E-Books Are Blurring The Lines Between What Is ‘Published’ And What Isn’t

[Todd Young]

I think publishing houses are simply going to disappear. Serious writers will have their work edited privately, pay for cover art and do what they can with marketing. Good books will work their way up out of the dross. Either that, or this whole self-publishing thing will fail due to the amount of rubbish that is out there, simply swamping readers so they start looking at who a book was published by before they buy it.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Todd Young

I think publishing houses are simply going to disappear. Serious writers will have their work edited privately, pay for cover art and do what they can with marketing. Good books will work their way up out of the dross. Either that, or this whole self-publishing thing will fail due to the amount of rubbish that is out there, simply swamping readers so they start looking at who a book was published by before they buy it.

I don't think that self-publishing will collapse of its own weight. Too many people (a) cannot tell bad rubbish from good rubbish or from material that isn't rubbish at all, and so are satisfied with most of what they can download for free; (b) I doubt most authors will privately hire professional editors, cover designers, proofreaders, or illustrators for several reasons, not least of which are that they will suffer sticker shock when they get the pricing and decide they cannot gamble that amount of money (professional, experienced editorial and production help is not inexpensive) and because of (a), especially considering the enormous amount of free books that one can wade through among which are a good number of gems -- it is hard to compete with free. (Now that's a good runon sentence if ever there was one!)

I know from my own experience that I have been able to find enough good free ebooks that I infrequently buy ebooks unless they are subsequent ebooks in a series in which I have read the first volume (obtained for free) and liked it enough to justify paying for the subsequent volumes.

[J. Strnad]

If as you say, *someone* needs to hold the reins, then those someones will come into being. They will make money, perhaps by selling ads on their review websites, and because they have such keen insight, people will flock to them for the benefit of their wisdom.

But those reviewers won't determine what gets published and for how long.

Speaking of "how long," this brings me to another point about epublishing.

My novel was available as a mass market paperback for six months, it didn't meet sales expectations, and it went out of print for the next six years. I got the rights back and self-published as an ebook.

The first six months' sales were small. But they doubled in the next six months. And doubled again in the next six months. And now, approaching the end of the 2nd year, I'm selling a few hundred copies a month. Okay, Stephen King isn't weeping in envy over my sales, but they're enough to have me working on another book that will go straight to epublishing.

Where but in epublishing could a book stay in print for two years while it built a market? And where else could an author get a steady (if modest) monthly income from his work, as opposed to either winning the lottery or not as happens in print publishing?

Epublishing has resurrected the midlist author, who has been a dying breed in print publishing for the past two decades.

[Dimwit]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Epublishing has resurrected the midlist author, who has been a dying breed in print publishing for the past two decades.

This is a key comment. It was appalling how many midlist authors were cancelled after 9/11 because all the NY houses went after the easy money and only released top 40 bestsellers. Some of the titles were already in galleys just waiting final approval before being printed. I'm not sure whether some will never see the light of day because of editorial copyright abuse but there's a few. Some authors were so disgusted they left the field totally.

Epublishing can be a godsend for both the writer and audience as long as the copyright stays in the right hands.

[Ken Maltby]

Perhaps authors should be able the "lease" their copyright, for a specified period of
time or number of copies; instead of selling it?

Maybe a copyright could be non-exclusive and more than one publishing house or
company could publish a book at the same time. (More than one grocery could
sell a farmer's produce. You can buy Prestone Antifreeze at many different stores/outlets.)

If you want to say only one company can exercise the copyright, then why, other
than to create a non-competitive situation? Doesn't the ebook file, as the thing
being copied and sold, change things a little?

If you eliminate the publishing house/middleman and the author keeps the copyright,
only allowing other sites to sell copies from the author's site (incidentally creating a
mechanism for the author to have precise sales accountability for all legal sales.)
{Call me cynical but if were an author I might wonder what losses there might be
from Publishing House Accounting.}

Luck:
Ken

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Perhaps authors should be able the "lease" their copyright, for a specified period of
time or number of copies; instead of selling it?

Maybe a copyright could be non-exclusive and more than one publishing house or
company could publish a book at the same time. (More than one grocery could
sell a farmer's produce. You can buy Prestone Antifreeze at many different stores/outlets.)

