy bear around with you at school -- is in us all.

Maybe some indies, who didn't come up through the system, have it less strongly than those of us who did. But for the rest of us, it triggers feelings of anxiety or defiance. Both of which are irrational.

So everybody, right now, get yourself some clown shoes and Groucho glasses, watch some Three Stooges, or Animaniacs or Muppets, and let's get over ourselves.

(EDITED TO ADD for those who didn't get the subtext: the fact that traditional publishing isn't publishing a lot of great but non-standard work is not the fault of the gatekeepers. It's the fault of the writers for getting too uptight about it.)

Camille


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

I would just like to point out that most of the bible, certainly Paul's letters, were originally self-published--and the bible has been a bestseller for quite a while. A lot of editing, though. The Greeks, King James and all those other guys. Too much editing can destroy a good book.


----------



## JMelzer (Mar 21, 2010)

While I have nothing new to add to the conversation, I'd just like to point out that those comments on Chuck's post by "A. Nonamiss" are hilarious, and in case you haven't guessed by now, that's J.A. Konrath.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Too much editing made the Good Book.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> Do you mean the first 100 words of his blog? The 100 words he spent saying there are wonderful indie writers out there? Or was it the following 1400 words that he spent bagging them?
> 
> It's a sop, designed to give his blog post credibility so that he appears worldy wise and heavenly blessed. That first 100 words of his post are similar in substance and intent to something we have all heard before; 'I'm not racist, but...'
> 
> ...


We obviously read the post from different perspectives.

He wasn't addressing "good" self-published authors in the latter 1400 words. The first 100 words stated that he doesn't believe all self-published authors are producing crap, then he addressed the rest of the post to those authors who _do_ produce crap.

And there are plenty of them.

Again, I didn't find it offensive because I don't self-publish crap. So he wasn't addressing me.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

JMelzer said:


> While I have nothing new to add to the conversation, I'd just like to point out that those comments on Chuck's post by "A. Nonamiss" are hilarious, and in case you haven't guessed by now, that's J.A. Konrath.


That Jack/Joe is a clever one. So now he's writing as a miss Nona? Or is that a misnomer?


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> Maybe some indies, who didn't come up through the system, have it less strongly than those of us who did. But for the rest of us, it triggers feelings of anxiety or defiance. Both of which are irrational.


I didn't grow up in that system, I never submitted agents, and I still think I can use a friggin' prologue effectively. And as for those rules...yeah, over and over and over I read how people simply weren't publishing sword and sorcery. If you had elves, or orcs, you were toast. But there is an audience for this stuff, dangit. I know there is. I'm one of them, and I refuse to believe I'm the only one.

As for Lee's points...nearly every single one has the same response:

Okay. But what do you want me to do about it? I can't make other writers better. Really, it's stupid to imply. I can't force people to get better covers. I can't stop people from writing fake reviews. I won't change jaded authors opinions of traditional publishing that have been built over years. I can't remove the vast bulk of filth out there in the self-publishing world.

All I can do, all any of us can do, is try to write a great book, with a great product description, and a great cover. Then, when we're done, try to write a better book, with an even better product description, and an even better cover. There's an audience out there for those willing to do that, to give all they can to _entertain._ I feel stupid for having engaged in these debates before, and letting them get to me. Because it doesn't matter. I have nothing to prove, and other self-publishers have no effect on me. Why? Because my sales grew from word of mouth. They grew from samples. The stigma against self-publishers is HUGE right now. It's been fostered from a lifetime of vanity publishers and god-awful books. But now we've got break-out stars. We've got HP Mallory and Amanda Hocking. We've got reader reviews, recommendations. We've got honest to goodness fanmail.

I don't care what Lee has to say about self-publishing. I don't care what Konrath has to say about it either, or some shmoe with a blog, a Kindleboarder who thinks what price is fair or an insult, or that an angry person on an Amazon forum thinks we're all hacks. It just...doesn't...matter. I'll do my best to keep people enthralled, and so long as I do that, I'll be happy. I'll endure. People will learn there are good self-published works among the bad. This isn't a shocker. With how public the good ones become (again, think Hocking and Mallory) it'll become harder and harder for people to thrust their heads into the dirt and insist all self-published books are bad.

Yes, even if 99.9% of them are bad. Fuck it. I'll be in the 0.1%, if not for everyone, for at least those loyal readers I've slowly acquired. Good enough for me.

David Dalglish


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> We obviously read the post from different perspectives.
> He wasn't addressing "good" self-published authors in the latter 1400 words. The first 100 words stated that he doesn't believe all self-published authors are producing crap, then he addressed the rest of the post to those authors who _do_ produce crap.
> And there are plenty of them.
> Again, I didn't find it offensive because I don't self-publish crap. So he wasn't addressing me.


Well, yes, subjectivity is a bugger and all that. And I have no objection to Chuck's opinions, or his right to air them in a public space, but c'mon, we aren't mugs. The blog is an attack on indie publishing.

The books Chuck talks about are easy to spot and avoid. Even if the writer pays for a professional cover, the sample will give it away. Have a laugh, shake your head, and move on. There are literally thousands of books out there that are worthy, well written, entertaining, and indie published. Read one of them!


----------



## JMelzer (Mar 21, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> The blog is an attack on indie publishing.


I'm not so sure about that, since Chuck himself is a self-published writer, as well as someone who has worked with traditional publishing, and who recently debuted a short story collection on Amazon and has done quite well with it.

http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/01/31/the-trials-and-tribulations-of-a-self-published-diy-penmonkey/


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

JMelzer said:


> While I have nothing new to add to the conversation, I'd just like to point out that those comments on Chuck's post by "A. Nonamiss" are hilarious, and in case you haven't guessed by now, that's J.A. Konrath.


I cracked myself up when I wrote "It's the third book in the three book trilogy."

It's wonderfully liberating to just goof off on someone else's blog, since I refrain from that on my own.

But I'm still trying to prove a point. Some indie authors ARE woefully ignorant. They write bad books, with terrible covers and bad descriptions.

However, those books are easy to spot, and won't drag the rest of us down. There are a 100 million YouTube videos, most of them garbage, but there are still plenty of entertaining ones to watch. And people find those worthwhile ones pretty easily.


----------



## JMelzer (Mar 21, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I cracked myself up when I wrote "It's the third book in the three book trilogy."
> 
> It's wonderfully liberating to just goof off on someone else's blog, since I refrain from that on my own.


You had me on the floor with those comments, Joe. I go back just to read your description of The Templar Dentist.

Too funny!


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I didn't grow up in that system, I never submitted agents, and I still think I can use a friggin' prologue effectively. And as for those rules...yeah, over and over and over I read how people simply weren't publishing sword and sorcery. If you had elves, or orcs, you were toast. But there is an audience for this stuff, dangit. I know there is. I'm one of them, and I refuse to believe I'm the only one.
> 
> As for Lee's points...nearly every single one has the same response:
> 
> ...


