# Kindle #s: Traditional Vs. Self Publishing -- Blog posting by JA Konrath



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

I came upon this interesting blog posting by JA Konrath via another blog..... I think it contains some very useful information for independent authors.

Kindle Numbers: Traditional Publishing Vs. Self Publishing

This is the blog posting I read that summarizes some of the points in the above article:

Publishing Revolution? J. A. Konrath, Open Road are stirring up one


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

as a regular reader of his blog, I can say that it's probably worth your while to read down further after the post at the top--he's doing some interesting experiments with the Kindle books he has.  He's always been very helpful when it comes to posting information about the publishing business, his books and so forth.  His "The List" is a great read as well.


----------



## Ricky Sides (Sep 16, 2009)

What an interesting business model. I decided to test that model for a few weeks. I was planning a price increase on four of my five book peacekeeper series moving them from $3.00 to $3.99 at the end of the month. However after reading the article I opted to test that model and lowered my price to $2.00 for books 2-5. Book 1 is still at the introductory price of $1.00. At the end of the month I'll report back in as to whether I stand at $2 or move to the aforementioned $3.99.

Lowering them that much froze them for 24 hours.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

I thought you might be interested in this post about Kindle Publishing from my blog (http://leegoldberg.typepad.com)...

My friend Joe Konrath, who inspired me to put my out-of-print novels on the Kindle, has posted a fascinating and informative account of his Kindle ebook sales and royalties. He compares how the Kindle versions of his Hyperion-published books are doing compared with his "self-published" Kindle titles. Here's an excerpt, but I recommend you read the whole post (http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2009/10/kindle-numbers-traditional-publishing.htm)

_My five Hyperion ebooks (the sixth one came out in July so no royalties yet) each earn an average of $803 per year on Kindle.

My four self-pubbed Kindle novels each earn an average of $3430 per year.

If I had the rights to all six of my Hyperion books, and sold them on Kindle for $1.99, I'd be making $20,580 per year off of them, total, rather than $4818 a year off of them, total.

So, in other words, because Hyperion has my ebook rights, I'm losing $15,762 per year.

Now Hyperion also has my print rights, and my Jack Daniels books are still selling in print. But they aren't selling enough to make up the $15,762. Especially since all of them aren't regularly being stocked on bookstore shelves.

According to my math, I'd be making more money if my books were out of print, and I had my rights back.
[...]Ebook rights began as gravy. I can picture a day when the print rights are the gravy, and authors make their living with ebooks.

Yes, it's still far off. And yes, print publishing is in no danger of going away anytime soon.

But I don't think I'll ever take a print contract for less than $30,000 per book, because I'm confident I could make more money on it over the course of six years than I could with a publisher over six years._

I wouldn't take this as a rallying cry to turn away from NY publishers and rush to the Kindle. Joe is a special case. Before "self-publishing" his Kindle titles, he'd already established himself with a series of hardcovers and paperbacks from major NY publishers. He also did a 500-store, multi-state book-tour and attended countless conventions. Joe selling thousands of ebook editions of his previously unpublished work is a very, very different situation than an unpublished writer hoping to accomplish the same feat.

And Joe himself acknowledges that fact in a later post:

_ I do not think that ebooks are able to replace the exposure, or money, you'd get with a print publisher.

To All New Authors: JA says try the traditional route first. Find an agent. Land a deal with a big NY house. Ebooks aren't there yet.

I'd hate to think some writer gave up on their print aspirations because of something I've said on my blog. I suggest you keep up the agent search. While I have no doubt others will be able to sell as many ebooks as I have, and probably many more, I still haven't made anywhere near the money I've made by being in print. Plus, everyone's situation is unique, and no writer should compare themselves to any other writer.
_

As for myself, my Kindle sales are still going strong, though not Konrath-strong.

THE WALK has sold 1760 copies in 4 months @ $1.99 each, for a royalty of $1204.

THREE WAYS TO DIE has sold 236 copies in 4 months @ $.99 each, for a royalty of $82

MY GUN HAS BULLETS has sold 254 copies in about 3 months @ $1.99 each, for a royalty of $175

BEYOND THE BEYOND has sold 69 copies in about 3 months @ $1.99 each, for a royalty of $48.30

I've also got out-of-print editions of TELEVISION SERIES REVIVALS, UNSOLD TV PILOTS, and my four 357 VIGILANTE novels that have been released on the Kindle at various times over the last four months.

All told, my combined Kindle royalties from June 1 to 11:23 pm Oct 13, are: $1750.

It's not enough to make me follow Joe's example and turn away from anything less than a $30,000 advance from a major publisher, but I'm very pleased. It's hardly a fortune, and clearly the lion's share of the royalties are from just one book, THE WALK, but it's found money. And it's gratifying to me to see THE WALK, which was out-of-print, on track to reaching more readers, and making more money for me, in a Kindle edition than it ever did in hardcover.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Wow, really interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts and Joe's.

Betsy


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Thanks Lee!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 16, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I thought you might be interested in this post about Kindle Publishing from my blog (http://leegoldberg.typepad.com)...
> 
> My friend Joe Konrath, who inspired me to put my out-of-print novels on the Kindle, has posted a fascinating and informative account of his Kindle ebook sales and royalties. He compares how the Kindle versions of his Hyperion-published books are doing compared with his "self-published" Kindle titles. Here's an excerpt, but I recommend you read the whole post (http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2009/10/kindle-numbers-traditional-publishing.htm)
> 
> ...


_

A have to wonder if we are comparing apples to apples here, however.

First, is he subtracting the cost of his marketing, sales, etc from his Kindle revenues? The $803 per year on the Hyperion books is a "true net". Authors don't pay for proofreaders, editors, cover art, marketing, sales support, distribution, etc, etc, etc. Whereas a self-publishing author foots all of those costs himself. And even if he is performing all of these jobs himself (which I doubt) there is the cost of his time, which if these numbers are going to be truely compatible should be accounted for.

Second, would his four self-pubbed books be doing as well were it not for the established reputation he earned by first going through a traditional publisher? Stephen King could self-publish a book and sell a million copies based on name recognition, but would he have sold them if he had self-published Carrie instead of going through a normal publisher?

I think numbers thrown around like this are a bit dangerous, because the lack of true transparency in what they actually represent gives a lot of authors false ideas of profit potention._


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

I agree with you. It would be a big mistake for an unpublished writer to believe they can have the same success that Joe has had on the Kindle platform. In general, I believe it's a *HUGE* mistake for an aspiring writer to self-publish...but at least doing so on the Kindle is free. My advice is that fiction writers should *NEVER* pay to publish...you will lose your money and not gain the professional or popular recognition that you seek.

Lee


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> A have to wonder if we are comparing apples to apples here, however.
> 
> First, is he subtracting the cost of his marketing, sales, etc from his Kindle revenues? The $803 per year on the Hyperion books is a "true net". Authors don't pay for proofreaders, editors, cover art, marketing, sales support, distribution, etc, etc, etc. Whereas a self-publishing author foots all of those costs himself. And even if he is performing all of these jobs himself (which I doubt) there is the cost of his time, which if these numbers are going to be truely compatible should be accounted for.
> 
> ...


Your second point is discussed by Konrath on his blog. The first point I don't think he mentions.

Ebooks are only about 1% of the market, as I recall. What happens to Konrath's calculations if ebooks become 10% of the market over the next couple of years? (I for one would not be surprised if they did.)


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

This is an interesting discussion, and I'm pleased to see Eric, above, commenting because Eric, your book "Crack-Up," is an example that's different from Konrath or Stephen King. While you don't have the name recognition created by a series of published books, you are creating a name for yourself with your novel on Kindle. With an initial great review from Red Adept, and plenty of people buying and saying good things about your book, it seems to have found the rare chain reaction. Word-of-mouth has created sales. You brought your book to Kindle when your agent couldn't place it, and you tried it here without even offering a print version of the book, which I've found fascinating. Because this has happened only over the last couple months, you may not have even received a first check yet. 

If I understand your goals correctly, they are not unlike mine: get enough interest and numbers on Kindle, and perhaps your agent can interest a big publisher the way Boyd Morrison was able to get a two-book deal with Simon and Schuster. This may be the publishing model in the future, to prove your worth through ebooks and then publishers can cherry-pick from the lists. 

My first novel, "The Brightest Moon of the Century," came out in print earlier this year and had some help through Barnes and Noble's Small Press Department, a division in New York that gives some marketing help to small books it likes. Even so, sales have slowed now, and I'm bringing it to Kindle this week, now that I've discovered Kindle. My two short story collections (whose covers are below), have received wonderful attention and sales here. At times "The Middle-Aged Man and the Sea" has been listed in the Top 5 of short story collections, right behind Jumpa Lahiri's bestselling "Unaccustomed Earth." I haven't received a first check yet, but I'm already convinced of the importance of the Kindle market.

Now that my wife brought home a Kindle and I've tried it out, I now understand how it mirrors the reading experience with printed books. It's the weight of a book with a page the size of a book, and it looks like ink on a page. Yet with search features, it has a few options better than a book.  In fact, I went back to my short story collections and added hyperlinks to the stories. For "The Brightest Moon of the Century," I learned how to add photos that are in the print addition. (The secret is to put them in a Microsoft DOC file not HTML as I was trying and having the photos filtered out. Converting from PDF files didn't work well at all.)

This discussion also interests me because this is the very topic I'm moderating at the AWP convention in Denver in April. My thoughts of what we'll cover changes by the week. Kindle will certainly be a part of it. 

--Christopher Meeks


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> My advice is that fiction writers should *NEVER* pay to publish...you will lose your money and not gain the professional or popular recognition that you seek.
> 
> Lee


Self-publishing shouldn't be confused with vanity publishing - some vanity presses (not to be named) will charge a certain amount to publish, "edit" (*cough*), and print a certain number of copies of a book, and along with that they promise things that won't be an issue because your book isn't likely to get to a place where those things (like bookstore returnability) will be necessary.

On the other hand, you can put out your own book using a POD distributor for very low cost and market it yourself. True - you won't get MAJOR recognition the way you would if your book were ever picked up by a large publisher (because who has that kind of money to market, who has the branding, BUT a large publisher?), but if your book is truly good, and if you market it well, you can certainly get it recognized in the circles you're hoping to attract.

There's a fascinating discussion about this (in which J.A. Konrath participates) at Backword Books, if you're interested.


----------



## rho (Feb 12, 2009)

well as someone who has authors I love with out of print books I want - I hope this works in my favor for the out of print books at the very least   Guess I will keep writing my favorite authors requesting that the out of print books be put on Kindle


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Self-publishing shouldn't be confused with vanity publishing - some vanity presses (not to be named) will charge a certain amount to publish, "edit" (*cough*), and print a certain number of copies of a book, and along with that they promise things that won't be an issue because your book isn't likely to get to a place where those things (like bookstore returnability) will be necessary.
> 
> On the other hand, you can put out your own book using a POD distributor for very low cost and market it yourself. True - you won't get MAJOR recognition the way you would if your book were ever picked up by a large publisher (because who has that kind of money to market, who has the branding, BUT a large publisher?), but if your book is truly good, and if you market it well, you can certainly get it recognized in the circles you're hoping to attract.
> 
> There's a fascinating discussion about this (in which J.A. Konrath participates) at Backword Books, if you're interested.


I read the comments at Backwords and I agree with my friend Joe. It's cringe-inducing to read the embarrassing and often idiotic responses to his intelligent, honest remarks. Most of those commenters are deluding themselves. Many of them are obviously bitter at having their work consistently rejected by real publishers and can't accept that maybe it's because their work sucks...or, to be more charitable, is non-commercial. They twist themselves into pretzels rationalizing the money they've spent on self-publishing and the lack of significant sales, critical attention, or recognition. Selling five POD books at a single local bookstore, and being told by family and friends and "Red Adept" that you're a swell writer, is not an argument for the viability of self-publishing. Nor does it make you critically acclaimed. Nor is it a reason to delude yourself into thinking you are a "published author." If all they care about is getting their writing into the world, and not making any money at it, fine... then they should distribute their work as PDFs for free on their blogs (or Scribd, Smashwords), or for a pittance on the Kindle, and stop pretending, and trying to convince themselves, that they are "published" authors. They are not.

Lee


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Lee, I love Joe's blog, and his statistics give a sense of where publishing is going and the possibilities of making a living as a novelist. There's a New York Times article at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/books/14fried.html?_r=2 that gets into this new publishing trend by looking at what Jane Friedman, former president of HarperCollins Publishers is doing after she stepped down. She's started a digital publishing company that packages mostly out-of-print books by well-known names. If these other authors were as adept as Joe, they could probably make more money by making Kindle versions themselves.

Still, Ms. Friedman offers a service, and she says that the digital form "is going to be the center of the universe... We really think that what we're going to do is to help transform the industry, which is built on models that we all know are broken."

As for the back-and-forth with Joe on the Backword Books thread, I did not sense bitterness on anyone's part. When faced with some of the truths that Joe offered, some of the writers seemed to read Joe as arrogant, which is not the way I took what he said. This is to say, I'm seeing both sides. Joe worked hard to get where he is, and he's offering facts as he sees them. He's not bragging, just giving facts. The average self-published book still seems rushed-to-print, and it's hard to defend most books that come out of Lulu or iUniverse as literature.

That said, those of us at Backword (I'm a member there) have banded together because literary novels are a very tough sell to publishing houses. They want the sales of "Water for Elephants" or "The Time Traveler's Wife," but they, like movie studios, can't tell which books will do it. All they know is that they cannot publish many literary novels anymore. Thus, those of us interested in writing literary books as opposed to genre books have to find new paths. My agent at Dystel and Goderich in New York received dozens of positive rejections on my latest manuscript, for instance. Many editors told him that my novel had them laughing--it was a fun read--but they didn't know how to market it if they were to publish my book. Thus, I'm trying to assist my agent by creating a platform independently.

It's clear overall few people get rich from being a novelist. We do it for other reasons.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> literary novels are a very tough sell to publishing houses. They want the sales of "Water for Elephants" or "The Time Traveler's Wife," but they, like movie studios, can't tell which books will do it. All they know is that they cannot publish many literary novels anymore. Thus, those of us interested in writing literary books as opposed to genre books have to find new paths. My agent at Dystel and Goderich in New York received dozens of positive rejections on my latest manuscript, for instance. Many editors told him that my novel had them laughing--it was a fun read--but they didn't know how to market it if they were to publish my book. Thus, I'm trying to assist my agent by creating a platform independently.


I mean no offense or disrespect, but that's a lot of rationalizing....and not a lot of fact. There are a lot of literary novels published every day, some do well, some don't. There's a lot of "commercial fiction" published every day, some do well, some don't. Publishers never know which books will sell, and which won't. Your comment about WATER FOR ELEPHANTS and TIME TRAVELERS WIFE assumes the publisher knew for certain they would sell. They didn't. No more than they knew GARGOYLE would flop (they thought it would be huge). So that rationalization doesn't hold...not that it was honestly credible to start with.

Real publishers are still publishing literary novels. They just aren't publishing yours. That's blunt, I know, but that's the truth. the rationalizations may make you feel better about it, but the bottom line is the bottom line.

The market for ALL books, not just literary novels, has narrowed (the same is true for movies and tv shows, another field in which I toil). But good books will still get published. For example, my brother Tod's collection of very literary short stories, OTHER RESORT CITIES, was just published this week and he's on a national book tour financed by his publisher at this very moment. If nobody is buying literary novels, imagine how small the market is for collections of literary short stories...and yet, he's on a book tour. What does that tell you?

You mention that your book got "dozens of positive rejections." I'm sorry, but a positive rejection is nothing but a polite "we are not interested." They don't want your book. Period. If they can't market your book, that is a serious problem. And it's code for lots of things...bad writing, poor plotting, unsympathetic characters, cliches, boring prose, whatever. But what they are saying is, they don't think your book is publishable or something they can publicize effectively. And if a major publisher can't market it, the odds of you having any better luck with a self-published POD edition that few, if any, bookstores will stock and that few, if any, reputable reviewers will review, and that will have limited distribution, at best, is even slimmer. Yes, the publishing business is changing, but we are a long, long way off from POD self-publishing being the way to success or a wide readership...if ever. (Yes, there will be one or two exceptions....but that's exactly what they are, exceedingly rare exceptions).

I am not saying this from some exulted position -- I may be a published author of dozens of books, but I also have had books rejected that are sitting in my drawer right now. Yes, I got "positive rejections," but I am honest enough to know what that really means....the books are unsaleable. In some cases, after a time, I've gone back and looked at those manuscripts and realized the editors were right...and saw the flaws I couldn't see before...and am thankful I wasn't foolish enough to invest money in self-publishing them anyway in the hope of being "creating a platform."

Lee


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

From my limited perspective as a reader only, I can say now that I don't care who publishes a book, whether it comes directly from the author, or from a large publishing house. A year ago my attitude was different, but paradigms are changing quickly.

Without a doubt, some of the best novels I've read this year are from independent authors. I'm sure these authors had good editors working with them. Beyond that, I don't think they had a lot of marketing behind them; I came across these novels through the threads here and from e-book blog postings. I think with good, cheap viral marketing a completely independent author with a good story and good editing can make a decent living right now, and things are just going to get better for them.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I mean no offense or disrespect, but that's a lot of rationalizing....and not a lot of fact. There are a lot of literary novels published every day, some do well, some don't. There's a lot of "commercial fiction" published every day, some do well, some don't. Publishers never know which books will sell, and which won't. Your comment about WATER FOR ELEPHANTS and TIME TRAVELERS WIFE assumes the publisher knew for certain they would sell. They didn't. No more than they knew GARGOYLE would flop (they thought it would be huge). So that rationalization doesn't hold...not that it was honestly credible to start with.
> 
> Real publishers are still publishing literary novels. They just aren't publishing yours. That's blunt, I know, but that's the truth. the rationalizations may make you feel better about it, but the bottom line is the bottom line.
> 
> ...


Lee, I take no offense because after meeting with my agent and seeing the rejections, some of them indeed were highly positive. If my book went beyond the initial editor to have an in-house discussion with others including marketing people, then it was close. I can't say it was bad writing if it grabbed my agent in the first place and made it as far as it did. Optimist that I am, I think of how John Steinbeck's first novel was rejected 200 times, but finally someone took a chance on him. I'm not saying I'm Steinbeck--just that being rejected a few dozen times isn't the worst thing in the world. You may be right though: there may be something there I or my agent don't see. I may bring it to Kindle at some point and try it out and maybe you or others with Kindles will go for it or not.

Yes, every publisher is cutting down, but some publishers were not even looking at literary novels for a while. With the publishing industry in turmoil, the old route of getting an agent and then getting published does not seem to be the only route anymore. As Joe says, "I urge you to try the traditional route first. Find an agent. Land a deal with a big NY house. Ebooks aren't there yet." You can't blame me for trying, can you? If my agent still believes in me, I shouldn't pack it up because, as you suggest, I should look at my rejections as there's "...bad writing, poor plotting, unsympathetic characters, cliches, boring prose, whatever. But what they are saying is, they don't think your book is publishable or something they can publicize effectively."

Maybe I'm not being honest enough, as you say, but I've gotten this far not only publishing hundreds of articles, but also having plays produced (the last most recently this year in Los Angeles), many short stories in literary magazines, and books published because I believe in my stories. If I don't, who will?


