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

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What evidence do you offer that traditionally published authors are working on improving their writing skills? Or does the simple fact of being traditionally published already imply they're at the top of their game, skill-wise?

No evidence whatsoever. The simple fact of being traditionally published certainly does not mean an author is "at the top of their game, skill-wise," but it does mean that people other than the author and the author's cronies think the book is good enough for prime time--that the author has at least reached some minimum standard of competence.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Seems to me this shows that a lot of self pubbed authors do a better job of marketing themselves than trad pubbed authors and their publishers are doing. We have no way of knowing how much time and energy any author spends improving their skills.

No, we don't, but there are only so many hours in a day. Every hour the author spends on marketing and the other details of self-publishing means less time for actual writing, rewriting, editing, and honing one's skills.

[david_e]

.....

[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.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by david_e

Opinion, yours, maybe others' too, but not fact.

Self publishing is not new, digital distribution is new.

I am sorry, next time I will spell it out in a far more detailed form. I was actually talking about ebooks not DTB's.

Is it the best step when you aren't ready? Someone lists their book, I buy it, it's awful, awful in that there is a decent idea but it's been poorly executed. How open to buying a second item from this author will I be? Not at all.

Same as traditionally published ebooks or DTB's, no difference. Except most often you outlay far less money for a less than stellar reading experience.

These sites, too, only exist to make money. They don't care who they sell an ISBN number to or the quality of the work that number represents.

Absolutely, that is basic economics 101. However what you are failing to mention is that the author, regardless of how good his writing is, is earning commission for each sale he makes and that commission is often far greater than they would ever earn if they had managed to publish traditionally.

Here is that link again

http://www.hughhowey.com/my-favorite...rafton-novels/

Having your work on these sites no more makes you a successful author than Instagram makes you a photographer.

Being a successful author does not require a traditional publishing contract.

Fifty Shades of Grey being a prime example of a non traditionally published creation. Only after massive sales has a traditional publisher been involved. Sure, that is at the extreme end of success, but illustrates the hold up example for all those authors in between.

[fjtorres]

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.

For decades, in the US the perception (reinforced by agents, publishers, and the established writers) has been that self-publish =equals= Vanity Press =equals= ripoff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press

The idea being that if you're not good enough to get an agent and a 12% royalty contract, you're not good enough to join the fraternity (or sorority) of published authors. (It's all about validation by the gatekeepers. With no gatekeepers there can be no validation, hence all self-pub'ed efforts are by definition not-worthy of validation. Drek. Nice syllogism, eh? )

With that in mind, Grafton's views make perfect sense. Horribly dated but understandable. She literally comes from an entirely different world. A world without ebooks, POD, and micro-press independent publishers with on-demand small print runs.

Now, Vanity Press ripoff companies do exist (Penguin just bought one of the biggest in ebookland), but there are also serious publishing services companies that do help self-publishing writers get their works out in the world to be weighed and measured by the only people whose opinion matters: readers.

People like Grafton are simply so far behind the curve they can't even see the road sign.
(shrug)

Hoary old joke:
"How do you teach an old physicist new tricks?"
"You don't. You put him out to pasture and hire a young physicist."

[latepaul]

Quit worrying about publication and master your craft. If you have a good story to tell and if you write it well, the Universe will come to your aid. Don’t self-publish. That’s as good as admitting you’re too lazy to do the hard work.

I think there's a kernel of truth here. (of course by "truth" I mean "opinion I agree with" )

While I agree that self-pubbers are not necessarily any more lazy than trad-pubbers, and I don't believe there's some magical force called "the Universe" which helps conscientious writers, however I do think that focus on craft is important. It's also, ultimately, the thing which you have most control over. And I do think that generally good writing gets recognised in the end - however "in the end" may well be posthumously.

I also think that the rise of online self-publishing has allowed a lot of material which would never have got past the trad publisher's slush piles in the past. Now some of this is terrible and obviously terrible and so the issue it raises is one of filtering for the reader. The more interesting stuff is that which is mediocre to good but where the writer is capable of better, and the question is whether having to convince someone else to publish your work forces you to consider whether it could be better.

Of course most writers worth their salt will want to produce the best book they can but how many simply won't realise because the feedback they got from their beta readers and their editor (whom they're paying) was positive?

And of course that doesn't mean that trad-publishers are automatically going to be better at getting the best out of authors - but that doesn't negate the other side of the argument.

It's an interesting question and I don't think there's a black and white answer.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Catlady

My take:

Self-publishing seems to be more about marketing than about quality writing. Too many so-called authors seem to be devoting an awful lot of time and energy to self-promotion, not to improving their writing skills.

The suggestion here is that professional publishing is all about quality writing and not marketing. To which I can only say:

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by latepaul

It's an interesting question and I don't think there's a black and white answer.

See how easy that was, Sue?

[teh603]

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.

You don't practice blatant Crony Capitalism over there, do you?

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I also think that the rise of online self-publishing has allowed a lot of material which would never have got past the trad publisher's slush piles in the past. Now some of this is terrible and obviously terrible and so the issue it raises is one of filtering for the reader.

Unfortunately, bcause this is a brave new world, this issue is something many readers aren't aware of, thus it's possibly leading to a general perception that the quality of literature is going down. Reviews help, but they do take quite a bit of time to do, thus only a certain percentage of readers will bother to post one and they're more likely to that if it's either very good or truly awful.

Originally Posted by latepaul

The more interesting stuff is that which is mediocre to good but where the writer is capable of better, and the question is whether having to convince someone else to publish your work forces you to consider whether it could be better.

Which perhaps indicates a need for sites such as Smashwords to have a beta testing area where new works are placed, but they're not passed onto wider platforms such as Amazon until they get a certain number of positive reviews (which could be made far easier by having a checklist for reviewers - I've been quite taken aback by how few books on Smashwords seem to be reviewed). Obviously, there's potential for abuse, but any author who just gets their mates to post great reviews is just shooting themselves in the foot. Far better to treat it as a way to help get your book as good as it can be before launching it into the big wide world.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

From: http://louisvilleky.com/2012/08/loui...s-sue-grafton/

Via: http://www.thepassivevoice.com/08/20...t-publication/



Comments?

She got started in a whole different era.

Yes, it's true that mastering craft is foremost. But these days, there happen to be other opportunities and any businesswoman has to look at the whole range of possibles. There's nothing golden or special about being published by a publisher. The end goal is to be read by readers (usually). People often confuse the "holy grail" of being published by a publisher instead of breaking it down into: What do they have to offer? What can I do for myself and who can do it better? Will I make more money/fans by doing it myself or through a publisher? Is that important to me?

These points are *especially* true if you already have a following of readers and want to branch out into a new genre or perhaps you want to publish a book that your publisher isn't interested in. Maybe your editor has left the team and you're not getting enough attention from your new editor. Maybe you'd like to try self-publishing for artistic reasons, to have the freedom to choose your own cover. It's like any other business. You look at what it takes to get to the end goal. And getting "published" is just a step. There are lots of goals attached to publishing: Getting into the hands of readers and/or making a living or for some, being recognized...that sort of thing.

Know your goal. Go after it in the way that makes sense. If the "badge" of honor of being published by NY means something to you or if working with a particular editor means something to you, then by all means, do your best to get there.

If you're after readers, right now, there are more ways than one to get there.

Grafton is well-known. She isn't going to be ignored by her editors or their marketing team. That isn't necessarily the case for a debut author.

And self-publishing doesn't mean you can't still try for a big publisher either. Maybe not with that book, but with others. It's not all black and white. Lots of paths up the mountain.

I think for her era, it was probably true. I don't really (obviously) buy it right now.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Barcey

What lesson do you learn from a flat rejection letter that helps you master the craft.

Do better, this is not good enough.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The suggestion here is that professional publishing is all about quality writing and not marketing. To which I can only say:

No, that's not what I suggested at all. My comment was about self-publishing and did not even mention traditional publishing, so your interpretation of what I said is rather twisted.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

Yes, it's true that mastering craft is foremost. But these days, there happen to be other opportunities and any businesswoman has to look at the whole range of possibles. There's nothing golden or special about being published by a publisher. The end goal is to be read by readers (usually). People often confuse the "holy grail" of being published by a publisher instead of breaking it down into: What do they have to offer? What can I do for myself and who can do it better? Will I make more money/fans by doing it myself or through a publisher? Is that important to me?

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.