E-Books Are Blurring The Lines Between What Is ‘Published’ And What Isn’t

mattlynn · 11-06-2011, 12:58 PM

About the most interesting thing happening in the book trade right now is that the lines between traditional publishing and self-publishing are getting blurred. My Death Force series is published by Hodder Headline, but my Black Ops series of novellas I am bringing out myself.

More and more writers, so far as I can tell, are going down that road.

One indicator of that this week was the decision by the International Thriller Writer’s Association to allow its members to post the details of their self-published work up on their website. Until now, they had only allowed work bought out major publishers.

A hybrid model is emerging I suspect where writers do some work for major publishers, and some work for themselves, probably forming their own judgements on what mix will maximise their sales, income and creative satisfaction.

Personally I like the combination. I value the prestige of the mainstream publisher, and seeing my books in the shops. But I like the energy and immediacy of doing my own thing as well. And, I suspect I’ll soon be making more money as well.

But how exactly this is all going to work, however, no one really knows.

Dimwit · 11-06-2011, 01:23 PM

It going to come down to marketing. Is a self published author perceived as a "real" author by the marketplace? How about just a digital only author?

My feeling is that having a deadtree version of anything will bring far bigger cachet and eventually money than the purely digital route and that "authorship" will become more a marketing term than anything else. If you can become a "name" whatever the source then you'll sell. Hardcopy brings legitimacy, but so does celebrity and/or facetime on public media. I can also see the time where credibility will be sold as access to market. Can you imagine a purely digital Stephen King imprint that focusses on new writers that he – or some sort of editorial committee that he's set up to vet the pieces – under the imprint?

Ken Maltby · 11-06-2011, 02:39 PM

What may be most interesting is that the "Marketplace", for today's authors, is no
longer restricted to the traditional publishing houses. The author now has a new route
to those who might be interested in his books, a more direct route. I think this is great
but I expect that it will take some time before the reader and the writer find a common
"marketplace" to make their transactions. Writers have to find "their" readers and readers
need to find those writers that are telling stories they want to read. The publishers
have traditionally handled this process, (not always to the satisfaction of either the
writers or the readers). Now for the authors to be successful in their "self-publishing"
efforts they must find a mechanism that exposes their works to the right consumers.

Luck;
Ken

Kevin8or · 11-06-2011, 02:44 PM

I can see the attraction for a successful author with an established following. The previous three posts all pointed out the value of a publishing house to new authors.

In the music industry, a new band may be required to agree to a multi-record deal if they want a contract. Supposing their first CD is a big success, they're now stuck for two more albums, with lower compensation than they would get if free to shop around.

Will publishing houses respond by insisting on exclusivity clauses for the next x books or y years? "If you want us to publish your fist book, we insist on the option of publishing the next two books you may write. Self-publishing isn't permitted."

Does that already occur? Could it occur?

SmokeAndMirrors · 11-06-2011, 09:11 PM

I see this as a writer's "caste system" and I'm glad it's breaking down.

A writer writes. A professional writer makes money from writing. Whether they're published by an official publishing house is of no consequence to whether someone is a writer, or a professional writer. As far as I can tell, being "published" in that sense is nothing more than a description of the means through which you are a professional writer. And it's stupid that we attach a status to a specific means of being a professional writer.

A professional writer who is self-published or published in a non-traditional way is no less "real" than a writer who's published by Random House. Who their middle man is or isn't is irrelevant. The only question is, is it worth reading?

Non-traditional professional writers have been looked down upon for a long time. And with things moving online - the internet being the ultimate equalizer - it's good to see indie writers finally finding ways to stand tall. The arbitrary advantage held by "officially" published writers is shrinking and both writers and readers are getting more choice.

I don't think it's right that our choice has been limited to what publishers think will make the most money. And I don't buy the argument that publishers weed out the crap. Have you seen some of the stuff on the best seller list lately? Have you read some of the ebooks that publishers are releasing that look like they're not even edited?

I, the reader, will decide what's crap and what isn't. And it has nothing to do with what makes publishers the most money. I, the writer, will publish my work on my own terms. And if publishing houses don't want to allow me to do that or at least offer an acceptable compromise, then I'll take my business somewhere else.

