Best Selling Authors and Self Publishing

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Oh he writes children's books. I thought he wrote serials.
A chapter book is a child's book that have chapter breaks rather than illustrated books.

And your exact quote was he writes chapters and publishes them as a book. Not the same thing as chapter books.

But if you want indie authors that make 6 and 7 figures on what you consider a book, there are several. R. Blake, B Crouch, J Konrath/Kilborn, J Nobody, R Brown, A Lee. Shall I continue?

I had seen the practice referred to as Chapter books, based on the idea that the books were published one chapter at a time. Serials are somewhat different than that, though I wouldn't be surprised if some refer to the practice by that name as well.

I'm sure there are. Not sure what it has to do with why best selling authors are turning indie, but if it makes you feel better go ahead.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

... and to tie my previous rant into the topic at hand, I think Shatzkin's point about the "one big dog that has not yet barked" is mostly... well... pointless. The suggestion that the wholesale "legitimacy" of indie publishing is waiting (or hinging) upon that one huge block-buster name to jump ship is silly. The tide has already turned. The future of publishing is already changed through choice. No need for a big fish to announce their defection.

The current top-tier, publisher-coddled blockbusters will live out their careers in the peace and comfort of their current contracts. But there's not likely to be a replacement for every one of those when they retire or die. With more and more frequency, traditional publishers will have to accept the hybrid contract that tomorrow's blockbuster authors are going to have the leverage to negotiate.

It's not about tradpub dying. It's about them not holding all the marbles any more.That's already done.

Well, if that's the reality you want to believe in, by all mean, don't let me stand in your way. People said the same thing about the record companies and the movie studios. They still exists, of course. It does strike me as humorous that I can be told that one shouldn't expect an indie to compete with the big blockbusters on one hand, but the traditional publishing houses are on the way out on the other. Perhaps your point is that mid tier and authors having trouble finding a publisher can now turn to indie publishing. If that's the point, I agree with you.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, if that's the reality you want to believe in, by all mean, don't let me stand in your way. People said the same thing about the record companies and the movie studios. They still exists, of course. It does strike me as humorous that I can be told that one shouldn't expect an indie to compete with the big blockbusters on one hand, but the traditional publishing houses are on the way out on the other.

And in your reality, if anything I said in my post led you to believe I think traditional publishing houses are on their way out, then you need some help with reading comprehension.

Perhaps your point is that mid tier and authors having trouble finding a publisher can now turn to indie publishing. If that's the point, I agree with you.

No. That wasn't my point at all. I thought my point was stated rather clearly:

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

With more and more frequency, traditional publishers will have to accept the hybrid contract that tomorrow's blockbuster authors are going to have the leverage to negotiate.

In the future, more and more authors (regardless of their "tier") are going to be in a position to secure more favorable terms from traditional publishers--because the game has changed today. Even though some people's realities may not allow them to believe that.

[dickloraine]

There are just so many ways what can happen. I have no idea what will emerge. Maybe let us begin with a hypothesis (that of course could be wrong):
Indie and hybrid publishing leads to authors demanding better contracts and better royalties even if they are not bestseller authors.

How will big publishers react? How small publishers? Will midlist still be somewhat interesting for big publishers? Or will they concentrate to make contracts with the successful indies? Will small publishers be more like services for authors? Will publishers expand their catalogs or will they concentrate more on better "quality"? Will they go more in corporate owned property,, working with hired authors (like marvel or dc)? I really don't know. Most big publishers are owned by big media companies. Who knows how they will transform within them.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

And once again, hurling oneself at a conclusion based on one's perception of the other person rather than based on what was actually written leads to error. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings by not sharing your opinion. If you prefer indies, that's your prerogative.

Some details please?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I had seen the practice referred to as Chapter books, based on the idea that the books were published one chapter at a time. Serials are somewhat different than that, though I wouldn't be surprised if some refer to the practice by that name as well.

I'm sure there are. Not sure what it has to do with why best selling authors are turning indie, but if it makes you feel better go ahead.

I have seen what you are calling chapter books. They are not what Hugh Howey does.
Hugh Howey writes what is called serials. That is the correct term.
Now as to the ones that publish chapters, they are not ever called books. At least not by readers. Since I am not sure of the policy here, I will not say what those people are called.

