Self publishing - is it worth it? Sucess stories?

It is indeed an argument about gatekeepers and quality. And, "the lowest quality possible" would be a string of random characters typed in by a toddler, so I think that you need to clarify that point.

As I've said before, possibly in this thread, I have not yet found a self-published book that is not worse than the worst professionally published book that I've read - and I've read some pretty bad professionally published books. Actually I should clarify - I haven't found a self-published _fiction_ book that is not worse; I've read some decent, if not terribly impressive, self-published nonfiction books.

I'm sure that better self-published books exist, but I'm not interested in investing dozens of hours reading samples of bad writing in the hope that I will eventually hit on something readable. My goal isn't to assure the profits of publishers, but it's also not to put a lot of work into depriving them of those profits, either.

Self-publishing needs gatekeepers. Those gatekeepers don't have to be at the publishing level; they could be at the review level. However, if a review structure is created that makes it possible to find the tiny percentage of good self-published books and thus drastically increases sales of self-published books, I suspect that the authors that aren't in that tiny percentage will rail against that review structure as well.

 

No, a string of random characters is gibberish, not a story. I'm talking about low quality stories, and there are plenty of them out there. I don't want to name names because that's unfair and too personal and not my style but I thinking of one pro-published writer of action books right now and his work is so abominably bad I remain staggered that he sells in the volume he does. All it is about is marketing and sales, NOT quality.

It's not my thing at all, and personally I find it awful, but the ebook amateur Amanda Hocking's work is vastly superior the the Pan Macmillan published author I am thinking about. Vastly superior. And why wouldn't she be? Why would someone be innately better at writing just because their father's best friend is a famous literary agent and got them a great publishing contract? (As also happened recently and yes again I will keep in anonymous again). These people are not innately better at writing they just have contacts. It's how publishing has worked for decades. Of the three new books that interested me recently from debut authors, one was represented by a literary agent she had worked for and who had a familial relationship with and the other two were previous employees of the publishing houses their novels were published by. It's rife.

I agree with this and would support something like you describe. In a way, readers are providing this by their reviews on Amazon, but it could be more structured and formal I suppose.

 

Not only are her stories stereotypical, shallow and horribly written, but the editing of her novels is incredibly poor. She isn't superior to anybody, but why should she care about quality books, huh? She's a millionaire isn't she? Oh, and she accepted a real publishing contract with real editing pretty fast, too.

I don't have the energy to argue against all the self-publishers, but calling Amanda Hocking's writing superior is just ridiculous. I think the problem with most self-publishing writers is how blind they are to what it really takes to make a quality novel.

 

I called her work superior relative to a specific book, as is clear from my post, and unless you know what that book is, you cannot call the statement ridiculous. It seems to me that a lot of the hatred of people like Hocking is based on her fame and wealth, which is what many aspiring writers desire. As I said, I don't like the Hocking stuff, which is inherently awful, but I have no hatred for Amanda Hocking at all - good luck to her.

I think I would agree with your last sentence about how most self-published writers don't know what it really takes to create good fiction, but then many professionally published writers don't know either, which is why some of them employ ghost writers or professional editing and/or researchers teams. When I read most amateur fiction I can see what its problems are straight away. I am an academic and have written for a living, but not fiction, which has always been nothing more than a pastime, yet I can see problems in a lot of the stuff I read straight away (and pro published as well). I opened a Wilbur Smith novel the other day and saw three mistakes on the first page. This is a big name writer with presumably quality editors. I make no distinction between good self-pubs and good pro-pubs. None. The fact the latter are endorsed by a big house means nothing to me at all.

 

According to the Association of American Publishers, in adult fiction, self-published e-books are now over one third of the market. Are those all "exceptions"?

And all the self-published authors who've appeared on USA Today's "Bestselling Books" lists, this year? Are those all "exceptions", too?

Anyone wanting objective, independent, factual information on this subject need look no further than Joe Konrath's "The Newbie's Guide to Publishing" website. Or, of course, people can put their heads in the sand and rely on prejudice instead.

 

Incorrect. The statistic refers to e-books, not self-published books. The majority of the revenue-yielding e-book market is e-book editions of traditionally-published works.

This is the logical fallacy called equivocation, substituting information about one class for another non-equivalent class perceived as the same class.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume this is due to a lack of understanding rather than willful misrepresentation.

As for Konrath's website, this is yet another person with a book and an agenda. Hardly an objective source of information.

 

Konrath definitely has an agenda, and a real axe to grind as far as publishers are concerned, but he seems to sell a great deal. I haven't read his blog for a few months but as I recall he seems to imply he makes a lot of sales by very careful marketing and really knowing the Amazon website - he switches his prices around, does a lot of deals, gives material away for nothing, what else... can't remember. I recall one of his posts in which he was speculating about how much money he was going to make (by annualising the previous month's profits or whatever) and he could barely contain himself.

I believe he was a pro-published writer for a time and this might have a bearing on his success on Amazon, but I think he strongly denies this has anything to do with his success. I don't doubt him though, although perhaps I am naive.

 

Personally, I keep an open mind when it comes to self-publishing, but I think J.Konrath is a bad example here. He moved to self-publishing after 6 or 7 books. He basically comes in with a guaranteed number of sales from the established fan base and free publicity; two things which are considered a huge hurdle for first timers.

Also, from what I read he still passed some of his novels, namely Shaken, to traditional publishers first and it got rejected--after which he signed with AmazonEncore.

I think self-pub has a great future in it and provides a great source for people who are willing to put the effort, but I don't think J.konrath is a good example of a success story here.

 

He has mentioned at least once that his previous success with traditional publishers has nothing to do with his success on Amazon, but I was always skeptical about this for the reasons you mention (existing fan base etc). His elevation from regular self-pub to AmazonEncore must have helped him I suppose, but he has only mentioned it a handful of times on his blog. And he was still getting published by Hyperion as late as 2010 as well, I think.

He is making money though, and claims in a blog entry of 2010 that his novel Whiskey Sour made him $54,000 between 2004 - 2010 (with Hyperion) and his own "self-published" book "The List" sold 9033 copies from Jan - June 2010 at $2.99 a copy. I think the way the fees work out that means he gets about $2 pre-tax per copy, which is around $18,000 for half a year, or $36,000 annualised. And that was just one title.

Personally, and this is just subjective critique of his books, I do not think they are very good. They're not bad - there is some real crap out there and Konrath is certainly not that - but, well - it seems so pedestrian it just surprises me he shifts so many copies.

Ultimately you are right to point out that he is not a good example because he has a long (and possibly continuing) history with professional publishers, and that means he knows industry figures like agents and editors, and he is signed to AmazonEncore. I do know someone who makes a lot of ebook sales, but I also know (of) someone who spent months on a YA novel and uploaded it and has shifted around 100 copies in three months. This is probably closer to what most people can expect to experience.

 

Frankly, it's thanks to Konrath and his ilk that there's this huge division between authors. He was among the first - if not the first - to start referring to trade publishing as "traditional" and "dinosaurs" and acting like anyone going that route was a fool. And don't think for a moment that he (and others) haven't milked that controversy for everything it's worth.

 

I hear what you're saying but to be fair to him, he (and his ilk as you put it) have inspired a lot of people to write and more important - finish writing projects and self-publish them. I'm not sure one can go the "route" of trad pubbing because as we know most manuscripts are not taken very seriously and most get a cursory glance and an arbitrary rejection irrespective of quality because a new writer is such an unknown quantity. This is why there is so much nepotism in publishing - because someone in the industry acting as a guarantor is a powerful ally when it comes to convincing a publisher to take a risk. Konrath et al have made people realise they are not wasting their time and can upload it and sell it, no matter how small the sales, and feel the pleasure of completion. I think he deserves some credit for that.

 

Nothing worthwhile is ever easy. Yes, you will need patience and perseverance to succeed, but new writers DO make the grade every day.

Nepotism? Paolini is an isolated, rare example. Most writers, past and present, have to rely on thier ability, plus plenty of the aforementioned patience and perseverance to break into the business.

 

It's so hit and miss though. With a painting or a song, it is conceived and finished within days, sometimes hours but even a novella can take months. Now, no one fancies the idea of working for months for nothing but 75 rejections, and that is the problem. I recall an experiment where some journalists sent out the first few pages of previous winners of the Booker Prize to various agents and publishers and most got rejected with form rejection letters. Perhaps they hadn't even been read. That is what new writers are up against, and in my view, writing towards self-publication gives one more hope because one knows the work will be finished, and will be published, and will be read even if by only 50 people. After all, being read by 50 people is 49 more than are going to read it when it gets rejected from every agent and publishing house you send it to. And I'm not sure cases are so isolated - as I said elsewhere - I read about three new writers recently - one is being represented by one of Britain's best literary agents whom she happened to work for one summer and who is close friends with her father, and the other two both were former employees of the publishing houses they are published with. Now call me a cynic, but these were just a few that randomly passed before my eyes in the last few weeks!

 

They probably were rejected via plagiarism scans.

Yes, I do call you a cynic...

I don't sugar coat the odds against a new writer, and never have. Nevertheless, that is the path. Don't be lured off it by bright and shiny lures that lack substance.

