Taking the Plunge

This confused me, because non-revenue factors are some of the strongest reasons why I want to be traditionally published. Even my most fantastical dreams of traditional publishing aren't about money.

 

I'm struggling with the verbal, "what is your book about." And I'm going to need that this July for the 'three-minute' pitch you get with a publisher at the conference.

 

My comment doesn't contradict that. Domenic seems to be using monetary reasons that people should go the traditional publishing route, and I was countering that money probably shouldn't be much of a factor either way. The non-revenue factors could push someone towards self- or traditional-publishing, but my main point was that this

is generally a poor reason to choose one avenue of publication over another.

 

Well, yes; earning multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars from a book seems "struck by lightning" unlikely whichever way you choose.

 

So your own publishing plan is based on the idea that going through a publisher would be preferable - you're not spending your time and money querying people and going to conferences because you think it'll be fun, you're doing it because that's your preferred model of publication. Right? Despite St. Hugh's claims, you think you'll have a better chance of success through trade publishing.

I agree with you. Best of luck with it!

 

Sorry if I'm going off topic, but I only wanted to know if the $2.99 / £2 KDP recommended for my work was reasonable.

The book has been downloaded 7 times so far - not a massive accomplishment in under 4 days, but hopefully it'll be enjoyed by those 7 readers. I'm not doing this for the cash or the success, but simply to see what will happen.

If it does prove to be a success, then that'll be icing on the cake. Some people write professionally. I've written this story just to try something different. Please don't encourage me to pick a side in this argument. I thank you for your insights.

 

A query letter is not easy to write. It is a three second sales pitch. Go to a book store, and on the back jacket of each book, you will find three sentences that tell what the book is about*. This is what an agent will read…this is the hook.

The second part of the query is telling an agent why you are submitting to her…they like to hear praise about a book they sold that you read.

Third part: A short something about you.

The shorter you make the query shows the agent you can write tight.


*You don’t give all the details about the book, just a teaser of what it is about, as writers have done on the back jacket of their book. A good query is a short letter that tells the agent what they need to know…if this is done right, and they sell your type of book, the will read the first page of your story. You need to hook them on this first page…a hook is not a shock sentences, as some have done with words that start with F, etc.

 

I have two beliefs about self-publishing.

One, they take the publisher gate down. People have access to to readers without having to be approved by the gatekeepers.

Two, the publishing world is undergoing rapid change and the end result may not look anything like traditional publishing. This is not just my opinion. I have heard many publishers from the large publishing houses state this fact on the publisher panels I've seen on CSPAN'S BookTV.

Regarding traditional publishers, that's going to depend on which publisher and the contract they offer should one want to publish my book.

Should I end up self-published, I don't plan to put the book up for sale and wait. The largest advantage of a publisher would be the publicity. So I'm not certain how much small publishers have to offer.

A friend of mine was published by a small publisher. She said she benefitted from the editor they got her. They provided the cover art which she liked.

It was a trilogy. She was disappointed they took too long to publish the second book, and when she wanted copies of the paperback to take to her appearances, she had to buy the books in 50 book blocks. So for the second and third books she self-published.

There are benefits and drawbacks. We tend to think of publishers as if they are all 'big houses'. This site lists 56 large publishers but they don't all publish fiction.

With the lower digital costs of publishing, dozens of small to medium publishers are popping up. They may offer little more than the editor and cover art my friend got. Other than one's book listing a publisher (something anyone with a business license can do), some traditional publishers don't do a lot for the author.

 

There are many small publishers working on a shoe string. They hire printing companies to print the books, and don't have the money to advertise in a manner needed to sell books.
Anybody with a simple business license can be a publisher. I suggest before you sign with a small press, get these facts:
What have they published in the last 12 months, how many books sold, are there any warnings posted on them? If they charge for nay service, they are a scam.

 

I have a self-published book, and have been traditionally published for short stories and nonfiction. I believe that all counts as being published. Domenic is trolling the thread, I think.

 

That is a cheap shot calling me a troll. You give advice as a published author. I believe the only published authors are those published by a standard publisher.
I could write a book with no words, and self publish it...and call myself an published author. A published author is a writer who has stood to the mark. Secured and agent, and sold a manuscript to a standard publisher...There has to be some gage, some standard that says, "This person is a good writer."
I wrote a column for two newspapers for more than two years....I do not call myself a published author.
You can call yourself anything you want. I read the one piece of work you published on this forum...I don't think you are ready to sit at the table of book authors.
I take your calling me a troll, a cheap insult, and will have no further dialogue with you.

 

And yet I have cited dozens of self-published authors who wrote best sellers. In addition, there's a wealth of experience a self-published author has to share for those of us who may be first timers.

 

The gods be praised. I thought for a moment I was going to have to block you just to avoid adding to the amount of nonsense I read online in a given day.

 

The many who claim to be published authors, are self claimed authors. I do agree, those who have best sellers have proven they can write, and are authors.

 

Not sure who this refers to.

 

Neither one of those is a belief; they're both just reality. It's the conclusions you're drawing from the realities that I disagree with.

