# Is there a mad rush to self-publish anything and everything?



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Is there a mad rush to self-publish anything and everything, whether it's ready or not? Is there a rush hour in the indie publishing world?

I'm wondering whether this rush to publish could have contributed to the latest report this week from Digital Book World that the top 20 bestselling eBooks were mostly from traditional publishers who took their sweet time to make their books nice and fluffy, edited several times, formatted properly, etc, before they released them to their voracious reading public.

This is the DBW article I'm referring to:
"Penguin Random House Takes Nine of 25 Spots on Ebook Best-Sellers List"
http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2013/penguin-random-house-takes-nine-of-25-spots-on-ebook-best-sellers-list/

I've thought of this recently when I noticed the rush hour. I wrote something about it:
http://www.janthompson.com/a-cup-of-chai/rush-hour.html

What is your take on the self-publishing trend? Is there a rush hour? Or has the rush hour passed?


----------



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

I think there might be some truth in that. I spent 20 years writing and re-writing one of my books because I knew the high standard required of a trad publisher. Don't think I'll spend 20 years on my WIP.  .


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

I think the initial flood has lessened but that the rush hour is still there to some extent. This can be a discouraging business. Authors who don't put the time and effort into producing quality content are going to grow tired of bad reviews and no sales and move on.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

What's discouraging to me is that I've seen three books recently (all paranormal romance) which were all total garbage -- even the acknowledgements and legal matter had typos and bad grammar, and the covers looked absurdly amateurish-- which are nevertheless in or close to the top 1000. Not bestsellers, but doing decidedly better than I am. Yes, I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but these were pretty darn bad. I don't know how stuff like this sells, but I suppose the "mad rush" isn't going to stop as long as people publish rubbish and it makes them money.


----------



## RBC (Feb 24, 2013)

Oh yeah there is a rush! Especially in non-fiction writing, little less in fiction because it's not as easy as non-fiction (hire a writer to research topic or just research it yourself and publish it fast, repeat). The rush has been on for about 2 years now probably and I actually think it will be ending soon, thinking next 6 months we will see less and less of people rushing to cash in on the trend. Amazon's changes recently contribute to that I think too. 

As far as, top 20 being full of traditionally published books mostly, it's an advertisement basically, a PR thing.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

To be fair, "Penguin Random House" is a really monstrous entity now. The article says they own both _Fifty Shades _and _Crossfire_. They also have a ton of major authors writing for them. It's not surprising they'd be dominating the top 25. They have the advertising muscle and distribution behind their books. I don't see this as having much to do with indies; they're just a huge company.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I think there might be some truth in that. I spent 20 years writing and re-writing one of my books because I knew the high standard required of a trad publisher. Don't think I'll spend 20 years on my WIP. .


Good point about timing. I spent 3 years writing one of my books, and then the next 13 years rewriting it, and then I just gave up because writers were telling me that some literary agents reject as many as 100% of the manuscripts, so I got the idea in my head that I'd never be good enough to pass through that toll gate. It was a life lesson for me. I could have self-pubbed that baby a long time ago.

I'm not taking 16 years on my current WIP anymore. Fresh start! But at the same time, I'm reading industry news and trying to find a middle ground where quality and quantity can live happily ever after LOL.


----------



## MsTee (Jul 30, 2012)

There's not only a rush INTO self-publishing, there's also a rush DURING self-publishing.  Every so often, there's a post on here bemoaning lack of sales, and the usual advice is: "Write more books!" Yes, it's sound and encouraging advice but, not gonna lie, I get this heavy feeling in my chest when I see it. My shoulders get hunched and in my head there's this exaggerated imagery of a huge beast behind me while I'm staring at my blank MS Word document. And all I can hear is the beast: "WRITE MORE BOOKS! WRIIITE!" Talk about anxiety on a whole new level.


----------



## Rusty Bigfoot (Jul 6, 2011)

It seems to me that the majors are dominating becuase they have the big-name authors, not because they don't hava typos.


----------



## scribblr (Aug 20, 2010)

JanThompson said:


> This is the DBW article I'm referring to:
> "Penguin Random House Takes Nine of 25 Spots on Ebook Best-Sellers List"
> http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2013/penguin-random-house-takes-nine-of-25-spots-on-ebook-best-sellers-list/


The big publishing houses have many famous authors with well established fan bases, and they're constantly prodding them to pump out new books. How many Indie authors can compete with the household names for total sales. It takes a lot of time to grow a fan base. And one of the books on that list was written in the 1970's. Ender's Game, written by Orson Scott Card and some woman I've never hear of until recently, Dorothy Prater Niemi, has been topping the Space Opera list for years. In three years, I've only surpassed it for first place on Amazon's Space Opera list a few times. Finally, there are books by five Independent authors on that list, so Indies aren't doing that badly. The big trad houses know that the ebook market is where the action is these days, which is why they force terms of 25%/75% on all their authors, and why they keep lowering their ebook prices.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

MegHarris said:


> To be fair, "Penguin Random House" is a really monstrous entity now. The article says they own both _Fifty Shades _and _Crossfire_. They also have a ton of really big authors writing for them. It's not surprising they'd be dominating the top 25. They have the advertising muscle and distribution behind their books. I don't see this as having much to do with indies; they're just a really huge company.


