# John Green's Video Against Self-Publishing



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

Woke up this morning, and saw this video of John Green accepting the Indie Champion Award: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/john-green-self-publishing_n_3390143.html?ir=Books

Warning: Lots of swearing

This is just another example of someone who really doesn't get it and who is threatened by what's new and working. He goes after the jugular directly without mincing words. Sprinkle in some swearing and it makes for being controversial! Normally, I'm all about letting people find their own paths to getting their work out, but this makes me glad I'm getting my stuff ready to plant my flag in self-publishing. Still processing such vitriol...

ETA: The award was for the American Booksellers Association Indie's Choice. So there's the context.


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

And here's John Green's blog post about self-publishing:

__
https://31026577075%2Fon-self-publishing-and-amazon


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

I thought the person who asked the question on his blog got it right. Movies and music do work the same way; they are comparable. To say they're not reveals a big flaw in his logic. He's bought into the lie, and did it in a very bad way. I was a fan, but I don't know if I will be anymore. 

He's the king of indie video, it's sad that he couldn't at least be more mid-line on publishing.


----------



## Lissie (May 26, 2011)

He's completely illogical - who's saying that author's are one-man bands? Most of the best sellers are using editors and even copyeditors. Most indies pay for cover art already. Frankly a lot of indie covers are now better than some of the trad stuff I see. I still regularly see trad published ebooks with pathetic formatting - stuff that would have Amazon sending an Indie a warning.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

fallswriter said:


> And here's John Green's blog post about self-publishing:
> 
> __
> https://31026577075%2Fon-self-publishing-and-amazon


Why on earth did this man get an Indie Champion award?! Oh...it's an Indie Bookstore award. Duh...okay - that makes sense now.

I couldn't listen to much of it. Annoying delivery and full of points that, while likely true for him, are not maxims for everyone.


----------



## Remington Kane (Feb 19, 2011)

I've heard this sentiment expressed before, but much more succinctly.
I think the line is:

"You didn't build that!"


----------



## unkownwriter (Jun 22, 2011)

I haven't followed any of the links, so I can't respond to specifics, but I will say that if someone has something to say about self-publishing, they can do it in a reasonable, constructive way and I might listen. Otherwise, not interested.


----------



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

Meh. Not an antie-indie statement but an indictment of Evil Bezos as schlock (genre) pusher and not the "curator" of "important literature" that Big Pub is. He mentions that there's no lit anywhere near the top of Kindle sales, as if it dominates every other best seller list that "smart people" follow. Or at least that's the vibe I got. 

Kind of irrational as Big Pub is making more money than ever off sky-high e-book margins (courtesy of Amazon!) minus price-fixing conspiracy penalties of course, and they're perfectly free to continue "curating" to their hearts content.  

Yawn.


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

Ha! This guy's already a parody of himself. No need for me to do one.

What I love most about people who make videos like this is how silly they end up looking a couple of years later, when they have to backpedal.


----------



## Stuffeshead (Jan 19, 2011)

He brags about how an editor prevented his first book from being self-indulgent, while using a bully-pulpit to denigrate everyone who doesn't agree with him in the most narcissistic and self-indulgent fashion possible.  I hate when people try to be witty with quick cuts in soliloquy.  Did I mention it's self-indulgent?

At any rate, I think he misses an important - nay - crucial ***** in his armor that all literary work must be written by committee (it reminded me of Hillary Clinton's "it takes a village to raise a child" nonsense).  There are NUMEROUS examples of solitary authors who did, in fact, write their work with almost no editorial or creative direction from their peers or social connections.  The most interesting one to me is Chaucer.  Though lost to the vagaries of time and lack of historical preservation, the writings of Chaucer themselves demonstrate a haughty, independent mindset that seems incompatible with the notion that he scurried off to an editor to validate and revise his work before he sent it out to the world.

Make no mistake - I am no Chaucer, and I value highly the work of good editors and literary critics who can show me where my writing stinks.  But just because John Green isn't, or at least doesn't feel, worthy of such creative prowess and self-sufficiency in his literary career, he has no right to declare that everyone else in the world is just as incapable of producing independent creative works of high quality without sucking at the publishing industry's teat.

Frankly, I was offended at his presumptuous and condescending attitude toward writers, in general.  His fallacious statements do not only seek to invalidate self-publishing, but indict even traditionally published authors who, despite what Green claims, actually do toil away in solitude on their precious work.

In the end, it sounded to me more like a sycophantic 4$$-kissing manifesto hoping to please his publisher or leapfrog to a bigger one with a bigger contract.  Maybe he had some new manuscript out for review somewhere and wanted to show he would be a good "company man."

In any event, in case anyone had any misunderstanding about my comments above in this post, I disagree with the content of the video.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Stuffeshead said:


> He brags about how an editor prevented his first book from being self-indulgent, while using a bully-pulpit to denigrate everyone who doesn't agree with him in the most narcissistic and self-indulgent fashion possible. I hate when people try to be witty with quick cuts in soliloquy. Did I mention it's self-indulgent?
> 
> At any rate, I think he misses an important - nay - crucial ***** in his armor that all literary work must be written by committee (it reminded me of Hillary Clinton's "it takes a village to raise a child" nonsense). There are NUMEROUS examples of solitary authors who did, in fact, write their work with almost no editorial or creative direction from their peers or social connections. The most interesting one to me is Chaucer. Though lost to the vagaries of time and lack of historical preservation, the writings of Chaucer themselves demonstrate a haughty, independent mindset that seems incompatible with the notion that he scurried off to an editor to validate and revise his work before he sent it out to the world.
> 
> ...


I didn't watch the video but I did read the blog post. I don't think he's as concerned with Chaucer's work not being written, but more with Chaucer's work never being found in a system (amazon's) that doesnt favor literary fiction.


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

For those skipping the video and reading the blog post, Green does say that he's not against the indie author but Amazon. However, this is NOT the same statement he makes in the video. He goes after the individual writers he claims are trying to do things on their own in order to promote his own team with traditional publishing.


----------



## Stuffeshead (Jan 19, 2011)

That just seems to me to be a red herring.  Chaucer's work WAS found in the complete absence of a system of any kind.  There was no publishing industry at all in his era.  Yet the value and quality of his work resulted in transcription and oral repetition all over Europe, leading to historical preservation of monumental literary works of art.  I truly believe that if someone writes something of high quality, it will be published and successful, despite the junkpile of manuscripts approach of Amazon's self-publishing platform.  That shouldn't prevent someone in the author's family, friends, or other social networks from seeing (at some point, even if after death) the work and recognizing the quality.

