How much can you realistically make e-publishing?

You mean that area in the middle of a continent with major urban centers pretty much all around it? Yup, that's totally worse than a town of a 1000 so far North they can't even build a road to it. I guarantee you at the time I had put far more thought and effort into finding a way to get internet there than you have probably put into all of the posts you've made on this forum, and no, ya couldn't. 5 posts ago you clearly demonstrated that you had no idea either satellite or cell phone technology even worked and you argued that generators didn't need gas to function. Now you're trying to tell me about a place I've lived in a country I have doubts you've ever visited and the aforementioned technology there that you clearly don't understand at a time that's more than half a decade before you knew the place even existed. You should come visit. It'll be fun. Well, I'll have fun.

 

Lol no. The area of Iowa I was in had the nearest urban center around an hour and a half away, which is very remote when it comes to system infrastructure.

This is not true. You attempted to put words into my mouth (or something, I really don't know. You don't even know what half of your arguments even are) and tried explaining how 4g coverage worked or something as if that related at all to anything.

I said absolutely nothing like this.

You are literally quoting something I said before you ever explained you lived in a remote region. Though my point still stands that you probably could have had an internet connection at this place, if you had someone to provide it for you. It's not for lack of being able to get coverage wherever you were, it's lack of anyone giving it to you. What I'm trying to say is that while some of the most remote regions might lack telecommunication services on a commercial level, it doesn't mean you can't get coverage there.

But even then, this is very beyond the point. Yes, there are a handful of remote areas where commercial internet isn't available for any devices. This means absolutely nothing.

 

You're really not succeeding in this discussion. Just in case you were wondering.

 

No one has ever made a post as good as this one on the internet before.

 

It's funny how we say something, then you argue about it for a couple of pages, then say exactly what we told you only you're still right and we're still wrong.

 

I literally never argued that there wasn't, though. You twisted the argument in some totally stupid fucking direction by your own weird, confused rhetoric. Maybe you should stick to comparing things to Nazi Germany?

 

I'm coming in very late to this discussion, which seems to have ebbed and flowed a lot since the start. However, my 2-cents' worth is that, at the moment anyway, ebooks and hard copy books serve different functions. I use both.

Ebooks are great for carrying around on a Kindle, if you read on the go. They're also great for books you're only going to read once. They allow you to read LOTS without creating a backlog of 'stuff' you then need to get rid of, recycle, pass along, etc. As a lover of books whose home is overstuffed with them, ebooks allow me to read without accumulating.

However, I find that a paper copy book is much easier to read and navigate. If it's non-fiction, with photos, maps, etc, it's also better by far, in that you can see the pictures, maps, etc, quite well, and they are easier to cross-reference while reading. AND you CAN freely pass a paper copy book on to other people, as a gift, or as a donation. (Which isn't really the case with ebooks.)

I think there is a role for both. I get annoyed with the idea that only ONE form of anything is allowed to exist, and that only ONE form of anything will survive. History doesn't bear this out, does it? Long live diversity.

However, the ebook/paper copy issue isn't the same as self-versus-traditional publishing, as many others on this thread have attempted to point out. Both issues are worth discussing, but they aren't the same. I own many hard copies of self-published books. And many ebook copies of traditionally published books. It's not the same issue.

I think the OP was interested in what kind of money can be made (and maybe how likely it is to make it) in both of these publishing tracks. Obviously it's up for discussion and 'statistics' can be pulled out of the air to support either side, I suppose, but it's good to read the individual experiences of people who have actually done one, the other, or both.

My own 'hero' in this regard is our own @Lew. He wrote a fantastic book of historical fiction (I love it and have read it several times already, and given it as a gift to others) that was edited to within an inch of its life and really well presented as both an ebook and print on demand ...from cover art, back cover blurb, print quality, etc. He has since spent a lot of time very creatively promoting it, since its release around this time last year, and has been rewarded with very healthy sales—along with a slot at the Historical (fiction?) Writers Of America convention this past year, where he gave a presentation about doing research. I wouldn't be surprised if, when he finishes the next book he's working on, he might attract interest from traditional publishers. If that's something he'd like to try.

