Sue Grafton: "The universe will come to your aid."

[sabredog]

A superb response, thanks for the link!

[david_e]

.....

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by david_e

Exactly what is it she said that is so upsetting?

This is what I'm wondering too.

[jgaiser]

If you're good enough, the world will come to you. If you self-publish and not wait for the world to acknowledge your skills, you're obviously not good enough.

[DiapDealer]

Don't forget lazy.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Don't forget lazy.

Yea. She shouldn't have said that.

In her defense, Grafton didn't go out of her way to say this, but was asked her opinion:

Don’t get me started. Oops..you already did.

[sabredog]

Does not matter if she was asked to voice her opinion or spoke about it regardless, the words were still spoken.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Don't forget lazy.

But it is lazy to publish a book that is not ready for publishing.

I still do not get it. And from what I have heard she is right. If you write good enough you will find a publisher.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

From: http://louisvilleky.com/2012/08/loui...s-sue-grafton/

Via: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/20...t-publication/



Comments?

I agree about working on the craft, but the admonition against self-publishing is just stupid. A person in whatever field should take advantage of all opportunities to advance in their field. This is just another old-school foggie that can't see the future and doesn't want to embrace it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Hugh Howey's response was pretty good...

http://www.hughhowey.com/my-favorite...rafton-novels/

PERFECT! I Love it!

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by tompe

But it is lazy to publish a book that is not ready for publishing.

Bad editing cannot be totally construed as lazy. Perhaps more like being far too keen to publish

I still do not get it. And from what I have heard she is right. If you write good enough you will find a publisher.

Not true at all. Some of the best authors I have read have self published. I doubt they would ever have been traditionally published by the BPH's, who pick and chose those authors they expect to get massive returns from.

These days being spoiled for choice for good reads is a great place to be, rather than struggling through reams of BPH published works sold for exorbitant prices.

One of the standard lines from people like Sue is that the self-publishing success stories are the exception. No shit. The same goes for the traditionally published success stories. 99% of all manuscripts submitted to the traditional machine never even land an agent. 99% of those that do, even if published, end up lost in the shelves with their spines out and nobody looking for them. After a few months, the books are returned. Those same books go out of print, and their authors continue working their day jobs and writing, writing, writing.

Sue thinks being one of the 1% of the 1% is the way to go. I say, if you’re going to win the lottery, why not do it in the state of Self-Pub where you keep 70% of the take instead of 15%? And really, who cares about the outliers? I’m more concerned with the midlisters.

Here as well, I’d rather be self-pubbed. The midlister on the traditional trajectory is the one with a $5,000 advance, a spine-out book in a brick and mortar store that fewer and fewer people frequent, and then an out of print book they can’t get the rights back to. No thanks.

Sums it up really.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Not true at all. Some of the best authors I have read have self published. I doubt they would ever have been traditionally published by the BPH's, who pick and chose those authors they expect to get massive returns from.

Well, no. They choose author that can write and can become better and can be developed into an author that sell books they make a profit on.

These days being spoiled for choice for good reads is a great place to be, rather than struggling through reams of BPH published works sold for exorbitant prices.

I really do not see that decreasing the signal to noise ration is a good thing even if in absolute terms the number of good books increases.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Does not matter if she was asked to voice her opinion or spoke about it regardless, the words were still spoken.

Correct. Plus, *she* was the one that brought self-publishing into the interview. She was asked a generic question; she gave a *specific* reply.

The interviewer herself addressed the issue in the comments I linked to at the Passive Voice. Here:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/20...#comment-45488

I did my due diligence on that particular question (the only follow-up I submitted to her past the original questionnaire). I stopped short of sending statistics to inform Ms. Grafton about how common it is to be an indie success, because I’ve found that puts interview subjects on the defensive, as a reporter.

I’m not writing for 60 Minutes here. This is a local topical news blog. It wasn’t my intention to alienate the interview subject or castigate her for being out of her depth. Believe me, had she been a serial killer or a political candidate, I’d have been much harder on her, but this wasn’t that kind of article–and no matter what, I’m biased by my full-time job as an indie author, so this was a tricky situation.

Her response was that the best-selling indies weren’t the ones she was talking about, which told me that the information embedded in the question didn’t even register. All she could relate to was the awful-selling self-published who go to the extreme of sending her copies of their horrible masterpieces.

Maybe not the most helpful or gracious answer, but fair enough. To Sue Grafton, indie authors = what’s sitting on her desk. It’s a disappointing answer, but it’s her reality, I suppose.

Regardless, it was Ms. Grafton who brought self-publishing into the conversation. Not I.

The fact that just because *some* self-published material may not be ready for prime time does not imply that *all* or even a majority of such material isn't. That kind of ignorant over-generalization is *lazy*, muddy thinking.

You might as well equate all traditionally-published material with the likes of this:
http://www.amazon.com/Shore-Thing-Ni.../dp/1451623747
(Currently sitting in the 475,000 range on Amazon, for Simon and Shuster fans out there.)

If she's going to judge people by what *others* do, she should be prepared to be similarly judged.

[Catlady]

My take:

Self-publishing seems to be more about marketing than about quality writing. Too many so-called authors seem to be devoting an awful lot of time and energy to self-promotion, not to improving their writing skills.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

My take:

Self-publishing seems to be more about marketing than about quality writing. Too many so-called authors seem to be devoting an awful lot of time and energy to self-promotion, not to improving their writing skills.

What evidence do you offer that traditionally published authors are working on improving their writing skills? Or does the simple fact of being traditionally published already imply they're at the top of their game, skill-wise?