His video does make remarks asserting that the creation of literary art is not possible without collaborators.  I think he's wrong.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

D.L. Shutter said:


> Meh. Not an antie-indie statement but an indictment of Evil Bezos as schlock (genre) pusher and not the "curator" of "important literature" that Big Pub is. He mentions that there's no lit anywhere near the top of Kindle sales, as if it dominates every other best seller list that "smart people" follow. Or at least that's the vibe I got.
> 
> Yawn.


That was the vibe I got too. I guess we just write for the unwashed masses?  I'm okay with that because I'm one of them!

What bothers me is that one thing I personally felt from his comments is that I wasn't worthy of being read because my books weren't curated by some gatekeeper. That may be my own insecurities coming out though, as he never actually said that. I have a hard time working up too much anger these days. It's been three years since my first book was uploaded to KDP (DTP back then.  ) and I think I'm getting immune to the ranting.

I totally disagree about his prediction about the diversity though. I mean, seriously? Readers have never had so much diversity in reading. He's totally discounting the number of people who read ebooks. They don't all read on Kindles--in fact, I bet smartphones are used almost as much since people tend to have them handy most of the time.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Just watched the video. I have no qualms with what he says. As I see it, he's basically accepting an award (from the American Bookseller's Association) and saying "Thank you" to all of the people that have helped make him a success. He's also telling them that despite his incredible ability to build an audience that he won't turn his back on the thousands of people who have built that success. He's also humble enough (strangely, since he likes putting himself on stage) to admit that without a lot of help his work would have been crap. 

I like John Green. I like his books. I think his "Don't Forget to Be Awesome" campaign is great. This video (and blog) doesn't change my opinion.


----------



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

> ...more with Chaucer's work never being found in a system (amazon's) that doesnt favor literary fiction.


I agree about his sentment but what he doesn't get, along with every other elitist that's criticized aspects of self-pub while not knowing anything about it, is that Amazon "favors" whatever sells. There's this underlying notion among his types that the poor, book starved, orphan children of the world only want to read existential character pieces while Overlord Bezos is _forcing_ vampires, zombies and porn down their throats.

And this all reeks like the pining from other literati types (like those dipshit's who went "slumming" in the indie pool with their lit work only to come away bashing self-pub over their poor sales) which is ripe with entitlemant in that their "important" writing should be elevated and exalted on some plateau by the establishment and the world will somehow suffer without this dynamic in place. Meanwhile, we're all becoming "stupid" reading intellectually bankrupt indie genre slush which is drowning out the writing that "matters", per Amazon's diabolical marketing scheme.

Thats' the pretencious, egotistical rub I get, I think his outlook is pretty clear, and it's getting old.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

[quote author=John Green]You'll note that there's no self-published literary fiction anywhere near the kindle bestseller lists.
[/quote]

Whereas traditionally-published literary fiction is all over the bestseller lists.


----------



## Griffin Hayes (Sep 20, 2011)

As others have said, he's accepting an award from booksellers so his words aren't surprising, especially if there's a perception he's practically indie himself because of his huge online following. Quality control is definitely a challenge for many indies. Sometimes it's too tempting to hit that publish button before things are just right. Of course, this isn't true of all indies, maybe not even of most. Ultimately, readers vote with their dollars and the results speak for themselves. 

Edited: Forgot to mention, his publisher he raves about, Penguin, has a self-publishing arm (not to mention an apparently shady one).


----------



## Barbara Morgenroth (May 14, 2010)

Donald Wells said:


> I've heard this sentiment expressed before, but much more succinctly.
> I think the line is:
> 
> "You didn't build that!"


This.


----------



## TexasGirl (Dec 21, 2011)

Oh my. I have adored John Green for a long time but I do think the end of his video was a bit overstated. He got so overwrought in thanking the people who helped him shape his books that he didn't realize that he was shoving a boot in the face of a whole lotta writers who by choice or by force do everything on their own.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2013)

> I wanted to criticize Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, because I felt that in his introduction of the new kindles, Bezos repeatedly peddled the lie that *a book is created by one person*, and that therefore a book's author should be the sole entity to profit from the sale of the book. (Aside, of course, from Amazon itself.)


You know, he is 100% correct. Let me explain why. And this is actually a problem that goes beyond Amazon and goes through all self-publishing outlets in general. And it is an argument I've had with other authors in the past who didn't realize they were losing money self-publishing.

And before I get too far into this, I'm not talking about the successful indies out there that run their business like a business. I'm talking about how self-publishing is "sold" to new authors and how most authors stumble into the thought process (until they either learn the ropes or give up in frustration).

In the Amazon mythology that is "sold" to indie authors, Amazon pays you a 70% royalty (or 35% if under $2.99). The trade publishers "only" pay royalties of 10-15%, and you wait months to get paid. Who wouldn't want to get paid 70% royalty compared to a 15% royalty?

Except Amazon, and no self-pub service, pays you a royalty. They call it that for tax purposes. But what they are actually paying you are your net profits on the sale. Why does this matter?

Because out of those net profits you have to pay everyone who helped you on the book. You have to pay your cover artist. You have to pay your editor. You have to pay your proofreader. You have to pay the guy who formatted the book for you. You have to pay whatever fees are involved for distribution (if you do a print version for example). In the Amazon mythos, every author is 100% skilled at performing all of these task alone, and therefore all "royalties" are going to the author.

But this is not reality. Most of us don't have the artistic ability to design our own covers. Most of us do need proofreaders. Many of us need help with the technical aspects of formatting a book. We're paying people to perform tasks that a publisher would have absorbed. An author may write a book alone, but the actual process of publishing is often a team effort.

This is NOT about which route is more profitable. Smart business people can make much more money self-publishing than working with a trade publisher if they play their cards right. This is about making sure that we are comparing apples to apples. Amazon goes out of its way to cloud the issue so that new authors don't compare apples to apples.

I recently had a conversation with a "hybrid" author who was trash-talking her publisher on our Yahoo group list (because burning bridges is a High Art with some people!). She made $1500 last year with her self published book, but only $700 with her publisher (both titles were released around the same time period). And she's "still doing all the marketing for both books!" I'm sure you can all imagine the piling on that resulted.

But you guys know how I am, so I started to ask questions.

Book cover: $450 (I told her she needs to come here for her next book and find a more affordable cover artist. She overpaid for what she got.)

Editing: $500 (she used one of those "book doctor" services. In my opinion, she overpaid.)

Proofreading: $100

Formatting: $50

So she spent $1100 on her book. Officially, her profit last year was $400 for her self-published book compared to the $500 she was paid by the publisher.

The point of this is not that she overpaid for services (she did). And of course those costs are only paid once and she can continue to profit off of the book (assuming sales volume remains constant or improves&#8230;which is not a given.) The point here is that, because she was comparing "Amazon royalties" to "Publisher royalties" she didn't realize she actually made LESS money last year self publishing. And nobody else made that connection either, because everyone bought into the lie as well. . The costs of publishing are disconnected from the earnings because of the way self-publishing is presented.