I am lucky, as both a reader and a writer, to be living in the age that I am. The future has never looked better for both readers and writers, in my opinion.

Dimwit · 11-06-2011, 10:05 PM

OTOH a book is nothing more than the physical representation of someone's imagination. Yes, it shouldn't matter that being a physical object has any sort of meaning but it does. To have passed a hurdle of acceptance has established that person over anyone who *hasn't* passed that hurdle. Doing enough times and your name becomes a brand and you can market that brand effectively without actually doing the hardcopy bit.

The whole point of getting published is that it's a form of peer review. You may decry it as a form of elitism and everyone should be a gatecrasher but it doesn't work that way. To quote Dash "If everyone is special, then no one is." Put everything out there on the "web" and you'll find that no one gets recognized. We want the gatekeepers. They provide a function. And you'll find, those that do get invited in, are more than willing to work within the system to keep it functioning. The big issue currently is how to slim the system down so that it doesn't have to cost so much.
Book Clubs, celebrity edorsements, pure advertising, blog spam, word of mouth, freebie giveaways. Something will work if the work is good but there's an awful lot of noise out there.

GA Russell · 11-06-2011, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

A professional writer who is self-published or published in a non-traditional way is no less "real" than a writer who's published by Random House. Who their middle man is or isn't is irrelevant. The only question is, is it worth reading?

This reminds me a lot of jazz. When I was young (fifty years ago), Columbia Records explicitly said in their liner notes that their music was the best and the most prestigious, as if the customer cares who the record label is.

Now jazz musicians are self-recording, and using their cd's as calling cards. Jazz fans don't care whether a release is from a big label, a small label or an artist-owned label. They only care about the music.

SAM, you don't mention the best seller lists, but I think that this is related. The NYT list is made up of books sold by the big houses and read by NYT readers. So if your books sell in the wrong stores, you don't make the NYT list.

I hope that Amazon plays it straight and lists all of their sales regardless of publisher or price. I would like to see four lists - hardback, paperback, eBooks and the combination of the three.

SmokeAndMirrors · 11-06-2011, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimwit

OTOH a book is nothing more than the physical representation of someone's imagination. Yes, it shouldn't matter that being a physical object has any sort of meaning but it does. To have passed a hurdle of acceptance has established that person over anyone who *hasn't* passed that hurdle. Doing enough times and your name becomes a brand and you can market that brand effectively without actually doing the hardcopy bit.

The whole point of getting published is that it's a form of peer review. You may decry it as a form of elitism and everyone should be a gatecrasher but it doesn't work that way. To quote Dash "If everyone is special, then no one is." Put everything out there on the "web" and you'll find that no one gets recognized. We want the gatekeepers. They provide a function. And you'll find, those that do get invited in, are more than willing to work within the system to keep it functioning. The big issue currently is how to slim the system down so that it doesn't have to cost so much.
Book Clubs, celebrity edorsements, pure advertising, blog spam, word of mouth, freebie giveaways. Something will work if the work is good but there's an awful lot of noise out there.

All of that's true... in theory.

Problem is, publishers often pay more attention to money than they do their actual purpose - which is indeed peer review. Some of the crap that gets released and becomes popular because the person who wrote it (or had it ghost written) is famous, or simply because of marketing, is... well, crap.

Also, some people don't pass those hurdles not because they aren't good enough (and you don't necessarily have to be any good to pass them anyway), but because they choose not to. Other times, good works get rejected because the publishing houses don't think they're marketable enough.

I'm all aboard the idea of publishing houses, and the idea of peer review. I just don't think that publishing houses actually execute that idea in reality.

There are some indie authors who have a great deal of peer review. People love their work so much that they volunteer to be editors, beta readers, do cover designs, etc. That says a lot more to me about a written work than going through a publishing house. Because it's something people have done because they LIKE the work, not because it's going to make them X amount of money.

There's no evidence that we need gatekeepers in the form of publishing houses. We're already seeing evidence of new models, like the one above, coming in to replace it. Also, it's not as though reviews will stop existing, or as though I can't stop reading something if it sucks. And I'm already taking the risk that something will suck even if a publishing house has endorsed it. That endorsement doesn't mean it won't suck.

