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

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I could limit myself only to chain restaurants to be sure of the same level of quality, but that would be dull.

... and almost totally rule out the chances of ever stumbling across a truly fantastic breakfast.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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.



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.

But that is an argument against BUYING self-published books and has little to do with the author making a business and personal decision about self publishing (which is the topic.) I get that some readers don't want to read self-published. Nothing wrong with that. Not my audience. But neither is hard-core sci/fi or children's books.

As a self-published author, or one contemplating it, you do have to realize the risk/rewards. Some of that risk is that you'll get lazy and not hone the craft. Some of it is that you'll run into readers who simply aren't interested. BUT--there are unpleasant risks with trad publishing as well. Will you make as much money? Will you be happy? Will you really be able to hone your craft or will you feel forced to put out a book a year or be dropped by your publisher? Will you write a book and be dropped anyway? Will you be forced to continue writing a series because your publisher pushes you to do it and won't look at any of your other work?

There are TONS of pros and cons. IF all an author wants is the "verification" that they meet a certain standard or a badge of honor (or if it's on the list of important things) then the author needs to move that priority up in the list of pros when making the decision of whether to submit or self-publish.

The only point I am making is that these days self-publishing is a completely different animal than when she was starting out. So is traditional publishing. There are many good things about both paths--and there are many not-so-great.

For the reader? Some readers are not at all interested in looking through self-published. Hell, some days I pass some books by because it's too much effort to take the chance. Is it more likely I'll pass on a self-published than a trad? Probably. But I just finished another gem--self-published, fantasy. I don't even read much fantasy any more, but this one was one of those that happened to grab me. I LOVED IT. It happens. I don't stop looking and self-published right now is cheap, often free, and plentiful. And it's a valid business model (But I still maintain it is only a valid business model for ANY author if they continue to hone their craft.)

[fjtorres]

Hmm, this might belong in its own thread, but it does address the writer-as-marketter aspect:

Forbes: "Publishing is Broken, We're drowing in indie books--and thats a good thing."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvin...-a-good-thing/

Among a detailed look at the Grafton outlook with (excellent) comments from both sides of the debate, he brings up the subject of mid-list author/self-promoters:

Once upon a time, publishers had relatively small lists of new authors whose books they distributed to independent bookstores and small-format mall chains like Waldenbooks and B Dalton. Publishers fought vigorously for limited shelf-space and display.

Then in 1985, Border’s open the first superstore and by the early 1990’s Barnes & Noble followed suit. The new format dramatically increased both shelf space and display opportunities. Superstores also incorporated cafes and comfy chairs to allow consumers to evaluate books at their leisure.

On the publishing end, this allowed publishers to make bets on a more authors. But these expanding advances and production runs put real financial constraints on publishers because overall book sales weren’t exploding. Beyond that, profits were being squeezed by the increasingly popular practice (pioneered by Barnes & Noble) of steeply discounting bestsellers. This strategy assumed that bestsellers would draw consumers into bookstores and that turning the most desirable books into loss leaders would fuel more profitable sales. The net effect was to financially strain both publishers and booksellers. Then came the Internet and with it Amazon. Margins plummeted.

The publisher reaction was to cut staff and costs. Marketing support to lesser authors was one of the first victims. As a result, most new authors who make it through the arduous process of finding both an agent and a publisher are surprised to learn that it is the author who is responsible for marketing and promoting his or her own work. Trey Ratcliff’s story on GigaOm illustrates this brilliantly.

An entire generation of traditionally published authors has come of age learning to self-promote. Particularly for mid-list authors the burden of writing and marketing a book a year without much assistance can be crushing. Some publishing houses have trimmed back even further, limiting editorial assistance to new writers to proofreading and line editing rather than structural editing.

These authors feel less beholden to publishers and more independent. They have been forced to become entrepreneurs, but are not rewarded commensurate with their contributions.

(Italics are mine)

From where he is sitting, the traditional publishers *trained* midlist authors that if they wanted to make a living at writing, they had to do their own marketting and self-promotion.

These are also the folks who most stand to gain from self-publishing; the folks who *are* good enough writers to sell books in the 5 figures but whose style or interests don't appeal to the masses enough to draw full BPH support (and marketting money).

And, they also are the same people that most rational self-publishers see as viable role models.

(A rational self-publisher being one who does *not* expect to become the "Next Amanda Hocking". )

[tompe]

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.

I would see it more that indie restaurants are certian kind of publishers and indi publishing are the restarants that did not get permission to serve food.

[Catlady]

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.

Not a good analogy. The indie restaurant still has to meet standards regarding food preparation and cleanliness, per the health department. Where's the oversight for the self-pubber?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

But that is an argument against BUYING self-published books and has little to do with the author making a business and personal decision about self publishing (which is the topic.) I get that some readers don't want to read self-published. Nothing wrong with that. Not my audience. But neither is hard-core sci/fi or children's books.

How potential readers will react should be a big factor in the author's decision.

The only point I am making is that these days self-publishing is a completely different animal than when she was starting out. So is traditional publishing. There are many good things about both paths--and there are many not-so-great.

Vanity publishing is not new. It's just gotten a lot easier and cheaper in digital form. Self-publishing is just a euphemism.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Vanity publishing is not new. It's just gotten a lot easier and cheaper in digital form. Self-publishing is just a euphemism.

That's seems a tad condescending considering the new (and still evolving) landscape. And that's OK ... it actually saves a lot of wasted discussion.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Not a good analogy. The indie restaurant still has to meet standards regarding food preparation and cleanliness, per the health department. Where's the oversight for the self-pubber?

The analogy is just fine. You won't die from reading a book you didn't like.

How potential readers will react should be a big factor in the author's decision.

There are potential readers other than you.

Vanity publishing is not new. It's just gotten a lot easier and cheaper in digital form. Self-publishing is just a euphemism.

No, it is not. With vanity publishing, the author pays to have the book published. With vanity publishing, the author does all the distribution themselves.`

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The analogy is just fine. You won't die from reading a book you didn't like.

Of course it is like dying since the time is wasted.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How potential readers will react should be a big factor in the author's decision.

It was and is. And it's working for a percentage of authors, usually those who are committed to learning, getting better and continuing despite obstacles. I've found cozy readers VERY, VERY willing to try self-published. Not only mine, but I also run a blog and do reviews. I review a lot of categories and cozies always sell the best/most copies. The readers largely don't seem to mind whether it's self-published or not; it's not really a criteria for them (readers of my blog at any rate.)

I found this part of the above very key:

Particularly for mid-list authors the burden of writing and marketing a book a year without much assistance can be crushing. Some publishing houses have trimmed back even further, limiting editorial assistance to new writers to proofreading and line editing rather than structural editing.

I'd already been hearing stories of limits on structural and plot editing--at least 5 years before self-publishing took off. I hear even more about it now and know one author who was told by her small publisher they would not copyedit either. She cared enough to hire a copy editor herself before turning in proofs.

I am not putting down trad publishing or its benefits. But the playing field is full of choices--and believing that getting an agent and getting published is always better is ignored other venues that can work and work well--for both the reader and writer.

Every person is different and the landscape is changing quickly. Two years ago I was making more than I am currently. Part of that is because readers didn't even ask if a book was self-published. But part of what has cut into my earnings is the number of freebies out there. These are just the realities of the business. Those freebies are cutting into trad authors as well. It's a marketing strategy that has changed things, but it isn't likely to go on forever either. Any business--no matter how your book is published--is going to change. You can change with it or not, but it never hurts to examine all the options.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Catlady

How potential readers will react should be a big factor in the author's decision.



Vanity publishing is not new. It's just gotten a lot easier and cheaper in digital form. Self-publishing is just a euphemism.

What is occurring today is not the same as vanity publishing was back then. Believe me. I looked at options 15 or so years ago. It's night and day. Almost every single aspect and cost is different from format, delivery, options, quality, distribution, marketing and cost. Even from the reader standpoint it's different because the quality of POD is so much higher. I would also argue that with the internet, the quality of writing can be much improved--it's sooooo much easier to get feedback now than it was when I started writing some thirty years ago.

