12% of ebooks are self-published; most are rubbish, claims editor

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

So far, the BPHs are putting out *more* titles than ever.
And if the quality is going down... well, they *are* choosing what to put out there, right?

The point of being gatekeepers is to only put out what you believe in.

Now, long term, the odds are good that the BPHs will be putting out more and more crap, simply because that is a trend that started long *before* indie publishing became mainstream. (The world has been going to hell in a handbasket since at least roman times. There is a summerian tablet out there, though... )

Also, because the smarter, more business-focused authors will know *not* to give away 87% of their future revenue in exchange for a few thousand dollars of present day services. Predatory contracts are not good long term business strategies in *any* business.

Book publishing *is* becoming Darwinian... for authors.
Savvy ones will prosper, the unwary... will go to Author Solutions.

I don't think that the primary perceived benefits of a traditional publisher are the services themselves, but the fact that they can provide those services seamlessly in many cases.

It must be a daunting task for a first time author to get reliable editing, marketing etc.

And then the prestige of having the book chosen by a publishing house must weigh in a lot.

The savvy businesslike author, is possibly a rarity among new authors. There are of course some savvy people who become authors because they see a market that might make them some money, and many do well, but the author who writes because they want to or must, is not generally going to be a savvy business person (my opinion only)

And as you and others have said, no one is seriously harmed by accidentally buying a horrible book, and we have had and always will have drek and those who want to read it

Helen

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

If Publishers are cutting authors because they are not hitting targets, as an author I think I would prefer the option of higher royalties and less of anadvance so that the next book is published as opposed to no advance and no royalties. I would think that agents would prefer that they make something over a period of time then make nothing by insisting on a higher advance payment.

Agents have more than one author, so they can afford to negotiate terms that are best for THE AGENT or the entire AGENCY. And since I have had an agent, I can pretty much tell you that at least with some agents, you still have very little to say about contracts as an author. The templates are already drawn up. Starting agents get the same contract that the main agent in a company (if there are more than one) have already negotiated. And as a business model, they seem to advise: Go for whatever you can get upfront. There's plenty of reasons for this.

And sometimes if a series doesn't do well, the author doesn't get a second chance with that agent or with that publisher. The agents know this. That means the agent has to work to sell another series from scratch IF that agent decides to stick with the author.

The business models are changing though, because an author can take unpublished books and publish themselves. Of course, publishers put in clauses that forbid them to use the same characters/world and self-publish. They do not want authors to even consider making it on their own. Some publishers are more strict about this than others. Some publishers have even tried putting in clauses that forbid the author to publish ANY other work via self-publishing while under contract with the publisher. I don't know how that is working out, but I know some authors were burned by the clause. Whether it's still being inserted? I don't know.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

. Some publishers have even tried putting in clauses that forbid the author to publish ANY other work via self-publishing while under contract with the publisher. I don't know how that is working out, but I know some authors were burned by the clause. Whether it's still being inserted? I don't know.

Not exclusive to the publishing world. Medical research companies have clauses giving them ownership of anything an employee invents or develops while employed and sometimes for years after the employment is terminated.

Helen

[teh603]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Not exclusive to the publishing world. Medical research companies have clauses giving them ownership of anything an employee invents or develops while employed and sometimes for years after the employment is terminated.

And the guy who invented the Bratz dolls (although he ultimately got the rights back on the second or third appeal).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Let's say the cars with the muted colors are all rock-solid vehicles you know you can rely on--they've been around a long time, they get the job done. But the rainbow-colored cars are cheaply made and flashy, and on some of them, the doors might fall off or the brakes might fail.

Is the risk worth it?

Risk is in the eye of the beholder.
People tend to spend their money as they see fit. It's a consequence of free will and having a choice.

That said, nobody is forcing anybody to buy the Yellow VW or the Green Toyota. (Which happen to be somewhat better cars than a Yugo, right?)

So, what's wrong about somebody else having a choice?
Why does it matter if they choose wisely or poorly?

It's not as if anybody is forcing anybody at gunpoint to get onboard a deathtrap Pinto, it's just a matter to personal taste; some people just happen to like garish colors. Or books that haven't been annoited by a Manhattan glass tower. Where's the risk? What's the danger?