I trust the organic form of peer review that is emerging more than the publishing houses. Because the publishing houses have shown themselves to be more concerned with money than quality. The organic forms of peer review are concerned with quality.

I think of this the same way I think of medical studies. I am heavily skeptical of what the drug company that invented a drug says about its efficacy and safety. I am less skeptical of what an independent study says about it. Same concept.

vxf · 11-06-2011, 11:59 PM

I am concerned with a niche type of publishing - academic journals, in particular in my area of expertise, which is empirical finance. And the lines are blurring there as well - but only to some extent.

They are blurring because any article that makes it to a top journal has already been read by anyone who cares. I have unpublished articles that have been presented at tens of conferences and downloaded over 5,000 times - which, in the small world of academic finance, means everyone who cared, has read them already.

Yet, at the same time, a prestigious journal has a strong certification value. If I see something published in the Journal of Finance, I look at it differently - I know the evidence has been vetted, that (most) mistakes have been corrected. While not a-critical, I do look at it with a higher level of confidence. And the other way around - if I see some interesting paper published in a low-level journal, I always wonder - where is the problem? Why is it this piece of research didn't make it into a top journal?

Even more, prestigious journal publications allow for ranking of researchers and provide an objective way to compare research output.

In other words - editors do more than transfer words to paper. They improve papers and books by their advice and directions, they certify the quality of what is written - because, be it professional or pleasure reading, we all have limited time and expertise to identify what is truly worth focusing on.

I know it may be tempting to have faith in the 'mass-consensus' and viral marketing of the internet. But, if you truly believe that professional reviewers and editors are not needed, that the public is capable of identifying high-quality work, then remember that the three biggest literary phenomena of the past years have been Dan Brown, Twilight and Stieg Larsson.

SmokeAndMirrors · 11-07-2011, 12:19 AM

Well, I think the standards for fiction writing and scientific/academic writing are very different.

I'm not going to depend on a fiction novel to tell me where to put my stock, or whether my food is safe. No one even half-way sane would.

Since there is no special importance to fiction apart from enjoyment and literacy, there's no risk in relying on an organic or even non-professional peer review system. It may even offer some benefits when you take money out of the picture.

Doing this with academic and scientific content is obviously a terrible idea. Professionals in these arenas exist for a reason - these subjects are complex and require years of study and training to understand. While I do trust an independent study of a drug more than an in-house study, that independent study is still being carrier out by professional scientists and peer reviewed by professional scientists. Because this is information that people base their lives and livelihoods on.

All the examples of mass consensus crap you mention are products of publishing houses. You're only demonstrating my point that the seal of approval from a publishing house doesn't mean something will be good.

Ken Maltby · 11-07-2011, 12:56 AM

Hmm... I actually think that "vxf", inadvertently pointed out the conditions that made
the professional "gateway" unnecessary. In some fields those who write the articles,
those who understand the articles and those who read the articles, are all the same
people. Aside from "publish or perish", I would hope that researchers in most fields
only produce articles when they have something to offer.

On a personnel note; I could care less about the "soft" and/or "social" sciences articles
that swim in a totally political, echo chamber gatekeeping, that has no factual basis to
start with.

Luck;
Ken

anamardoll · 11-07-2011, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vxf

I know it may be tempting to have faith in the 'mass-consensus' and viral marketing of the internet. But, if you truly believe that professional reviewers and editors are not needed, that the public is capable of identifying high-quality work, then remember that the three biggest literary phenomena of the past years have been Dan Brown, Twilight and Stieg Larsson.

You forgot Harry Potter, and I actually like Stieg Larsson, so there's that. Furthermore, the success of all these books can't be divorced from the marketing. If you want to use Twilight as an example that the gatekeepers we have suck, I would point out that Twilight was not self-published, so it's just as much an argument that the big houses aren't doing their job of peer review and editing.

howyoudoin · 11-07-2011, 08:34 AM

Wasn't Rowling rejected by something like 11 publishers before Bloomsbury picked her up?

mr ploppy · 11-07-2011, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

Will publishing houses respond by insisting on exclusivity clauses for the next x books or y years? "If you want us to publish your fist book, we insist on the option of publishing the next two books you may write. Self-publishing isn't permitted."