Amen 

And I actually once got a rejection letter saying that they "no longer publish sword and sorcery" and suggested that I write "funny school stories" for young readers, because that was what they were looking to publish that year.

I think I still have that letter around somewhere...
LOL


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I didn't grow up in that system, I never submitted agents, and I still think I can use a friggin' prologue effectively.


That's the point, David: Because you didn't come up through the system, the idea of using a prologue doesn't bother you. For those who did come up through the system it's a little bit naughty. Pros get over things like that, but that stigma, that fear of being a fool, is still there.

Camille


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I love the prologue to King's Needful Things.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_" Things like "don't use a prologue," or "don't write in first person." Don't do anything that beginners like to do, because beginners do them badly and by just using them, the editor/agent/whoever may think you are clueless.'_

Fortunately, readers never took those classes, and don't care if agents or editors think they are clueless.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

JMelzer said:


> I'm not so sure about that, since Chuck himself is a self-published writer, as well as someone who has worked with traditional publishing, and who recently debuted a short story collection on Amazon and has done quite well with it.
> 
> http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/01/31/the-trials-and-tribulations-of-a-self-published-diy-penmonkey/


Then why did he write a lot of rubbish designed to inflame and offend. Why the negative diatribe? Is it for publicity? Is he a troll? I don't get it. Why spew all that venom when you are one of those you are spewing venom at? Is this another cheap attempt at get his name out there? Is this some form of joke perpetrated by Chuck and Mr Lees that the rest of us have yet to see?


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

All the Americans are asleep   No one to argue with *pout*


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> All the Americans are asleep  No one to argue with *pout*


Annoying, isn't it??


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

daringnovelist said:


> While I've been an active proponent (possibly the main proponent) of the idea that standards are going to change, whether we like it or not, I have made it clear that I ,_don't_ believe there is no such thing as a bad indie book. What I have said is that bad books don't matter, and they don't. So yes, I am offended when you claim that's a rule you can't disagree with. I have to believe you're taking aim at me personally since I'm the one who has talked the most about that particular issue.


You shouldn't be offended because my comment was in no way, shape or form "aimed" at you personally (and I find it puzzling that you would think so). This may come as a shock, but I don't keep a list beside my computer of individual Kindleboard users and the arguments that they have put forth in various discussions over the last year. I have no idea what arguments you personally have, or have not, made.

I believe that, as a rule, most self-proclaimed "indie" writers, particularly here, are loath to criticize self-published work. I will go a step further and say that they fear that if they do so, they will be ostracized from the club. You may be in the minority that has no hesitation about criticizing self-published work. As for your argument that bad books don't matter, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Lee


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm in bed with my blackberry. Rolling over.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I believe that, as a rule, most self-proclaimed "indie" writers, particularly here, are loath to criticize self-published work. I will go a step further and say that they fear that if they do so, they will be ostracized from the club. You may be in the minority that has no hesitation about criticizing self-published work. As for your argument that bad books don't matter, I would have to respectfully disagree.
> 
> Lee


Don't take it personally mate, debates are made up of two sides. If everyone agreed then it would be a monologue with a multiple-personality disorder. I've disagreed with everything you've said and I'm not in any club. Nor am I afraid of being ostracised. I probably wouldn't notice if I was.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> Amen
> 
> And I actually once got a rejection letter saying that they "no longer publish sword and sorcery" and suggested that I write "funny school stories" for young readers, because that was what they were looking to publish that year.
> 
> ...


I once was told to "add magic" to my story because that was selling at the time!


----------



## Kevis Hendrickson (Feb 28, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I cracked myself up when I wrote "It's the third book in the three book trilogy."
> 
> It's wonderfully liberating to just goof off on someone else's blog, since I refrain from that on my own.
> 
> ...


Not going to waste my time arguing a mute point since everyone has probably already made up their minds regarding where they stand on the self-publishing issue. But those posts by A.NONAMISS left me in stitches. Funniest stuff I've read in a long time. Great job, Jack!


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I don't care what Lee has to say about self-publishing. I don't care what Konrath has to say about it either, or some shmoe with a blog, a Kindleboarder who thinks what price is fair or an insult, or that an angry person on an Amazon forum thinks we're all hacks. It just...doesn't...matter. I'll do my best to keep people enthralled, and so long as I do that, I'll be happy. I'll endure. People will learn there are good self-published works among the bad. This isn't a shocker. With how public the good ones become (again, think Hocking and Mallory) it'll become harder and harder for people to thrust their heads into the dirt and insist all self-published books are bad.
> 
> David Dalglish


This. This is big, fat sweaty piles.

I've read this thread - and many others like it - and every time I go to make a response these days I just sigh and click away from the page.

Because it's becoming a tired, tired argument.

David's absolutely right - It doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is about self-publishing, other than the people who are actually buying the books.

You write a good book, make it look as professional, promote it effectively as possible and people will buy it.

It doesn't matter if your self-published, traditionally published or you carve your work on the side of a mountain while dressed in a diaper, and shout at people as they walk past.

Yes, most self-published stuff is utter crap. But it's benign crap. Nobody ever died because Shiralee from Nantucket uploaded her paranormal romantic thriller 'My Vampire Heart Throbs Aplenty' to the Kindle for 99 cents.

And there's some stuff that is resolutely not crap - though there might not be that much of it in total. It might not necessarily be my cup of tea personally (paranormal romance is about as interesting as bowel surgery and I can't stand derivative pot-boiler thrillers either) but I can cheerfully accept that many people feel differently. And no matter what genre you write in, you do it well enough you'll get a big audience. There's only a very few that will ever reach that stage when they start as an indie, but that's the way it should be, right?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _" Things like "don't use a prologue," or "don't write in first person." Don't do anything that beginners like to do, because beginners do them badly and by just using them, the editor/agent/whoever may think you are clueless.'_
> 
> Fortunately, readers never took those classes, and don't care if agents or editors think they are clueless.


Right, but even the agents and editors don't care about many of those things as much as _writers_ do. WE developed those ideas ourselves in reaction to how hard it was to get read.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> You shouldn't be offended because my comment was in no way, shape or form "aimed" at you personally (and I find it puzzling that you would think so). This may come as a shock, but I don't keep a list beside my computer of individual Kindleboard users and the arguments that they have put forth in various discussions over the last year. I have no idea what arguments you personally have, or have not, made.


(Pounds head on desk) I didn't say you knew who I was. I said that I"m the only one who said anything close to what you were criticizing -- and so yes, I have to assume you were responding to me. And you mischaracterized what I said.