If you want to say only one company can exercise the copyright, then why, other
than to create a non-competitive situation? Doesn't the ebook file, as the thing
being copied and sold, change things a little?

If you eliminate the publishing house/middleman and the author keeps the copyright,
only allowing other sites to sell copies from the author's site (incidentally creating a
mechanism for the author to have precise sales accountability for all legal sales.)
{Call me cynical but if were an author I might wonder what losses there might be
from Publishing House Accounting.}

Luck:
Ken

If authors could lease out their copyright to two or more publishers simultaneously, it would be such a tremendous boost for the quality of publishing. We'd finally see competition driving quality formatting of books (and ebooks)!

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

If authors could lease out their copyright to two or more publishers simultaneously, it would be such a tremendous boost for the quality of publishing. We'd finally see competition driving quality formatting of books (and ebooks)!

Authors could do this now. There's nothing preventing them from doing so.

The issue is that publishers invest their own money and resources into preparing an e-book, and would probably be less willing to do so if you cut their profit margin in half. Particularly considering how many books lose money anyway.

And if the book is ready for sale - like Prestone Antifreeze - you don't need a publisher at all, just a retailer.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

There are some indie authors who have a great deal of peer review. People love their work so much that they volunteer to be editors, beta readers, do cover designs, etc. That says a lot more to me about a written work than going through a publishing house. Because it's something people have done because they LIKE the work, not because it's going to make them X amount of money.


I trust the organic form of peer review that is emerging more than the publishing houses. Because the publishing houses have shown themselves to be more concerned with money than quality. The organic forms of peer review are concerned with quality.

I think of this the same way I think of medical studies. I am heavily skeptical of what the drug company that invented a drug says about its efficacy and safety. I am less skeptical of what an independent study says about it. Same concept.

These people are not "independent." Author's fans would not make good editors. They would be biased. And are any copy editors? Can they fix the grammar mistakes?

I'd rather it be edited by experienced professionals completely apathetic to the author and the book. It would keep them focused on the writing and not on pleasing the author.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

You forgot Harry Potter, and I actually like Stieg Larsson, so there's that. Furthermore, the success of all these books can't be divorced from the marketing. If you want to use Twilight as an example that the gatekeepers we have suck, I would point out that Twilight was not self-published, so it's just as much an argument that the big houses aren't doing their job of peer review and editing.

The publishers didn't "suck" in this regard. In fact, they did a fabulous job in taking 3 mediocre authors and made them (and their estate), their agents, publishers, retailers and printers millions of dollars. The publishers performed their job so perfectly I hope they received bonuses.

[rhadin]

I disagree with you, Fbone. Only 2 of the 3 named authors are mediocre and calling them mediocre is actually putting them on a pedestal above where they belong. JK Rowling is not a mediocre writer if Stieg Larsson and Stephanie Meyer are ranked as mediocre. In relation to the latter two, Rowling is a brilliant writer, at least in her early books (I'll admit that the quality of writing declined as the series moved further along).

If you want to classify Rowling as mediocre, then the comparators (i.e., the other two named authors) need to be classified as part of the dustbin, especially Larsson. I can't recall another author of such poor quality who sold millions of books and at least 2 movie versions as Larsson.

Having said that, status changes for all of these writers if the focus is on telling a good story rather than the quality of writing. In Rowling and Meyers cases, this is especially true because they successfully induced millions of nonreaders to suddenly pickup and enjoy a book with no moving parts and and no animation built in. A major accomplishment that is worth praising.

Having read Larsson's 3 books because of the praise they garnered, I can't figure out what was so compelling about them or why anyone would bother. There are numerous other thriller writers with much better story-telling and writing skills that are waiting to be discovered by the masses.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Authors could do this now. There's nothing preventing them from doing so.

The issue is that publishers invest their own money and resources into preparing an e-book, and would probably be less willing to do so if you cut their profit margin in half. Particularly considering how many books lose money anyway.

And if the book is ready for sale - like Prestone Antifreeze - you don't need a publisher at all, just a retailer.