Does that already occur? Could it occur?

I've seen that with one of the big publishers, can't remember which. It's open to new writers, you send your work in and if they get around to reading it and think they can make some profit from it they sign you up on a crappy royalty rate and get first refusal on your next 2 books at the same crappy royalty rate. If they still want you after 3 books you can renegotiate after that.

Dimwit · 11-07-2011, 08:55 PM

I'm not trying to apologise or defend the publishing houses. It's just that there is a reason that they exist. That they've grown too large and have tried to bamboozle the world on how indispensible they are has become rather self evident.

That said, *someone* needs to hold the reins. Whether it's some NYC house, which doesn't have anyone's good intentions in mind, or just the neighbourhood coffee clatch acts as the gatekeeper is up to us. There's just to much. We're drowning in dross and it's getting worse. The 'net is TOO efficient and it will kill the goose that lays the eggs if we allow the system to die because of the abuses of the past.

What Google is attempting is interesting because of the underlying reasoning. It's not to make money. Will Amazon be entrusted to replace a B&M system and still behave? Will Kobo/Kindle/Nook be strong enough to support a world without deadtree publishing and the deep pockets that once that represented? Is it enough that your words are read and not be a job? What happens when the iPod generation won't pay for a damn thing? The death of new works?

Are we living in the end of the age of golden times, culturally speaking?

11-06-2011, 12:58 PM	#1
mattlynn Member Posts: 21 Karma: 63854 Join Date: Jul 2011 Device: kindle	E-Books Are Blurring The Lines Between What Is ‘Published’ And What Isn’t About the most interesting thing happening in the book trade right now is that the lines between traditional publishing and self-publishing are getting blurred. My Death Force series is published by Hodder Headline, but my Black Ops series of novellas I am bringing out myself. More and more writers, so far as I can tell, are going down that road. One indicator of that this week was the decision by the International Thriller Writer’s Association to allow its members to post the details of their self-published work up on their website. Until now, they had only allowed work bought out major publishers. A hybrid model is emerging I suspect where writers do some work for major publishers, and some work for themselves, probably forming their own judgements on what mix will maximise their sales, income and creative satisfaction. Personally I like the combination. I value the prestige of the mainstream publisher, and seeing my books in the shops. But I like the energy and immediacy of doing my own thing as well. And, I suspect I’ll soon be making more money as well. But how exactly this is all going to work, however, no one really knows.

11-06-2011, 01:23 PM	#2
Dimwit Connoisseur Posts: 60 Karma: 12652 Join Date: Jul 2011 Device: Kobo	It going to come down to marketing. Is a self published author perceived as a "real" author by the marketplace? How about just a digital only author? My feeling is that having a deadtree version of anything will bring far bigger cachet and eventually money than the purely digital route and that "authorship" will become more a marketing term than anything else. If you can become a "name" whatever the source then you'll sell. Hardcopy brings legitimacy, but so does celebrity and/or facetime on public media. I can also see the time where credibility will be sold as access to market. Can you imagine a purely digital Stephen King imprint that focusses on new writers that he – or some sort of editorial committee that he's set up to vet the pieces – under the imprint? Last edited by Dimwit; 11-06-2011 at 01:25 PM. Reason: formating