Why is the mere *availability* of alternatives that *others* might enjoy such an issue? Is it the thought that somebody else might have different preferences? That they might have different values and different ideas of what is "risky" and what is good?

It's not as if this were a life and death issue.

So somebody down the road wasted a few bucks on a crappy book and (*horrors*) enjoyed it?
My life goes on exactly like before...

Why is it so important to demonize indie writers?

Honestly. Why? Where is the harm?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Some publishers have even tried putting in clauses that forbid the author to publish ANY other work via self-publishing while under contract with the publisher. I don't know how that is working out, but I know some authors were burned by the clause. Whether it's still being inserted? I don't know.

What I've heard is that (Penguin-style) non-compete clauses are a standard part of current contracts and that it is up to the agent to negotiate them away. This from authors with ongoing trad-pub contracts.

Those standard contracts are minefields loaded with craftily-worded clauses.

The best advise I've heard is that authors faced with a contemporary trad-pub contract *not* rely on the agent at all but instead hire an experienced IP lawyer to negotiate the contract and defuse the built-in mines and time-bombs. Of course, doing so is likely to send the publisher running away since it seems their entire business is built around those clauses. But then they'd know what they dodged.

The image people have of publishing houses is at least 30 years out of date; the bigger they are, the further they get from the "golden age" model. And of course, through the ongoing consolidation they can only get bigger...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I don't think that the primary perceived benefits of a traditional publisher are the services themselves, but the fact that they can provide those services seamlessly in many cases.

Most likely.
It is seamly and convenient; but also very expensive convenience.
And that is if they get *chosen* by the publisher.

Dealing with a contemporary publishing house looks to be an education unto itself.

And a bit like russian roulette in reverse; there *are* small publishing houses that treat their authors fairly and with respect but they are few and far between. Few name names but even fewer recommend the houses they've death with.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

What I've heard is that (Penguin-style) non-compete clauses are a standard part of current contracts and that it is up to the agent to negotiate them away. This from authors with ongoing trad-pub contracts.

Those standard contracts are minefields loaded with craftily-worded clauses.

The best advise I've heard is that authors faced with a contemporary trad-pub contract *not* rely on the agent at all but instead hire an experienced IP lawyer to negotiate the contract and defuse the built-in mines and time-bombs. Of course, doing so is likely to send the publisher running away since it seems their entire business is built around those clauses. But then they'd know what they dodged.

The image people have of publishing houses is at least 30 years out of date; the bigger they are, the further they get from the "golden age" model. And of course, through the ongoing consolidation they can only get bigger...

The agent isn't going to be too happy about involving a lawyer either. At at about 300 dollars an hour for a lawyer who specializes in publishing contracts, you'll be out more than the book will make in about two conversations. From what I understand, publishers pretty much say, 'Take it or leave it. You an hire a lawyer, but really, we aren't going to change much." The agents work deals because the publishers have come to trust their judgement in vetting the manuscripts for them. Plus, in some cases the agents are ex-employees of said publishing firm.

And that is not to demonize agents. They serve a purpose and they usually get a better deal than the author can arrange on his/her own. But ultimately, you have to know what you're really getting and the contracts are not really in the author's favor. Because of that, indie publishing is not going to go away. And more authors are going to do both.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Plus, in some cases the agents are ex-employees of said publishing firm.

Don't agents have a Fiduciary Duty to their author(s)? If so how can them being a publishing company employee be legal?

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Don't agents have a Fiduciary Duty to their author(s)? If so how can them being a publishing company employee be legal?

As far as I understand it, that kind of clause is not actually standard in author-agent contracts.

There's a whole blog about the issues with author-agent relations by an author who publishes traditionally and independently in various ways. The Business Rusch or something like that?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

The agent isn't going to be too happy about involving a lawyer either. At at about 300 dollars an hour for a lawyer who specializes in publishing contracts, you'll be out more than the book will make in about two conversations. From what I understand, publishers pretty much say, 'Take it or leave it. You an hire a lawyer, but really, we aren't going to change much." The agents work deals because the publishers have come to trust their judgement in vetting the manuscripts for them. Plus, in some cases the agents are ex-employees of said publishing firm.

