Well it doesn't sound like you're saying anything I would disagree with, except the thing about it having nothing to do with being a first-time author. Being a first-time author is a huge, huge disadvantage in the eyes of a publishing house. I'm not saying people shouldn't get an agent if that's what works for them. But people rule out self-publishing too quickly, especially with the changing nature of the industry.
No offense, but self publishing has been around for a very long time, and for that entire time the self publishing industry has been talking about changing the industry. No doubt, it is easier than ever to self publish, to get your book on kindle, but there is still a stigma attatched to it in the traditional publishing world, the likelihood of it getting you noticed by a major house is minimal at best, and the big houses are going to have their books at the top of the list on kindle and other devices, because they have a vested interest. Just something to think about. And the fact is even PUBLISHED authors often have a difficult time getting published again, if their book didn't sell well enough, they didn't meet deadlines, they were difficult to work with, they're not consistent. So, no, it really doesn't. Sorry.
Publishers are not positively impressed by self-publication. They can, in fact, be negatively impressed. The only publishing credits they want to see are from authors who have run the gauntlet of acceptance, not proof that you have impressed yourself enough to talk yourself into publishing your writing.
i have to disagree with you, too, sw... in that if a new writer's ms has impressed a top agent enough to get him/her to rep it, then publishers will take it seriously and consider it for publication, because the top agents carry a lot of weight... what you said would be valid only if the agent in question wasn't known to the publisher and didn't have a good track record in re clients' successes...
It's interesting to consider what lends legitimacy to a work of literature. It seems that everyone's still stuck on the notion that getting a major publishing house to pick you up is the only way to achieve legitimacy as an author. If writers don't start challenging this way of thinking, then who will? No doubt getting published will give you a confidence and a career boost, but I know plenty of published authors who tell me that being published isn't all it's cracked up to be. What's more, I know for a fact that self-publishing can be far more lucrative for a first time author. As for literary agents, I'm not disputing their value, but even if you're lucky enough to get picked up by one, it doesn't guarantee you anything. Check out the article I posted. That kind of thing is happening all the time in today's market. If you self publish a crap book, then no one's going to be impressed. But a success is a success, and when you're starting from scratch, self-publishing can be a way to bypass the system and reach a market. There are plenty of self-publishing success stories. If you get picked up by a publisher, great. If not, pocket your earnings.
The point I think you're missing is that it's highly unlikely you're going to get picked up by a publisher by self publishing. I wish you nothing but the best of luck in your self-publishing endeavor, I just hope you have a realistic outlook. Yes, you have a lovely article showcasing a man who is apparently going to make a big bang after self publishing, I wish him well too. The fact is, he is the exception, not the rule, and you can propose any rule to me, and give me an hour or two, and I'm sure I can find you some impressive success stories of people who went against the grain. That certainly isn't proof that the industry is changing, the stigma is lifted, or that you're going to hit it big and get rich quick by bypassing "the system". Furthermore you seem to be in some kind of denial about the fact that in most publishing markets self publishing will hurt you. What it will not do is lend you credibility with them.
Sidewinder, you make a lot assertions that you state as fact, when earlier you stated you're really just getting started with publishing. I understand now what w176 was trying to say. 99% of the time, rejection letters probably are sent out for good reasons. It is better to be honest with yourself about the flaws in your writing than to immediately jump to self-publishing. If you don't know what your weak points or errors are, get a competent reviewer to point them out to you. If you skip this step, the only person you're going to fool is yourself.
