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

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Muckraker

There's nothing wrong with believing in yourself and putting yourself out there.

Exactly.
If you're not really ready, you'll find out pretty soon afterwards.
The technical term for this is "Reality Check".

Grafton just got one in the more unpleasant way.
They're not pleasant but they do help you grow up.

BTW, thanks for the tip: I'll look into *both* Adam Nikolai's.

[jgaiser]

The problem I have the the naysayers is that there are too many examples of how wrong they are. *Good* writers are successfully using self-publishing to get their stuff out there and make money without the need of traditional publishing doorkeepers.

[Fbone]

- Publishing services companies make their money off the books, not the writer; the more the book sells, the more money they make. (Smashwords, PubIt, Kindle Select, among others.)

Are there "publishing services companies" who aren't retailers?

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Are there "publishing services companies" who aren't retailers?

Harlequin has a branch (it's ominously close to vanity publishing, including verbage that implies that if the book is exceptional it might get pushed on to a trad editor at Harlequin.) There's another one...avon? No...dang it. I can't remember. There's another large publisher that has opened a publishing services company. Originally Harlequin was even going to lend it's name to it, but Romance Writer's of America had an absolute fit over it because readers would have no clear way to tell what was self-published for very high fees versus traditional. They took their name off and left the imprint.

There are still sharks out there.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

The problem I have the the naysayers is that there are too many examples of how wrong they are. *Good* writers are successfully using self-publishing to get their stuff out there and make money without the need of traditional publishing doorkeepers.

Really, how many? And how do you show that these good authors could not have used a traditional publisher?

[Abtacha]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really, how many? And how do you show that these good authors could not have used a traditional publisher?

Why does it matter if they could have been traditionally published?

Self-publishing is a choice, not some kind of last ditch effort. Even if there is a lot of rubbish out there, but that is true for everything, especially on the Internet.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really, how many? And how do you show that these good authors could not have used a traditional publisher?

How would he know how many? He only knows he's seen a lot of good self-published books.
How would he know if a trad publisher would have accepted (or ever seen) any particular book? He only knows they didn't have to. They didn't need an agent, they didn't need to get past a junior reader.

ApK

(Yeah, I'm presuming to speak for him. )

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really, how many? And how do you show that these good authors could not have used a traditional publisher?

Many... A few here in MobilRead. Why is that *some* people think that you can't be successful unless you follow the traditional route. Success on either path is hit or miss.

Ask Hugh Howey what he thinks about traditional publishers. One of the more perfect examples of one-size doesn't fit all.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Many... A few here in MobilRead. Why is that *some* people think that you can't be successful unless you follow the traditional route. Success on either path is hit or miss.

Ask Hugh Howey what he thinks about traditional publishers. One of the more perfect examples of one-size doesn't fit all.

The point is that single examples does not say anything about probabilities and so on. I mean people win on lottery all the time but that does not mean that it is rational to buy a lottery ticket.

So I am curious about what the numbers really are.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Abtacha

Why does it matter if they could have been traditionally published?

Maybe I misread. I thought the argument was that people ignored by traditional publishers have succeeded publishing themselves. Also if they succeed publishing themselves and they could have published with a publisher then the question is what is best in the long run?

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by tompe

The point is that single examples does not say anything about probabilities and so on. I mean people win on lottery all the time but that does not mean that it is rational to buy a lottery ticket.

So I am curious about what the numbers really are.

What are the numbers for trad-pubbed authors?

Just because an author gets picked up by a trad-pub be it because their book was a work of art or because they fit the market for what's hot at the time and were halfway decently written doesn't guarantee they'll be successful. A lot of books never earn out their advance let alone makes tons of money or sales for the author.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

What are the numbers for trad-pubbed authors?

Just because an author gets picked up by a trad-pub be it because their book was a work of art or because they fit the market for what's hot at the time and were halfway decently written doesn't guarantee they'll be successful. A lot of books never earn out their advance let alone makes tons of money or sales for the author.

And some of what is defined as success is very personal. For some, just the validation of a trad publisher is enough. They don't have to make money and may even spend more on marketing than they make. And that's a perfectly legit thing for that person.

Defining success is like trying to keep up with dusting...

I've read a lot of self-published books in the last 4 years and I have been impressed by the large number of good ones. Sure there's lots of stinkers too, but there were way more good ones than I really expected. I don't know how those authors define success, but I hope they find it.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

What are the numbers for trad-pubbed authors?

There you go. How many traditionally published, mid-list authors are making money. How many of those authors still have books on the shelves after six months. How many millions of slush books do publishers see each year. How many of those make even a small amount of money.

Once again, it's a tough road no matter which way you choose. It's a lottery either way.

[BeccaPrice]

Wasn't there an issue where some Big Name Indy writer got picked up by a trad publisher, and didn't sell enough to make back his/her advance? Seems to me I read something like that. Fans liked him/her at indy pricing but not enough for trad publishing pricing.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by tompe

So I am curious about what the numbers really are.

I curious why it matters. I'm sure if I did a little research on the internet, I could come up with a lot of successful self-published authors. What will that prove to you? There are successful trad-published authors and there are successful self-published authors. Neither list proves anything about the *correct* path.