He has valid points. I see nothing hypocritical in his speech or blog post. If a single entity was dominate in indie music or indie film and actively trying to force competition out of business, he'd have the same complaints.


----------



## jimkukral (Oct 31, 2011)

I'm sure Konrath will school him shortly.

Look, these guys are just brainwashed. Any smart business person in his position would run the numbers and realize they could be making 3-4 times more revenue on their own. That is not a theory, that is a fact. Therefore, he's a bad businessman. Poor business decision.


----------



## quiet chick writes (Oct 19, 2012)

Whoa! He is SO not getting it. We have editors too! I agree with him that my book would be nothing without my editor, who kicked the living [crap] out of it. My book would also have been self-indulgent and unimaginative drivel. My book also had a professional copyeditor and beta readers and proofreaders too. I can't say that I know a single indie author who has ever gone it completely alone. Maybe some do, but most don't. He's just not getting it, and that's so disappointing because I really looked up to him as an author.

And I would love support from booksellers, if they would give me the time of day. I have a very lovely paperback they could sell for me. Book clubs would love it! But they're not likely to stock it because it was printed with Createspace. Whatever.

ETA: sorry about the s-bomb, lol! Am feeling passionate!


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

jimkukral said:


> I'm sure Konrath will school him shortly.
> 
> Look, these guys are just brainwashed. Any smart business person in his position would run the numbers and realize they could be making 3-4 times more revenue on their own. That is not a theory, that is a fact. Therefore, he's a bad businessman. Poor business decision.


He doesn't claim to be a businessman. He's an author. And he knows that he could potentially make more money self-publishing, but he is willing to forgo that money because he feels that by going through a publisher his books are better (and he's a big proponent of collaborating and helping each other out. As the Beatle's put it: "I get by with a little help from my friends.") He's probably got half a dozen finished manuscripts sitting around that he could slap a cover on and self-publish. With his millions of followers it would immediately become a NYT best seller and he'd pull in millions of dollars. I respect his decision to release a better product rather than go for the money. For John Green, it's not about the money.

And what Julie said.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

I've been a huge John Green fan, but seriously? Sigh.

In the video he talks about all the support he received from publishers and booksellers. He's living in a bubble. A bestseller bubble. What about the thousands of authors who have been treated poorly by big publishers? He has no clue. Does it not occur to John that the support he's received might be largely due to the audience he's built himself online? That his editors see the Nerdfighters with dollar signs in their eyes?

It might not be about money for him, but I guarantee it is for his publishers. Those people he's willing to forgo money for would drop his contract in a heartbeat if he didn't sell the numbers he did. 

He seems to think that publishers do some great work of nurturing literary authors. He gives the example of Toni Morrison. The reality is that this generation's Toni Morrison has a minimal chance of being discovered and "nurtured" by big pub. Because they don't do that anymore. For most of those Toni Morrisons? It's self-pub or bust. Because as any Big 5 editor will tell you, literary fiction doesn't sell. And the bottom line is what matters to them - same as it does to Amazon. 

His argument is very political. Ordinarily, I agree with his premise that no one person is solely responsible for success. But authors have been for so long at the mercy of others to GIVE them even a chance at success. Why doesn't he see that? Why doesn't he see that self-publishing (and yes, Amazon) have given opportunities to ALL authors, most of whom acknowledge that self-pub is not a one man venture?

He's stuck. So stuck in the old publishing paradigm that he can't see the validity of the new, of a path he didn't trod himself. 

Remarkably close-minded for such a talented, intelligent man.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> An author may write a book alone, but the actual process of publishing is often a team effort.


I think this is a point that gets lost on these boards a lot. Most threads here refer to self-publishers as "authors" (Take Damonza's cover manifesto thread for example.) Many of these conversations are about what the "Authors" want. And the "Author" having input into the final product (covers, marketing etc). After the book is written and edited, shouldn't the author step aside and let the publisher take over? Even if they're the same person. A switching of hats essentially. However, the editing and development of the book is a strange place because the author & publisher are both involved and if they're the same person it will be even more difficult to separate the two. In John Green's case maybe he feels that by personally hiring an editor, the editor will be working _for_ him rather than for the book. Similar to how a cover designer is working _for_ the "author" and creates what the author wants, not necessarily the best cover for the book.


----------



## valeriec80 (Feb 24, 2011)

You know, the thing is... regardless of whether or not traditional publishing is a better model or not, the guy is screaming into the wind.

Change is coming. Change is here. It doesn't matter what he says. Self-publishing is here to stay.

And besides, everyone likes to think that the world is getting worse and worse and that we're all going to hell in a hand basket. Even Socrates. In like 400 B.C., he was going on about how awful the next generation was. "The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise."

And, I'm sure it's clear that children have become worse and worse every generation since then, and that's the problem right?

I mean, imagine the denigration from Socrates' generation to now. No wonder we think up silly things like self-publishing. We're bad mannered and have contempt for authority. How dare we try anything different? How dare we change things?

The old ways of sending out queries and getting excited over personalized rejections are over. That train has left the station, and, as much as it scares people, change is happening. Resistance is futile.


----------



## Ardin (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't have a problem with a lot of what he said. But one part is really really crazy. 
He says he's worried about the next Toni Morrison. What would happen if there were no publishers to bring her story to the masses?

Amazon has done more than anyone to make sure the next Toni Morrison, or the next anyone, is able to bring their message directly to readers. I for one am sure glad I can bring my message to the public without having to go on querying agents for the rest of my life. The truth is, publishers failed to bring millions of people to the public's attention.

And one more thing, books _are_ like movies and music. Artists should be able to go direct if they want to.


----------



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

> In John Green's case maybe he feels that by personally hiring an editor, the editor will be working for him rather than for the book. Similar to how a cover designer is working for the "author" and creates what the author wants, not necessarily the best cover for the book.


This is a great argument, that the traditional collaboration can stand to serve an interest greater than that of a single writer.

But I can't buy it. Step inside that traditional pub meeting room and who is everyone working for? The publisher, never the greater glory of any one single book, unless it's King or Patterson's latest and the office is "all-stop" on everything else until it hits the street, Which doesn't apply to any of us.

