Novel What will make your book stand out from the crowd?

Yep. Great movie

 

No, I agree, that comment made no sense. I delete books off my Kindle as soon as I've read them and if I have more than five or six waiting for me to read I get anxious. The technology isn't going to limit us.

I agree that querying takes some effort, but compared to self-publishing? I'd say if you don't have the energy to query, you definitely don't have the energy to self-publish, at least not if you plan to do all the marketing, etc. that self-publishing successfully generally entails.

I'm intrigued! Do you have a third option in mind, or are you just trusting that sooner or later something will arise?

 

Doesn't this just mean you need to find agents or publishers who aren't only looking for the cookie cutter book?

The number of publishers out there has exploded along with ePublishing, it's not just self-published or the big 5 (or however few there are now). An online friend of mine's books are doing well and I looked at her publisher. It's small, and caters to the genre she writes in. Her Kindle books are all selling.

The upcoming PNWA conference is hosting 30 agents/editors one can pitch one's book too in 4 minute presentations.

That's just one drop in one bucket. Sometimes I think we see too much black and white: self pub vs big daunting publishers and agents. But there is a whole sea of smaller publishers and agents that continues to grow.

 

Maybe this is @EdFromNY's 3rd option!

I agree, though, that there are lots of ways to use a publisher for your book that don't really fit under the "traditional publishing" term. That's why I don't use that word, b/c the publishing landscape has changed in a lot of ways that aren't represented with the "self-pub" vs "traditional pub" false dichotomy.

That said, e-pubs do better with some genres than others, and some of them are quite fly-by-night. Proper research is still required, especially in a case like @jannert where she's poured so many years of effort into the book.

 

Looking more closely at the link above, Self-pubbed/Query Letter, it has a lot of interesting things to say about the trends in publishing, not just the self/trad debate.

For one, the article talks about the shift in purchasing that is occurring with Amazon's "Kindle Unlimited".

Then there is Amazon's move into the print on demand market with Amazon Imprints.

Re the full Kindles, it was the possibility I mentioned: the backed up reading list, not the full device storage:

The impression I get from all this is that the publishing market is in rapid flux and if we want to get our work out there, we're going to have to do our homework not only as to where the market is, but also where it is going to be tomorrow.

 

I'd say there's also a good argument for trying to maintain as much flexibility as possible. I don't care how long the terms of my contracts are b/c I write a lot, so a single book isn't that big of a deal for me. If one book is stuck in a dead-end contract, it's annoying, but it doesn't really affect me much overall.

But if you're an author who only plans to write a book or two, it's a lot more important to find a home for those books that will be good today AND ten years from now, or that will have the flexibility to let you get out of the contract if it's not working.

Which is where Big 5 contracts are dodgy. I still believe that for most books by most authors, Big 5 publishers are the best choice. Right now. But a lot of Big 5 contracts want the books for a very long time, often life-of-copyright unless the book goes out of print. So in order to sign the contract that's best for right now, you may be limiting your ability to do what's best for your book ten or forty years from now.

Again, it doesn't both me much b/c I have lots of books. But I sympathize with people who are trying to find a home for their magnum opus. No easy answers.

 

Goals with my first book:

1) Write it well. If I don't do that, nothing that follows matters. That's why, even though I'm close to finishing all the chapters, I gave myself another year to make those chapters just right.

2) Get it out there. If I did number one right, people will enjoy it and tell others about it. The main thing with a publishing contract I would look at would be marketing. Of course other issues matter, but the main goal is getting the book as wide an audience as possible.

3) Write the second book in the duology. That's where, if I did well with book one, things will be different. If not, then I'll just write another book I'm proud of and be happy with that.

 

What will be different for book 2?

 

Book one's reputation.

 

Yeah, I meant, what will that make different?

 

If book one has good reviews, everything. If book one doesn't stand out from the crowd, not so much.

 

I agree. I have from the inception of my project decided that I would pursue traditional publishing as long as I could (which is to say until I was completely convinced that there was no hope). But many (and @jannert is one, I think) regard traditional publishing as a no-hoper from the start, because the deck appears to be stacked against certain works. There are those, I think, who are willing to put the effort into self-pubbing and then living with the results, because the results are determined by the marketplace - if your work sells, it sells; if it doesn't, it doesn't. But the querying process puts the matter into the hands of overworked, understaffed individuals who are looking for a quick hook into the market. It's easy to resent such a system, and tempting to turn against it, to find another way.

I think there is already a third option arising. Ginger mentioned pitch sessions at writers' conferences. These strike me as little more than stand-up versions of query letters, but here in New York, there has recently come to my attention a "pitch conference", held four times a year, at which workshops focus on making pitches to editors and then opportunities are provided to do so, not once but several times. The conference claims to place one ms for every three attendees. Moreover, one must apply and be accepted before being allowed to register. I don't know for sure that this is the "third way", but it may be. Of course, if it is, it will mean that the pitch conference will become the new screening agent. But for those who are there at the early phase, it may be the answer.

 

33% seems incredibly high. What is the screening process for applying?

I'd ask what they charge but the PNWA conference is a lot, >$500 to attend. I will not be attending this year. The conference here is put on by a very long standing writers' organization so if the NY version charges a lot one wouldn't know if that meant anything.

I would look, however, at who you are pitching to. Could be a lot of vanity press or new to the game, book-less publishers. Or, maybe not.

 

Ginger, you have to complete an online application form that asks for your background, a brief synopsis of your novel (both of which I cut and pasted from my query letter) and what you hope to gain from the conference (choose from a drop-down menu). The cost is $595 if before a cutoff date (about 30 days before the conference), $695 after. Once you've been accepted, you can register (and pay). I agree that 33% seems high until you realize that they only accept 65 at any one time. Pitches are made to editors of established houses - Random House, Penguin USA, HarperCollins, Henry Holt, FSG among others. Might there be a catch? Possibly, but I've come to the conclusion that if you read enough about this industry, you come to the conclusion that nothing is worthwhile, everything is a scam. At some point, you have to put it on the line and take a risk.

 

False dichotomy: either one is easily duped or one believes everything is a scam.

The claim that 33% get a publisher offer is high and requires some skepticism, especially with those publishers. Other than that, the price is as high in the writer's conference here, like I mentioned.

Do let us know how it goes. It sounds exciting.

 

I'm not saying it's dichotomy, I'm just acknowledging that some consider everything a scam, and this could be but I doubt it.

In any event, I'll let you know how it goes,

 

Sometimes I wish I could magic carpet myself back into the past, back to a time when authors simply wrote, and publishers published. I would just enjoy seeing what it was like for them.

There were few 'writers' groups.' No how-to magazines and books. No 'creative writing' courses. Just you and a blank sheet of paper and a pen, or maybe slightly later, you and a blank sheet of paper and a typewriter. I suspect people just wrote the stories that were in their heads. I think the standards of grammar and spelling were high among educated people 100+ years ago, so mistake-ridden manuscripts probably weren't as big an issue as they are today. When the writers were done, they sent (or took) their manuscripts off to editors, who probably had enough time and interest to at least give them a once-over. Just being a writer and writing a book was a huge accomplishment. (It still is today, but it's a lot easier to achieve.)

I suspect the biggest difference between then and now is the sheer volume of manuscripts floating about. It wasn't easy to be a writer before wordprocessors and computers turned every wannabe (including me) into an 'author.'