Preferences in Publication Routes

Discussion in 'Traditional Publishing' started by Wreybies, Sep 25, 2016.

  1. Lew

    Lew Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2015
    Messages:
    1,667
    Likes Received:
    1,527
    Just finished my WIP at 68, hope to have it published by the time I am 80!
     
    jannert and cydney like this.
  2. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    I'm happy to let it drop, as long as you will acknowledge that traditional publishers (and the agents that precede them) are looking for a 'fit' for their agency or company. If a book doesn't fit, it won't get taken on. And a word count of 200,ooo for a new author today will be automatic bin with the query letter. That's the reality writers like me are facing. It has nothing to do with our attitude. It has to do with what we write.

    It's all about business ...and fashion. When fashion changes, business follows. James Michener wrote huge tomes back in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, as did other popular authors in all sorts of categories—Jacqueline Susann, Wilbur Smith, James Cavell, John Jakes, Jean M Auel, Danielle Steele, Jackie Collins, Robert Ludlum, Larry McMurtry, to name a few—and these authors' books sold like hot cakes, the publishing houses raked it in, and those authors all became very rich. Family saga books were all the rage, as were books set in other historical periods. People loved long books in general, back then. If I had finished my book in the mid 80s, I'd certainly have been trying to get traditionally published. That was my era. I would have 'fit in.'

    Then fashion changed....

    I still prefer to read a longer, more immersive story. And that's the kind I still prefer to write. If I want to get mine out there, I'll need to self-publish in today's market. That's reality.

    I do agree with you, though, that if you've written the kind of book that publishers and agents ARE looking for at the moment, it probably makes a lot of sense to try for traditional publication. Why not? If you land a book deal, somebody else will promote your books, and if they sell well, you can perhaps make a career (or a secondary career) out of writing. That is much harder to do for self-pubbed authors.

    The one thing that worries me about self-publication is that so much of it is substandard. Some writers aren't all that good, and others rush to publication before the book is ready. This can make a self-published book seem to be a cheapo version of the 'real thing,' which is a traditionally-published and well-edited (in most cases) book.

    I'm hoping that self-publishing will be seen, eventually, as a quality route for authors who write for a very small niche to get their work out there. The author will be taking the risk that the books won't sell a lot of copies—instead of the publishing houses. But if you're looking to buy something unfashionable from a special interest niche, self-published books would be where to go to find them. That's what I hope for.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2016
  3. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi,

    Okay I'll hold my hand up and admit that the "cookie cutter" comment was me. Didn't realise it would be particularly offensive or value laden.

    However, my point remains and is largely along the lines of Jannert's posts. Agents and publishers have certain expectations / desires of the works they publish. These may relate to length, purple prose, active versus passive voice, action versus description etc etc. But writers just like readers have their own expectations and desires. And if a writer wants to write a book / tell a story that doesn't quite fit with the perceived saleability format a publisher wants to put out, then the already long odds of getting an agent etc, just lengthened. At some point an author needs to ask just what the point of going down this road is.

    For me, echoing Jannert again, I like longer reads. I love detailed world builds and inner monologues. Complex plots too. And I enjoy what some would call purple prose. And that's not only what I like to read, it's what I like to write.

    But my experience in going trade was that there was a lot of pressure in turning my work into what the publisher wanted. The editor, though I have no complaints, was not someone I had worked with before, and was ruthless in trimming out large chunks of the book - thirty thousand words - and I felt less able to argue with him. Whereas my own editor I'll happily go and tell to stick her nose in something! (She'll happily tell me to do the same!) So my books don't largely head down this - is formulaic a better term - road. My editor will pick up the mistakes, tell me if a part of the book is egregious in its description or repetitive etc, and then I'll feel completely free to accept or reject her changes. I didn't feel so free in going trade.

    The question every author has to ask themselves I think, is do they want to write their own book, tell their own story their own way, even if it doesn't completely fit with the ideas of agents and publishers about what is commercial? Because if they do, then trade is not going to be a good fit for them.

    In the end the decision is about art and control. The writer has a vision in his or her head that s/he wants to achieve. And maybe it's not perfect. Maybe it could be made better. And maybe it won't sell. But at the end the artist / writer always wants to be able to say - that's my work.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
    jannert likes this.
  4. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I can't begin to imagine how you would see it as anything but an insult to every traditionally published author. There really isn't any subtlety or nuance about it.

    The fact that traditional publishing doesn't support every conceivable book that could ever be written doesn't mean that the countless variety of books that it does support are all essentially the same.
     
    Tenderiser likes this.
  5. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi,

    Well again I hold my hand up to it and apologise to all those deeply insulted traditionally published authors - one of whom is apparently me.

    The fact still remains however that agents and publishers have their own distinct ideas about what will sell and they do select books that are closer to their ideas and then exert more editorial pressure on authors to steer their books towards that vision. Anyone who's been reading for more than twenty or thirty years will have noticed this push towards a certain "sameness" in so many books. And some of us writers don't want to fit into this mould.

    For us as writers the better fit is indie, and for readers who want to read something different the better chance of finding something new and fresh is indie as well.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
  6. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    By that time, fashion will have changed again and you'll be top of the heap! :)
     
  7. deadrats

    deadrats Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,086
    Likes Received:
    7,421
    Does indie publishing mean the same thing as self publishing? I thought they were different.
     
  8. Tenderiser

    Tenderiser Not a man or BayView

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    7,471
    Likes Received:
    10,216
    Location:
    London, UK
    They are different. Unfortunately the term has been hijacked by self-publishers. Independent publishers are non-big-5. Self publishers are... Well, self publishers.
     
    jannert likes this.
  9. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    There is some overlap. People who form legal entities (i.e. an independent publishing company) primarily to publish their own work. Some may also publish the works of others.

