# DO NOT SELF PUBLISH.



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

Guess who said that in an interview yesterday?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/jodi-picoult-on-writing-publishing-and-what-she-s-reading.html

I might have gone on a small *rant* about that advice. 

http://sexysassysummer.blogspot.com/2012/04/defending-sinking-ship.html

*UPDATE EDIT:*

Here is an email response from _Ms. Picoult_ - relayed with permission from an author friend (of mine) on Facebook who emailed her directly.

_‎"You can't separate the wheat from the chaff yet - there is a lot of garbage out there. Plus, although the publication is important it's more important to have readers find you. The marketing and PR machine behind a brick and mortar publisher is still invaluable for that reason. Think of self pubbed success stories like Amanda Hocking. Did she self publish book 2? No - she signed with a publisher."
JP _

Ugh. Yes - sure - the marketing and PR machine is behind you for 6 weeks - as someone else pointed out. IF you are lucky enough to fight your way past the huge backlog of manuscripts in the first place.

Plus she got her facts wrong as well - Amanda Hocking did sign with a publisher indeed, but it was certainly not after ONE successful ebook, but rather a proven track record of SELF-PUBLISHING.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

> What advice would you give to an aspiring author?
> 
> Take a workshop course. You need to learn to give and get criticism and to write on demand. And DO NOT SELF PUBLISH.


Right, and if I'd followed that advice, my books would still be sitting on my hard drive, unread. I feel a flush of anger at how casually, but definitively she tosses that out there.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

Silence, aspiring writer!  I will not tolerate your insolence!

(Seems the article should have been published on Sunday.)


----------



## Katja (Jun 4, 2011)

Some great parts in that interview though. You know you've made it when this happens:



> The oddest place I've ever been asked to sign a book: I was in a bathroom stall and a lady passed me a copy under the stall door. Apparently she recognized my red shoes. I asked if maybe I could wash my hands first ...


----------



## JodyMorse (Jun 7, 2011)

Jodi Picoult is one of my favorite authors, but ugh.


----------



## Scarlett_R (Sep 30, 2011)

Bah. BAH!


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

I like your rant a lot better than her interview.   



FYI, I have participated in many workshops, critique groups, and taken courses, and even had a paid writing gig.  So, all I have to say to this Jodi person is "why NOT self-publish?" 
As I see it, that's a green light. 

Some TP authors are just stuck in the dark ages.


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

Poor thing. I don't want to be there the day she realizes what a talent like hers could have accomplished without handing over 94% of the revenue she generated.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

I love Jodi Piccoult ... her books are wonderful.  But this obviously upsets me and I wonder why she feels that way.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

The anecdote about being asked for an autograph in the bathroom is rather tired. 

I had a reader send me a hand made bar of soap in appreciation for a signed paperback. And I didn't even have to sell millions of books to get that recognition. I'll stick with my self-publishing for the time being. I get creeped out when I'm not the one driving my car.


----------



## Jo Clendening (Apr 9, 2011)

The part about her interview that irked me was that she didn't even bother to explain WHY aspiring authors should not self publish. Just don't do it. End of story (so to speak).

I like the idea of being in control of my writing schedule, my marketing endeavors, my artwork for my cover. I do not want to rely on big box publishers to bless my work with the slim hope that my writing would finally see the light of day.

If she decides to elaborate on her comment, I'd love to read her reasoning.

Now, off to peruse Amazon for more Indy deliciousness.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

Reminds me of a story I heard about Prince (the music artist). So Prince is at his house trying to work out details to a music video. He suddenly gets it in his head that it would be great to have a camel in the shot. He tells his assistant to get one asap and then is baffled as to why they can't just get one at 3am. Sometimes people are so out of touch with the common plight, they are unable to see things as they really are.


----------



## Elizabeth Ann West (Jul 11, 2011)

Am I blind or has the interview been edited to remove that part?
*** nevermind it's on page 2. Missed that the interview continued. Yes, very blunt.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I left a comment.

Aspiring authors should know what is possible with self publishing, just like we all know what's possible with traditional publishing. No, not everyone succeeds, but not every traditionally published author sells enough to make the NYT's list either.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2012)

summerdaniels71 said:


> Guess who said that in an interview yesterday?
> 
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/jodi-picoult-on-writing-publishing-and-what-she-s-reading.html
> 
> ...


"have just went"?? Don't you mean "have just gone"? Writers! Phooey.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2012)

What all this kind of advice boils down to is, "Be like me! Otherwise you ain't nothin'"  It involves self-absorbed dolts, or, as Mark Twain would say, "Quadrilateral buckets of offal."


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

jclendening said:


> The part about her interview that irked me was that she didn't even bother to explain WHY aspiring authors should not self publish. Just don't do it. End of story (so to speak).
> 
> If she decides to elaborate on her comment, I'd love to read her reasoning.


^
I was just about to post another comment, saying that exact same thing! (Great minds think alike. LOL)

It's hard to respect such a blatant, off-hand remark with no reasoning behind it. Especially, if it's written in all caps.

For instance, if she said "I caution against self-publishing because you'll have to do all the marketing and publicity yourself, struggling to get your book noticed among the masses..." or even the usual comment about self-publishing and editing.

Her remark just looks childish, IMO.


----------



## phil1861 (Dec 22, 2011)

Fine; her loss, my gain. 

Maybe she should have caveated the whole interview with: if you want to be a panted after, pursued, handbooksunderpublicbathroomstallstobesigned kind of author then don't self publish an eBook. 

Don't know her, don't read her and now never will. 

Meh.


----------



## kellymcclymer (Apr 22, 2010)

LOL. I like her books, but I would never take a bestseller's advice on self publishing. That would be like asking a gazillionaire which bus to take to get home.


----------



## Rogerelwell (May 19, 2011)

I think there are now a lot of quite good, entertaining reads that would never have got out there if this 'advice' was followed .  Self-publishing e-books is the future, as far as I am concerned. 

...and buying conventionally-published books is no guarantee of quality anyway - even less so in recent years.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

phil1861 said:


> Don't know her, don't read her and now never will.
> 
> Meh.


^^^
Ditto!



Rogerelwell said:


> I think there are now a lot of quite good, entertaining reads that would never have got out there if this 'advice' was followed .


^^^
Amen to that!


kellymcclymer said:


> but I would never take a bestseller's advice on self publishing. That would be like asking a gazillionaire which bus to take to get home.


^^^
HAHAHAHA! Good point!


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

jclendening said:


> I do not want to rely on big box publishers to bless my work with the slim hope that my writing would finally see the light of day.


"To bless AND KILL my work," you mean. You have only six weeks to "prove" yourself in the TP world. Then, after a few months or a year or so, they yank the title and it dies a forever death - UNLESS you grab your rights back and resurrect it yourself.

All that work for six weeks. Kind of sad...


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

xandy3 said:


> I like your rant a lot better than her interview.


Thank you - that is very kind of you. ;-)


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Right, and if I'd followed that advice, my books would still be sitting on my hard drive, unread. I feel a flush of anger at how casually, but definitively she tosses that out there.


That is the same flush of anger I felt at reading it yesterday. I'm just getting started in my writing career, but I am LIGHT YEARS ahead of where I would be if I were still sorting through rejection letters and listening to "No." over and over again.

We live in very interesting times. Get on board with change and be able to adapt - or move out of the way. ;-)


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

kellymcclymer said:


> LOL. I like her books, but I would never take a bestseller's advice on self publishing. That would be like asking a gazillionaire which bus to take to get home.


Ha! Well said Kelly! I'm so going to "borrow" that line! ;-)


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

A traditionally published author defending the traditional model? Say it ain't so!


----------



## H. S. St. Ours (Mar 24, 2012)

How behind the times can one get? Self-pubbing is *the* way to go in the Twenty-Teens. She gives no explanation (as previously noted here), no encouragement for new writers, nothing but self-congratulatory puffery. I am not against success, but I published the traditional route once. A software book I co-wrote with 3 others. Publishers "standard" contracts are designed -- are INTENDED -- to screw the uninitiated out of a proper advance, foreign (and other) rights, and reasonable deadlines. All in all, a very distasteful experience.

To Ms. Picoult I would only say, "DO NOT ADVISE OTHER AUTHORS." (You like the all caps? Does it show I care?)


----------



## Ian Marks (Jan 22, 2012)

I haven't read the other responses, so if I seem to be parroting what other people are saying, it's not intentional.

Here's a hard truth:

Most aspiring fiction writers SHOULD NOT SELF-PUBLISH.

(Naturally, that doesn't apply to Summer or any of the other talented writers who read this post.)

But, seriously, half of what I download isn't ready for publication. No, more than half.

And I think that what Picoult was getting as is that everyone needs to learn their craft before they put it out there... just as she did. But the ease with which we can slap something up for sale in the Kindle marketplace has led people to publish a lot of mediocre (and often, just plain bad) fiction.

_Wow, look at me! I'm a published author!_

I've b*tched about bad formatting here before. Now let's talk about spelling, grammar, structure, theme, subtext... all of which seem to be alien concepts to a lot of self-published writers. (Again, not anyone here.)

I read something last night that could have been pounded out by a PCP-addled marmoset. Good premise, but - oh! - the execution. And when I looked at the writer's bio she claims to have a MFA in creative writing... which may in fact be true, if she attended a clown college.

Anyway, just thought I'd put in a word for the folks who think that Jodi Picoult might have a point... even (again) if it doesn't apply to anyone here.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

HSStOurs said:


> To Ms. Picoult I would only say, "DO NOT ADVISE OTHER AUTHORS." (You like the all caps? Does it show I care?)


Priceless.


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

HSStOurs said:


> How behind the times can one get? Self-pubbing is *the* way to go in the Twenty-Teens. She gives no explanation (as previously noted here), no encouragement for new writers, nothing but self-congratulatory puffery. I am not against success, but I published the traditional route once. A software book I co-wrote with 3 others. Publishers "standard" contracts are designed -- are INTENDED -- to screw the uninitiated out of a proper advance, foreign (and other) rights, and reasonable deadlines. All in all, a very distasteful experience.
> 
> To Ms. Picoult I would only say, "DO NOT ADVISE OTHER AUTHORS." (You like the all caps? Does it show I care?)


I just posted an update to the original message. A response from Ms. Picoult to a direct email from a Facebook author friend of mine. I can't say I'm impressed by her reasoning.


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

Ian Marks said:


> I haven't read the other responses, so if I seem to be parroting what other people are saying, it's not intentional.
> 
> Here's a hard truth:
> 
> ...


I would not say you are incorrect at all in the assertion that there is a lot of _dreck_ out there that should not be published at all, self or otherwise.

However, it is my opinion that with certain success and fame comes a level of responsibility to those who might follow in your footsteps. To me she simply offers bad advice, based on her desire to hold onto her share of a crumbling empire. I applaud everyone's right to have an opinion, but to simply "shout" out to the world - DO NOT SELF PUBLISH! Absurd.

Think of the talented authors here and all over the world that we would not have had a chance to enjoy if traditional publishing had their way.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

_Did she self publish book 2? No - she signed with a publisher._

I haven't followed Hocking's story like a religion, but I thought I read somewhere that Hocking had self-published like 9 novels before getting a traditional contract, and only after becoming a self-made millionaire?


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

What a snob.


----------



## elalond (May 11, 2011)

summerdaniels71 said:


> *UPDATE EDIT:*
> 
> Here is an email response from _Ms. Picoult_ - relayed with permission from an author friend (of mine) on Facebook who emailed her directly.
> 
> ...


Well, I don't want to nitpick or pretend that I know anything more than the usual facts about Hocking, but if I remember correctly, she self-published 5 books, got an offer for that Trylle Trilogy, but refused it because the third book would need to much time to publish. Published the last book, and then sold the Trilogy to the trade publisher and signed the offer that was hard to resist. And she still self-publishes. So yes, she did self published the second book, and the third, and the fourth,... and now she's part of both worlds. Go Hocking. 

ETA: Passive Guy noticed her interview too: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/04/2012/jodi-picoult-on-writing/


----------



## AmsterdamAssassin (Oct 21, 2011)

Apart from the 'Do not self-publish' advice, her interview responses aren't all that bad. I think Picoult fell into a trap, the trap where anyone who seems to do well actually responds to a request for advice. An appropriate response would be 'I'm in favor of trade publishing because I feel it worked well for me'. With the caveat that what works for one person doesn't automatically work for the masses. People who tend to be in a particular situation might have difficulty to put themselves in the shoes of those who are not in that particular situation. 

I think that a majority of self-publishers probably publish themselves prematurely, simply because the possibility is there. But it's not like taking a high dive without learning to swim. You won't die from taking the plunge. At the most you lose the chance to sell first publishing rights to a trade publisher. Plus you might be humiliated by being harshly criticized and reviewed, but at least you'll know what your writing is worth. And you can always write another book, a better book. So, if you want to self-publish, inform yourself of the possibilities and pitfalls, and make a decision accordingly.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I'm delighted by the ignorance of the competition.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'm delighted by the ignorance of the competition.


LOL


----------



## Hugh Howey (Feb 11, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'm delighted by the ignorance of the competition.


Awesome.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

I am shocked -- SHOCKED -- to hear a trad-pubbed author advising against self-publishing.

And I agree with phil1861 -- never read her stuff, and now never will.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> I'm delighted by the ignorance of the competition.


Indeed.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

Another day, another person trying to rattle the cage to get a reaction.

I think people say stupid things just to get attention.

Let's all give Jodi Picoult some more free publicity by tweeting angrily about her.


----------



## Kemp (Jan 16, 2010)

Now, I certainly won't defend the poor woman - the stacks of currency she sleeps on at night probably provide enough insulation and comfort - I can at least give her the benefit of the doubt in this situation.

A little.

To her mind, the legacy publishing model (plus, I'm sure she thinks of herself as being talented enough to deserve it) has been entirely responsible for her success, and by and large she's probably right. She is the exact type of person who benefits most from their system: large advances with big marketing campaigns, tables of her books, front and center at brick and mortar stores, and film contracts to spread out her popularity to other audiences. Since legacy publishing exists to make gajillions on the bigger names, she's given the most royal treatment. It's not surprising she favors this model.

However, as a result, it seems very likely that she has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what self-publishing is like or entails. The best she has is incorrect, anecdotal evidence from one of the big successes who happened to switch from self to regular. I'm sure she means well, and I'm sure she's talented, but... speaking out of ignorance generally doesn't do you much good.


----------



## EStoops (Oct 24, 2011)

I don't like the fact that this author takes such a high-horse approach to a promotional interview -- want to pander a little your fans instead of making them feel like garbage? Oh, and the story she and her daughter are publishing? Yeah, sounds like a self-insert fic. Yawn.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Who cares if Jodi wants to put her ignorance on public display? Today not all authors will do as well with a publisher--but Jodi doesn't know that because she's locked into the trad world and it has worked for her. Add to that she knows absolutely nothing about self-publishing.

_"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." _ Always a good idea to not give your opinion if you don't know the subject. But Jodi "thinks" she knows all about self-publishing when she doesn't.

Some will do better with a publisher and some will do better without. There is enough room for both.

It's like saying only a record company can record good music or only a Big Gallery can have good art or only Adobe and Microsoft can write good software. BS.

If both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson suddenly woke up and were alive, they would look at each method of publishing and immediately put out a Kindle Single telling us what they've been doing.

Some self-pubs say that no one should have a publisher, but for some a publisher may be a better way to go.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

AmsterdamAssassin said:


> I think that a majority of self-publishers probably publish themselves prematurely, simply because the possibility is there. But it's not like taking a high dive without learning to swim. You won't die from taking the plunge.


This is it in a nutshell. What's wrong with anybody self-publishing if they want to? Who does it hurt? Tons of people self-publish all kinds of stuff all over the web, and so far, I don't think anyone's died from having absolutely limitless choice of opinions, viewpoints, styles, and perspectives available to them. Some readers whine, because it's gotten more difficult for them to find exactly what they want, while others rejoice to have finally found...exactly what they want!

Telling an aspiring author "DO NOT SELF-PUBLISH" is like saying "DO NOT GO OUTSIDE" to a person you consider to be unattractive.

--Maria


----------



## JRainey (Feb 1, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> I'm delighted by the ignorance of the competition.


I literally laughed out loud at this.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I respect JP, but it's easy for her to say that when she's got all of those books out there, an agent and a full-time novel-writing career.  For those of us that the publishing world seems to hate, for reasons that make no sense, this is our best option.  I'm glad I self-published.


----------



## EresWilliams (Mar 17, 2011)

I think everyone has missed exactly what Ms. Picoult said. She said DO NOT SELF-PUBLISH was her advice to *aspiring authors*. 

And I agree completely. If you want to remain an aspiring author rather than become a published writer, definitely do NOT self-publish!


----------



## Christopher Bunn (Oct 26, 2010)

Ian Marks said:


> But, seriously, half of what I download isn't ready for publication. No, more than half.
> 
> And I think that what Picoult was getting as is that everyone needs to learn their craft before they put it out there... just as she did. But the ease with which we can slap something up for sale in the Kindle marketplace has led people to publish a lot of mediocre (and often, just plain bad) fiction.


I agree with you on this point. I think if the majority of us took a deep breath and added a minimum of six months of review and additional edits to a project's timeline, overall indie quality would sharply climb.

Picoult could use a little humility.


----------



## ETS PRESS (Nov 4, 2011)

She is obviously acluistic.

(She doesn't have a clue.)


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

ETS PRESS said:


> She is obviously acluistic.
> 
> (She doesn't have a clue.)


Great word!


----------



## TadVezner (Mar 23, 2011)

I interviewed Hocking: She said her first real success was the 10th book she wrote. Did she self-publish book 2? Yes. And books 3 and 4 and...

More to Ms. Picoult's point, has Hocking self-published other works since signing on with St. Martin's? Yes. It's staggeringly ignorant to use Hocking as an example of an indie author "seeing the light" and going the traditional route.

I admit this post angers me, but I don't find it surprising that this author believes what she believes.


----------



## Spirit Flame (Feb 28, 2012)

I'm sure that if you interviewed a dinosaur during the height of the Jurassic period they would have answered similarly, and look what happened to them.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

What kills me most is that she just co-wrote a novel with her daughter ... her _teenage_ daughter. Of course, as a successful author, a mother by that nature can certainly pad the way ... but I don't believe her daughter has _honed_ her skills more than anyone else, very few 16 year olds have a command of the literary world.

And the truth, lets say Jodi Picoult wasn't an author, let's pretend she was just an average woman and her daughter wanted to write ... do we really think this teenage co-author would have the chops to be published on her own? Or would she, more likely, wallow in the slush pile and face rejection. Which naturally leads to me question what Jodi's advice would be then? Would she still suggest her daughter let the book wallow and die on her hard-drive or would she say 'be brave and try self publishing'?

The truth is, I respect Jodi Picoult (all snide comments aside) ... but I think it's incredibly easy for someone like herself, with her agent and advance and publisher and world tours, to see how _all of that_ would be hard to do alone. But what in the world does she know about self publishing? What she's read elsewhere? What experience does she have to make statements like that? Where is she getting the facts?

And, on a side note, as a self published author I'm actually following Jodi Picoult up on a website ... my interview will come on the heels of hers ... just a few days later actually. She and I will share screen space, which is incredibly ironic in the light of this.


----------



## BrianKittrell (Jan 8, 2011)

Italiahaircolor said:


> ... with her agent and advance and publisher and world tours, to see how _all of that_ would be hard to do alone.
> 
> But what in the world does she know about self publishing? What she's read elsewhere? What experience does she have to make statements like that? Where is she getting the facts?


The first line that I snipped: It would be nigh impossible. It's impossible for most of us, but what she's failing to see is that many, many self-pubs see success that works for them. That's the great part of it.

The second set of questions:
1- Nothing.
2- Probably.
3- She's a New York Times bestseller. They know everything, didn't you know?
4- Probably from a narrow point of view. Most likely from her agent, the one person that absolutely depends upon her not self-publishing to survive.


----------



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

A few months ago, I heard her and two other authors (David Baldacci and I _think_ John Grisham) on a Sirius radio station while driving. She and the other authors proceeded to deride SP. Picoult was the most vocal about it.



> I respect JP, but it's easy for her to say that when she's got all of those books out there, an agent and a full-time novel-writing career.


There's probably a great deal of truth to this. She and the above authors all broke into publishing well over a decade ago. Things have changed drastically since then. But saying that the ONLY way to get bring your stories to readers is through the traditional channels is archaic. It also assumes that anyone who's writing is good enough will find a publisher.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

She is out of touch with the reality of breaking into publishing. She's the last one they should ask for advice. Ask a writer who has just gotten a contract how they did it.

Also, (thankfully), most traditional authors have no idea how much money can be made selling eBooks or they would all be racing to put up their backlists.


----------



## MGalloway (Jun 21, 2011)

N. Gemini Sasson said:


> She and the above authors all broke into publishing well over a decade ago. Things have changed drastically since then.


Great point. And things are still are changing at great speed. To think that a book can now be uploaded in a matter of minutes and then be downloaded onto reading devices around the world in seconds was unheard of years ago.

What a great time to be a writer.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Christopher Bunn said:


> Picoult could use a little humility.


Actually I think she could use more than that...

I won't say what I'm thinking. I don't want to get myself banned from this forum. hahahahahaha!

There's a word for women like her,.....
And, I'm too much of a lady to say it.