That's a good point about PRH having the muscles to move marketing.

Also, perhaps with this trend (not sure if it will last), maybe it will raise indie book prices across the board and bring in more income for indie authors? I don't know if that's good or bad in the sense that as an avid reader, I don't want to spend a fortune on eBooks even though I want a good read


----------



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

Indies holding 20% of the best seller list seems pretty good to me.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Agree. The list cited by the OP shows five of the top 25 are independent. That's excellent for a new market segment of suppliers. 

I'd also note much of the promotional push for publishers' ebooks comes from the paper version and bookstore presence.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

And let's not forget that both _Fifty Shades of Grey_ and _Crossfire_ were originally self-published and only snapped up by Penguin Random House or whatever they are calling themselves after they struck it big.


----------



## DavidRM (Sep 21, 2010)

I consider the current Indie Publishing Thing to have started in 2009. So we're now a good 4 years in. I joined in 2010. Not sure if that mean's I'm still a newbie or not...

Anyway, here's what I've seen in terms of Indie Mantra:

*Publish publish publish!* - As an indie you can (finally) cash in all those "trunk" novels and stories you've accumulated. Crash the gates! Be the next Amanda Hocking!

Which then evolved into:

*Promote promote promote!* - Those published novels and stories won't sell themselves, you know. You gotta make it happen! Be the next John Locke!

Over the past year, that mantra has been somewhat replaced with:

*Write write write!* - The best promotion for your current work is new work! This is generating a sense of "you're not writing fast enough!" If you're not writing and publishing at least 10 novels a year, your commitment is called into question. ;-)

Where will we go next? Maybe "Polish polish polish!"

-David


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> And let's not forget that both Fifty Shades of Grey and Crossfire were originally self-published and only snapped up by Penguin Random House or whatever they are calling themselves after they struck it big.


Actually, _Fifty Shades_ was published by a small press, and although the first _Crossfire_ book was in fact self-pubbed, Sylvia Day was already traditionally published and a very well-known romance author.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I think there might be some truth in that. I spent 20 years writing and re-writing one of my books because I knew the high standard required of a trad publisher. Don't think I'll spend 20 years on my WIP. .


I've also known quite a few books that were worse rather than better for being worked and re-worked year after year. Not necessarily yours... but still. The assumption the longer you work on it the better it is, is a fallacy. _The Gambler_ by Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Muriel Spark's _The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie_ were both written in less than a month. Graham Greene wrote _The Confidential Agen_t in only six weeks. I don't know of any evidence they'd been better if the author had dinked around with them for a few years. (I WISH I could write that well that fast)

It is hardly surprising that Randy Penguin has a large slice of the best seller list considering their clout. I have to agree with Katie Elle that indies having 20% is pretty darn impressive.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Go Past the top 25 and look at the top 100 or top 500 ebooks.

Indies are crushing, and they are absolutely redefining the industry and even the genres and sub genres where everyone competes.

Sadly, people are always going to wring their hands over "the tsunami of crap," because they are missing the basic fact that the market is now wide open.  Wide open means EVERYTHING gets in, including a lot of crap.  

But that also means there is now almost a level playing field, which is why so many KBers past, present and future are absolutely making a great living or paying the rent or paying the car loan through their writing business.

This handwringing stuff is so silly, but I suppose we have to wring our hands over something.  Oh, it's so sad how all of us indies are able to make money now...wahhhhh!


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

Didn't indies have like 6 or 7 of the top 10 just a few weeks ago? I can't remember the exact time-frame (if I'm not listed it is only of mild interest), but I know there were some threads about it here on the boards. Didn't H.M. have two of the spots?

To draw the conclusion that TPs are dominating now, regardless of the reason, is just as abstract as claiming that indies ruled the world then.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## gorvnice (Dec 29, 2010)

Joe_Nobody said:


> To draw the conclusion that TPs are dominating now, regardless of the reason, is just as abstract as claiming that indies ruled the world then.


And I would also add that even to be able to have the conversation that indies might be dominating--is absolutely incredible.

We should be celebrating being on an even playing field! What is this doom and gloom stuff all of the time about lack of quality that is constantly being spouted? Do people realize the opportunity we writers have right now? In the history of modern man, there has NEVER been a time like this for writers. NEVER.

Gone are the days where we have to sit and beg for the scraps that the big publishers give us. Some folks really don't get how bad it was even just a few years ago, let alone what writers went through a generation ago.

This is utopia for writers. Enjoy it while it lasts and stop yer whining people.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> It is hardly surprising that Randy Penguin has a large slice of the best seller list considering their clout. I have to agree with Katie Elle that indies having 20% is pretty darn impressive.


Agree. When you consider the muscle Random Penguin has in terms of money and employees and experience indies having 20% in the Top 25 looks good to me. Indies are singular without those resources and yet can still be effective.


----------



## Saffron (May 22, 2013)

I agree with the need to edit several times and format properly, if not, it's too easy to alienate the reader, however this article smacks a wee bit of marketing to me, as in, "Don't forget we also offer publishing services to Indies" - at a price. Caveat emptor I say. Keep Writing and Carry On. Stick with your dear tried and trusted editor and ignore the appeals from the big boys to take your hard-earned Indie money to feed their big payrolls.


