Debut author turned down $120,000, 3 books New York publishing deal to self-publish

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Well that's all well and good Harry, but the point of this whole thread is that this woman decided to be her own boss rather than be at the mercy of publishers. Why is she being denigrated for this?

I'm certainly not denigrating her - I wish her every success. For me personally, however, the result of her decision is that I'm less likely to buy her book that if it had been traditionally published.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Tarana

New law that became effective Jan. 1. In the past, writers lost their rights due to lack of knowledge or weaseling in the contracts. No matter what a publishing contract says, the rights revert to the author or their heirs after 35 years. It is retroactive, so you will likely see a lot of stuff that was thrown to the backlist long ago suddenly becoming available. I don't have a link to the law - I just remember reading about it in October.

That has absolutely nothing to do with length of copyright. The copyright will extend (in the UK, at least), until the beginning of the year following the 70th anniversary of her death.

[crossi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That has absolutely nothing to do with length of copyright. The copyright will extend (in the UK, at least), until the beginning of the year following the 70th anniversary of her death.

But it has much to do with the ability of the author or his heirs to be able to self publish that book as an ebook instead of having it languish with the publishing rights controlled by the publisher forever but no longer being published in any form. I just wish publishing contracts were limited to 10 years.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crossi

But it has much to do with the ability of the author or his heirs to be able to self publish that book as an ebook instead of having it languish with the publishing rights controlled by the publisher forever but no longer being published in any form. I just wish publishing contracts were limited to 10 years.

Yes, absolutely - it's a contractual issue.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Well, we differ, because I don't think it's a "small price to pay." The analogy with art supply stores and music stores is completely off-base--having creative tools available is not analogous to foisting the results of one's creative endeavors on an unsuspecting public.

I think it is a small price to pay, and that's good enough for me. More choices are better than less. You make your choices, and I will make mine. If you want to limit yourself to books that have been traditionally published, feel free to do so, I have no interest in telling you how to choose books.

Every summer, there's an art fair in my neighborhood. The artists are "self published"; no museum curator gave their approval for any of the pieces. The only judge of quality is the people looking at the art for themselves. If they like it, they buy it; if they don't, they move on. If people want to buy art that has been approved by a museum curator, they are free to do so.

People self-publish music every day, without the approval of a record company. The write, perform, record and sell their music without needing anyone's approval, except the listener. If people want to buy their music only from record companies, they are free to do so.

Artists and musicians do in fact "foist their creative efforts" onto the public exactly like self-published authors do. They offer their creations to the public just like anyone else.

[peachiekene]

Originally Posted by HarryT

BPH's still have, to my mind, a useful role as "gatekeepers" in filtering out the worst of the crap. [...] There are exceptions, but I don't have time to find the rare gem amongst the flood of rubbish - I prefer to let publishers do it for me. Perhaps that will change over time as more good-quality books are produced by independent authors; I very much hope that is the case.

Everything Harry said.

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't buy a book to somehow help an author; I buy it because I expect to enjoy it.

Exactly!

-----

That being said, I do still pick up selfpubbed/indie authors every now and again, but I have a few conditions that must be met (and then there are veto conditions on top of those) they have to pass and most of the time I can't be bothered.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Some of you insist on making the assumption that all books published by the BPH are gold and nothing is wrong with them. Nothing could be further from the truth. And then to make matters worse, the authors work is held hostage for years to come with nothing on either side to show for it except that it cannot be sold/published anywhere else just to keep the author under their thumb.

Sorry for snipping, but I wanted to address this one particular point.

Speaking only for myself, I read a number of both independently and commercially published authors. I've read both good and bad books, or at least started them, and I wouldn't call all commercially published books "gold," by any means.

However, I do find that I can expect a minimum level of competence in certain specific areas with a commercially published book that I cannot necessarily expect with an independently published volume.

In short, basic spelling and grammatical mistakes are a rarity in commercially published books. The authors hare held to a certain minimum standard of technical competence, and there are copy editors to ensure they meet that standard. Sure, some errors slip through, but for the most part I don't have to worry about the book being riddled with basic errors.

There's no such guarantee with independent works. Some are thoroughly proofed and copy-edited, others are not, and there are readers who do not have much tolerance for these basic errors.

Sticking to commercially published books means that for the most part they don't have to worry about really egregious mistakes in spelling and grammar. It's not perfect, but it's enough better than the average self-published title to be worth it for some readers.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Ken.Hagdal

Does it include authors whose books you enjoy?

Yes.

They're not my buddies and I don't owe them special loyalty, any more than I owe special loyalty to a specific product brand--I'll buy the product as long as it meets my needs.

[Catlady]

Getting back to the author in question for a moment. What would make sense to me is taking the contract for the three books, getting the $120K and the cachet that comes with being a traditionally published author. If the books are successful, she can get more money for the next contract, or she can then self-pub subsequent books as a proven commodity.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Getting back to the author in question for a moment. What would make sense to me is taking the contract for the three books, getting the $120K and the cachet that comes with being a traditionally published author. If the books are successful, she can get more money for the next contract, or she can then self-pub subsequent books as a proven commodity.

I think in her case, the combination of the long term and non-compete clause made that a non-starter.

It sounds like she's probably intending to put out anything up to 15-18 books in that timespan.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'm happy to limit my reading to books that have gone through a publishing process that includes editing, copyediting, proofreading, design, etc. to ensure a minimum level of competence and readability.

You'll need to avoid reading anything first published after 2002 then, because that's when the corporation publishers stopped using proofreaders and started farming copyediting out to companies based in India. And for anything older than that you will need to avoid the ebook version because it will be riddled with OCR errors.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You'll need to avoid reading anything first published after 2002 then, because that's when the corporation publishers stopped using proofreaders and started farming copyediting out to companies based in India. And for anything older than that you will need to avoid the ebook version because it will be riddled with OCR errors.

Even with those caveats, the average standard for commercially published books is still much higher than many self-published books.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Tarana

edited to add: Seems to me that they should include in their blurb about the book that it was professionally edited (if it was).

There's a lot of sharks in the self pub pool claiming to be editors. Using one of those wouldn't mean anything.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Artists and musicians do in fact "foist their creative efforts" onto the public exactly like self-published authors do. They offer their creations to the public just like anyone else.

The closest analogy to ebooks would be cassette culture in the late 70s, where people recorded music in their bedroom and sold or gave them away through the post. Chumbawamba and Human League would probably be the most widely known of those, but there were thousands of people doing it to varying levels of competence. The Astronauts were the most competent of them all, of course

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The closest analogy to ebooks would be cassette culture in the late 70s, where people recorded music in their bedroom and sold or gave them away through the post. Chumbawamba and Human League would probably be the most widely known of those, but there were thousands of people doing it to varying levels of competence. The Astronauts were the most competent of them all, of course

The closest analogy seems to be the current music world. It's so much easier to produce and distribute music than it was in the 70's. It's cheap and easy to make CDs; many bands will sell them at their shows. Plus, they can sell their music in MP3 format, without needing a record label.