----------



## s0nicfreak (Jun 10, 2010)

Yes there is a lot of trash out there, but one person's trash is a hundred other peoples' treasure (I have read plenty of traditionally published best sellers that I feel are trash). Publishers are afraid. They know that they are losing (and have almost completely lost) control over what should be read and what shouldn't; that control has gone where it belongs, in the hands of readers themselves. So they are fighting tooth and nail to keep what little control they have left, and that seems to include convincing authors they have contracts with to bad-mouth self publishing.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

summerdaniels71 said:


> Plus she got her facts wrong as well - Amanda Hocking did sign with a publisher indeed, but it was certainly not after ONE successful ebook, but rather a proven track record of SELF-PUBLISHING.


Yeah, I like how she marred the facts to make her non-existent point. 

It's kind of amusing that she really doesn't know what she's talking about.

Reveals her true nature.


----------



## ChrisWard (Mar 10, 2012)

Never heard of her, couldn't care less what she has to say.

My humble advice to any indie writer, (from someone who spent fifteen years doing it), is to spend a few years sending stuff out first and getting rejected, writing all the while, trying to improve.  Once you start to get personal responses or partial requests, you can consider yourself good enough to have broken through thirty years ago.  Then go for it.

Don't self-publish the first thing you write and then whine when a) no one buys it or b) people who do buy it slate it.  It's so easy to self-publish these days that there is very little motivation to get better.

Chris Ward


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

headofwords said:


> Never heard of her, couldn't care less what she has to say.
> 
> Once you start to get personal responses or partial requests, you can consider yourself good enough to have broken through thirty years ago. Then go for it.
> 
> Don't self-publish the first thing you write and then whine when a) no one buys it or b) people who do buy it slate it.


I have to agree. Some people are ready at a young age because they've really studied the craft of novel writing. Others make tons of beginner mistakes that enrolling in one good conference on technique or a critique group would clear up. Always strive to improve.


----------



## HeidiHall (Sep 5, 2010)

What a silly thing to say... unless your income is suffering because readers have so many choices now, they don't need to spend a fortune buying from TPs.  I don't disagree there are a lot of authors, myself included, who are still learning the ropes and making mistakes along the way. But from what I've  seen, the top indie producers are catching up much more quickly than the TPs are comfortable with. There will always be crappy books published, but that's what sampling is for! I actually find it kind of flattering that we're beginning to be seen as a threat to the ivory towers (at least, that's my interpretation of her interview). It's stuff like this that spurs me on to become even better at this game. Happy writing!


----------



## Marie S (May 20, 2011)

The thing is, if she wasn't already published and successful, in other words if she was still a struggling author, she would no doubt have self-published as well. 

I've never read any of her books, and now I probably never will. I very nearly picked one off the shelves at my local supermarket a while back, but something told me to give it a miss. Maybe I was getting bad vibes about the author


----------



## jemima_pett (Feb 13, 2012)

Well, if I'd wanted to wait another ten, twenty years till the market came round to my books' way of thinking I might not have self-published.  All the agent responses were along the lines of "too difficult to place in today's market".

I'm enjoying promoting them in today's market.  Thank you for reading them.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

summerdaniels71 said:


> _‎"You can't separate the wheat from the chaff yet - there is a lot of garbage out there. Plus, although the publication is important it's more important to have readers find you. The marketing and PR machine behind a brick and mortar publisher is still invaluable for that reason. Think of self pubbed success stories like Amanda Hocking. Did she self publish book 2? No - she signed with a publisher."
> JP _
> 
> Ugh. Yes - sure - the marketing and PR machine is behind you for 6 weeks - as someone else pointed out. IF you are lucky enough to fight your way past the huge backlog of manuscripts in the first place.
> ...


My thoughts exactly. Book 2 of what? Amanda had about 9 titles out when she signed her trad-pub deal, at least.

Ms. Picoult, your "I don't know what I'm talking about" is showing!


----------



## Rogerelwell (May 19, 2011)

Easy for her to say, when she's got the contract, the marketing budget, etc., behind her. When I tried to get an agent, the replies were 'it's good, but to succeed today it has to be exceptional'. That's rubbish on two counts:

1) the 'exceptional' qualifier goes out of the window when the 'author' is a 'celebrity'; they can put out anything and the publisher takes it because they can sell '_on the name_'. What has happened in the tradpub market is that they have (probably rightly for their shareholders) become so focused on the bottom line that they are missing lots of good, readable and entertaining stuff, in favour of 'celebrity' volume shifting. If that's what they want, then fair enough. Don't knock the rest of us, though.

2) the fact that so many of us selfpubs are finding plenty of buyers for our books means that the work doesn't need to be 'exceptional'. The best it can be is obviously what we all aim for, but my primary goal is to entertain. I think a huge proportion of the reading public want to be entertained....

_*We're the future*_. The real thinkers in the tradpub world know that; maybe the rest have their heads in the sand. They just want to keep their dominant place for as long as possible, and I don't blame them for that. They will ultimately lose, though, no matter what they do.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Jodi is probably a very nice lady, it's just that she is probably insulated and not up to date with the changing world of publishing. A top selling author really doesn't need to be. She gets views from her publisher and agent who have a vested interest in her thinking ill of indies. That their writing is rubbish etc etc. 

She just doesn't have good info and no reason for her to recommend anything other than legacy. I think she just doesn't know anything about indies and only knows the worst aspects about it. Up until 9 months ago I knew about zero about it and I though the books were probably crap. You get what you pay for i thought. Well, I looked into it and learned more. I was wrong--but there is  some crap out there. I'm sure within a couple years Jodi will catch up and have a better educated and more balanced view. 

Many people I know are rather intelligent, but most know next to nothing about self publishing on Kindle. All they know is what they see in the regular media. 

They may even buy a Kindle and read ebooks, but they still know nothing about the ebook publishing biz. Certainly they know nothing about royalties and contracts and payments. They don't need to know. Neither does Jodi since she is comfortable with her publisher and making skads of money. Publishing traditionally has been very, very good for her.


----------



## Lexi Revellian (May 31, 2010)

Jodi Picoult is a grown woman who claims she cannot sleep without teddy bears!

This seems to me even odder than her advice to aspiring authors.

Lexi


----------



## Matt Larkin (Sep 27, 2011)

jclendening said:


> The part about her interview that irked me was that she didn't even bother to explain WHY aspiring authors should not self publish. Just don't do it. End of story (so to speak).


That's what's most distressing about the advice. If she elaborated on the pros and cons of each, it would be easier to understand her point of view.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I find it amusing when authors who have been "curated" by traditional publishers speak poorly of self-publishing.  It's like the guy in the limo looking at the guy trying to find a job on the corner and saying they shouldn't do that.  Scott Turow is another example of an author who is on the inside and vested in protecting publishing just the way it is right now.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> I find it amusing when authors who have been "curated" by traditional publishers speak poorly of self-publishing. It's like the guy in the limo looking at the guy trying to find a job on the corner and saying they shouldn't do that. Scott Turow is another example of an author who is on the inside and vested in protecting publishing just the way it is right now.


They think it's in their best interests to save publishers and trash indies. They are protecting the tower. Turow is especially...protective. In time they will look only more archaic and meaningless.


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> I find it amusing when authors who have been "curated" by traditional publishers speak poorly of self-publishing. It's like the guy in the limo looking at the guy trying to find a job on the corner and saying they shouldn't do that. Scott Turow is another example of an author who is on the inside and vested in protecting publishing just the way it is right now.


All too true and sad.

Did anyone see Barry Eisler's chat with the Seattle Times yesterday on J.A. Konrath's blog? He kept asking them to defend their "ivory tower" stance and address Konrath's questions of Turow - but they kept ignoring him.

Yep. Keep putting your head in the sand and see where that gets you. Good strategy. Certainly worked for those Betamax exec's.


----------



## Mike Dennis (Apr 26, 2010)

summerdaniels71 said:


> Yes - sure - the marketing and PR machine is behind you for 6 weeks - as someone else pointed out.


Provided that particular publisher still HAS a marketing and PR machine, provided they don't tell you, "The author has to do it now. We don't have the money for it anymore. We're spending all our marketing and PR money on the likes of James Patterson."


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

I'm sure Ms. Picoult didnt mean to say, "You peasants should keep quiet and eat your cake!"  It only sounded that way to us peasants.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Adam Pepper said:


> I'm sure Ms. Picoult didnt mean to say, "You peasants should keep quiet and eat your cake!" It only sounded that way to us peasants.


Actually, I think she came off like a high school "mean girl." "LYK OMG" should have preceded her lame sentence.

Case in point:


Lexi Revellian said:


> Jodi Picoult is a grown woman who claims she cannot sleep without teddy bears!


PPPFFTTTHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHHAA!

eta: post 666, eek! ^


----------



## amiblackwelder (Mar 19, 2010)

She's an idiot. All my books would still be unpublished by Trade publishers. Got the whole, we already have that style book to let me see more, to not the right fit...and ending all in nada.

I at least am making a good $500 a month now and that is good extra income for me....and each year I try to push it more and more. I think by 40 I can retire on my book income:0-


----------



## CathleenShaffer (Feb 15, 2012)

Hmmm...I wonder if she is upset that not enough people are finding her short story collection among the "chaff." I have read them, nothing special.


----------



## Kent Kelly (Feb 12, 2011)

Down, ye upstart vagrants!  Respect thine superiors!  Back, back I say!  *whipcrack*


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

jljarvis said:


>


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

jljarvis said:


> Now that's interesting, considering how John Grisham self-published his first book and sold it out of the trunk of his car.
> .


Grisham NEVER self-published. That's a myth from the vanity presses. His first publisher (Wynwood, NYC) paid him a $15,000 advance and printed 5000. Grisham took either 1000 or 2000 and sold them himself down south at bookstores and local book parties.


----------



## glennlangohr (Nov 15, 2011)

Thanks for clearing up that nonsense about not self publishing with clarity. Let me add my take. My sobriety sponsor and writing mentor is the great Phillip Doran, the ex-producer of many TV shows and author of "A Reluctant Tuscan". He told me publishing houses shoot their wad early and then it is up to the author to promote to keep it going. He is a prolific writer and sold nearly 100,000 print books but he said, "As soon as I stopped marketing, sales died down." It's the same thing with us, but we keep the 70%.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

MichaelWallace said:


> Right, and if I'd followed that advice, my books would still be sitting on my hard drive, unread. I feel a flush of anger at how casually, but definitively she tosses that out there.


I know. I would only have one book and it would be in a file on my dead computer. I probably wouldn't have bothered to save it after more than 100 rejections I received from agents. Then the computer died. I wouldn't have written my other two books at all because it was reader request that spurred me to write them.

Just think, Michael, your books are doing better in the Kindle rankings than hers. (or were last time I looked)  That has to give you just a little satisfaction in light of her comment.


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

@jljarvis

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahah

My son just ran screaming from the office.

Epic


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Lexi Revellian said:


> Jodi Picoult is a grown woman who claims she cannot sleep without teddy bears!
> 
> Lexi


Really? I don't trust a writer who isn't quirky -- this is no problem, since people are quirky by nature. I'm guessing you have your own version of teddy bears on the bed. I know that I do.

Do I think she is wrong in her advice? Sure. Do I think it's a hanging offense? No. I think she was giving the best advice she could. A lot of traditional writers think self-pub is door-closing and career-ruining, which seems to be her point, as opposed to what people are extrapolating.

Perhaps there is a way to educate her, or allow time to educate her, and we don't have to resort to insulting people who are friends of the Paddingtons and Poohs.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

jljarvis said:


> Now that's interesting, considering how John Grisham self-published his first book and sold it out of the trunk of his car. I stand corrected. Evidently, that's a myth. So, I guess none of it is interesting, after all.


What's interesting jljarvis is that he did sell them anywhere he could. I think most people in his small town bought a copy and so did some bookstores in the area. Handselling 1000 books out of your car takes a very long time and Wynwood wasn't selling many. The book was a dud. But if you have a mint signed copy they sell for $4K.

He finished his second book, The Firm and somehow someone in Hollywood had a copy and was trying to sell the film rights. Grisham thinks someone from his agents office or a publisher surreptiously photocopied his MS and sent it to a friend in LA who posed as Grisham's agent. Anyway interest was high and big offers started coming in and that's when the poser called Grisham's agent who took over negotiations and the rest is history. It was the movie that made Grisham.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Do I think she is wrong in her advice? Sure. Do I think it's a hanging offense? No. I think she was giving the best advice she could. A lot of traditional writers think self-pub is door-closing and career-ruining, which seems to be her point, as opposed to what people are extrapolating.


I think many equate it to vanity publishing and are just not up to date.


----------



## Lexi Revellian (May 31, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> I'm guessing you have your own version of teddy bears on the bed. I know that I do.


Nope. Just a duvet, pillows, blanket, etc..

Lexi


----------



## RubyRoyce (Feb 25, 2012)

"Learn to write on demand"
I've done that for a living. Nothing worse. 
Self-publishing allows me to exactly NOT do that but write when I want, how long I want, with the weird phrases I want to use etc. etc.

I remember I once cooked an amazing pasta sauce (I grew up in italy) and a friend of mine poured in the left overs from the chinese take away while I was not looking.
That's what "writing on demand" feels like, Ms. Picoult


----------



## JoyCox (Mar 21, 2012)

What kills me is this is her advice: "DO NOT SELF PUBLISH"

But this is her example of what worked for her: "I had over 100 rejection letters from agents. Finally, one woman who had never represented anyone in her life said she thought she could take me on. I jumped at the chance. She sold my first novel in three months."


Right. Instead of self publishing, it's better to accumulate 100 rejection letters, then sign with an "agent" in name only who has never represented anyone before, then cross your fingers and wait three months, then get your novel signed with a traditional publisher who will pay you a fraction of the royalty percentage you could earn self publishing.

Somehow I'm just not convinced!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Lexi Revellian said:


> Nope. Just a duvet, pillows, blanket, etc..
> 
> Lexi


So, no weird habits, superstitions, love of boy bands -- nothing people would judge as odd or silly? Want some of mine?


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

RubyRoyce said:


> "Learn to write on demand"
> I've done that for a living. Nothing worse.
> Self-publishing allows me to exactly NOT do that but write when I want, how long I want, with the weird phrases I want to use etc. etc.
> 
> ...


^ that.

I wrote movie spoofs and funny top 10 lists for a humor mag. Some of the crappiest stuff I've ever written, in comparison to what I write now on my own. 
But I suppose people like jodi whatsername will hail it as gold because I "wrote on demand" at an editor's suggestion, and received a "stamp of approval." 

I came across those articles recently while I was packing to move. I considered posting them on my blog for Sh#ts and giggles, but then thought against it...


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

jackz4000 said:


> I think many equate it to vanity publishing and are just not up to date.


I think people tend to have outdated notions of all sorts of things. There are the topics and interests you follow closely, stuff you wish you had time to follow more, stuff tangentially related to your hobbies and/or job, and so on...

The more circles away, the more misinformation. The more likely the person is dealing with an old understanding or trusting the opinions of others. Jodi Picoult is wildly successful, and the people she mingles with at authorly events are wildly successful, and they believe that their way is the way, and they reinforce this belief in one another.

It really was only a few years ago that pretty much everyone was that Print on Demand was utterly without prestige or merit. I think people need time to catch up with what self-pub is now. I think indies also need to step up their game so as to not reinforce the negative stereotype, but this is another topic.


----------



## D. Nathan Hilliard (Jun 5, 2010)

Mike Dennis said:


> Provided that particular publisher still HAS a marketing and PR machine, provided they don't tell you, "The author has to do it now. We don't have the money for it anymore. We're spending all our marketing and PR money on the likes of James Patterson."


Exactly. Do any but the absolute biggest of publishers even DO marketing anymore?


----------



## summerdaniels71 (Jul 23, 2011)

D. Nathan Hilliard said:


> Exactly. Do any but the absolute biggest of publishers even DO marketing anymore?


Sure. If your name is King, Patterson, or Picoult (apparently).

This certainly is my most commented upon thread to date. I wonder why?


----------



## ashleygirardi (Apr 3, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Perhaps there is a way to educate her, or allow time to educate her, and we don't have to resort to insulting people who are friends of the Paddingtons and Poohs.


This. The only Jodi Picoult book that I've ever read is My Sister's Keeper, but I know her to be an excellent writer. She published her first book in the early nineties, things have changed a lot since then for new writers and she's had no reason to keep up. The legacy model worked REALLY well for her and I have no doubt that her statement comes from a heartfelt place. She obviously thinks this is good advice.

It's understandable to feel defensive -- self-publishing is pretty much constantly under attack -- but deciding to never read her books and deriding JP as a person is just silly.

*Although, I will note the hypocrisy of lamenting how self-pubbers don't want to put in the hard work like she did while simultaneously giving her teenage daughter a nepotistic career boost by "co-authoring" a book. We all say dumb things sometimes.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I think indies also need to step up their game so as to not reinforce the negative stereotype, but this is another topic.


Independents will do nothing collectively. It's an individual effort. Those who want to highlight how much crap is published by indpendents will have lots of material. Successful independents will ignore both crap and highlighting.


----------



## Matt Larkin (Sep 27, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Independents will do nothing collectively. It's an individual effort. Those who want to highlight how much crap is published by indpendents will have lots of material. Successful independents will ignore both crap and highlighting.


Yes. I support indies sticking together and all, but it's unfair to represent them as some kind of collective. One indie is not responsible for what another does, and any sort of expectation that indies as a whole must do something is even more ridiculous than asking traditional published authors as a whole to do something together. Not everyone is going to play ball, and you can't hold the whole group responsible for those that won't.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Matt Larkin said:


> Yes. I support indies sticking together and all, but it's unfair to represent them as some kind of collective. One indie is not responsible for what another does, and any sort of expectation that indies as a whole must do something is even more ridiculous than asking traditional published authors as a whole to do something together. Not everyone is going to play ball, and you can't hold the whole group responsible for those that won't.


But isn't that exactly what some of you guys do? Like in this thread? Bashing down on the evil empire that is traditional publishing as a whole? Why can't those authors all be their own special snowflake too.

There is a lot of pettiness in this thread. I guess I had assumed writers to be able to make their opinions known without name calling a successful author. Guess not. The claws are coming out


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

Atunah said:


> But isn't that exactly what some of you guys do? Like in this thread? Bashing down on the evil empire that is traditional publishing as a whole? Why can't those authors all be their own special snowflake too.
> 
> There is a lot of pettiness in this thread. I guess I had assumed writers to be able to make their opinions known without name calling a successful author. Guess not. The claws are coming out


Sock puppet!

(I am so kidding. I just couldn't resist, is all  )


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

MegSilver said:


> Sock puppet!
> 
> (I am so kidding. I just couldn't resist, is all  )


I'd be one heck of a long living sock puppet, years in the making.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Maybe I'm alone in this but I don't take what she has to say in bad faith. Jodi Picoult is a particular type of writer: hyper-successful. And furthermore she's been that way all her life what with the Princeton undergrad/Harvard grad degrees. Her definition of success might be different from most writers and I think she was giving advice on how best to achieve *her level of success*.

The answer (for now) is to take a traditional deal, even if you start as a self-publisher. The perks offered to top-tier writers are still not available to indies. Stories published about Amanda Hocking in the "mainstream" publishing press paint her as an indie who did the right thing (worked collaboratively with a traditional publisher) and is now reaping the benefits, as opposed to John Locke who did the wrong thing (held on to his rights and refused editing/worked with his own publicist) and is now reaping what he sowed. [e.g. http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/51327-moving-beyond-self-publishing.html] I'll bet those are the stories Jodi reads as opposed to threads on KindleBoards where people report paying their mortgages with their earnings.

I think the fallout over this story might be a disagreement in what success means. I could imagine a high school Jodi being asked what students should do be become a success in life and giving a response like "Get good grades, build up your extracurriculars, and above all DO NOT GO TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE". Of course the blow-back from people who are improving/improved their lives from going to community college might be similar to the blow back she now faces from self-publishers.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

I think the focus of this thread is more on J.P. than trad publishing as a whole. No one dragged King, Sparks, Meyer, etc. into this thread and lumped them together. Sadly, as indie, you get lumped with the main offender even if you have no idea who they are. If an indie has a hissy fit over a review on a site, immediately all others are lumped with that person. But keeping on topic, no one knows what is the best route for getting readers whether trad or self. Just write a great story and connect with readers. You can choose whichever route you want or both.


----------



## LeonardDHilleyII (May 23, 2011)

summerdaniels71 said:


> Did she self publish book 2? No - she signed with a publisher."
> JP [/i]
> 
> Ugh. Yes - sure - the marketing and PR machine is behind you for 6 weeks - as someone else pointed out. IF you are lucky enough to fight your way past the huge backlog of manuscripts in the first place.
> ...


Her facts are wrong. Hocking had several novels (9, I believe) self-pubbed before she finally signed with St. Martin's Press.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

There's a place for everyone in publishing.  Frankly, even though I think she's speaking of something she has no experience in, the sad truth is 99.9% of self-published books will sink.  Much like 99.9% of queries in an agent in-box sink.  At least with self-publishing the author has a shot at getting to readers.

I might take another trad publishing deal, but only if it were at least a "significant" deal in Publishers Lunch parlance, because my experience was anything less means zero support in house to the title.  Even then, when I've had significant deals, the fates are fickle.  It's to the point where I think one needs a "major" deal, which is over 500k, to really get a publisher behind you.