> I believe that, as a rule, most self-proclaimed "indie" writers, particularly here, are loath to criticize self-published work. I will go a step further and say that they fear that if they do so, they will be ostracized from the club. You may be in the minority that has no hesitation about criticizing self-published work. As for your argument that bad books don't matter, I would have to respectfully disagree.


That's simply not true. Nobody here is afraid to criticize indie books. The problem is that you never engage in actual discussion. You make pronouncements. It's like you walk into a feminist group and declare that most of the group is made up of shrill lesbians who should stop hating men so much.

If you really want to help, maybe you should pause and find out how people really feel instead of telling us what we feel. You might get somewhere. You might even find out that you're wrong.

Camille


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

Wait, wait...there's not really a _Templar Dentist_ series? Sigh. Just when I'd found something I really wanted to read...


----------



## ChuckWendig (Jan 24, 2011)

Hey, folks.

I'm the guy who wrote the "bag of dicks" blog post.

Which seems to have amused and irritated in equal measure, which is all good and totally understandable.

I've thrown up a response post, should anyone feel so inclined to check it:

[URL=http://terribleminds]http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/02/04/once-more-into-the-breach-further-response-to-the-self-publishing-hoo-ha/[/url]

Thanks, folks. Best of luck with your work, whatever it may be.

-- c.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

ChuckWendig said:


> Hey, folks.
> 
> I'm the guy who wrote the "bag of dicks" blog post.
> 
> ...


Are you brave? Or just crazy? 

I'll grab a cup of coffee, and go check it out.


----------



## jtplayer (Jan 8, 2011)

Another great blog post Chuck. I'd read the first one linked over at Konrath's blog and commented that Joe should post stuff like that more often (btw...as I'm sure you know, it was one of those dreaded anonymous posters who linked to your blog over there ).

I got caught up last night on the pages of vehement responses posted on this thread. All I can say is it figures. And I think you're right on the money about the ones protesting the loudest are likely the ones most guilty of the crime. There's a general vibe here at the Writer's Cafe that clearly, in my mind, does not promote or support being genuinely honest when it comes to telling the simple truth that lots of indie writing _does_ suck a bag of dicks. A huge one.

Lee Goldberg has been getting hammered in this thread by the very people I'm referring to. It's amusing as hell to read, but sad as well, as the unwarranted knee-jerk defensiveness is so obviously misguided. The touchy-feely "we're all so wonderful and in this together" sentiment is a laughable cliche that deserves to be mocked, IMO.

Again, an awesome post Chuck, and I can't wait for the pages of responses that will surely follow.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I believe that, as a rule, most self-proclaimed "indie" writers, particularly here, are loath to criticize self-published work. I will go a step further and say that they fear that if they do so, they will be ostracized from the club. You may be in the minority that has no hesitation about criticizing self-published work. As for your argument that bad books don't matter, I would have to respectfully disagree.
> 
> Lee


Ovbiously, you never met Julie (Bards & Sages). Her comments and criticisms are always welcome here (at least as far as I'm concerned.)

Just wanted to add saying "all indie books suck" is just as ridiculous as saying "all indie books are awesome."
Likewise, saying "all traditionally published books suck" is just as ridiculous as saying "all traditionally published books are awesome."


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

JL Bryan said:


> Wait, wait...there's not really a _Templar Dentist_ series? Sigh. Just when I'd found something I really wanted to read...


Sadly, no. But I am working on an epic adventure called CPIA (Certified Public Illuminati Accountant.) A seemingly random array of business deductions leads mild-mannered Mark Getset on a peril-filled journey into the bowels of an ancient sect of extremists who may be guarding the Holy Grail and may also be cheating on their 1040 long forms. Using only his wits, his guts, and his calculator wristwatch, Mark must thwart an ancient prophecy about Jesus's 401k plan.

Spoiler Alert!



Spoiler



Mark thwarts it.



This book will have it all. Intrigue. Sex. Intriguing sex. Exotic locations. Bunnies. Long paragraphs that don't propel the story forward.

It will be the ultimate Buerocrats Vs. Religious Fanatics adventure of the year, or at least the first half of spring.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"I believe that, as a rule, most self-proclaimed "indie" writers, particularly here, are loath to criticize self-published work. I will go a step further and say that they fear that if they do so, they will be ostracized from the club."_

I'd go a step further and say most authors don't really care about criticizing anybody's work, regardless of who owns the rights. Why should they? We get a few who step up and tell us what they think about other authors, and we can certainly cite some examples, but it appears the vast majority don't bother. It's to be expected that independents would follow the tradition established by the published authors on this.

How often do we see the Stephen King and Stephanie Meyer situation?


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Sadly, no. But I am working on an epic adventure called CPIA (Certified Public Illuminati Accountant.) A seemingly random array of business deductions leads mild-mannered Mark Getset on a peril-filled journey into the bowels of an ancient sect of extremists who may be guarding the Holy Grail and may also be cheating on their 1040 long forms. Using only his wits, his guts, and his calculator wristwatch, Mark must thwart an ancient prophecy about Jesus's 401k plan.
> 
> Spoiler Alert!
> 
> ...


But will it be a three-book trilogy (or maybe a FOUR-book trilogy) of fictional novels?


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Sweet. I love them long paragraphs that don't propel the story forward. I must say, however, that I refuse to start reading until I can be guaranteed that it will be a four book Trilogy. Otherwise, I'll just have to not read of the mystery of Jesus's 401k plan.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Sadly, no. But I am working on an epic adventure called CPIA (Certified Public Illuminati Accountant.) A seemingly random array of business deductions leads mild-mannered Mark Getset on a peril-filled journey into the bowels of an ancient sect of extremists who may be guarding the Holy Grail and may also be cheating on their 1040 long forms. Using only his wits, his guts, and his calculator wristwatch, Mark must thwart an ancient prophecy about Jesus's 401k plan.
> 
> Spoiler Alert!
> 
> ...


Where's the cover?


----------



## M T McGuire (Dec 6, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> Mr. Goldberg has just inspired a new blog post on my own blog.
> 
> I wonder if most self-pubbed ebooks are so bad, why have I come across so many great ones? Is it my buying habits? possibly.
> 
> ...


Sorry to drag this back to the beginning but...

Bollocks, s'cuse my French.

Getting to the top on Amazon is about selling a certain number of books within a certain amount of time. That doesn't happen over night. A book will sell if it is sold well, a well sold book may not be a good one (all that celebrity dross for example). Conversly, a good book, especially an indie one, may not be well sold. If it's a good book but selling best on personal recommendation, for example it will take several months for it to achive decent sales. There's a lot of good stuff at the bottom of the pile on Amazon, whether it's easy to find is a moot point. Whether it will stay there is also a moot point but it's there. And while I do agree with you that cream rises to the top, if publishing reflects life then I find that so does scum and it often ends up on top of the cream.