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

Nobody here got rejected. Like me they were accepted by one publisher -- Amazon. Amazon gave me a publishing platform and a distribution channel (Kindle Store). Unlike other publishers, they gave me control over title and cover art and pricing. They gave me some marketing tools, but it's up to me to develop and use them. They drive readers to my bookshelf, but my work must be compelling enough for those consumers to make the purchase.

What's to be bitter about? I'm making money . . . not heaps (yet), but this new medium (ebooks) is growing, and the potential is there. My guess is that Amazon is making a good chunk of change off of indie publishers . . . the bestsellers are now loss leaders (see article below about price wars with Walmart's online store).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091016/ap_on_re_us/us_wal_mart_book_price_war


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I think there's truth to be found in many of the posts here no matter the perspective.  I have to say, I have read some ebooks that I found on Amazon where it appeared the author woke up one day and thought, "I think I'll write a book today" and then published it without any critical thought, proofreading, editing or feedback from anyone else.  At the same time, from what I've read about publishing, I can't agree that the simple fact of rejection means that a book is not good enough.  It very well may not be good enough, and in most cases that may be the reason, but there may also be other reasons why it was rejected.  And like Verena, I don't really care where the book comes from if it's a good read, and I'll try indie authors I've never heard of in search of a good book.  And I've found them.

So thanks, I think this is a great discussion, I look forward to reading more!

Betsy


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

^^^ Absolutely agree. And crummy writing and crummy formatting are two great reasons to always sample before buying a book, no matter who wrote/published it.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> Yes, every publisher is cutting down, but some publishers were not even looking at literary novels for a while. With the publishing industry in turmoil, the old route of getting an agent and then getting published does not seem to be the only route anymore. As Joe says, "I urge you to try the traditional route first. Find an agent. Land a deal with a big NY house. Ebooks aren't there yet." You can't blame me for trying, can you? If my agent still believes in me, I shouldn't pack it up because, as you suggest, I should look at my rejections as there's "...bad writing, poor plotting, unsympathetic characters, cliches, boring prose, whatever. But what they are saying is, they don't think your book is publishable or something they can publicize effectively."
> 
> Maybe I'm not being honest enough, as you say, but I've gotten this far not only publishing hundreds of articles, but also having plays produced (the last most recently this year in Los Angeles), many short stories in literary magazines, and books published because I believe in my stories. If I don't, who will?


I am not saying you should pack it in or stop believing in yourself. That's certainly not how I handle rejection. But you also have to be realistic and pragmatic. I don't believe that spending money to make your unpublished manuscript available for sale POD is a wise, practical, or worthwhile move for your career or your writing. If I was you, I'd stick the book in a drawer for now and move on to your next book. And then when that one is done, and being shopped around, right another. that's how you move on, that's how you don't give up. I don't know a single successful novelist who doesn't have a few manuscripts they weren't able to sell. That's part of being a writer. Paying money to have your unpublished stuff printed in something resembling a book so you can feel better about yourself might help psychologically, but it's bad business and, 9 times out of ten, bad for your career as well.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

JimC1946 said:


> Lee, this has been a fascinating thread and I've enjoyed it very much, but I think your statement is too harsh. Frankly, even with my 1-2 sales a day, I consider myself a published author. I put a hell of a lot of work into my book, and even though only a handful of people will ever see it, I'm proud of it. And yes, I'm asking 99 cents for it, since having people actually pay money, even pocket change, gives me a little ego boost that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.


You may consider yourself a published author -- i may consider myself the sexiest man alive -- but that doesn't make it so. You are not a published author. You're a guy who has printed his own manuscript (or put it in ebook format). There's a big difference between you and somebody who actually is a published author. In your heart of hearts, you know that, too...or you wouldn't be striving to become one.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> From my limited perspective as a reader only, I can say now that I don't care who publishes a book, whether it comes directly from the author, or from a large publishing house. A year ago my attitude was different, but paradigms are changing quickly.
> 
> Without a doubt, some of the best novels I've read this year are from independent authors. I'm sure these authors had good editors working with them. Beyond that, I don't think they had a lot of marketing behind them; I came across these novels through the threads here and from e-book blog postings. I think with good, cheap viral marketing a completely independent author with a good story and good editing can make a decent living right now, and things are just going to get better for them.


"Independent authors?" Is that the aspirational, PC term for self-published authors now? (The equivalent, I suppose, of aspiring writers who insist on calling themselves "pre-published"). Sorry, I'm not buying in.

Yes, publishing is in flux, but so far the only people making money off self-publishing are the vanity presses and POD houses. The paradigms aren't changing as fast as you would like to believe they are, or in the ways you would like them to. Ebooks make up a very, very small percentage of overall book sales...the POD sales barely even register (the vast majority of POD fiction titles are sold to the authors and their narrow circle of families and friends). I would be interested to know how many POD authors are making a "decent living" off their work...and how much money you consider "a decent living" to be. How many of these POD authors, for instance, are making even $10,000 off their books (after recouping what they spent on printing, formating, etc.).**

I don't believe things are going to get better for POD authors...if anything, I believe the narrowing of the publishing industry is going to make it even harder for self-published writers to get noticed...or accepted...by an ever-shrinking reading audience. One problem is that most of the stuff is unmitigated crap. I'm glad that you've found so much good stuff to read among self-published works...that has not been my experience, or the experience of "typical readers" i know who've tried self-published work.

** - Here are some sales numbers from iUniverse. Granted, they are five years old, but they will give you a peek at how the POD business works. Out of 18,000 books iUniverse published in 2004, only 83 titles sold at least 500 copies and a mere 14 showed up on the shelves of Barnes & Noble. Here are some more stats:

2004
18,108: Total number of titles published
14: Number of titles sold through B&N's bricks-and-mortar stores (nationally)
83: Number of titles that sold at least 500 copies
792,814: Number of copies printed
32,445: Number of copies sold of iUniverse's top seller, "If I Knew Then" by Amy Fisher

2003
15,028: Total number of titles published
7: Number of titles sold through B&N's bricks-and-mortar stores (nationally)
76: Number of titles that sold at least 500 copies
700,930: Number of copies printed
10,186: Number of copies sold of iUniverse's top seller, "The Sweater Letter" by David Distel

Lee


----------



## plumboz (Sep 24, 2009)

Lee,


I'm not sure why people who have made a mark in traditional publishing seem to get their hackles up when it comes to any discussion about other ways of getting ones work into the light of day. Is much of what is self/vanity published really bad? Probably. Is much of what is traditionally published pretty damned bad, even if it is professionally edited and has a nice cover? Oh yeah.

There are new opportunities opening up for writers just as they have opened up for musicians. The sorting out will be done, the winnowing will occur, the crap will settle to the bottom, those lacking tenacity will fade, a few remarkable talents will emerge and life will go on.

Alan Hutcheson
author of Boomerang
it's a buck for Kindle
$9.89 in paperback
Readers on at least three continents who apparently don't give a crap it didn't come with a traditional publisher's blessing
Most of the paperbacks sell through the Paypal link on my blog. And it's fun to send out personally autographed copies to folks I don't know. They ask for the wackiest things for me to write on the title page.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> "Independent authors?" Is that the aspirational, PC term for self-published authors now? (The equivalent, I suppose, of aspiring writers who insist on calling themselves "pre-published"). Sorry, I'm not buying in.
> 
> Yes, publishing is in flux, but so far the only people making money off self-publishing are the vanity presses and POD houses. The paradigms aren't changing as fast as you would like to believe they are, or in the ways you would like them to. Ebooks make up a very, very small percentage of overall book sales...the POD sales barely even register (the vast majority of POD fiction titles are sold to the authors and their narrow circle of families and friends). I would be interested to know how many POD authors are making a "decent living" off their work...and how much money you consider "a decent living" to be. How many of these POD authors, for instance, are making even $10,000 off their books (after recouping what they spent on printing, formating, etc.).**
> 
> ...


Lee, I could understand your attitude if you were a president of a publishing company, but I'm surprised you're so hot-and-bothered against other writers. Perhaps you've spent time on Kindleboards and you've had it with Pollyanna nincompoop writers who think they're going to get a Golden Ticket from Willy Wonka. I'm glad you're trotting out statistics because that shows them. How dare Jim be happy selling a couple books a day. That's not what Real Writers do.

Listen, I happen to know your brother, who taught in the very next room to me at UCLA Extension. He's a funny guy, and I like him, and his classes every week had a lot of energy from the laughter he brought. In reading your profile, I can guess you are funny, too, and maybe you're writing tongue in cheek. Nonetheless, you seem to be coming down hard on people (and on even Red Adept) who happen to like to find needles in the haystack i.e. quality books by independent publishers. I realize you don't like that term, but are "independent filmmakers" okay? Independent directors Courtney Hunt ("Frozen River") and Darren Aronofsky ("Requiem for a Dream") probably had someone tell them that working outside the studio system didn't make them real filmmakers.

I've also written articles on the subject of print on demand, and most POD books don't sell more than 100 copies, mostly to family and friends. I'm not saying you're wrong. Perhaps it irks you to see people trying to be one of the fourteen to show up on the shelves of Barnes and Noble. I guess I'm one of the fourteen. Am I bitter that my agent couldn't place my last book? No. I'm writing another.

I'm sorry if I got under your skin somehow. I'm sure we'd otherwise have a good laugh at a bar near Palm Springs where both your brother and mine live.

Best (if I know what's best),
Chris


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I realize that this is a passionate discussion by people who care deeply about this subject, and appreciate the civility that has been going on. I will request, however, that posters continue to direct their post on the topic of traditional vs self publishing and not direct them at the posters themselves. Please. We're starting to get close to the line here. 

Betsy, wearing her moderator's hat


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

Since I was getting too "close to the line," I deleted my comments to Lee.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Your choice, Jim, but I wasn't talking about any one particular post and not requesting anything be pulled, just trying to keep things from getting too personal.  Things can start to go downhill very fast online.  

Betsy


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

When I first started my blog, I began having several people, authors and readers alike, refer to me as a "professional reviewer." I told my boyfriend, who is neither a reader nor an author, that people were calling me 'professional' and laughed. He said, "What are you laughing for?  You make some money at it, don't you?"  I said, "Well, yeah, but it's not like I can quit my job. Heck, it really just helps with my book buying habit."  

His answer, "If you are making money at it due to people being willing to read what you have to say, you are a professional."

Now, in my case, I honestly feel that there is no way I will get hired by some newspaper or whatever to review books professionally. My format and the terseness of my reviews preclude that. I read 'professional reviews' and they are just..well...better. They write whole books about the books. LOL

However, I do feel that my boyfriend's definition applies to 'most' Indie Authors. If people are putting out money to read their work, an author is a professional and can consider themselves 'published'. 

I also believe that any popularity I have garnered as a reviewer is due to the fact that I review Indie books with the same critical eye I use for commercial books. Of course, all reviews are subject to taste, but if an Indie book gets 5 stars from me, that means that I considered it to be on a par with commercial books I have read.


----------



## plumboz (Sep 24, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Please. We're starting to get close to the line here.
> 
> Betsy, wearing her moderator's hat


Thanks, Betsy.

Snappy looking hat, by the way.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Thanks, Plumboz, wish I did own it!  

To me, the whole issue of what constitutes a professional in any field is not as clear cut as getting paid for it or not.  So I sort of agree with Red Adept's boyfriend, with caveats.  As a professional quilter, I sell my quilts, I get paid to teach and lecture.  I don't make enough to support myself but I'm a professional.  I present myself as a professional, I maintain a website, I file a tax return as a quilter.  I'm a professional.  I know other people who have sold a quilt on occasion, almost by accident.  They are hobbyists, but have sold at least one quilt.  I'm not sure I would consider them professional quilters, even though they've received money for a quilt on occasion.  I'm not sure THEY consider themselves professionals.  

This is, of course, somewhat different than the original premise of this thread which was concerning Traditional vs Self Publishing.  It seems that "self publishing' and "vanity publishing" have been used interchangeably at times in this thread, and I'm thinking they are not necessarily the same thing.  Or are they?  Is self publishing through Amazon's process really the same as vanity publishing?

Betsy


----------



## plumboz (Sep 24, 2009)

Here's my very brief take on it (I have to go to the job that pays most of the bills at this time).

What we call traditional publishing really hasn't been the norm for all that long. It has simply been the biggest player in the house for the past century or so. To say that operating outside of that particular system in some way diminishes a writer's credentials is, I think, like saying that a wonderful musician performing at a local nightspot is a lesser artist because he or she has not been signed to a recording contract. Or a painter is not good because a major gallery is not displaying his or her work.

If you were making a selling five times the number of quilts you are now, but had not been accepted (or bothered applying to) The United Federation of Quilting Professionals, what does that say about your status as a quilter?

Have a great day everybody. Lunch time will be writing time for me. Even if an editor at Whatever Books isn't waiting for the ms.

Best,
Alan


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

This still confuses me:

Why the acceptance of indie musicians, indie painters, indie sculptors, indie filmmakers - all of whom are judged by the recipients of the work rather than a Big Industry Decider - but, still, the quick prejudice against indie (yes, indie - which is a word used to mean those who do it independently and is in no way a euphemism but a fact) writers?

If the book is read by readers and critics and is judged to be "good," why still the opinion that only a publisher can TRULY decide if it's good?

(Of course, it could be that people who make movies with the big production companies resent those who do it on their own w/o going through the "proper" channels, as well. I've never known anyone in that industry, so I'm not aware of the dynamic.)


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

There's clearly a kind of validation when a mainstream distributor picks up an indie's work, no matter the field.  Look at the excitement for member Boyd Morrison when his work was picked up by S&S?  Same work, but it had been validated.  Perhaps because of the potential for more money?    

An interesting question, Kristen!

Betsy


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> There's clearly a kind of validation when a mainstream distributor picks up an indie's work, no matter the field. Look at the excitement for member Boyd Morrison when his work was picked up by S&S? Same work, but it had been validated. Perhaps because of the potential for more money?
> 
> An interesting question, Kristen!
> 
> Betsy


Well, I know even writers will feel "Ah-ha! I've made it!" if they're picked up by a traditional publisher, but I don't think they feel "Ah-ha! Now I KNOW my writing is good/worthy!" It was good the whole time - the publisher is just a wall that's been knocked down, really. "Making it" means achieving the accepted standard of "success." It doesn't mean one suddenly becomes better at what they'd been doing the whole time.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> There's clearly a kind of validation when a mainstream distributor picks up an indie's work, no matter the field. Look at the excitement for member Boyd Morrison when his work was picked up by S&S? Same work, but it had been validated. Perhaps because of the potential for more money?


Betsy, while this is a wonderful observation, I think my biggest question would be:

Did having his books published on the Kindle and getting such great reviews help Boyd get that publishing contract?

I would think that publishing agents would look into the popularity of a book in this relatively small market to see how the book might fare in the National or International market.

I don't necessarily see Indie publishing as a substitute for commercial publishing, so much as it is perhaps a step toward getting commercially published.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> Betsy, while this is a wonderful observation, I think my biggest question would be:
> 
> Did having his books published on the Kindle and getting such great reviews help Boyd get that publishing contract?
> 
> ...


It's also, quite simply, a way to have your book read. Why else write? Certainly not to stick your novel in a drawer. Writers write so readers can read.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

LeeGoldberg said:


> "Independent authors?" Is that the aspirational, PC term for self-published authors now? (The equivalent, I suppose, of aspiring writers who insist on calling themselves "pre-published"). Sorry, I'm not buying in.


I'm going to have to take exception to this. Never, ever have I fallen into the camp of the politically correct. Betsy will certainly back me up on this.

Social networking is quickly becoming the most influential form of advertising out there. I stand by my statement that _self-published_ authors who have good, well-written stories can easily sell tens of thousands of copies a year, if they are written about in blogs, their books are talked about on Facebook, Library Thing, Good Reads or Shelfari, get tweeted about, etc. The viral nature of social networking can keep finding new consumers indefinitely.

Heck, some of the _self-published_ authors here have mentioned that just being on KindleBoards, with only 6,000 members, has gotten them hundreds of sales. I don't _think_ they are all making it up.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> I'm going to have to take exception to this. Never, ever have I fallen into the camp of the politically correct.


Soooooooo true. 

Betsy


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

I've never heard the term "pre-published." Hm.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I've heard the term "pre-published" before.  It is generally used by authors that are merely trying to help people understand that they self-published a few copies to get some visibility.  It is generally not meant to be a derogatory term.  

I think it should also be said that many--nay most--traditionally published authors do NOT make a living from their published fiction.  Very, very few do.  I follow a lot of author blogs, as I'm sure many of you do.  J.A. Konrath started his blog to answer the question of whether it was possible for a midlist author to make a living from fiction.  He has published his earnings over the years and while he says he "sort of" makes a living, he'll be the first to tell you that he is not living high on the hog.  Lots of authors work full time stints outside of their fiction writing--be they self-published or not.  Working a separate job is not a distinguishing factor between the two.

The line between self-published and traditional is blurring; the quality of self-published is getting better, and in some ways because of over-worked editors and publishers being less willing to spend on artwork, it could be said that the quality of traditional publishing is in danger of going down.  Yes, there is a lot of self-published work that is not well-edited and so on.  But the tools of the trade are such that I think we can compete--and enhance the field.  Should any of us quit our day-job?    I kind of doubt it.  So whether or not we get that traditional publishing contract, we'll still be marketing our own stuff, working hard and putting out the best product possible.  That's what makes a professional in any field, be it quilting, computers or writing.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Maria, you make great points. It's difficult for all writers--and actors, musicians, filmmakers, fine artists and everyone in the arts. In looking at the spectrum of writers, too, one has to consider how to define "real" or "professional." I know a screenwriter who made fabulous money for 25 years and has a house on top of a mountain from it, yet he's only ever had one script filmed. It was his first one. Because he made a lot of money--a living--does that make him a bigger or better writer than other kinds of writers? No one outside of a small few in the film industry even knows who he is. (Do many screenwriters get much recognition?) 

Contrast him with some of the incredible poets I've seen over the years--Derek Walcott, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Carolyn Forche, Mark Strand, Gwendowlyn Brooks, W.S. Merwin, and more--and their publishing royalties may not have been able to build a wing on the screenwriter's house. They've won major awards, and have even been poet laureates. However, because of the money thing and making their own chapbooks, are poets and short story writers not professional enough?

There are plenty of writers who are self-publishing who take what they do seriously to the point of hiring editors, proofreaders, graphic designers and publicists to be professional. What Konrath's numbers are starting to show is that digital publishing is contributing to the ability of these writers and midlist writers to make a living. 

Speaking of terms, "midlist" has always seemed so, well, middling. It's as if one isn't bestselling then midlist is somehow not important or big enough--yet there are writers like Charles Bukowski and John Fante, to bring up two Los Angeles writers, who may have never sold copies in huge numbers, but people continue to study and write dissertations on them.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> First, is he subtracting the cost of his marketing, sales, etc from his Kindle revenues? The $803 per year on the Hyperion books is a "true net". Authors don't pay for proofreaders, editors, cover art, marketing, sales support, distribution, etc, etc, etc. Whereas a self-publishing author foots all of those costs himself. And even if he is performing all of these jobs himself (which I doubt) there is the cost of his time, which if these numbers are going to be truely compatible should be accounted for.


The only cost I've incurred is for cover art--I paid a friend $200 each. As for the cost of my time, it only took a few hours to get these books onto Kindle and other platforms.