I agree that there's a stigma, but I think it's overstated. I will take the point that publishers rarely pick up a self-published book. Still, that doesn't necessarily bother me. I don't really buy the notion that having a self-published book to your name will sully your reputation. As to the changing nature of the industry, that's not speculative. How it will change remains to be seen, but there are already a lot of people saying that print is dead. Now stuff that I'm stating as fact isn't stuff that I just made up -- it's stuff that I've looked into extensively. The thing about rejection letters -- yeah, that's a good point. You can deinitely learn and grow a lot from going through the industry process. But I also think that a lot of this just boils down to habit. I was having a similar conversation with my girlfriend the other night about the theatre scene in our city. People talk a lot about how hard it is to get a show mounted, how there's no money to go around, and how the systems in place to facilitate your growth as an artist are all getting harder and harder to access. Honestly it just sounds like a whole bunch of whining to me. Nobody has the guts to break the industry habits and make a new system. Everyone wants someone else to lead the way. In the same way, a lot of the stigma surrounding self-publishing comes from writers' trepidation surrounding the process. Again, I agree that you make a good point about rejection letters. Self-publishing shouln't be seen as a short-cut, but a way to circumvent the garbage. Change isn't a passive process, and believe me -- when I say the industry is changing, it's because I've been in contact with numerous people who are hell-bent on changing it. Now there is probably some sense to the idea that the world of self-publishing doesn't have a system in place to replace the growth period the 'legitimate' publishing world forces aspiring writers to go through. At the same time, the publishing industry legitamizes a lot of crap, and you don't have to win the pullitzer to reach your market. I don't have any delusions about getting rich off the contract I'm working on right now. I do, however, believe there's a real untapped market for it, and the publishing industry is standing between me and that market. Back to the original question of this thread, I'd say self-publishing on Kindle is still a better way to reach readership than just giving it away. I'm not saying it's a better option than sending your work to publishers or trying to get picked up by a literary agent. But in certain cases, it's a step in the right direction, and for a first-time author it can often be the answer.. And don't understate the degree of success that's possible through self-publishing. There are more success stories out there than a lot of you seem to be aware of.
Maybe they are, but this just begs the question, have you even TRIED the traditional publishing route? Just curious.
My point is that there are new opportunities to circumvent conventions. I guess I get irked by the fact that publishers still have the power to dangle the carrot of legitimacy in front of the faces of up and coming authors, and that's effectively the only thing keeping them in the game. That and the offer of wide distribution -- but the rules of distribution are changing rapidly. Why not be the one to question the way things work, and challenge the market with strange new material that nobody thought would sell? Why not pull the rug out from underneath the publishing industry, and question what is perceived as legitimate? The debate of what's crap and what isn't is a whole other thread to get into, but suffice it to say -- I think there's a lot of crap out there, haha. And a lot of it sells pretty well. We did try the traditional publishing route. Or at least -- they did, before I was brought on board. (The feedback they got was one of the main reasons they decided they needed a real writer on board to make it work.) Based on a few meetings with people in the publishing industry, it was clear that the road to getting the book on the market via traditional publishing was going to be a lot longer and potentially less profitable than self-publishing in this case. I'm just being paid to write it and getting a share in the sales. (A pretty big share). I was skeptical about the self-publishing thing too, but the guy who hired me did a pretty good job of convincing me that his business plan is going to work. The most important thing in self-publishing is to have a base of people who already know or like what you're doing. You can achieve that through blogging and similar activities, or by having a name for yourself somewhere outside of the publishing or literary world. In our case (it's a self-help book,) we've got some of that already, and we're starting to build on it. A huge part of our business plan depends on having a platform of people who are already interested in the material. On the other hand, things really are changing, and a good book cover and book description can go a long way if the product is good. You can't expect to pop up out of nowhere and build a fan base, but that's not the way it works in traditional publishing either. They don't do the marketing for you. There's no harm in putting your book out there if publishers aren't taking it and you know it's a good product. Building a platform is just another part of the equation. What I like about internet forums is exactly this -- discussing varying viewpoints and understanding where different people are coming from. So much depends on the individual. My experience of self-publishing is not going to be the same as yours. Where it might work for one person, it might not for another. I still think it's an interesting tool, underused, and rapidly evolving. I learned an important viewpoint from what guamyankee said about rejection letters. For most authors, that becomes an important part of what you are calling a "legitimate process." From where I stand though, what's really interesting is questioning this notion of legitimacy. What is it that makes it legitimate? Is the fact that these competent reviewers working for publishing houses are the only ones who can help you to learn what's wrong with your writing and how to improve it -- or is the fact that it makes you work hard to create a good product? A lot of the most interesting artists out there in every field are questioning the notion of who controls that label of "legitimacy." Why aren't more writers striving to question that notion?