I'm enjoying making a "very nice" deal every month on my own.  But I am also signing a deal with Amazon this week for some titles because to me the key is discoverability and that's what Amazon offers.  I like their approach and their attitude.  It's a refreshing change from my 20 years with NY.


----------



## Sarah Woodbury (Jan 30, 2011)

Congrats, Bob!


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

Victorine said:


> I left a comment.
> 
> Aspiring authors should know what is possible with self publishing, just like we all know what's possible with traditional publishing. No, not everyone succeeds, but not every traditionally published author sells enough to make the NYT's list either.


Excellent response. It's easy for her to say "Don't self publish" because she made it already, but she is one in a zillion and if that single woman hadn't taken a chance on her, she would be self publishing with us. Self publishers can become a success, can have movies made out of their books, there's nothing wrong with self publishing and the glories once you make it are bigger, because you did it all on your own. I'm glad for her success and she sounds like a good writer (I can't really judge because I didn't read any of her books) but that little line "Don't self publish" got on my nerves.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I get a feeling that Jodi and her ilk consider themselves the "legitimate authors" and that anyone self-publishing to be inferior "illegitimate authors."  But as soon as a publisher welcomes you into their bosom the author is legitimatized. 

I don't think she has any nastiness or snark involved, no malice--to her way of thinking, which is based upon her life experience anyone not being published by a big publisher is just not ready. They need to wait and hone and polish their craft. The publisher knows best? The alternative is vanity press.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Independents will do nothing collectively. It's an individual effort.


When I say that indies need to step up their game, I didn't mean as one unit.  I meant that individuals need to do their personal best, and not embrace and call "hermano" people who just happen to be self-publishing too, but who are putting out junk.

You're right that indie writers are individuals, but they don't always act that way when the target is, oh, Jodi Picoult, or reviewers, or anything they deem to be a threat. Then it's circle the wagons and pass the ammo.

Picoult is not the enemy, and she is not from a different world -- like it or not, if a writer is doing his or her best to put out a truly well-done book, Picoult is more their colleague than any number of others writers they might be more likely to side with simply because of the method of publication.

Is there a way to civilly disagree anymore? A steady stream of authors respectfully educating her on their successes and why they chose self-publishing is the best response. Writers should be able to persuade.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Atunah said:


> I'd be one heck of a long living sock puppet, years in the making.


Why does this make me want to see your long form birth certificate?


----------



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

Atunah said:


> There is a lot of pettiness in this thread. I guess I had assumed writers to be able to make their opinions known without name calling a successful author. Guess not. The claws are coming out


The indie movement still has too many authors suffering from special snowflake syndrome.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

MichelleR said:


> Why does this make me want to see your long form birth certificate?


As I am one of those pesky foreigner sock puppets, mine is even way longer than the measly long form in the US. 

But you can't see it, nope . And I am not telling you about the unmentionables on my bed either


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Is there a way to civilly disagree anymore?


Civil discourse depends on mutual respect between the parties. When someone throws out a blanket statement in all caps that dismisses the life's work of a large and diverse group of writers, it's pretty hard for me to see much mutual respect coming from her.

I agree that it's not the most constructive thing to rally around and take shots at her, but it's also a pretty natural reaction.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Adam Pepper said:


> Civil discourse depends on mutual respect between the parties. When someone throws out a blanket statement in all caps that dismisses the life's work of a large and diverse group of writers, it's pretty hard for me to see much mutual respect coming from her.
> 
> I agree that it's not the most constructive thing to rally around and take shots at her, but it's also a pretty natural reaction.


People keep reading this as her saying that self-pubbed authors should be shot at dawn in the town square. The question was about advice to aspiring authors, and she gave what she felt to be good advice -- and so she was, in her mind, respectfully speaking to writers.

There is a difference between saying you think something is a bad career move and saying that choosing that path proves you're without talent. The question implies that the theoretical author she is advising has a chance (talent) to make a career of writing. Even while thinking her advice is wrong, where is there room to be as offended as people seem to be?

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If there are more and more writers becoming successful all the time, that's the pudding.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Atunah said:


> I'd be one heck of a long living sock puppet, years in the making.


A sleeper sock puppet!


----------



## Brenda Sorrels (Mar 13, 2012)

That interview is certainly not going to win her any new fans.  The truth is...regardless of what she says, Indie Publishing is here to stay and it has opened the doors to many, many writers who otherwise would never have the chance to get their work out there.  Even if you have a publishing co. behind you  - you still must do the work to promote your book.  She sounds threatened to me!  HA!


----------



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

Brenda Sorrels said:


> That interview is certainly not going to win her any new fans.


I don't see JP in need of new fans. And, really, why does she care if a bunch of self-published authors don't like her? She doesn't make money off them. She makes money off the hordes of people who look for her name and pick it up off the rack. That's who she makes money off.


----------



## 54706 (Dec 19, 2011)

10 or 20 years from now, she'll be dusting off old manuscripts and joining the fray.  Mark my words.


----------



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

ellecasey said:


> 10 or 20 years from now, she'll be dusting off old manuscripts and joining the fray. Mark my words.


You're making the same false assumption JP is being accused of: that publishing is not changing. You honestly thing publishing will look the same way in 10 or 20 years? Come on. It's never looked like that. It keeps changing.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Krista D. Ball said:


> I don't see JP in need of new fans. And, really, why does she care if a bunch of self-published authors don't like her? She doesn't make money off them. She makes money off the hordes of people who look for her name and pick it up off the rack. That's who she makes money off.


Right. The whole idea that she fears indies is ... interesting. I think the comment proves, not that she believes she needs to shut down what she knows to be a great threat, but that she doesn't consider any of the people here any threat at all. That might be ignorant, or cocky, but it isn't jealousy.

We also have the typical response whenever people want to disparage someone in the public eye of "never heard of her." Now, don't get me wrong, I believe we all have gaps in our knowledge, and in surprising areas. Really brilliant people just happen to not know certain weird and random things that your average person might call common knowledge. It happens to us all. That said, and allowing for these knowledge gaps, Jodi Picoult is one of your top names. Not knowing her doesn't really mean the same thing as her not being incredibly well-known, and could indicate a lack of attention to publishing, and my first reaction if I were in front of someone who said that would be to non-conspicuously discover if they're a "reader."

And before anyone misunderstands, I'm in no way saying this author is a must-read, just that her books are everywhere, and at least one was made into a movie, and without even trying I hear her name multiple times a month. I believe smart, aware people might have, through fickle fate, not have heard of her, but it boggles my mind a little all the same.


----------



## Victoria J (Jul 5, 2011)

ellecasey said:


> 10 or 20 years from now, she'll be dusting off old manuscripts and joining the fray. Mark my words.


I suspect you're right.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> I don't see JP in need of new fans. And, really, why does she care if a bunch of self-published authors don't like her?


I don't know. Why? The idea she expresses is subject to comment, criticism, challenge, and great thoughts. It was expressed publicly, and has to stand on its own merits. It's the same with any idea, regardless of fan involvement. It happens with all kinds of issues. Books and authors aren't special, nor is the packaging and delivery of the idea.

She is probably as concerned with me as I am with her. That's good. But we both appear to be concerned with the idea that aspiring writers should not self-publish. She supports it. I oppose it. That's fair game.



> I believe smart, aware people might have, through fickle fate, not have heard of her, but it boggles my mind a little all the same.


I'm quite happy to confess to a low IQ and unawareness if the test is awareness if the author. It has nothing to do with fickle fate. I'm content to shoulder the full burden.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Writing in all-caps is bad manners. A writer should have other means to make a point. She hasn't. She has no point either.


----------



## KateMadison (Jun 21, 2011)

What's strange is that the two books she mentioned in the article are pretty progressive and persuasively show the point of view of those being victimized or otherwise denied freedoms or respect.  I guess her world view does not extend to publishing.  

But then again, those most FOR traditional publishing (and therefore usually most against self publishing) are those that have benefited the most from it, i.e. the most successful authors of the last 10-20 years.  When you spent years slogging up a mountain to its peak, you might get pretty pissed at seeing the new guys zip up comfortably in a helicopter.  

Thanks for posting the article.


----------



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

KateMadison said:


> When you spent years slogging up a mountain to its peak, you might get pretty p*ssed at seeing the new guys zip up comfortably in a helicopter.


I'm confused who is doing the slogging in your statement. I've found both modes of publishing rather pain free in the grand scheme of things. Definitely easier than job hunting when fresh out of university with a BA and no desire to wear a short skirt.


----------



## Shelley Altamont (Apr 3, 2012)

Many of you are "old hands" at this spectacularly new world of self-publishing, so perhaps you forget that 99% of the population hasn't necessarily caught on just yet! Paradigms that seem obvious and second-nature to you are radical and alien to most other people.

Throughout most of the 20th century, and even through most of the first decade of this one, self-publishing was guaranteed to mark you as an amateur, a shameless self-promoter, and a no-talent, someone whose work wasn't "good enough" for the publishers. There were very few exceptions to this perception. The New York publishing industry, through the magic of modern mass marketing and its exclusive distribution arrangements, prevailed heavily in all outlets and specifically excluded self-published authors from the channels that would have presented their work on an equal footing.

This is actually still the case. You basically can't get your POD into bricks & mortar outlets unless you're a local author. Your ebook will be available in search results at the online venues, but the "traditionally published" ebooks will get more prominent placement outside the "indie ghetto," and their prices are allowed to exceed 9.99!

Plus, while there is a significant market for indie books like ours, the vast majority of the book market is still getting its books from traditional publishers. For one thing, most readers are still reading paper books, and many who read ebooks are still buying only traditionally published ones. So if an author would wish to reach those readers -- if an author would hope for success beyond the Amazon and B&N indie ebook catalogs -- then that author would need to submit his or her work to traditional publishers! Even small press and university press would be a better option for such an author. (I know I'm still looking! And if I ever find one, and they want me to take down my ebooks in favor of a nationally distributed print edition, I'll gladly do it because that's my dream (unless by some magic these things actually making some money at that point!).)

And one shouldn't overlook that in the publishing culture Jodi Picoult rose up in, an author would not just be looked askance at for self-publishing, but he or she would be ostracized from pursuing further traditional publishing opportunities. The book you self-published would be "biblio non grata" to these people, and this would also reflect on other works you submitted. So it makes sense that she would give this advice. It's very good advice for applicants to the mainstream book publishing culture.

But she gives no context for it, anyway, just makes a flat, ALL-CAPS statement, so it's kind of hard to make any comment at all! (SHE'S OBVIOUSLY SO OUT OF THE LOOP THAT SHE'S UNAWARE OF THE INTERNET'S PREVALENT STIGMA AGAINST ALL THINGS ALL-CAPS!) Who knows how aware she even is of us plain folk down here in the trenches? The vast majority of us don't have a hope in hell of ever getting traditionally published, and we're not jeopardizing any particular future opportunities by getting our work out there and selling a few copies for satisfaction and beer money! And those few of us who actually do have some talent beyond the mediocre, why we'll sell so well that those traditional publishers will sit up and take notice! Some of us will gratefully be "gathered in," while some more entrepreneurial others will lift a gleeful middle finger and go riding off into an indie bestseller sunset! 

Just my 20 cents. . . .


----------



## shelbymhailstone (Jan 17, 2012)

> Ugh. Yes - sure - the marketing and PR machine is behind you for 6 weeks - as someone else pointed out.


This pretty much sums up how I feel about the publishing industry. And I'm studying to be an editor!

But I have to agree with a lot of what @Shelley Altamont said. There is a lot of prejudice and a lot of stigma associated with self-publishing, and that's not going to go away. If you have the gumption to self-publish, that's wonderful. But if you're not good at getting out the rally and if you aspire to be anything more than a small success, don't. (I'm not saying you can't be successful doing it, just that it's not as likely. And I'm not saying you shouldn't self-publish if you have the know-how to network and get it done, either. I'm just saying not everybody is as awesome as you are )


----------



## Lee Lopez (Jan 19, 2012)

What Jodi doesn't say is, 'why' she feels this way. She's been published for years, and if she was just starting out now, she'd find she'd probably be on the Kindle boards with us, chatting away about some famous author who says not to 'self-publish'. She mentioned what she wants on her Tombstone, "She finally took a Vacation." or something like that. If she was a indie, she could take a vacation, because she wouldn't have anyone telling her what to do, how to do it, or when. I'm going vacation next week, because I can.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> And before anyone misunderstands, I'm in no way saying this author is a must-read, just that her books are everywhere, and at least one was made into a movie, and without even trying I hear her name multiple times a month. I believe smart, aware people might have, through fickle fate, not have heard of her, but it boggles my mind a little all the same.


Enlighten me. Is she as well known in Europe as, oh, Marguerite Yourcenar and Stephen King are? Is she known in Brazil? Japan?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

How would I know how famous she is in Brazil? I'm saying she is, in general, a well-known and successful author and so it surprises me when people say they don't know of her, although I don't think you can extrapolate anything definitive from that alone. The only point to be made here is that the people who are under the impression that because they have not heard of her she must be wallowing in obscurity are mistaken. 

If when I said her books are everywhere, it read like I was saying I could vouch for them being in every corner of the globe, then the fault is mine for not being clearer. I'm merely saying that she's doing okay. 

If the only level of fame is Stephen King fame, he's going to be pretty lonely.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> If the only level of fame is Stephen King fame, he's going to be pretty lonely.


No, it isn't. It's just that I could name you about two dozen American authors who are household names outside the US (or at least in Europe). Picoult isn't one of them. 
In fact, a lot of American authors are only big names locally and not that well known in the rest of the world.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> How would I know how famous she is in Brazil?


That boggles my mind. Smarts, awareness, or fickle fate?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Lee Lopez said:


> What Jodi doesn't say is, 'why' she feels this way. She's been published for years, and if she was just starting out now, she'd find she'd probably be on the Kindle boards with us, chatting away about some famous author who says not to 'self-publish'. She mentioned what she wants on her Tombstone, "She finally took a Vacation." or something like that. If she was a indie, she could take a vacation, because she wouldn't have anyone telling her what to do, how to do it, or when. I'm going vacation next week, because I can.


Lee, This is her reason why:

"What do you say to people who want to emulate your success and want to be writers themselves?

My current advice is to not self-publish. It's still too hard for people to separate the wheat from the chaff, and what you miss out on is the marketability that is afforded to you by a brick and mortar publisher. There's a lot of crap out there, and one day we may find a way to segregate well written self published fiction from that stuff which anyone can throw on Amazon, but I just don't think we're there yet. Let me put it to you this way. The anomalies of self published fiction, the Amanda Hockings of this world - what did they do with their next book? Do they self publish it? No - they make sure they get a publisher."

Her info is a bit off, but what the hay? It's Ok, she's Jodi Picoult. Does one measure indie writers by the best examples or the worst? And actually she is a snark.

I don't see any indie authors smearing traditionally published author because one of their own ("3 Cups of Tea", Morterstern?) is a fraud and was just fined $1 Million for fraud.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Andrew Ashling said:


> No, it isn't. It's just that I could name you about two dozen American authors who are household names outside the US (or at least in Europe). Picoult isn't one of them.
> In fact, a lot of American authors are only big names locally and not that well known in the rest of the world.


I'm sure that's true. According to 2007 article in The Guardian, she was (is?) the bestseller female author in Britain, and her worldwide sales back them were 12M, but that doesn't mean she's known everywhere. The point remains that she is probably not out to get indies out of fear, and that she is a popular author.


----------



## AshMP (Dec 30, 2009)

jackz4000 said:


> Lee, This is her reason why:
> 
> "What do you say to people who want to emulate your success and want to be writers themselves?
> 
> ...


First of all, Picoult _clearly_ is insulated when it comes to the _realities_ of first time "no-name" authors that do happen to get picked up by a trade publisher. Her "marketability" statement sells her ignorance out, it tells on her.

Picoult, right now, is on a _massive_ tour for her novel LONE WOLF. I think, according to Twitter, she's in Europe. That is her _marketing_ blitz at the moment ... but name another new writer who gets that red carpet treatment? No way. New writers with their "brick and mortar publishers" linger on the shelves same as many self pub'd authors and _maybe_ they get a twitter blast and a few blogs and book signings (which happen to be outsourced to individuals _we indies_ can hire as well) ... but the truth of what it's like looks nothing like what Picoult is experiencing for herself. And she probably has no clue otherwise. When was the last time she was new author?

Second, her wheat from chaff remark irks the you-know-what out of me. I hardly trust publishers to guide my choices after Snookie became as best seller and Bethenney Frankle's naked silhouette graced the cover of her "fiction" novel. Please. Spare me the lecture of trade books being a direct guide to goodness or a trusted source. There is _trash_ published on both sides of the coin and readers need a sickle when going to book store OR shopping on Amazon. Welcome to 2012 Picoult .

And, by the way, I LOVE how she covers her derrière with that whole "my current" B.S. Currently she is sadly outdate and it shows.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> There's a lot of crap out there, and one day we may find a way to segregate well written self published fiction from that stuff which anyone can throw on Amazon, but I just don't think we're there yet.


Judging by the composition of the overall and genre bestseller lists, it's possible the same Amazon tools are being used to select both commercially published and self-published books. This does separate wheat from chaff, regardless of book pedigree.

Commercially published books have additional mechanisms if they have carry-over promotion from a print edition. They also might have more author recognition if they are commercial, but that presumes known authors can't produce chaff. But if a known author does produce chaff, it will join the independent chaff on those same virtual shelves forever.

So the tools are definitely available to separate Amazon's wheat and chaff. Amazon provides them. As commercial publishers begin to release more eBooks without a corresponding paper edition, we can expect those Amazon tools to take on even more separation tasks.


----------



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

Andrew Ashling said:


> No, it isn't. It's just that I could name you about two dozen American authors who are household names outside the US (or at least in Europe). Picoult isn't one of them.
> In fact, a lot of American authors are only big names locally and not that well known in the rest of the world.


Regardless, Michelle's general point stands. Picoult is a very big-name author in parts of the world, and I highly doubt she feels threatened by anything happening in the indie world.


----------



## sbaum4853 (May 3, 2010)

Edward W. Robertson said:


> Regardless, Michelle's general point stands. Picoult is a very big-name author in parts of the world, and I highly doubt she feels threatened by anything happening in the indie world.


Maybe. Maybe not. One indie author isn't going to take a lot of readers from Picoult.

But the sea change in publishing underway is a big threat to every established author. What Amazon is doing with eBooks and indie authors threatens the entire distribution network that earns Picoult her paycheck. That's why the authors guild is so freaked about the state of the publishing "ecosystem." It may well be that Picoult said DO NOT SELF PUBLISH because she believes it's good advice and that's the end of it. It may also be that she harbors resentment to the whole lot of us who are mucking up what's been a good thing for her.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

I try not to speculate on what's in the head of people I'll never know. I wish that she had stated more clearly what she was trying to warn writers about. I can think of lots of possible things: self-publishing is lots more work than you think; the likelihood of becoming rich and famous is less than you think; indie authors are scum; whatever. 

But I have no idea what is actually in her head. I prefer arguments to actually come in the form of an argument, with at least an attempt at logic and facts, rather than an all-caps shout that tells me nothing about what her point is. 

That said, I wish her well as I wish all writers well. We all have the deck stacked against us to some degree, and I think we should all celebrate each others success.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> The point remains that she is probably not out to get indies out of fear, and that she is a popular author.


I wasn't disagreeing with your general point. I agree with it. She is not reacting out of fear, but out of ignorance. Like everybody else who thinks e-publishing is the same as traditional publishing with a few tweaks. It isn't. It is a completely different animal. Trying to apply received wisdom out of traditional publishing onto e-publishing is like trying to hammer square pegs into round holes. It can be done, but should you?



> That said, and allowing for these knowledge gaps, Jodi Picoult is one of your top names. Not knowing her doesn't really mean the same thing as her not being incredibly well-known, and could indicate a lack of attention to publishing


I was only saying that this was one more of your blanket statements. Picoult is not one of "your" top names. She is well known in certain parts of the world, but not, as you claim, universally "_incredibly_ well-known." Rowling is. Picoult isn't. She is certainly not "_everywhere_." That's all just provincial snobbery. You exaggerate. Worldwide there are thousands like her. Nobody can know them all. Not knowing her doesn't tell you anything that could even remotely indicate a perceived lack of attention to publishing.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

The only people who matter are your readers (what they think) and potential readers being able to hear about or find you.


----------



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

sbaum4853 said:


> It may also be that she harbors resentment to the whole lot of us who are mucking up what's been a good thing for her.


Oh please. She's on a world tour. She's doing fine.


----------



## Saintchas (Apr 6, 2012)

I think the best thing about self publishing is simply getting your material out there: it's immediately available to everyone / anyone who is interested.  
I was just so excited to finally finish a book and actually get it into the public domain (instead of my ideas just sitting on my laptop or in the inbox of friends and family) I really couldn't have cared less if it was actually bought or not! 
The first review from a stranger was exciting too, if a little bit of a leveller (!) and the comments from kids / parents really helped to break me out of the cycle of submissions to 'real' publishers and the never ending waiting that comes with that.
Receiving a positive reaction from the target audience has got to be the most rewarding thing about writing, in any genre or format? 
Becoming part of the giant money making machine has (inevitably) made the authors at the top sceptical of the unknown.


----------



## Nana Malone (Dec 31, 2011)

So irritating, but not at all surprising.  So many trad published authors are running to indie publish their blacklists and new work.  I think today's smart author has a hybrid career.  The key to remember is there's no one way to do anything and anyone who tells you that is either arrogant or a moron...or both.  