Then again, we're talking mid-list established authors aren't we? In my book, that's not the same thing as indie.

cheers

MTM


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

M T McGuire said:


> Sorry to drag this back to the beginning but...
> 
> Bollocks, s'cuse my French.
> 
> ...


Pardon me MTM, but is your sig a cover from a Piers Anthony book? 'On a Pale Horse' I think. Egad, it's been a long time since I've read it. I lent my copy to a friend who has subsequently moved to the other side of the world. I wonder if the have any Anthony books on Kindle *wanders off to find awesome old school sci fi*


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> Pardon me MTM, but is your sig a cover from a Piers Anthony book? 'On a Pale Horse' I think. Egad, it's been a long time since I've read it. I lent my copy to a friend who has subsequently moved to the other side of the world. I wonder if the have any Anthony books on Kindle *wanders off to find awesome old school sci fi*


Nah herc, I'm not MTM, but I have almost all of Piers Anthony books and that's not one of his covers. Yes, TONS of his books are out in e-format... TONS and TONS.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

BTackitt said:


> Nah herc, I'm not MTM, but I have almost all of Piers Anthony books and that's not one of his covers. Yes, TONS of his books are out in e-format... TONS and TONS.


But not 'On A Pale Horse'....Woe is me! Woe! Woe...hang on, I thnk they have it at the library. I did buy 'Spell For Chameleon' though.


----------



## M T McGuire (Dec 6, 2010)

@ Herc, sorry, no. Mine's the one with the thimble or do you mean the flying car.
@BTackitt your proverb about tea is superb, I'm sending it, right now, to my partner who is addicted, seriously addicted to tea... and scottish which is another way of saying the same thing. 

Cheers

MTM


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Yeah, and after saying tons and tons of PA books were kindled, I went and looked and it's less than 30. With no rhyme or reason as to which ones. But, if you go to http://www.hipiers.com I think he has more on his site.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

BTackitt said:


> Yeah, and after saying tons and tons of PA books were kindled, . . .


I got a kick out of this clause. Sounds like a book burning.  I just think we should burn the authors. Emmolation! _Mein Ros! Mein Ros! Gibst du mir mein Ros!_

Brünhilde Patterson


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> You shouldn't be offended because my comment was in no way, shape or form "aimed" at you personally (and I find it puzzling that you would think so). This may come as a shock, but I don't keep a list beside my computer of individual Kindleboard users and the arguments that they have put forth in various discussions over the last year. I have no idea what arguments you personally have, or have not, made.
> 
> I believe that, as a rule, most self-proclaimed "indie" writers, particularly here, are loath to criticize self-published work. I will go a step further and say that they fear that if they do so, they will be ostracized from the club. You may be in the minority that has no hesitation about criticizing self-published work. As for your argument that bad books don't matter, I would have to respectfully disagree.
> 
> Lee


I'll admit that I didn't write a scathing review of a book because the author is a member here on Kindleboards. Given that my negative review of Slingo was brought up on this forum I can just imagine what would happen if I wrote what I thought. Another member of this forum got upset at my pro-pirate stance and tagged my books with pirate, stealer, thief, douche, etc, too.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

mathewferguson said:


> I'll admit that I didn't write a scathing review of a book because the author is a member here on Kindleboards. Given that my negative review of Slingo was brought up on this forum I can just imagine what would happen if I wrote what I thought. Another member of this forum got upset at my pro-pirate stance and tagged my books with pirate, stealer, thief, douche, etc, too.


I just try not to review the books of people I know. I know a great many traditional authors who do the same thing (or they only review on sites where they don't have to rate).

Which brings me to another thought about this thread....

I think one of the reasons some discussions on quality devolve, and some don't, is because of how it starts. This isn't a blog, so when you declare an opinion, you are opening a _discussion_. Except sometimes a thread begins with just a vague opinion. "Most indie books suck." It's true, but it's not helpful. It doesn't define anything at all. People who write awful books can say "You know, you're right... those other books DO suck. Thank goodness mine are brilliant." While self-conscious geniuses may well say "Oh, I know my work is rotten. I never should have published it. I think I'll go burn all my manuscripts."

The fact is, people who write books that suck don't KNOW they've got books that suck. Otherwise they'd have done a better job. Even when you're talking to people who want to know whether their books are any good, who want to improve, it doesn't help them one jot to say "Most suck." Okay, so we're going with odds here? They should roll some dice to determine whether their books suck?

So what should you do? Should Chuck or Lee call out individual writers on what's wrong with their writing? No. But they could be more specific. What are the problems he has seen? "I sampled a hundred books on Smashwords, and the vast majority had typos on the first page." Or maybe the problem is more advanced, "I sampled a hundred books, and most of them had an opening that did not set up a premise - they just seemed to ramble."

Even if you find a thousand different problems, you don't have to solve all of them. Pick one, and then we can discuss how and why it's a problem, and how and why Famous Author succeeded (or didn't) when he did something like it.

If you're worried about the quality of writing, then give people tools to improve. If you're not _that_ worried about it, then why bother posting at all?

Camille


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I just try not to review the books of people I know. I know a great many traditional authors who do the same thing (or they only review on sites where they don't have to rate).
> 
> Which brings me to another thought about this thread....
> 
> ...


^^That^^


M T McGuire said:


> Getting to the top on Amazon is about selling a certain number of books within a certain amount of time. That doesn't happen over night. A book will sell if it is sold well, a well sold book may not be a good one (all that celebrity dross for example). Conversly, a good book, especially an indie one, may not be well sold. If it's a good book but selling best on personal recommendation, for example it will take several months for it to achive decent sales.


Ok good point. But might I point out that celebrity bios sell because of the fame of the celeb herself, not because of any value. And, there are a lot of sheeple out there who would buy it because they (for whatever reason) idolize these people. But yes, it does take a while for indie titles to build on success via word-of-mouth recommendations.



> Then again, we're talking mid-list established authors aren't we?


 No, I wasn't.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> This whole 'indies are rubbish' debate is approaching the phenomena of digital distribution the wrong way. Those who rant against it assume that everyone who publishes online has done so simply because they want to make money out of their writing. The fact is that, even if you are moderately successful, you won't make all that much money. Sure, two or three extremely talented and driven individuals may make a killing, but they are the exception rather than the rule.


I think there is a major paradigm shift - In the past to many "any money" in publishing you had to go through the traditional publishers. Many mid-list authors found this was not lucrative but was "better than nothing".

Now there are two choices and I think $ for $ the "chances" of making decent money as an indie outweighs the "chances" making decent money through traditional publishing. If you are going to be a midlist author - you'll make much more money independent then with the big publisher.

