Much of the animosity arises from inflated clames and outright scams perpetrated against naive new writiers looking for an easier route than the rather daunting traditional process. As has been pointed out, there are some limited niches for which self-publishing makes sense. However, for the most part, it's a rotten carrot, spray painted with gold paint, to entice the gullible. To spend "just a pittance" to make their piece of writing soar to best-selling status. There is also a misperception of the traditional publishing industry. It is not comprised of dusty old farts in tweed jackets judging young upstarts trying to overrun a staid industry. They are keen eyed professionals, many of whom are quite young and active. They know the market, especially the rapidly changing leading edge. They are not only open to radical ideas, they seek them out. They demand high standards in the writing they accept, for the sake of their business, but also for the sake of the writers themselves. There are no standards for self-publishing, by its very nature. No matter how competent you, personally, are as a writer, you are competing for attention in a sea of crud.
If you research publishers, and most writers do, it is obvious that there has been big changes over the last few years. It becomes obvious by looking at the profiles on the various web pages that the industry is progressive and generally younger than it was. And most self published writers acknowledge and accept that its standards are high. And true, there are many unscrupulous people out there just waiting for the opportunity to rip of the naive. Some of those people dress themselves up as bona fide publishers, so it's not only in the self publishing industry that the writer has to be careful. Most self publishers would also agree with you that the standards can be pretty appalling. Most would also contend that, as with the trade publishing industry, that is also changing. Self publishing is a fairly new concept and it needs time to develop. (I'm not counting vanity publishing here. That's been around for a long time and is not the same as self publishing. Vanity publishers are a different breed.) It's not compulsory for anyone to buy a self published book. It's not compulsory for anyone to go along that road to publishing. I agree with a lot of what you've said - and I don't mind admitting that self publishing has many faults and that trade publishing is a better option for many. My big - big problem comes with the attitude. I don't know where the anger comes from. Why are you so angry when people want to try a different way. Why phrases like 'sea of crud'. We go in with our eyes open. If we get stung, we get stung. The gullible are gullible in whatever options they choose. And I think most of that guillability comes from greed. Take a browse across the internet, pick up any paper or magazine, look on lamposts, walls, supermarket notice boards - millions of ways of making money without working for it. Writing's just got thrown into the mix. People who've never tried it before think they can pick up a pen and write a best seller. Tough. It's a lesson learned for those who can't and a lesson taught by those who can. Self publishing will get better - it is getting better. And those who are trying to improve the standards, those who are creating works for which there is no other option (those limited niches) and those readers who are happy with what they've read, this constant slapping down with inappropriate comments is getting a bit wearing.
All of this optimistic talk sounds fine, except for the central issue. Self-publishing has, and cannot have, any standards of acceptance. There is absolutely no driving force that will prevent the few well-written self-published works from getting lost among the crud. The easier self-publishing becomes as an option, the more crud there will be, because there is absolutely nothing to enforce minimum quality standards. Traditional publishing requires the writer to meet someone else's standards, and that someone else is an industry expert who is in a position to judge whether the writing stands a chance of making more money than it costs to produce. Those production costs are dropping, with e-publishing also becoming an option. But e-publishing is not self-publishing. What does a traditional publisher have that a self-publisher does not? A reputation. The traditional publisher's standards are enforced to maintain a level of quality, and that level of quality leads to novels that reach prominence with the public. That IS the publisher's reputation. Booksellers, talk shows, all the major promotional and distribution outlets listen to that reputation, and it's wishful thinking to believe you can compete without the access that reputation affords a major publisher. What is my objection? Misleading new writers, who are desperate to succeed, into thinking the self-publishing industry is a viable alternative for becoming known as a writer. The handful of exceptions are trotted out, which is equivalent to pointing at lottery winners to promote buying scratch tickets as a viable investment choice. The traditional publishing route is not easy. However, it does not rely on deception to attract writers. The only reputation a self-publisher