I haven't paid for any marketing, because I haven't done any marketing, other than making announcements on a few Kindle forums and my own website. Contrast this to the tens of thousands of dollars I've spent marketing my print books.



bardsandsages said:


> Second, would his four self-pubbed books be doing as well were it not for the established reputation he earned by first going through a traditional publisher?


Several people have mentioned this. I don't believe it's the case. All of these ebooks are available on my website, many of them for free. If it were people seeking my name, wouldn't they start at my website? Yet my Kindle downloads are much bigger than my website downloads. Also, my print books are about a character named Jack Daniels. Three of my Kindle ebooks feature Jack Daniels--the brand I'm known for--yet my biggest sellers are two non-Jack Daniels novels. If my sales were based on my brand or reputation, you'd think the opposite would be true.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I read the comments at Backwords and I agree with my friend Joe. It's cringe-inducing to read the embarrassing and often idiotic responses to his intelligent, honest remarks. Most of those commenters are deluding themselves.


LOL, Lee. I left that discussion because I felt like I was banging my head against a wall. It very much reminded me of arguing with religious zealots, and no good ever comes from doing that.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> Lee, I could understand your attitude if you were a president of a publishing company, but I'm surprised you're so hot-and-bothered against other writers. Perhaps you've spent time on Kindleboards and you've had it with Pollyanna nincompoop writers who think they're going to get a Golden Ticket from Willy Wonka. I'm glad you're trotting out statistics because that shows them. How dare Jim be happy selling a couple books a day. That's not what Real Writers do.


I won't speak for Lee. I will say he's a friend, and his blog, A WRITER'S LIFE, is damn helpful. It contains a great deal of hard-earned information about making a living as a writer, and Lee is more generous with his advice than any writer on the planet I can think of. His viewpoint isn't based on resentment, envy, or superiority. Lee really hates scammers, and many self-publishing companies fall into that category. He also doesn't understand why writers fall for these scams while there is so much information out there--including his blog--which explains the difference between traditional and vanity publishing.

Delusion is dangerous, because it pacifies but doesn't inform. I think it's better to set realistic expectations upfront--even if it bursts someone's bubble. No one wants to be in the Emperor's New Clothes. I'd much rather be the kid that says, "Hey buddy, you're naked."



Chrismeeks said:


> Perhaps it irks you to see people trying to be one of the fourteen to show up on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.


What irks me is people using a long shot like that as their business model. A much smarter business model--and one with much better odds--is to go the traditional publishing route.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> If the book is read by readers and critics and is judged to be "good," why still the opinion that only a publisher can TRULY decide if it's good?


There is nothing inherently "good" in a book, no matter how it is published.

But the overwhelming majority of self-published books do not meet certain minimum standards in regard to narrative, editing, and overall quality. I know this because I've been forced to read a lot of them, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Once a traditional publisher is involved, it's a pretty good assurance a minimum standard is met.

As writers, it is difficult to judge the merits of our own work. Usually, there's a learning curve, the same as painters, musicians, and other artists. But self-publishing allows any writer to print their work, even if the learning curve hasn't met minimum standards. This is the reason self-publishing has such a bad rap--because so much of it is sub-par.

But no self-pubbed writer believes their work is sub-par. They all believe they are part of that exceptional minority, and that their work was overlooked by major publishers because major publishers are stupid.

So a self-pubber many not only be deluding themselves by putting work out there that isn't very good, but they're also fighting an uphill battle for distribution, marketing, and acceptance by the mainstream. So it's much harder to sell books which probably should have remained in the drawer in the first place.

Are these generalizations? Yes. Are there some self-pubbed books that are terrific? Sure. But printing and publishing aren't the same thing, and don't carry the same weight.

I'm having a nice run of success putting my early work up for sale on Kindle and other platforms. I still consider this work unpublished, and say so in the introductions to these novels.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Are these generalizations? Yes. Are there some self-pubbed books that are terrific? Sure. But printing and publishing aren't the same thing, and don't carry the same weight.


They carry the same weight with me, and I doubt I am in the minority. Schlock is schlock, a good read is good read. As a reader, I:

(a) _will_ judge a book by its cover.
(b) will reject a book if the sample is junk.
(c) will read (purchase) anything reasonably priced if the is the sample is appealing.

I have never thought "ooh, that Harper Collins always prints good books." The publisher is not even on my radar.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> They carry the same weight with me, and I doubt I am in the minority. Schlock is schlock, a good read is good read. As a reader, I:
> (a) _will_ judge a book by its cover.
> (b) will reject a book if the sample is junk.
> (c) will read (purchase) anything reasonably priced if the is the sample is appealing.
> I have never thought "ooh, that Harper Collins always prints good books." The publisher is not even on my radar.


I'm not referring to "weight" as the relative merits of a book. In the past, self-pubbed books have been more expensive, less-professional, and harder to find on bookstore shelves. It doesn't matter if Harper Collins is on your radar--if you go into any bookstore, you'll find a lot of Harper Collins titles, and very few iUniverse titles. That's the weight I mean.

But with the Kindle, things have changed. Now self-pubbed can share virtual shelf space with traditional pubbed. Now there is an even playing field.

Does that change things?

I'd certainly be interested if you posted your own buying habits. How many of your recent purchases were self-pubbed vs. traditional pubbed? If you judge covers and read samples, are you finding that the self-pubbed are just as good as traditional pubbed? And how big a factor is price, since self-pubbed on Kindle seems to have a lower price than traditional published books? How much of it is based on recommendations, reviews, or blurbs posted on forums?

I too will pick up Kindle books if they look interesting, regardless of who publishes them. But I notice my buying habits, and the better books tend to be the traditionally published ones.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> Social networking is quickly becoming the most influential form of advertising out there. I stand by my statement that _self-published_ authors who have good, well-written stories can easily sell tens of thousands of copies a year, if they are written about in blogs, their books are talked about on Facebook, Library Thing, Good Reads or Shelfari, get tweeted about, etc. The viral nature of social networking can keep finding new consumers indefinitely.


It's a nice dream...but, unfortunately, it is not a reality. Self-publishing simply isn't a viable way to achieve publishing success, financially or creatively, for unpublished novelists yet. There are a handful of exceptions...but they are very rare and of those, most were truly self-published (I'm talking off-set, not print-on-demand or ebooks) at massive, upfront cost.

Self-publishing non-fiction is an entirely different situation. If you are writing a self-help book, or something like that, and have a platform, such as seminars, a class, a radio show, etc. where you can sell and promote it, then you can make money at it and have a much better shot at success.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> Lee, I could understand your attitude if you were a president of a publishing company, but I'm surprised you're so hot-and-bothered against other writers.


I am not against writers -- far from it. I encourage writers to never give up and to continue honing their craft. That doesn't mean flushing your money down the toilet, and harming your career, by self-publishing your work. What it DOES mean is that you need to learn to accept that some of your stuff might be clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable or utter crap...and to learn from it and move on. It means learning how the business works, what the professional standards are, and accepting the reality that there are no shortcuts to publishing success.

I am trying to warn writers away from vanity press vultures who prey on the desperation and gullibility of aspiring authors by conning them with lies and false hope. And I am trying to stop unpublished novelist from making an expensive and embarrassing mistake that, in most cases, will do them far more harm than good.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> It's also, quite simply, a way to have your book read. Why else write? Certainly not to stick your novel in a drawer. Writers write so readers can read.


Maybe so, but not all books are worth reading...or ready to be read. It's ultimately harmful for writers to publish stuff that isn't ready for primetime, so-to-speak. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and you don't want to do it with a book that's not very good simply because you want to see it in print. I am NOT saying this is the case with your self-published work, I am just making my argument why I believe self-publishing is often a huge creative & career mistake... as well as a bad financial investment.

Lee


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> There is nothing inherently "good" in a book, no matter how it is published.
> 
> But the overwhelming majority of self-published books do not meet certain minimum standards in regard to narrative, editing, and overall quality. I know this because I've been forced to read a lot of them, which I wouldn't wish on anyone.


 Nor do a lot of other art forms. In a gallery, movie theater, or on a sidewalk.

But you don't seem to see as many people speaking out against that type of independent artist - so, why writers? If the work is good, it's good. If it isn't, it isn't. Many people will tell you they've read a lot of unreadable stuff in a bookstore.

You're right, though - probably not as much as you'd read in a self-published warehouse of books. However - that a book is self-published doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or substandard, and to judge it as such, or to assume anything not picked up by a traditional publisher isn't readable, is a kind of prejudice.



> Once a traditional publisher is involved, it's a pretty good assurance a minimum standard is met.


 I'm too nice of a person to give you a list of books that are published and probably never should have been, but you know there are a lot of them out there.



> But no self-pubbed writer believes their work is sub-par.


 Nor does any traditionally published writer - no matter how many might disagree. Publishers guess - that has already been established - and sometimes something they think will be huge is little more than a huge flop. So, who's right in that case?


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> I am not against writers -- far from it. I encourage writers to never give up and to continue honing their craft. That doesn't mean flushing your money down the toilet, and harming your career, by self-publishing your work. What it DOES mean is that you need to learn to accept that some of your stuff might be clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable or utter crap...and to learn from it and move on. It means learning how the business works, what the professional standards are, and accepting the reality that there are no shortcuts to publishing success.
> 
> I am trying to warn writers away from vanity press vultures who prey on the desperation and gullibility of aspiring authors by conning them with lies and false hope. And I am trying to stop unpublished novelist from making an expensive and embarrassing mistake that, in most cases, will do them far more harm than good.
> 
> Lee


I sort of doubt implying (okay, outright saying) that most, if not all, self-published writing is "clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable utter crap" is helpful. It's not helpful standing by itself, anyway. Agreed: there are some people who should either recognize their limitations or be told they need improvement. This is true in all creative endeavors, no?

Why not accept that, as in any art form you can imagine, whether published or unpublished, the good stuff is hard to come by, and traditionally published or not, good is good and the readers will decide?

Again, self-publishing isn't expensive at all if it's not done through a vanity press that charges a lot, and there's actually a lot to learn from self-publishing (formatting, marketing, the difficulty involved in all of it). You'd think if you want to help people understand the publishing industry and the difficulty of having their writing accepted, one way to do that would to be to encourage them to self-publish something. That way, their first "amateurish crap" is out there where no agent or editor will see it, the author will learn something about the process and about rejection (maybe) from readers, and when her or his next, and better, work is done, they'll be able to go into the querying process with a greater understanding of it all.

What you're writing here doesn't sound helpful or aimed at the best interests of others at all. Just so you know. Your tone is one that suggests either anger, resentment, fear, or something else opposite of "concerned."


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I'd certainly be interested if you posted your own buying habits. How many of your recent purchases were self-pubbed vs. traditional pubbed? If you judge covers and read samples, are you finding that the self-pubbed are just as good as traditional pubbed? And how big a factor is price, since self-pubbed on Kindle seems to have a lower price than traditional published books? How much of it is based on recommendations, reviews, or blurbs posted on forums?


I think a 1/3 to 1/2 of the books I've most recently read on my Kindle (all purchased) have been by self-published or independent authors, as you prefer. Of them, the best was as good as most traditionally published books I've read. The worst was definitely amateurish. The rest in the middle somewhere, probably on average not quite as good as the average traditionally published book I've read. But to tell the truth, when I'm laying out $10 to $30 dollars, depending on paperback or hardback, and using up some of my valuable shelf space, I don't take many chances and tend to buy authors I know. I take more chances on the books I'm buying for my Kindle.

One of the joys of the Kindle is the sample feature. I've been able to avoid clearly loser books by checking out the sample. As Lee said, you only get one chance to make a first impression, and if I sample the book and it's full of errors or just really bad (and I've found some of those), I don't buy it.

Word of mouth and reviews here on the forums has played some part in my buying choices, too. Which to me is not unlike basing buying choices on the NYTimes list of books, or USA Today, or People magazine. It's word of mouth. (And I'm not equating NYTimes Review of Books with People Magazine's book reviews, LOL!)

Betsy


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

About 80% of my purchases are now Indie books. 

I have found some true gems and I have found some of your "clumsy, amateurish, unpublishable utter crap" and some that are in the middle.

I agree with Kristen that writers can learn from self-publishing on the Kindle by seeing reader responses. However, they do need to be ready to learn.

I have heard statements like these from more than one author whose books I could not finish, "Oh, if you could just get past the middle/beginning/one part, the ending/rest is really good." Those authors are not 'learning'. It's like they are saying, "Hey, I know some of my book is garbage, but try to get past that."

The ones who get angry when I point out editing errors are not learning, either. They think readers should overlook the fact that those errors take away from the reading experience.

I have had my reviews torn apart and responded to with, "Oh, I meant to do this or that." Or, "Here, let me explain what I _meant_ to write." Well, I am not the be-all, end-all, but if more than one person didn't 'get it', then the author didn't actually write what they 'meant to write'. If the author must explain what they meant to more than a couple of people, then something is wrong or missing.

Editing is highly underrated with some Indie books. When I state that "25% of this book should have been edited out", I am not saying that it was filled with grammatical/spelling errors, nor am I saying that the writing in those segments were poor. I am stating that a professional editor would have advised an author to cut those portions that are extraneous and do not forward the story or character development.

Don't get me wrong. No author should take any one reviewer's opinion as law. However, no one will learn if they can't accept constructive criticism. Indie Publishing to the Kindle should be looked on as a learning experience, not just a way to sell books.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

There's a certain element of human nature in here, as I see some of the same behaviors in the quilting field.  Quilts that are poorly constructed, with no care given to technique and how it supports the vision.  And those quilters say "technique doesn't matter, just the story I'm trying to tell." (Yes, we talk in those terms, too  )  But if the poor construction prevents the viewer from seeing the artist's vision, then it DOES matter.  People can get so caught up in their project that they can't really see it anymore.  And this happens to major players, too.  In the movie industry, there have been some real and total dogs made by major studios with major directors....

Betsy


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Maybe so, but not all books are worth reading...or ready to be read. It's ultimately harmful for writers to publish stuff that isn't ready for primetime, so-to-speak. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and you don't want to do it with a book that's not very good simply because you want to see it in print. I am NOT saying this is the case with your self-published work, I am just making my argument why I believe self-publishing is often a huge creative & career mistake... as well as a bad financial investment.
> 
> Lee


I missed this one, Lee - just want to comment on a quick thing:

"You only get one chance to make a first impression, and you don't want to do it with a book that's not very good simply because you want to see it in print. I am NOT saying this is the case with your self-published work, I am just making my argument why I believe self-publishing is often a huge creative & career mistake..."

That's my point, though. It doesn't matter whether you're saying it about my self-published work - it's that it's being said in a way that tends to encompass all self-published work, which helps perpetuate the myth that all self-published work is substandard when (clearly) it isn't.

Indie work (in literature, anyway) already has a hard enough time breaking through two critical barriers: 1. People (like you) who judge it immediately based on its publication method 2. Reviewers who won't read it because of its publication method.

Once that indie work has been reviewed, however - once it's gained the kind of attention usually only afforded to traditionally published work - isn't it time to accept that it's possible for publishers to miss something readers will enjoy?

And, taking that into account, isn't it also fair, then, to say it may not be in the best interests of the author to discourage them from utilizing a method of publication that will introduce their work to readers and critics who will enjoy it?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Nor do a lot of other art forms. In a gallery, movie theater, or on a sidewalk.
> But you don't seem to see as many people speaking out against that type of independent artist - so, why writers? If the work is good, it's good. If it isn't, it isn't. Many people will tell you they've read a lot of unreadable stuff in a bookstore.


That's because it is awfully hard to be "tricked" by other art, and that the learning curve for other art is more obvious.

For the average reader, a book is a book, and a painting is a painting, no matter who the artist is. But in the case of a painting, you know EXACTLY what you're buying, because the art is there on the canvas, which you can view immediately. Writing needs to be purchased before it can be experienced, and if the books sucks, the buyer gets stuck with garbage.

In the case of movies, people do get tricked. Blockbuster Video is filled with low budget direct-to-DVD crapola that sells because the cover art is good. But even the worst independent movie at Blockbuster had to meet a minimum quality standard to be bought and distributed by a major studio. Movies, like traditionally published books, involve a team effort to create. It takes a lot of people working hard.



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> You're right, though - probably not as much as you'd read in a self-published warehouse of books. However - that a book is self-published doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or substandard, and to judge it as such, or to assume anything not picked up by a traditional publisher isn't readable, is a kind of prejudice.


Yes, it is prejudice. That doesn't mean the prejudice is unwarranted in this case. And why would anyone want to release a work of art where there is an automatic predjudice against it?



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> I'm too nice of a person to give you a list of books that are published and probably never should have been, but you know there are a lot of them out there.


No, there aren't. Any traditionally published book meets a minimum standard. Lots of folks--editors, copy-editors, typesetters, cover artists, proofreaders--all work to make it the best it can be, and work isn't picked up by big publishing houses if it doesn't function as a narrative.

Self-publishing is printing. There are no minimum standards required; only a Visa card. Besides the obvious editing and typesetting errors, there are often serious flaws in dramatic structure, such as pacing, hook, rising action, conflict, resolution, and characterization. I've read novels and self-pubbed memoirs with ZERO conflict. You'll never find that in a tradtionally published book.

There are a lot of traditionally published books I don't care for, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published. It just means I didn't like them. That's subjective opinion, other than objective flaws in a narrative.



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Publishers guess - that has already been established - and sometimes something they think will be huge is little more than a huge flop. So, who's right in that case?


The argument of "what is a hit or a flop" is a different argument. Four out of five traditionally published books fail to make a profit. But all five do meet a minimum standard.

I've said many times that the publishing industry is flawed. That's not the point of this discussion. Even with its flaws, it's a better route to take than self-publishing--at least at this time.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> One of the joys of the Kindle is the sample feature. I've been able to avoid clearly loser books by checking out the sample. As Lee said, you only get one chance to make a first impression, and if I sample the book and it's full of errors or just really bad (and I've found some of those), I don't buy it.


Thanks for replying. So the next obvious question I'd have is: How many books have you avoided based on the sample feature, and what was the ratio of self-pubbed to traditional pubbed?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm wayyyy behind on reading my samples.  I'd say, of the ones I decided not to buy, it was about 50-50 traditional vs self published.  And one of the traditionally published books was one I thought was terribly written AND edited...it was nonfiction and the editing was the reason I decided not to buy it. Typically the reason I decide not to buy after reading the sample, either traditional or self-published, is that the story doesn't interest me.

Betsy


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm not shy about it!  Here are some Traditionally Published books that should not have been published, in not only my opinion, but in the opinions of many other readers:

From a Buick 8, by Stephen King
The latest Dexter book
The latest by Dan Brown

However, I would almost guarantee that the publishers still made money from them due to name recognition. Stephen King could publish his grocery list and people would not only buy it, but line up to do so.

Now, I have been a fan of all three of these authors. So, I am not condemning them. I am posting this because I believe that Publishers are out to make money and, sometimes, they just don't care how they do it. They will continue to print certain authors' work regardless of quality just because people will buy the name. 

I'm one of those guilty readers having purchased all three of these. I will also freely admit that I will be pre-ordering King and Koontz' next books as soon as possible, regardless of the fact that I was disappointed in both of their last novels. I loved their earlier works and I am hoping they get back on track. LOL


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Why not accept that, as in any art form you can imagine, whether published or unpublished, the good stuff is hard to come by, and traditionally published or not, good is good and the readers will decide?