Lew's is a self-publishing 'success story,' and shows what can be done if you have written an excellent book which might simply be 'way too long' for a traditional publisher to consider from a first-time author. He is also very willing to share the details of his experience here with us, on this forum. He has inspired me to get my own book of historical fiction set up to that standard. I will certainly take the same route he has done and 'get it out there.'

This route isn't for everybody, but it's a legitimate route, and I'm glad it exists.

 

Okay. You argue like a fascist. You say one thing, stick to it in spite of actual facts being presented to you and refuse to respect other people on matters of opinion. Then when it becomes painfully obvious that you are wrong, you switch tack, accusing other people of making the arguments you yourself made you can change opinion while they're forced to defend against your tirade wile you go back and edit your posts in hopes that no one will notice. All things done by fascist regimes like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Oceana from 1984.

 

See? I knew you could shoehorn in some dumb comparison to Nazi Germany!

I don't know if I should accuse you of either lying or being very wrong. At this point, I could see you being the type of person to start lying. On the other, you're also the type to have no idea what you're saying.

Hmmm. Lying, or just ridiculous?

Yeah okay this is just blatantly untrue. Are you seriously lying or is it really the alternative?

Oooookay this has gone on far, far longer than enough and you and ChickenFreak have basically entered the "asshole troll" territory of your behavior and we've entered the 'roundabout' stage of the argument, where we're literally just saying the same things back-and-forth.

In closing, it's possible to get internet coverage almost all over the globe (certainly not all over it, but in a large range of even very desolate areas). It's very likely that even in this remote regain you come from, 4g coverage was possible but not provided (or maybe it was, all I have to go by is your claim that you couldn't find any despite searching for it at long lengths and to be honest I find it hard to believe you at your word alone). But, again, this is all a very pointless sub-argument that simply doesn't matter. "Some places are super remote and connections aren't possible" isn't a very strong case for "e-books and e-readers will never replace books", so there's literally no point in really bringing this up. Wow yeah, technically it's true not all areas of human life have accessible or commercially available internet coverage. Truly, e-readers are a failed experiment.

 

Have you heard the term "projection"?

 

When I said "you no longer need a traditional publishing house to make your product for you", people mistakenly thought I meant "there's no such thing as traditional publishers also publishing e-books and there's no such thing as self-publishing real physical books". I guess I could have been clearer in my original language, but if anyone thought I was trying to say that traditional publishers don't publish e-books or that self-publishers don't print real books or whatever: then it is purely their own faults for trying to read too much into what I said.

My original statement is, and has been, that you no longer need anyone to produce a physical book for you. Before you were able to publish your own e-books, you had no way to distribute your product and you had to have it published as a physical book. I never, ever, ever implied (ever) that traditional publishing houses don't publish e-books or that self-publishers don't produce physical books for you or anything else. Some people took what I said in the wrong direction and while I do admit I could have more carefully explained myself; it is still their faults for applying things I didn't actually say to what I said.

 

ChickenFreak will you marry me? This is a serious question.

 

If by dumb, you mean apt, and by shoehorn you mean pointed out the obvious, then yes. Yes I did. Thank you for asking so I could live up to my true potential.

I'm glad you agree that there are places that don't have the same services as one of the largest, richest nations on Earth and applying one persons very limited perspective and experience to literally the entire globe is a bad idea because approximately 90% of the worlds population hasn't experienced that level of privilege. You truly are a scholar among men.

 

Now you're talking about privilege or something as if you're implying 90% of the world outside of the USA is directly comparable to a very remote part of the planet. Are you a fucking closet racist? Not only that, but that still has nothing to even do with my point about internet coverage.

As for your other post where you quote Bayview and I: Yes, I said I edit posts but I don't edit them to "maliciously add information hoping no one notices so I'm not wrong in an argument" like you are suggesting.

So what we've learned here is you are both a troll and a racist. Excellent.

 

Yes, I'm truly projecting weird, border-line racist feelings by pointing out the absurdity of claiming that "90% of the world is so unprivileged that it's comparable to an isolated northern habitat". Or for pointing out how ridiculous you are for trying to twist my words around to assert I maliciously edit posts in an argument. You're a good poster, Dapper Hooligan. You get a big golden star.

 

Thank you. I deserve this.

 

I am SO fed up with, and discouraged by, the way personal attacks seem to escalate when it comes to certain topics like this one.