As to the rest of the post, you have asserted numerous times that an author must have a big publisher to be a best seller. That is not true in any way, shape, form or fashion.
Most NYT bestsellers especially in romance are either indie or have left traditional publishing to self publish. Several are actively working to get the rights back to their backlists.

Now as others have said, read who you like.

Now as to why a bestseller would go indie or at least keep their ebook rights, that is simple math. With a publisher, the author gets 10-25%. With just a distributor, they generally get 69%.
Now if you are happy giving 50% of your income away, go for it.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

There are just so many ways what can happen. I have no idea what will emerge. Maybe let us begin with a hypothesis (that of course could be wrong):
Indie and hybrid publishing leads to authors demanding better contracts and better royalties even if they are not bestseller authors.

How will big publishers react? How small publishers? Will midlist still be somewhat interesting for big publishers? Or will they concentrate to make contracts with the successful indies? Will small publishers be more like services for authors? Will publishers expand their catalogs or will they concentrate more on better "quality"? Will they go more in corporate owned property,, working with hired authors (like marvel or dc)? I really don't know. Most big publishers are owned by big media companies. Who knows how they will transform within them.

Exactly. The criticism of Traditional Publishing in this regard has mostly focussed on their lack of vision and failure to embrace change, and in particular their attempts to retard the growth of ebooks to protect the Print Book market and their desperate but doomed price-fixing conspiracy with Apple.

What role traditional publishing has in the future depends on the traditional publishers. To quote DiapDealer, "It is not about tradpub dying. It's about them not holding all the marbles any more.That's already done."

The sooner they realise this and come up with a realistic strategy for the future the better chance they have of remaining significant players when the dust settles.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Several people in this thread seem to have hurled themselves at the conclusion that I am anti indie, apparently because if one isn't all in for indies, one must be opposed. I'm not anti-indie. There are several indie and former indie authors that I read. Some of my favorite authors go with the hybrid method (some books traditional, some indie).

Do you not recognize the dichotomy in what you just said???



I have "hurled myself" at the conclusion that you are anti-indie based on your repeated attempts to belittle them.
The fact that you do read several indie books is orthogonal -- you seem to believe that as long as you read some indies, that must mean you cannot physically be capable of being anti- the rest of them.

Given how hard it is to make a living at being an author, whatever works is fine by me. What I object to is the process of shifting through all the indie authors trying to find ones that I like. I don't have the time or patience for it. Other people seem to love doing it. My sister is very fond of fanfic. More power to them, if that's what they like. Sturgeon's law (90% of anything is crap) applies just as much to indies, fanfic and regular authors trying to find a publisher.

DiapDealer's post #116 has mostly said what I wanted to say in response. Let me add my voice to the people above who have run across all too much dreck by the big trad-pubs, such that I have lost my faith in the gatekeeping abilities of the trad-pubs -- regardless of whether or not you believe gatekeeping is either needed or useful, the trad-pubs aren't doing it, so it is irrelevant.


I note you have not answered anyone on this matter -- although you did once again accuse people of hurling themselves to a conclusion, then proceeded to get passive-aggressive.


Do you or do you not believe that trad-pubs provide a valuable service filtering out the dreck for you?
"shifting through all the indie authors trying to find ones that I like" would seem to imply that you feel trad-pubs are different, that there is no need to filter through a "sea of crap".

I propose (or second fourth) that:
Indie publishing is a sea of crap with occasional gems.
Trad publishing is a sea of crap with occasional gems.
Reviews, word-of-mouth, best-seller lists, etc. etc. means one can easily limit oneself to the cream of the trad-pub crop.
Reviews, word-of-mouth, best-seller lists, etc. etc. means one can easily limit oneself to the cream of the indie-pub crop.

There is no difference between indie- and trad- publishing in terms of quality. (There is, however, a difference in the numerical quantity of published works. To a pessimist or someone who hurls himself to a conclusion the two might look the same.)


Do you agree or disagree?

[pwalker8]

Answered anyone on what matter? I've answered quite a few responses. If you think that traditional published don't provide value, then that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. Obviously, some authors think that way. That's one reason they go indie. Other authors find a lot of value in traditional publishers and are quite open about that opinion. Larry Correia wrote several blog posts about why he loves his publisher. It's been linked to this forum a number of times or you can google it.

If you are asking my specific opinion on if there is no difference between indie and traditional publishing in terms of quality, then my opinion is that there is a difference. It has been my experience that the average traditionally published book, from the publishers that I normally frequent, tend to be of better quality than the average indie book that I have looked at. Why do I think that? That's simply been my experience.