How much of that "loss" is a matter of accounting? If you create an ebook
you don't have a printing run and you have no added cost or potential loss
from not selling all, or enough of, the books printed. Even if only a few
thousand ebooks are sold, there are profits and no losses, for each sale.
Perhaps not the profits a publishing house wants or not accrued as quickly
as their limited attention span can tolerate, but the potential for any ebook
to catch on and the ability to supply any demand at any time, without additional
expense, certainly demonstrates an advantage for ebook production over pbook.
How and to what extent that benefits the author might depend on what the
publisher is providing him.

Authors appear to need help in creating their books "ebooks" as well as
"pbooks", but perhaps not so much from a publishing house anymore.
Anyone can prepare an ebook on their home computer, how good the story
is might be a problem, but the ebook file created can be every bit as good
as what the publishing house would produce. The proofreading and editing
is no longer the sole province of the publishing houses.

Luck;
Ken

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by rhadin

I disagree with you, Fbone. Only 2 of the 3 named authors are mediocre and calling them mediocre is actually putting them on a pedestal above where they belong. JK Rowling is not a mediocre writer if Stieg Larsson and Stephanie Meyer are ranked as mediocre. In relation to the latter two, Rowling is a brilliant writer, at least in her early books (I'll admit that the quality of writing declined as the series moved further along).

Actually, I was referring to Larsson, Meyer and Dan Brown. I have never read anything by JK Rowling. And to be honest, I've read only samples by the other three but it was enough.

Wow. I think of mediocre as "moderate to inferior in quality." There must be a level below inferior. LOL

[Dimwit]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Actually, I was referring to Larsson, Meyer and Dan Brown. I have never read anything by JK Rowling. And to be honest, I've read only samples by the other three but it was enough. LOL

When anyone complains about Larsson's books I'd like to give them a shake. Those were all published post-mortem and in Swedish. I doubt that if he had gottena book deal from the first book that it would've been edited or possibly rewritten into a tighter more readable version. And there's a translating issue as well. Is the Swedish as turgid? Maybe, but it's a data point nonetheless.

As for profitability of epubs, yes, there's no printing, warehousing or return issues but that doesn't mean that doing an epub is free. Good, professional level editing and proofreading is expensive and should be and doing a good and again, professional, layout isn't free either. Going that route has upfront costs but the ultimate package is *worth* something. Otherwise it becomes the same as a paint-by-numbers picture at a garage sale. "You want HOW much for that?!"

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by Dimwit

As for profitability of epubs, yes, there's no printing, warehousing or return issues but that doesn't mean that doing an epub is free. Good, professional level editing and proofreading is expensive and should be and doing a good and again, professional, layout isn't free either. Going that route has upfront costs but the ultimate package is *worth* something. Otherwise it becomes the same as a paint-by-numbers picture at a garage sale. "You want HOW much for that?!"

My reply was to the following:
"Particularly considering how many books lose money anyway."

I was attempting to address the fact that most of the factors that a pbook
can show as things that describe the reasons the book looses money, do
not apply to ebooks. The cost of creating the book as a viable manuscript
(normally now in the form of an electronic document), is the same for both
pbooks and ebooks. While in many cases a publishing house will be involved
in the process, there are now other options open to an aspiring, as well as
accomplished author.

The question might become, for the ebook author, whether the publishing
house who's accounting "must balance the losses of all the other books",
both pbooks and ebooks against the return from your ebook, is the author's
best choice. Between the writing tools now available, the support of paid
and unpaid proofreaders, and independent editing services, what is needed
to get a manuscript to the condition that you can make your own ebook file,
is within most author's reach.

There are a number of skills that any author has to develop to be successful,
at one time that included good quill penmanship, now a days an author can
actually gain most of the means to produce his own ebooks, with less and
less help from the "pros", over that development. I would think that there
are a number of writers in this forum who are either already there or well on
the way, to not really needing an established publishing house's involvement
in their ebook production.

Marketing is another story.

Luck;
Ken

[Vic333]

Does it imply a reduction in quality, though? That's what's important to me. Even known authors, if they can produce a book cheaper and garner more profits by skipping editing might do it, reducing quality and enjoyment.