Because, in most cases, the readers never decide because the book doesn't sell beyond family and friends. This leaves the writer confused, upset, and ultimately feeling stupid because they fell for a scam.

I've met self-pubbed authors who really harbor the fantasy that they'll sell a lot of copies. In fact, the only copies they'll sell are those they have a direct hand in selling, face-to-face, at conventions. Many of these people wind up feeling duped and resentful. They thought they'd have the same chance at success as all authors. Instead, they went the quick and easy route and got screwed.

If you want the readers to decide, you have to first reach the readers. At this time, this is done by getting your books on bookstore shelves, which means getting into Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and cutting deals with the chain buyers--who won't buy you because you're self-pubbed. So you're stuck trying to hawk your books on the Internet and in person, and selling becomes your full time job. An even bigger tragedy is that the book you work so hard to sell might not be as good as you think it is. So you aren't building a fanbase, and because your ISBN numbers follow you, you're making it even more difficult to sell your next book to a big publisher.

Again, this isn't always the case. There are exceptions. But you shouldn't base your career on being a longshot exception.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> There are a lot of traditionally published books I don't care for, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been published. It just means I didn't like them. That's subjective opinion, other than objective flaws in a narrative.


 Oh, I wasn't talking about personal story preference. There are plenty of traditionally published books that are - objectively - not as good as some self-published work.



> The argument of "what is a hit or a flop" is a different argument. Four out of five traditionally published books fail to make a profit. But all five do meet a minimum standard.


Okay - then that conflicts with what you argued earlier in response to what makes a "competent" writer:



> Actually, it is founded by the publishing industry, which is set up to profit off of books. Industry professionals are the gatekeepers who decide what is good enough.


Based on that, I determined you believed no profit = no good. In which case, a publisher who purchases a book believing they'll make a profit and then doesn't make that profit means they were wrong, and that the book actually wasn't so good/didn't meet that standard, after all.



> I've said many times that the publishing industry is flawed. That's not the point of this discussion. Even with its flaws, it's a better route to take than self-publishing--at least at this time.


 "Better" for whom? In what way?

You assume everyone has the same goals you have. But they don't.

And that's okay.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Because, in most cases, the readers never decide because the book doesn't sell beyond family and friends. This leaves the writer confused, upset, and ultimately feeling stupid because they fell for a scam.
> 
> If you want the readers to decide, you have to first reach the readers. At this time, this is done by getting your books on bookstore shelves, which means getting into Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and cutting deals with the chain buyers--who won't buy you because you're self-pubbed. So you're stuck trying to hawk your books on the Internet and in person, and selling becomes your full time job. An even bigger tragedy is that the book you work so hard to sell might not be as good as you think it is. So you aren't building a fanbase, and because your ISBN numbers follow you, you're making it even more difficult to sell your next book to a big publisher.


I think we have been talking about two different animals here. You seem to be consistently referring to what I have heard called "Vanity Publishing" where someone charges the author to have copies of their book printed.

I have been talking about publishing to the Kindle, which is free.

By publishing to the Kindle, Indie books ARE getting read outside of friends and family. I try very hard to make that happen for some of them with my blog. A few authors have contacted me and said their sales went up after appearing on my blog; that's not from friends and family.

Not only do I find books by forum posts, I also search Amazon for Indie books. So, doesn't having it on the Kindle bring in many, many more readers than the publishing you are talking about? What is the risk involved there?


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Joe--

Just a note.  I read your "The List" because you were already a published author so I assumed a certain level of story telling, if not quality.  I read it when it was a free download.  I also reviewed it and mentioned it to others.  I think one of the reasons you're seeing more downloads now is the Kindle makes the experience of downloading easier--and the reading is easier as well.  When I read it (and you may recall this) I sent you a rather long list of typos, which I know you corrected.     Yes, I am tattling on you.  You too, learned from the self-publishing model.  I did recommend The List to other readers--in fact, I think it is a more entertaining book that your Jack Daniel's series (and they are not bad books; I'm just saying I enjoyed The List more!)  

It could be that your self-published books are doing well on Kindle because they are good books and people find them entertaining.  The publishing industry missed completely on these books; I know you attempted to sell them traditionally.  They are a completely different category than your other work--a different audience.  For whatever reason, your publisher chose not to market them.  I do think that both you and Lee are able to sell more self-published/backlist works because you already HAVE a reputation (sorry, I don't buy your, "but they were free before from my website" argument.  Lots of people don't go to author websites and I for one, would not have downloaded your freebie except for the fact that I had already read your traditionally published work.)  There's no way to prove my theory, but I think word of mouth is working for you--but I also think the fact that you've been published is helping you a hell of a lot.  

I agree that going traditional is probably the best way.  But I think that there are a number of books that are "good enough" that publishers just don't have room for.  These books will get read and have small followings, but will never get picked up by traditional publishers.  They are just another book--good, decent reads and there isn't shelf-space for them.  For the right price, some readers will be happy to read them.  Self-publishers need to go into the "Business" knowing where they fit and understand the limitations.

I was a reviewer for years.  I read a few self-published books.  I read a lot of industry books.  Yes, there is GENERALLY a minimum standard that at least includes most grammar, spelling and whatnot.  This is where people can be assured that they get a minimum.  As for the entertainment part, I think the key is that people will take chances on finding that entertainment if the price is right.  If they pay a few bucks to try a novel and it isn't their thing--they aren't even angry about it.  

Maria


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Typically the reason I decide not to buy after reading the sample, either traditional or self-published, is that the story doesn't interest me.


This is where it gets complicated. As a writer who teaches writing, there are many reasons why the story doesn't hook a reader. In most traditionally published fiction, it is because the reader doesn't care for the subject matter. I contend that in the majority of self-pubbed work, the quality of the work is the main reason the story was rejected by the publishers in the first place.

Is this subjective? Maybe. I'm pretty good at spotting a hook, but the layperson may not be even aware of what a hook is, only that some books grab them and others don't.

With ebooks, we're moving toward a publishing model where writers don't need traditional publishers. Without this vetting process, the overall quality of work will go down. But this even playing field will made bestsellers out of indie authors. I applaud that. I'm thrilled to be able to compete in sales with big names who have huge marketing campaigns, because my books have never gotten a huge marketing campaign.

But it also took me over a million written words to hone my craft to the point where it was publishable. I didn't stick my first book, or even my fourth book, up on Kindle, and I never will because they aren't good enough. It took me a long time to figure out they weren't good enough. I had to leanr a lot to understand why I'd gotten so many rejections. If I'd bullheadedly self-published my first few novels, I would have done myself a grave disservice.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack - agreed. People are taken advantage of every day in any number of ways. It's unfortunate, but it happens - it happens to anyone who wants to "believe." But, so what?



Jack Kilborn said:


> If you want the readers to decide, you have to first reach the readers. At this time, this is done by getting your books on bookstore shelves, which means getting into Ingram, Baker & Taylor, and cutting deals with the chain buyers--who won't buy you because you're self-pubbed.


Right. But, if you have a good book that fails to get a publisher, you'd be a fool to sit on your thumb with an, 'Oh, well! Someone won't do it for me, and that MUST mean it's a bad book - what do I know? - so I guess I'll just scrap this story.'

That's the opposite of ambition, the opposite of confidence, the opposite of American ingenuity and an enterprising spirit, if I can dare to be so dramatic about it.

If they try and fail, they try and fail. If they try and make it? Woo! yay for them! (Right?)



> An even bigger tragedy is that the book you work so hard to sell might not be as good as you think it is.


 yeah, but even those who are published traditionally suffer from this delusion. Eh.



> So you aren't building a fanbase, and because your ISBN numbers follow you, you're making it even more difficult to sell your next book to a big publisher.


 Really? It didn't seem so difficult for N. Frank Daniels. Many indies build a fan base with their self-published work. They also learn a little about marketing themselves, which is something they'll have to do even if they're picked up by a traditional publisher. Sounds like a win-win.



> Again, this isn't always the case. There are exceptions. But you shouldn't base your career on being a longshot exception.


 Correct. Nor should you 1) be content to allow someone else to determine your fate 2) promote an idea that encourages artists with a perfectly viable outlet to hide their work before they'll show a hell of a lot of courage (character-building, that) and take the chance by putting it out there themselves or 3) assume there is only one measure of personal "success" or only one way in which a person's creative pursuits should be introduced to the intended audience.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Oh, I wasn't talking about personal story preference. There are plenty of traditionally published books that are - objectively - not as good as some self-published work.


Actually, there aren't. This is your opinion. Your opinion is subjective, not objective. Self-pubbed books often have objective flaws that have to do with narrative structure. You won't find traditionally published books that fail to meet this minimum standard.



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Okay - then that conflicts with what you argued earlier in response to what makes a "competent" writer:


How so?



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Based on that, I determined you believed no profit=no good. In which case, a publisher who purchases a book believing they'll make a profit and then not making a profit means they were wrong, and the book actually wasn't so good/didn't meet that standard, after all.


If a publisher loses money, it means they gambled and lost. There are no sure things. But the books they pick to publish have better odds than the ones they reject. If they didn't, self-published books would sell in much higher quantities than they do now. And even a "flop" will sell a lot more books than just about every self-pubbed book.

If your goal is to find readers, you'll find a lot more by being traditionally published. If your goal is to make money, you'll make more being traditionally published--at least in 2009. We'll see what happens with ebooks in 2010...


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> I'm not shy about it! Here are some Traditionally Published books that should not have been published, in not only my opinion, but in the opinions of many other readers:


I've read a lot of books by big names that I didn't like. In fact, I call this "bestseller syndrome" because some authors can get so popular they indeed can publish anything, and often it isn't nearly as good as their earlier books.

But this is still opinion. If you don't like something, it isn't the same as "it should have never been published." Those three books you mentioned--and I'm sure we could both come up with a list of their flaws--still do meet the minimum criteria for narrative structure. They still were professionally edited. And millions of people do like them.

Can you really compare them to some unedited self-pubbed crap that doesn't even have a structure?


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Actually, there aren't. This is your opinion. Your opinion is subjective, not objective. Self-pubbed books often have objective flaws that have to do with narrative structure. You won't find traditionally published books that fail to meet this minimum standard.


 Are you saying editors at publishing houses are both infallible and robotically objective?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



> If a publisher loses money, it means they gambled and lost. There are no sure things. But the books they pick to publish have better odds than the ones they reject. If they didn't, self-published books would sell in much higher quantities than they do now. And even a "flop" will sell a lot more books than just about every self-pubbed book.


 Which has little to do with the book itself and more to do with the money and clout a big name publisher has. If a publisher released a god-awful book at the same time an exceptional self-pub book released, the one released by the publisher would do better because of their marketing money and sales channels. Period.



> If your goal is to find readers, you'll find a lot more by being traditionally published. If your goal is to make money, you'll make more being traditionally published--at least in 2009. We'll see what happens with ebooks in 2010...


 Actually, you won't find readers if you don't release your book. You'll get MORE readers with a trad publisher, but you'll get zero readers if you take the publisher as the word of God and don't release the writing yourself.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> I think we have been talking about two different animals here. You seem to be consistently referring to what I have heard called "Vanity Publishing" where someone charges the author to have copies of their book printed.
> I have been talking about publishing to the Kindle, which is free.


I believe the Kindle is a vanity press that authors don't have to pay for.

That said, you've managed to fill a very important niche with your reviews, and I applaud you for it.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I've read a lot of books by big names that I didn't like. In fact, I call this "bestseller syndrome" because some authors can get so popular they indeed can publish anything, and often it isn't nearly as good as their earlier books.
> 
> But this is still opinion. If you don't like something, it isn't the same as "it should have never been published." Those three books you mentioned--and I'm sure we could both come up with a list of their flaws--still do meet the minimum criteria for narrative structure. They still were professionally edited. And millions of people do like them.
> 
> Can you really compare them to some unedited self-pubbed crap that doesn't even have a structure?


You are correct that it is 'opinion'. However, I chose to list those three because the 'bad reviews' for each of them pretty much say the same thing. Stephen King's book has no ending, Dan Brown's book has plot holes and is a regurgitation of his previous books, and the newest Dexter does not protray his character with the same personality as past books, ie, he's stupid in the new one.

I wasn't comparing any of them with the Indie books I have reviewed with one or two stars. I was comparing them with the Indie books I have erad that are 4 and 5 stars.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

MariaESchneider said:


> When I read it (and you may recall this) I sent you a rather long list of typos, which I know you corrected.


Thanks for that, Maria. 

Remember though--The List was on my website for years as a free download. It's still a free download. And in my afterword, I do state the book has never been traditionally published.

The only reason I got started with Kindle in the first place was because Kindlers emailed me, because they wanted to read it but couldn't convert the pdf file. So I put it on Kindle, but Kindle wouldn't let me release it for free. So I charged two bucks, and now I'm making a nice chunk of change. Funny how things work out...


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Can you really compare them to some unedited self-pubbed crap that doesn't even have a structure?


This is where your argument gets lost - you're taking the worst of the industry and treating it as if all self-pubbed work is like this. Why so negative?

It's the same as saying, "Why would you pay to watch an indie movie, sight unseen, when you know talentless hacks are making videos in their basements?"

I mean, you're going to find creative people who aren't good at what they're doing and who play around with it. But why would you want to degrade the effort itself by using the worst of the worst as an example when it's obvious there are talented and skilled writers (not "sellers," but "writers") producing good work?

Also, I'd love it if you'd address these points:



> ... if you have a good book that fails to get a publisher, you'd be a fool to sit on your thumb with an, 'Oh, well! Someone won't do it for me, and that MUST mean it's a bad book - what do I know? - so I guess I'll just scrap this story.'
> 
> That's the opposite of ambition, the opposite of confidence, the opposite of American ingenuity and an enterprising spirit, if I can dare to be so dramatic about it.
> 
> If they try and fail, they try and fail. If they try and make it? Woo! yay for them! (Right?)





> Nor should you 1) be content to allow someone else to determine your fate 2) promote an idea that encourages artists with a perfectly viable outlet to hide their work before they'll show a hell of a lot of courage (character-building, that) and take the chance by putting it out there themselves or 3) assume there is only one measure of personal "success" or only one way in which a person's creative pursuits should be introduced to the intended audience.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

*Why do I buy/not buy works published by major imprints?* I've usually read a review or description and decided, based on my past experience with the reviewer, that I would or would not likely enjoy the book. In the case of an author I try and really like, I put the name on my list and watch for additional books by that person. I'll probably buy the next couple that come out and if they strike a chord I'll keep 'em on my 'must buy' list. In the case of one I decide I don't like, I probably won't try again. And if one I do like at first stops appealing. . . .well, after a few I don't like as well, I take 'em back off my 'must buy' list. Actually, that list is really pretty short. 

*Why do I buy/not buy works published independently?* Almost never did before Kindle -- I did not know they existed! Then, I learned here that there are a lot of folks writing decent books that just don't fit into the categories that major publishers seem to want. And I've found many really good books -- a few I'd even call great -- and when I read one, I will -- as with 'name' authors -- buy more of the person's books if I like it, and won't if I don't.

But why did I click in the first place? Admittedly, price is a factor. . . .I am thrilled to death that there are good reads available for just a few dollars! I've also gotten a couple that were not even worth a few cents -- rest assured, I will not buy those authors again.

But, you know, the biggest reason I decided to try (or not) a book is because I got to know the author from his/her posts at KindleBoards. I will freely admit that I have purchased books from some authors here that I didn't think I'd really care for -- outside my usual preferred genre, etc. -- because I _liked_ them as people. In most cases I've at least been happy with the quality of writing, even in cases where I didn't care especially for the subject matter.

Flip side of _that_ coin: there are authors who post here whose books I will not buy because I haven't been able to _like_ them as persons, based on their posts. Yep: I might be missing the next best thing. And some other members here rave about their books. But I don't like them. . . .and I don't want to read their stuff. Subjective? Absolutely! Some might even say whether I personally like the author is irrelevant. Oh, well.

But you know what: I can also change my mind. There are authors here who (in my opinion, ONLY) came across at first as obnoxious, self important, and pushy. Totally turned me off and I swore I'd ignore their threads completely. . . . .but the longer I'm here, the more I learn about people ('cause maybe I see them frequently in forums other than the Bazaar) and after a while I see that they are good people, enthusiastic -- even passionate, and totally not trying to do anything more than share their love of writing. Turns out they love margaritas and cake, cry at sad movies, drink unique coffee or tea, make fancy rice, pop in frequently with a pleasant 'good morning' or 'good night', share about personal sadnesses, and rejoice with everyone else's little 'bumps'. At some point I start to think of this person or that person as a friend. . . . . so if they have a book they've written, I'm going to give it a try!

So, I guess the message to indie authors here: you'll catch me quicker with chocolate and margaritas than


Spoiler



piss


and vinegar.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

We have had at least two authors get publishing contracts after publishing to the Kindle.  One was for the books that he had already published on the Kindle and the other got a contract for his next book.

Didn't the sales rankings and wonderful response from their Kindle versions help them get these contracts?


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Right. But, if you have a good book that fails to get a publisher, you'd be a fool to sit on your thumb with an, 'Oh, well! Someone won't do it for me, and that MUST mean it's a bad book - what do I know? - so I guess I'll just scrap this story.'


Those are the only choices? Sell it to a large publisher or immediately throw it away?

How about sitting on it for a few years and viewing it objectively later? How about writing another book, selling that one, and then selling the first one?



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> That's the opposite of ambition, the opposite of confidence, the opposite of American ingenuity and an enterprising spirit, if I can dare to be so dramatic about it.
> If they try and fail, they try and fail. If they try and make it? Woo! yay for them! (Right?)


Ambition is great. But it is still important to pick your battles, lest "ambition" and "foolhardy" become interchangeable.

The majority of self-pubbed authors I've met don't even know what Ingram is. This doesn't show much foresight or understanding of how publishing works.



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> Correct. Nor should you 1) be content to allow someone else to determine your fate 2) promote an idea that encourages artists with a perfectly viable outlet to hide their work before they'll show a hell of a lot of courage (character-building, that) and take the chance by putting it out there themselves or 3) assume there is only one measure of personal "success" or only one way in which a person's creative pursuits should be introduced to the intended audience.


If your goals involve other people, then you have no control over them and they aren't goals--they're dreams.

I recommend setting attainable goals, which can coincide with your dreams. But this means understanding how the business works. And the vast majority of those who understand the business ultimately reject self-publishing as a non-option.

This isn't an "us against them" scenario. It's about learning craft and structure, and how the biz works.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> This is where your argument gets lost - you're taking the worst of the industry and treating it as if all self-pubbed work is like this. Why so negative?


Because I judged two self-published novel contests, and five short story contests, for Writer's Digest Magazine, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. It was a real eye-opener.

99% of all self-published work IS awful, at least according the the stuff I was sent, and the stuff I've seen as a teacher and paid speaker.

Honestly, Kristen, how many self-pubbed books have you bought and loved? And did you buy them without knowing the author beforehand?

I'd love to give you $10,000 and send you to iUniverse and tell you to buy a bunch of books and prove me wrong, and I'm sure you wouldn't be able to.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Those are the only choices? Sell it to a large publisher or immediately throw it away?
> 
> How about sitting on it for a few years and viewing it objectively later? How about writing another book, selling that one, and then selling the first one?