----------



## brie.mcgill (Jun 5, 2013)

> There are now 3 layers in publishing:
> 1) Traditional
> 2) Full-time Indies
> 3) The sleepless nights struggling Indies (i.e. - day job)


Oh, yes, I read that AFTER my cup of coffee, and yes, I'll be running out the door in a few minutes to my day job. 

I think people publishing independently can learn a lot from the industry, and it would be wise to heed the advice that goes for seeking an agent. The difference with self-publishing, though, is there is nothing to hold you back!

It takes a lot of commitment to make it full time, traditionally or independently... I have my own word-count goals and only falter when I am soooo wiped out from working overtime. I'd imagine it's much easier to stay in that creative space when you have less real-world hindrances and more time to write. Add to that the joy of having more sales and fans, I think it's an upward spiral. The nice thing is, Amazon doesn't discriminate, so if you want to do it, you can DO IT... you don't need an agent, just the time, determination and kahunas.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

DavidRM said:


> Where will we go next? Maybe "Polish polish polish!"


As a reader who has been enticed by too many intriguing covers and blurbs that ended up leading into stilted and typo-filled samples, the only thing I can say is, "One can only hope."


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

Zoe Cannon said:


> Quote from: DavidRM on Today at 03:09:49 PM
> Where will we go next? Maybe "Polish polish polish!"
> 
> As a reader who has been enticed by too many intriguing covers and blurbs that ended up leading into stilted and typo-filled samples, the only thing I can say is, "One can only hope."


Amen.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Didn't indies have like 6 or 7 of the top 10 just a few weeks ago? I can't remember the exact time-frame (if I'm not listed it is only of mild interest), but I know there were some threads about it here on the boards. Didn't H.M. have two of the spots?
> 
> To draw the conclusion that TPs are dominating now, regardless of the reason, is just as abstract as claiming that indies ruled the world then.


Over time it has varied but has mostly hovered around the 20-30% for at least a year now.


----------



## NicoleSwan (Oct 2, 2011)

MegHarris said:


> What's discouraging to me is that I've seen three books recently (all paranormal romance) which were all total garbage -- even the acknowledgements and legal matter had typos and bad grammar, and the covers looked absurdly amateurish-- which are nevertheless in or close to the top 1000. Not bestsellers, but doing decidedly better than I am.


^-- This, it drives me insane, does my head in completely. I wonder what their trick is.


----------



## Indirectly (Jul 11, 2013)

Zoe Cannon said:


> As a reader who has been enticed by too many intriguing covers and blurbs that ended up leading into stilted and typo-filled samples, the only thing I can say is, "One can only hope."


Very much this. Recently I purchased an indie book which had a professionally written beginning - basically, the writer made sure that the preview would show good work - but just crashed and burned after that. I really felt tricked. 

Having said that, the majority of indie books I've read have been excellent and a few have been mind-blowing.


----------



## KristenDaRay (Aug 4, 2012)

On the OP, I agree there is a rush.  I myself, on my first book, fell into it's trap. I did have a hired editor, but I did not take it through a proof before sending it out. I guess I just figured that everything should have been caught by her the first time, but I realized now that, that is not the case.

While I have mostly 4 star reviews that all rave about the story of the book, one of the number one comments I get about it is it could have used another proof. Because of this, I'm taking my time to go through another proof with the second book and I'm also sending the first book through a proof (grammatical and typos only nothing big).

I should have done it with my first book, but because of the deadline I put myself on, and I had thought that she done a pretty good job with the edit. She did do a good job, but there was still stuff that didn't get caught that a proof would have probably caught.

It's a lesson learned on my part. 

However, I still see authors out there who make 5k a month, and it's full of comma splices on just about every page and has a lot of misused words. Not in just one book but every book they put out. Then when I read about them, they never turned their book into an editor at all. I'm wondering is this story really that good to make this many sales and be so poorly written? It's sad to think that they make so much money then fairly clean books dwindle down below them. 

But, I think it has to do not only with the story but how fast they pump out books. Their fans are always constantly able to pick up a new one.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

Zoe Cannon said:


> As a reader who has been enticed by too many intriguing covers and blurbs that ended up leading into stilted and typo-filled samples, the only thing I can say is, "One can only hope."


Yes, please!


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

DavidRM said:


> Where will we go next? Maybe "Polish polish polish!"
> 
> -David


I think that's it. Produce polished products. That's the key to selfpub being able to compete with tradpub.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

KristenDaRay said:


> However, I still see authors out there who make 5k a month, and it's full of comma splices on just about every page and has a lot of misused words. Not in just one book but every book they put out. Then when I read about them, they never turned their book into an editor at all. I'm wondering is this story really that good to make this many sales and be so poorly written? It's sad to think that they make so much money then fairly clean books dwindle down below them.


I wonder if eventually readers will figure it out... There are books I read that I chuck away afterwards, and there are books that I keep on the shelves because they are "well-written" and deserve a second read.