Self publishing does not have any formally accepted standards. The self published book is dependant on its author's standards and that does mean that there is rubbish out there. No argument. There are also some exceptional ones. Good works get lost in trad publishing too. While we have the likes of Katie Price (Jordan) model, page three girl, generally known for having no talent except for the obvious, having trad publishers clamouring for her biographies (several now) while the bios of almost any second rate actor/footballer/footballers wife/singer etc. etc. are crowding the shelves, is it any surprise that many potential winners end up as losers? We can't castigate self publishing for its faults and lose sight of the fact that trad publishing also has faults. In another thread, I read the opinion that Dan Brown, JK Rowling, Stepanie Mayer, were all poor writers. How can that be when they took the traditional route. Does that mean that trad publishers are willing to publish 'crud'. Don't think so, it's just another opinion. In other words, one man's meat is another man's poison. Some people enjoy them, some don't. Same with self pub. books. Some are terrible, some are good, but you won't get everyone agreeing to which book is which. I don't know what you mean when you say that e publishing isn't self publishing. In my experience it has been. The costs of self publishing are not prohibitive. Many writers are capable of editing, proofreading and even designing their own cover. And please don't tell me that if it's not done professionaly, it's no good. There are a lot of talented people in the world. Amatuers they may be, but talented just the same. And there are many dtp programmes, photo editing programmes and access to a tremendous amount of free art on the internet. It is very possible for one person to create a book from beginning to end, with a lot of thought, a lot of work and help from honest readers. Most printers do a short run which doesn't cost the earth. The most difficult part of the process is marketing but if you keep the print run short, there shouldn't be a major problem. And I am talking from experience. I know what your objection is. I can understand that, although I disagree with your reasoning. What I can't understand is your vehement stand against anything that is to do with self publishing. The analogy to lottery tickets doesn't do it for me. If anything it underscores the point that life is life. Its choices are ours to make. I don't do the lottery. I don't expect to win and it doesn't interest me. There is no satisfaction in handing over a pound and receiving a ticket I know I'll to throw away at 7.30 on a Saturday night. I have self published. The whole experience was a positive one. I have no expectations of making a mint. Not even a small one. I am just happy that my book is being read and those who have read it have reacted positively. The traditional publishing route definitely is not easy. And it shouldn't be. So I don't quite know why Katie Price has had so many bios published. It is the established, respected way of producing and selling books. I've got no argument with that. I'm happy to concede that point. But, it is no longer for me. I am a writer. I love writing. I love reading and i have no intention of demeaning the publishing industry. At the same time I welcome the possibilities self publishing offer.
I think we need to remember, when discussing quality, the difference between not liking the subject matter of a book and the writing. Just because a book is written by/ghost-written for a 'celebrity' does not make the writing crap. To take it a step further, just because the writing is not technically good doesn't mean the story is crap, which is why certain books sell very well. But with self-publishing, there are a lot more books which are neither well-written technically nor well-written story-wise. And that all boils down to the fact that there are little or no barriers to self-publishing. So yes, there is crap in trade publishing - but it's more a subjective crap than objective. And of course, there are always exceptions. Note: e-publishing is trade, indie, and self-publishing. Too many people use 'e-publishing' when they really mean self-publishing.
