self publishing The bottom line is, you can't find anyone to publish the blooming thing. So don't be so blooming snobby. Nobody is going to break the door down and beg you to let them publish your book. In fact there are plenty of people out there anxious to rip you off. I have been offered the chance to have several of my poems published. My recompense is a copy of the paperback. On your bike mate.
Jonathan Livingstone Seagull, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Watership Down are only three titles in a long list of books that were self-published after being rejected by publishing houses. All three of these and many others later became best sellers through orthodox publishers. If you self publish and can prove good sales to show that there is a demand for your book then this certainly is a way to gain recognition. The internet also provides many avenues for marketing self published works.
It's fairly widely known that Mark Twain self-published. It's not quite so well known that he bankrupted himself doing it. I've self-published as well, and my advice is, be careful with the marketing budget.
Perhaps, but its how Richard Bach, Richard Adams and others have done it without the benefit of the internet, where books can be promoted with little or no outlay.
Self publishing. Not much mentioned about what is in it for you. It is a wonderful experience, OK it is up to you to make sure you do not bankrupt yourself. Publishing is a closed shop they are doing their best to keep you out. At college we had an editor from one of the top publishers come to give a lecture. Asked how long she had been doing the job, she replied, '7 years.' Asked how many writers from the slush pile had been published in that time? she replied, 'three.' Asked what degrees she had? she replied, 'marketing.' Times change, people find their partners (husbands) on the Internet. I have found no descrimination against self publishing. On the contrary, 'good for you for showing initiative.' People regard me as a writer of some substance not a wanabe. Do it
Hulls Raven Because no other blighter will. You will die clutching a book that has never been published.
I belong to an internet based group of artists, writers and musicians. The group has recently launched its own publishing section, publishing in both hard copy through Lulu and by digital download. I also have my own personal site and a blog. I find it advantageous belonging to the group because the website attracts an average of 30,000 hits a month, largely due to the fact that there is a great deal of variety on the site. I believe that if groups of writers get together in the way that they are beginning to on this particular site then the publishing industry could be effected in the same way that the music industry has been shaken up by the independent record companies. A well produced web site offering interest and variety is an excellent means for promoting your work. Variety attracts and the internet provides a great means for writers to team up to promote their work in this way.
not really, though that is what a lot of folks who haven't made it 'in' would like to think... the truth is, that like much else, it just takes time, patience and perseverance, as well as the requisite talent and skills, to get a publisher to accept your work... if it were truly a 'closed shop' no one but the same, already-published writers would have new books on the bookstore shelves... so, how do you explain the slew of brand spanking new writers who get published every year?...
I think my biggest issue with self-publishing is that many writers really want the recognition that comes from being published, and that no matter how nice you present self-publishing; it just cannot give you that. I can understand that after years of writing and being rejected from publishers, one can get very bitter and think self-publishing is the only way. But is that really what one wants? I have the feeling, deep down many regret self-publishing one day. I don’t know, maybe I see self-publishing as a resignation. And I am way to proud for that.
The reality is that publishers generally will not entertain unsolicited material and to that extent it is a closed shop. The most important thing for a writer who wishes to take the orthodox route it is therefore most necessary to get a reputable agent.
I'd like to repeat a point previously made that writers can group together and self publish and operate to promote their work online in the same was as independent record labels have done. The internet is making many options possible and giving more control and income to the artists. This is not a vanity thing and when approached in this way can be successful only if it involves writers of a good standard.
Nah, publishers want to make money. If you send something they think they can profit off they could not care less who your agent is or even if you have one. They might reject good stories that even would sell well – in the end they are not perfect. This is part of the challenge I think, if it where easy the recognition wouldn’t be the same.
This is true up to a point, and depending on the genre. Many of the large US Publishers don't accept unsolicited manuscripts (except through established agents), but some do. Many midsized and most small houses accept unsolicited manuscripts, but may have reading periods or close on occasion due to the avalanche of submissions they receive and have to contend with/consider. Whatever the method, each house strives to find and publish the very best works that they can with the limited slots available. Often that pits a slew of new/aspiring authors striving against each other as well as against experienced writers with a reliable sales record and established audience. The competition is very stiff and that makes the odds very high against aspiring authors, but it does not mean it is a "closed shop". I do not believe publishers are doing their best to keep anyone out. Publishers are doing their best to purchase manuscripts they believe they can best market and sell to entertain readers and, as a result, pay the author, the editors, artists, printing costs and other bills and make a profit so they can expand (or survive) and publish more books to market and sell... Terry
You guessed wrong. If you want what I mean said in better words, check outTWErvin2s post. Nice post btw, TWErvin2. Starting a debate about this could prove pointless, since it varies hugely from country to country.