But advice to newbies, and heavens know I'm no expert on anything as my two year old will tell you, but every author has to polish, polish, and spit polish some more, then when you think you're done, walk away for a bit, come back and scrub that gem clean again and get you some brutally honest feedback.  Then if you think SP is for you, go for it.  JP does not manage your career or bank account.  I went a more trad route with my first and want to shoot myself over the "cut" they've taken.  Especially since I did all the promo. *Sigh*

Only you are in charge of your life.  Kick arrogant fools in the nuts when you find them


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Atunah said:


> But isn't that exactly what some of you guys do? Like in this thread? Bashing down on the evil empire that is traditional publishing as a whole? Why can't those authors all be their own special snowflake too.
> 
> There is a lot of pettiness in this thread. I guess I had assumed writers to be able to make their opinions known without name calling a successful author. Guess not. The claws are coming out


Um. NO. I'm not bashing down the entirety of the commercial publishing empire...I'm just criticizing what ONE AUTHOR said, and pointing out that her comment came as off-hand ignorance.

I have respect for a lot of TP authors. She's just not one of them.

Yes, we get defensive here. But as I see it, we have taken insult after insult by the holier-than-thou types for decades now. On the subject of name calling, we've been called "lazy narcissists" and even "stupid" (I forget the sources at the moment, but it has been said).

If you kick a puppy long enough, it's going to grow up and be a mean, nasty dog. *shrugs*



Nana Malone said:


> So irritating, but not at all surprising. So many trad published authors are running to indie publish their blacklists and new work. I think today's smart author has a hybrid career. The key to remember is there's no one way to do anything and anyone who tells you that is either arrogant or a moron...or both.
> 
> But advice to newbies, and heavens know I'm no expert on anything as my two year old will tell you, but every author has to polish, polish, and spit polish some more, then when you think you're done, walk away for a bit, come back and scrub that gem clean again and get you some brutally honest feedback. Then if you think SP is for you, go for it. JP does not manage your career or bank account. I went a more trad route with my first and want to shoot myself over the "cut" they've taken. Especially since I did all the promo. *Sigh*
> 
> Only you are in charge of your life. Kick arrogant fools in the nuts when you find them


^^Well said, Nana!


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Right. The whole idea that she fears indies is ... interesting. I think the comment proves, not that she believes she needs to shut down what she knows to be a great threat, but that she doesn't consider any of the people here any threat at all. That might be ignorant, or cocky, but it isn't jealousy.
> 
> We also have the typical response whenever people want to disparage someone in the public eye of "never heard of her." Now, don't get me wrong, I believe we all have gaps in our knowledge, and in surprising areas. Really brilliant people just happen to not know certain weird and random things that your average person might call common knowledge. It happens to us all. That said, and allowing for these knowledge gaps, Jodi Picoult is one of your top names. Not knowing her doesn't really mean the same thing as her not being incredibly well-known, and could indicate a lack of attention to publishing, and my first reaction if I were in front of someone who said that would be to non-conspicuously discover if they're a "reader."
> 
> And before anyone misunderstands, I'm in no way saying this author is a must-read, just that her books are everywhere, and at least one was made into a movie, and without even trying I hear her name multiple times a month. I believe smart, aware people might have, through fickle fate, not have heard of her, but it boggles my mind a little all the same.


If she's not in the genre you read, there's a very good chance you never heard of her. Whenever I was at Borders (may it RIP) I rarely wandered past the scifi/fantasy shelf. And when I did, it was over toward the classics and Non-Fic I needed to read for my CJ courses. 

On a lighter note, 
There's probably someone who lives under a rock, and has not heard of Lady Gaga...

And, believe it or not there are also people who claim to have never watched Bewitched, or I Love Lucy. That boggles my mind even more. LOL!


----------



## Nana Malone (Dec 31, 2011)

xandy3 said:


> ^^Well said, Nana!


Thanks! It just boggles the mind how we all can scream at the other side about how "stupid/dumb/lazy/ignorant" the other side is. Meanwhile the smart cookies are self pubbing some stuff and submitting other stuff to Trad houses. Smiling all the way to the bank. Ahem, Miss Hocking. I don't think any of us can afford to retreat to our corners. Yes, trad publishing needs to make some radical changes to keep up with the times. But makes me crazy every time someone says epupping is a fad and thinks self publishing will go away. Wake up folks. The world is changing. The smart ones adapt. Think Madona (Pre sad superbowl halftime show)


----------



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

Nana Malone said:


> So irritating, but not at all surprising. So many trad published authors are running to indie publish their blacklists and new work. I think today's smart author has a hybrid career. *The key to remember is there's no one way to do anything and anyone who tells you that is either arrogant or a moron...or both.*
> 
> But advice to newbies, and heavens know I'm no expert on anything as my two year old will tell you, but every author has to polish, polish, and spit polish some more, then when you think you're done, walk away for a bit, come back and scrub that gem clean again and get you some brutally honest feedback. Then if you think SP is for you, go for it. JP does not manage your career or bank account. I went a more trad route with my first and want to shoot myself over the "cut" they've taken. Especially since I did all the promo. *Sigh*
> 
> Only you are in charge of your life. Kick arrogant fools in the nuts when you find them









I like how you took all of the valuable advice offered on KB over the past year and compressed it down into two paragraphs followed by a rather cogent argument for violence. I dub thee the amylo-(1,4→1,6)-transglycosylase of these boards. +1 Karma.

B.

P.S. I must admit that I had to use Wikipedia to find out who Jodi Picoult was, but no one gets to give me any lip unless they can tell me what Priscilla White or Norman Borlaug did.


----------



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

xandy3 said:


> Yes, we get defensive here. But as I see it, we have taken insult after insult by the holier-than-thou types for decades now. On the subject of name calling, we've been called "lazy narcissists" and even "stupid" (I forget the sources at the moment, but it has been said).


Yes, you are so persecuted.


----------



## christinefairchild (Apr 6, 2012)

Her latest on Huffington Post is basically the same quote your friend got from her email: (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/04/jodi-picoult-lone-wolf-interview_n_14\
03190.html):

"Q: What do you say to people who want to emulate your success and want to be
writers themselves?

A: My current advice is to not self-publish. It's still too hard for people to
separate the wheat from the chaff, and what you miss out on is the marketability
that is afforded to you by a brick and mortar publisher. There's a lot of crap
out there, and one day we may find a way to segregate well written self
published fiction from that stuff which anyone can throw on Amazon, but I just
don't think we're there yet. Let me put it to you this way. The anomalies of
self published fiction, the Amanda Hockings of this world - what did they do
with their next book? Do they self publish it? No - they make sure they get a
publisher."

By the way, Amanda Hocking is still self-publishing and she is no longer an anomoly. And publishers went to her, not vice versa. And only a handful of trad published authors get marketing support. And most only get this support for a couple months. And there is plenty of crap printed by NY as well as gems published independently.

So....Ms. Picoult's comments seem at best out of touch with the realities of most authors, published or not. In my opinion, she is simply speaking from the biases of old. Like she's speaking from her high tower, looking down on starving authors and saying "let them WAIT to eat cake."

Best of luck to all of you who dare to venture the indie-publishing highway!

Regards,
Christine M. Fairchild
http://EditorDevil.blogspot.com
The Editor Devil's Guide to DIALOGUE (http://amzn.com/B007K1PZZC)
The Editor Devil's Guide to CHARACTERS (http://amzn.com/B007PTQKXA)


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Italiahaircolor said:


> Picoult, right now, is on a _massive_ tour for her novel LONE WOLF. I think, according to Twitter, she's in Europe. That is her _marketing_ blitz at the moment ... *but name another new writer who gets that red carpet treatment? * No way. New writers with their "brick and mortar publishers" linger on the shelves same as many self pub'd authors and _maybe_ they get a twitter blast and a few blogs and book signings (which happen to be outsourced to individuals _we indies_ can hire as well) ... but the truth of what it's like looks nothing like what Picoult is experiencing for herself. And she probably has no clue otherwise. When was the last time she was new author?


Kathryn Stockett
Ramsom Riggs
Veronica Roth

These are the debut authors I've read recently and I've seen them and their books all over the place.

Regardless of what anyone here says there's a surefire way to get your publisher behind you as a new writer: WRITE A BOOK THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE LOVE! Jodi Picoult is on a massive tour because she writes books that people love. Not because her publishers like her smile, or because she published 10 years ago, or because she thinks self-publishing is a bad idea. Write a book that people love next week, next year, or 5 years from now and publishers will be falling over themselves to highlight you.

I mean let's not forget that housewife who wrote a book about sparkly vampires in three months and created a craze that is still going on (saw the trailer for the final movie when I went to see the Hunger Games), or the single mother who scribbled a story of a boy wizard in between her daughter's naps and is now the wealthiest author in the world.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I was only saying that this was one more of your blanket statements.


Shouldn't blanket statements be blanket-er? You're objecting to a comment in which I said that not knowing her could mean nothing at all, or it could be a lack of knowledge of the players in traditional publishing. How is that a blanket statement?



Andrew Ashling said:


> Picoult is not one of "your" top names. She is well known in certain parts of the world, but not, as you claim, universally "_incredibly_ well-known."


Good luck in finding where I called her universally well-known. When you interpreted it that way the first time, I clarified and apologized for being unclear. She is incredibly well-known in the places the majority of KB members reside. Is that fair?



Andrew Ashling said:


> Rowling is. Picoult isn't.


Here we go again. No, she is not as famous as Rowling. As far as I know, the only person more famous than Harry Potter's creator was arguably The Creator. As mentioned when you pointed out that she was not as famous as Stephen King, this is an absurd yardstick.



Andrew Ashling said:


> She is certainly not "_everywhere_."


I'm pretty sure I conceded that multiple times. 



Andrew Ashling said:


> That's all just provincial snobbery. You exaggerate.


Only if you refuse to acknowledge the several clarifications and the actual point that she is very successful and well-known among people who live in the handful of countries where the majority of members reside. And still, that some people in this places don't know her, doesn't mean she's toiling in obscurity and losing sleep over indies. I think you acknowledged that, and so why are you acting so hostile?



Andrew Ashling said:


> Worldwide there are thousands like her. Nobody can know them all.


Of course not. I went out of my way in original post in this branching out of the topic series to say that no one knows everything or everyone.



Andrew Ashling said:


> Not knowing her doesn't tell you anything that could even remotely indicate a perceived lack of attention to publishing.


It's not the only explanation, no. Never claimed it to be.


----------



## Nana Malone (Dec 31, 2011)

B. Justin Shier said:


> I dub thee the amylo-(1,4→1,6)-transglycosylase of these boards. +1 Karma.


+1 Karma. HAHAHAHAHH. Oh God, I don't even know what that means, but I love it. I wonder if I can add to my signature! Thanks B. My husband often enjoys my calls for violence


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Nana Malone said:


> Meanwhile the smart cookies are self pubbing some stuff and submitting other stuff to Trad houses. Smiling all the way to the bank. Ahem, Miss Hocking. I don't think any of us can afford to retreat to our corners. Yes, trad publishing needs to make some radical changes to keep up with the times. But makes me crazy every time someone says epupping is a fad and thinks self publishing will go away. Wake up folks. The world is changing. The smart ones adapt. Think Madona (Pre sad superbowl halftime show)


Exactly!

Self-publishing is a choice, not some literary wasteland we've all been banned to...
It's a business decision. Like, opening up your own restaurant as opposed to buying into a franchise.

I think it's up to _the individual writer_ which path they chose. And, they should study and investigate before they just jump ahead into either camp.

I fully intend to do both, eventually. I haven't submitted anything to a TP in a long, long time but I hope to submit my next series to a TP, once it's _finally finished._ However, I confess that the concept kind of scares me. I also hope to build my readership by then...to help my cause. heehee!

Who knows what the publishing future holds. None of us do.... (Heck, I don't even know what the future holds for my day job.)

But, presently I enjoy what I do. It's a good source of secondary income for me right now. Plus, I like reaching readers, and thrilled whenever I get emails from readers saying they enjoyed my book(s).


----------



## Matthew Lee Adams (Feb 19, 2012)

Italiahaircolor said:


> First of all, Picoult _clearly_ is insulated when it comes to the _realities_ of first time "no-name" authors that do happen to get picked up by a trade publisher. Her "marketability" statement sells her ignorance out, it tells on her.
> 
> Picoult, right now, is on a _massive_ tour for her novel LONE WOLF. I think, according to Twitter, she's in Europe. That is her _marketing_ blitz at the moment ... but name another new writer who gets that red carpet treatment? No way. New writers with their "brick and mortar publishers" linger on the shelves same as many self pub'd authors and _maybe_ they get a twitter blast and a few blogs and book signings (which happen to be outsourced to individuals _we indies_ can hire as well) ... but the truth of what it's like looks nothing like what Picoult is experiencing for herself. And she probably has no clue otherwise. When was the last time she was new author?





LilyT said:


> Kathryn Stockett
> Ramsom Riggs
> Veronica Roth
> 
> ...


Riggs isn't a debut author (Sherlock Holmes Handbook came out a couple years before the current bestseller).

But you're correct that a _very few_ debut authors get massive promotion and publicity behind them. However, *Italiahaircolor* is also correct that the overwhelming flood of new authors do not get that kind of treatment and basically are left to languish (same goes for existing authors whose works the publishers don't feel warrants the investment in promotion).

It makes little sense to blithely recommend that people simply "WRITE A BOOK THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE LOVE!"

Stephenie Meyer - who you obliquely mentioned - hoped to just get her little story published. She didn't set out to write a phenomenon. Neither did Rowling with "Harry Potter" nor King with "Carrie." If anyone doubts that, please feel free to read King's *On Writing* where he talks about how bowled over he was to hear that Carrie had attracted publisher attention far beyond his wildest imaginings (and King has quite an imagination).

Authors are not the best judges of "WRITE A BOOK THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE LOVE!" - especially when it comes to their own work.

And frankly, even publishers aren't the best judges of "WRITE A BOOK THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE LOVE!" There are plenty of examples of organic success stories that were not publisher-generated even if the publisher recognized and quickly took advantage of momentum. The first "Harry Potter" book was a pretty modest small printing. It got more popular, though. "Eragon" began as a self-publishing venture and gained a following.

Still, when a publisher decides that a certain book has some really good marketing potential due to a particular appeal they think will let it be "the one" (or "one of the few") to take off in a year or so, and they put their money where their mouth is by paying a high advance, their next step is to *make sure* that book is successful so they get back their money and make a profit.

Although there are also times they pay out a large advance and then simply decide to drop the ball - often due to editorial shuffling or decisions to shift priorities after an advance was already paid out. This tends to really screw over authors who received the high advances and subsequently receive the more typical, "well, uh, publicity and promotion is up to you, author!"


----------



## jeffyo (Feb 21, 2012)

Indie writing makes it real for a writer who has to put herself out there without the backing and psychological reinforcement that she's been _approved_ by an agent, editor, and publisher. This requires faith in yourself and confidence in your writing _or_ it is a symptom of extreme delusion, or a combination of both. I listened to a piece last night about why everybody was buying those lotto tickets when the odds if winning are 1 in 175,711,536 or put another way: If you buy 50 tickets a week, you will win the jackpot every 68,000 years. What makes people think they can win is their imagination. That same creative vision that leads to works of fiction also cast a mental illusion that your writing will be read and appreciated if you only put it out there. I've begun to think that the chances of running into a reader on this site as opposed to writers trying to promote their books are about the same as winning the lotto.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Ok so Riggs isn't a debut author, but he is a debut novelist. Let's strike him anyway. Maybe replace him with Khaled Hosseini, or Beth Revis, or Audrey Niffenegger, or Paolo Bacigalupi, or Jonathan Safran Foer, or *gasp* Stieg Larsson (had the double whammy of being dead and needing translation) and so on. These are just the people on my bookshelf btw. 

Other than that I don't think we disagree really. I never claimed that authors will know in advance that many people will love their book, but simply books that many people love will get publishing support. I'm a pretty avid reader, but if I settled for books written by authors I've read whose new releases are pushed by their publishing companies I'd be set for years. And yet I don't. I ignore lots and lots of well-marketed bestsellers, so the idea that only a few people get publisher support strikes me as false. I suppose if you consider well-marketed writers as a percentage of all possible writers then yes only a very small percentage get support. But to my mind that's a very odd way of looking at things. 

Putting a book with narrow appeal in front of every single person you possibly can doesn't suddenly make that book widely appealing. So it's odd to me that writers seem to persist in thinking that publishers hold books back when they don't plaster ads for them everywhere. Books with wide appeal out themselves. Readers chose which books they are going to rave to their grandma/neighbor/co-worker about. Publishers merely fan the flames.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

Longtime lurker but did want to say...

Why is everyone taking one line (that yes, was in all caps) so very seriously? Jodi Piccoult is a huge author. Not as big as Stephen King but in the same tier as Jennifer Weiner. She was first published years and years ago. She has been one of the fortunate ones who has had a great ride with legacy publishing. She has sold MILLIONS of books. I would guess she could stop writing right now and still be set financially for life. Why would she be scared or threatened by ANYONE? She wouldn't. She's most likely not. 

Her comment to me (while yes, a bit off putting since it was abrupt) was an honest answer. Of course she doesn't think people should self-publish. That's not how she took her journey and she can only relate to the road she was on. Whether she's right or wrong, what do y'all care? It doesn't change anything. Things are as they are still. She will continue doing her thing and you all will continue to write and publish and either sink or swim. 

Something I have learned is that it's always best to keep your eyes on your own paper. And to assume people aren't always trying to belittle or hate on you when they say something you don't agree with. Keep writing. Shrug it off.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

ACNewt said:


> Longtime lurker but did want to say...
> 
> Why is everyone taking one line (that yes, was in all caps) so very seriously?


We enjoy getting outraged! We like being the underdog, always getting kicked. Rarrr-arrr-arrf!

It's like we thrive on the insults or something.

Plus, it's a slow news day with not very many 1-star review threads.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I think everyone is making too big of a deal about what Jodi said--who cares really? Much 'ado about nothing. What do you expect or want her to say? She's been with the publisher model for over 20 years and it's been good for her and she thinks everyone should take the road she took 20 some years ago. Maybe we should drive the car she drove back then too or wear the clothes.

Most big authors who have been traditionally published will probably say the same as Jodi or worse (like Turow) because they are limited by the information they have. In fact I have seen few major authors who have encouraged it. Most are just behind the times and brick & mortar will NEVER be as big as it was, but they just don't want to accept or see that. They are living in the past and we should be kind to anyone so afflicted.

Would Agatha Christie recommend self publishing? Probably not.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Rogerelwell said:


> 1) the 'exceptional' qualifier goes out of the window when the 'author' is a 'celebrity'; they can put out anything and the publisher takes it because they can sell '_on the name_'. What has happened in the tradpub market is that they have (probably rightly for their shareholders) become so focused on the bottom line that they are missing lots of good, readable and entertaining stuff, in favour of 'celebrity' volume shifting. If that's what they want, then fair enough. Don't knock the rest of us, though.
> 
> 2) the fact that so many of us selfpubs are finding plenty of buyers for our books means that the work doesn't need to be 'exceptional'. The best it can be is obviously what we all aim for, but my primary goal is to entertain. I think a huge proportion of the reading public want to be entertained....


Not to become the proverbial devil's advocate, but...

1) Using the celebrity example is a bit of a paper tiger argument. Of course celebrities can get away with stuff on name alone. Because they have a brand already, for whatever reason. Whether it's a politician (Sarah Palin, Barak Obama) or a movie/music star (Britney Spears, Bruce Campbell) or even if they're no one of great importance who's just famous for being famous (Snooki, Paris Hilton, anyone with the last name Kardashian), yeah, folks like that can hire uncredited ghost writers, write barely-passable stuff, and it'll sell on their name alone.

Of course... if it is crap, such "celebrity" books have a high rate of returns and if they don't earn out their hefty advances, they may be more of a "one-time" celebrity author.

But unless you're a celebrity, you're not playing in that field.

The field the rest of us play in is "unknown author who's not a household name yet." And in that circumstance, yes... what the trad-pubs say is true... good isn't good enough... exceptional is the goal, because without name recognition, there are too many other hurdles for them to overcome. You're either exceptional in some way, or not worth their time.

Which is why some of us find it so hard to break through, the OLD way.... 

2) Define "so many of us" and "plenty of buyers."

See, if we're just looking at top-selling indies, the list is pretty short. Amanda, before she signed with the big leagues. Locke, who's still playing in the indie circuit with us. And a handful of revolutionaries who built their brand being trad-pubbed, but are now going the indie route.

But TRUE indies like Amanda and John? It's a short list.

And as for "plenty of buyers," another vague term... it depends on your definition again.

Let's face it: we have MUCH lower overhead than the Big 6, and so we have MUCH lower break-even points.

Let me cite a couple-three examples:

1) Me. For SHADA, I got my cover for a retail value of $125 at the time. My editing (SHADA's short) was around $70. And as far as cash outlay? I bought a $49 virtual book tour and got another part of my tour for free. Add in $35 for eCO.gov registration. Add in $39 (at the time) for CreateSpace's expanded distribution. Add in about $20 in proofs to get the print edition set, and that's about it for out-of-pocket costs.

So, all in all, it cost me about $338 to publish SHADA. Call it $350 for convenience.

I'm selling SHADA at $0.99 a copy. That's a $0.35 royalty. I have to sell 1,000 copies to break even, more than that to make money.