11-06-2011, 09:11 PM	#5
SmokeAndMirrors Addict Posts: 280 Karma: 2064388 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: MN, US Device: Kobo Touch, Asus Eee Pad Slider	I see this as a writer's "caste system" and I'm glad it's breaking down. A writer writes. A professional writer makes money from writing. Whether they're published by an official publishing house is of no consequence to whether someone is a writer, or a professional writer. As far as I can tell, being "published" in that sense is nothing more than a description of the means through which you are a professional writer. And it's stupid that we attach a status to a specific means of being a professional writer. A professional writer who is self-published or published in a non-traditional way is no less "real" than a writer who's published by Random House. Who their middle man is or isn't is irrelevant. The only question is, is it worth reading? Non-traditional professional writers have been looked down upon for a long time. And with things moving online - the internet being the ultimate equalizer - it's good to see indie writers finally finding ways to stand tall. The arbitrary advantage held by "officially" published writers is shrinking and both writers and readers are getting more choice. I don't think it's right that our choice has been limited to what publishers think will make the most money. And I don't buy the argument that publishers weed out the crap. Have you seen some of the stuff on the best seller list lately? Have you read some of the ebooks that publishers are releasing that look like they're not even edited? I, the reader, will decide what's crap and what isn't. And it has nothing to do with what makes publishers the most money. I, the writer, will publish my work on my own terms. And if publishing houses don't want to allow me to do that or at least offer an acceptable compromise, then I'll take my business somewhere else. I am lucky, as both a reader and a writer, to be living in the age that I am. The future has never looked better for both readers and writers, in my opinion. Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 11-06-2011 at 09:15 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Self Published books	jbcohen	Reading Recommendations	7	07-18-2011 11:57 PM
Help! Blurring of first and last lines when in landscape mode	ianlo	Sony Reader	9	12-30-2008 07:43 AM
What % of books ever published are available in digital format?	charlieperry	News	6	08-16-2008 01:55 AM
Kindle books missing lines of text?	Kaylle	Amazon Kindle	5	05-29-2008 07:39 PM

11-06-2011, 02:39 PM	#3
Ken Maltby Wizard Posts: 4,466 Karma: 6900052 Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: The Heart of Texas Device: Boox Note2, AuraHD, PDA,	What may be most interesting is that the "Marketplace", for today's authors, is no longer restricted to the traditional publishing houses. The author now has a new route to those who might be interested in his books, a more direct route. I think this is great but I expect that it will take some time before the reader and the writer find a common "marketplace" to make their transactions. Writers have to find "their" readers and readers need to find those writers that are telling stories they want to read. The publishers have traditionally handled this process, (not always to the satisfaction of either the writers or the readers). Now for the authors to be successful in their "self-publishing" efforts they must find a mechanism that exposes their works to the right consumers. Luck; Ken

11-06-2011, 02:44 PM	#4
Kevin8or Guru Posts: 977 Karma: 43409226 Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Bay Area, CA Device: Kindle 3	I can see the attraction for a successful author with an established following. The previous three posts all pointed out the value of a publishing house to new authors. In the music industry, a new band may be required to agree to a multi-record deal if they want a contract. Supposing their first CD is a big success, they're now stuck for two more albums, with lower compensation than they would get if free to shop around. Will publishing houses respond by insisting on exclusivity clauses for the next x books or y years? "If you want us to publish your fist book, we insist on the option of publishing the next two books you may write. Self-publishing isn't permitted." Does that already occur? Could it occur?

11-06-2011, 10:05 PM	#6
Dimwit Connoisseur Posts: 60 Karma: 12652 Join Date: Jul 2011 Device: Kobo	OTOH a book is nothing more than the physical representation of someone's imagination. Yes, it shouldn't matter that being a physical object has any sort of meaning but it does. To have passed a hurdle of acceptance has established that person over anyone who hasn't passed that hurdle. Doing enough times and your name becomes a brand and you can market that brand effectively without actually doing the hardcopy bit. The whole point of getting published is that it's a form of peer review. You may decry it as a form of elitism and everyone should be a gatecrasher but it doesn't work that way. To quote Dash "If everyone is special, then no one is." Put everything out there on the "web" and you'll find that no one gets recognized. We want the gatekeepers. They provide a function. And you'll find, those that do get invited in, are more than willing to work within the system to keep it functioning. The big issue currently is how to slim the system down so that it doesn't have to cost so much. Book Clubs, celebrity edorsements, pure advertising, blog spam, word of mouth, freebie giveaways. Something will work if the work is good but there's an awful lot of noise out there.