And that is not to demonize agents. They serve a purpose and they usually get a better deal than the author can arrange on his/her own. But ultimately, you have to know what you're really getting and the contracts are not really in the author's favor. Because of that, indie publishing is not going to go away. And more authors are going to do both.

Well I wish all authors the best of luck. While I might abhor some types of books, without books I would want to curl up and die probably. And despite complaints of high prices, and again I find prices very high in some cases not many have been driven to sin and depravity by a book addiction.

Authors making money is a good thing, and while I agree that the split between authors and publishers may be unfair in many cases, I feel that the publishers should make a living too. Probably agents as well, and bookstore owners etc. All contribute to some degree.

I also know that if publishers and agents and even authors went out of business today, the world would go on but be a far poorer place despite the many books already available.

I don't think I will spend much time personally looking at Indie books, but happy hunting to those that do, and may fortune smile on the Indie authors every bit as much as the traditionally published ones.

Helen

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Risk is in the eye of the beholder.
People tend to spend their money as they see fit. It's a consequence of free will and having a choice.

That said, nobody is forcing anybody to buy the Yellow VW or the Green Toyota. (Which happen to be somewhat better cars than a Yugo, right?)

So, what's wrong about somebody else having a choice?
Why does it matter if they choose wisely or poorly?

It's not as if anybody is forcing anybody at gunpoint to get onboard a deathtrap Pinto, it's just a matter to personal taste; some people just happen to like garish colors. Or books that haven't been annoited by a Manhattan glass tower. Where's the risk? What's the danger?

Why is the mere *availability* of alternatives that *others* might enjoy such an issue? Is it the thought that somebody else might have different preferences? That they might have different values and different ideas of what is "risky" and what is good?

It's not as if this were a life and death issue.

So somebody down the road wasted a few bucks on a crappy book and (*horrors*) enjoyed it?
My life goes on exactly like before...

Why is it so important to demonize indie writers?

Honestly. Why? Where is the harm?

It clutters the marketplace and makes it harder to find decent books. It lowers the prestige of the writing profession--significantly. It devalues books. It adds to the already vast quantities of trash out there.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It clutters the marketplace and makes it harder to find decent books. It lowers the prestige of the writing profession--significantly. It devalues books. It adds to the already vast quantities of trash out there.

Devaluation of books is complete with the advent of ebooks. Books are now reduced to text within a computer file, instead of being works of art.

I know, I've said that I prefer to read from an e-reader now, so I'm "helping" to speed along this process, to a certain degree.

Still, I'm contemplating to give away / sell all my paperbacks that have been replaced by ebooks, and use the space to build an "epic bookcase": it'll only contain hardcover versions of books I deem worthy to have as a *book* instead of being only in a file.

The only problem is that I'll probably read the book on my e-reader, buy it afterward as a hardcover and then shelve it into the bookcase... possibly to never be read.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Devaluation of books is complete with the advent of ebooks. Books are now reduced to text within a computer file, instead of being works of art.

I know, I've said that I prefer to read from an e-reader now, so I'm "helping" to speed along this process, to a certain degree.

Still, I'm contemplating to give away / sell all my paperbacks that have been replaced by ebooks, and use the space to build an "epic bookcase": it'll only contain hardcover versions of books I deem worthy to have as a *book* instead of being only in a file.

The only problem is that I'll probably read the book on my e-reader, buy it afterward as a hardcover and then shelve it into the bookcase... possibly to never be read.

I have never cared about the packaging except for books with pictures of course.

I can't agree that a good book is devalued by being a file or by being surrounded by less worthwhile efforts. A good book is a good book IMO no matter who wrote it or how you read it.

Still if one is used to being surrounded by books it is hard to give them up.

I would rather have more books I haven't read than duplicate copies, but I am a mite peculiar anyway.

Helen

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It clutters the marketplace and makes it harder to find decent books. It lowers the prestige of the writing profession--significantly. It devalues books. It adds to the already vast quantities of trash out there.

As if it ever was prestigious? Most of the best- selling authors weren't even allowed on the best seller lists until '77.