I've sold not quite 10 percent of that total so far, but let's say I broke even. A lot of us would consider 1,000 copies "good numbers." (I know I would, at this point.)

But for even a poorly-promoted book at the Big 6, you need to add several zeros for even a minimal book budget. Let's say $35,000. And if that thin book sold for, I don't know, $9.99, out of which the publishers make maybe.... $5.00 on print and $7.00 on eBook... but they'd pay the author out of that, so let's call it $4.50 on print and $3.50 on eBook (being optimistic...or pessimistic, depending on your POV)...

I've sold ZERO print books using POD and let's use the 1,000 sales figure on eBook that I presupposed before... even though it's closer to nearing 100 copies right now.

With those numbers, I'm at a break-even point... 0 print, 1,000 ebook sales.

With those same sales numbers, using their cut, a Big 6 publisher would be sitting on $3,500 and nowhere near a break-even. Because they probably had an initial print run of at least 2,000 print books that never sold... so there's a big hit there... let's say $2.50 per unit, so they remainder them out and they're in for $35,000 book budget in editorial, design, promotional and other costs, plus $5,000 in unsold return costs, call it $40,000.

And against that $40,000, their sales bring in $3,500... less than 10 percent of the investment.

The economies of scale are much bigger for the Big 6 is the thing. The point is they'd need to sell through at least 70 percent of their hardcovers, and have very healthy paperback sales, and do well in eBook... to justify even a $40,000 minimal investment in SHADA.

The numbers don't make sense for them...

...and me? I've made maybe $30 from SHADA so far, but I'm only into it for $350, and I have years to earn back the $320 I've missed out on. With POD, I don't have to worry if the print book doesn't move. I put out other books, people start picking up SHADA off my backlist, eventually it'll even out. But my economy of scale is much smaller and I only need 1,000 sales to do well, whereas print needs to sell ten to fifteen times that amount to even make it worth their while.

Now let's use a more prosperous example, without going great guns:

2) I have a friend (who I won't name because I haven't asked if it's okay) who does all this on the cheap (no one here). I know her budget, etc. She does her own covers, so her only cost is about $3.00 worth of photo credits on one of the stock photo sites, per book. She does her own editing and has a couple friends beta-read for her. She doesn't mess around with print so there are no CreateSpace costs. She doesn't bother with eCO.gov registration (foolish, I think, but it's her choice) so there's no costs there. And she doesn't sink money into promotion, only does a free blog on Blogger and promotes a bit on Twitter and just happens to be working in a popular genre. In all, her total costs are... about $3.00 out of pocket, in terms of direct costs. She sells most of her books in the $2.99 to $6.99 range. So, 1-2 sales makes her minimal investment back. With ... I don't know, something like a dozen titles out, she's selling 80-100 copies a month total... and pulling in (from what she says) $200-$300 a month. So she's on track to sell at least 1,000 copies a year and make $2,400 to $3,600 a year, even if she stopped writing and were not adding more titles as time goes by.

But considering her investment in those 12 titles is about $36, she's well into profit mode.

Now, some of us would kill for 1,000 sales a year and that kind of money... but is it an impressive number? We're talking 12 books those sales are divided among. (And counting.) So each title only sells 6-8 copies a month on average.

A traditional publisher couldn't do that for $3 a title. I'm not sure what a minimum book budget is, on the cheap, but it's probably gotta be something close to $15,000 to $20,000 these days. (It was about half that in the early 90s when I worked for a book publisher.)

So at 12 books, a trad-pub would have to have at least a $180,000 to $240,000 investment in those same titles. 6-8 copies per title per month... maybe 1,000 sales a year... that wouldn't even come close to making a dent in their budget, their initial investment!

I'd love to give you a third example of a much more successful indie, who drops decent change down for covers and editing but who sell well enough to be impressive to a Big 6 publisher... someone like the two Davids, Vicki Lieske, etc...

But I don't know their numbers.

But I think David Dalglish alleged (in his April Fools writing success book) that he's sold about 180,000 copies combined of all his books... those are good numbers by anyone's standard. Even so, his overhead is probably much lower than a Big 6 publisher, and I'm sure even with the change he drops on great cover art and editing, he enters into profit mode on each title far sooner than a Big 6 publisher would.

So, really, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison there, my friend. "Plenty of buyers" for US is a much lower number than "plenty of buyers" for a Big 6 book.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

ACNewt said:


> Longtime lurker but did want to say...
> 
> Why is everyone taking one line (that yes, was in all caps) so very seriously? Jodi Piccoult is a huge author. Not as big as Stephen King but in the same tier as Jennifer Weiner. She was first published years and years ago. She has been one of the fortunate ones who has had a great ride with legacy publishing. She has sold MILLIONS of books. I would guess she could stop writing right now and still be set financially for life. Why would she be scared or threatened by ANYONE? She wouldn't. She's most likely not.
> 
> ...





jackz4000 said:


> I think everyone is making too big of a deal about what Jodi said--who cares really? Much 'ado about nothing. What do you expect or want her to say? She's been with the publisher model for over 20 years and it's been good for her and she thinks everyone should take the road she took 20 some years ago. Maybe we should drive the car she drove back then too or wear the clothes.
> 
> Most big authors who have been traditionally published will probably say the same as Jodi or worse (like Turow) because they are limited by the information they have. In fact I have seen few major authors who have encouraged it. Most are just behind the times and brick & mortar will NEVER be as big as it was, but they just don't want to accept or see that. They are living in the past and we should be kind to anyone so afflicted.
> 
> Would Agatha Christie recommend self publishing? Probably not.


It wasn't so much what she said but_ how she said it_...like an immature, teenage "mean girl." She came off as someone completely narrow-minded, presumptuous, and rude.

She's uninformed, true...and of course she's going to prefer the road she took towards success. People naturally are quick to criticize something that they just don't understand.

However, she is being close-minded. And, she should really educate herself on the issue before making such statements. For instance, look at her assumption about Amanda Hocking only self-publishing her first book. Possibly that's what JP really believes, but facts are facts...
And, her lack of knowledge about what can be achieved through indie authorship makes her look a little foolish, at the very least.

I read an interesting quote earlier this week. "If you're going to be close-minded, make sure your mouth is closed too." heehee!


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

xandy3 said:


> It wasn't so much what she said but_ how she said it_...like an immature, teenage "mean girl." She came off as someone completely narrow-minded, presumptuous, and rude.
> 
> She's uninformed, true...and of course she's going to prefer the road she took towards success. People naturally are quick to criticize something that they just don't understand.


Not defending her at all Xandy3. To me she came off as poorly informed, superior, and a snark. Her choice of words was poor.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

From her Huff Post clarification:



> *What do you say to people who want to emulate your success and want to be writers themselves?*
> My current advice is to not self-publish. It's still too hard for people to separate the wheat from the chaff, and what you miss out on is the marketability that is afforded to you by a brick and mortar publisher. There's a lot of crap out there, and one day we may find a way to segregate well written self published fiction from that stuff which anyone can throw on Amazon, but I just don't think we're there yet.


This sounds like an argument not to _buy _self-published work, not an argument not to self publish.



> Let me put it to you this way. The anomalies of self published fiction, the Amanda Hockings of this world - what did they do with their next book? Do they self publish it? No - they make sure they get a publisher.


Irrelevant. This is arguing why you shouldn't _continue _to self publish, not an argument against self publishing in the first place. There is a case to be made for apprenticing with self publishing and moving on to traditional publishing (not sure I buy it, but it's a valid path for some), but this is a different issue entirely. Where would Amanda Hocking be if she hadn't self published? Maybe she would have a contract now, but I doubt it would be as lucrative as the one she signed.

I can answer this question for my own career. I wrote more than a dozen novels over the course of twenty years and never managed to sell any of them. I am almost certain that if I hadn't self published, I would be sitting on yet another unsold manuscript, wondering what the hell was wrong with me, or with NY publishing, or if the problem was a combination of the two. And I would be resigning myself to trunking the novel and starting yet another. Instead, I've got 85,000 indie sales, a (semi)traditional contract, and plans to do do more of both. All because I ignored well-meaning advice like Ms. Picoult's.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

xandy3 said:


> It wasn't so much what she said but_ how she said it_...like an immature, teenage "mean girl." She came off as someone completely narrow-minded, presumptuous, and rude.


Right, as opposed to the clique who are sure she's jealous of them and -- tee hee -- she sleeps with teddy bears, y'all. She's so not even that famous. And she's stupid.

_She's_ the mean girl.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Shouldn't blanket statements be blanket-er? You're objecting to a comment in which I said that not knowing her could mean nothing at all, or it could be a lack of knowledge of the players in traditional publishing. How is that a blanket statement?


This is the complete post.



> Right. The whole idea that she fears indies is ... interesting. I think the comment proves, not that she believes she needs to shut down what she knows to be a great threat, but that she doesn't consider any of the people here any threat at all. That might be ignorant, or cocky, but it isn't jealousy.
> We also have the typical response whenever people want to disparage someone in the public eye of "never heard of her." Now, don't get me wrong, I believe we all have gaps in our knowledge, and in surprising areas. Really brilliant people just happen to not know certain weird and random things that your average person might call common knowledge. It happens to us all. That said, and allowing for these knowledge gaps, Jodi Picoult is one of your top names. Not knowing her doesn't really mean the same thing as her not being incredibly well-known, and could indicate a lack of attention to publishing, and my first reaction if I were in front of someone who said that would be to non-conspicuously discover if they're a "reader."
> And before anyone misunderstands, I'm in no way saying this author is a must-read, just that her books are everywhere, and at least one was made into a movie, and without even trying I hear her name multiple times a month. I believe smart, aware people might have, through fickle fate, not have heard of her, but it boggles my mind a little all the same.


Where does it say "that not knowing her could mean nothing at all, or it could be a lack of knowledge of the players in traditional publishing?"



> Good luck in finding where I called her universally well-known.


Strawman. That's not what I said. You're deliberately misrepresenting my statement.



> She is well known in certain parts of the world, but not, as you claim, universally *"incredibly well-known."* Rowling is. Picoult isn't. She is certainly not "everywhere."


I cited you correctly. I added the "universally" (without crediting it to you) because you implied it in your imprecise wording. I was right to do so, since later you found it necessary to clarify that you actually only meant a) the members of this forum, b) only those members who belong to the majority of those who have the privilege to hail from a handful of countries. The rest are obviously of no consequence at all. Makes you wonder why they admit the riff-raff in the first place, doesn't it? The world nor the Internet end at the US border as you seem to think.



> Here we go again. No, she is not as famous as Rowling. As far as I know, the only person more famous than Harry Potter's creator was arguably The Creator. As mentioned when you pointed out that she was not as famous as Stephen King, this is an absurd yardstick.


Ah... as far as you know. You don't know very much then. For instance, did you know that there are more people who don't know your creator, or have another one, than those who do? And I think Justin Bieber might disagree with you as well.  There are a lot of people more famous than, or at least as famous as, Harry Potter's creator.

This is actually a No-True-Scotsman-fallacy. You change the beacons while we're still debating.  Tisk, tisk, Michelle. You really shouldn't do that. Let's limit ourselves to writers. Everyone I care to name and who proves my point, you immediately call "an absurd yardstick." Of course you never explain why.
Why is King an absurd yardstick? Why is Rowling? They exist. They accomplished what they accomplished. If they can, others can. More: they are perfect examples of what you would call "incredibly well-known," while Picoult is far from that exalted status. Very, very far.

I'll go even further. Picoult is not even as well-known as Dan Brown or Tom Clancy. Also "absurd yardsticks," Michelle? Are you actually just going to call anything that disproves your unproven, generalized statements "absurd" without offering any proof at all?
Not only is Picoult not that well known outside her own pond, she proves it herself. I hear she is on a world tour. Why? _Because_ she is not that well known and _because_ her publisher thinks there's money to be made by *making* her more well-known. Is Rowling on a world tour? Brown? Clancy? No, they don't need to, so they aren't.



> I'm pretty sure I conceded that multiple times.


And I never attacked your main point which I agree with. 



> Only if you refuse to acknowledge the several clarifications and the actual point that she is very successful and well-known among people who live in the handful of countries where the majority of members reside.


You never said that. As per usual you made a general statement. Only now, after being called out on the error, you narrow your statement down, excluding some people. You're cutting of your pinky to make your hand fit the glove. Yet, I hear from a few who live in one of the handful of countries where the majority of the members of this forum seem to reside that they too needed to look her up.

To begin with you can't do that in an honest debate, and I pass over the sheer condescending arrogance of the implications of your statement. You also show a lack of vision. Amazon is working very hard to make their operation global. You are still residing in the old industry where only local markets are important. Probably because you make the same mistake as Picoult makes. You transplant paradigms out of traditional publishing into e-publishing. There are superficial similarities, but the dictums of one are not necessarily valid or even vaguely important in the other. It's a completely different economical model. Completely, utterly different. Get with the program.



> And still, that some people in this places don't know her, doesn't mean she's toiling in obscurity and losing sleep over indies. I think you acknowledged that, and so why are you acting so hostile?


The "losing sleep over indies" statement is another strawman as far as I am concerned. Another logical fallacy. I never said she was losing sleep over indies. I said she made her statement out of ignorance. You can be ignorant and sleep very well. In fact, I suspect being ignorant helps with sleeping well.

You work with blanket statements, unwarranted generalizations, misrepresentation of other people's position and broad exaggerations. And you do it in a pedantic, denigrating tone. I'm almost sure nobody meant to imply she is "toiling in obscurity." I certainly didn't. Again, you're just making a caricature of the position of other people in this debate to ridicule them in a weak attempt to shore up your own unproven points.

I wasn't aware I was "acting so hostile," unless of course you think that disagreeing with you, and calling you out on several inaccuracies, is in and of itself proof of hostility. It isn't. Not outside High school it is.

So why are you being so habitually condescending and biased against independent authors?


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Right, as opposed to the clique who are sure she's jealous of them and -- tee hee -- she sleeps with teddy bears, y'all. She's so not even that famous. And she's stupid.
> 
> _She's_ the mean girl.


Yup. I shudder to think of what would have happened if Jodi Picoult actually slung any of the insults that were directed towards her in this thread at self-publishers. Actually forget the insults...even some of the dismissive comments would have been enough. "Self-publishers are ill-informed and backwards." She would have been beheaded at dawn. 

I'm all for disagreement but calling someone who's built a lucrative and long-lasting career ill-informed is a little bit extra. I don't think anyone in this thread has a leg to stand on if we go down that road.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> P.S. I must admit that I had to use Wikipedia to find out who Jodi Picoult was, but no one gets to give me any lip unless they can tell me what Priscilla White or Norman Borlaug did.


I didn't know her either. I'm so embarrassed. But I do know who Vilfredo Pareto is.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Right, as opposed to the clique who are sure she's jealous of them and -- tee hee -- she sleeps with teddy bears, y'all. She's so not even that famous. And she's stupid.
> 
> _She's_ the mean girl.


A) Point out just once where I said "jealous." I mean me personally.

B) I think the teddy bears jabs were all in fun. I happen to like when otherwise ranty threads take a silly turn...(like that one where everyone started posting pics of Nathan Fillion and troll dolls)...

C) As I said, many times...There's no crime to saying that you've never heard of somebody. As I have already said, if someone doesn't write in a genre you read there's a good chance you've not heard of them. Or, at least not remembered hearing about them...? 
Though I empathize with your point. I was a dancer long before I was a writer, and was STUNNED that one of my close friends had never heard of Gelsea Kirkland, Natalia Makarova, or Suzanne Farrel. ( _*GASP*_ the horror! LOL) She of course knew who Baryshnikov was as well as Joel Gray (only because she was a fan of Jennifer Gray in Dirty Dancing). 
It's all in levels of familiarity, and she was more familiar with dance in Cinema than with classical ballet.

D) by "ignorant" I mean unknowledgeable, uninformed, close-minded even...I've NEVER said "stupid."

E) Like I said before, we're that puppy that's been kicked too many times. I can't speak for everyone here (and shouldn't in this case) but when I'm bitten I bite back. It's just my personality. Maybe I get waaaay too defensive over this type of stuff, and that's _my issue_ to get over. But, as I see it we're just sick of the "indie=bad" mantra. I'd get just as defensive, however, if someone came into my day job and implied that I wasn't good enough...that I was doing everything wrong, or that I was unqualified. Heck, as a woman in a man's field _I DO_ hear crap like that every day....only makes me work twice as hard to prove them wrong. 

If we are coming across as "mean girls" I'd just consider it the vicious cycle of bullying. The kid who was bullied in grammar school becomes the high school bully. The kid who was bullied in high school becomes the college bully. The kid who was bullied in college becomes a bully in the workplace.



LilyT said:


> I'm all for disagreement but calling someone who's built a lucrative and long-lasting career ill-informed is a little bit extra. I don't think anyone in this thread has a leg to stand on if we go down that road.


In speaking specifically about her comments in regards to Amanda Hocking, (et al) yes, she was uninformed. (as others here have already pointed out). 
But, in giving her the benefit of the doubt I_ think_ she might have just confused her with some other author...Paolini perhaps? Or Robinson?

She's also (and I'm being generous) blissfully unaware of what an indie author can achieve on their own.

Yeah, I get defensive. Yeah, we all get defensive. It comes with the territory I guess. It's just lashing out, and fighting back and venting. Geez.


----------



## Matthew Lee Adams (Feb 19, 2012)

LilyT said:


> Ok so Riggs isn't a debut author, but he is a debut novelist. Let's strike him anyway. Maybe replace him with Khaled Hosseini, or Beth Revis, or Audrey Niffenegger, or Paolo Bacigalupi, or Jonathan Safran Foer, or *gasp* Stieg Larsson (had the double whammy of being dead and needing translation) and so on. These are just the people on my bookshelf btw.
> 
> Other than that I don't think we disagree really. I never claimed that authors will know in advance that many people will love their book, but simply books that many people love will get publishing support. I'm a pretty avid reader, but if I settled for books written by authors I've read whose new releases are pushed by their publishing companies I'd be set for years. And yet I don't. *I ignore lots and lots of well-marketed bestsellers, so the idea that only a few people get publisher support strikes me as false.* *I suppose if you consider well-marketed writers as a percentage of all possible writers then yes only a very small percentage get support. But to my mind that's a very odd way of looking at things. *
> 
> *Putting a book with narrow appeal in front of every single person you possibly can doesn't suddenly make that book widely appealing. So it's odd to me that writers seem to persist in thinking that publishers hold books back when they don't plaster ads for them everywhere. Books with wide appeal out themselves. Readers chose which books they are going to rave to their grandma/neighbor/co-worker about. Publishers merely fan the flames.*


It depends how you define "publisher support." Only a small percentage of authors will be sent on book tours, or have their publisher take out ads and run a promotion campaign, or have the publisher direct bookstores to display their books in the front of the store as well as face-out on shelves versus spine-out like the majority.

70% or more of books never earn out their advance. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/review/Meyer-t.html

Of all books traditionally published each year, the general numbers I've seen bandied around are that 1 out of 5 are profitable, two break even, and two lose money. That's Konrath's take: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2009/06/should-e-books-be-cheap.html

NYMag interviewed Random House's CEO a few years ago and came up with 1 out of 8 books profitable, and the other 7 breaking even or losing money: http://nymag.com/news/features/2007/profit/32906/

Publishing is a business and while they utilize the rainmakers to subsidize the vast majority of other authors, there is a very big divide between a very few and "everyone else." Advances are down - anecdotally, in articles on the business, and in survey after survey - both first time authors as well as in the six-figure ranges. Publishers have faced over a decade of deciding how to allocate a certain pool of money. First-time authors are well-aware of the reality that they're told to utilize whatever they can from their advance toward their own promotion. What they will receive from the publisher is review copies being sent out to the usual (and dwindling) list of book reviewers who are flooded with potential books and have to choose only a few to actually review.

Here's the other main thing - with the continual flood of books traditionally published each year and a dwindling amount of retail space to receive them - there is A LOT of turnover. Many books have a shelf life of 6-8 weeks before being removed and replaced with whatever is coming out next. The demise of Borders contributed to this as well, by removing another outlet. So has a rise in trade paperbacks that diluted and reduced mass market shelf space. Consumer and retailer trends have had an effect as well.

I think you're arguing a different point than that made by many in this thread.

The point many have made is that only a very small percentage of authors will have a Jodi Piccoult experience - mass appeal of their books along with the accompanying publisher support.

From a business standpoint, I agree with you that publishers don't see a need to equally promote books that will not achieve mass appeal. But publishers are also not "merely fanning flames" and playing only a reactive role to rising appeal from readers. As I said - many books don't even remain on shelves very long anymore - certainly not long enough to develop awareness of some new authors in physical presence at least. Most (if not all) of the authors you mention in both your posts are well-known, had large print runs, and a lot of promotion. I mentioned in my previous post the anomalous cases of "Eragon" and the first printing of "Harry Potter" which are a more rare "organic" case of mass appeal that slipped in under publishing's nose and they scrambled to take advantage of it. Larsson's "Millennium Series" that you mentioned is another - because its overseas appeal - additionally helped along by some very good movie adaptations - caught the attention for a blockbuster American release of the series.

However, most of the people topping the bestseller lists every year are either existing bestselling authors or are new authors who received large advances and a publisher made their mass appeal much more likely to happen - by greatly improving visibility.