All points conceded. I also have this theory. The English language is being 'damped down'. Even teachers are guilty of sloppy English. TV presenters, even the once formal news readers, often get it wrong. I think the majority of the general reading public are oblivious to all but the most obvious errors. They don't care as long as the story is entertaining. This is not an argument FOR self publishing. It's really supports the argument against. We can't force people to read only well written books. Even children's books don't always get it right. My five and a half year old grandson pointed out an error in his school reading book to his teacher a couple of weeks ago. (that was a book published the traditional way) And he was right. The point is that people will read what they like and if they can get interesting books at the press of a key, they will. To me this means that self publishing authors MUST tighten up their act if they don't want to have this negative response from other writers. (It does seem to be mainly other writers). It shouldn't be an excuse to allow sloppy English just because you know it will be accepted by the majority. Or even by the smallest minority. But while we allow sloppy English in other aspects of our lives, we don't stand a chance of maintaining standards in publishing. And I understand all that and why the anti self publishing lobby cites standards as a problem. But these poor standards are everywhere. Take our council as an example. They are building a new shopping centre and they have agreed with the builder that it should be call - 'City Sentral' - that's not a mistake. Sentral with an S. What chance do our childlren have? I am pro self publishing for lots of reasons and any book I publish this way will have been edited, edited and edited. The cover will have been viewed by a wide selection of people. I will do my best. And I know that not everyone will. That's a shame, but hopefully, this industry will evolve and there will be an improvement in acceptable standards.
You'll get no argument from me on the putrefaction of language skills, especially among the public figures we expect to be masters of language. And you're right, the educational system is an integral part of the breakdown. I don't know if the trend is permanent. There remains plenty of literature that is well-written, and there will always be readers who will appreciate it.
I'm in the "Neither" crowd. Both forms of publishing serve different needs. Both can yield success given the right circumstances but both are pretty enormous mountains that likely won't yield much success at all. There are benefits to both, depending on your point-of-view and wants. No way is "better" than the other, in my view. They're just different paths. And who knows what they'll both look like in a decade or two. Pitting them against each other does nothing for me.
Cog: You'll get no argument from me on the putrefaction of language skills, especially among the public figures we expect to be masters of language. And you're right, the educational system is an integral part of the breakdown. I don't know if the trend is permanent. There remains plenty of literature that is well-written, and there will always be readers who will appreciate it. Nice to see we agree on something! The dumbing down of the English language is a constant irritant to me. I don't mind the natural progression, things change and that's o.k. But 'would of' instead of 'would have' drives me insane.
Ditto that! But I fear soon it would become the "correct" form, it's so common/popular now... As for me, I confess I treat self-published authors with a degree of scepticism. For me, it is like someone started a blog on the internet and calls themselves "published". Of course, by the technical definition of the word, they are - "published" is simply work that is distributed for the public to read/consume. But the word "published" carries with it reputation, it implies quality, it implies skill with the written word, it implies authority in the field you're writing - and you cannot have that if your work has not be assessed by an objective eye, proven itself, and given approval by either masses of readers or experts in the industry. If a self-published author has a tried and tested reputation and many reputable books that sold well - then yes, I accept that person as published. Because for me being published is not the simple act of making your work available, for me it is like a title that proves your quality as a writer. But self-published authors who claim to be "published" but has no reputation, no readers (and I don't mean like just 200 readers - I mean a good, significant number of readers), and only 1-3 books out on the market - no, I'm afraid I would not take such a writer seriously. Of course if I read it and the writing is excellent, I might reconsider. But the question is - if your book was so good, why weren't you able to get a publisher? "Good" is relative though - not only must it be good in quality, but it is only "good" if it is what the market wants to read. I guess also the problem with the way people, myself included, think about self-publishing is this: people go the self-pub route because they couldn't snap up an agent/publisher. Self-pub is never a voluntary choice, it is a last choice, an alternative if you can't get the jackpot - I'm not saying this is what self-publishing is, I'm saying this is how self-publishing is seen by a lot of people. I'm open to self-publish too - if my book doesn't snap up a publisher, I'd go self-published. I'd rather someone reads it than no one. Yes of course it's vanity. The truth is, if the quality of your book is good enough, at some point someone will take it, so going self-pub is also seen as a lack of faith in yourself. If your book is consistently rejected by agent after agent, there's likely something wrong with your manuscript. In this case, self-pub doesn't solve anything. When all is said and done, I don't wanna be a publisher, I hate marketing, I hate the whole social media revolution crap. I want to go commercial. I'm not as fussed about the money (though who wouldn't like some, right?) - but I do want to be known. And this fame and reputation come a lot more easily via the trade route than the self-pub route, so I'm gonna try my hardest to go the trade route. Once I have a fan base and etc, there's nothing stopping me from going self-pub then and keeping all my profits for myself, and it'd be easier too.