    Each, including traditional of course, is viable. It is more likely than not, statistically, that each will be unsuccessful.
     
  10. deadrats

    deadrats Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,086
    Likes Received:
    7,421
    I haven't looked into indie publishers. I'm not at that stage with anything book length. I just thought they were small, independent publishing companies. So, what would you call the small, independent publishers who don't use the company to publish their own works?
     
  11. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    I think those are the more traditional indie publishers. The lines have just been blurred a bit. What of your own work is 90% of what your company publishes. What if it is only 10%?
     
  12. deadrats

    deadrats Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,086
    Likes Received:
    7,421
    So, if you go with one of these places, does it count as self publishing or traditional publishing? I used to work for a small publishing company, but it wasn't started for anyone to self publish and didn't work that way at all. Would it be called an indie publisher still? It certainly wasn't any kind of self-publishing outlet. I guess I'm just thrown of by this term because I really didn't think going with an indie publisher meant self publishing. There are a lot of small presses. I would think most of them aren't publishing their own work. Am I wrong?
     
  13. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    In my view, if anyone other than you (e.g. an indie publisher) publishes your book, that's traditional publishing. If you're publishing yourself and the decision to publish is entirely withing your discretion, that's self-publishing. So if you set up a publisher that is publishing half your own work and half the work of others, you're an indie publisher for the other people and self-publishing yourself, unless the entity has some process outside of your control for determining what gets published.

    The above assumes we're not talking about vanity publishers, where anyone can pay you to publish their work.
     
  14. deadrats

    deadrats Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,086
    Likes Received:
    7,421
    Thanks, Steerpike. That clears things up. If I was to start a publishing company, I wouldn't do it to publish my own work, but that's just me.
     
  15. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    In some cases, it is done simply so that it is not immediately-apparent that the work is self-published. I don't think a lot average readers even look at that, but on Amazon, for instance, it would show the name of a publishing company.
     
  16. psychotick

    psychotick Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    1,526
    Likes Received:
    477
    Location:
    Rotorua, New Zealand
    Hi,

    To my mind I'm an indie even if you want to call me a self publisher. Self publishing and indie are synonymous. After all I am still a publisher even if I only publish myself, and I must be indipendant of other publishers who should in the course of things pay me to publish my work. Trade publishing is taking the work to any other outside company for them to publish. If you take it to one of the big five or a small press it's still trade.

    Cheers, Greg.
     
  17. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    They can't be synonymous because not all indie publishers are self-publishers. Self- could be described as a subset of indie, however.
     
  18. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I interpret "indie", when it isn't modified with any other word, as being a relatively small publishing company that behaves like a traditional publisher in most ways. It would vet works submitted to it, only publish those that are of professional quality, take authority and responsibility for all aspects of publishing and distribution and advertising and sales and the rest of the business without any fees or investment paid by the author, and so on.

    Chelsea Green, for example, is what I think of when I think of an indie publisher.
     
  19. Tenderiser

    Tenderiser Not a man or BayView

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2015
    Messages:
    7,471
    Likes Received:
    10,216
    Location:
    London, UK
    'Independent publisher' has been a term in the publishing industry for decades, long before self-publishing became what it is. It doesn't include self-publishers and is certainly not synonymous with them.
     
    deadrats, BayView and ChickenFreak like this.
  20. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    Yeah, "Independent Publishers" is a term with a long history in publishing. Harlequin, Tor (at the start, at least), and lots of smaller presses were all Independent Publishers long before self-publishers co-opted the term.

    I'm really not sure what's wrong with calling self-publishers "self-publishers"...?
     
    deadrats likes this.
  21. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Terms change as industries change, so I don't have a problem with that per se. It's more the fact that the lines can get blurry. What if an indie publisher publishes 99 books through a traditional process, and then the owner publishes 1 of his own through that publisher. No longer Indie? Seems like for the other 99, it's still indie. And if the owner allowed his own manuscript to go through the same approval/acquisition process as any other book, I'd say it is still indie for him as well, despite the fact that he's publishing his own book.
     
  22. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    Well, given that I think "independent" has nothing to do with self-publishing, I'd agree.
     
  23. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Here's what the Independent Book Publisher's Association says, to the extent that matters (I like it personally, but I think self-publishers are a subset of independent publishers - i.e. all self-publishers are by definition "independent publisher" but certainly not all independent publishers are self-publishers):

    • An independent publisher can be a self-publisher, author-publisher, do-it-yourself publisher, or “traditional” publisher.
    • An independent publisher can be brand new or in business for decades
    • An independent publisher can have 1 title or 10,000+ titles
    • An independent publisher can work out of his/her home or a high-rise office building
    • An independent publisher can have 1 or 500 employees
    What sets an independent publisher apart is his/her commitment to publishing as a business. Along with that comes the dedication to publishing excellence, which includes creating and delivering to the reader professionally designed and edited products—whether 1 or thousands of titles, whether via POD, offset or digital, whether on an e-reader, iPad or smartphone.
     
    deadrats likes this.
  24. deadrats

    deadrats Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2016
    Messages:
    6,086
    Likes Received:
    7,421
    That's what I always thought. If someone wants to self publish, that doesn't really mean they started a publishing company. Or maybe it does. But it did seem like the term was being used in a way I wasn't used to. Thought I would ask.
     
  25. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Some people who self-publish start a publishing company; some do not.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice