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

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Do better, this is not good enough.

That is incorrect. Here is an easy test. After getting the first rejection letter, submit the book to a different publisher. If that one accepts it, then either the rejection letter did not mean this is not good enough, or the second publisher made a mistake in accepting it. All that a rejection letter tells you is that the publisher did not accept the book for publication.

The reader is the only test that has ever mattered.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But if it's about marketing, yeah, as I said already, self-publishing is indeed mostly about marketing.

Because some self-pub authors do a lot of marketing for themselves? So do a lot of trad-pub authors. There are a lot of self-pub authors, some quite successful, that appear to do little to no marketing of themselves beyond maybe a website. Maybe I'm just not understanding what you mean.

[BeccaPrice]

From what I've been reading, more and more the trad publishers are requiring mid-list authors to do their own marketing.

All that being rejected by a trad publisher means is that "we don't think we can sell this." it could mean that it's great writing, but doesn't fit neatly into marketing genre categories. It could mean that it's too cutting-edge. it could mean that the trad publisher thinks that the market for sparkly vampires will be past by the time the book actually sees print and distribution. Being rejected has nothing to do with writing quality, unless you get one of those (increasingly rare) rejection letters that's full of suggestions for how your next book could be better.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

That is incorrect. Here is an easy test. After getting the first rejection letter, submit the book to a different publisher. If that one accepts it, then either the rejection letter did not mean this is not good enough, or the second publisher made a mistake in accepting it. All that a rejection letter tells you is that the publisher did not accept the book for publication.

Rather, it suggests the first publisher considered the editing needed to get to a publishable book too much of a risk/investment whereas the second one considered it worth it.

From a personal perspective, I have read many bad books that have been published by the different publishing houses -- probably 30-40% of what I bought, lend or otherwise read from publishing houses I consider below par. However, in my experience with self-published work the percentage of sub-par books is probably twice as high. They might be cheaper, but my time is worth quite to me in the end.

[QuantumIguana]

If a rejection letter means that the book isn't good enough that implies that the publisher is infallible. Otherwise, all that can be said is that the publisher didn't think the book was good enough. And even that is assuming that the publisher gave detailed reasons for rejecting the book. Without it, all that you know is that the publisher didn't accept it.

Yes, there are a lot of bad self-published books. But I don't pick out books at random, whether they traditionally published or self-published. By all means, if you don't want to read self-published books, fell free not to read them. I've read and enjoyed a number of self-published books. The publishers can and do make mistakes. Why should I be deprived of good books just because the publisher made a mistake?

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Rather, it suggests the first publisher considered the editing needed to get to a publishable book too much of a risk/investment whereas the second one considered it worth it.

That's only one of many things it could mean. It could mean that they think it's a great book, but that they're unsure how they would market it (they can't pin it down to one of the typical categories). They could be focusing much of their buying on whatever's popular at the moment (steam punk, dystopian are popular right now and they're also looking for the next 50 Shades).

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Why is self-publishing so looked down on in the Anglo-American domain? In many countries it is the normal first step towards a career as an author. Publishing houses will not sign you until you have two or three self-published works that have garnered a following. Yes, they are very risk-averse, but the flip side is that nobody looks down at self-published works.

Because the status quo is always the safe bet.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by RHWright

I think there is a tendency in self-pub to rush product out without covering the basics, both in terms of writing and production. In years past, the traditional route may have provided enough challenges and feedback to help authors improve before finding publication. I doubt this is any longer the case, if it ever was more than an isolated practice.

I think it completely depends on the editor. I know trad authors who say their editor rubber stamps everything, I know some who say their editor goes the extra mile to help them improve and discuss ideas. Some agents perform that role. I've had short stories published where almost EVERY single line had a suggestion and I've had several published that had no lines changed. In one case, I had to write in later and ask that a line be updated because of a typo. Editors are just like writers and any other profession. Some are more skilled than others and some take more time than others. Some projects are going to get more time maybe because the author is more willing to work on projects or maybe because the editor loves the book more.

That said, in this day and age, I think the idea of an editor and/or agent who spends developmental time with writers is fast going the exit route. Some of it is time and some of it is training. Being a partner or beta reader for the author is not quite as expected as it was. I see it in the overall quality of some genres. There's always been mistakes in books; it's part of the nature of the beast. But in the last 10 years I see mistakes of a different nature--cars in two places at once, something contradicting a previous paragraph--things that I think some editors would have caught. They simply aren't caught as often anymore.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Intersting choice of words there: any businesswoman. Is that what this is about, making money from writing? I thought we were talking about honing one's craft, improving as a writer, telling a good story. But if it's about marketing, yeah, as I said already, self-publishing is indeed mostly about marketing.