The last issue is "break out success" - Even with the high indie sales by people here such as Joe Konrath, Michael J. Sullivan, H.P. Mallory, Vicky Lieske, etc. etc. only one really classifies as true "break out success" and that is Amanda Hocking. No traditional publisher is likely to cough up the kind of money they would need to in order to get her away from self-publishing, but if she HAD been picked up by NY back in April - I'm pretty sure she could have been on the NYT bestseller list and being talked about as the next Stephanie Meyers by the mainstream press. Even with selling 500,000 books I don't think many people outside the indie "echo chamber" really have ever heard of her. Ask the next 100 people you see reading on a plane, bus, or train if they know who she is and I'm pretty sure that none of them will know her.

If you "have the right stuff" you can only reach "the really big time" (and by that I mean NYT and name recognition) by going traditional. But the number of people who can do this is small and if you miss that brass ring then you'll make signficantly less money in a traditional publisher selling "so-so" then you wil by staying indie.

One last point...the reading public at large will always think "Well they must be self-published becuase they weren't good enough for NY". The reality is many indie authors aren't bother to submit to NY so that's not the case but none the less what people will think.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> 1. the stigma associated with self-published work is often well-deserved
> 2. the stigma, if anything, might endure and even become stronger as more unreadable swill is put out there.


Actually, as someone who has been involved with self-publishing for a number of years now I think we are seeing a change in the stigma and I think that self-publishe will become more accepted because.


1) More an more *new * authors that are really good (but for whatever reason "just missed" in NY) will now be available for reading - these are well written stories that once found will reinforce readers to try others
More and more *established * authors will decline traditional publishing contracts to self publish and the "news" of such will start perculating down to readers 
Readers will look at self-publishing more as a way for authors to make more $ rather than because they weren't "good enough"

Or at least that's how I see the evolving landscape.


----------



## Gerald (Dec 11, 2010)

And also, we're starting to see indie authors being approached by traditional publishers. So choosing indie isn't necessarily a career decision. H.P. Mallory is a case in point, getting a very good advance (6 figures, she said) with her deal which leaves the indie books still out there. With this, the barriers (which may be more psychological than anything else) are being broken between the two 'sides'. Which has got to be a good thing. Readers don't (or shouldn't) care how a writer is published.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> I didn't grow up in that system, I never submitted agents, and I still think I can use a friggin' prologue effectively. And as for those rules...yeah, over and over and over I read how people simply weren't publishing sword and sorcery. If you had elves, or orcs, you were toast. But there is an audience for this stuff, dangit. I know there is. I'm one of them, and I refuse to believe I'm the only one.
> 
> As for Lee's points...nearly every single one has the same response:
> 
> ...


I'm obviously "catching up" on this post - which is why I have so many recent entries - but of all the posts this one really struck a chord with me. Well said David!


----------



## M T McGuire (Dec 6, 2010)

Gerald said:


> And also, we're starting to see indie authors being approached by traditional publishers. So choosing indie isn't necessarily a career decision. H.P. Mallory is a case in point, getting a very good advance (6 figures, she said) with her deal which leaves the indie books still out there. With this, the barriers (which may be more psychological than anything else) are being broken between the two 'sides'. Which has got to be a good thing. Readers don't (or shouldn't) care how a writer is published.


The old 'proven track record' (how I LOATHE that phrase). The exact reason I'm doing it myself.

I'm in the UK and I write fantasy which is funny. I think I could have picked a genre that would turn agents and publishers off a bit more but I'm not sure what it is... comic poetry perhaps (the other thing I write)? I write in a style that sells but the established publishers seem to be unwilling or unable to take the gamble. So I look at it two ways.

1. I'd rather reach a handful of people who enjoy my work than spend years flogging a dead horse. 
2. The added benefit is, if my stuff does start to sell then I can always go to a publisher or an agent later with proof that people will buy my books. I'm not good at sales and they are so it'd be nice to have some help and advice with that side of things.

Cheers

MTM


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

M T McGuire said:


> I'm in the UK and I write fantasy which is funny.


And being in the UK hamstrings you nicely, mate. A lot of what's said on these forums isn't relevant to us here in Blighty and the way our agency / publisher system works. Sadly, that gets completely forgotten about on this board and others.


----------



## M T McGuire (Dec 6, 2010)

NickSpalding said:


> And being in the UK hamstrings you nicely, mate. A lot of what's said on these forums isn't relevant to us here in Blighty and the way our agency / publisher system works. Sadly, that gets completely forgotten about on this board and others.


MTM Guffaws. This is very true. That's what happens when you write a book for geeks and then try to get it accepted by gatekeepers with Oxbridge English degrees who read literary fiction. I should probably have stuck to stand up. At the time I sat down, I suspect I'd have had a very much better chance of making it onto Friday Night at the Apollo than I do of getting picked up by a publisher.

BTW BIG FACE! I was one of the handful.

Cheers

MTM


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

M T McGuire said:


> The old 'proven track record' (how I LOATHE that phrase). The exact reason I'm doing it myself.
> 
> I'm in the UK and I write fantasy which is funny. I think I could have picked a genre that would turn agents and publishers off a bit more but I'm not sure what it is... comic poetry perhaps (the other thing I write)? I write in a style that sells but the established publishers seem to be unwilling or unable to take the gamble. So I look at it two ways.
> 
> ...


Good outlook! 


Gerald said:


> And also, we're starting to see indie authors being approached by traditional publishers. So choosing indie isn't necessarily a career decision. H.P. Mallory is a case in point, getting a very good advance (6 figures, she said) with her deal which leaves the indie books still out there. With this, the barriers (which may be more psychological than anything else) are being broken between the two 'sides'. Which has got to be a good thing. Readers don't (or shouldn't) care how a writer is published.


^^Amen to that!

And, 6 figures? WOW!

I am sincerely happy for her.


----------



## Jnassise (Mar 22, 2010)

> A lot of what's said on these forums isn't relevant to us here in Blighty and the way our agency / publisher system works. Sadly, that gets completely forgotten about on this board and others.


That's because there are a lot of people on this board who don't really understand much of how US publishing works, never mind the UK publishing scene.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"One last point...the reading public at large will always think "Well they must be self-published becuase they weren't good enough for NY". The reality is many indie authors aren't bother to submit to NY so that's not the case but none the less what people will think."_

I wouldn't dispute that in general, but I think the rise of all kinds of independent bloggers and internet sites in the last fifteen years has changed attitudes a bit. Look at the success of independent bloggers and news sites, and the way they have succeeded by challenging the entrenched news industry. It's accepted now.

[Antecdotal Alert] When I decribe independent publishing on the Kindle to people, many will say it seems like bloggers versus the established media. Others will suggest it's similar to speciality news letters for specific industries that they consult on the web everyday. They pay $500 to $1,000 per year for those newsletters even though they have all the New York newspapers available.

So, we have lots of very good, very successful, and well respected independents on the web that were not good enough for somebody in New York. People care less and less about New York.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Wasn't Mark Twain self-published initially?  That's what I've read, anyway.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

NickSpalding said:


> And being in the UK hamstrings you nicely, mate. A lot of what's said on these forums isn't relevant to us here in Blighty and the way our agency / publisher system works. Sadly, that gets completely forgotten about on this board and others.


Nick,

It's not forgotten, it's ignorance. I certainly don't know the differences. Please tell us more! How does the system differ in the UK?

Lee


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

purplepen79 said:


> Wasn't Mark Twain self-published initially? That's what I've read, anyway.


Yes! And, Hans Christian Andersen took his fairy tales to a printing press. He also wrote for the Royal Danish Ballet.


----------



## angelaperry (Feb 5, 2011)

modwitch said:


> Well, I waded into the comments over at Chuck's place. I think I just got called a Baptist


Nah, I wasn't calling you a Baptist  I was referring to the rude people Chuck alluded to whose comments he had to delete because they were insulting and added nothing to the conversation. I thought your comments were polite and well thought out.

I plan to self-publish at some point. I've been meaning to create a login on the Kindle boards, so this gave me an excuse (because I don't want anyone on the Internet to think I'm a big meanie or a jerk or anything...*everyone *needs to like me LOL). Hi everyone! *waves*


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

M T McGuire said:


> BTW BIG FACE! I was one of the handful.


Aah...so at least one person took note then


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> [Antecdotal Alert] When I decribe independent publishing on the Kindle to people, many will say it seems like bloggers versus the established media. Others will suggest it's similar to speciality news letters for specific industries that they consult on the web everyday. They pay $500 to $1,000 per year for those newsletters even though they have all the New York newspapers available.
> 
> So, we have lots of very good, very successful, and well respected independents on the web that were not good enough for somebody in New York. People care less and less about New York.


My experience has been almost exactly the same. There is a whole world of people out there for whom NY and publishing and bookstores are irrelevant... and strangely enough, they read. They read all day long. Constantly. Just not on paper, and not traditionally published material.

Camille


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm happy to talk about the relative quality of indie and traditional work, but I have to be upfront about something:

Most of you here, and those with experience in the traditional publishing world in general certainly, really, _really_ overestimate style.

A book is good if the author has a good idea for a book and if it's well plotted. Likeable characters help but are not essential.

Style matters for about 1/10th of 1 percent.

Here's my evidence:

Sienkiewicz's _Quo Vadis_ is a good book. I have read it in several different translations. The translations were undertaken at widely separated times, and as a result are wildly different stylistically. And the style differences are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the book is good. If the book was good as a result of its style, this should not be the case.

More evidence:

They say that Nietzsche was a great stylist, possibly the greatest in the German language ever, and also that he has never been competently translated. But even the botched translations are immensely interesting, because unlike most people he actually had something interesting to say.

More evidence:

The reincarnation of Shakespeare could write _Eat Pray Love 2_ and I wouldn't want to read it and would hate it if I did read it.

More evidence:

The Baen free library books should all be of roughly the same quality, and they were largely all edited by the same couple of people. But I want to read some of them, and the others make me say "Meh."

So sure, I'm happy to discuss whether or not indie offerings are worthwhile - but not if we are going to play the "Ohmigod she used an adverb, burn the witch!" game. It's pointless and irrelevant and a waste of our time.


----------



## angelaperry (Feb 5, 2011)

modwitch said:


> LOL and welcome. By now I'm just laughing at the comments to Chuck's post. There's lots of good character material there!


Thanks! That's a very positive way of looking at comments. I'll keep that in mind next time things get a bit warm on a blog


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

xandy3 said:


> Yes! And, Hans Christian Andersen took his fairy tales to a printing press. He also wrote for the Royal Danish Ballet.


I didn't know that about Hans Christian Andersen, and he's one of my favorite writers! Thank you~


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

tbrookside said:


> I'm happy to talk about the relative quality of indie and traditional work, but I have to be upfront about something:
> 
> Most of you here, and those with experience in the traditional publishing world in general certainly, really, _really_ overestimate style...


Define style.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Nick,
> 
> It's not forgotten, it's ignorance. I certainly don't know the differences. Please tell us more! How does the system differ in the UK?
> 
> Lee


Lee...don't get me started...d*mn it, it's too late, I already have:

The system over here is different to the US in several key aspects. First off, there aren't as many agencies or publishers over here. You can probably cover just about every agency that's worth sending your material to by punting out well under a hundred submission queries. As for publishers, there's really no more than 20 at the absolute maximum to trouble with your work. So, the avenues of approach over here are far narrower than if you're in the US.

Unless someone can tell me different, UK agencies and publishers have little to no regard for self-published authors, and the whole Kindle revolution is barely appearing on their radar at the moment. 'Stuck in the mud' is the phrase that immediately springs to mind. I fear the likes of Amanda Hocking and HP Mallory would be sadly overlooked over here&#8230;

As for being an indie author in the UK - well, it's lovely that Amazon now have a UK store and that I can be paid for Life&#8230; With No Breaks in actual pounds sterling when I sell copies there.

However, Smashwords have no payment scheme in place other than dollars, and neither does Createspace. I've had to publish the paperback version of LWNB with Lulu, otherwise I lose a huge chuck of change to the American tax system (and we all know how hard a time anyone outside the US is having getting that back!). These companies need to pull their fingers out and provide a better service to overseas customers - otherwise the traditional publishers will eventually corner the ebook market and cut the rest of us out.

And it's bloody shameful that B&N and Google haven't even bothered to think about letting foreign authors put their work up on their sites (though someone may know of an update on this, I haven't checked in a few weeks).

If there's one thing that annoys me somewhat about this forum (and others) it's that not much of a thought is being given to self-publishing on a global scale - it's all very American-centric. I know the site is run by you fine people in the US and is predominantly full of US authors, but as this e-book internet revolution spans many continents, can I ask (and I hope I speak for my fellow foreign authors) that a little more thought is given to those outside the US?

I say this as much for the benefit of US authors. I read a lot of posts on here from writers worrying why they're not selling well in the UK.

My response to which is: What are you doing to sell your books in the UK? Are you linking to Amazon UK in signatures? Are you making sure your books are accessible to people outside the US? Are you changing any language, syntax and references that someone in the UK or elsewhere might not understand as it's specific to the US?

Sales go up when you acknowledge that your audience is different in other countries! There's no point in slapping your book up on Amazon and then fretting why people in the UK aren't buying it, if you're doing little to engage with them and encourage them to buy your work.

I'm stopping now, but could go on about this for pages...