I wonder if the same is for eBooks -- maybe due to heavy promotions, readers buy on a whim, etc -- but give it a couple of years, and it's going to be over. Readers grow up, start comparing well-written books with pop-up books, and start to become choosier? After eating so many frozen dinners, one might start looking for filet mignon instead?


----------



## jvin248 (Jan 31, 2012)

JanThompson said:


> I think that's it. Produce polished products. That's the key to selfp
> ub being able to compete with tradpub.


But somehow have to promoteX3 that it's polishedX3...


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " Readers grow up, start comparing well-written books with pop-up books, and start to become choosier? After eating so many frozen dinners, one might start looking for filet mignon instead?"


Perhaps there are zillions of consumers who have different tastes and preferences in food.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

In a recent survey on Goodreads it turned out readers don't care much about polish.

Only 2.7% would abandon a book for bad editing but 46,4% will ditch a slow, boring book.

Seems readers got fed up with bland, overpriced filet mignon.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Perhaps there are zillions of consumers who have different tastes and preferences in food.


That is true. Some of us are vegetarians.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Andrew Ashling said:


> In a recent survey on Goodreads it turned out readers don't care much about polish.
> 
> Only 2.7% would abandon a book for bad editing but 46,4% will ditch a slow, boring book.
> 
> Seems readers got fed up with bland, overpriced filet mignon.


There are overpriced books too. So what is a writer to do?

I agree with the GR survey. As a reader, I ditch boring books too. That is why I love the Amazon sampling. And might be why libraries will continue to exist.


----------



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

There's a mad rush to make wild assumptions about hundreds and hundreds of writers, eventually resulting in various threads/blogs about this supposed mad rush where the end result is usually just a confirmation of whatever bias the original poster wanted to make (self-pubbers impatient crappy writers / traditional too slow old fashioned and boring). That's about the only thing I'm confident of.


----------



## Jim Johnson (Jan 4, 2011)

Edward M. Grant said:


> a good story and interesting characters beats perfect punctuation any day.


+1 I'll forgive the occasional typo if the characters and story are moving me to keep reading. Too many typos get to be a distraction, and if I find I'm surfacing out of the story and thinking more about the typos than the characters/story, the writer's lost me.


----------



## Gone To Croatan (Jun 24, 2011)

JimJohnson said:


> Too many typos get to be a distraction, and if I find I'm surfacing out of the story and thinking more about the typos than the characters/story, the writer's lost me.


Yeah, same here. There's a limit to how much bad writing I can stand before I'm spending more time thinking about the writing than the story, but so long as the book doesn't reach that level, I'll keep reading.

And I suspect most readers' bad writing tolerance is much greater than mine. I've re-read novels recently that I loved when I first read them years ago, and only now noticed how badly written they are by English teacher standards.


----------



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

JimJohnson said:


> +1 I'll forgive the occasional typo if the characters and story are moving me to keep reading. Too many typos get to be a distraction, and if I find I'm surfacing out of the story and thinking more about the typos than the characters/story, the writer's lost me.


^this^


----------



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

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> There's a mad rush to make wild assumptions about hundreds and hundreds of writers, eventually resulting in various threads/blogs about this supposed mad rush where the end result is usually just a confirmation of whatever bias the original poster wanted to make (self-pubbers impatient crappy writers / traditional too slow old fashioned and boring). That's about the only thing I'm confident of.


LOL.

So the suggestion is that a snapshot of the bestseller lists means that indies are going to slow down their writing and fans are going to want fewer of their favorite books?


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

JanThompson said:


> So what is a writer to do?


I can only tell you what I do (and it is NOT the highway to quick financial success).

While writing I don't care about the reader. I don't care about rules. I don't care about me or my bank account. I only care about the characters and the story.

Then I go look for people who like the finished product as is.

Others write to please readers, want to make as much money as possible and make a product with that in mind.
I admire them and I wish I were a good enough writer to do it too.


----------



## Ethan Jones (Jan 20, 2012)

I would not let excellent get in the way of great or good.

Thanks,

Ethan


----------



## heavycat (Feb 14, 2011)

I have a suspicion that the overwhelming majority of readers cannot recognize less-than-stellar writing.

Frankly, I think competent and stylistically distinctive writing is confusing for much of the market, mainly because so many of them were never expected to read anything of consequence in school, and they certainly weren't expected to understand it or think about it.

Many common tools of an educated writer like symbolism, tone, foreshadowing, lyricism, time compression, omniscient POV, the (non-first-person) narrator as a character, etc. are reported by inexperienced readers as "confusing" when in reality, those tools make for a subtle, nuanced narrative that speaks on many levels, like visual storytelling in a film.

In the e-book market, where the gravitational pull of the first-person POV romance narrative is so enormous, anything that isn't told in a first-person POV, for example, is regarded as unusual, and often identified as "wrong" when again, in reality, the first-person POV is only one of many methods of telling a story, and might be entirely too limiting for some kinds of books.

What is perfectly clear to someone with the skill and talent to write a novel may be inscrutable to the average reader.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

David 'Half-Orc' Dalglish said:


> There's a mad rush to make wild assumptions about hundreds and hundreds of writers, eventually resulting in various threads/blogs about this supposed mad rush where the end result is usually just a confirmation of whatever bias the original poster wanted to make (self-pubbers impatient crappy writers / traditional too slow old fashioned and boring). That's about the only thing I'm confident of.


+1

If a book is selling well, it might be because readers love the story and want more, not because it's crap but somehow the author is pulling the wool over people's eyes.

There is no rush. No more than there ever was...


----------



## RMHuffman (Apr 1, 2013)

Meh. Seems like the last few years have been a transitional period (during which I've been writing/lurking, only recently joined the "have-published" crowd). So, now, on one end of this spectrum, the traditional publishers are scrambling to avoid extinction; on the other end, the "get-rich-quick?!" crowd is pushing out poorly-edited garbage. Both of those extremes will continue to exist, no doubt, but I think the sweet spot of the bold new written-word frontier will end up being those authors who take the time to engage professional services for editing, formatting, and covers, create a good product at a price that doesn't take middlemen into account, and connect directly to readers through platforms that didn't exist a decade ago. (P.S. That's pretty much everybody here.) Wheat, chaff, etc.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

Edward M. Grant said:


> You know all those 'good writing' rules English teachers beat into you?
> 
> Readers don't care about them.
> 
> That's not to imply that anyone should aim to write poorly, but a good story and interesting characters beats perfect punctuation any day.


The flow of the writing beats out textbook-perfect grammar any day. I would give an English teacher an aneurysm with all my sentence fragments.

That said, grammar rules, like standardized spellings, exist to make meaning easily understood. If a reader has to stop and reread a sentence or a paragraph because the poor grammar makes the meaning unclear, the author has done something wrong.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

> Many common tools of an educated writer like symbolism, tone, foreshadowing, lyricism, time compression, omniscient POV, the (non-first-person) narrator as a character, etc. are reported by inexperienced readers as "confusing" when in reality, those tools make for a subtle, nuanced narrative that speaks on many levels, like visual storytelling in a film.


Very, very true.


----------



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

KristenDaRay said:


> I'm also sending the first book through a proof (grammatical and typos only nothing big).


I'm curious about this. How many people send their books through "a" proof? I'm one of those many disdain because I do it myself (I do have the background). I use beta readers for story and characters and tell them not to bother proofreading, but to let me know anything that pops out at them, and they catch a few things. After all revisions, I do a straight read through (1). Then I print and read it out loud (2). Then I read it backwards paragraph by paragraph with a ruler under each line (3). With this last book one of my beta readers who also has a good background in grammar, spelling, etc., volunteered to proof and did. Her read through came after my (1) and (2) and she caught about a dozen things, about half specific to the Kindle formatting, which was the version she read. I read the Create Space paperback proof and caught several more (4) and the Kindle version before uploading (5).

Yes, by the time I upload, I'm sick to death of it, and yes, if I read it again today I bet I'd catch another one or two things. I've posted before that no one could pay me enough to proofread a novel, and this is why. However, it's my understanding that a traditionally published book does go through this many final readings, even if by more different people.

All that said, I do think the success of a book comes down to the story. Poor writing, crummy grammar, editing, and proofing may turn people off and keep them from reading a book, but only a good story makes them like a book enough to recommend it to friends and that's what makes for sales.


----------



## Indirectly (Jul 11, 2013)

heavycat said:


> Many common tools of an educated writer like symbolism, tone, foreshadowing, lyricism, time compression, omniscient POV, the (non-first-person) narrator as a character, etc. are reported by inexperienced readers as "confusing" when in reality, those tools make for a subtle, nuanced narrative that speaks on many levels, like visual storytelling in a film.


You make a good point. I hadn't really considered it from that angle. Having said that, my recent poor experience involved a book that descended from reasonable to something resembling an expanded outline. I think there are actually people who can write but choose not to put the time in (which, I know, is another topic).


----------



## Barbara Morgenroth (May 14, 2010)

I read a sample last week.  The book had about 245  5 star reviews.  In the acknowledgments she used "right" instead of "write".  There were a couple other mistakes as well.  When I read the reviews, they were at a similar level so apparently no one noticed.  Cool when it works out like that.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> ... The assumption the longer you work on it the better it is, is a fallacy. ...)
> 
> ... I have to agree with Katie Elle that indies having 20% is pretty darn impressive.


I disagree with your first statement, JR (I'm feeling brave today. )

I think there are many, many writers who produce better, clearer, crisper, stronger books by working on them longer. For them, giving the story the time/work it needs to become what _*they*_ consider superlative and something that makes _*them*_ proud is only accomplished by time.

Yes, some writers can accomplish both these goals with greater ease and greater speed. But some of us get confuddled and confounded (a teeny bit terrified!) by the current mantra "WRITE FASTER. WRITE FASTER! (And yes it sounds like shouting.) I've only managed to get two new works up in this past year (excuse #1: working on backlist), but I know I won't begin to match the output of the super-producers going forward. They are my idols. I want to be them. But I know I won't be, so I'm left admiring them from afar and eating their dust. And I'm okay with that, because after more than year on these boards, I've learned to sift through the voices and take what works for me and leave the rest to those who will benefit from it. That said, I'll keep trying to up my game; I'm made that way. And I'll do this because I'm now an indie and my name/product matters to me.