One of the hardest things for a new writer is getting feedback--and I don't mean honest feedback, I mean FEEDBACK period. Most people don't want to take time out of their busy day to read a manuscript that is on large paper in a three ring binder. They lose it. They set it aside. They can't drag the thing with them to the doctor's office. If they do read it they are likely to give a pat on the back--it's great, yeah, loved that line about Mr. Pig blowing up the house. "Uhm, mom it was the wolf that blew up the house..." Pause. "Yeah, that's the part."

Now I can join critique groups (thank you Baen), I can find beta readers, I can find copyeditors, proofreaders, other authors, you name it. That was simply not the case even 20 years ago.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it is like dying since the time is wasted.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Time wasted with a book is not like death. A few minutes looking at a sample of a book isn't like death. Death is different.

If I go to an indie restaurant and don't like the food, that's life. If I go see an indie play and don't like it, that's life. If I go see the works of an indie painter and don't like it, that's life. If I listen to an indie band and don't like it, that's life.

Why should books be any different?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

The analogy is just fine. You won't die from reading a book you didn't like.

No, and I won't die from eating a meal I don't like either. I wasn't talking about "like"--that's irrelevant.

There are potential readers other than you.

And there are other opinions besides yours too.

No, it is not. With vanity publishing, the author pays to have the book published. With vanity publishing, the author does all the distribution themselves.`

So it's less vain to self-publish because now the author doesn't pay a third party? Huh? Nowadays authors don't even have to have enough confidence in their own work to put their money where their mouth is.

[fjtorres]

Damage Control Dept:

http://louisvilleky.com/2012/08/more...indie-writers/

Grafton says:

I came into the business in the 1960′s with the publication of Keziah Dane…1967 and The Lolly-Madonna War in 1969. In those days, a writer’s only hope for a writing career was to be accepted by a traditional New York publisher. I wrote three novels that were routinely rejected before I stuck them in a drawer. The fourth full-length novel I wrote, I submitted to what was then called The Anglo-American Book Award contest, which I did not win. I did receive an offer from a British publisher for 375 pounds (roughly 375 dollars in those days) pounds for the publication of Keziah Dane. On the advice of an old war horse screen writer in Santa Barbara, I used that offer to acquire an American agent who then found me an American publisher. The subsequent novel I wrote was deemed too violent for American audiences and it was published in England only. The sixth and seventh full-length novels I wrote were never published and the eighth was ‘A’ IS FOR ALIBI.

I report this in some detail because as a result I have five unpublished novels still packed away in cardboard boxes, assuming I could lay hands on them which I’m not sure I can. In the ’60′s and 70′s, self-publishing was done through vanity presses which were not highly thought of. Like mystery novels, self-publishing was dismissed as second rate…a non-starter if you were serious about a so-called literary career. It was in this context that I tossed out that ill-fated comment about self-publishing being as good as admitting a writer was ‘too lazy to do the hard work.’

A bit more relevant; an actual mea-culpa of sorts...

I don’t mean to sound defensive here…though of course I do.

I don’t understand the mechanics of e-publishing and I still don’t understand how you can earn money thereby but I realize now that many indie writers are doing well financially and netting themselves greater visibility than I had any reason to believe.

She means well:

When I’m asked for advice I warn many writers about the charlatans lurking out there. I warn about the risk of being taken in by those who promise more than they actually deliver and do so at a writers expense.

Oooohhhh, the ironic potential in *that* quote.
The places I could take that one!

But I'm trying to be on my best behavior on this thread so I'll swallow the snark.
(Hmm, not bad tasting at that... but not too filling; I'll probably be hungry again in an hour.)

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So it's less vain to self-publish because now the author doesn't pay a third party? Huh? Nowadays authors don't even have to have enough confidence in their own work to put their money where their mouth is.

Receiving a form letter from a faceless person within a BPH does not inspire confidence in a budding author either. Rather the opposite, especially so if it was not the first form type rejection letter.

In reality the only opinions that matter are the readers of an authors work. If the ebook stinks or the editing is poor, then online reviews on page will most certainly reflect that.

The ability to read a nicely sized excerpt of the work assists in the decision to put out purchase money.