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

NickSpalding said:


> Lee...don't get me started...d*mn it, it's too late, I already have:
> 
> The system over here is different to the US in several key aspects. First off, there aren't as many agencies or publishers over here. You can probably cover just about every agency that's worth sending your material to by punting out well under a hundred submission queries. As for publishers, there's really no more than 20 at the absolute maximum to trouble with your work. So, the avenues of approach over here are far narrower than if you're in the US.
> 
> ...


As an Australian writer I feel your pain my friend.

So many of those ebook sites that you can't sign up to without a US address or bank account. I'm convinced a savvy US resident could make some serious money simply offering to publish writers outside the US to B&N, etc.

Stuck in the mud may as well be Australia's alternate name! I took a writer with a decent download history to an Australian publisher and it was like I'd walked in with bag of toxic waste slung over my shoulder. Downloads? Ewww. You'd think they'd never heard of ebooks.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

mathewferguson said:


> As an Australian writer I feel your pain my friend.
> 
> So many of those ebook sites that you can't sign up to without a US address or bank account. I'm convinced a savvy US resident could make some serious money simply offering to publish writers outside the US to B&N, etc.
> 
> Stuck in the mud may as well be Australia's alternate name! I took a writer with a decent download history to an Australian publisher and it was like I'd walked in with bag of toxic waste slung over my shoulder. Downloads? Ewww. You'd think they'd never heard of ebooks.


And yet, I'm still considering emigrating over there some time soon. Which means I may never be a successfully published author...but I will have a sun tan, I can drink flat whites until I burst, and I'd have a day job that pays me a cart load more than I get here in Blighty


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

NickSpalding said:


> And yet, I'm still considering emigrating over there some time soon. Which means I may never be a successfully published author...but I will have a sun tan, I can drink flat whites until I burst, and I'd have a day job that pays me a cart load more than I get here in Blighty


Don't forget that we're one of the world's largest wine producers so a $60 bottle anywhere else in the world is more like $12 here ...


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> Don't forget that we're one of the world's largest wine producers so a $60 bottle anywhere else in the world is more like $12 here ...


Yes, but you can get great French wine dirt cheap in France, great California wines inexpensively in California, South African wines are cheap in South Africa, etc.

I'm not knocking Australian wines as the good ones hold their own to good wines anywhere, but there's a matter of the Pacific Ocean that affects the price more than anything.


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

The wine thing is a bit of a moot point anyway, I can't stand the stuff. Beer. Beer and whiskey. That's what Spalding imbibes.

...We seem to have strayed off topic somewhat.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

NickSpalding said:


> The wine thing is a bit of a moot point anyway, I can't stand the stuff. Beer. Beer and whiskey. That's what Spalding imbibes.
> 
> ...We seem to have strayed off topic somewhat.


That's what always happens when people start drinking.


----------



## Stuffeshead (Jan 19, 2011)

Just agreeing generally with Mr. Brookside.  I'm not yet ready to publish my novel (heeding advice to edit, edit, edit, edit), so my indie publishing experience is nonexistent.  However, I have observed for years that the best publications (movies, books, songs) are those with a good story.  A good story will rescue bad writing, bad acting, etc. (the Twilight series did just that on both counts).  Look at the 70's-era Willie Wonka.  The only decent acting in the entire film was Gene Wilder, and even he wasn't at his best.  But the quality of the story made the film a classic and something I still pause to watch whenever I'm flipping channels.  Another example is Taylor Swift.  I absolutely love her music.  She's not the greatest singer (sometimes, she's awful -particularly live), but her song have compelling narratives, and it makes the stuff sell like hotcakes.

Having said all that, I still can't wrap my head around the failure of Ishtar.  Warren Beatty and DUstin Hoffman in desert-bound international espionage and intrigue....  How could that not be a hit?!

Stuffeshead


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> That last line just killed me. And it's not even the funniest bit in his post. What's great is that he doesn't just take cheap shots at some of the bad, self-published writers out there. By using strong examples, he clearly and hilariously illustrates the many cringe-inducing mistakes made by aspiring writers and, at the same time, offers solid advice on how to avoid "gumming up the plumbing with your old underpants." It's a very entertaining read and worthwhile read...and I'd be curious to hear your take on his observations.


Well, it's not like he said anything new. But, boy - did he do it funny. And he made some good points. And he also was very clear that there's a lot of GREAT stuff out there by indies. So - if he wasn't talking to you, don't get your panties in a bunch. If he was, well - do something about it. Them's my two cents.


----------



## M T McGuire (Dec 6, 2010)

@ Nick, Micheal and other 'foreign' writers. Spare a thought for the poor South Africans who can't do paypal - no Smashwords for them, either.

Nick, especially, thank you for having that rant so I don't have to. As a writer of humorous fantasy fiction, my list of potential agents came in at about 14 - all the top ones, ie the ones who keep their lists open because they're huge but aren't going to look at a newbie author twice.

On the pricing thread on here I heard that if you are in the English Speaking world outside the US and UK - which is quite a lot of it - you have to pay the Amazon US price for e-books. This means that if you're a UK writer, trying to sell your e-book you can aim it at the US market, which seems to appreciate a slightly higher price, or the rest of the world who will have to pay an extra two dollars on top to download the book. As someone from South Africa pointed out, that means, with the exchange rate that my e-book costs about the same as a paperback over there.

The withholding thing also does my head in. There's a big difference between made in the US and distributed there, but the IRS seems happy to fuzz the distinction the way it sees fit. No sign of continuity or any particular criteria being applied.

The answer, I suspect, would be Smashwords.co.uk - after all that's what LuLu did. Or maybe The Book Depository could start a self publishing e-book distribution thing in the same line as Amazon. They wouldn't even have to crunch an html file into the right formats, most of us can read up on how to do it ourselves... and there are some pretty comprehensive instructions on the web.

Blimey... If I had more than four hours a week, I'd do it myself.

@ Stuffeshead, I get your point but I don't agree. I think 70s Willi Wonka is the most shockingly moralising, preachy, treating the audience like it's retarded, load of ... but that's probably my British cynicism. My husband, who grew up in the US and Canada, loves it and I'm not sure Harry Potter is very well written.

cheers

MTM


----------



## NickSpalding (Apr 21, 2010)

M T McGuire said:


> ... but that's probably my British cynicism.


Cynicism - healthy or otherwise - is banned in the United States. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence.

Tea had something to do with it, I'm led to believe.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> Then why did he write a lot of rubbish designed to inflame and offend. Why the negative diatribe? Is it for publicity? Is he a troll? I don't get it. Why spew all that venom when you are one of those you are spewing venom at? Is this another cheap attempt at get his name out there? Is this some form of joke perpetrated by Chuck and Mr Lees that the rest of us have yet to see?