I think at this point we're just going in circles, I feel like a dog chasing my tail...lol. We're not going to agree, that much is clear, and that's okay. I do have to say though, that if you're going to build a platform, that alone would help you to gain an edge for the traditional publishing industry. I must also say, of course it's going to be harder for you to get a self-help book published. Now you're talking a completely different thing. All along I've been discussing self-publishing as it pertains to fiction writers now you're pulling the rug out from under me. Self-help is a completely different genre that requires credibility and, yes, some sort of platform. No ones going to listen to Joe Schmoe from down the street tell him how to become a billionaire, if he's not sure that HE'S one himself. It's an entirely different ballgame, and I don't see what it has to do with fiction at all, and I'm not sure how they can say they decided to go this route when their initial responses were based on apparently not having a finished product, or even a real writer (to use your words). That just sounds like sloppy planning.
Yeah, you're missing a lot of context about the book I'm working on. That's true. I'm gonna post a thread about it soon to get some feedback, so maybe you'll see what I'm talking about. The guy I'm working for has a lot of credibility in his field. He's just not a writer. Anyway, the same principles can be applied to fiction in a sense. The key is generating some interest and a platform. It's been done through blogging before, and there are other ways of getting your name out there. I actually don't feel like we disagree on all that much in terms of specifics. It's our general outlooks that are at odds with each other. Every time I have this discussion I just come to the same conclusion: everybody wants to get published. Everybody wants to be a movie star or a rock star. People have a lot of hope invested in the system and the way things work, and they're willing to defend it to the grave. I don't know if that sounds like you or not, but it's a lot like other people I've had similar arguments with. I always come down on the side of challenging the system.
I have no problem with people challenging the system, I've been known to do it myself many times My main problem is when people are of the opinion that a system is "broken" when that's just not true. A rejection, or two, or two hundred, should push you to work harder, be better, learn more and not to decide you're already good enough so screw them. That's just my opinion. No one gets out without being rejected. That's just the way it is. It sounds like the guy you're working for was not ready to be published and certainly didn't have a finished product ready. No matter how credible he is, that's a very important part of being published. You need to have the whole package ready, especially in self-help or non-fiction. That's all I'm saying. He was unprepared and he was given sound advice. Now he's decided the system is broken because they were unwilling to give him a book deal in the hopes that he could pull it together in the end and make good on his proposal. That's how it sounds to me, and in fact it sounds lazy to me. I'm just being honest, and I mean no disrespect, but that's how it sounds. They told him what was wrong and how to fix it and instead he has effectively thumbed his nose at the industry. I wish him well.
Yeah, I'm not going to self publish. This thread has helped me make that decision. I'm either going to release my novel as a free download, or I'll break it up and try to get the best chapters published as short stories (individually, in magazines or whatever.) Because of the nature of the project I took on, almost all of my chapters can stand alone as short stories.
Trish, I can appreciate your point of view and "agree to disagree" since this thread has gone on for so long. I definitely agree with you about rejection being a character building experience. One or two things to clear up though -- first off, in our case it's got nothing to do with being lazy or thumbing our noses to the industry or "sticking it to the man" as it were. It's about having some humility and making the book a reality instead of a pipe dream. Secondly -- I think it's broken. But fact is, I think most all of our culture is broken. Literature is a bit more diverse and accommodating than some other art forms, but art in general is transformative in nature, and perpetually broken. Look at Hollywood -- everything's a remake of a remake or a sequel of a sequel. The publishing industry is the same in a sense. What's bankable isn't always what's good. The industry needs a swift kick in the rear -- a wake-up call. It always will. It's perpetually broken. It couldn't and shouldn't be any other way. In chaos lies opportunity. We could argue about this for a long time, and chances are you wouldn't convince me otherwise.
You're probably right That's okay since you won't change mine either. There will always be things that are redone because the fact is there are only so many human emotions. It's your ability to make the person watching your movie or reading your book feel those emotions that will inevitably set you apart. That's what is important and that's what all of those agents and publishers are really looking for. If you can grip them, and not let them go, they'll want you. If we can all remember that, strive for that, we'll be golden.