And how is the publishers goals and interests different than those of the individual author? Sales, readership and a continued career for everyone. Or, if you're purely artistic and want to be divested from the capitalism that's entailed, awards, NYT acclaim and a place in the halls of literature. But I'd argue that these goals are interchangeable and both are devoid of some "higher" purpose or sense of aesthetic duty. Everyone wants sales, period, because no one has a job or eats without them.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Ardin said:


> I don't have a problem with a lot of what he said. But one part is really really crazy.
> He says he's worried about the next Toni Morrison. What would happen if there were no publishers to bring her story to the masses?
> 
> Amazon has done more than anyone to make sure the next Toni Morrison, or the next anyone, is able to bring their message directly to readers. I for one am sure glad I can bring my message to the public without having to go on querying agents for the rest of my life. The truth is, publishers failed to bring millions of people to the public's attention.
> ...


THIS.

And seriously! Books aren't like movies and music? I was like, whaaaat? Sounds like someone called him on his hypocrisy and he was grasping at straws to justify it.

So so disappointing because I love his work and his activism. His remarks are shockingly elitist and privileged.


----------



## brendajcarlton (Sep 29, 2012)

I think he's got something brown and smelly on the tip of his nose.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

D.L. Shutter said:


> This is a great argument, that the traditional collaboration can stand to serve an interest greater than that of a single writer.
> 
> But I can't buy it. Step inside that traditional pub meeting room and who is everyone working for? The publisher, never the greater glory of any one single book, unless it's King or Patterson's latest and the office is "all-stop" on everything else until it hits the street, Which doesn't apply to any of us.
> 
> And how is the publishers goals and interests different than those of the individual author? Sales, readership and a continued career for everyone. Or, if you're purely artistic and want to be divested from the capitalism that's entailed, awards, NYT acclaim and a place in the halls of literature. But I'd argue that these goals are interchangeable and both are devoid of some "higher" purpose or sense of aesthetic duty. Everyone wants sales, period, because no one has a job or eats without them.


The difference is that the author could be in a silo (aka too close to the work). The publisher is a third set of eyes. The author says "A". The editor says "B". The publisher sides with one of them or looks for a third opinion.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

D.L. Shutter said:


> Meh. Not an antie-indie statement but an indictment of Evil Bezos as schlock (genre) pusher and not the "curator" of "important literature" that Big Pub is. He mentions that there's no lit anywhere near the top of Kindle sales, as if it dominates every other best seller list that "smart people" follow. Or at least that's the vibe I got.
> 
> Kind of irrational as Big Pub is making more money than ever off sky-high e-book margins (courtesy of Amazon!) minus price-fixing conspiracy penalties of course, and they're perfectly free to continue "curating" to their hearts content.
> 
> Yawn.


BULL FLAKES! All the best out of copyright (the classics) are offered FREE and are constantly on several best seller lists. 
Proof: 
Jane Austen books FREE: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_11?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=jane+austen+kindle+books+free&sprefix=Jane+Austen%2Cdigital-text%2C249

Pride & Pejudice:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128 Free in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Free in Kindle Store) 
#3 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Fiction Classics

Shakespeare: 
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_11?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&field-keywords=shakespeare+free&sprefix=Shakespeare%2Cdigital-text%2C227
A Mid Summer Night's Dream
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #613 Free in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Free in Kindle Store) 
#2 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Arts & Photography > Theater 
#6 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Drama

The problems with his logic are:

Most "literary" work has never sold that well as it appeals to very a small band of readers overall.
However, "the classics" (many of which were not considered "literary" in their time and were written for the average man/woman) have endured and do quite well in the Kindle store. The "classics" (out of copyright) have their own section.

What he considers good writing may not pass the test of time, and may end up being looked at as self-involved purple prose shlock in the future. When will we know it's a classic?

When audiences over time keep re-discovering it, buying it, reviewing it, etc...
If it can't stand up in people's memories...well, then...


 Your average purchaser of Kindle books is:

A woman of a certain age with an income 60k+ (several research papers I've mentioned before and don't have time to look up now).

They most likely own the ebook of these classics already, or a paper copy, have read and studied them in high school and college, and now prefer to spend their time reading something else.


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Stuffeshead said:


> His video does make remarks asserting that the creation of literary art is not possible without collaborators. I think he's wrong.


I think by and large he is wrong - but it is worth recalling that prior to the publishing industry's birth, there were literary salons that existed not only to dissect published works outside the salon members' circle but as a very elegant and entertaining beta circle that discussed works in progress by the members (with white gloves, wine and cheese!). They would also send (by a strapping young coachman in fine livery, or so I like to imagine) copies of WIPs to one another for what effectively was beta reading. You can see evidence of this practice in some of the personal correspondence from the early Tudor/Elizabethan period (I'm thinking specifically of Thomas Wyatt, although I cannot locate an online example of such correspondence).

However, there is a wide, wide difference between collaboration and even the best beta IMO. The guy driving the forklift in the publishing warehouse didn't help Green write his book, neither did the marketing professional, and - hopefully - neither did the editor or proofreader or the janitor cleaning out the toilet after the editor and proofreader went home for the day. And I can hire what I need (although I don't use any outside assistance) - and my distributors have janitors and forklift drivers and customer support personnel with pleasant, smiling voices and fast fingers (so I like to imagine) just like his publisher.

*All this commerce starts with US - the makers, the creators, the producers.*

Traditional publishing has forgotten that and made a lot of our colleagues forget it, too.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2013)

NathanWrann said:


> In John Green's case maybe he feels that by personally hiring an editor, the editor will be working _for_ him rather than for the book. Similar to how a cover designer is working _for_ the "author" and creates what the author wants, not necessarily the best cover for the book.


This is a HUGE point. In the example I posted above regarding the $450 cover, the author got exactly what SHE wanted. But it is a horrible cover. (and no, I won't post it because my goal here is not to embarass an author nor call out someone who isn't on KB to defend herself). But it's a cover designed to spec for a person who doesn't understand what a book cover is suppose to do.

What people are missing when he says self-publishing isn't like film or music is that in those industies it is very much understood to be a collaborative, team effort. Imagine if the film industry acted as if the entire movie was the sole product of the screenplay writer, and that the work of the actors, producers, directors, camera-people, special effects team, and everyone else was merely a matter of "just hire people!!!!!!!!!!!" Or if an album was the sole product of the songwriter, and that the singer, musicians, producer, and mixer were just interchangeable hired hands. Nobody thinks that about movies or film. But for some reason, in the indie publishing community, everyone other than the author is either an interchangeable commodity to be hired at the lowest price point to provide interchangeable services OR a thief trying to steal from the author.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You know, he is 100% correct. Let me explain why. And this is actually a problem that goes beyond Amazon and goes through all self-publishing outlets in general. And it is an argument I've had with other authors in the past who didn't realize they were losing money self-publishing.
> 
> And before I get too far into this, I'm not talking about the successful indies out there that run their business like a business. I'm talking about how self-publishing is "sold" to new authors and how most authors stumble into the thought process (until they either learn the ropes or give up in frustration).
> 
> ...


It's difficult for me to believe that _many _people are that financially unaware. I could tell you exactly how much I've spent on my book, and how much it's still in the red after one month. I'd have to be cautious about how much to bill for the cost of my domain name, since obviously that needs to be distributed among everything I publish this next year. (Got to start writing faster!)


----------



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

> The difference is that the author could be in a silo (aka too close to the work). The publisher is a third set of eyes. The author says "A". The editor says "B". The publisher sides with one of them or looks for a third opinion.


Agree. Writers (probably most) are too close to their work and can lack the objective eye needed to see faults and areas for improvement. The "good" indie will seek this out through quality beta's, peer review, proofing and editing, but we know this will not always be the case, or of a professional quality, whereas the publisher will always apply a series of vetting and review.

But is the indie's outsourced collaboration always lacking and the traditional comittee always correct?


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> What people are missing when he says self-publishing isn't like film or music is that in those industies it is very much understood to be a collaborative, team effort. Imagine if the film industry acted as if the entire movie was the sole product of the screenplay writer, and that the work of the actors, producers, directors, camera-people, special effects team, and everyone else was merely a matter of "just hire people!!!!!!!!!!!" Or if an album was the sole product of the songwriter, and that the singer, musicians, producer, and mixer were just interchangeable hired hands. Nobody thinks that about movies or film. But for some reason, in the indie publishing community, everyone other than the author is either an interchangeable commodity to be hired at the lowest price point to provide interchangeable services OR a thief trying to steal from the author.


This is a great point, which I hadn't thought of. (But, at the risk of being contrary, not the one John made - he said books are not like movies or music because they are consumed faster? Don't understand that argument.)

I think that while there are plenty of indies who think of editors or cover artists as interchangeable commodities, many successful indies consider their cover artist, betas, and editors all part of a team. I've heard Elle Casey on KB refer to having a "team" - people she trusts to help her put together her book as a package. Control is an advantage of self-pub, but I'd venture to say that most experienced/successful/intelligent self-pubbers understand that books need multiple hands to be successful. In Damonza's thread I heard a lot of respect for (and willingness to defer to) the skills of talented artists/designers. Most authors know there's nothing more valuable than a strong beta and experienced editor.

But what we gain as Indies is veto power. Smart Indies will use this control wisely and discriminately, and know when to wear the author hat and when to wear the publisher hat. If they don't, chances are they'll end up like the hybrid author you mentioned - overpaying for a poor cover and presenting a (possibly) subpar package.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

D.L. Shutter said:


> Agree. Writers (probably most) are too close to their work and can lack the objective eye needed to see faults and areas for improvement. The "good" indie will seek this out through quality beta's, peer review, proofing and editing, but we know this will not always be the case, or of a professional quality, whereas the publisher will always apply a series of vetting and review.
> 
> But is the indie's outsourced collaboration always lacking and the traditional comittee always correct?


From what I've heard, the type of editing collaboration that Green describes is becoming increasingly rare, so is it possible that an indie author with a carefully chosen collection of beta readers is getting _more _collaboration than the average trad-published author?


----------



## scoutxx (Oct 23, 2009)

Anytime you get a writer who has succeeded in traditional publishing, you're going to get an opinionated rant about how it's the best choice and self publishing is evil: Green, Prathchette, Peterson have all made these claims, and it's BS. It's just like when someone who has succeeded in self publishing starts spouting off that it's the best choice and traditional publishing is evil, which happens so much there's no reason to post examples. The reality is there are a tiny, tiny handful of writers who succeed in traditional publishing, and a tiny, tiny handful of writers who succeed in self publishing, and everyone else is on the outskirts looking in.


----------



## burke_KB (Jan 28, 2013)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> It's difficult for me to believe that _many _people are that financially unaware. I could tell you exactly how much I've spent on my book, and how much it's still in the red after one month. I'd have to be cautious about how much to bill for the cost of my domain name, since obviously that needs to be distributed among everything I publish this next year. (Got to start writing faster!)


I believe it. Look at how many people think their mortgage is an investment. A coworker told me how much money he made off his house. I worked through the costs of ownership, taxes and inflation over the last 20 years with him, and he had actually lost money. Basic math is a rare skill. Many people see two amounts, and don't ask questions.


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

So I transcribed his speech to get the full meaning, and then gave my two cents in my blog post: http://fallsintowriting.com/2013/06/06/john-green-supports-booksellers-with-passionate-aba-awards-speech/

I would post the transcript here, but I included the expletives.


----------



## jonathanmoeller (Apr 19, 2011)

People who rail against Amazon don't realize that Amazon is simply a manifestation of the ongoing IT revolution that is going to upend society to the extent that the industrial and agricultural revolutions reformed society in previous historical epochs. If it wasn't Amazon, it would be someone else, because the technological changes are taking place regardless of Amazon's existence. 

Amazon is only the beginning of what's about to happen. Technology always outpaces the ability to social models and business structures to adapt (good examples of this are the American Civil War and World War I, where the high numbers of casualties were often caused by the generals' inability to understand the new technologies used in the fighting). If Amazon goes under tomorrow, all the technology that Amazon used, the data processing, the information management, the robotic automation, all of it is still going to be there tomorrow, and someone else will use it to make money. 

Just watch - in a few years there will be a company or companies that will start eating into K-12 education, higher ed, and health care the way that Amazon is eating into the obsolete and moribund structures of traditional publishing, and people will rail against those companies the way publishers rail against Amazon now. It sucks for the people who lose their jobs, the way that a lot of craftsmen lost their jobs when the factory came along, or stable hands and grooms who lost their jobs when the internal combustion engine superseded the horse. 

But trying to stop it is like trying to stop the setting of the sun. The technology genie never goes back into his bottle.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "So she spent $1100 on her book. Officially, her profit last year was $400 for her self-published book compared to the $500 she was paid by the publisher. "


Another way to get a feel for it is to say monthly revenue from each option is steady. That means the self-published has revenue of $125/month, while the published book has revenue of $42/month.

After considering her $1,100 in costs, the break even point for the two options is Month-13. That's when she has the same money in her pocket from the SP and published book.

After two years, she has $1,900 in net profits from the SP book, and $1,008 from the published book. In subsequent years she makes $1500 for the SP and $508 for the published book.

This analysis* can easily be done for any two books. Break even month = costs/(SP monthly revenue - pub monthly revenue)

So I agree it's important for her consider her costs. And it's also important to look beyond the first year.

*Note the weakness in the model is the assumption of steady sales for all months for all books. However, it's an interesting exercise to get a better idea of what is happening.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Over the last two years I've been reading KBoard Authors' books. The quality of the stories is just as good as the traditional books I've been reading. (Kboards posters do seem to be the top self publishers who treat their writing journey as a business.)