If a good and dedicated writer must strive for one thing in their work it is to retain the love of writing. Adding pressure to become something you're not--and don't want to be--is blunt force trauma to the muse.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

EC Sheedy said:


> If a good and dedicated writer must strive for one thing in their work it is to retain the love of writing. Adding pressure to become something you're not--and don't want to be--is blunt force trauma to the muse.


This. I need to hear this.

May I create a meme and quote you on this on Facebook and Twitter? TQ.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "If a good and dedicated writer must strive for one thing in their work it is to retain the love of writing. "


Why?


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Terrence OBrien said:


> "If a good and dedicated writer must strive for one thing in their work it is to retain the love of writing."
> 
> Why?


I think because passion makes you keep writing?

I've read some bestselling books where the authors started out his/her first few books with a clear love of writing, but then after the 5th or 6th books, they lost their fervor for writing, and I could tell in their books that their hearts are no longer in them.


----------



## bhazelgrove (Jul 16, 2013)

Yes. There is. Is it good? Probably not. There is a lot of pulp clogging up the system now. I agree with the other writers who say that it is a remarkable time to be an Indie writer. Agreed. Big upsides. I have done both. I was with Bantam for a while and then I went to the Indie side with one foot in the larger publishers as well. The fact is good writing survives while bad writing dies. Yes there is pulp that sells but you have to be a pulp writer to do it. If you are serious about your work who cares if someone publishes twenty bad novels while you publish one good one. F. Scott Fitzgerald published only four books. The second one Gatsby just blew the doors off the bestseller lists seventy years after he died. A little can go a long way.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Why?


Why not?


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

EC Sheedy said:


> Why not?


Because we don't have the evidence for such a sweeping generalization. Perhaps the one thing some folks must strive for is love of writing. I don't know. Ask them. But their experience and psychological makeup tell us little about anyone else.



> "I think because passion makes you keep writing?"


Passion can keep people doing something day after day. A pasisonate love of family keeps many people doing stuff they hate day after day.


----------



## Zoe Cannon (Sep 2, 2012)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Passion can keep people doing something day after day. A pasisonate love of family keeps many people doing stuff they hate day after day.


I would advise any author who truly hates writing to find something else to do instead. There are easier ways to make a living, after all.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> I disagree with your first statement, JR (I'm feeling brave today. )
> 
> I think there are many, many writers who produce better, clearer, crisper, stronger books by working on them longer. For them, giving the story the time/work it needs to become what _*they*_ consider superlative and something that makes _*them*_ proud is only accomplished by time.
> 
> ...


I never said that all writers can write fast. I can't. If I can get two historical novels written in a year, I am doing amazingly well for me. Many authors will never be "super producers".

However, it is the implication that fast writing equals bad writing and especially that editing and editing and then re-editing always improves a novel that I argue against. I have known too many writers who managed to edit the life right out of their work, and I know there have been excellent works produced fast. Michael Moorcock is famous for doing so as another example. So I am very wary of people saying that the slower work is produced the better.

On the other hand, it took James Joyce seven years to write Ulysses (a novel which some people hate but which I consider to have some of the most amazing prose in the English language). I don't make any assumptions that one or the other is better. I just get very unhappy about threads like this that seem to attack authors who CAN write fast.


----------



## sarahdalton (Mar 15, 2011)

MsTee said:


> There's not only a rush INTO self-publishing, there's also a rush DURING self-publishing.  Every so often, there's a post on here bemoaning lack of sales, and the usual advice is: "Write more books!" Yes, it's sound and encouraging advice but, not gonna lie, I get this heavy feeling in my chest when I see it. My shoulders get hunched and in my head there's this exaggerated imagery of a huge beast behind me while I'm staring at my blank MS Word document. And all I can hear is the beast: "WRITE MORE BOOKS! WRIIITE!" Talk about anxiety on a whole new level.


Yes, so much!

I've been feeling the pressure during my current WIP. At the back of my mind I'm thinking 'I have to finish this within three months' or all my books are going to stop selling.


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

> "If a good and dedicated writer must strive for one thing in their work it is to retain the love of writing. "





Terrence OBrien said:


> Why?


Well, if you don't retain it, you might end up like the violinist in the story. The visiting conductor notices that his concertmaster has a pained look on his face. He stops the rehearsal and asks if there's anything wrong. "Nothing," is the reply. Later in the rehearsal, he sees a greater look of suffering on the concertmaster's face. Again he stops and asks. "Nothing," is the reply. Then he sees a look of anguish on the concertmasters face, and beads of sweat are dripping down the man's face. Once more, he stops the rehearsal and says: "What _is_ the matter? Do we need to get you a doctor." The reply: "Nothing, nothing at all. I just hate music."


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Because we don't have the evidence for such a sweeping generalization. Perhaps the one thing some folks must strive for is love of writing. I don't know. Ask them. But their experience and psychological makeup tell us little about anyone else.
> 
> Passion can keep people doing something day after day. A pasisonate love of family keeps many people doing stuff they hate day after day.


This probably should be a separate thread, cuz it's long, but...