"It's about having some humility and making the book a reality instead of a pipe dream." What does humility have to do with self publishing? If getting an agent is a pipe dream, it is probably because you aren't willing to put in the long, hard months and years of work it takes to get a novel up to snuff. If what is bankable isn't good, it is not the fault of the industry. They are merely giving the public what they want. So the industry is not broken. They are publishing what sells. And even though a lot of what sells doesn't interest you or me personally, many others are interested. Supply and demand.
I'm interested in challenging what the public wants. I'm suggesting that we're so absorbed in consumer culture that we forget what we want isn't always what's good for us. Of course the publishing industry does little to go against the grain in that sense. Having humility and making it a reality means that for this project we have to set our sights a bit lower and use it as a stepping stone to build a reputation with our platform. I'm seeing that for a lot of people this is an effective srtrategy to take. Anyway, as I mentioned I'm thinking of starting up a separate thread to discuss the book. Perhaps some of these issues will come up there in better context.
I hate to jump back in here again, (I really, honestly do ) but sometimes we have to do unpleasant things, right? Wanting to change the world is admirable and I wish you and the man you work for luck. Again. I think that you maybe have things a bit backwards. You set up a platform to sell a book; not try to sell a book to build a platform. Let me know how it works out for you though, I'll be interested to hear and I've certainly been wrong before. I just don't think I am right now. Challenging what the public wants? That's a facinating concept. I'm sure some people will fall in line with you, but most people just like what they like. Simple as that. Humility means modesty and respect. I suppose there is a way to be respectful about what you're doing, but I'm pretty sure you're repeatedly using the word by it's "modesty" definition. It doesn't fit. Perhaps you should look up modesty? I'm not trying to be rude, just tired of the circles. I'm pretty sure starting a thread "about the book" would be considered advertising. If you want to have parts reviewed, I apologize, because of course that's fine, but that's not how your comment read to me.
The book's a self-help book about relationships. I wouldn't want to post a thread advertising it, or any chunks for review, but a thread asking for some general feedback on developing it. I've seen that sort of thing done in the "General Writing" section before -- maybe I should check with the mods first to see if it's ok though. Wouldn't want to step on any toes. And I'm definitely not interested in advertising it here. As I mentioned, we have a platform and we're working on building it with a blog. The book is a stepping stone, though. Trust me, this makes a lot of sense. It's the way that almost every successful self-published book in this field hits the market. Some people like to be challenged. I think it's a rare and wonderful thing to find a piece of writing that truly challenges the status quo. And I think it can be sickening to see how much stuff out there has the sole objective of gratifying the reader or the audience. Why not offend some people? Snap them out of their comfortable stupor. Please don't get pedantic about the definitions of words. I'm not a moron. Respect may be implied in humility, but that's not what it means. It means being humble and grounded -- or modest. Besides, we're plenty respectful of everyone, so I don't see the point you're trying to make. Of course the word fits -- we're coming at this with a realistic estimation of the significance of the project, rather than trying to make it a bestseller.
I didn't want to get involved in a discussion about this, but this statement bothers me a lot. There is no humility in self publishing. Self publishing is, in my opinion, for those who overestimate themselves and put their own talents above the industry. "I'm a genius! They just don't see my genius!" The road to traditional publishing requires you to walk barefoot in hell. But you know what? That's what makes it worth it. Once you actually get published, you'll be able to get there and say "I have actually made it!" With self publishing, it's different. There is sweat, but there are no blood nor tears involved with your book. That removes so much passion from the work that I just can't approve of it. I'm not an expert, I've never published a novel, but I have published a few short stories here and there. I received a lot of rejections at first. Those rejections are what drove me to work harder and harder. Implying that going over the traditional route is arrogant feels very wrong to me. "But it's impossible to get published!" Impossible is just a word people use to make them feel better about themselves when they quit. If you want to go with self publishing, hey that's fine, go ahead and good luck. But implying that publishing books through the traditional route is nothing more than a pipe dream annoys me.