Well, for me traditional publishing makes you a professional writer. Self-publishing makes you a hobby writer. This is purely because, once self-published books sell well, they get snatched by traditional publishing, to a great delight of the author. My personal experience is that those few short stories and research studies that I wrote that were published in traditional press (literary and scientific) meant more to me than over 300 000 hits on my blog where I wrote a novella. I did however get a publishing offer for my blog material based on it's success with readers, which proves that publishers are not idiots and they actually seek out interesting material. Whether the first offer is the one you should accept is again different kettle of fish, but you can cross that bridge when you come to it. I think there is a huge amount of professional discouragement from all kinds of people who go around convincing everybody that they have next to no chance of getting published, quoting 1% stats and such. This serves the purpose to severely discourage the novice writer. If he or she lacks confidence, or lacks skill so they are super-sensitive to criticism, they will go down the line of least resistance, and that is to simply pay for someone publishing their stuff. If you write on a blog, it is less so, because it could be just practice or discovering your talent. But paying $2k to someone to "publish" your book (which never sees the light of day in book stores) is simply catering to the writer's ego by protecting it from harsh lessons he or she needs to learn in order to discover whether they are actually good enough? There seems to be a trend these days where everyone who can read or write in the most basic sense, can take the attitude that they will succeed as a writer "no matter what". It's the same as somebody completely tone-deaf showing up for auditions of X-factor, then being told by judges they can't sing then they kick off then the judges trash them for being completely delusional and assaulting their ears. And then they go and sing in their own bathroom (or release an auto-tune record they pay through the roof for, if they are rich like Paris Hilton). The outcome? They are no more a singer then before they started, minus the cash. I believe that traditional publishing is not a gamble. If you are capable of being good enough (talent and ability) and you are determined to succeed (hard work) and you never stop chasing your dream (persistence in face of adversity), you will get published eventually and be able to make a living out of it. But you will notice your skill level sky rocket and once you are published, you will understand why you were unsuccessful with the previous work. If you are not good enough, you will spend your life believing that being published is some kind of random, luck-driven process, and remain bitter about it. Or alternatively, you can keep self-publishing, avoiding the hard work needed to improve sufficiently, and you will never achieve what you set out to do. My advice would be to not spend a single penny. Write it all on a blog if you must, make up your own e-book and place it on Amazon (free of charge), so you can feel you are getting experience. But never stop striving for the real thing. As for artwork, if your artwork is really good, and it goes with the story, there will be a publisher who will be interested. It is up to you whether you want to make that a sticking point. But keep them separate to begin with and when you are sending the manuscript out, consider just informing them that there is original artwork to go with, and they'll ask you to see it if they are interested in that kind of thing. And best of luck!
After I read all the comments, I just wanted to add that all this is just my opinion, based on my personal experiences in life. I don't do things I am passionate about half way. I don't think I "deserve" to be trade published but I do think I am capable of it. Likewise, I don't exclude ever self-publishing, actually I am in the process of compiling an e-book for download, my novella and a collection of essays in Croatian which people enjoyed reading so I thought, I might as well make it available. Whenever I have a block, I edit that material until I am happy to call it a book. But my primary focus is on achieving a successful writing career. I am a late starter so I am not expecting anything to happen in a hurry, but that is where I am heading and I will persevere unless I prove to myself that I am not good enough. And that will ultimately be fine because I will know I gave it my best shot.