You can be a good businesswomen and still have goals of those other things. It makes VERY good business sense to hone your craft whether you make widgets or write books. The better story told, the better chance of success.

Marketing is another PART of a business plan and should be considered by trad writers or self-published. I went to a talk by a traditionally published author who was fairly successful sales-wise. But her advice was not to follow her path which was to spend twice as much on marketing as her book brought in. She hired publicists, traveled, signed, gave talks, etc. But she misjudged how much it would help sales. She advised a lot smaller marketing plan.

Some of it, again, depends on the goal of the writer. There is NOTHING wrong with with one of those goals being to make money. And honing ones craft is a very basic first step.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

You can be a good businesswomen and still have goals of those other things. It makes VERY good business sense to hone your craft whether you make widgets or write books. The better story told, the better chance of success.

Does the aspiring writer want to maximize profit or write good books? Yes, one can do both, but which is the primary goal? If profit, fine, self-publish, self-promote, follow the trends, etc. But if the goal is good writing, maybe it makes more sense to concentrate on learning one's craft.

Some of it, again, depends on the goal of the writer. There is NOTHING wrong with with one of those goals being to make money. And honing ones craft is a very basic first step.

No, there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money, which makes it really puzzling that the big publishing houses are held in disdain for trying to maximize profit.

I certainly agree that honing one's craft is the first step. But it is exactly the step that too many of the self-publishers skip, because they think their writing is just terrific--their family and their buddies say so, after all. So they assume success depends on marketing.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

All that being rejected by a trad publisher means is that "we don't think we can sell this." it could mean that it's great writing, but doesn't fit neatly into marketing genre categories. It could mean that it's too cutting-edge. it could mean that the trad publisher thinks that the market for sparkly vampires will be past by the time the book actually sees print and distribution. Being rejected has nothing to do with writing quality, unless you get one of those (increasingly rare) rejection letters that's full of suggestions for how your next book could be better.

It could mean "We don't think we can sell this because it is a total piece of crap."

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Does the aspiring writer want to maximize profit or write good books? Yes, one can do both, but which is the primary goal? If profit, fine, self-publish, self-promote, follow the trends, etc. But if the goal is good writing, maybe it makes more sense to concentrate on learning one's craft.



No, there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money, which makes it really puzzling that the big publishing houses are held in disdain for trying to maximize profit.

I certainly agree that honing one's craft is the first step. But it is exactly the step that too many of the self-publishers skip, because they think their writing is just terrific--their family and their buddies say so, after all. So they assume success depends on marketing.

My point is that by going traditional, you don't necessarily hone your craft either. I've read many an author who ends up stuck in a rut, never really putting out a better book or even getting worse over time. Honing ones craft is very often a personal decision/adventure. We're all lucky if we come across good mentors/influences whether it is in writing or some other endeavor. Self publishing does not mean you have to go without that step or go without mentors. Yes, many do. But so do many trad writers--they just have better copyeditors and hopefully someone to catch the largest plot holes.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

My point is that by going traditional, you don't necessarily hone your craft either. I've read many an author who ends up stuck in a rut, never really putting out a better book or even getting worse over time. Honing ones craft is very often a personal decision/adventure. We're all lucky if we come across good mentors/influences whether it is in writing or some other endeavor.

True enough. But the presumption is that the traditionally published writer has at least managed to write well enough to convince the publishing house to put its money, reputation, and resources behind the book. The self-published author need convince only himself of the value of his book before foisting it on the public.

Self publishing does not mean you have to go without that step or go without mentors. Yes, many do. But so do many trad writers--they just have better copyeditors and hopefully someone to catch the largest plot holes.

And as I've already said, that means that with the traditional publishers the reader can expect a minimum level of competence. Not so with self-published material.

[QuantumIguana]

With a chain restaurant, you know what to expect. With an independent restaurant, the food might be great or it might be terrible. I've discovered fantastic "indie" restaurants, and I've discovered indie restaurants that I wouldn't want to eat at again. I could limit myself only to chain restaurants to be sure of the same level of quality, but that would be dull.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

With a chain restaurant, you know what to expect. With an independent restaurant, the food might be great or it might be terrible. I've discovered fantastic "indie" restaurants, and I've discovered indie restaurants that I wouldn't want to eat at again. I could limit myself only to chain restaurants to be sure of the same level of quality, but that would be dull.

An interesting analogy: I know a number of chain restaurants in my area that differ greatly in quality from one place to another. Even being a part of a chain doesn't guarantee consistency or quality.