It's called - you're taking it personally. Seriously. If he wasn't talking to you, he wasn't talking to you. That's like if I said "All red-heads who are wearing orange polka-dotted hats need to understand that the orange clashes with their hair and looks like hell."

Okay - if you aren't a redhead (self-published), don't worry about it.
If you ARE A red-head, but aren't wearing orange polka dots, why are you getting yourself in a twist?


----------



## Stuffeshead (Jan 19, 2011)

M T McGuire said:


> @ Stuffeshead, I get your point but I don't agree. I think 70s Willi Wonka is the most shockingly moralising, preachy, treating the audience like it's retarded, load of ... but that's probably my British cynicism. My husband, who grew up in the US and Canada, loves it and I'm not sure Harry Potter is very well written.
> 
> cheers
> 
> MTM


I don't deny that the film is condescending and morally simplistic. But I think it "works" - i.e., it's a successful narrative - because the underlying story is so well written. I think the bulk of the condescension is merely the director's approach of treating everything in the story as a children's book. But all in all, the film is iconic and nearly ubiquitous. It's hard to argue with success. Whether the film is pleasing artistically may be an altogether different matter. But my point was merely to highlight how good storytelling could overcome poor acting (or writing). Which leads me to your last comment. I tend to agree that the HP series was not particularly well written. But that story... Wow. We should all be so lucky to dream up such a plot for a series of novels. Compelling doesn't even begin to describe it. Which (I think you're agreeing with me) makes the point that stories overcome poor (or in Rowling's case, mediocre) writing.

Stuffeshead


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Are you changing any language, syntax and references that someone in the UK or elsewhere might not understand as it's specific to the US?"_

I'd suggest the sales of British authors in the US suggests Americans don't have any problem with British usage. Is there really a problem going the other way?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Sweet. I love them long paragraphs that don't propel the story forward. I must say, however, that I refuse to start reading until I can be guaranteed that it will be a four book Trilogy. Otherwise, I'll just have to not read of the mystery of Jesus's 401k plan.


David, you got a shout-out 



ChuckWendig said:


> Tell you what, too - I'll endeavor after this point to be more of a *fountain* and less of a *drain,* as the saying goes.
> 
> I will continue to point out good DIY books as I come across them.
> 
> ...


----------



## M T McGuire (Dec 6, 2010)

stuffesead, 

Right with you on Harry Potter and yeh, I get you about the chocolate factory. I think the problem is I never read the book before I saw the film. I think you can also get the reverse, a crap story well told can often be fulfilling!

Terence - I have to say that US spelling used to drive me completely buggy. To me it felt like people selling me books in French and expecting me to understand it (yeh, I know that foreign). Now I'm less of a plank and I find I can switch something off in my head so it doesn't bother me. 

Nowadays, it depends who's selling the book. If it's an indie US publisher or author and I have no worries. If it's published by some whopping corporate behemoth in dead tree, they have more than enough money to do the tweaks. Typical British inverted snobbery in my attitude there! ;-)

Short word answer, no not unless it's done in a way that looks lazy or condescending.

That said, a lot of what Nick says made a lot of sense. I'm British so I'd kill to find a site where I could publish e-books and be paid, into my bank account in pounds stirling. Or to put it another way. Imagine, for a moment if there were no e-book publishing sites based in the States if nearly every discussion site was based in Australia it would be different. It would feel odd... it's hard to imagine if you're never in a position to experience it. And should any of you guys fail to notice, we don't mind, we know it's not arrogance (unless we're really stupid) and most of it transfers pretty easily. 

I think it's just a question of there only being one nation, right now, where enough people, in enough numbers are doing anything. There's that dynamic American thing again. I'm sure the rest of us will catch up eventually ;-)

In fact, I think it may change as e-books take off around the world...

Cheers

MTM


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Eh? Who? Where was this, Arkali?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Eh? Who? Where was this, Arkali?


Errrm. The follow-up blog post up-thread. I'll look it up and PM it to you


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

I saw, and now I am absolutely petrified. The guy who writes an article about how many self-published works are bags of dicks, and then publicly says he bought one of my books in hopes of finding a _good_ one?

Crap. Crap. Crap.

I is scared now.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I saw, and now I am absolutely petrified. The guy who writes an article about how many self-published works are bags of dicks, and then publicly says he bought one of my books in hopes of finding a _good_ one?
> 
> Crap. Crap. Crap.
> 
> I is scared now.


On the other hand, if he believes your book is a bag of dicks, your many readers will know exactly what to think of the rest of his opinions. If he does like your book, you get publicity.

Be not afraid, you can only benefit.

Camille


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Nah. I'm still scared. But thanks for the attempt


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> Nah. I'm still scared. But thanks for the attempt


Dude..... You're stuff is solid as a rock and he's going to crow about it...


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

SEE!  SEE!!  Just proves my point!

Cream rising to the top = David D!  Nuff said


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Nah. I'm still scared. But thanks for the attempt


Hey, I would LOVE for him to read Have Gun, Will Play and tell us honestly whether that's what he means.

Camille


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Bwhahahhaa.

Or he uses me as an example of how even those with good sellers can still be full of crap. I'm just crossing fingers for an "eh, it was all right". I'll consider that escaping unscathed


----------



## dltanner99 (Sep 9, 2010)

I agree with the notion of taking the traditional out (if it is offered), then put out a few eBooks while you are building your tribe of readers. Worked great for Jeremy Robinson, who is even doing well under a second name.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

dltanner99 said:


> I agree with the notion of taking the traditional out (if it is offered), then put out a few eBooks while you are building your tribe of readers. Worked great for Jeremy Robinson, who is even doing well under a second name.


Actually, Robinson started out as self-published. He even wrote a book on POD self-publishing.


----------



## Herc- The Reluctant Geek (Feb 10, 2010)

Arkali said:


> It's called - you're taking it personally. Seriously. If he wasn't talking to you, he wasn't talking to you. That's like if I said "All red-heads who are wearing orange polka-dotted hats need to understand that the orange clashes with their hair and looks like hell."
> 
> Okay - if you aren't a redhead (self-published), don't worry about it.
> If you ARE A red-head, but aren't wearing orange polka dots, why are you getting yourself in a twist?


It's actually called 'what a stupid way to argue'.

Of course he's not talking to me personally, nor do I give a fig what some neub goose from pompous land thinks about me or my writing. The person made an inflammatory post on his blog. When people countered his arguments, his one response was 'don't take it personally'. Here's an idea, instead of drawing an imaginary line in the sand that divides the deserving from the diseased, how about just engaging in the debate? 
Here is a statement: The problem with so many blog writers is they hide behind cliques and jargon to denigrate others and protect their fragile sense of self.
Of course I'm not talking about _all_ bloggers, just the special ones.


----------