How has she done with the self-publishing?

I agree that there are some "publishers" out there who don't deserve the name. But that doesn't nullify the benefit that comes from being with a good publisher.

Who's the "we" here? Not you, since you're very wise in the ways of publishing, and not me, since almost all of my publishers are small or medium-sized. So... who is it you're talking about?

Well, these pretty clearly aren't traditional publishers. Right? Because traditionally, publishers offer considerably more than editing and cover art. I don't think it makes sense for you to go on about how the publishing world is changing quickly and then pretend that those changes are only coming in the world of self-publishing. As you say, the publishing world is changing quickly. Using "traditional" as a way to describe all publishers who aren't self-publishers doesn't make much sense.

 

A semantic argument about what is a conclusion and what is a belief is a waste of time.

As for reality, I define that as the actual evidence. The evidence in this case is the growing eBook market, the changing digital platform, and, the large publishing house spokespersons discussing the trends in publishing.

I am unclear which conclusion (which is not qualitatively different from a belief unless you want to add caveats like dogma vs evidence based, and clearly I wasn't talking about dogma) you are disagreeing with.

Don't know, it's not something I've asked her. But she has more books out and her website is growing.

She's using the name, Tulk Tales as her publisher which essentially is herself. I'll have to ask her why the link is down to the "Stolen" promo site.

But the real question is, why, when she had a publisher for the first in the Stolen series, did she switch to self publishing? As I said, she was dissatisfied with some of the drawbacks with the publisher, Malachite Quills Publishing. And she has continued to self publish with the next 3 books, then republished one of the Malachite books after the contract expired.

I certainly don't disagree.

I think I'm fairly well self-educated about publishing. You can judge for yourself, of course.

The 'we' are all the authors who think having a publisher automatically means good marketing and other benefits. My friend was satisfied with the editor and cover art she got from Malachite, but disappointed with marketing and publishing delays with book two.

Pretend traditional publishers aren't changing? Where did you pull that misunderstanding out of? Hello: CSPAN Book TV traditional publisher panels at book fairs all over the country, does that sound like I'm not talking about their companies changing as well?

No, that is not what I said at all. I said the industry is in flux. Self-publishing no longer carries the stigma it once did. Self-publishing no longer means Vanity Press. And as the whole publishing industry changes, no one will be able to predict the outcome until the future gets here.

As for my friend's publisher, clearly they would rank low on the list. But so what? It's a publisher, they invested in her books. It's not a vanity press. That's traditional publishing.

 

I think you should ask her. I don't want to drag a completely unrelated author into this conversation, so I won't say more.

So, just so I can get your Howey-approved terminology straight - there's self-publishing, vanity publishing, and traditional publishing? Those are the three categories you recognize?

 

And the point of that is?

Do you know what anecdotal evidence is and why single anecdotes don't tell us much about the whole but can provide useful examples.

My writing is not Kathy's writing is not your writing. So whether or not her books are selling isn't relevant. What is relevant is she chose self-publishing over a traditional publisher that invested in her book. My example was one person who had a traditional publisher and found the experience lacking.

Wasn't the other thread we were debating this issue on about an author that turned down a 6 figure deal to self publish? Turns out there are a couple such examples.

Brenna Aubry on why I turned down a three book deal to self-publish.

Why Indie Author Ruth Cardello Turned Down a 7-Figure Book Deal

I'm not quite sure what you are arguing here? Traditional publishing is always better? Self-published always has a negative connotation? What position are you arguing?

That I recognize? If you'd care to throw another category out there, feel free.

Those are the three categories we are discussing. But clearly among traditional publishers there are those that publish your book and those that pay you an advance on sales and those that pay you an advance to write the next one. And there are publishers in name only such as Tulk Tales. That would be a self-publisher.

Perhaps you might make your point or tell me the post number I missed where you did make it. Because the thing you said you disagreed with me on was something I never said.

 

So, let me get this straight. In the exact same post that you give me snark about whether I know what anecdotal evidence is and how it doesn't "tell us much about the whole", you offer a string of anecdotal evidence?

I agree, single anecdotes don't tell us much about the whole. So I'm going to keep ignoring the ones you offer. Or I'm going to consider them neutralized by MY personal experience - if we ARE going to pay attention to individual experiences, why aren't you giving my experience equal weight to your friend's experience? It feels like you're picking and choosing the anecdotes that support your point. Which is, of course, one of the main weaknesses of anecdotal evidence.

I don't recognize your (Hugh Howey's) category of Traditional Publishing. So I'm not going to make any arguments based on that classification system.

I'm arguing that while there are always unknowables and outliers and exceptions, I firmly believe that the best path for first-time authors is to go with the biggest publisher possible.

If I were going to classify publishers, I'd include categories like: Big Five, Large Independents, Mid-Size Independents, Reputable Small Presses, Genre-Specific Publishers, E-first Publishers, and E-only Publishers, and maybe an extra category for Ill-Advised, Fly-By-Night Publishers. Lumping them all under the same umbrella term ignores huge differences between them, and calling them "traditional" when at least two of them have only been around for ten or so years seems ridiculous. It's convenient for self-publishing cheerleaders to pretend they're all the same so they can pick the worst features of each category and ascribe them to the whole, but it's not a useful way for an author to decide how to publish.

