Based on his response to one of the comments, I think this is right. Smith says: "Indie publish it, get it selling, get it out there, and if you have a desire to try to fight into traditional before they come to you, then just submit the book to editors. Tell them it’s already self-published, but you would be willing to work with them if they were interested. Some editors won’t respond, some will send a form back saying get an agent, but if you have one that finds that your book might fit their line, then go from there. Self-publishing won’t hurt because traditional publishers are using self-publishing as the new slush pile now that agents are fading away."
That right there tells me Smith is off kilter (again). Agents are not fading away (that's similar to the 'trade publishers are dinosaurs, dying out' crapola). Most trade publishers have more than enough submissions coming in without browsing through the millions of SP works. They might check out books that someone has brought to their attention, or that are making a splash sales-wise, but most publishers (and agents) have more than enough books to look at already.
I don't agree. In fact, I've heard a number of established authors who are familiar with the ins and outs of the industry make this same point. As I noted, above, one author was saying that he thought SP --> traditional publishing was going to become the norm in the future. Note that he doesn't say they're going to go browse through SP works. You added that on your own. I agree that won't happen, but that's really a straw man in this case since no one suggested it would.
Given that almost all of whatever guidance is out there says exactly the opposite, I would love to know where he gets this. For that matter, I question the notion that agents are "fading away". Typically, when a business model changes, the people affected adapt, especially when the alternative is to be cut out of the process altogether. Where is the evidence of this? It seems to me that if agents are cut out, publishers are back to the days of the slush piles. And since the cost of the agents' services are borne by the writer, not the publisher, it seems like really good deal for the publisher. That editors attend writer's conferences with pitch sessions may seem like the death knell for agents, but maybe it's more of a reality check on the market. After all, the bottom-of-the-totem-pole editor slogging through the slush pile isn't a whole lot different than the same editor going to pitch sessions, and it's probably cheaper (no travel costs) and less time-consuming. I'm not arguing, just being skeptical. One thing I've noticed over the years when it comes to articles aimed at new writers is that many people claim to "know the industry" and give advice with messianic certainty, often to be shown later to be quite wrong.
Actually, by referring to self-publishing as "the new slush pile", he rather inferred that it would. What else could he have meant by "the new slush pile"?
I think it is just one perspective, based on his experience in industry combined with his own personal opinions. Doesn't mean it will be right, but it is interesting. I'm going to try to find the other author who said something similar. It was a best-selling author, better known than Smith, and it stands out in retrospect because he said almost the exact same thing about self-publishing becoming the slush pile for traditional publishers in coming years. If I can find the link where I saw that, I'll post it back here. Of course, they could both be wrong. Reality could move in a completely different direction that no one is predicting. I do think it is amusing to see the level of defensiveness that arises when anyone suggests such things. People are resistant to change, particularly if they're invested in the old rules.
I think his own words answer that question. Publishers won't be browsing through millions of self-published works. What has happened thus far will continue to happen - you and I will be the slush pile readers, and the SP works that do extremely well in self-publishing will get picked up by traditional publishers. That's already happened a number of times, and that's what he's talking about in my opinion.
This is what makes sense to me. Is it easy to see actual sales histories of self published books and if not, I'll bet that big publishers get access to sales histories and then have a quick read to see if they fit into their mix. There is an increased chance of certainty in success this way too. Of course as eReaders become the norm, then this method will either dwindle or change. Always change, that's the problem. Just as you get to know the rules, someone changes them.
I think that much is true, although it should be noted that such successes are still the exception rather than the rule, and they typically require skills in a number of areas besides writing (or else far more up-front costs than many novice writers may care to expend. Looking at it strictly from a business standpoint (which is how this will ultimately be decided), relying on agents as the pre-screeners is cost-free to the publisher, who still must make the market judgment about a work under consideration. Relying on self-pubbed track records as pre-screeners sacrifices the self-pubbed sales in exchange for some preliminary market testing. In the former case, good (read: marketable) works can be missed based on the agent's poor judgment (i.e. never gets pitched), while in the latter, they can be missed because a good writer with a good book may have lacked the non-writing skills necessary to assure the book's success. Who knows? Maybe agents will ultimately migrate toward providing those non-writing services that make some writers prefer traditional publishing to self-publishing. But for the near future (including when I try to get my current project published), I think the system will continue to function as it currently does.
Then that's what he should have said. I don't see it as defensiveness - more a continuing irritation with people spreading misinformation, and acting as if their personal experiences/opinions are somehow facts that cover a whole industry. Being skeptical of such statements does not mean being resistant to change. More like not believing something simply because you want it to be true.