 *shrug* Why wait? Life's short. It's a waste to take it (life, that is) THAT seriously. Besides - always trusting someone else more than you trust yourself is just bad instincts.



> Ambition is great. But it is still important to pick your battles, lest "ambition" and "foolhardy" become interchangeable.


 For the sake of argument (assuming self-publishing is always "foolhardy" - is that the only option? you either wait for a trad publisher or you're foolhardy?), let's say the two do become interchangeable.

So what? Why does that bother you?



> The majority of self-pubbed authors I've met don't even know what Ingram is. This doesn't show much foresight or understanding of how publishing works.


 They sure learn, though! No better way to learn than through getting the experience yourself. I know I've learned A LOT - and, actually, I can honestly say I'm glad my book wasn't one of the lucky ones picked up immediately. This whole experience has been supremely educational, not to mention gratifying and personally fulfilling (and yes, also frustrating).



> If your goals involve other people, then you have no control over them and they aren't goals--they're dreams.


 I'm not sure what you mean, here.



> I recommend setting attainable goals, which can coincide with your dreams. But this means understanding how the business works. And the vast majority of those who understand the business ultimately reject self-publishing as a non-option.


 And I respect their decision - as much as I respect the decisions of those who go it alone because they're pretty confident their writing will be well received - even loved!



> This isn't an "us against them" scenario. It's about learning craft and structure, and how the biz works.


 No it isn't. It's about learning it the way YOU think they should learn it.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Because I judged two self-published novel contests, and five short story contests, for Writer's Digest Magazine, and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. It was a real eye-opener.
> 
> 99% of all self-published work IS awful, at least according the the stuff I was sent, and the stuff I've seen as a teacher and paid speaker.
> 
> ...


You couldn't pay me that much to read a bunch of the stuff on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, either.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> We have had at least two authors get publishing contracts after publishing to the Kindle. One was for the books that he had already published on the Kindle and the other got a contract for his next book.
> 
> Didn't the sales rankings and wonderful response from their Kindle versions help them get these contracts?


Absolutely. Things are changing pretty fast, which is why it is important to have critics to help separate the good from the bad.

In fact, things are changing so quickly that I don't think I'll ever give up my ebook rights again in a contract, unless it's for a lot of money. I believe I can earn more on Kindle by self-publishing. This is a far cry from the early days of vanity presses.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Absolutely. Things are changing pretty fast, which is why it is important to have critics to help separate the good from the bad.


So it's not only the objective publishers who know the good from the bad, now - it's the critics, too?

Do you agree, then, that if a critic thinks a self-published book is good, it's good?

(I sound argumentative, but honestly, I'm just confused. Some of what you say reads as contradictory.)


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

Great discussion. For my thoughts, I'll use analogy to start. Major publishing houses = the major leagues. The rest is minor league. Some people are perfectly happy staying in the minor leagues. The owner of my local candlestick bowling alley when I was a kid was the all-time strike-out king of the minor leagues. When I attended Duke University I often attended minor league games to root for the Durham Bulls. Good times! There's nothing wrong with being second rate. (Or third rate--you should see me play basketball.) Because you can still enjoy what you're doing and so, amazingly enough, will others. So let the minor leagues flourish, Triple A to D ball.

Now for those authors seeking a major league career, there isn't necessarily a downside to toiling in the minor leagues for a spell, particularly if you avoid paying significant money for the privilege of publishing, and you know the odds of success going in. (Long, but then the odds via the traditional route to a major publisher are long too.)

There could even be benefits. It's good training, for example, to learn how to market a book--especially now that the major publishers expect more marketing effort from their authors (I hear they'll even ask you to chip in cash money nowadays--lol).

But if all an author is doing is pushing subpar material and selling books largely on the back of marketing expertise and effort rather than writing skill, then that person is indeed wasting his/her time, considering the goal in mind is a major publisher. That person would be better served by writing more.

But as far as recommending that every author go the traditional route, let it be acknowledged that agents and editors make mistakes all the time. (Every relevant publisher in NY passed on The Firm until Tom Cruise bought the film rights. There are countless other examples. Some agent or editor will pass on a future best seller today it is so common an occurrence.) So couldn't the minor leagues of publishing be considered a self-correcting mechanism? Well in fact that's what happened with Boyd Morrison recently. All the publishers passed on his books two years ago, and now, suddenly a multi-book deal with S&S after several thousand in Kindle sales.

My novel, Crack-Up, was passed up by every relevant publisher in NY, but my agent, who once ran a pair of imprints at a major publishing house, tells me they're all wrong, and I say they're all wrong, so I've put it before the people, and guess what: I've got no platform, no website, no marketing skill, and not much interest in it (I don't even have a thread at Kindle Boards dedicated to my book), and I'm outselling some Konrad and some Goldberg. Maybe I'll be the next Boyd. If not, it'll be someone else who gets called up to "the show." The times they have a-changed.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

That's kind of my point, Joe. I think it is because Kindle is a new market and a new way of reading--PLUS you have been traditionally published--all these things work in your favor. Downloading and reading a PDF is not that great. I read ebooks--and I choose mobi and read it on a reader if I have a choice. With PDF, I can't change font sizes (I had to write to an author once to get a larger sized font because I couldn't read the ebook.) Kindle solves some limitations and issues.

So what I'm getting at here is that some of your conclusions need to be expanded. Your book is still available for free, but it turns out that people would rather grab it on a site where they are already shopping; they want your book (wrote to you) because they had heard of you and so on.

I think self publishing is fine so long as people go into it with their eyes open. There's room for a different set of books because the medium is different, the pricing is different and so on. Will we all be a raging success? No. But is that what we are trying for? Not necessarily. We are filling a niche--based on price, format and so on.

Is traditional publishing the way to go if you can swing it? For a lot of reasons, yes. But as you also admit, you don't want to sell all your rights to a trad publisher--because you don't need to. But guess what? They also value that editing that they do. They also value their name behind your book. SO they aren't going to want to give up ebook rights either. Your world is about to get very interesting.





Jack Kilborn said:


> Thanks for that, Maria.
> 
> Remember though--The List was on my website for years as a free download. It's still a free download. And in my afterword, I do state the book has never been traditionally published.
> 
> The only reason I got started with Kindle in the first place was because Kindlers emailed me, because they wanted to read it but couldn't convert the pdf file. So I put it on Kindle, but Kindle wouldn't let me release it for free. So I charged two bucks, and now I'm making a nice chunk of change. Funny how things work out...


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> You couldn't pay me that much to read a bunch of the stuff on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, either.


That smacks of disdain for the very industry you're striving to become a part of, and also comes off as rather nearsighted.

Chances are every book you've ever read and loved--some which may be the reasons you decided to become a writer--are all traditionally published.



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> So it's not only the objective publishers who know the good from the bad, now - it's the critics, too?


I think I've put together a sound argument that I believe is pretty easy to follow.

There is nothing inherently "good" in a book, no matter how it is published. That's one of my first comments in this thread, and it pertains to books where that minimum quality standard is reached.

In the print world, publishers are gatekeepers that keep out the majority of the sub-par crap. They do this because they understand how books work, both as a craft and as a business.

Kindle has allowed self-pubbers to reach an audience by bypassing traditional publishing distribution routes. So now the publishers can't vet the crap that gets on the virtual shelves. Hence the need for critics.



Kristen Tsetsi said:


> No it isn't. It's about learning it the way YOU think they should learn it.


My goal has always been to inform authors. Which is why I write a blog called A Newbie's Guide to Publishing, which shares what I've learned. I've made a lot of mistakes, and if that can prevent others from making those same mistakes, I'm being useful.

One of the things I've seen, over and over again, is unhappy authors who have self-published.

As for goals, you should only set goals that don't involve other people who have power over them by saying "yes" or "no."

Becoming a bestselling author isn't a goal. It's a dream.

Writing the best book possible and submitting to ten agents by January 1 is a goal.

If your dream is to get published, you can set goals in order to get closer to fulfilling your dream. The goals you set depends a lot on how much you understand the dream you're trying to reach.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> What irks me is people using a long shot like that as their business model. A much smarter business model--and one with much better odds--is to go the traditional publishing route.


Jack--

Your points are interesting, and what I'm seeing here is you're getting the best of both worlds. You've been traditionally published--which is a great thing--and you've pulled out your books in a drawer that traditional publishers had not gone for earlier in your life and you've self-published them and are finding out you're having some good sales. The marketplace is responding positively. You may even be thinking that some of the publishers who had rejected you were wrong--unless of course you're laughing and saying something like, "Those Kindle users--they'll buy anything." I doubt you're saying that, though.

In the spirited debade over the last eight hours while I've been sleeping, a few points come across clearly to me:

1) There are terrible books published traditionally and probably even more terrible books published independently.
2) People who are using Kindles are finding some great independently published books--including yours if sales are an indicator.
3) People using Kindles can get samples, and if something doesn't interest them, they don't buy.
4) First impressions are everything--true in bookstores reading the first page and true on Kindles reading a sample.
5) Some writers just don't get it when it comes to reviews: they don't listen and reviewers, they think, can be argued with. Hence, Red Adept's reaction of interacting with some great writers and some deluded ones.

It's doubtful I'll convince you to drop your agent and publish only through iUniverse and Kindle. That's because I don't believe that, either. I'm not here to say traditional publishers are terrible and self-publishing is the greatest thing since sacramental wine. Heck, I've worked as an senior editor for a publisher, so I know publishing from the side you're arguing about. I can even tell you about deluded writers sending us their manuscripts with such great cover letters as "This children's book will make you a lot of money because I read it to my nephews and they luved [sic] it. It will make you a lot of money." We were publishing only computer books--so the delusion is even funnier. The worst/funniest cover letters would go on the company refrigerator.

I started this note because you mentioned business models, and you seem to assume I or anyone independently publishing has a mistaken business model. Rather, I argue, you're mistaken in assuming such a thing. I'm coming at this having been in publishing. My short fiction was being published through an incredible vetting process: the literary magazine world. Literary magazines such as the North Dakota Review receive over 500 submissions a month to publsh ten stories a year. The better known journals such as Nimrod, the Missouri Review, and Tin House, receive thousands of submissions a month for only a handful of spots. In most cases, literary magazines only pay an author by giving two free copies away. The most I've received is $40 for a story in a literary magazine. I've received hundreds of rejections over the years--but also acceptance.

Most people reading this have never heard of any of these journals and may wonder why anyone would open themselves to rejection for so little reward? That's because it's one way to learn how to write contemporary literary stories. I had the occassional editor, in fact, write how close my story had been to being accepted, and he would explain what had not worked. I learned, and these editors then published future stories of mine.

Back to business models: after I had a collection worth of stories to publish, I approached agents. One agent called right away and said the stories were great but no agent was going to take on a short story collection. He said, "There is no money in short stories. Write a novel." I said, "Yes, but these are proven stories and all you have to do is send out the manuscript--very little effort--and maybe someone will publish it because it comes from an agent."

He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. "They don't make money. Write a novel."

So I went on to write a novel, "The Brightest Moon of the Century," which that very agent loved, and he took me on.

Still, I had a collection of short fiction and the so-called traditional business model wasn't working for me. This is where a friend told me, "Hey, you were in publishing. You know how it's done. Why don't you start your own company and publish your book?" I told him he was nuts, that I didn't have that kind of money, but he went onto explain print-on-demand and a company called Lulu. I hadn't heard any of it. I tried it. I did what I'd learned when I worked for a publisher. Even though my stories had been previously published, I wanted these stories tight and in the right order, so I hired an editor. I also hired a graphic designer. We created "The Middle-Aged Man and the Sea." I went to Expanded Books, a well-known book video maker and said, "You've never made a video for a short story collection--how about experiment with me?" They made me a great deal. I also hired a New York publicist. The book received great reviews--the first in the _Los Angeles Times_--and has won an award for best fiction of the year (2006) from a literary web site.

I'm not suggesting this as a business model for everyone, either. I was new at this. I only knew traditional publishing, so I did what a publisher would do. I've come to embrace the do-it-yourself approach, though, and recommend to anyone to at least use an editor. You can't be an objective editor of your own work. An editor will keep egg off your face.

You, Joe, Lee and a few others here may have enough of a name and resume that at some point you, too, may realize that if a traditional publisher doesn't offer you a good enough deal, you can jump into the market yourself. Yes, you'll have to fight people who think anything self-published must be dreck, but there are others willing to hit the sample button on their Kindles to try you out. Heck, try one of my two short story collections out.

--Chris


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> You may even be thinking that some of the publishers who had rejected you were wrong--unless of course you're laughing and saying something like, "Those Kindle users--they'll buy anything." I doubt you're saying that, though.


Were they wrong? That's a tough call. They certainly didn't think they could make money on them, so it was right for their company to reject those books. The fact that I am making money means the public has a different opinion.

I'm fond of saying that just because something is publishable doesn't mean it will get published. I believe the books I have on Kindle were publishable. But up until Kindle came along, I really didn't have a viable way to exploit the rights.



Chrismeeks said:


> It's doubtful I'll convince you to drop your agent and publish only through iUniverse and Kindle.


I may reach that conclusion on my own. This is a journey, and things change. I don't know everything, and try to keep an open mind.



Chrismeeks said:


> I started this note because you mentioned business models, and you seem to assume I or anyone independently publishing has a mistaken business model. Rather, I argue, you're mistaken in assuming such a thing.


I think it's a mistaken business model for the overwhelming majority of self-pubbed authors. I'm guessing you'd agree. If you're the exception, do you really want to advise authors to follow in your footsteps? Especially having read the crap that the majority of self-pubbed authors produce?



Chrismeeks said:


> He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. They don't make money. Write a novel."


He's 100% right. They don't make money. I've seen this over and over and over again.



Chrismeeks said:


> So I went on to write a novel, "The Brightest Moon of the Century," which that very agent loved and took me on.


You're already ahead of 99.9% of other self-pubbers because you have an agent and have been published by respected journals. So you're not giving me anything to argue with.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

> Back to business models: after I had a collection worth of stories to publish, I approached agents. One agent called right away and said the stories were great but no agent was going to take on a short story collection. He said, "There is no money in short stories. Write a novel." I said, "Yes, but these are proven stories and all you have to do is send out the manuscript--very little effort--and maybe someone will publish it because it comes from an agent."
> 
> He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. They don't make money. Write a novel."


 (From Meeks))

Yup, that's true. In "Sage" I had already found a publisher for the first story. But the other 3 I wrote were too long for any magazine to touch, even the online ones. I can't tell you how many people have told me they wouldn't sell. But they've been selling more copies than the novel I have out on Kindle. Is it price? Subject matter? Cover? I don't know, but I am glad to have a venue to publish them. I think the money for short stories is limited. But I'm also hearing from Kindle readers that short works fit the Kindle model pretty well and they imply that they are reading them/buying more of them than in the past.

Self-publishing is not a cure-all and it isn't an answer for everyone. But neither is traditional publishing. There are some works that fit one model better than the other. Traditional publishers can and do provide a "stamp of approval" that makes many buyers feel better about a purchase. Self-published books, with their often lower price, provide a lot of buyers with a willingness to "try it." Does the work still have to have a minimum quality level to continue selling? Yes. Is there room for both models? Right now, yes.

If publishers ever figure out that they would sell more by lowering their ebook prices, it will hurt Indie publishers because then the publishers would have the "stamp of approval" and a low price--making them appear on the surface to be the best deal going. Luckily they are too stubborn to do that. It's people like Joe and self-publishers that are willing to try things that are going to carve out a niche.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I'm fond of saying that just because something is publishable doesn't mean it will get published. I believe the books I have on Kindle were publishable. But up until Kindle came along, I really didn't have a viable way to exploit the rights.


I think the authors who publish to the Kindle think the same way. They all believe their work is 'publishable', so they publish it. Period.

Do I think all of the Indie books I review are publishable? Heck, no! I have waded through much of the garbage you talk about. I have seen books that I turned down for even an Honorable Mention in my blog go up in sales rankings on Amazon just because the authors keep advertising. So, sales rankings are not a good indicator at all. People will buy a Kindle book just because it's $.99 and many will not bother to post a review if they couldn't read it simply because, hey, it was only $.99. The reviews that do get posted are a good indicator as long as you can tell which ones are legit, i.e. not by friends, relatives, or fellow authors doing it as a mutual favor.

My rating scale would read more like this (with some exceptions) for authors: 
5 Stars - Wondering why the heck a publisher hasn't picked it up. It may need some minor work.
4 Stars - Needs some moderate to major editing, but still a great start and should be represented by an agent who might be able to get an editor to get it ready.
3 Stars - While I enjoyed it, the author should probably do some major overhauling prior to even considering trying to present it to a publisher/agent.
1-2 Stars - Can quite honestly see why it has been rejected, if that is the case.

By 'editing', I am not referring to grammar/spelling, but to content.

It think everyone knows by now that I not only pull no punches, but I also do not 'favor' or 'disfavor' authors' work based on how I feel about them personally. That's my stand on presenting honest reviews. There are authors here that I feel like I want to go hang out and drink with and there are others that have just been downright rude, but they get an honest review, regardless.

I didn't know who Eric Christopherson was when I found his book. I was just surfing Amazon. But, it was wonderful! Deserved each of the 5 stars. I will not be at all surprised when he gets a publishing contract. 

And..If I helped in that with my review, my time is justified and well spent.

But, as a reviewer, I am NOT always right, just like publishing companies are NOT always right. There is always a personal opinion involved.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Wow, I went to the doctor's for a test and there's too much here to read!  Still catching up...

Jack, just wanted to let you know that I'm willing to take your 10K to buy books and let you know how I liked them.  

Betsy


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> I'd love to give you $10,000 and send you to iUniverse and tell you to buy a bunch of books and prove me wrong, and I'm sure you wouldn't be able to.


Can I have that in an Amazon Gift Certificate, instead? 

I don't think the percentage is anywhere near as high as 99% garbage.

Just a quick bit of math on my blog reviews seems to be my rating 28% of Indie books at 5 stars and another 28% at 4 Stars.

Now, that does not include the Indie books that I have passed over because I couldn't even get started or the ones that were good, but not to my taste, that are listed as Honorable mentions. So, some up and down adjustments need to be made.

Of course, some of that is due to the fact that I pick and choose based on descriptions. Your experience was having to read whatever was sent in.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Chances are every book you've ever read and loved--some which may be the reasons you decided to become a writer--are all traditionally published.


Considering that self-publishing used to be rather expensive, and getting self-published works to market was difficult, this is an easy assumption to make.

I would like to add an anecdote.... The only reason I found/read Crack-Up was because of Red Adept's thread about it in this forum. Based on her recommendation, I read the sample, enjoyed it and bought the rest. I added it to my Shelfari page, to which I had to go through the lengthy process of setting up the book since it did not appear in the search, which is something I am usually too lazy to bother with. Then I did something else I rarely do, I reviewed it on Amazon. I also recommended it to another member here, who told me they bought the book. It is this kind of word-of-mouth that will make successes of _quality_ self-published authors.


----------



## Reeses_Addict (Sep 21, 2009)

First off let me say that I am a late comer to this very interesting argument.  Although i agree with Jack on a few MINOR points, particularly about expensive vanity presses,  I believe him and his arguments to be outdated.  Being a newcomer to this industry, and being young enough to not be as biased about past traditions, I have jumped into this game strictly digitally; ie self-published via ebooks under my real name for mainstream fiction and under a pseudonym for my "other" works.