I'm not saying publishing always gets it right. Again - there is an uneasy balance between appeal and promotion money. Sometimes a book (like the ones I just mentioned) achieves appeal prior to heavy promotion. Sometimes heavy promotion fails to intersect with appeal. That's why publishers tend to devote most of their heavy promotion to the most sure things they can - existing bestselling authors and new ones whose appeal seems to have legs.

In any event, I tend to agree with both the main arguments many people have made - as well as the one you seem to be making - only because you're not really arguing the same thing.

I agree with the people who point out that Jodi Piccoult has an atypical experience - both in appeal and promotion she receives from her publisher.

I also agree with you - that there will always be books that achieve mass appeal as well as heavy promotion.

More often the amount of promotion will be based upon the size of the author advance (an understandable high correlation) and occasionally appeal will slip in under a publisher's radar and take them momentarily by surprise until they add to the momentum. I know that Rowling received a small advance for "Harry Potter." I don't know of as many other bestselling authors who received small advances for a book that took off and became a bestseller (Grisham's "The Firm" is one, though). That's why the correlation argument happens between size of advance and size of promotion.

Publishers attempt to predict the potential sales of books and they pay out advances as well as budget promotion money and plan print run sizes accordingly. It's a very inexact science. Hence, sometimes heavy promotion fails and sometimes under-promoted books begin to rise on their own. I've no doubt there have been books and authors that could have been bestsellers that were consigned to oblivion because of small print runs and lack of promotion. Not a lot - because there can never be many bestsellers anyway. But I don't believe that all potential bestsellers were discovered - since we know cases where bestsellers became that way due to the right turns of circumstances at the right time (Grisham's "The Firm" again). But that's the way the world works.

I think any potential new author needs to ignore Jodi Piccoult's blanket statement and simply look at pros and cons - what they may expect to receive from traditional versus self-published - and make their decision from there. New authors cannot look to established authors for an example of a road that can be followed, because the publishing landscape today doesn't resemble what it was 10 or 20 or 30 years ago. And in the next 10 years it's going to be even more different. This isn't a criticism of publishing - it's simply a business - and it's changing like any business. Fortunately, it isn't a zero-sum game like the lottery. So there may be a few high peaks that everyone notices, but there are also mountains and hills of different sizes as well as flatland and valleys.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

I'll bite. Your posts have been some of the more lucid and well reasoned that I came across when lurking but I think this one misses something important.



MichaelWallace said:


> I can answer this question for my own career. I wrote more than a dozen novels over the course of twenty years and never managed to sell any of them. I am almost certain that if I hadn't self published, I would be sitting on yet another unsold manuscript, wondering what the hell was wrong with me, or with NY publishing, or if the problem was a combination of the two. And I would be resigning myself to trunking the novel and starting yet another. Instead, I've got 85,000 indie sales, a (semi)traditional contract, and plans to do do more of both. All because I ignored well-meaning advice like Ms. Picoult's.


Congratulations on hitting 85,000. That's quite an accomplishment!
Now for some context. Jodi Picoult has sold 14,000,000 books. (Andrew Ashling's repudiations notwithstanding, she is a very well-known author) The interviewer asked her how writers can emulate *her* level of success (all 14,000,000 copies of it) not Michael Wallace's level of success. I don't think we should get upset at her for not answering a question she wasn't asked.

There's an old saw that a writer who wants to make a good living should get a job that pays her a good living and write as a hobby. Perhaps that should be updated to be a writer who wants to make a good living should self-publish. But then again I'm sure the percentage of self-published writers who have achieved Michael Wallace's level of success is statistically as small as the number of trad-pubbed writers who has achieved Jodi Picoult's level of success. I'm sure if an interviewer asked how self-pubbers could emulate your level of success you might say something that will upset some aspiring writers. I mean the pay for editing/self-edit threads on here alone....


----------



## RubyRoyce (Feb 25, 2012)

Maybe she just said it for her publisher, you know, you have to say that kind of stuff.
It's like one bestselling author giving a raving review of a mediocre book by another auther because that's what their common publisher wants them to do.
Give and take. Even as a bestselling author, you want to stay on good terms with your publisher.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

LilyT said:


> I'll bite. Your posts have been some of the more lucid and well reasoned that I came across when lurking but I think this one misses something important.
> 
> Congratulations on hitting 85,000. That's quite an accomplishment!
> Now for some context. Jodi Picoult has sold 14,000,000 books. (Andrew Ashling's repudiations notwithstanding, she is a very well-known author) The interviewer asked her how writers can emulate *her* level of success (all 14,000,000 copies of it) not Michael Wallace's level of success. I don't think we should get upset at her for not answering a question she wasn't asked.
> ...


Well, that's true enough. My successes are relatively modest even compared to many of the people on this board, let alone Jodi Picoult's 14,000,000 copies, which looks indistinguishable from pure fantasy, at least from down here where I stand. But I feel pretty good about it, since I had zero sales only fifteen months ago. I didn't _choose _self publishing, I was forced into it by continued, unrelenting rejection. "DON'T SELF PUBLISH" is great advice if you've got a Jodi Picoult-level contract in front of you. It's even a valid option (albeit unargued in this particular interview) with a modest pro-level contract on the table. But the subtext that I see is that if you don't have an offer, you just haven't earned it yet. Keep working and it will come.

I did work. Between 1988, when I submitted my first short story for publication while I was still in high school, and Jan, 2011, when I first put one of my books into KDP, I wrote over 100 short stories, thirteen complete novels, and roughly two million words of fiction. I had three agents and collected over 1,000 rejection letters. How much longer should I have kept following the "DON'T SELF PUBLISH" advice? Note that she doesn't say, "Don't self publish until. . .," or "Don't self publish unless. . .," or even, "Most people should not self publish because. . ."

She says "DON'T SELF PUBLISH." Where would I be if I had followed that advice? I would now have _fourteen _unpublished novels, and I would be working on number fifteen.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Where does it say "that not knowing her could mean nothing at all, or it could be a lack of knowledge of the players in traditional publishing?"


A large portion of the post is about how everyone has gaps in their knowledge, and sometimes the gaps are completely random or not significant. THAT is the it could mean nothing at all portion.



> Strawman. That's not what I said. You're deliberately misrepresenting my statement.


Deliberately? Really? Couldn't just be that this was my honest interpretation?



> I cited you correctly. I added the "universally" (without crediting it to you) because you implied it in your imprecise wording. I was right to do so, since later you found it necessary to clarify that you actually only meant a) the members of this forum, b) only those members who belong to the majority of those who have the privilege to hail from a handful of countries. The rest are obviously of no consequence at all. Makes you wonder why they admit the riff-raff in the first place, doesn't it? The world nor the Internet end at the US border as you seem to think.


Where do you get this? I'm speaking to the members of this board, and so writing about stuff the majority of the members here might reasonably be exposed to. This has nothing -- zero -- to do with my feelings about people who are not members here, or are from underprivileged countries.

Just as when I write here and talk about books and reading it doesn't imply I don't care about people who don't know how to read. They're just not the people I'm speaking to at that moment.

One of the oddities of the internet is how people create whole imaginary personas for people that resemble the reality, not at all. Well, it always amuses the hubby when I tell him these things -- like the time someone told me I was a doormat who probably allowed my husband to beat me and our (non-existent) kids. He laughed so hard that he cried. So, now I'll tell him I'm an elitist xenophobe, and he might bust a gut. I could list the ways you're wrong, but that cheapens what's in my heart.



> Ah... as far as you know. You don't know very much then. For instance, did you know that there are more people who don't know your creator, or have another one, than those who do?


There's a reason why I didn't specify a name for a creator -- so it would encompass all of them. If you'd heard of -- not believed in, heard of -- any creator, you were covered. 



> And I think Justin Bieber might disagree with you as well.  There are a lot of people more famous than, or at least as famous as, Harry Potter's creator.


Okay, and your point remains that unless someone is as famous as a handful of people, they're not famous.



> This is actually a No-True-Scotsman-fallacy. You change the beacons while we're still debating.  Tisk, tisk, Michelle. You really shouldn't do that. Let's limit ourselves to writers. Everyone I care to name and who proves my point, you immediately call "an absurd yardstick." Of course you never explain why.
> Why is King an absurd yardstick? Why is Rowling? They exist. They accomplished what they accomplished. If they can, others can. More: they are perfect examples of what you would call "incredibly well-known," while Picoult is far from that exalted status. Very, very far.


It's an absurd yardstick because people can still be well-known long before they're that well-known.



> I'll go even further. Picoult is not even as well-known as Dan Brown or Tom Clancy. Also "absurd yardsticks," Michelle? Are you actually just going to call anything that disproves your unproven, generalized statements "absurd" without offering any proof at all?


You seem to think I've said she is the most famous woman in the known universe, and so you want to keep listing more famous people. There are a lot of people who are more famous than she is, but her books are ubiquitous in the places populate by most people on this board. That is the only point I was making, it it remains the case.



> Not only is Picoult not that well known outside her own pond, she proves it herself. I hear she is on a world tour. Why? _Because_ she is not that well known and _because_ her publisher thinks there's money to be made by *making* her more well-known. Is Rowling on a world tour? Brown? Clancy? No, they don't need to, so they aren't.


Again, I never claimed she could be more well-known. Famous authors still go on tour and do interviews -- even the names you mention.



> You never said that. As per usual you made a general statement. Only now, after being called out on the error, you narrow your statement down, excluding some people. You're cutting of your pinky to make your hand fit the glove. Yet, I hear from a few who live in one of the handful of countries where the majority of the members of this forum seem to reside that they too needed to look her up.


Yeah, covered that, didn't I? The whole we all have gaps in our knowledge thing.



> To begin with you can't do that in an honest debate, and I pass over the sheer condescending arrogance of the implications of your statement. You also show a lack of vision. Amazon is working very hard to make their operation global. You are still residing in the old industry where only local markets are important. Probably because you make the same mistake as Picoult makes. You transplant paradigms out of traditional publishing into e-publishing. There are superficial similarities, but the dictums of one are not necessarily valid or even vaguely important in the other. It's a completely different economical model. Completely, utterly different. Get with the program.


What? You do get that all I said was that Picoult is a popular author? And that I said she was ignorant on this matter? I don't think I'm offering you the argument you want to have.



> The "losing sleep over indies" statement is another strawman as far as I am concerned. Another logical fallacy. I never said she was losing sleep over indies. I said she made her statement out of ignorance. You can be ignorant and sleep very well. In fact, I suspect being ignorant helps with sleeping well.


I never said you said it -- we're not the only two people in this thread and my responses are based on the mood of this discussion. Since we're both agreed her comment was ignorant...



> You work with blanket statements, unwarranted generalizations, misrepresentation of other people's position and broad exaggerations.


I know you keep saying that.



> And you do it in a pedantic, denigrating tone. I'm almost sure nobody meant to imply she is "toiling in obscurity." I certainly didn't. Again, you're just making a caricature of the position of other people in this debate to ridicule them in a weak attempt to shore up your own unproven points.


You're right that the term "toiling in obscurity" was a deliberate exaggeration, and meant to be seen as such.



> I wasn't aware I was "acting so hostile," unless of course you think that disagreeing with you, and calling you out on several inaccuracies, is in and of itself proof of hostility. It isn't. Not outside High school it is.


I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. I think my history here shows that. I'm not fine with you accusing me of what amounts to being a bigot. Since equality and fairness is at the core of my beliefs, I consider that implication to be a hostile one. I consider your making me have to tell you if I believe this author is more of less famous than other authors, with more lists in each post, to be both absurd and hostile, since we're now going in circles as if you think you can punish me for being on the wrong side from you -- which is really strange, considering that we're actually on the same side.



> So why are you being so habitually condescending and biased against independent authors?


Until recently, I went out of my way to review indies, I hang out here because I like the people here, I defend indies on other boards, retweet indies, have Facebook friends who are indies, continue to work with indies, hope to self-publish some day...

Along with your implication that I hate non-Americans, I now have to ask you to point out the hidden cameras, because this feels like a strange practical joke, even as I know you're being serious.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Xandy,
I never said not knowing someone is a crime. I don't even feel that way. I also didn't accuse you of being responsible for all the insults. 

I don't, for the record, think that being bullied is an excuse for bullying. Or perhaps I think it's just that -- an excuse. I think sometimes people just like to be mean in groups, and they look for excuses to do that. I think a lot of people like to pick teams, and hate on people who are not on their team. 

I see Picoult as an author. An okay author. I see the people here as authors. I think that makes us all individuals with something in common. Other people seem to think trad. pubbed and self-pubbed are two different teams, and that's all there is to it. This isn't my thinking. To me, she is a woman who I believe is mistaken, ignorant on one point, and I believe people are wanting to heap onto her every resentment they have against folks on the road they didn't take. 

I started a similar thread a month or two ago about Dennis Lehane. Kinda went the same way. I think he is a tremendously gifted writer, who is -- again -- mistaken and ignorant on this point. 

I think the antidote to the ignorance of these authors is for people to prove them wrong -- to put out good books, and to become a success story. I don't think widening the divide is the solution. I believe that anger and hatred usually hurt the person hating more than the person being hated. And the middle-age that I deny being in has brought me to a place where I just want to appreciate more people than I resent. I don't want to cross a person off that list because they looking different than I do, or speak a different language from mine, or make a different choice in the voting booth, or say something that I feel to be wrong.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Ok. I think we got our wires crossed at some point. ItaliaHaircolour said "name one new writer who get that level of support". I named three. You said "hey now one of those things is not like the others." I said "Ok, here are five other similar things then." You said:



Matthew Lee Adams said:


> I think you're arguing a different point than that made by many in this thread.


Umm...internet say what? 

Here's a direct question. How many new authors who received publisher promotion do I have to list to respond to the throwdown dare of "name one...". 10, 50, 100? You just let me know. I haven't even dipped into my cache of lit-fic debuts. If you want to talk promotion you should take a look at lit-fic writers. Those guys (and they are mostly guys) are up in NYTimes/Atlantic/NPR/New Yorker like teenage girls in the mall.

Secondly, I didn't spend any time in my previous posts discussing the ROI of the publishing industry. So I'm not sure what point this giant list of articles is supporting/refuting?



Matthew Lee Adams said:


> It depends how you define "publisher support." Only a small percentage of authors will be sent on book tours, or have their publisher take out ads and run a promotion campaign, or have the publisher direct bookstores to display their books in the front of the store as well as face-out on shelves versus spine-out like the majority.
> 
> 70% or more of books never earn out their advance. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/books/review/Meyer-t.html
> 
> ...


 But let's pretend I did. Sound like you're saying only 1 in 8ish books return a profit. Ok. Bowker says that traditional publishers put out 316,480 new titles in 2010. A 1 in 8ish yield means that publishers saw a return on 39560 books. Of course this is the roughest sort of math and it breaks down the second you start subdividing the books into genres, but big picture...profit on ~40,000 new books a year doesn't look too shabby to me.



Matthew Lee Adams said:


> I've no doubt there have been books and authors that could have been bestsellers that were consigned to oblivion because of small print runs and lack of promotion. Not a lot - because there can never be many bestsellers anyway. But I don't believe that all potential bestsellers were discovered - since we know cases where bestsellers became that way due to the right turns of circumstances at the right time (Grisham's "The Firm" again). But that's the way the world works.


I'll have to disagree with you here. There's a line from The Social Network that I like: _If you guys were the inventors of Facebook you'd have invented Facebook. _ There's no such thing as a nearly-bestseller. A book is a bestseller or it isn't. And sure it may look serendipitous from the outside, but that's because you're on the outside. I doubt John Grisham sat at home all day churning butter and then _smack_ a big deal for a novel just fell into his lap.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

LilyT said:


> I'll have to disagree with you here. There's a line from The Social Network that I like: _If you guys were the inventors of Facebook you'd have invented Facebook. _ There's no such thing as a nearly-bestseller. A book is a bestseller or it isn't. And sure it may look serendipitous from the outside, but that's because you're on the outside. I doubt John Grisham sat at home all day churning butter and then _smack_ a big deal for a novel just fell into his lap.


Really? I know authors who got their rights back to their traditionally published work and then self published them. One turned her midlist traditional titles into New York Times Bestseller status. Marketing can make or break a book.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

LilyT said:


> I'll have to disagree with you here. There's a line from The Social Network that I like: _If you guys were the inventors of Facebook you'd have invented Facebook. _ There's no such thing as a nearly-bestseller. A book is a bestseller or it isn't. And sure it may look serendipitous from the outside, but that's because you're on the outside. I doubt John Grisham sat at home all day churning butter and then _smack_ a big deal for a novel just fell into his lap.


I am quite certain there are potential bestsellers that were written, submitted, and rejected, but would have been bestsellers with the right promotion. I'm also pretty sure that there are bestsellers who are not nearly as good/marketable/universally appealing as some books that languished, simply because of marketing push on one and failure to promote on the other.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Along with your implication that I hate non-Americans, I now have to ask you to point out the hidden cameras, because this feels like a strange practical joke, even as I know you're being serious.


Here we go again.  A blatant, exaggerated, falsification, based on your bias, of what I really said and think.

FYI: I admire Americans (well, a lot of them anyway) and I don't think you hate non-Americans. I do think you are an equal-opportunity patronizer of both Americans and non-Americans. 

Michelle, really, your language is inflammatory, and as such it invites controversy. You ridicule people on a regular basis. You try to browbeat your opponents. When a few individuals disagree with you, you call them a "clique." Not nice. Not warranted. The "cliques" (implied: those evil, negligible, fringe-weirdos who conspire against literature and civilization in general) exist only in the imagination of your easily boggled mind. You make highhanded fun of people who had a gut-reaction against an ignorant statement in all-caps by a moderately well-known author.

Most indies here are trying to come to grips with a new industry and are doing so in a positive way. We're trying to learn the ropes of a new discipline of which nobody (you included) knows the rules exactly. Most of us acknowledge our own ignorance and the fact that we are winging it. We have to experiment, experience, think, and compare notes. Different views are inevitable. That's not always easy and sometimes mistakes are made. Not to mention that our aims and ambitions are not always the same.

Unfinished thoughts are sometimes thrown on the table. For examination, not for extermination by your sarcasm.


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

I'm not offended by Jodie Picoult's comments - they're just her opinion - and we're all entitled to an opinion.

As far as I'm concerned, the right way to respond is to do what Michael and Victorine (and a few others) did - post a comment to politely point out to readers of the blog that there is, in fact, another side to things.

Everyone views life through the filters of their own knowledge, experience and opinions.  I see this as being like a Kindleboards poster stating that someone absolutely should/shouldn't join Select.  It's something that works well for some people (who may think that everyone should do it) and doesn't work/wouldn't work for others (who may think that nobody should sign up.)

I know quite a few authors/editors in traditional publishing & so far haven't experienced any negativity.  One encouraged myself and other hopeful authors to try the traditional route first (again, from their point of view this was good advice but I could see the filters that it came through and decided that it didn't make sense for me.)  A couple of others have expressed a real interest in self-publishing and are keen to find out how it goes.

If people want to laugh at me for self publishing then they are welcome to do so, I don't particularly care.  I play the long game and will just hope to quietly prove them wrong in time!  That's if I know them.  I couldn't really care less whether Jodie Picoult (someone I've never met or read) thinks that I, as a generic author hopeful, should self-publish or not.  She's just sharing her opinion - which she has every right to do - and it's up to me to decide whether or not it's one I want to listen to.  I don't agree with her but I have no issue with her.

P.S. I will admit to having a teddy bear in my bed as well as my husband.  Prior to meeting said husband, I also used to have various crystals and minerals in there for the energies.  I don't do that any more because he's less keen than I am on waking up to find himself sleeping on a rock!


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Well, that's true enough. My successes are relatively modest even compared to many of the people on this board, let alone Jodi Picoult's 14,000,000 copies, which looks indistinguishable from pure fantasy, at least from down here where I stand. But I feel pretty good about it, since I had zero sales only fifteen months ago. I didn't _choose _self publishing, I was forced into it by continued, unrelenting rejection. "DON'T SELF PUBLISH" is great advice if you've got a Jodi Picoult-level contract in front of you. It's even a valid option (albeit unargued in this particular interview) with a modest pro-level contract on the table. But the subtext that I see is that if you don't have an offer, you just haven't earned it yet. Keep working and it will come.
> 
> I did work. Between 1988, when I submitted my first short story for publication while I was still in high school, and Jan, 2011, when I first put one of my books into KDP, I wrote over 100 short stories, thirteen complete novels, and roughly two million words of fiction. I had three agents and collected over 1,000 rejection letters. How much longer should I have kept following the "DON'T SELF PUBLISH" advice? Note that she doesn't say, "Don't self publish until. . .," or "Don't self publish unless. . .," or even, "Most people should not self publish because. . ."
> 
> She says "DON'T SELF PUBLISH." Where would I be if I had followed that advice? I would now have _fourteen _unpublished novels, and I would be working on number fifteen.


I have some thoughts on this but I have to consult an article that on my computer and I'm currently posting from my phone. I'll get back to it to later.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> Xandy,
> I never said not knowing someone is a crime. I don't even feel that way. I also didn't accuse you of being responsible for all the insults.
> 
> I don't, for the record, think that being bullied is an excuse for bullying. Or perhaps I think it's just that -- an excuse. I think sometimes people just like to be mean in groups, and they look for excuses to do that. I think a lot of people like to pick teams, and hate on people who are not on their team.


 Or perhaps we're just so over-sensitive on the subject that comments like hers are a "trigger" that just sets us off.


> I see Picoult as an author. An okay author. I see the people here as authors. I think that makes us all individuals with something in common. Other people seem to think trad. pubbed and self-pubbed are two different teams, and that's all there is to it. This isn't my thinking. To me, she is a woman who I believe is mistaken, ignorant on one point, and I believe people are wanting to heap onto her every resentment they have against folks on the road they didn't take.
> 
> I started a similar thread a month or two ago about Dennis Lehane. Kinda went the same way. I think he is a tremendously gifted writer, who is -- again -- mistaken and ignorant on this point.
> 
> *I think the antidote to the ignorance of these authors is for people to prove them wrong -- to put out good books, and to become a success story.* I don't think widening the divide is the solution. I believe that anger and hatred usually hurt the person hating more than the person being hated. And the middle-age that I deny being in has brought me to a place where I just want to appreciate more people than I resent. I don't want to cross a person off that list because they looking different than I do, or speak a different language from mine, or make a different choice in the voting booth, or say something that I feel to be wrong.


Oh, amen! Especially on the sentence I bolded. 

I envision a literary world where where all seen as _ just authors._ Not indie authors vs. CP authors. And, that maybe even all of us have our fair share of books published via both methods...that's very "kumbaya" I know. But, that's what I hope for. 

I think in order for us to achieve that though, both sides need to overcome our prejudices. Yeah, that may never happen. But I hope...


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

I find it odd that anyone would advise someone not to self-publish, unless they haven't adequately researched the subject.

Control and great royalties notwithstanding, one of the reasons I found a traditional publisher for my second mystery series was because I'd self-published and marketed two books in another series. I demonstrated that I knew how to market and promote, and that I was capable of writing a series. There are plenty of agents, publishers, and book reviewers who are monitoring self-published authors, not to watch them fail, but to see how they can capitalize on their success! It's so much easier for them when the author has done all the hard work first. As I've said before, what's wrong with doing both and maximizing any opportunity that comes the author's way?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

LilyT said:


> I'll have to disagree with you here. There's a line from The Social Network that I like: _If you guys were the inventors of Facebook you'd have invented Facebook. _ There's no such thing as a nearly-bestseller. A book is a bestseller or it isn't. And sure it may look serendipitous from the outside, but that's because you're on the outside. *I doubt John Grisham sat at home all day churning butter and then smack a big deal for a novel just fell into his lap. *


Bad example: Actually Grisham would say it fell into his lap while he was churning butter. As he tells it: His agent was unsure if he could place The Firm with a publisher because his first book Time To Kill had been a dud. Unknown to Grisham and his agent someone in Hollywood had a photocopied MS of The Firm (25 copies floating around) and was shopping it, saying he was Grisham's agent. Suddenly there was interest in the property by many producers and this "someone" amazed at the response by big players called Grisham's agent who handled it. Paramount Pictures bought the manuscript for $600K and cast Tom Cruise. Paramount wanted Grisham to have a publisher for a book and movie rollout and gave the nod to Doubleday who also bought rights from Wynwood for Time To Kill and Doubleday made a killing on both books. Paramount made more.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

LilyT said:


> I have some thoughts on this but I have to consult an article that on my computer and I'm currently posting from my phone. I'll get back to it to later.


No worries, I appreciate your early comments and look forward to what else you have to say. It's an interesting subject with many ways to approach it.


----------



## Lily_T (Sep 25, 2011)

Deanna Chase said:


> Really? I know authors who got their rights back to their traditionally published work and then self published them. One turned her midlist traditional titles into New York Times Bestseller status. Marketing can make or break a book.


Really. 
I'd ask you to name that author but that might lead to a dissection session that may or may not be unpleasant. Instead I'll offer my anecdata. I've read blogs by authors who reclaimed their rights where they mention tightening, updating, and even in some cases rewriting novels. I've also read blogs where the "marketing" in question amounted to undercutting the price of similar books in their genre.

But both of those points pale next to the fact that the majority of indie marketing is successful only to the extent that it overlaps with Amazon's dedication to the long-tail.

Are there examples of authors (other than Ms. Rowling) who've achieved bestseller level of sales without piggybacking on Amazon or (even more convincing) through direct sales?


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

MichelleR said:


> Xandy,
> I never said not knowing someone is a crime. I don't even feel that way. I also didn't accuse you of being responsible for all the insults.
> 
> I don't, for the record, think that being bullied is an excuse for bullying. Or perhaps I think it's just that -- an excuse. I think sometimes people just like to be mean in groups, and they look for excuses to do that. I think a lot of people like to pick teams, and hate on people who are not on their team.
> ...


Whoa, a lot of us certainly got hot under the collar by her one comment and I think after the initial knee jerk reaction, it was silly, positively silly. She has a right to express her opinion and we have a right to disagree. There's no stigma to self publishing anymore, there might have been at the beginning but that's all changing and readers are discovering wonderful writers who self publish out there and produce quality work. It's so great to have this opportunity, to be able to use our creativety and not let it die with us at it happened to so many people who never were able to to get their books published when we didn't have this option in the past. So keep on writing, keep on creating and happy Easter everyone.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Beatriz said:


> Whoa, a lot of us certainly got hot under the collar by her one comment and I think after the initial knee jerk reaction, it was silly, positively silly. She has a right to express her opinion and we have a right to disagree. There's no stigma to self publishing anymore, there might have been at the beginning but that's all changing and readers are discovering wonderful writers who self publish out there and produce quality work. It's so great to have this opportunity, to be able to use our creativety and not let it die with us at it happened to so many peeople who never were able to to get their books published when we didn't have this option in the past. So keep on writing, keep on creating and happy Easter everyone.


^^ Amen! 
And happy Easter to you also, Beatriz!


----------



## JackDAlbrecht (Sep 24, 2011)

Why don't they just come out and say "Please don't try to compete with me, you are cutting into my paycheck!"?


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Andrew,
It's really clear that you don't like me, and so you will believe me capable of all sorts of unlikable things. How do I defend against that? 

The clique comment was meant very specifically when she was called a mean girl and I pointed out that a group of people standing around and mocking someone that they consider an "other" is more stereotypically mean girl than anything that she said. I used the word "clique" for the analogy, not because I think that this is universally a clique-y place, or because people disagreed with me -- because I think we're all agreed that Picoult is mistaken. The only person I feel has ill-will toward me in this thread is you, and so there is no clique to it. 

I believe you do read my words as all the things you say, but that's not my intent, and it's not what's in my heart. I have never deliberately misrepresented your words or opinion, no matter how many times you state this is the case. I respond to you, and presumably you respond to me, based on sincere interpretations of what the other person is saying. 

We might just really not "get" the other person, but perhaps neither of us should assume malice or deliberate misrepresentations.


----------



## Matthew Lee Adams (Feb 19, 2012)

LilyT said:


> Ok. I think we got our wires crossed at some point. ItaliaHaircolour said "name one new writer who get that level of support". I named three. You said "hey now one of those things is not like the others." I said "Ok, here are five other similar things then."
> 
> Here's a direct question. How many new authors who received publisher promotion do I have to list to respond to the throwdown dare of "name one...". 10, 50, 100? You just let me know. I haven't even dipped into my cache of lit-fic debuts. If you want to talk promotion you should take a look at lit-fic writers. Those guys (and they are mostly guys) are up in NYTimes/Atlantic/NPR/New Yorker like teenage girls in the mall.
> 
> ...


*Italiahaircolor*'s comment about debut authors not receiving the level of Picoult's promotion was obviously absolute and easily challengeable. But the main slant was that it isn't even close to typical for new authors:



Italiahaircolor said:


> Picoult, right now, is on a _massive_ tour for her novel LONE WOLF. I think, according to Twitter, she's in Europe. That is her _marketing_ blitz at the moment ... but name another new writer who gets that red carpet treatment? No way. New writers with their "brick and mortar publishers" linger on the shelves same as many self pub'd authors and _maybe_ they get a twitter blast and a few blogs and book signings (which happen to be outsourced to individuals _we indies_ can hire as well) ... but the truth of what it's like looks nothing like what Picoult is experiencing for herself.


I already said that in my original post:



Matthew Lee Adams said:


> But you're correct that a _very few_ debut authors get massive promotion and publicity behind them. However, *Italiahaircolor* is also correct that the overwhelming flood of new authors do not get that kind of treatment and basically are left to languish (same goes for existing authors whose works the publishers don't feel warrants the investment in promotion).


It isn't an accusation against the industry. It's simply an acknowledgement of how things work. Publishing is a business. That's all.

Remember that I'm not the one who asked anyone to "name one." I said in both my posts that there are debut authors who receive heavy promotion. But heavy promotion is not the norm. The norm is "very little promotion." Because it's a business. I think I said pretty clearly in my last post that publishers have to assess where they intend to spend money on advances and promotion. It isn't equitable. But no business is equitable. Nor is any business perfect.

If you're cool with acknowledging - as I acknowledge and said already - that heavy promotion is done on a few authors who the publishers feel warrant this, and light promotion on a far greater number of authors who the publisher doesn't feel warrants the return on investment, then I think we both tend to agree.

As for my comment:



Matthew Lee Adams said:


> I've no doubt there have been books and authors that could have been bestsellers that were consigned to oblivion because of small print runs and lack of promotion. Not a lot - because there can never be many bestsellers anyway. But I don't believe that all potential bestsellers were discovered - since we know cases where bestsellers became that way due to the right turns of circumstances at the right time (Grisham's "The Firm" again). But that's the way the world works.


You're right - books are either bestsellers or they are not. But there are books we know as bestsellers that came about because of the right confluence of elements. That's why Stephenie Meyer has explained on her blog how her manuscript got plucked from a slush pile because the assistant didn't realize it should have been auto-rejected because the word-count was too high. It's why books get regularly rejected by dozens or hundreds of agents and editors before getting published and go on to bestsellerdom. Agents and editors are humans with their own subjectivity and their own guesses of what "the market" wants. As well, manuscripts get rejected for many reasons other than quality or content - agents can refuse an otherwise promising query because they already have an author in that genre, or someone even (I know this could never happen) accidentally deletes an email or a spam-filter blocks a submission or any number of random things.

What I'm saying is that publishing is not a perfect system, nor a meritocracy. Humans get to control our talents (to the extent that practice and ability allow) and our persistence. The latter is why pretty much everyone in publishing always says to remain persistent. Persistence places a person in a greater chance of proximity for other variables outside our control to intersect. Sometimes this happens, and sometimes not. And when it happens it can do so in any number of ways.

I think you're confusing what to me is simply a very straightforward assessment of reality for some kind of sour-grapes attitude - which I certainly don't have. When I invest in a company that gives me a good return, I don't pat myself on the back and say, "Gee, I'm so smart" because I know a lot of very smart folks who invest and none of us can predict where things will go because of too many random variables that clutter any planned path forward. On the obverse, I take a pretty good look at investments that go the other direction but don't bemoan them. Assumptions and predictions don't account for random variables (as even Nobel Prize winners and Long-Term Capital Management discovered - although their models were pretty sophisticated). Taleb's "Black Swan" recognizes that probability distributions cannot predict let alone quantify fat tail events - no matter whether someone wants to play with extreme value theory or however many simulations they consider.

What I am saying is just as there are books that became bestsellers - that could have avoided becoming even published had circumstances and persistence not allowed them to - there are undoubtedly a few books that came out in small runs and circumstances didn't work to their advantage before they went out of print and invisible. Grisham helped make his luck through his own persistence as did whoever bootlegged "The Firm" and got the film rights which helped boost the book. Without the right confluence of all that, "The Firm" would be the other half of your zero-sum example of "not a bestseller." Probabilities favor that with the kinds of random variables we see in publishing that there are books (again, only a few because there are never many bestsellers to begin with) whose confluence of events didn't intersect.

Again - this is simply an acknowledgement of the way things actually work. No system made by humans is perfect and everyone gets to play with the randomness of variables and what they bring or take away. In your Facebook example, Zuckerberg was the right person with the right product at the right time. He had competitors (MySpace) in a dominant position that were complacent, which is always what any new competitor wishes for when entering a market, and he was ruthless at leveraging opportunities when they were available. Ditto for Bill Gates and Microsoft. IBM could have simply bought MS-DOS rather than license the application and Microsoft would have been a footnote, but that didn't happen and Gates leveraged the aftermath. Marissa Mayer made a choice to go with Google because she liked to challenge herself. She wanted to challenge herself - not become mega-wealthy, but she also recognized and leveraged her career once things took off. Had she chosen any of the other companies she had been considering, probabilities are high that her net worth would be a fraction of what it is today. Random variables outside our control are extremely powerful - no matter how talented or persistent anyone is. The really good ones - like Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, etc. - are smart enough to recognize when things shift favorably and then leverage that for all it's worth.

What I'm saying is that there are people and events all throughout human experience where the right things coalesced to make a favorable outcome. It wasn't inevitable that Stephenie Meyer would become a bestseller. That assistant could have tossed her manuscript and it could have been rejected enough times for any number of reasons that she could have given up. Or she might have persisted but been delayed several years and someone else ignited the young adult-paranormal spark and her book might have been seen as derivative - good but not as original or innovative as it was at the time it actually came out. And just as things worked for some endeavors, sometimes there may be a fizzle rather than a flash for a book, someone's music, a start-up, or whatever. That's the role random variables get to play.

If your response is the quote from "The Social Network," sorry - I don't have a sour grapes attitude and that quote is aimed at someone who does.

I have a very dispassionate view. I recognize the existence of random variables (some people can call it luck). Stephenie Meyer acknowledges it. So does Grisham and pretty much most people I've seen interviewed who discussed the origins of their success. They acknowledge skill and persistence as well as the right variables happening at the right time, and an ability to recognize and leverage when it happened.


----------



## ashleygirardi (Apr 3, 2011)

Just throwing this out there but don't you guys think this thread has run the course of its usefulness? Just saying.

Quoting almost entire posts paragraph by paragraph lies the way of madness.


----------



## JackDAlbrecht (Sep 24, 2011)

ashleygirardi said:


> Quoting almost entire posts paragraph by paragraph lies the way of madness.


Beauty and brains! ;-)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Of course this is the roughest sort of math and it breaks down the second you start subdividing the books into genres, but big picture...profit on ~40,000 new books a year doesn't look too shabby to me. "


Shabby? Can't tell unless we net the losses from the other books against the gains from the 40,000. To do a more complete job, we would evaluate the books on both a cost accounting basis and a financial accounting basis.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

MichelleR said:


> It's really clear that you don't like me, and so you will believe me capable of all sorts of unlikable things. How do I defend against that?


 You don't. Because it is not true.

Let's just say you have the right (like anybody else) to your own opinions. You don't have the right to your own facts.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2012)

Damn good, meaty comments in these posts.

These posts are what you call writing.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Honestly, it's gotten to the point where I don't even care anymore. Some people will always be Old Guard. Period.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Zelah Meyer said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the right way to respond is to do what Michael and Victorine (and a few others) did - post a comment to politely point out to readers of the blog that there is, in fact, another side to things.


I agree. I thought Michael articulated my sentiments better than I could. But we're all human and sometimes when we fell attacked, we lash out. I dont think Ms. Picoult had any bad intentions, but that doesnt mean she didnt come off poorly.

I also agree with Michelle, in that this is similar to the Dennis Lehane comments. The thing is, there's a lot to be said for tone and context. I felt Lehane stated his opinion but was reasonably humble about it. I felt like I could have a cup of coffee with him and we'd agree to disagree like gentleman. WHEN MS. PICOULT SCREAMS IN ALL CAPS!!!! I didnt get the same humble vibe.


----------



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

ashleygirardi said:


> Quoting almost entire posts paragraph by paragraph lies the way of madness.


True...but when has that ever stopped us?










B.


----------



## BarryG (Mar 30, 2012)

I love these boards, you guys've got convictions! And you're passionate and smart! Hooray for all of you! (But I hope you mop up the blood when you're done... 

This author (and I'd love to know how to say her name, I'm debating between "Pickle" and "Peek-a-boo"), someone said she has sold like _14 million books_? She's on a totally different page than we are. I mean, she's in the Table of Contents, we're in the index.

Sure, she's trotting out some tired, trite advice that doesn't ring true to the likes of us -- who are doing the very thing she advises against -- but that's her world. I imagine if she sat down for a burger and fries with a few self-published authors and had a rational discussion about an issue to which she likely hasn't devoted much thought, she'd probably come away from it with a different perspective, and maybe even a changed mind... at the very least, she'd reduce those caps to lower-case next time....


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Let's just say you have the right (like anybody else) to your own opinions. You don't have the right to your own facts.


Don't recall disagreeing with or violating that sentiment. Respectfully, I think we're done talking.


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

MichaelWallace said:


> Right, and if I'd followed that advice, my books would still be sitting on my hard drive, unread. I feel a flush of anger at how casually, but definitively she tosses that out there.


But she's not wrong, self-published authors (not all of them) are selling trashy books. I run into these problems all the time in my blog.


----------



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

HAParker321 said:


> But she's not wrong, self-published authors (not all of them) are selling trashy books. I run into these problems all the time in my blog.


Trash is not confined to the self-published segment of the market.

What I would like to know is how many self published books she read in order to solidify and inform her opinion. Judging from the quality of the self published work in the Amazon top 100 and her ignorance regarding the career trajectory of Amanda Hocking, I think she hasn't read any. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. I reckon she's just regurgitating the crap she's heard from others in the publishing industry, which she's taken for gospel and not bothered researching.

Finally, Ms Picoult is a writer and a d*mn fine one at that, but that doesn't mean she knows anything about the industry in which she operates. It's like assuming that a superb football player will also make a good coach, which is not the case.


----------



## dalya (Jul 26, 2011)

HAParker321 said:


> But she's not wrong, self-published authors (not all of them) are selling trashy books. I run into these problems all the time in my blog.


But, but, but people LOVE trashy books!

Oh, you don't mean fun-trashy, you mean inadequately-edited.


----------



## Lisa Grace (Jul 3, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> I also agree with Michelle, in that this is similar to the Dennis Lehane comments. The thing is, there's a lot to be said for tone and context. I felt Lehane stated his opinion but was reasonably humble about it. I felt like I could have a cup of coffee with him and we'd agree to disagree like gentleman. WHEN MS. PICOULT SCREAMS IN ALL CAPS!!!! I didnt get the same humble vibe.


Dennis Lehane is a great guy. He runs a wonderful conference on the writing craft called _Writers in Paradise_, in St. Petersburg, Florida. I did not feel less-than (attending the conference) because I've chosen a different path. He's honest that his opinions stem from his experiences.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

I really don't think Jodi was trying to dis all authors on here at all. She replied, maybe too quickly to a specific question, which is a difficult question:

*"What do you say to people who want to emulate your success and want to be writers themselves?"*

Presently, if you want to have her kind of success,sell 17,000,000 books, mostly in paper the only reasonable route to take would be to be with a big publisher. She's written 19 books and has had 5 or 6 bestsellers. Her last book sold over 400,000 hardcovers alone in 2010. Her publisher is making skads of money off her and could send her round the world many times. She is one of the current Top 100 selling authors I'm sure and that's a very exclusive club.

Her success? As of yet I don't know of any/many self-published authors who have achieved that. Or even to come close. The Shack? And it's really not self-published since Young had Christian partners who formed Windblown anhd pushed it in the Christian community. The Shack did well, which was propelled by churches and the Christian media and Oprah, but really hit the big numbers only after being picked up by Hatchette. Unfortunately the author and his Christian partners (Windblown) got into a huge legal dispute about...money over the author's royalties.

If you want Jodi's kind of success you need a big publisher to move all those books. I don't think publishing ebooks on Amazon will get you those numbers and dollars, but strong Amazon sales could get you a big publisher who could move the units. She could have had a better answer to the interviewer's question, but I do think she answered the first part Ok. To emulate her success, get a publisher, just like she did. Do not self publish.

She also probably doesn't realize an author can pay the monthly mortgage self publishing on Amazon and B&N.


----------



## Liz Davis (Dec 10, 2011)

I love her novels and was enjoying the interview until she said THAT without even any reasons. I loved the comments from our KB authors (Victorine and Ashley). Thank you for standing up for all of us. For now I really love being a self published author and I don't regret a thing.


----------



## Spirit Flame (Feb 28, 2012)

jackz4000 said:


> I really don't think Jodi was trying to dis all authors on here at all. She replied, maybe too quickly to a specific question, which is a difficult question:
> 
> *"What do you say to people who want to emulate your success and want to be writers themselves?"*
> 
> ...


In regards to Jodi (and not yourself), at best ignorance or out of date advice.

So should we all thank Amazon & co and call it day? Go back to sending out MS's to agents and publishers and simply wait for the God's to smile on us?

I know what I'm going to do and where I'm going to publish. And I have modest and healthy expectations of my success. 
Do I have respect for successful people? Yes.

*The world is full of successful people. Even dare I say humble minded successful people. There are successful people who people look up to as role models and inspiration - For me Jodi is not that type of person.*

By all means worship your idols, just don't expect every other poor person to become devotee's

Everytime I look at the title of this thread it sickens me


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Yes Spirit she is simply an antique and ignorant about self-publishing. She is the past. I would no more take her advice about self-publishing than I would take Turow's or any author brought up in the traditional publishing author's model about where to publish. I would listen to them about writing technique, but not about book delivery systems.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

JackDAlbrecht said:


> Why don't they just come out and say "Please don't try to compete with me, you are cutting into my paycheck!"?


Very, very funny. I like that.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Maybe I'm missing the question. Here's what the interview says:

_"What advice would you give to an aspiring author?"

"Take a workshop course. You need to learn to give and get criticism and to write on demand. And DO NOT SELF PUBLISH."_

Is there some other question about doing what she did?


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Maybe I'm missing the question. Here's what the interview says:
> 
> _"What advice would you give to an aspiring author?"
> 
> ...


Yes, I quoted from the Huffington Post interview which she could have said better--but she's an antique:

_"What do you say to people who want to emulate your success and want to be writers themselves?

My current advice is to not self-publish. It's still too hard for people to separate the wheat from the chaff, and what you miss out on is the marketability that is afforded to you by a brick and mortar publisher. There's a lot of crap out there, and one day we may find a way to segregate well written self published fiction from that stuff which anyone can throw on Amazon, but I just don't think we're there yet. Let me put it to you this way. The anomalies of self published fiction, the Amanda Hockings of this world - what did they do with their next book? Do they self publish it? No - they make sure they get a publisher."_


----------



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

Wouldn't it always be better to approach a publisher with a history of sucess in self-publishing? Even if you view self-pub as minor league ball, who doesn't value showing over telling?

B.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Yes, I quoted from the Huffington Post interview which she could have said better--but she's an antique:


OK. Can't tell the players without a program...


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> Trash is not confined to the self-published segment of the market.


It is when the 'trash is not confined' to the book's content.



> What I would like to know is how many self published books she read in order to solidify and inform her opinion.


I don't think it takes all that much to make this point clear. You can pick up at least a dozen of these self-published books, read the synopsis, and perhaps the first five chapters of the book to make the same conclusion. The reason why writers think this way is because if the problem is repeated in the first five pages, what makes you think it won't show up elsewhere in the book?



> Judging from the quality of the self published work in the Amazon top 100 and her ignorance regarding the career trajectory of Amanda Hocking, I think she hasn't read any. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. I reckon she's just regurgitating the crap she's heard from others in the publishing industry, which she's taken for gospel and not bothered researching.


There are some exceptional self-published novelists (e.g. Hocking & Grenton) that write exceptionally well. The problem is that these authors don't speak for the majority. In most cases, the majority are pure amateurs.

Parker

Finally, Ms Picoult is a writer and a d*mn fine one at that, but that doesn't mean she knows anything about the industry in which she operates. It's like assuming that a superb football player will also make a good coach, which is not the case. 
[/quote]


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

D. said:


> Oh, you don't mean fun-trashy, you mean inadequately-edited.


More or less, yes. But I would extend that need of editing to plot development, pace, redundancy, etc.

Parker


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

HAParker321 said:


> It is when the 'trash is not confined' to the book's content.
> I don't think it takes all that much to make this point clear. You can pick up at least a dozen of these self-published books, read the synopsis, and perhaps the first five chapters of the book to make the same conclusion. The reason why writers think this way is because if the problem is repeated in the first five pages, what makes you think it won't show up elsewhere in the book?
> There are some exceptional self-published novelists (e.g. Hocking & Grenton) that write exceptionally well. The problem is that these authors don't speak for the majority. In most cases, the majority are pure amateurs.
> 
> ...


That's particularly harsh and I couldn't disagree with you more. There are some traditionally published writers that simply stink, a few celebrities come to mind, yet they have no problems getting their book published because of their celebrity. It's a business and a rotten one at times and not the most talented always wins, whereas in this field, a good writer will eventually rise to the top on his or her own merits, not because of name recognition or a juice little scandal that will ensure the book sells, so I wouldn't be too judgmental about self published writers.


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> There are some traditionally published writers that simply stink, a few celebrities come to mind, yet they have no problems getting their book published because of their celebrity.


You may have misunderstood, I agree with what you are saying here, but I also added this: it's because the book storyline sucks. Nothing's wrong with the grammar, syntax, pacing etc., it's just the storyline.



> It's a business and a rotten one at times and not the most talented always wins, whereas in this field, a good writer will eventually rise to the top on his or her own merits, not because of name recognition or a juice little scandal that will ensure the book sells, so I wouldn't be too judgmental about self published writers.


The mentality goes something like this: if you were not so careful to write a crafty synopsis, create good book cover, correct the grammar, develop your character, or sound fluid in your writing within a specific amount of word count (I'd say about 2,000 words), then what makes you think anyone should have the patience to continue to look at your book?

Parker


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> However, I firmly believe that the tide will turn in the future.


I would hope so.

Parker


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

HAParker321 said:


> It is when the 'trash is not confined' to the book's content.
> I don't think it takes all that much to make this point clear. You can pick up at least a dozen of these self-published books, read the synopsis, and perhaps the first five chapters of the book to make the same conclusion. The reason why writers think this way is because if the problem is repeated in the first five pages, what makes you think it won't show up elsewhere in the book?


Parker, No need to delve into 5 chapters. Usually 12 or less pages will do to determine if the story and writing will do for you. But, I would not call the books that don't interest me "trash." That brush is too broad. There are some very good indie stories out there and lumping them all together is inaccurate. Like saying all indie films are inferior--some are and some aren't.


----------



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

If the traditional publishing industry produces only well written, properly edited work that is in demand by the reading public, then why are the bargain bins in my local department store filled to the brim with traditionally published trash, written by anonymous authors for non-existent audiences? And why have all the bookstores closed? And why are there so many errors in my copy of _Armagedon: The Musical_ by Robert Rankin. There are also errors in _Colony_ by Ben Bova and _The Slap _ by Tsiolkas. In fact, I don't think there is one book on my shelf, and it's a big shelf, that hasn't got at least two or three typos/editing errors/major plot holes. And all of them have been published by big corporate publishers.

The reality is that 'indie' published literature is just as relevant as corporate published literature, a fact that will be validated in the fullness of time.


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> Parker, No need to delve into 5 chapters.


I'm a little shorter than that.



> But, I would not call the books that don't interest me "trash." That brush is too broad.


I would not either, but the problem is with the development.

Parker


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> If the traditional publishing industry produces only well written, properly edited work that is in demand by the reading public, then why are the bargain bins in my local department store filled to the brim with traditionally published trash, written by anonymous authors for non-existent audiences?


Publishing is a business;' books all have their risks.



> And why have all the bookstores closed?


Which ones? Borders and Barnes and Noble?



> In fact, I don't think there is one book on my shelf, and it's a big shelf, that hasn't got at least two or three typos/editing errors/major plot holes. And all of them have been published by big corporate publishers.


Does that make the book no better than the one with about 1,000 errors?



> The reality is that 'indie' published literature is just as relevant as corporate published literature, a fact that will be validated in the fullness of time.


Not really.

Parker


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

jackz4000 said:


> Parker, No need to delve into 5 chapters. Usually 12 or less pages will do to determine if the story and writing will do for you.


Yes, the sample on Amazon gives plenty.


----------



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

Yes, publishing is a business which is why so many indies are making money and corporate publishing is fighting the spread of ebooks tooth and nail.
Here is Australia, Borders and Angus and Robertson have closed down (they were owned by the same company). Readers Feast has drastically reduced the number of outlets (I don't know if there are any left in Melbourne), as have Dymocks. 
The argument that only indie books are poorly edited or irredeemably trashy holds no water.
History will be the judge. I'm looking back at what happened to Kodak and Fujitsu, the hysterics of RIAA, the demise of the record store, and the slow death of the brick-and-mortar video rental store. What are you basing your arguments on?


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> Here in Australia, Borders and Angus and Robertson have closed down (they were owned by the same company). Readers Feast has drastically reduced the number of outlets (I don't know if there are any left in Melbourne), as have Dymocks.


The U.S. is a bit different.



> The argument that only indie books are poorly edited or irredeemably trashy holds no water.


You probably have not read/reviewed enough books to make that statement.



> What are you basing your arguments on?


Review, writing, and college experience.

Parker


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> And what point is that?


Indie authors are not all that great.


----------



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

HAParker321 said:


> The U.S. is a bit different.
> You probably have not read/reviewed enough books to make that statement.
> Review, writing, and college experience.
> 
> Parker


We will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Spirit Flame (Feb 28, 2012)

HAParker321 said:


> Indie authors are not all that great.


I absolutely love this quoted statement. It's a bit like moving to America long term and then spending the rest of my life moaning about American English.

Posting in a writing forum highly populated by Indies, what does that statement confer?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

If the title and the cover of a book catch my eye, I will read the blurb. If the blurb looks good, I will download a sample. If I like the sample, I will buy the book. It really isn't such an ordeal. Just because a book is an indie book doesn't mean it has 1,000 errors.


----------



## Eric C (Aug 3, 2009)

HAParker321 said:


> There are some exceptional self-published novelists (e.g. Hocking & Grenton) that write exceptionally well. The problem is that these authors don't speak for the majority. In most cases, the majority are pure amateurs.


The mention of Hocking as one example of "exceptional" self-published novelists strikes me as ironic given that before Kindle she'd written several books (that have since become best sellers) but couldn't find a literary agent much less a publisher.

I like having two systems, the trad and the indie, and I don't worry about all the bad novels being gatekeeperlessly uploaded for self-publication as I expect the curation to get better over time.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

HAParker321 said:


> Indie authors are not all that great.


I am a consumer of many different products and personally I see books as a product, though some will wax and wane that it is art. To me a short story, novelette or novel is a product since it is being sold on the open market. If a sector of readers buy and read and like the book it has a perceived value to them.

If I spend $100K on a new car I expect it to be at least 5 times better than the $18K car. It should be. If I have a $25 Kobe burger at a nice restaurant, I expect it to be at least 5 times better than the Wendy's burger for $5. These are all products to me.

Same with a book. That $14.99 ebook should be 5 times better than the one for $2.99. Some are some aren't. It's not you Parker or Lynn who decides which book is the better value--it is the reader with their money. On Amazon it appears that both sectors sell well, which is what it's all about in giving readers what they want to read. There are many different types of readers, not just Parker and Lynn.

I see nothing wrong with an $18K car, $5 Wendy Burger or a $2.99 ebook.

One man's trash is another man's dinner.


----------



## Spirit Flame (Feb 28, 2012)

jackz4000 said:


> I am a consumer of many different products and personally I see books as a product, though some will wax and wane that it is art. To me a short story, novelette or novel is a product since it is being sold on the open market. If a sector of readers buy and read and like the book it has a perceived value to them.
> 
> If I spend $100K on a new car I expect it to be at least 5 times better than the $18K car. It should be. If I have a $25 Kobe burger at a nice restaurant, I expect it to be at least 5 times better than the Wendy's burger for $5. These are all products to me.
> 
> ...


Very well said Jackz, Some of the ludicrous stuff people say on here.
You simply don't see this in the business world. At the end of the day the consumer decides the fate of your product - Simple!

What I see on here is elitism and rather large ego's both of which will blind you and leave you on a digital soap box.

Quite frankly those who despise Indie authors come across as Victorian.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Herc, Lynn is one of the biggest boosters of indie authors on the internet and she does have her standards, which is good. 
But neither you or I or Lynn or Parker gets to decide what other readers should or will decide to read. Readers have different tastes and reading abilities and they decide what they want to buy and read. No gatekeepers need apply. Amazon's tools make it easy for each reader to select a book they might like to read--if they read 50 pages and don't like it--they can very easily return it and get their money back. It is effortless.

Sometimes when I look at the Amazon bestsellers list I am amazed at the fecundity of books. There are books and genres and authors I would not want to read for whatever reason. But, there are thousands of readers out there with different tastes than mine who do want to read that type of book. The authors job is to write that book.

@Spirit--Yeah books are just another product and there are many diverse reader out there with different needs. There are some people who just need a simple read. Any book that gets people to read is Ok in my book.


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

Herc- The Reluctant Geek said:


> We will have to agree to disagree.


Have you lived in the US?

Do you have experience in writing?

Parker


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> The mention of Hocking as one example of "exceptional" self-published novelists strikes me as ironic given that before Kindle she'd written several books (that have since become best sellers) but couldn't find a literary agent much less a publisher.


Getting an agent's attention is not a 'walk in the park.'



> I like having two systems, the trad and the indie, and I don't worry about all the bad novels being gatekeeperlessly uploaded for self-publication as I expect the curation to get better over time.


Time does not take away the amateurs.

Parker


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> One man's trash is another man's dinner.


I don't think all readers would agree with that statement; there are some things that won't change.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Indie authors are not all that great.


Agree. I also observe independents continually gaining in the overall and genre best seller lists. That is an indication there may be a corresponding increase in sales. Consumers have figured out how to get good independent books, and are ignoring the bad ones.

As I said earlier, people can continue to say there are a lot of bad independent books. But consumers don't care. They have discovered how to get the good ones.

So, I'll stipulate to lots of trashy independent books. Consumers know how to avoid them, and independent authors have little reason to care about what someone else does. Ain't this a great country?


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

HAParker321 said:


> Publishing is a business;' books all have their risks.
> Which ones? Borders and Barnes and Noble?
> Does that make the book no better than the one with about 1,000 errors?
> Not really.
> ...


I'm confused by your postings, Parker. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting from your posts is that it is your opinion that most self-published books are trash. Am I wrong in that assumption? If I knew where you were coming from, I could better understand your point.


----------



## RuthMadison (Jul 9, 2011)

Some people have said they like Picolt's books and I guess there must be something to them since she keeps writing them and they keep doing well, but personally I think she's a terrible writer.

I hate her books.

They all have fascinating premises and completely fail to deliver. I think her writing is awful.


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

RuthMadison said:


> Some people have said they like Picolt's books and I guess there must be something to them since she keeps writing them and they keep doing well, but personally I think she's a terrible writer.
> 
> I hate her books.
> 
> They all have fascinating premises and completely fail to deliver. I think her writing is awful.


I've only read one and it was okay. The beginning was great. It had a wrongly accused man who was just out of prison--which I just had to read because my book had a similar premise. I loved that part of the book, but about half-way through, it inexplicably changed focus to some teenage girls and witchcraft and the former main characters became background characters. I thought that was so strange.


----------



## Beatriz (Feb 22, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> If the title and the cover of a book catch my eye, I will read the blurb. If the blurb looks good, I will download a sample. If I like the sample, I will buy the book. It really isn't such an ordeal. Just because a book is an indie book doesn't mean it has 1,000 errors.


Excellent post, that's the way to do it.


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Agree. I also observe independents continually gaining in the overall and genre best seller lists. That is an indication there may be a corresponding increase in sales. Consumers have figured out how to get good independent books, and are ignoring the bad ones.
> 
> As I said earlier, people can continue to say there are a lot of bad independent books. But consumers don't care. They have discovered how to get the good ones.
> 
> So, I'll stipulate to lots of trashy independent books. Consumers know how to avoid them, and independent authors have little reason to care about what someone else does. Ain't this a great country?


Well Consumers get quite tired and discouraged whenever they read books from the 'indie' market and find out that the majority of them are trash.

Parker


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

MaryMcDonald said:


> I'm confused by your postings, Parker. I could be wrong, but what I'm getting from your posts is that it is your opinion that most self-published books are trash. Am I wrong in that assumption? If I knew where you were coming from, I could better understand your point.


I would argue most (as in 75% or less) that are not of good quality (trash). There are some books I have read, and rated well which I would consider the other (25%) because they are the 'diamond in the rough' kind of literature.

Parker


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

HAParker321 said:


> Well Consumers get quite tired and discouraged whenever they read books from the 'indie' market and find out that the majority of them are trash.
> 
> Parker


That may have been your experience.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

HAParker321 said:


> I would argue most (as in 75% or less) that are not of good quality (trash). There are some books I have read, and rated well which I would consider the other (25%) because they are the 'diamond in the rough' kind of literature. If you want to know where I am coming from you should look into my blog site.
> 
> Parker


We don't actually have to read your blog site to know where you are coming from. This told me all I need to know:
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,67659.0.html


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

jackz4000 said:


> That may have been your experience.


The truth is, it's not subjective.

Parker


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

JeanneM said:


> We don't actually have to read your blog site to know where you are coming from. This told me all I need to know:
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,67659.0.html


So what do you know about from the post?

Parker


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

> Getting an agent's attention is not a 'walk in the park.'


No one ever said it was a walk in the park. But if even authors with good books have difficulty getting them published, that scores points for self-publishing.



> Well Consumers get quite tired and discouraged whenever they read books from the 'indie' market and find out that the majority of them are trash.


Then the "problem" is self-correcting. If customers really get discouraged by the indie market, the indie market will just vanish. But if customers are buying from indie authors, then they just may not be so discouraged as you imagine. People are able to sample books before they buy, this tells them quite a lot about the quality of the book.


----------



## Lynn McNamee (Jan 8, 2009)

HAParker321 said:


> I would argue most (as in 75% or less) that are not of good quality (trash).


I don't think there is any way to define the amount of good or "bad" books. Aside from objective problems, like editing, quality is in the eyes of the reader.

Also, though I have read a lot of indie books, the number is not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the amount being published.

My review blog received an average of 5 books a day, with 99% or more of those being indie. My staff couldn't even begin to read all of those books.

I have no idea what the percentage of edited books vs. unedited books is, and as far as I know, no one else does, either. Everything else is subjective.

As I said earlier, I think the tide is turning. Indies are getting editors, whether paid or volunteer, and putting out better quality work. They are learning to create or buy professional covers to draw readers to their work.

I think the cream will rise to the top. When it does, word will get around, and authors will strive to publish better quality in order to be in that "cream level." 

Personally, I think Ms. Picoult was wrong. There is nothing wrong with self-publishing, as long as authors publish quality books, which CAN be done the indie way.

I started reviewing on Amazon out of anger. I spent money on books that I couldn't read because they were so filled with editing and formatting errors, and I wanted to warn others.

What kept me reviewing were the great finds among the indie books, terrific books I might never have gotten to read had the Indie Revolution, as I like to call it, never come to pass.


----------



## KindleKandy (Apr 9, 2012)

Amanda Hocking DID publish book #2 (and 3) on her own. She sold the series afterward. 

I don't care for her books, but even if I did, I may not ever buy them again after that.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I can go to a chain restaurant and have a reasomable degree of assurance of a certain level of quality. I tend to find them a bit dull, but the quality usually isn't awful. Then there are independent restaurants. The quality can vary considerably. I take a risk when I try a new independent restaurant. I might love it. I might hate it. But I never will find the restaurants I love if I don't take that risk.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

jackz4000 said:


> I am a consumer of many different products and personally I see books as a product, though some will wax and wane that it is art. To me a short story, novelette or novel is a product since it is being sold on the open market. If a sector of readers buy and read and like the book it has a perceived value to them.
> 
> If I spend $100K on a new car I expect it to be at least 5 times better than the $18K car. It should be. If I have a $25 Kobe burger at a nice restaurant, I expect it to be at least 5 times better than the Wendy's burger for $5. These are all products to me.
> 
> ...


Finally.

"You get what you pay for."

This has been a universal truth, understood by almost everybody throughout the history of mankind... except in this snob-business.
Of the $25 you pay for a hardcover, between $6 and $9 goes to the several editing passes, and only about $5 to the actual paper, ink, cover and dust-jacket.

Oh, and guess why you find more typos in traditionally published books as of late? After robbing the author and fleecing the reader, publishing houses are economizing... on editing. They're hardly going to cut down on their own salaries, are they? Publishing houses are in the business of producing money, not literature. That's also why not only your book, but increasingly you yourself have to be "marketable."

Yet, only in this business you will encounter snooty people proclaiming in a hamburger joint, "If I'm going to eat here, I'm going to expect steak and a side dish of caviar and truffles, with a bottle of your best wine, and none of your house-plonk either. I don't care that you call it a Happy Meal and charge only a few dollars for it. I want the exact same eating-experience as a five-star-restaurant offers."

I have been lurking on some reader-forums in my niche, and, lo and behold, readers seem to understand this. More and more I find readers are recommending books to each other and adding comments like, "good value for money," "a few formatting issues, but well worth the asking price," "terrific story with a few typos, but a steal at what the author is asking."

But.

What I love about this community, is that we are trying to offer the same quality as traditional publishers, and then some. That we are stimulating each other in a positive way (I pass over the occasional snide remarks) to deliver a better product and even more value for money.

Some of us accomplish this already. Myself, I've still a long way to go, but I'm working on it.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

In case you don't remember Harper here is one mess of a thread where he passes himself off as a "reviewer" trying to get indie authors to let him review their work on his blog and now he is still trying to get you to his blog.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,84406.msg1566464.html#msg1566464


----------



## HAParker321 (May 19, 2011)

> Then the "problem" is self-correcting. If customers really get discouraged by the indie market, the indie market will just vanish. But if customers are buying from indie authors, then they just may not be so discouraged as you imagine. People are able to sample books before they buy, this tells them quite a lot about the quality of the book.


Sampling is not an issue. It's really what the book says and depends on what you are selling.

Parker


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

HAParker321 said:


> Sampling is not an issue. It's really what the book says and depends on what you are selling.
> 
> Parker


How do I see what the book says? By sampling it.
How do I tell what the author is selling? By sampling it.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks,

while I've been out enjoying myself (reopening of the Howard Theatre in downtown Washington, DC, great music!), there have been multiple reports about this thread. Locking it so I can read through it.

Everybody sing "My Girl" while I read through.

Betsy
KB Moderator

_Edit: upon review and some pruning, this thread will remain locked as it seemed to be the revival of a thread a couple of days old for the sole purpose of eliciting angry responses (which it did). This is against Forum Decorum._


----------