The difference is many writers here have tried to get on with traditional publisher, and some go on to sign projects with publishers becoming hybrids. Most here see the value in it if that opportunity is offered to them. It's not an either/or proposition. If you're a writer, you're going to be writing the "next" book eventually and you have all publishing options open once again.

With trade writers railing against self pubishing, what are they going to do when their publisher doesn't want one or even the next three or four of his future books?

What will they do then?


They may eat crow, self publish and see the light.

In most cases, it's just a waiting game. Them waiting for their next advance which may not come...


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Oh John. What big publisher is publishing your special edition of Pride and Prejudice, with your foreward and special cover, as part of the Kickstarter I donated to? I mean, I was sure the entire purpose was so that I could get my DVDs produced (also indie produced) of Lizzie Bennet (also indie produced) and one of my rewards would be a book (....this isn't being indie produced now??)


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

D.L. Shutter said:


> Agree. Writers (probably most) are too close to their work and can lack the objective eye needed to see faults and areas for improvement. The "good" indie will seek this out through quality beta's, peer review, proofing and editing, but we know this will not always be the case, or of a professional quality, whereas the publisher will always apply a series of vetting and review.
> 
> But is the indie's outsourced collaboration always lacking and the traditional comittee always correct?


There are no absolutes.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2013)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> It's difficult for me to believe that _many _people are that financially unaware.


Most Americans are very bad with finances. Think about:

...All of the people you know who get excited about a big tax refund. How many people file "1" on their W-4 even if they have dependents so they get the maximum return, despite the fact that this essentially is giving the government a zero interest loan. People treat tax refunds like "free money".

...buy a big ticket item "on sale" to save 20% off using a credit card, then spend six months paying the credit card off at a high interest rate. But they will tell you "I saved $100 on that TV!" while paying $150 in interest charges.

...The number of people who shop at club stores and buy in bulk, without realizing that in many cases the bulk size costs more per unit than the normal size.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

It would be fun to watch a cover designer tell Random House he was working for the book and not working for Random House.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

DianaGabriel said:


> This is a great point, which I hadn't thought of. (But, at the risk of being contrary, not the one John made - he said books are not like movies or music because they are consumed faster? Don't understand that argument.)


I do. As someone who has independently made and distributed films and someone who has independently made and distributed books I have seen a definite difference between the way films are consumed and books are consumed. (I can tell you that I have sold/given away far more copies of books than copies of my movies)

John's point about music and movies though, is one of quantity. I watch a movie almost every night of the week. (the nights that I don't watch a movie, I watch a TV show.) so that is at least 365 different motion pictures per year that I consume. I read about 1 book per two weeks, so that is about 25 books per year (probably less). It is far easier for a "great" self published book to get lost and never read by me because I only read 25 per year, than it is for a "great" independent film to get lost and never seen by me. Expand this across everybody in the world and it might stand up that it is far more difficult for a "great" self-published book to be read than a "great" independent film. Now, (per John Green's thinking) a publisher can shine a spotlight on that "great" book, make it more visible and get it read by more people. No publisher, no visibility.


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> It would be fun to watch a cover designer tell Random House he was working for the book and not working for Random House.


Random House is interested in selling the book. Not capitulating to the author's feelings.


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

That blog post. Wow. It's fascinating to watch a man wrestle with his own brain. 

Indie musicians hire out studios and line mixing. Production. They hire out artists to do album art, gig posters, T-Shirts. Sure, some do this themselves. And some authors likewise do everything themselves. Just because he doesn't does not mean it isn't possible.

The first WOOL was written without the involvement of another human being. Not even my wife or a beta reader. I designed the cover in less than an hour. And it did pretty well for itself. The best part is this: I had someone pass along a note about how much John Green loved WOOL. I wonder if he knows a single person made that?

Haven't watched his video yet. Just commenting on the blog post. Another thing I'd love to know is how all this extra value imparted by publishers justifies giving up ownership of your material and lifetime royalties. Okay, it takes a village, can I please pay them once and just a reasonable amount?

My guess is that John is so consumed with hatred for the #1 bookseller in the universe that he can't think straight. And that's sad. I like John. I hate to see him wrestling with his brain like this.


----------



## Mark Philipson (Mar 9, 2013)

It's like baseball. You step up to the plate alone and you'll never hit a home run if you don't swing.


----------



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

> With trade writers railing against self pubishing, what are they going to do when their publisher doesn't want one or even the next three or four of his future books?
> What will they do then?


I has this same question in response to Ann Patchett's sentiments, that authors _must_ work with publishers and support their system, for the sake of us all.

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/patchett-authors-must-work-trade.html

If she's ever dropped, and if the royalties were to dry up, then I guess she'll be teaching somewhere. Because publishing on your own is just sooo selfish.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

NathanWrann said:


> Random House is interested in selling the book. Not capitulating to the author's feelings.


Ok. And the cover designer works for Random House, not the book.


----------



## Darren Wearmouth (Jan 28, 2013)

Has Amazon dumped his books or something? Why the bitterness?

Nobody is that altruistic, no matter how hard they protest to the contrary.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Let's help John out.

His ebook sampler is currently free on his enemie's destroyer of literature's site here:

http://www.amazon.com/The-John-Green-eSampler-ebook/dp/B006G5SFA0/


----------



## Thisiswhywecan&#039;thavenicethings (May 3, 2013)

He mentions that his books would be filled with errors if not for editors and proofreaders and I am sure that is true. But, for the past few years I have been noticing big 6 print books by well-known authors are nowhere near error proof. Plus, I recently read a Kindle book by Nora Roberts that was riddled with spacing problems (every page had at least two words pushed together and some pages had several). 

Here's the thing, though. I bet an Indie author who was made aware of these issues would be much more likely to fix them quickly. Sometimes a committee is not always the most immediate way to get things done. 

Balance in all things!!!!


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

DAWearmouth said:


> Has Amazon dumped his books or something? Why the bitterness?
> 
> Nobody is that altruistic, no matter how hard they protest to the contrary.


My guess is that those booksellers are what get him on the non-ebook bestseller lists. Plus, even when he wrote a sci fi book, he marketed it as literary fiction. He bought into the elitism of the publishing industry hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I was thinking about what comment to post, then a little voice reminded me I have to write 2700 words today, and message boards don't count!


----------



## Christa Wick (Nov 1, 2012)

Dalya said:


> I was thinking about what comment to post, then a little voice reminded me I have to write 2700 words today, and message boards don't count!


Dalya for the win.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

burke_KB said:


> I believe it. Look at how many people think their mortgage is an investment. A coworker told me how much money he made off his house. I worked through the costs of ownership, taxes and inflation over the last 20 years with him, and he had actually lost money. Basic math is a rare skill. Many people see two amounts, and don't ask questions.





Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Most Americans are very bad with finances. Think about:
> 
> ...All of the people you know who get excited about a big tax refund. How many people file "1" on their W-4 even if they have dependents so they get the maximum return, despite the fact that this essentially is giving the government a zero interest loan. People treat tax refunds like "free money".
> 
> ...


Good points, both of you. However, are there 'invisible costs' on the trad-publishing side of things too? In the old days, photocopy costs and postage could add up rather fast. Is traditional publishing completely free now?

And, I'm sure that the author that Julie mentioned had never heard of 'opportunity cost', even though she may have had books that were held in cold-storage for months, if not more.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

It seems like he was just trying to thank a lot of folks who've helped him get to where he is, and that was gracious of him.  My only beef with him and all these guys who badmouth Amazon is that they still cash the checks.  If Amazon is so evil, stop doing business with them.  

I dont think Bezos perpetuates any myths.  He provides products and services.

Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I think we'll see some "future Toni Morrisons" come through self publishing.  It's only a matter of time.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> Good points, both of you. However, are there 'invisible costs' on the trad-publishing side of things too? In the old days, photocopy costs and postage could add up rather fast. Is traditional publishing completely free now?
> 
> And, I'm sure that the author that Julie mentioned had never heard of 'opportunity cost', even though she may have had books that were held in cold-storage for months, if not more.


It is free only if you consider your own time to have no value. I sometimes wonder how much time I put into the whole process. Often years are spent shopping your work and substantially more time after it is sold until it is published. That money is never recouped that it could have brought in had it already been for sale.

So traditional publishing is by NO mean "free".


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

LisaGraceBooks said:


> Let's help John out.
> 
> His ebook sampler is currently free on his enemie's destroyer of literature's site here:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/The-John-Green-eSampler-ebook/dp/B006G5SFA0/


I missed this at first because I think I was posting at the same time, but wouldn't this be an interesting method of protest....?


----------



## Jay Allan (Aug 20, 2012)

Another fool not worth the time and effort required for a response.  Certainly not worth taking time away from writing.

One comment though - Hugh makes a great point.  Writers are all different and some need more editing than others.  I'm sure some writers need more or less editing on one work as opposed to another.  But the idea that every single book needs massive amounts of editing in one of the seriously unsubstantiated assumptions behind a lot of this.

Proofreading is one thing (and as much as possible is good), but when was it engraved in stone that every change made by an editor is a good one?  Are we suggesting that never before in the history of man has an editor and publishing house actually made a book worse than it was when they got it?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Maybe I'm the crazy one, but I think we'll see some "future Toni Morrisons" come through self publishing. It's only a matter of time. "


Makes you wonder how many Toni Morrisons never got out of the slush pile.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Makes you wonder how many Toni Morrisons never got out of the slush pile.


Many publishers make decisions based on what they already have in their stable of authors, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to turn someone down even if the new ms is better, because they already have an author that fills that niche...


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

I don't know who John Green is, and now I know I shouldn't bother to find out.

Trash talking indie makes authors look cheap. One thing on a list or a forum or in a bar, but altogether different on a blog. Because it's petty and a number of their readers buy indie books AND shop at Amazon.

Never bad talk your customers' preferred way of paying you for your merchandise.


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

I get that Green was accepting an award from American Booksellers Association, and he was trying to carry on the Ann Patchett speech from the year before when she recited the St. Crispin's speech from Shakespeare's Henry V. Here's the video: 




In it, she places the stage as such: the Javits Center where the awards were held became Agincourt. She says, "We become English," therefore enlisting the authors and booksellers there to play the underdog heroes. Amazon and the Department of Justice are cast as the French, while Patchett herself takes on the leadership role of Henry V delivering the rousing speech.

So he's setting the same battle scene that Patchett set the year before. But while his blog post says he's anti-Amazon and not against the self-published author, I think that's very short sighted. Also, there are points in his speech that take direct aim at indie authors and their success.

I have always said, "Let's all get along," and, "Everyone can take their own paths to publishing," here on Kboards. I still believe that, but I completely understand why lots of people feel like they are being persecuted and are in an active battle. When successful authors (including James Patterson, Stephen King, and now John Green) are taking shots at what is helping people get their writing to so many readers AND being successful at it in new ways, how can you not feel attacked when they're saying they don't want you?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

fallswriter said:


> I have always said, "Let's all get along," and, "Everyone can take their own paths to publishing," here on Kboards. I still believe that, but I completely understand why lots of people feel like they are being persecuted and are in an active battle. When successful authors (including James Patterson, Stephen King, and now John Green) are taking shots at what is helping people get their writing to so many readers AND being successful at it in new ways, how can you not feel attacked when they're saying they don't want you?


Well-said. I think that captures the frustration I feel. There has never been a better time to be a reader or a writer. Those who are against this transformation have to be against one or both of those demographics.

Who is this bad for? Publishers and bookstores. What have they done for aspiring writers? What have they done to appeal to readers?


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

Hugh Howey said:


> Well-said. I think that captures the frustration I feel. There has never been a better time to be a reader or a writer. Those who are against this transformation have to be against one or both of those demographics.
> 
> Who is this bad for? Publishers and bookstores. What have they done for aspiring writers? What have they done to appeal to readers?


I wonder why there isn't more movement to find new ways to get even more writers and their work out there to readers? It perplexes me. I'm appreciative of the avenues available now like through Amazon, but change happens because somebody is willing to take a chance. And change is going to happen in publishing regardless of those that want to stage a battle.

And there is no reason to try and close the doors to anybody because people are finding ways to totally ignore those doors, go right around them, and go straight to the readers. So rage on, John Green! You can quote Henry V all you want. I'm just going to scoot around you and find some readers for my work. Thanks so much....oh, and keep your expletives to yourself next time.


----------



## Avis Black (Jun 12, 2012)

Never even heard of the guy.  He must not write good books.


----------



## Darren Wearmouth (Jan 28, 2013)

fallswriter said:


> I get that Green was accepting an award from American Booksellers Association, and he was trying to carry on the Ann Patchett speech from the year before when she recited the St. Crispin's speech from Shakespeare's Henry V. Here's the video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My toes curled when I read this post. I can't bring myself to watch the video, I'd probably disappear into the crack in my sofa out of embarrassment.

Mr. Howey makes a good point. What have they done for the aspiring writer?

I doubt I would have read as much great genre fiction in the last two years if self-publishing didn't exist.