I am caught once again in that net of "sweeping generalization." I concede that. I suspect there will never be evidence hard enough to support my comment. It muddies the water when you toss the word love, passion, or desire into a post, I guess. Perhaps I'll try, uh, enjoyment, love's cousin twice removed.

That said, how do you suspect--if you choose to suspect at all--a spouse feels when they stop enjoying their mate?

How do you suspect--if you suspect at all--a star athlete feels when he/she loses their enjoyment of the game?

How do you suspect--if you suspect at all--a business owner feels when the passion that initiated their entrepreneurial venture turns from enjoyment to drudgery?

How do you suspect--if you suspect at all--a writer feels when they stop enjoying the hours/months spent on story?

Some people avoid hitting these loveless walls-or they never see them. Some hit them hard, and it hurts. Overall I suspect-and I am prone to suspect-it's best if you can avoid hitting the wall, if it is within _your_ power to do so. Life is always unpredictable. (Cue, "sweeping generalization.")

My point, and I think I had one, is that losing the love (enjoyment) of what you do-whatever that is-is f***in' tragic. Because if you stop lovin' it, you'll probably start giving it less than your best. (Cue, mediocrity and sickish feeling in the lower abdomen.)

My last point, and I do think I have one,  is that the voices in and around self-publishing are brilliant, plentiful and diverse. (And not just KBoards, but blogs, news feeds, etc. etc.) The voices are seductive, informed, and incredibly generous in sharing what they've learned during their careers or on their personal publishing journeys. I heart them. I owe them. And whenever I can, I try hard to emulate their processes.

Many times the voices have made me smarten up, got me some sales, helped me do things better. So much to learn... Other times, the voices have made me crazed and confused; this when I recognize that some of the things they suggest be done I am totally unable to frickin' do! Why? Not in my constitutional makeup. Or I think, "D*** that would bleed my writers' energy dry."

Me? I'm working on my personal filter, so that I can take what's offered (with unending gratitude) and leave the rest-without feeling I'm a slacker or worse yet that I'll end up a total self-publishing failure.

Writing is hard work. Yes. But wanting to write comes from love. And, oddly, the more it becomes like work, the less you love it. (Oh, goddess, I think that was another sweeping generalization.) So, yes, I still believe it's important that a writer continue to "feel the love." And guard that love. 

Pollyanna, signing off.


----------



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

> There is a lot of pulp clogging up the system now.


There's your answer right there and some of us take it as a complement, not a criticism. We are the new pulps. One of the big things they did and what we do is to rush to publish, respond quickly to trends, ride waves.. Go back and read some of the criticisms trad publishing had of "pulp paperbacks" in the 1950s. Lurid covers, reliance on "pornographic" themes, bad editing, bad writing, etc. It's exactly what you see being leveled at indies today.


----------



## lynnfromthesouth (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't think most of the writers here are in the category of "anything and everything." There are a lot of magical potion sellers out there, with their "Buy my guide on selling your book" and their long, terribly-designed old-school website buy pages. Most of those guides are about non-fiction, though I've seen one or two about fiction. They don't come here, where quality is discussed at length. It's almost like a multi-level marketing scheme. Cause those scams always work...


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2013)

> "If a good and dedicated writer must strive for one thing in their work it is to retain the love of writing. "





Terrence OBrien said:


> Because we don't have the evidence for such a sweeping generalization. Perhaps the one thing some folks must strive for is love of writing. I don't know. Ask them. But their experience and psychological makeup tell us little about anyone else.


I can't speak for others, but in my own personal creative endeavors, I have plenty of evidence to back that statement up. If I don't maintain a connection the creative spark that set me off on this course in the first place--in other words, my love and passion for writing--everything falls apart. And I doubt I'm alone in that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 17, 2013)

JanThompson said:


> Is there a mad rush to self-publish anything and everything, whether it's ready or not? Is there a rush hour in the indie publishing world?


How do you define "ready"? A story can always be tweaked, polished, and revised--George Lucas is a prime example of that.  Whether you're actually making it "better," well, the author is rarely the best judge of that (again, just look at George Lucas).

Is there a mad rush to self-publish? Absolutely. Isn't it glorious? Break down the gates--throw them wide open! Let in everyone who wants to come!


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Katie Elle said:


> There's your answer right there and some of us take it as a complement, not a criticism. We are the new pulps. One of the big things they did and what we do is to rush to publish, respond quickly to trends, ride waves.. Go back and read some of the criticisms trad publishing had of "pulp paperbacks" in the 1950s. Lurid covers, reliance on "pornographic" themes, bad editing, bad writing, etc. It's exactly what you see being leveled at indies today.


Can a reader pop in and give an opinion? As to the pulp, keep in mind that several now big named authors started out writing quick dime store novels. Louis L'Amour comes to mind.
I read everything from big named authors to indie writers. Some writers are good (indie or otherwise) and others are not so good in my opinion. And there are some best selling authors that I have tried to read and just cannot get past the first couple of chapters even though I normally like the genre.

So you all keep writing and I will keep reading. Note I did not say y'all.


----------



## Mandy (Dec 27, 2009)

cinisajoy said:


> So you all keep writing and I will keep reading. Note I did not say y'all.


From one Southerner to another: traitor!