This is just the kind of defensiveness I was talking about. People talking about their own experiences, and then extrapolating from that to give their personal perspective of the industry and where it is heading isn't "misinformation." That's just a label you're using to discount something you don't agree with. Whether Smith and others who share those views ultimately turns out to be right or wrong, I'm not sure why your viewpoint, or your broad dismissal (which hasn't been presented with any real substance, but amounts to 'I don't like this, so I don't agree) should be given any more weight. I get that you want things to be a certain way, and that the idea they might not be (or might not continue to be) is somehow threatening. I'm sorry about that. Not sure what else to say.
I think it is worth noting that any time you see posts like Smith's, you're looking at a viewpoint. Even when you see posts about 'rules' for writing and getting published traditionally, you're looking at someone's viewpoint. The idea that there is one right approach, whether it is Smith's or anyone else's, doesn't seem to me to stand up to scrutiny. I expect from what I've read of Smith that he would agree.
I actually didn't read @shadowwalker's comments as defensiveness. I think she had some of the same questions that I did. And still do. My own view is that any time someone writes about where the industry is going, it's going to get the attention of those of us who are looking to break into it. For those of us who have been in that state for a period of years, we've seen a lot of really bad advice given. So, a little skepticism is a healthy thing, in my view. Just a little anecdote - I recently had a chance to talk with a published author, who has had one of her books adapted to a film. When I mentioned to her that I was working on a project I hoped to have published, she said, "Make sure it's perfect, and then go with traditional publishing. Don't let anyone try to talk you into self-publishing." I don't offer this as proof of anything, or even to make a counter-argument to Smith's piece. Just an anecdote.
Boy, talk about interpreting things to your own pov... If you want to see skepticism as defensiveness, feel free. But be clear about one thing - I don't find Smith or his views threatening in the least. I'd have to believe his fairy tales, to begin with...
Yes, skepticism is necessary. And it is necessary to recognize that there are differing viewpoints within the industry. For any person, Smith included, who gives one set of advice, you can find an example that points to a different direction. But the advice Smith is giving isn't unique to him - it's a view shared by other writers who have a lot of industry experience (and Smith has a lot of it himself). So @shadowwalker's view, which seems to me to be that Smith is just clearly crazy and the advice is nonsense on its face, just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There has to be something else at work for a person to take that kind of an approach in response. Insecurity, defensiveness, whatever. Something.
@EdFromNY : Here is an article you might find interesting from the Miami Herald: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/11/v-fullstory/3092294/self-publishing-industry-explodes.html (emphasis added) Again, it is a perspective, but it's one that you'll see mentioned repeatedly by published authors, agents, editors, and others in the industry. Whether it turns out to be true or not, the discussion of it is reasonable, and it really demonstrates the absurdity of some of the knee-jerk response to such an idea seen in this thread and elsewhere.
Nice of you to psycho-analyze my motives. You might want to consider that I have read other of his posts, as well as listened to people in the publishing business and other published authors whose expertise and experience differ greatly - and who disagree with many of the things he has said in the past. Frankly, I'm not sure why you see the need to assign all these derogatory motives to my opinions - perhaps there's some insecurity, defensiveness, whatever, involved there...
Here is an interesting article focusing on Michael Sullivan primarily (who went from self-pub to traditional) http://publishingperspectives.com/2011/06/self-published-ebook-authors-earn-living/ This article talks about some well-known traditional literary agents who have signed self-published authors: http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/the-kindle-store-the-new-slush-pile/ I don't want to spam a thousand links into the thread, because all you have to do is a quick search on Google to see how much this is being talked about on all sides of the issue. What's funny is that it is even being discussed when anonymous aspiring writers on writing forums can see so clearly that it is all fantasy People like their preconceptions, eh?
@Steerpike - very interesting. Thanks for posting the links. The Robin Sullivan piece was especially eye-catching, and, to tell you the truth, I found it a lot more convincing than Smith's piece. Why? Because her tone was less flippant and more serious. She didn't make any prognostications about the industry, only gave a strong indication of what she thought the latest trend was, backing her statements up with facts. She also didn't make it anti- anyone, as if she had an ax to grind. And if you think that doesn't or shouldn't make a difference, then allow me to (gently) point out something to you in this thread. If you look back over this thread, @shadowwalker and I reacted to pretty much the same things in the Smith piece. Aside from style, the main difference between us was that I took issue with the arguments Smith made while she took issue with Smith (apparently because she's had reason to do so before). To my arguments and questions, you simply posted your views (and, ultimately, some excellent reading material). But with shadowwalker, you questioned her motives and put her arguments - which were similar to mine - down to "defensiveness". I'm not finding fault, here. To me, it indicates something about the dynamic of argument. Once the reactions become personal, most of the benefit of continued discussion are lost, but the combatants are to emotionally involvedto disengage. What this thread shows me is the ease - and without conscious thought on either side - the conflict can become personal.