Nope. You don't get to set the terms of reference for a conversation I'm also part of.

Sweet Jesus, are you now saying that Tulk Tales is both a self-publisher and a traditional publisher? That makes no sense. I don't understand this paragraph as a whole, really. You think it's necessary to point out that "among traditional publishers there are those that publish your book"? That seems pretty obvious, doesn't it?

I made my point first in Post #11, when I said that it is very, very difficult to get attention for a self-published book and that self-publishing success stories exist but are rare. I reiterated that point in Post #16. I challenged your idea that there is a "publishers' gatekeeping lottery" in Post #24.

You want it once more? Self-publishing is less likely to lead to sales success for a first-time author than using a reputable publisher. If possible, new authors should get an agent and use that agent's skills to get a good deal with a large publisher. If unable to get an agent, new authors should look at reputable smaller publishers from a variety of categories. If that doesn't work, then and only then should new authors consider self-publishing. That's my argument.

I honestly don't care where or how you publish your book. If you want to know, it feels to me as if you're bracing for rejection from agents and publishers and have mentally skipped ahead to the last option and are trying to make yourself believe that it's a good option. I don't think that's a constructive way for you to approach the process, but I certainly don't feel the need to argue with you about it. If that's how you want to roll, go for it.

But I think there's a lot of overly optimistic information about self-publishing out there. For every success story, I bet there're a hundred or more authors who are really disappointed with their sales. Not necessarily because their books are bad, but also because it's SO DAMN HARD to get noticed as a self-published author.

Do what you want with your own book. But calling it "fear mongering" (as you did in post #8) for someone to point out the problems with self-publishing? I don't think that's a good representation of the situation.

 

This is quite a bit of imaginary stuff you've replied to. I'll try to make my reply short.

I offered single examples: X can occur. You've not answered why my friend's sales experience applies to anything other than her books.

Here's an example of you arguing with your imagination rather than with what I've actually posted.

What makes you think I don't value your experience?

Have I once said traditional publishing was the wrong way to go?

Did you notice the sentence in my link above that I bolded? Let me re-quote it:

I have no idea what the 'f' this is about.

A) You are welcome to that opinion.
B) If the option is available and the contract terms acceptable, can you find a single post of mine contradicting this?

Find a single post of mine that contradicts this, that says I lumped all traditional publishers into one basket?

You are making up things to argue against. None of this has anything to do with what I have been saying.

Now you've really lost it. I do believe I've very clearly said, more than once, my friend self-publishes under the publisher name Tulk Tales. To quote myself:

What do you call it? A writing skills filter?

And yet there are hundreds of established authors who were turned down by the gatekeepers.

You have a semantics argument against my use of the term, "lottery". I supported that use with a citation you seem to have ignored. If your only argument is we disagree there is luck involved as well as skill, fine, let's have that debate. This rest of this is you arguing with straw.

Yes, then there is that big "if".

And all of that is well and good, that big "if".

Find a single post of mine where I said anything different.

Imaginary straw men are so easy to do battle with.

 

It doesn't apply to anything other than her books. So why the hell are we talking about it in a thread that isn't about her books?

Okay. So if you don't understand that, I think you shouldn't consider yourself quite as well-educated about publishing options as you think you are. Not a crime, but you should do some more research.

Repeatedly using the words "traditional publishers" to refer to them is lumping them into one basket. Saying that there are only three categories of publishing under discussion is lumping them into one basket.

So what was the point of that paragraph? What idea or information were you trying to convey? Was it just a series of completely unrelated sentences?

I don't call it anything. But I don't object to the idea of calling agents and publishers gatekeepers. I think that makes sense. Some books make it past the gatekeepers. A lot don't.

They were turned down by certain gatekeepers. That doesn't mean much. The system as a whole obviously found room for them, unless your "established authors" are self-published?

Supporting a stupid term with a citation to the guy who made up the stupid term doesn't mean the term isn't stupid. Again, if you're treating Hugh Howey as some sort of unchallenged authority on publishing, you need to get better educated about the publishing options available.

So then we agree. Your friend's experience is irrelevant because it only applies to her own books. It's best for new authors to start at the largest publisher possible and treat self-publishing as a last resort. The reason for this is that most self-publishers have very poor sales.

You agree?

 

I got to ask. I weird for not caring about money? Hell if my story was always free and I never made a dime. That wouldn't bother me. Dont get me wrong. I am not alergic to money but my only wish is that it is read and loved by many.

 

I don't think you're weird, but I think the money and the "read and loved by many" often go together. Right? I mean, you could give your work away for free, but you'd never really know whether people were reading it or just downloading and ignoring it. But if a lot of people pay money for your book, chances are pretty good that most of them are going to at least read the first couple chapters. So finding a publisher that will get your work in front of a lot of readers, and finding readers who will pay money for your book, generally leads to lots of people reading and, hopefully, loving it. PLUS you get money!