I don't see your point. That post effectively confirms what I've said, that the major publishing houses tend not to accept unsolicited work. Getting back on topic. I repeat that groups of writers self publishing and marketing on the internet is viable but that success will be dependent on quality.
There is a difference between "publishers generally will not entertain" and "major publishers tend not to". Take Major League Baseball for an analogy. There are only a limited number of slots on the roster for players. They go for the best...most of the players return from year to year on the major league teams (or are traded from one team to another). From the farm teams they often bring up talent that they draft or who walked on and tried out. There is a process and what they deem the best makes it to the top, and on the field for the fans to watch...and hopefully for the team to make money while paying all the expenses, including player salaries. By the defintion given, Major League Baseball would also be considered a closed shop, which I don't believe it is. Writers who have had their work published in anthologies often employ a similar strategy in that each writer with work appearing markets the anthology. Thus, far more exposure through varying efforts focusing on promoting the same piece, making more readers aware than author could individually? Quality is the key...for if the group of writers accepted writers into their marketing and promotional circle who produced (self-published) substandard/poor quality work, it could damage the "reputation" (I use that for lack of a better word at the moment) of other works being promoted? A reader picks up book A and reads it. If it's a lousy read, they're less likely to take any other advice from any of the authors cross promoting works...and likely to tell their reading friends to do the same? But, in the end, isn't that what a publishing house (major, medium or small) does (and risk) with each book they select, publish and promote under their name? Terry
I think the main problem with the publishing industry at the moment is the slush pile. And I speak as someone who's been through it and climbed out of it. Traditional publishers clearly can't recognise work that'll sell well from work that'll languish in mediocrity. Plenty of unreadable crap gets published and flops; work that'll go on to be an international bestseller is often rejected. (J.K.Rowling was rejected by a dozen publishers before Bloomsbury took her on.) Enid Blyton once had a problem when the editor she knew left her publishing house and the publishers didn't tell her the name of the replacement. So Blyton sent her next manuscript in marked "to the editor" and it ended up in the slush pile. Sure enough, a few months later she got a rejection slip. The slush pile reader had skimmed the first couple of paragraphs, decided they didn't like it and sent it back. She wrote to the publishers again, they saw what had happened and apologised; they published it and made big money. In fact, I think the evidence quite clearly is that slush piles don't and can't work. They're an archaic, failed concept and I have no idea why the industry sticks with it. In critique groups and so on, I read a great deal of unpublished fiction. Most of it is crap. There's some of it that's of a standard with published fiction, and a bit of it that's as good as good published fiction--but many of the better unpublished authors still can't find a publisher, and most of them give up rather than bouncing their heads against the brick wall of slush piles. Some of the writers who aren't published, write better than me. Why am I published and they not? Because the present apparatus rewards persistence more than it rewards craftsmanship. I very much understand why writers who've been rejected a few times get the urge to self-publish.
In previous posts I have stated quite clearly how writers may group together to self publish and promote their work and approach publishing in the same way that independent record labels have effected the music industry. The indiependent record labels do not promote rubbish and writers who follow this approach should mirror their method. Of course publishings houses market works of a certain standard so in that there is no difference. The point is that there is no difference and that writers need no longer be at the mercy of the publishing houses because they have an advantage that previous generations of writers have not had - the internet.
terry just said all my fingers were poised to add here... i thank you and my fingers thank you, pal! love and hugs, maia
Mammamaia, We seem to cross paths on the forums regularly enough, and our views often don't mesh/agree--or at least not fully. This time I'm glad to have saved you a few key strokes. Terry
self publishing As you say, J K Rowling plus other competant writers have been rejected. It would make you weep to think about the amount of talent that is out there that stands no chance of being discovered. As in TV, why are the same old films broadcast again and again? Why are the same old films remade again and again? There is out there a mountain of talent writing plays that are relevant to society today and without dated language and outdated ideas. Surely we don't need to see Pride and Predudice yet again with the latest hot thing playing the leading role.