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> I think there might be some truth in that. I spent 20 years writing and re-writing one of my books because I knew the high standard required of a trad publisher. Don't think I'll spend 20 years on my WIP. .


Same with me. My book had to be really polished before my publisher took it on, but I've slowly learned over the years to cut the number of drafts I need and polish more efficiently. If I was to solely self-publish, I still wouldn't rush madly. I'd hire a really good editor and still go through 4 or 5 drafts. My books have to satisfy me before I put them out in the world!

I know, based on the books I've reviewed and self-published authors I've talked with, that this is not the case for some of them.

Debra


----------



## Lady Vine (Nov 11, 2012)

If there is a rush, and those doing it aren't used to that level of output, there'll be burnout and the work will eventually begin to suffer. Then the writer will slow down and work at a more sustainable pace, for them.


----------



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

EC Sheedy said:


> How do you suspect--if you suspect at all--a star athlete feels when he/she loses their enjoyment of the game?
> 
> * * *
> 
> Me? I'm working on my personal filter, so that I can take what's offered (with unending gratitude) and leave the rest-without feeling I'm a slacker or worse yet that I'll end up a total self-publishing failure.


I have thought about the people who end up hating what they do and keep on doing it for the bucks because it's happened to me several times. For instance, I loved horses and everything about them from the time I was small, but when I took a job managing a stable, I ended up hating the horses, their owners and everything about the job. It happened to me again with computers - loved everything about them, took an IT job, ended up hating the machines and their users. My conclusion was doing anything because I had to for a living soured my love for it. My attitude recovered when I stopped doing those things for a living, but never to where it had been.

So like you, EC, I'm doing this with a filter. Fortunately for me, I'm retired and while I was in the position of needing at least part time income when I discovered KDP, I don't need to "make a living" from my books, although there is a certain level of income I need. I write what I want to and as much as I want to, don't promote because I hate it, etc. However, I know people in different stages of their life and with driving ambition are going to have to find their own balance.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Debra Purdy Kong said:


> Same with me. My book had to be really polished before my publisher took it on, but I've slowly learned over the years to cut the number of drafts I need and polish more efficiently. If I was to solely self-publish, I still wouldn't rush madly. I'd hire a really good editor and still go through 4 or 5 drafts. My books have to satisfy me before I put them out in the world!
> 
> I know, based on the books I've reviewed and self-published authors I've talked with, that this is not the case for some of them.
> 
> Debra


The fact is, and this is NOT intended as an insult, not everyone needs four or five drafts. Even when I use a content editor, my first draft is pretty darn close to my final draft. That is partly why I tend to write relatively slowly. There are a good number of authors who are this way. That doesn't mean we are 'rushing madly'. It means that is how we write.


----------



## Michael_J_Sullivan (Aug 3, 2011)

I think most of the successful self-published authors treat their books just as professionally as the New York houses. They take their time to "get it right" and it pays off in the form of good solid sales.

There will be people that rush things, either because they are in impatient, or they think that "anything will sell."  They'll find little success (unless they are naturally very, very good) and will either stop publishing or learn to follow the path of group #1.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

yes


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Michael_J_Sullivan said:


> I think most of the successful self-published authors treat their books just as professionally as the New York houses. They take their time to "get it right" and it pays off in the form of good solid sales.
> 
> There will be people that rush things, either because they are in impatient, or they think that "anything will sell." They'll find little success (unless they are naturally very, very good) and will either stop publishing or learn to follow the path of group #1.


Beautiful. Anybody can have a go and the system is self-correcting and self-regulating.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Zoe Cannon said:


> I would advise any author who truly hates writing to find something else to do instead. There are easier ways to make a living, after all.


I suppose that would depend on the individual.



> "Well, if you don't retain it, you might end up like the violinist in the story. The visiting conductor notices that his concertmaster has a pained look on his face. He stops the rehearsal and asks if there's anything wrong. "Nothing," is the reply. Later in the rehearsal, he sees a greater look of suffering on the concertmaster's face. Again he stops and asks. "Nothing," is the reply. Then he sees a look of anguish on the concertmasters face, and beads of sweat are dripping down the man's face. Once more, he stops the rehearsal and says: "What is the matter? Do we need to get you a doctor." The reply: "Nothing, nothing at all. I just hate music."


That might indeed happen. I suspect that's the situation with lots of folks in various jobs.



> "Writing is hard work. Yes. But wanting to write comes from love. And, oddly, the more it becomes like work, the less you love it. (Oh, goddess, I think that was another sweeping generalization.) So, yes, I still believe it's important that a writer continue to "feel the love." And guard that love


Lots of things are hard work. Making widgets is hard work. I don't know where the desire comes from. I suspect it comes from all kinds of places depending on the individual. I can't speak for all those folks. I don't know where the desire to make widgets comes from, either.



> "I can't speak for others, but in my own personal creative endeavors, I have plenty of evidence to back that statement up. If I don't maintain a connection the creative spark that set me off on this course in the first place--in other words, my love and passion for writing--everything falls apart. And I doubt I'm alone in that


.

Sure. I can't speak for others, either. But I accept anyone's personal account of their own experiences, tastes, preferences, and motivation.


----------