----------



## dianasg (Jan 8, 2010)

fallswriter said:


> I have always said, "Let's all get along," and, "Everyone can take their own paths to publishing," here on Kboards. I still believe that, but I completely understand why lots of people feel like they are being persecuted and are in an active battle. When successful authors (including James Patterson, Stephen King, and now John Green) are taking shots at what is helping people get their writing to so many readers AND being successful at it in new ways, how can you not feel attacked when they're saying they don't want you?


THIS x100000. Perfect.

It's beyond frustrating. There's nothing more despicable than the attitude of, "I already made it - gotta turn around and drag that ladder up behind me." It reeks of elitism, greed, and paranoia. Not to mention hypocrisy. (John Green's support of indie music and films makes this even worse - like, it's okay when you & your brother go indie, but not when the unwashed masses do?)

On the other hand, you have writers like Bella Andre and Hugh (and so many others here), who make an effort to educate their fellow artists, to share what they've learned, and who are blazing a path of better publishing conditions for those writers (aka future Toni Morrisons).

I've looked at both paths, and wholeheartedly respect the right of every author to make that publishing decision for herself. But when I look at Hugh/Bella/many more vs Turow/Green/Patterson? I know which camp I want to belong to. They're the ones who still have my respect.


----------



## Shalini Boland (Nov 29, 2010)

Never heard of the guy. Perhaps he was being controversial for the publicity. I personally didn't think he made too much sense. I used to be in the music industry and there was never this level of animosity between the big labels and the indies. It was far more collaborative and open. But then the publishing industry can be far more snobby and resistant to change. 

There are many ways of doing things. Just because it's not 'your' way, John Green, doesn't mean it's not right.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

We can all get along just fine, but that doesn't mean we can't engage I vigorous debate with the people we get along with. Let the sliver of the public that pays attention to this stuff know that self-published authors can go toe-to-toe with any of the agents, publishers, or published authors.


----------



## 10105 (Feb 16, 2010)

Let's look at it from another perspective:

I sold a lot of books via the traditional route with name publishers (big however many). I went from a business model where I could get a substantial advance based only on a phone call to not getting my calls returned. Why? Because most of what I had to write about was, in traditional publishing, overrun with bandwagon jumpers while at the same time folks were putting it all on the Internet for free.

In other words, the market dried up.

So, I got reversions of rights for my best-selling backlisted titles (the ones that aren't obsolete yet), self-published them on KDP and elsewhere, and am back to doing okay with them. I got news for that guy. Things ain't what they used to be in a lot of facets of the traditional publishing business. It doesn't work like that anymore. Without self-publishing, I wouldn't be publishing.

This is not a condemnation of traditional publishing. It's about money. The numbers I sell work for me because I don't have much of the trad overhead--inventory, returns, printing, etc.-- but those same numbers wouldn't work for a traditional publisher.

It's a wonderful compromise. And at the same time I'm able to explore other kinds of writing without the worry of submissions, rejections, waiting more time than I have left to hear from anybody, and so on. That guy needs to wake up and see what's really going on out here.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Al Stevens said:


> Let's look at it from another perspective:
> 
> I sold a lot of books via the traditional route with name publishers (big however many). I went from a business model where I could get a substantial advance based only on a phone call to not getting my calls returned. Why? Because most of what I had to write about was, in traditional publishing, overrun with bandwagon jumpers while at the same time folks were putting it all on the Internet for free.
> 
> In other words, the market dried up.


I agree. That's why so many trades are panicking. Some are friends of mine. Advances are drying up, acquisition editors are getting let go, and some I know who could hand in proposals and not write the novel until it was sold are now being told they will only consider the full ms, and for a lot less. So do they waste the time writing a ms that may or may not be picked up for a lot less than they used to get?

Maybe John was told no-go on his latest or offered less than usual. He sees his way of life going down the drain.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Comes across as a ranting, self-obsessed idiot who really has no idea what he's talking about. Still, if he wanted free publicity he's got it.


----------



## gonedark (May 30, 2013)

Content removed due to TOS Change of 2018. I do not agree to the terms.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

I'm back! I wrote my 3k, thanks to Starbucks and a hard chair.

My thoughtful comment is: Acting like an indignant ragemonkey doesn't make your personal beliefs any more factual.


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

Dalya said:


> I'm back! I wrote my 3k, thanks to Starbucks and a hard chair.
> 
> My thoughtful comment is: Acting like an indignant ragemonkey doesn't make your personal beliefs any more factual.


Short, sweet, and to the point. You use your words well. Hope your 3,000 words went as well today!


----------



## NathanWrann (May 5, 2011)

Dalya said:


> I'm back! I wrote my 3k, thanks to Starbucks and a hard chair.
> 
> My thoughtful comment is: Acting like an indignant ragemonkey doesn't make your personal beliefs any more factual.


You shouldn't call the people on kboards "ragemonkeys" or Betsy might slap your wrist.


----------



## Ben Mathew (Jan 27, 2013)

The video is clearly anti-self publishing. The blog post tries to backpedal and turn it into an attack on Amazon.

In the video, he conflates self-publishing with self-producing-a-book-without-any-outside-help. But publishers are fundamentally distributors, not editors and cover designers. Distributing to physical bookstores is the one thing that they do that you can't get anywhere else. By giving up publishers, you give up the ability to distribute to physical bookstores. Everything else--editors, cover designers, and massage therapists--are available freelance.

Caveat: Many of the best developmental editors are still with publishing houses. But that's just a holdover from the past and it's changing. Besides, what's the chance that a midlister would get such a top developmental editor from a publisher anyway?


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

It occurred to me that even aside from our personal teams of editors, designers, and the like, self publishers rarely operate in a vacuum. In fact, some of my trade pub friends are much more solitary. 

Someone today accused me that being a self publisher means I go it alone. It's a complete falsehood (they were talking specifically about agents, and therefore I couldn't possibly know anything and bother my pretty little head with all these other publishing details). But I have a wide range of people who help me and who I help. My success isn't all on me, but I don't have to pay people for the rest of my life for things I get for free or at a flat fee.


----------



## Cory (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm a bit late to the party, but I did a comic based on the video:










I like John Green otherwise. I hope he learns to be a bit more mature in the future.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)




----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Cory - 
Funny!


----------



## fallswriter (Sep 11, 2012)

That comic is the best response to the rant. Cory for the win!


----------



## Jason Eric Pryor (Jan 30, 2013)

He's says he's not in the money business but he simply tries to connect with people through his books. I have a problem taking anyone serious who says something like that but whose books are not free.

Also, he acts like everyone has a choice between going the traditional route or self-publishing. Most can't get a deal with a publisher, so we do it ourselves. Using his logic, if you can't get published by a publisher, you have no business writing.

I don't know who he is, and I feel my life is richer for it.


----------



## Cory (Nov 6, 2012)

Thanks guys.


----------