Jack, under my pseudonym (and no it is not Reese's Addict), I publish BDSM erotica.  Could you please tell me which publishers are going to put my works into Barnes and Noble's brick and mortar stores.  Even if I did get a "legitimate" publisher, the best I could hope for is on a rack in the back of sex shops.  Then, how do you market?  Most people are ashamed of their fetishes and avoid buying what others refer to as porn in public.  However those same people will order off of the internet all day long.  Now, I can market in the previously mentioned forums, posting under that identity and provide them an easily clickable link to sample and/or purchase my work.  I think you have to admit that for non-mainstream works, self-publishing via ebooks is the best method of reaching the most people.  

As for being a professional writer, here is my definition.  If someone I don't know, and who has never read my work, buys my book, that does not make me professional, just lucky.  If that same person, after reading that first book, hunts me down to buy another, then I consider myself a professional writer.  I know that I am a professional writer because that is where I am at.  I know that my sales have not been to family and friends because I have not told any of them what I am doing.  I wanted to avoid that very situation and get sales numbers based on true customers.  I don't want those sales and would happily give them copies anyway.

Crap, every time I try to post, there are more new replies.  I cannot type that fast.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

One other point about traditional publishing--and this does not negate the "minimum quality" statement, as I agree with that in general.  First:

quote:

I think Kristin: You couldn't pay me that much to read a bunch of the stuff on the shelves of Barnes and Noble, either.

Joe: That smacks of disdain for the very industry you're striving to become a part of, and also comes off as rather nearsighted.

end quotes

Actually I don't think she meant it disdainfully. The truth is, I was a reviewer for several years and there was a very large percentage of stuff I did not want to read, all traditionally published.  I got sent stuff, I requested stuff--it was all free.  What I found is that I only wanted to read a VERY small percentage--even of books that I initially was excited to read.  There are SO MANY BOOKS out there.   If someone just dumped BN books on my doorstep, I wouldn't take money to read them either.  I found myself turning books DOWN as a reviewer because while there may be a minimum quality standard...that doesn't mean I want to read just anything dumped my way no matter who publishes it.  

After the initial euphoria wore off (FREE BOOKS!!!!!!) I started to get awfully choosy.  Some of it is subject matter, but some of it quality as well.  There were some books that were rife with errors (usually small publishers; we were not allowed to review self-published books).  There were some major publishers that had...some rather glaring mistakes (usually one or two-again that quality gate.)  There are big-name authors that are big-name enough to not allow editing.  Sure they are exceptions.  And yeah, IMO it usually means a longer book and one that could have had some boring parts taken out. 

So it all boils down to--Thank God the market is changing.  Thankfully there are people willing to look at Indie books.  It is going to force publishers to rethink pricing, to rethink distribution and in the end it's going to be better for readers (I hope.)   I think there are small publisher right now that rather than spend money printing, test the waters with ebooks.  If those publishers gain a quality reputation, it's going to help readers and writers by changing the market for the better.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

I haven't sold any books to friends or family. Zero. I didn't even tell them I had books on Kindle until recently, and none of them own a Kindle (or iPhone).  

So . . . strangers are buying my books, and a respectable number are buying the sequel (priced at 3.99 -- not .99 or 1.99). At the higher price I'm guessing they liked the first book enough to purchase the second.

Are the books "great" or "good" or "perfect" or "industry standard"?  They haven't been through the big house publishing process, but the reader knows that when they purchase (if they read the publisher info).

Many good writers don't see the light of day in my genre because, as one recent rejection letter stated, "as you know, the space is crowded in this genre." I realize they have to protect their current stable of writers from competing titles. That's ok, it's the way the game is played.

The great thing about Amazon is that a virtual store isn't limited to 20,000 square feet.  There's room for everybody. It's free to publish there, so why not use it as a test market?


----------



## Carol Hanrahan (Mar 31, 2009)

Whew!  It took me a long time to read all this.
I majored in math in college, so long ago.  So maybe that influences how I look at this discussion.
Indie publishing means more books getting out there.  More books means a better chance of more gems.  How many "To Kill a Mockingbird"s never got published in the past by traditional methods and perished because of it?  Perhaps passed up by many publishers and an author finally giving up. We'll never know.  But now, there's a better chance of those gems surviving.  That makes me happy.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

People are reading opinions into my messages I didn't express nor meant to imply. So let me make my case one last time, as clearly as I can.

When I talk about "self-publishing," I am talking about going to the expense of printing your unpublished novel in book form, publicizing it, and hustling it on your website, to your family, at booths at book festivals, and out of the trunk of your car.

Self-publishing your unpublished novel is, 9.9 times out of 10, a costly and humiliating mistake. You will not make back your money and you will likely do more damage than good to your career. The odds of actually becoming an acclaimed, respected, and widely read professional writer by self-publishing your rejected manuscript is about the same as finding buried treasure in your backyard.

I am_ not _saying you should give up being a writer if you are met with constant rejection. What I _am _saying is that you will be far better off -- creatively, financially, and professionally -- if you put your rejected manuscript in a drawer and write another book instead self-publishing it.

I am not saying that every book that's rejected by publishers and agents is a steaming pile of crap. However, you might want to honestly ask yourself why your book is being rejected...is it really because NY agents & publishers are old-fashioned, narrow-minded, bean-counting, creative cowards...or you don't know the right people or the secret passwords...or the system is geared to make money and not art... or the system isn't able accept something as brilliant and original as your work....or that nobody in the mainstream can appreciate your brilliance?

Or could it be that maybe its your work that is flawed in some way...or that you just don't have the talent, skill, or voice yet to make it as a writer? It's hard to accept that possibility, but rather than self-publishing what may be a substandard book...you might be better off trying to see the manuscript the way others have and learning from the experience...perhaps rewriting it, setting it aside, or going back and learning more about your craft.

On a slightly different subject...

Ebooks still make up a tiny percentage of books sales...but they have dealt, I think, a blow to the vanity presses and have at least taken the financial risk out of self-publishing (if you want to call it that). That's a very, very good thing. You can now make your unpublished manuscript widely available through the Amazon Kindle Platform, Smashwords and Scribd. If you have your heart set on self-publish, I would urge you to go that route and NOT to throw away your money on POD or other printing methods. Beside being a greener alternative, it's also a lot cheaper.

But don't do it thinking you're going to reach a wide audience, earn critical acclaim, or have sales anywhere near what Joe Konrath is enjoying. Or that it will lead to a career as a professional novelist. Very few unpublished novelists are earning the kind of money form their e-books that Joe Konrath is with his...and it is very, very, VERY rare for Kindle sales to lead to a publishing contract. And while reviews from readers and bloggers like Red Adept are nice, and make you feel good, they will never match the impact, influence, or notice that a review from a publication like Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, Booklist, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, etc. will generate in terms of sales or respect. And those critics aren't reading self-published work on the Kindle.

Incidentally, the days of being able to post your unpublished, rejected work on the Kindle for free _may_ be coming to an end. I have heard from some of my publishing industry friends (so you have to take into account their biases) that Amazon's open policy was designed to inflate the number of book titles Amazon could say was available on the Kindle. They tell me that the Amazon Kindle store has become so clogged with self-published sludge that they are going to start putting limitations on what can be uploaded...and segregating the amateur stuff from the professionally published titles so that they aren't all mixed together. Again, I have NO IDEA if this is true...but I can attest that I have seen a tightening, at least as far as uploading out-of-print books is concerned (they now hold them for weeks and require reversion of rights letters).


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> However, you might want to honestly ask yourself why your book is being rejected...


I wish I'd said this.

In the case of the short stories I have on Kindle, most of them weren't rejected--they sold to magazines and anthologies.

In the case of the novels, two of them were rejected because they mixed-up genres. No publisher who read them thought they could effectively market humorous thrillers. The other two were shelved by my agent, because she considered them tough to sell (one was a medical thriller, the other a men's action novel, neither of which seem to be around much anymore except for the major bestsellers) so they never did get rejected by NY publishing.

My early novels--the ones that were rejected by hundreds of agents and publishers--will never see the light of day, because they aren't good enough. I didn't think that at the time. I only realized it after honing my craft allowed me to recognize my early mistakes. Had I tried to self-publish those, I don't think I'd have had the success I've had, either in print form or ebook form.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Kristen Tsetsi said:


> You'd think if you want to help people understand the publishing industry and the difficulty of having their writing accepted, one way to do that would to be to encourage them to self-publish something.


No offense, but that is exactly the line that vanity presses use to talk people into throwing their money away. And it's a myth. Worse, it's damaging.

There is almost nothing...let me underscore that, *nothing*you can learn from self-publishing that will help you in the real world of publishing. Because when you work with real publishers, they pay YOU for your book and bring a myriad of professionals to the task that you don't have when you go POD or format your book for e-sales. A real publisher provides you with experienced, and highly skilled editors, proofreaders, designers, sales reps, publicists etc. to shape your book into a professional product...and then they go even further, they get your book to distributors, bookstores, and retailers of all kinds, nationwide.

What you will learn from self-publishing, self-editing, and self-promoting as a self-taught author and publisher, are more likely to be bad habits and amateurish conduct rather than any useful skills or behaviors...and those things might actually work against you if you are ever lucky enough to enter the professional side.


> That way, their first "amateurish crap" is out there where no agent or editor will see it, the author will learn something about the process and about rejection (maybe) from readers, and when her or his next, and better, work is done, they'll be able to go into the querying process with a greater understanding of it all.


If nobody is going to see it, that what is the point of self-publishing?? And if you haven't learned anything from being rejected by agents and editors...what do you think you're going to learn by being rejected by readers?? And what could you possibly learn from self-publishing that will help you with a query letter?? 
I'm sorry, I just don't understand the logic.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> Back to business models: after I had a collection worth of stories to publish, I approached agents. One agent called right away and said the stories were great but no agent was going to take on a short story collection. He said, "There is no money in short stories. Write a novel." I said, "Yes, but these are proven stories and all you have to do is send out the manuscript--very little effort--and maybe someone will publish it because it comes from an agent."
> 
> He went onto explain that big publishers only publish short story collections as a favor to their popular novelists like T.C. Boyle. "They don't make money. Write a novel."


Chris,

That simply isn't true. My brother Tod isn't a big-name author, he's no T.C. Boyle or Stephen King, but his second collection of short stories was just published and he's on a nationwide book tour right now. And publishers are already asking him for another collection. Publishers do buy short story collections. New ones come out every week. I know, because I see them reviewed in PW and the LA Times. I know because publishers have bought short story collections from some of Tod's students.

You know how Tod got his agent? By writing short stories. Agents read the top literary magazine and journals, looking for original voices and undiscovered talent. While it's true Tod's first sale was a novel, I have to take issue with your assertion that you can't get an agent from your short stories or sell a collection of short stories to a publisher...or the implication that self-publishing is the only avenue left for short story collections.



> Still, I had a collection of short fiction and the so-called traditional business model wasn't working for me. This is where a friend told me, "Hey, you were in publishing. You know how it's done. Why don't you start your own company and publish your book?" I told him he was nuts, that I didn't have that kind of money, but he went onto explain print-on-demand and a company called Lulu. I hadn't heard any of it. I tried it. I did what I'd learned when I worked for a publisher. Even though my stories had been previously published, I wanted these stories tight and in the right order, so I hired an editor. I also hired a graphic designer. We created "The Middle-Aged Man and the Sea." I went to Expanded Books, a well-known book video maker and said, "You've never made a video for a short story collection--how about experiment with me?" They made me a great deal. I also hired a New York publicist.


It sounds to me like you spent thousands of dollars to self-publish and promote your book. Now tell me, how much of that investment have you made back in book sales? My guess is that you haven't even come close...but I would love to be wrong. 
Whether you earned back your investment or not, how many writers can afford to do that? And how many times? And what kind of business is that? Can you really say that the self-publishing with POD model is working better for writers -- creatively, financially and professionally -- than the "traditional" business model? I sure don't think so.

Lee


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Okay, I am now repeating myself over and over...and not adding anything new to the discussion. I've made the points I wanted to make...and then Joe came along made them even better than I did...or could. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion. If I hurt anybody's feelings, or created the impression that I do not support aspiring writers, that certainly was not my intent and I apologize if I did so. 

Lee


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> And if you haven't learned anything from being rejected by agents and editors...what do you think you're going to learn by being rejected by readers??


This is actually a pretty easy question to answer. A lot of Reader Reviewers will give very specific reasons why they didn't like a book. I certainly do. So, if any author gets a lot of reviews stating one thing that is wrong with the book, well, then the author can learn from that.

Like I stated previously, no one should rely on one review, but if many are saying the same type of things, then it's something to look into, I would think.

However, you are correct in one respect, many authors won't learn a thing. As I have stated before and seen on many reviews, not just my own, authors will argue vehementlyand sometimes venemously, for the cause of their 'masterpiece' because those 10 people who gave it a critical review just didn't 'get it'.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Can't speak for Chris--and my collection probably isn't as polished or well-received as his--but I have made back what I've put into it so far.

Lee, it's nice that your brother is having such success, but I do think he is a rare exception in the short story world. I've talked to a few midlist authors that have shorts in anthologies and I have yet to have one tell me that the antho sells as many copies as a novel. So I do think that short stories is a hard row to hoe to get traditionally published.

While I know you guys have read a lot of "crap" -- since you're both so involved in this discussion, it might behoove either one of you (or both) to just read a sample or three of the people contributing to the discussion. (No, I'm not suggesting you buy 40 novels from us.) I have read a lot of slush. I have also read some of the novels from this board--and I was more than pleasantly surprised to find that it was well-above slush levels in MOST cases--several were quite ready for publishing--very readable, very professional. To name two: Jim Chambers "Recollections" -- well written, not an error to be found. Marva Dasef, Quest for the Simurgh, not an error to be found (I'm not a very good judge of this particular age-group, but I had no problem with readability, storyline and so on.) I've sampled several others. They may not all be my thing, but again, I'd was surprised to find that many were quite probably publishable--except for a crowded market in the traditional world. Would an editor and team of pros made the even better? Probably. But that isn't available to all of us due to stiff competition. Is self-publishing the answer? We're finding out.

I participated for years on Baen's board--and the last time was only a few short months ago. I do not say this lightly. The last two years--the slush has gotten better. I don't know if that is because the people participating are returnees (like myself) or if writers are learning because of the opportunities around them.

None of us has all the answers, but I for one, am enjoying the journey for a change.

Maria



LeeGoldberg said:


> Chris,
> 
> That simply isn't true. My brother Tod isn't a big-name author, he's no T.C. Boyle or Stephen King, but his second collection of short stories was just published and he's on a nationwide book tour right now. And publishers are already asking him for another collection. Publishers do buy short story collections. New ones come out every week. I know, because I see them reviewed in PW and the LA Times. I know because publishers have bought short story collections from some of Tod's students.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Incidentally, the days of being able to post your unpublished, rejected work on the Kindle for free _may_ be coming to an end. I have heard from some of my publishing industry friends (so you have to take into account their biases) that Amazon's open policy was designed to inflate the number of book titles Amazon could say was available on the Kindle. They tell me that the Amazon Kindle store has become so clogged with self-published sludge that they are going to start putting limitations on what can be uploaded...and segregating the amateur stuff from the professionally published titles so that they aren't all mixed together. Again, I have NO IDEA if this is true...but I can attest that I have seen a tightening, at least as far as uploading out-of-print books is concerned (they now hold them for weeks and require reversion of rights letters).


"On a cold and gray Kindle morn'
A poor little baby book is born
In the ghetto
And his mama cries ..."

Sounds like a lot of hassle leading to a lot of alienation and ill will. Do you ghettoize the small publishers too? And if not, then which ones? How small is too small? And how does Amazon get its competitors to follow suit? Will they?


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Lee, I'm only telling you what the agent said. He ended up signing me, thanks initially to my short stories, but he wouldn't represent the short stories because there wasn't enough money in it for him. If you think I was saying no one is publishing short fiction, you're wrong. There are many collections that get out each year. Jumpa Lahiri's short story collection "Unaccustomed Earth" has even been on the New York Times bestseller list for months this year, so there's at least one collection that's made good money. However, my agent wanted a novel, so I ended up writing a novel, which was a good push. 

I celebrate anyone and any publisher publishing short fiction, so I can only cheer for Tod and his new book, "Other Resort Cities" (OV Books).  Joe Konrath in his blog (which started this all) was saying if he didn't get $30,000 in advance, he'd think long and hard about whether to publish it on his own. I can bet your brother didn't get $30,000 up front for his collection--no short story author does. That's why my agent didn't go for even mailing out my short story collection manuscript. Still, Tod is getting a tour, and that's wonderful. Tod is fun to be around. In any size crowd, he gets them laughing.

I sense you're debating that traditional publishing is the only real publishing and that self-published books, no matter the reason, are somehow inferior. Yet people here are saying they've found some gems from independent authors and enjoyed them. What's to debate? Even Jack was saying he pulled out his old manuscripts from the drawer--the drawer you say all manuscripts that are rejected should stay in--and he's finding success through Kindle sales. Maybe there's a book of yours in a drawer that's worth putting into the marketplace. To put it on Kindle won't cost a lot, though I urge you and anyone trying this route to hire an editor first. For self-publishing to work well, it's best to mimick what even small presses do.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of going the traditional route. I'm not trying to even tell people to do what I do, which is become a virtual small publisher with a freelance staff. I encourage my own students to go the traditional route. However, if one is talented and the traditional route doesn't work, there are options now.

--Chris


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Breaking News! Sorry, I'll have to gush a little, but this supports in another way how independent publishing can help. In 1997, my play "Who Lives?" was produced in L.A. The story is about the perfection of the first kidney dialysis machine in Seattle in the early sixties. To see if the machine would work on a long-term basis, the doctors created a committee of ordinary citizens to choose the ten people who might live thanks to the machine, if it worked. Which ten would live? What makes someone's life more valuable than other's?

After it's first production, to great reviews, it was set to be produced in a big theatre in Seattle. When the funding that was set up fell apart and the play wasn't produced, I was upset and put the play in the proverbial drawer. Two years ago, I thought this was silly, so I published it using my usual people, and a copy landed on the desk of Lori Hartwell, who runs the Renal Support Network. She had me on her radio show, "Kidney Talk," and that led to her becoming interested in producing the play, which happened in March of this year. I just heard that yesterday the production was nominated for five Ovation Awards. Ovations are the biggest theatre prizes in Los Angeles, equivalent to the Obies in New York. 

Sometimes as an author you have to take a chance. 

Now I'll have to bring "Who Lives?" to Kindle and see if there's anyone interested in reading a play.

--Chris


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Incidentally, the days of being able to post your unpublished, rejected work on the Kindle for free _may_ be coming to an end. I have heard from some of my publishing industry friends (so you have to take into account their biases) that Amazon's open policy was designed to inflate the number of book titles Amazon could say was available on the Kindle. They tell me that the Amazon Kindle store has become so clogged with self-published sludge that they are going to start putting limitations on what can be uploaded...and segregating the amateur stuff from the professionally published titles so that they aren't all mixed together. Again, I have NO IDEA if this is true...but I can attest that I have seen a tightening, at least as far as uploading out-of-print books is concerned (they now hold them for weeks and require reversion of rights letters).