I'm asking, as a fellow forum member (NOT a Mod), could you guys maybe can it?

By all means, defend your take on the TOPIC, but refrain from attributing monikers like 'Nazi' to each other when you don't agree with a point of view, and accusing each other of all sorts? It doesn't get us anywhere, and totally TOTALLY derails the thread. You can actually disagree with a point of view without getting personal about it. You really can.

The topic of the thread is: How Much Can You Really Make ePublishing?

Please????

It's not important who 'started' the unpleasantness. What matters is who ends it.

 

Imagine the image this projects when it pops up in a non-member's google search. I'd be looking for a
different forum to join.

 

Seriously. Yes. And closing threads doesn't really help, because the argy-bargy just starts up elsewhere, and a worthwhile topic gets wrecked.

 

It's not the same issue, but it's related more closely than some seem to think.

Publishers have a huge edge in print distribution because most brick-and-mortar bookstores won't carry self-published books, not as more than a "local author!" promotion. So as long as print books are a significant part of the market, that's a significant part of the market that self-publishers are largely excluded from.

Yes, self-publishers can find ways to get their books into print, but this involves either a large gamble on a self-funded print run (which will be hard to distribute as bookstores are unlikely to stock it) or POD, which tends to be significantly more expensive than books from a print run.

So, if e-books had actually taken over from print, that would be a really significant development for self-publishers, as it would mean they could access a significantly larger part of the market.

But, as has been laboriously established, e-books haven't actually taken over from print, and recent numbers suggest that they're not on their way to doing so. Which means self-publishers are still significantly limited in their abilities to distribute their work.

I always feel like I'm picking on Lew when I do this... I'm sorry, Lew! I'm genuinely happy for you and I genuinely believe that your experience has been a success. Yay, Lew!

But... Lew's goals were largely to "get something out there". He wanted to distribute his book widely, and he worked his tail off to make it happen. Hours and hours and hours of time, lots of money, etc. I think he's enjoyed the process of promotion, and he has the time and money to spend on it, so... yes, definitely a success.

But I think we need to be careful about applying his experiences to self-publishing in general, primarily because many of us have different goals. My main goal in publishing is to make money (net profit) which is significantly different from the goal of getting a book out there. (I hate to harp on the money, but if people are trying to drive this thread back to the "how much can you make" question, money has to be a factor).

So I agree with your conclusion that self-publishing is valuable and useful, but that it isn't for everybody. I just think we need to be a bit more precise in our definitions of "success" and accept that it means different things to different people. (Sorry, Lew!)

ETA: And the last I heard from an agent, any self-publishing sales numbers of less than 5 000 are probably better hidden from publishers rather than used as tools to drive their interest in a writer. I'm not sure what numbers Lew is seeing, but I don't think he's likely at 5 000 yet? So I'd be cautious about thinking of self-publication as a way to gain access to publishers.

 

I agree with you on what you're staying here. I don't know if Lew is considering trying for a traditional publisher for his next book ...that was just my own idea, really. If he could show a pretty good sales figure for the last one, however, given that he's had to self-promote it, that might spur interest. Or not.

Yes, I think if you're looking to establish yourself as an author who gets paid a living wage and wants a long-term career, I reckon traditional publishing is the way to go. Can't argue with results.

However, if all you want to do is write a book or two, especially if you're retirement age, making money isn't a big deal, and your book isn't a good fit for a particular genre, I think self-publishing is worth considering.

Yes, your book needs to be written and edited to a high standard if people are going to take it seriously. (The low standard set by so many self-published efforts really gives the whole concept a bad name, unfortunately.) Yes, you'll need to work your butt off to get it noticed beyond family and friends. But if you're willing to do this, and don't want to—or don't have time to—go through the submission/rejection procedure to possibly land an agent, who may or may not be able to sell your book to a publisher, then self-publishing is certainly a good option to have.

What I also like is that the option is no longer only 'vanity publishing,' where you pay some entity (often a lot of money) to edit and publish your book. Self-publishing is now within the financial scope of nearly every author. As long as an author is willing to accept its limitations as well as its strengths, then why not? If it makes the difference between getting your book out there or not, then why not? The quality of the writing/editing/production/marketing of the finished product is entirely up to the author.