 

Isn't this what Traditional publishers do when they call all self-publishing "Vanity press". If you look at business today, those who distinguish themselves succeed. At the end of the day it's your success that matters not your morality--well, at least to people who prioritize money and fame.

 

I know that barbs have flown from both sides - and it's needless to do so. And if you consider your success more important than morality - well, that's not a path I'd choose.

I'm sure painters and songwriters appreciate your appreciation of their efforts. And if you listen to some of the 'gurus' of self-publishing, they encourage a fast and furious pace of publication - not months.

Some idiot pulls that stunt at least once a year - and yes, they get rejected because agents and publishers aren't as idiotic as they are.

You consider three writers - out of how many thousands - to show this isn't isolated?

If you want to self-publish, you should - but you should do it knowing all the problems as well as those "possible" successes. And you should definitely do it having a thorough knowledge of the publishing industry as a whole - not just what some guy with an axe to grind and who says all the things you want to hear tells you. I keep saying it - this is your book, your business, your reputation. Isn't that worth doing thorough research first? If you have ever written even the barest of business plans, you'll know that listing the possible negatives is part of the process - to make sure you know how to deal with them.

 

Personally, I wouldn't go to extreme measures to prove a point or earn a buck; I consider fair compensation is the motto that fits me best.

After all, aren't we all seeking some sort of monetary compensation for our work? Those who aren't have their novels posted online for free download --yes, I've actually met people who are against copyrights and published their works online for free.

To each his own, I guess. Understanding everyone's reason and goal is the best way to avoid conflict.

 

FYI - The term vanity press isn't a barb. It's perhaps named unfortunately, but it is the term for any pay-to-publish venue without the requirement of meeting quality criteria of anyone other than the author.

 

It's a derogatory term that describes a pay-to-print press. The only difference I saw in both definitions, by researching them, is how much control you have over your book rights. Self-publishers mentioned, at least here, give you all control of your rights. Personally, I look at it as a case-by-case situation.

 

I have absolutely nothing against earning money for my writing - it's a definite goal. But if that means turning aside my values to do so, then no. I'd rather not earn a penny.

 

There is no difference in the definitions. And the term self publishing is misleading as well. Very few people perform every step of the process themselves. They purchase services a la carte rather than having them provided as a package as part of a traditional publishing contract. Self-publishing glosses over the fact that the criterion for publication is money, and money alone.

Vanity press may be a derogatory term, but it is a term that has been in place for at least half a century.

And any place that gets you to sign away your rights is a scam. It's a myth, or an outright lie, that vanity press includes any such provision as a matter of course.

I think you will find a lot more truth in the term vanity press than in the term self-publishing.

 

I wouldn't put aside my beliefs to sell a book, and I certainly wouldn't accuse someone of that. I'm just saying people's values are different. For example, erotica is considered immoral in some cultures while perfectly normal in others.

So does any traditional publishing house, they hire professional to do the work they don't do it all themselves. @underlined: This is why I look at the book not the press. Say an author who has the funds to pay for a professional editor, illustrator, and a publicist; he did all the work a traditional publisher.

Does that make it O.K to use such terms ?

I never claimed that you sell away you rights. You sell some of your rights, depending on your contract, for a specified period.
E.g. E-book rights, paperback rights, movie rights...etc...etc--See HarperCollins vs. open road media case.

Edit: In most self-publishing contracts you own everything. You can have your book printed by several other houses with no legal issues, with Vanity publishers you can't as you sign a contract as you would with a traditional publisher.

 

Irrelevant. The writer contracts with the publisher to handle the entire process, regardless of whether they subcontract. The point I was making is that the "self-publisher" is rarely doing it all himself or herself, which belies the name.

Not true. Some vanity publishers work this way. Most do not.

That is not "selling your rights". You retain all your rights, but you grant (lease) license, and to some extent exclusive license, to your work for a specified period. NOT the same thing at all. You retain your rights at all times.

 

How is it different?
They pay someone else to do the work and still retain the title publisher.
You pay someone else to do the work and you don't ?

@underlined: This comes back to my point earlier, It's the book/Author not the press. If the author does the work and goes through the process then the press becomes nothing more than a contract to print a book--and he falls within the rarely above.

I'm sorry, I see the problem now. I meant lease, that is why I added "for a specified period" above; thank you for correcting me.

 

"Granting an exclusive license" and "retaining all your rights at all times" are contradictory, aren't they? If you give someone exclusivity over some of your rights, that means, by definition, that for the duration of that agreement you can't grant those rights to anyone else, they're not yours to dispose of as and when you might otherwise see fit, and you are therefore not retaining all your rights at all times, surely?