How much revenue do the independents bring to Amazon? How many additional customers? How many Kindles have they sold to us and friends?

Amazon can make whatever business decisions they want, but I think a better solution would be to mark independent titles more clearly on the page (next to the title -- insert a tag or logo to designate the title as independently published).

In fact, I'd like them to do that, because I think it would help the reader to make an informed decision.

I don't think Amazon invited independent publishers to Kindle Store just to boost the number of titles . . . I think it was a careful business decision made based on several factors, including a longer-term model which includes expansion of their hard copy publishing arm (Booksurge?). Eventually more authors, like Konrath, will insist on retaining their ebook rights, and eliminating the publisher middleman will save Amazon many millions of dollars in commission payments. Bezos is smart as a fox, and there's more than just boosting a few numbers behind this strategy. If they simply wanted to boost the number of titles they could have quickly dumped thousands of public domain books onto the Kindle Store.


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> After it's first production, to great reviews, it was set to be produced in a big theatre in Seattle. When the funding that was set up fell apart and the play wasn't produced, I was upset and put the play in the proverbial drawer. Two years ago, I thought this was silly, so I published it using my usual people, and a copy landed on the desk of Lori Hartwell, who runs the Renal Support Network. She had me on her radio show, "Kidney Talk," and that led to her becoming interested in producing the play, which happened in March of this year. I just heard that yesterday the production was nominated for five Ovation Awards. Ovations are the biggest theatre prizes in Los Angeles, equivalent to the Obies in New York.
> 
> Sometimes as an author you have to take a chance.
> 
> ...


Congratulations Chris! I'd love to see that play, as we have had organ recipients in my family, and the ethical dilemmas continue vis a vis organ transplants.


----------



## Guest (Oct 20, 2009)

I'd like to offer up one issue that I think gets left out of the discussion far too much in regards to whether or not an author should self-publish.

There is a HUGE difference between being an author and a publisher.  These are two different skill sets, and being good at one does not automatically equate with being good at the other.

Authors tend to be very self-focused, in that they are focused on their writing and telling their story the way they want to tell it.  That's what makes writers writers, of course, is that desire to tell the tale.  

Publishers, on the other hand, are consumer-focused, in that they are focused on how to make consumers aware of a book and how to convince consumers to buy the book.  That is what makes a publisher a publisher, is the ability to package a book in a way that is appealing to the consumer.

The problem comes when an author tries to be a publisher, but refuses to THINK like a publisher.

The publisher says "If we put a little money into designing an appealing cover, it will attract more buyers."

The self-publisher says "Readers should give me a chance and not judge my book on the cover."

The publisher says "If we format the book this way it will be more visually appealing and easier for the buyer to read."

The self-publisher says "Well, that is the way I wrote it and the reader should be able to understand it."

The publisher says "We need to clean up some of this grammar and edit some of these sections for better clarity."

The self-publisher says "Readers shouldn't be grammar nazis!  So what if I can't spell?  What about my story?"

I have read some decent self-published books that would have been exceptional if handled by a good publisher.  Because the publisher would have focused on MY perspective as the reader.  Unfortunately, self-publishers often hold the opinion that readers "owe them a chance" and should make allowances for them.  This, not a lack of talent, is often what gets them in the most trouble.

The act of writing is a personal process.  The act of publishing is a very public one.  Where most authors shoot themselves in the foot is not in bad writing, but bad publishing.  An author that is capable of thinking like a publisher can potentially make a nice income selling his or her own books.  But an author that is trying to circumvent the system and expects readers to just give them a chance will generally find they don't sell a thing beyond friends and family.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

This site includes a list of authors who self-published at some point: http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html

Kindleboard authors are in GREAT company!


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> Kindleboard authors are in GREAT company!


Thanks for that!


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> This site includes a list of authors who self-published at some point: http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html
> 
> Kindleboard authors are in GREAT company!


Um, take a good HARD look at that list. It is disingenuous. Half the names are ancient history...authors that lived in a completely different universe than ours where publishing was a far different animal. Many of them that allegedly self-published were people that had been involved in the traditional publishing process for years, decades, before releasing their own work. A handful that "self-published" were traditionally published first and only later worked outside of the industry, but they were not "self-published" in the sense the site is implying. For example, Stephen King did not SELF-PUBLISH. This is a modern urban myth. He serialized a novel on his blog in 2000 as part of a marketing campaign _in cooperation with his publisher._ 

I've seen variants of this "list" a thousand times, mostly on vanity press and POD sites trying to encourage people to self-publish. Go through the names and you will find the declarations of them being "self-publishers" is a stretch.


----------



## Christopher Meeks (Aug 2, 2009)

Julie Ann--

Your post above about what publishers do and what some authors miss in being self-publishers highlights the problems of poorly delivered books. I've taught in USC's Master of Professional Writing program, and one of the things I try to remind these talented and serious graduate students is that they have to come across professionally every step of the way. While story and believablility is important, so is adding enough care to each sentence so that it's grammatical and clear. For self-publishers, it's worth knowing the process that real publishers go through, including having an editor and proofreaders (plural). Don't rush to print, but rather, make sure what you publish matches the intention for your book.

The same is true, by the way, of sending manuscripts to agents or traditional publishers. Don't assume some editor will fix things down the line and all that counts is the story. Editors are overwhelmed by manuscripts, and those manuscripts that look hastily thrown together become an easy "No." Editors are looking to find the best of the best. All the rants here against many self-published books could well be rants by agents and editors about manuscripts that come to them.

In fact, for those interested in what real agents do and feel, check out agent Kristin Nelson's blog, PubRants, at http://pubrants.blogspot.com/.

--Chris


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Chrismeeks said:


> I just heard that yesterday the production was nominated for five Ovation Awards. Ovations are the biggest theatre prizes in Los Angeles, equivalent to the Obies in New York.
> 
> Sometimes as an author you have to take a chance.
> 
> ...


Congratulations, Chris!


----------



## mfstewart (Jun 23, 2009)

This is a great discussion. I can only offer up why I self pubbed The Caliphate (pseudonym Jack Stewart). Time. It is an economic thriller that dealt with a hedge fund manager using his knowledge to take down the US economy. When the US economy started to falter, I had to self pub it. It will be dated within a year, and I didn't have two years to wait, even if I could have found a publisher. I think it was the right decision. I've had decent reviews and it's a fun book and I've sold over a thousand copies so far without any platform to speak of. Was it worth the trip to Sumatra to write it? Not financially!

I would be jumping up for joy to have a major publisher approach me about publishing it. Why? Distribution. And I think the process would make me a better writer. But I'm still writing, not publishing.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Way to go Chris!!! Congrats!


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2009)

mfstewart said:


> This is a great discussion. I can only offer up why I self pubbed The Caliphate (pseudonym Jack Stewart). Time. It is an economic thriller that dealt with a hedge fund manager using his knowledge to take down the US economy. When the US economy started to falter, I had to self pub it. It will be dated within a year, and I didn't have two years to wait, even if I could have found a publisher. I think it was the right decision. I've had decent reviews and it's a fun book and I've sold over a thousand copies so far without any platform to speak of. Was it worth the trip to Sumatra to write it? Not financially!
> 
> I would be jumping up for joy to have a major publisher approach me about publishing it. Why? Distribution. And I think the process would make me a better writer. But I'm still writing, not publishing.


You underestimate how quickly a big publisher can turn over a book if there is motivation to do so.

You underestimate the importance of good writing, not timing, to make a book "timely." Did you pick up a few sales because of the timing? Probably. Would you have sold thousands of more copies if you had been patient and allowed a good publisher to market your work? I don't doubt it. Frankly, people are going to be talking about the financial meltdown for years to come. If you have written a good book, whether it was released six months ago or next year is less important than if you have the marketing weight behind it to make people aware of it. I was just reading through Bookpages and there are still books being released regarding 9/11. They are still timely and relevant. Nobody would accuse these titles of being "dated."


----------



## ASparrow (Oct 12, 2009)

One nice thing I've found about self-publishing an ebook is that it turns manuscript improvement into a community-based iterative process. 

Of course, I had to polish my manuscript through many drafts first before making it public (minimum three, more than ten drafts for certain chapters) but even now I'm getting copy-edit and structural feedback from readers that I never would have gotten had I submitted to agents (form letters, maybe). And I can post revised corrected versions of the manuscript that readers have access to. Thus, my manuscript can continue to evolve in a way that it wouldn't if it had solidified into print.

And as for criticial reviews, I love them. The more critical the better. Knowing where writing doesn't work is valuable information for an author to have and provides a pathway towards improvement. Of course, you have to disregard some of it, because sometimes the advice one gets from one person is diametrically opposed to someone else's take. Tastes span 180 degrees and someone is always going to be disappointed.

Now I have great respect for those who go through the traditional publishing route and succeed. I've just decided not to bother with all that. I'd rather spend my time creating (or procrastinating on blogs).


----------



## mfstewart (Jun 23, 2009)

Oh, I marketed it, Bardsandsages. There is of course a secondary reason to not having it traditionally published and that is no one wanted it. One of the reasons I received multiple times was that the material would date. I have to defer to them. Others issues included - not 'big' enough of a thriller. Not 'believeable' enough. Couldn't wrap their heads around the financial aspects, etc. And quite likely, not quite up to their standards. I did get the usual - 'splendid' and 'talented' and 'fast paced' too, but I think I need to take those with a grain of salt. In the absence of people saying it was crap, however, I felt it deserved to be published in a timely manner. I hired an editor, cover designer, an expert on Islam (to ensure I got my research right) and a typesetter, etc. and I think it turned out pretty well. And you can get it for 99 cents!

I don't think I can be faulted for not trying hard enough.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2009)

jrector said:


> I'm late to the discussion, but I'll add one point. If you do decide to self-publish (or vanity or indy or whatever the kids are calling it these days) and you think you might want to try traditional publishing someday, I'd advise against getting an ISBN number for your book. Once you have one, publishers and buyers will be able to track you and see how many copies you've sold. This takes away one of the few weapons a newly signed writer has, and that's potential. Once there are concrete numbers attached to an author, there are expectations both good and bad. If you self published and only managed to sell a few thousand copies, you're hurting yourself by limiting your potential in the eyes of the publisher and book buyers.


Considering that statistically the average self-published book sells less than 100 copies, an author that is able to sell a few thousand all on his own is doing quite well in the eyes of many publishers!

Of course, this assumes we are talking real 'sales' of a meaningful price and not free downloads or .99 cent copies. Think of it like a painter. If you sell 1000 pieces of your art for $1 each at yard sales over a year, you haven't really done a lot. If you sell 1000 pieces of your art at $100 through art shows and art venues, people take notice.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> Considering that statistically the average self-published book sells less than 100 copies, an author that is able to sell a few thousand all on his own is doing quite well in the eyes of many publishers!
> 
> Of course, this assumes we are talking real 'sales' of a meaningful price and not free downloads or .99 cent copies. Think of it like a painter. If you sell 1000 pieces of your art for $1 each at yard sales over a year, you haven't really done a lot. If you sell 1000 pieces of your art at $100 through art shows and art venues, people take notice.


I'm not sure you can dismiss a 99 cent book as not a real sale. (It's my understanding that Boyd Morrison sold all of his books on the Kindle at 99 cents, all 7,000 plus units, and the Kindle sales are rumored to have aided in his recent multi-book deal with S&S. At any rate the same books had struck out with major publishers two years earlier, or pre- all those 99 cent sales.) Where is the cut-off for a "real" sale then?


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

I agree with Eric. And his novel "Crack-Up" is a great example of an Indie producing work every bit as good as an established big-name author.


----------



## mfstewart (Jun 23, 2009)

I agree as well that the cutoff for 'real' sales is difficult to evaluate - I don't consider '1' cent or free sales to be real - those are marketing brochures of a kind. I bet 1.99 is considered a real sale by Konrath - he's certainly making real money with it. So why not 99 cents?

The investment by a buyer is not just in the money but the time to read it. That's what you're balancing.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2009)

mfstewart said:


> I agree as well that the cutoff for 'real' sales is difficult to evaluate - I don't consider '1' cent or free sales to be real - those are marketing brochures of a kind. I bet 1.99 is considered a real sale by Konrath - he's certainly making real money with it. So why not 99 cents?
> 
> The investment by a buyer is not just in the money but the time to read it. That's what you're balancing.


The point is that it isn't just sales that matter, but profitability.

If I have a widget that costs me $1 to make and I sell 100 widgets at $2 each, I make $100 profit.

If I decide I want more sales because I want people to be familiar with my widgets, I start selling my widget at cost for $1. If I sell 500 widgets not, I still break even, but I have made no profit.

Now lets say I start selling my widgets at 50 cents each and sell 2,000 of them. I've increased by sales substantially, but I'm going bankrupt in the process.

Now for a self-publisher, you can conceiveably "publish" with no investment. Get a friend to proofread for you. Use a generic cover. Do no marketing other than spam the forums and your blog. Now we know there is a certain subset of the reading public that will sample just about anything for 99 cents, so you price your book at 99 cents. After Amazon's cut, you make 35 cents a sale. You sell 5,000 copies. WOOT! You made $1750.

Now a potential publisher looks at those numbers and cringes, because they would lose money. Assuming the big publishers are on better margins that Kindle authors, they would be looking at maybe 50 cents to 60 cents a sale on your book at 99 cents. But you've already eaten the audience that would consider your book for 99 cents, after all, which means they need to repackage your book...effectively start from scratch, and get it prepared for real distro. Which means an actually advertising plan to get the book in front of more buyers that exist beyond the fishbowl of Kindleboards (there are what, 10,000 Kindleboard members? I believe Amazon has sold over a million kindles.)

Now let's say you are a self-publisher who is selling your book for $3.99 each. But you only sell 500 copies. You made $695. But you are generating more money per sale, indicating to a publisher that people are willing to actually take a chance on your work and have placed an actual value on it. So now a publisher thinks, "Hmm, if he can generate profitable sales in a fishbowl, with a little marketing behind him he can generate profits on a bigger scale."

Think of a dollar store. Show of hands...how many of us have picked up something useless in a Dollar store on impulse just because it was a buck? We get it home and we...lose it, break it, throw it away, ask outselves why we wasted a buck on it. Think about the last thing you bought in a dollar store for a buck? Do you remember the brand name? Would you recognize it if it was sitting on the shelf at Shoprite next to the other name brand stuff? Research says the answer is no.

Every day I see people promoting their books for 99 cents. Ask me how many of their names I remember? I couldn't even tell you what their books were about. But what I DO remember are people that present an interesting synopsis, have nice covers, demonstrate some writing talent.

What I would say is that if an author got a book contract after publishing on Kindle, it was because the author demonstrated solid writing and marketing skills. The price of the book was most likely a secondary matter. If the author's only selling point was that he sold 5,000 at 99 cents, a publisher would not have considered it.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> The point is that it isn't just sales that matter, but profitability.


Remember that profitability has little to do with the retail price.

I earn 56 cents every time I sell a $6.99 paperback.

I earn 70 cents selling a $1.99 Kindle ebook.

So far I've sold over 12,000 ebooks on Kindle. And, strangely enough, lately I've been getting more fan email from my Kindle titles than my traditionally published titles.

Is this enough to interest a major print publisher?

Honestly, I don't care. I'm happy paying my mortgage with books I'm still giving away for free on my website. Signing a print deal for these novels doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2009)

Jack Kilborn said:


> Remember that profitability has little to do with the retail price.


I know that. Unfortunately, I don't think most Kindle authors do. As I already noted earlier, If an author is making 50 cents a sale through a traditional publisher, that is a NET profit, because the publisher has absorbed all of the costs associated with publishing (editing, proofing, marketing, administrative, etc). If an author makes 70 cents on a self-published sale, that is not NET, because he or she needs to factor in the costs associated with producing the product. And even if you aren't paying cash, writers should factor in the cost of their time. If you are trading services for example...say, you're proofreading someone's book in exchange for them designing your cover, that is still a cost because you need to place a value on your time. Because if you were going through a publisher these things would have been done for you.

Understand, I'm not saying people can't make money publishing (obviously, I run a botique press myself!). But I think there is a lot of disinformation circulating and people aren't comparing apples to apples, but apples to cats. People latch on to what makes them feel better, instead of looking at the entire process as a whole and really understanding how things work. The exceptions don't disprove the rules, but rather reinforce them. It's better to go into this clear eyed and knowing what to really expect than to cling to pipe dreams and then be disappointed when Simon and Schuster doesn't call.


----------



## scoutxx (Oct 23, 2009)

> the Kindle sales are rumored to have aided in Boyd Morrison's recent multi-book deal with S&S.


I bet his deal also had something to do with the fact he writes Dan Brown-style action and adventure novels at a time when there's a new Dan Brown novel on the market. Not that the books were awful. I bought the Ark when it was for sale and thought it was pretty good, but I haven't heard of anyone else getting a book deal off their kindle sales even though a few people have had similar or better sales numbers.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

So I won't be getting an answer to what constitutes a "real" sale then, Bards? What the cut-off number is? I'll take that as an "I don't know." Which makes me wonder how you know 99 cents isn't a real sale.

And regarding Boyd Morrison, I mentioned his case only because it seems probable that S&S considered his sales to be significant. It's true, as Scoutxx points out, that Morrison's books may have sold this time around due partly to better market timing, but you say it's not the sales but good writing and marketing skills. Yet Boyd's writing hadn't changed from when the books had been rejected the first time around, so you're suggesting it's good marketing of books at prices so low they don't count as sales that impressed the publishers? Have I got that right?


----------



## JimC1946 (Aug 6, 2009)

I'm going to turn off tracking this thread before I bite my tongue off. I'm getting too depressed being told repeatedly that it's all about how much money a book makes. This is the only activity I've ever undertaken in my life where the professionals who were already on top were so discouraging to novices.

It doesn't always have to be about the money. Maybe some people just like to have a creative outlet.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2009)

Eric C said:


> So I won't be getting an answer to what constitutes a "real" sale then, Bards? What the cut-off number is? I'll take that as an "I don't know." Which makes me wonder how you know 99 cents isn't a real sale.
> 
> And regarding Boyd Morrison, I mentioned his case only because it seems probable that S&S considered his sales to be significant. It's true, as Scoutxx points out, that Morrison's books may have sold this time around due partly to better market timing, but you say it's not the sales but good writing and marketing skills. Yet Boyd's writing hadn't changed from when the books had been rejected the first time around, so you're suggesting it's good marketing of books at prices so low they don't count as sales that impressed the publishers? Have I got that right?


1. I have stated repeatedly in these forums my opinion about the notion of 99 cent books. I think it undervalues the authors and depresses the entire market.

2. What constitutes a real sale is selling the book for an amount that actually reflects the amount of resources put into the work plus a little profit. If a person correctly values the amount of time and effort they are putting into a work, even if it is not in actual money but 'in-kind' trade-offs, than you easily see that selling a book for 99 cents is not a real sale. It is a giveaway or a promotional gimmick.