11-06-2011, 11:59 PM	#9
vxf Guru Posts: 944 Karma: 1490348 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Norman, OK Device: Sony PRS 350, 900, 950; Kindles (ALL of them!); Kobo Aura One	I am concerned with a niche type of publishing - academic journals, in particular in my area of expertise, which is empirical finance. And the lines are blurring there as well - but only to some extent. They are blurring because any article that makes it to a top journal has already been read by anyone who cares. I have unpublished articles that have been presented at tens of conferences and downloaded over 5,000 times - which, in the small world of academic finance, means everyone who cared, has read them already. Yet, at the same time, a prestigious journal has a strong certification value. If I see something published in the Journal of Finance, I look at it differently - I know the evidence has been vetted, that (most) mistakes have been corrected. While not a-critical, I do look at it with a higher level of confidence. And the other way around - if I see some interesting paper published in a low-level journal, I always wonder - where is the problem? Why is it this piece of research didn't make it into a top journal? Even more, prestigious journal publications allow for ranking of researchers and provide an objective way to compare research output. In other words - editors do more than transfer words to paper. They improve papers and books by their advice and directions, they certify the quality of what is written - because, be it professional or pleasure reading, we all have limited time and expertise to identify what is truly worth focusing on. I know it may be tempting to have faith in the 'mass-consensus' and viral marketing of the internet. But, if you truly believe that professional reviewers and editors are not needed, that the public is capable of identifying high-quality work, then remember that the three biggest literary phenomena of the past years have been Dan Brown, Twilight and Stieg Larsson.

11-07-2011, 12:19 AM	#10
SmokeAndMirrors Addict Posts: 280 Karma: 2064388 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: MN, US Device: Kobo Touch, Asus Eee Pad Slider	Well, I think the standards for fiction writing and scientific/academic writing are very different. I'm not going to depend on a fiction novel to tell me where to put my stock, or whether my food is safe. No one even half-way sane would. Since there is no special importance to fiction apart from enjoyment and literacy, there's no risk in relying on an organic or even non-professional peer review system. It may even offer some benefits when you take money out of the picture. Doing this with academic and scientific content is obviously a terrible idea. Professionals in these arenas exist for a reason - these subjects are complex and require years of study and training to understand. While I do trust an independent study of a drug more than an in-house study, that independent study is still being carrier out by professional scientists and peer reviewed by professional scientists. Because this is information that people base their lives and livelihoods on. All the examples of mass consensus crap you mention are products of publishing houses. You're only demonstrating my point that the seal of approval from a publishing house doesn't mean something will be good.

11-07-2011, 12:56 AM	#11
Ken Maltby Wizard Posts: 4,466 Karma: 6900052 Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: The Heart of Texas Device: Boox Note2, AuraHD, PDA,	Hmm... I actually think that "vxf", inadvertently pointed out the conditions that made the professional "gateway" unnecessary. In some fields those who write the articles, those who understand the articles and those who read the articles, are all the same people. Aside from "publish or perish", I would hope that researchers in most fields only produce articles when they have something to offer. On a personnel note; I could care less about the "soft" and/or "social" sciences articles that swim in a totally political, echo chamber gatekeeping, that has no factual basis to start with. Luck; Ken

11-07-2011, 08:34 AM	#13
howyoudoin how YOU doin? Posts: 1,100 Karma: 7371047 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: India Device: Kindle Keyboard, iPad Pro 10.5”, Kobo Aura H2O, Kobo Libra 2	Wasn't Rowling rejected by something like 11 publishers before Bloomsbury picked her up?

11-07-2011, 08:55 PM	#15
Dimwit Connoisseur Posts: 60 Karma: 12652 Join Date: Jul 2011 Device: Kobo	I'm not trying to apologise or defend the publishing houses. It's just that there is a reason that they exist. That they've grown too large and have tried to bamboozle the world on how indispensible they are has become rather self evident. That said, someone needs to hold the reins. Whether it's some NYC house, which doesn't have anyone's good intentions in mind, or just the neighbourhood coffee clatch acts as the gatekeeper is up to us. There's just to much. We're drowning in dross and it's getting worse. The 'net is TOO efficient and it will kill the goose that lays the eggs if we allow the system to die because of the abuses of the past. What Google is attempting is interesting because of the underlying reasoning. It's not to make money. Will Amazon be entrusted to replace a B&M system and still behave? Will Kobo/Kindle/Nook be strong enough to support a world without deadtree publishing and the deep pockets that once that represented? Is it enough that your words are read and not be a job? What happens when the iPod generation won't pay for a damn thing? The death of new works? Are we living in the end of the age of golden times, culturally speaking?

Advert

Advert