I usually consider the tone and style of the posts. In my experience, when someone uses the tone and words shadowwalker used, something else is going on. That's different from a reasoned discussion where people are simply presenting opposing points of view. I reacted differently to the two sets of arguments because the arguments themselves were different. One set was rational and raised some interesting alternative viewpoints, the other was insulting, dismissive, and seemed to me to be rooted in some adverse emotional response to the original post.
And yet they didn't strike me that way. A little more animated, perhaps, and clearly reflecting some kind of history, but not insulting, and certainly not toward you. One thing I am trying do in these kinds of situations is to assume good will.
Well, my feeling is that like chicken soup for a cold, it can't hurt. Assuming you send your work to someone who is a member of the association—which means they're a pro, not one of those the article claims simply declare themselves to be an agent—there are several advantages. 1. They know who needs what, and will send your story to specific houses, not shotgun the market. They also have a business relationship with the publishing houses, so what they send gets read with a "Okay, lets see what we have here," attitude, rather than the the usual, "Okay, lets get this one out of the way." 2. They know contracts and it's in their interest to get you the best deal possible because that means money in their pocket. 3. If you send to a publisher and they say no, that's that. But if an agent says no you can work to improve the work and submit to another agent. 4. The 15% commission they get is small, and the additional money you'll get because of their negotiation may well negate that. But what matters is that you have a professional on your side, guiding you. 5. The statement in the article that if an agent asks you to make changes you should walk away is literally insane. If a man like Donald Maass (a well known and successful agent) tells you that something doesn't work, because of such and such, and that if you fix it he'll represent you, that's no different from being told that by an acquiring editor. And the advice is coming from someone who hopes to make money by selling your work. Sure, if the Joe Blow literary agency, who represents no one you've ever heard of, and who isn't a member of AAR, asks you to do that you might want to think twice. I also have to say that if you don't see the wisdom of making the changes suggested, either the agent is incompetent or you are, because generally, when an someone knowledgeable in the field suggests a change to someone writing on a professional level the writer will see why it may be wise. I agreed with much of the article, till he got to the conclusions. Even there, had he made it clear that he was talking to people who were already writing like a pro, or at least had those skills, I would probably be nodding in agreement. But most people who will read the piece have never cracked a book, attended a workshop, or taken any meaningful steps toward learning craft, simply because they don't know there's more to it than the writing skills we all learn in school. And for such people, as far as they can see, someone knowledgeable just told them, "Screw publishers and agents. Self-release and with luck and promotion you'll be discovered." If only.
Dean's posts are aimed at people who want to (still) be making a living as writers in ten years. So he keeps reiterating things like write a lot, don't spend lots of time rewriting, don't give a percentage to anyone for a one-off job, don't let someone else look after your money, etc. Obviously that's not as relevant to, say, someone who's spending ten years writing the Great Albanian Novel, as it is to someone spending that ten years writing a hundred genre novels and only expecting to sell a few copies of each every month.
Might want to peruse this: http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177833&highlight=Robin+Sullivan For information only - not going to get involved any further. Life's too short.
@JayG - I think, for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that if the writer has not sufficiently developed his/her writing skills, then it really won't matter whether (s)he approaches publishers directly or tries to land an agent first. Let's just assume the writer in question has the necessary skills, regardless of how acquired. That said, I think I read you to mean that you agree with Smith that publishers are in the process of shedding agents as their slush-scanners of choice and will increasingly rely on pitch sessions at writer's conferences and scouting the self-pub market. Am I correct? @shadowwalker - very interesting thread, if a bit old. Given the speed with which the industry is changing, three years is a lot of history. I thought it odd that Michael Sullivan went to such lengths to avoid acknowledging that Robin ran Ridan Publishing, and I noted that Robin and one of the other participants in the discussion (who apparently also works for a publisher) were both subsequently banned (wonder what that was all about). But I was most struck by this comment: ...which she answered: And the way I read all of that is that, going forward, it may well be that the most important thing a writer does (besides producing a quality book) will be to accurately assess the chances for success and choose the publishing option best suited to those chances. At this point, though, there is an awful lot that isn't clear. Where are the lines going to be? Will there be promotional assistance for self-pubbed or POD authors? Are some modes of publishing better suited/aligned with some genres than others?