3. I don't know Boyd from Adam. There a thousands of publishers out there. If his book was rejected by fifty publishers and finally picked up by the 51st, that doesn't mean a damn thing really. YOU are the one that made the assumption that the publisher took Kindle sales into consideration. You are the one that made that assumption. He finally found a publisher that liked his work is all his publishing contract tells me. Or maybe he started actually following submission guidelines. I can tell you right now that half of the stories I reject for the journal I reject outright for failure to follow directions. If he spent two years sending his manuscript to publishers that only work with agents, for example, then it would be no wonder he got rejected. I rejected two novels this week, one for military espionage and one a romance. Do you know why they were rejected? Because we aren't accepting full-length manuscripts at this time. And even if we were, we publish speculative fiction and roleplaying games. Those authors got rejected not because I am looking for the next Harry Potter. They got rejected because they were too lazy to familiarize themselves with the market.

So there are a million variables that come into play.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2009)

JimC1946 said:


> I'm going to turn off tracking this thread before I bite my tongue off. I'm getting too depressed being told repeatedly that it's all about how much money a book makes. This is the only activity I've ever undertaken in my life where the professionals who were already on top were so discouraging to novices.
> 
> It doesn't always have to be about the money. Maybe some people just like to have a creative outlet.


How is it discouraging to tell you that you DESERVE to be paid and should not be expected to give away your hard work for free? How is it discouraging to tell you that you have a right to place a value on your hard work?


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Shoot Bard, with as much as I've edited my work, I wouldn't make a penny an hour no matter how I priced the thing!  And for a lot of us, selling at 99 cents or a dollar nets us just as much as we would net with a publisher that printed paperbacks and sold it for 9 to 15 dollars.  Either way, with many publishing contracts, for a paperback sale, I'd make about 35 cents.  (I'm using my research into mass market paperbacks, although someone else can probably input for trade paperbacks.  I think an author makes slightly more for trade.)

I know we can quibble over the fact that the publisher has value add (did some of that hard editing, did the graphics) but in reality, I'd still be making 35 cents per copy, which any way you add it up, isn't good wages.  I'm not discounting that it would be NICE to have a publisher do that--it would. But 35 cents is 35 cents no matter how I earn it.

My end point is that 99 cents counts as a real sale given that it's quite possible it's the same cut I'd make with a traditional publisher.  And mind--I've nothing against traditional publishing with a large or a small company.  I'm just talking the raw numbers.  

People might not be as inclined to buy my book if I priced it at 5.99 because I'm an unknown--or because I don't have publisher backing.  But in the end, the book I put out is still published and 99 cents is still a real sale.  Am I legit?  Who knows?  

Maria


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> How is it discouraging to tell you that you DESERVE to be paid and should not be expected to give away your hard work for free? How is it discouraging to tell you that you have a right to place a value on your hard work?


I think because the message that is coming across is "You and your product don't count." Not, "Don't give your work away for free or low price."

Just a guess.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> 1. I have stated repeatedly in these forums my opinion about the notion of 99 cent books. I think it undervalues the authors and depresses the entire market.
> 
> 2. What constitutes a real sale is selling the book for an amount that actually reflects the amount of resources put into the work plus a little profit. If a person correctly values the amount of time and effort they are putting into a work, even if it is not in actual money but 'in-kind' trade-offs, than you easily see that selling a book for 99 cents is not a real sale. It is a giveaway or a promotional gimmick.
> 
> ...


Okay, I get it, Bards, there will be no number identifying the cut-off number for a "real" sale from you, and I think Maria has provided a good rationale as to why 99 cents ought to be considered a real sale.

I think you're dancing around the evidence (against your argument) that a major publisher considered Boyd Morrison's sales at 99 cents to be of significance. It's not simply me assuming S&S was influenced by the Kindle sales, it's many people as well as Boyd Morrison himself.

See: http://www.teleread.org/2009/07/11/self-published-kindle-author-gets-contract-with-simon-schuster/

Back to that 99 cents one last time. I don't price my book quite that low, but I've read that some indie authors do it in order to build an audience for their next one or to use it as a loss leader for other books by the same author. It's a common practice in business to lower prices to gain market share. Who knows what other motivations there might be, but the factors that go into selecting a price that low don't merely reflect "an amount that actually reflects the amount of resources put into the work plus a little profit." I suspect there are even some authors willing to give up potential revenue in exchange for the satisfaction of a wider readership.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

RedAdept said:


> This site includes a list of authors who self-published at some point: http://www.bookmarket.com/selfpublish.html
> 
> Kindleboard authors are in GREAT company!


That list is FULL of falsehoods and misrepresentations (John Grisham is a good example, it repeats the lie that his first book was self-published). Here's a post, from http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2004/08/autobibliophilia.html, that demonstrates how dishonest and disingenuous some of those examples really are:

I have had it with boosterism of self-publishing. I can't honestly call it fraud, because it doesn't meet the legal definition: Stealing a writer's dreams does not count as depriving him or her of a property interest. I can call it "intellectually dishonest" at best&#8230; and much nastier things, too. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

_You could stock a superb college library or an incredible bookstore just from the books written by the some of the authors who have chosen to self-publish: Margaret Atwood, L. Frank Baum, William Blake, Ken Blanchard, Robert Bly, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Lord Byron, Willa Cather, Pat Conroy, Stephen Crane, e.e. cummings, W.E.B. DuBois, Alexander Dumas, T.S. Eliot, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Benjamin Franklin, Zane Grey, Thomas Hardy, E. Lynn Harris, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Robinson Jeffers, Spencer Johnson, Stephen King, Rudyard Kipling, Louis L'Amour, D.H. Lawrence, Rod McKuen, Marlo Morgan, John Muir, Anais Nin, Thomas Paine, Tom Peters, Edgar Allen Poe, Alexander Pope, Beatrix Potter, Ezra Pound, Marcel Proust, Irma Rombauer, Carl Sandburg, Robert Service, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Upton Sinclair, Gertrude Stein, William Strunk, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Henry David Thoreau, Leo Tolstoi, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and Virginia Woolf._

Notice the most obvious logical problem with this listing: It implicitly extends the cachet of an author's complete oeuvre to one or two works. For example, the cachet of the Oz books (L. Frank Baum) seems to be extended to his chicken-farming manuals, which he did indeed self-publish.

Let's step through this list of fifty-two examples and see what happens, though; keep in mind that we've been provided only with the authors' names. Many of these efforts have more than one logical or factual disjuncture with reality, so adding up the numbers won't be all that meaningful.

For a number of these authors, _publication of their works in "commercial" form would have been illegal_, usually because those works met the definition of "obscene." Lawrence, Nin, Stein, and Woolf fall in this class; perhaps a couple of others do, too, but because the works in question were not specified, we can't determine that definitively. 8%

Far more significantly, it's not fair to laud "self-publication" when there is literally no chance at anything comparable to commercial publication because, at that time, _commercial publication as we know it didn't exist_. Blake, Browning, Byron, Crane, DuBois, Dumas, Franklin, Hardy, Hawthorne, Kipling, Paine, Poe, Pope, Service, Shaw, Shelley, Tennyson, Thoreau, Tolstoi, and Whitman definitely fall in this class; several of the others may also do so, because their books may not have been of the nature handled by their contemporary commercial presses. 40%

Neither is it fair to laud "self-publication" when the publication "event" was a corollary to another profit-making activity. If a book is created as an adjunct to or course materials for a thousand-dollar-a-day management seminar, or for academic purposes, calling that book "self-published" is a bit disingenuous. Strike that; more than a bit disingenuous. Blanchard, Peters, and Strunk absolutely fall in this class; depending upon exactly what works are at issue, so may Bly and a couple of others; because that's not certain, though, I'll be generous and pretend that objection doesn't apply. 6%

A considerable number of these authors are poets. Poetry is not now, never has been, and probably never will be a commercial subject, with the occasional unpredictable exception to keep up the hopes of poets everywhere. Blake, Browning, Byron, cummings, Eliot, Kipling, McKuen, Sandburg, Shelley, Tennyson, Thoreau, and Whitman absolutely fall in this group; several others probably do, but again I'll be generous. 24%

Other "success stories" include highly specialized works that are (or were) outside of commercial publishing's perception. Atwood (if it's the book I'm thinking of), Baum, Cather, Ferlinghetti, Jeffers, Muir, Potter, and Rombauer all fall in this group. 16%

That's enough for now. Absent greater specificity of what books are "success stories"-and keep in mind, too, that some of the "self-publishing" efforts may not have been at all successful, despite the authors' fame for other efforts-note that five minutes' thought has struck 78% (after allowing for the overlaps) of the "success stories" alluded to in this list, without looking up anything in any reference work at all. Fifteen sounds a lot less impressive than fifty-two, doesn't it? And that's without having the opportunity to examine the books for other, obvious reasons that they cannot be considered comparable to that unpublished author with a mystery novel that just hasn't sold to a commercial publisher.

This last point is the most important one. Perhaps self-publishing has been successful, for some authors. It does not follow, though, that it therefore holds out any reasonable possibility of success for authors who are competing against seasoned commercial publishers for the same market niche. And the less said about "vanity press" success stories the better.


----------



## scoutxx (Oct 23, 2009)

I don't see any problems with self-publishing as long as you know exactly what you're getting into before you do it.  Unfortunately, a lot of people see self publishing as a stepping stone to traditional publishing, but in reality, self publishing will most likely kill any chance you have of a traditional publishing career.  If that's okay, and you're that impatient to see your words in print, go ahead and pay someone to print up your manuscript and bind it into a book.  

Just don't kid yourself into thinking this makes you a published author, because it doesn't.

But you all know that already, even if you won't admit it.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> If an author is making 50 cents a sale through a traditional publisher, that is a NET profit, because the publisher has absorbed all of the costs associated with publishing (editing, proofing, marketing, administrative, etc). If an author makes 70 cents on a self-published sale, that is not NET, because he or she needs to factor in the costs associated with producing the product. And even if you aren't paying cash, writers should factor in the cost of their time.


This year, I was on tour for thirty days, and I visited over 200 bookstores.

My publisher paid for the tour.

The time I spent on the road, however, was time I spent away from writing. And being pretty prolific, I can write a book in a month. This loss of writing time, according to your logic, lost me anywhere from twenty to fifty thousand dollars, which is what I'm paid on average by the print industry. It certainly didn't justify the sales I made for AFRAID, which were numerous, but didn't total more than $10k.

Plus, if you've ever toured, there is nothing more exhausting, depressing, and overwhelming. I can't think of anything I've done in my life that's harder.

I've gone on several publisher-financed tours. But the money my publisher has spent on promoting my print work pales next to the amount of time and money I've spent promoting it. I'm a fulltime writer. For the past 7 years, 80% of my professional time has been spent self-promoting.

For my ebooks, the amount of self promotion I've done for them comes down to hours. I've linked to them here, and a few other places online. That's all. As for costs, I hired a cover artist to do professional covers AFTER I'd already earned several thousand dollars on Kindle.

It's no contest to compare the two. The best return I've ever had on a time/money investment has been Kindle.

Now, I've earned a lot more money on print than on Kindle. And very few print authors promote their books as much as I do. But when I consider the shelf-life of an average print novel, compared to the long tail of an ebook, I'm leaning toward the belief that an ebook can ultimately earn more, for far less work on the part of the author. And as for money, I spent more last weekend at a single writing conference, promoting my print books, than I spent on all of my Kindle expenses combined.


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

scoutxx said:


> I don't see any problems with self-publishing as long as you know exactly what you're getting into before you do it. Unfortunately, a lot of people see self publishing as a stepping stone to traditional publishing, but in reality, self publishing will most likely kill any chance you have of a traditional publishing career. If that's okay, and you're that impatient to see your words in print, go ahead and pay someone to print up your manuscript and bind it into a book.
> 
> Just don't kid yourself into thinking this makes you a published author, because it doesn't.
> 
> But you all know that already, even if you won't admit it.


I find this repeated sort of refrain in conversations like this, and it goes, "You're not actually published, even if you think you are."

But I have yet to see, read, or hear a self-published author refer to themselves as a "published author." (Unless they're talking about writing that has been published by someone other than themselves, that is.)

And I wonder, why? why this refrain? It comes out of thin air, out of no place real. It comes with a curious attitude from the person saying it, and again I wonder, why?

There are far more important things to be excited about and irritated by than people who self-publish. If they're ruining their lives and destroying their careers and committing the greatest of all Writer Sins according to the Gods of Writing, so be it. The question is, why do you care so much that you find it necessary to pop in with snide (and irrelevant) remarks?

Instead, why not buy a coffee, enjoy your day, revel in the glory that is your life and leave others to theirs?

Just curious.


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

I concur with your findings, Miss Tsetsi. The question is why even make the distinction? I read everything including the dictionary:

_pub·lish (pblsh)
v. pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es 
v.tr.
1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce.
v.intr.
1. To issue a publication.
2. To be the writer or author of published works or a work._

So what are my books if not published on Kindle, on Createspace, on Smashwords, on... etc. Being published has nothing to do with WHO published it, does it? Profit is in the eye of the beholder. Is it profitable to me to have someone read my work (perfect strangers) and then comment favorably on them? Yes, it is profitable in ways that money cannot buy. So it's all a matter of perspective:

Do you write from the heart or do you write from your pocketbook? Are you looking for acceptance from the status quo or are you looking for self-satisfaction? You decide.

Personally, I think that the publishers who passed up my books for whatever reason, made bad decisions like people who are in prison made bad decisions. A bad decision is a bad decision, right? And saying "Ooops, my bad!" after you've just wiped out an entire continent with your laser beam weapon just doesn't cut it. And if they now discover that they made a mistake in not publishing me, but are too elitist (sp?) to publish me now because I'm... I'm... I'm... AN INDIE PUBLISHER/WRITER... then too bad for them.

If I never become rich and famous on the Stephen King level, at least I made some people smile in the process and by that measuring stick, I am happy.  And if I sell my book for one penny or a thousand pennies, it is my decision and I'm not really good at numbers, but by my guestimate $1 X 1,000,000 still equals $1,000,000 in sales... right?  And if I can sell a million books in a hundred years, then I'll still be a million-seller!  Besides I'm on the LottoTexas Retirement Plan so who cares? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Brendan Carroll said:


> Do you write from the heart or do you write from your pocketbook? Are you looking for acceptance from the status quo or are you looking for self-satisfaction? You decide.


I think this is an important question. For as long as I can remember, I've loved writing and have known I wanted to write - but lots of money was never my (primary) goal. (good thing, too!)

Success is defined in different ways by different people.



> If I never become rich and famous on the Stephen King level, at least I made some people smile in the process and by that measuring stick, I am happy.  And if I sell my book for one penny or a thousand pennies, it is my decision and I'm not really good at numbers, but by my guestimate $1 X 1,000,000 still equals $1,000,000 in sales... right?  And if I can sell a million books in a hundred years, then I'll still be a million-seller!  Besides I'm on the LottoTexas Retirement Plan so who cares?


 I wouldn't mind being on that plan...to the lotto ticket counter with me!


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

"But in reality, self publishing will most likely kill any chance you have of a traditional publishing career.  If that's okay, and you're that impatient to see your words in print, go ahead and pay someone to print up your manuscript and bind it into a book."

Quite frankly, an industry that would "kill a chance at a career", just because a person showed the initiative and courage (yes, it takes a great deal of courage to show your writing to the world) to independently market their work, is not, to my way of thinking, open-minded or progressive. If what you say is true, they harbor a narrow and arrogant attitude -- one that will ultimately implode their business.

If I worked in the "traditional" publishing business I'd be taking a hard look at the authors who are aggressive marketers and especially those who have achieved success on the Kindle platform. It is a real bookstore, and they are selling to a real audience of discriminating readers.

“Skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it’s been.”  -- Wayne Gretzky (and Steve Jobs)


----------



## Carolyn Kephart (Feb 23, 2009)

AnnaM said:


> If I worked in the "traditional" publishing business I'd be taking a hard look at the authors who are aggressive marketers and especially those who have achieved success on the Kindle platform. It is a real bookstore, and they are selling to a real audience of discriminating readers.
> 
> "Skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it's been." -- Wayne Gretzky (and Steve Jobs)


I love that Gretzky quote. 

And I've always been a realist when it comes to my books. I write fantasy, and I know people in my genre with forty traditionally-published big-press books (forty!) who still have to hold down a day job to get the bills paid. For every Pratchett or Martin, there's legions of strugglers. The wonderful thing is, most of them don't seem to mind.

Why? Because the fantasy community is so close-knit and vibrant. It's supportive and generous. It welcomes newcomers, as I can attest firsthand. As soon as my books came out and got some good reviews, I was able to attend any con I chose as a guest professional with my reg fee comped. No one asked or cared about my publisher. The writing was the only thing they looked at.

Since then, it's only gotten better. Ebooks have leveled the playing field, at long last. We all have a chance to write from our hearts and be heard. I never felt right about killing trees, anyway. 

I try hard to harbor as few delusions as possible, and the rich-'n'-famous one got jettisoned early. I can't write for a huge audience--that's a gift alloted to a very few, and more power to them. My personal slogan comes from Ben Jonson, the Elizabethan playwright: "A man should seek great glory, and not broad." I well understand that seeking and finding are two different things. I just want to write something that _matters_. I'm counting on those discriminating readers you mention.

On that note, my Kindle sales just now (meaning this present hour) are fabulous, in the top 100 for the entire Fantasy category, and I couldn't be happier. We'll see how well they do next month, when the price gets hiked from 99 cents to a buck more.

This is a great thread. Good luck to everyone here.

CK


----------



## AnnaM (Jul 15, 2009)

Carolyn

Congrats on making the triple digit ranking with _Wysard_! I love the book cover (earth tones and landscapes turn my crank). Yeah, I clicked the buy button . . . heck, for 99 cents why not?

Thanks for offering your book, at a great price, on Kindle!

Anna


----------



## Carolyn Kephart (Feb 23, 2009)

AnnaM said:


> Carolyn
> 
> Congrats on making the triple digit ranking with _Wysard_! I love the book cover (earth tones and landscapes turn my crank). Yeah, I clicked the buy button . . . heck, for 99 cents why not?
> 
> ...


Anna, thank you!  I hope you enjoy it.

_Wysard_ and _Lord Brother_ together form a duology, but the first volume can stand on its own.


----------



## Karen_McQ (Aug 9, 2009)

I agree with Anna--Wysard has one beautiful cover! Her comment led me to check out the book and it sounded so great, I just bought it.   

(Sorry for getting off topic. I got in trouble for doing that on an altogether different site...)


----------



## Kristen Tsetsi (Sep 1, 2009)

Karen_McQ said:


> I agree with Anna--Wysard has one beautiful cover!


Ditto.


----------



## Carolyn Kephart (Feb 23, 2009)

Karen_McQ said:


> I agree with Anna--Wysard has one beautiful cover! Her comment led me to check out the book and it sounded so great, I just bought it.
> 
> (Sorry for getting off topic. I got in trouble for doing that on an altogether different site...)


I hope it's not off-topic to thank you, Karen.


----------



## JA Konrath (Apr 2, 2009)

I thought it was worthwhile to resurrect this thread, just to show how much the self-publishing world has changed in 14 months, and how my attitude has changed with it.

I now believe EVERYONE should self-publish their ebooks, and NO ONE should take a traditional publishing deal.

What a wild year it has been...


----------



## Glen Krisch (Dec 21, 2010)

I'm swiftly coming to the conclusion that to get a print deal (if that is a goal of yours), you should first 1. write a kick ass book 2. sell the hell out of it 3. wait for the offers to come.
Print publishers will soon use indie success to vet not only a writer's work, but also their determination and involvement in promotion.  If a p.r. infrastruction is already in place, so much the better for them!


----------