Personally, I think there is room for both. I will continue to strive to have my original work published traditionally. However, I am building up a collection of stories that have already been "published" on the internet, including this forum (e.g. the weekly short story contest). It has been pointed out many times, on this forum, that a traditional publisher would be unlikely to touch any story that has been already published in full (even if that is on this site). Once, I have enough of these stories I will probably self-publish them (myself, not paying someone else to do so). If people buy it, brilliant. If not, I have lost nothing.
e-publishing only means there is no printed on paper book to be purchased in a store or sent to your door, only an electronic version to be downloaded onto your computer or handheld reading device... self-publishing can mean either e-publishing, or that an actual printed book will be available...
I agree 100%. I would also add that it would feel lousy, for me, to self publish. I mean, I did not slave away at writing for most of my life just to publish myself because no one else would do it for me. I would rather have a professional tell me "this sucks for reasons A,B,C" and learn from it than never learn from anything. I would rather be rejected a hundred times until I find the one professional who publishes for a living tell me "you know what? Your art rocks so much I will pay you for it" than "publish" it myself and pray someone who I don't know actually reads it. In short, for me self publishing and calling yourself a "published author" is like starting a basketball league, paying yourself and calling yourself a "professional athlete."
In short, for me self publishing and calling yourself a "published author" is like starting a basketball league, paying yourself and calling yourself a "professional athlete." Except that to publish something means to put it in the public domain and if you have written, then you are an author. It follows then that no matter how you publish, if you publish, you are a published author. It's not a matter of opinion - it's a matter of fact. That's what the words mean.
Of course you're technically correct, but the truth is, when you say you have "published", it carries with it connotations that go beyond the technical definition of the word. Nobody takes everything literally but they will understand what you're saying by what they understand from the implications of the words that you use. Thus, to be "published" carries with it prestige, and recognition for your writing skills as a professional, neither of which is justified in the realm of self-publishing UNLESS you have a huge following and the book is actually a success. But I'd say it is unfair that a self-pub author gets to have the prestige and glory a trad-pub author does, it's like comparing John Doe to J.K. Rowling and saying they're equal. They're not.
So it's just an ego thing? A celeb 'author' published by a trade publisher deserves more 'prestige and glory' than any self-published author, simply because of the publication method? Look, I'm not a big fan of self-publishing. I think far too many authors jump into it long before they - or their books - are ready to be published. And yes, anyone can be a published author by going the self-publishing route. At the same time, I don't think it's right to paint all self-published authors as 'pretenders'. John Doe may indeed be as good - or better - than JK Rowling. Whether the public realizes this or not depends largely on John Doe's prowess as a publisher, not a writer.
Being published or not doesn't really matter. A published, successful, skilled author will find himself in the company of absolute dilettantes who can only publish their books because they are known from tv and surrounded by self-sustaining circles of "artists" who can only survive in the literary market because they push each other's work and manage to scare off possible competitors, and that is all without talking about self-publishing. If I want to have a short story published in an anthology I can do so in a few months time - I'll just not get very much cash, and it'll probably only sell in a snail's pace if at all. With a bit more effort I can turn one of my stories into a dark something novella and find a niche market publisher who will take it, but to the same effect. "Being published" in itself is, in my eyes, overrated. Whether it is something to be proud about depends on who publishes my text, and even more, how many people buy it (and like it).
I find the idea of automatic prestige silly. If you sold your book for a $3k advance and only sell 100 copies, are you really more prestigious than the author who self-publishes and sells 200 copies? No, only richer. And for that matter, the same traditionally published author likely would have had more sales due to lower pricing. I refer here to ebooks, because self-publishing in print is not economical. Yes, having your book "approved" by someone else seems like it should mean something, but when that someone is choosing books based more on perceived marketability then quality, it doesn't mean what it used to. In short, the publishing industry has changed. Success and prestige are measured in numbers, not in who signs the checks. Oh, and I'll mention that my book wasn't self-published. But that was 5 years ago. Things have changed.
Yes, it is. Reason being to use the method of getting published by a publishing house you need to impress people who see hundreds of manuscripts every year. To get self published, you don't have to impress anyone. If "John Doe" was that good, he would be able to get published traditionally.