There are several rationals which I think tend to support my observation. First, many publishers have what is called the slush pile, unsolicited manuscripts that they receive from would be authors. Most of these manuscripts aren't very good, based on the various comments by those who have to read through them. In many cases, what you get in the indie (and fanfic world for that matter) is the unfiltered slush pile.

Are there manuscripts in the slush pile that are better than some published work? Sure. Are there bad books published? Sure. But that doesn't mean that all those manuscripts in the slush pile suddenly turned to gold. They are just as bad as before.

Second, while writing is a craft, being a good author involves talent and there really aren't all that many talented authors out there. There are a lot of authors who have the craft down, but lack the spark. One of the things that good publishers provide is a helping hand at learning the craft. That's one reason that Jim Baen used to pair an experienced author with an newbie.

Third, there is a difference between hiring an editor to look over your work and having an editor who works for the publisher. First is the issue that someone you hire wants repeat business and has to worry about individual reviews. They aren't going to be nearly as picky as one who works for the publisher. Second, an indie doesn't have to listen to the editor. It all depends on how open the author is to feedback. One can see the same phenomenon with big selling authors. The first several books are well written and tight, but later books tend to be sloppier. Once they have made it big, they don't have to accept the editor's feedback. I point to Tom Clancy and Robert Jordan as examples.

There are other things, but I think that's enough for now. You did ask, you know.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I've answered quite a few responses. If you think that traditional published don't provide value, then that's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

No one has actually said they don't provide value. Stop hurling yourself at it like someone did. The question at hand is if the value they provide is still worth the price they ask (for the length of time they require).

If you are asking my specific opinion on if there is no difference between indie and traditional publishing in terms of quality, then my opinion is that there is a difference. It has been my experience that the average traditionally published book, from the publishers that I normally frequent, tend to be of better quality than the average indie book that I have looked at. Why do I think that? That's simply been my experience.

No one's really arguing that either. Most are simply saying it's pretty irrelevant. Which it is--unless you value a competently written book you didn't enjoy at all higher than a terribly written book you didn't enjoy at all (and choose your books by throwing a dart at a dartboard with no vetting process whatsoever). Good books are preferable to bad books and no one reads for the average/competent book experience. They read for the exceptions; and develop skills to track them down wherever they may be.

Second, while writing is a craft, being a good author involves talent and there really aren't all that many talented authors out there. There are a lot of authors who have the craft down, but lack the spark. One of the things that good publishers provide is a helping hand at learning the craft. That's one reason that Jim Baen used to pair an experienced author with an newbie.

The keywords there are "Jim Baen used to". Lots of old-timey editors (who basically held the reins of the publishing world at the time) "used to" do that. But that kind of "mentoring/molding editor/publisher" has been basically extinct for quite awhile now. Where ya been?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

...
Reviews, word-of-mouth, best-seller lists, etc. etc. means one can easily limit oneself to the cream of the trad-pub crop.
Reviews, word-of-mouth, best-seller lists, etc. etc. means one can easily limit oneself to the cream of the indie-pub crop.

...

Do you agree or disagree?

On the other position that you take, that it's as easy to find good indie books as good traditionally published book. I have to disagree. Not terribly surprising since I've put of more than a few rants on how hard it is to find good books. First, I'm going to talk about fiction only, since non-fiction is a very different kettle of fish.

This is where the publisher as the gate keeper comes into play. For years and years, I found that I liked the majority of the books that Baen publishing put out. That made it easy for me to find new authors. Since Jim Baen died, I find that my tastes don't match the new management quite as much. I do check out their monthly publishing schedule, but the days of buying all the monthly bundles are long gone. It's not as much a matter of quality as taste and quality. I found a number of new authors through Baen. Before Baen, I think Del Ray was the imprint of choice. Perhaps you never found an imprint that matched your taste as well as Baen matched mine.

The second publishers as the gate keepers thing is if a publisher put major marketing muscle into a new author, then the odds were pretty high that they thought the author was a winner. That's how I found Robert Jordon. The first Wheel of Time book came out as a trade paperback in a time when most new books went directly to paperback, so it caught my eye (that's and the cover).

A third point is what I call the Amazon issue. My preferred method of looking for books is to see what has come out since the last time I looked. Most bookstores that I use to frequent had a new books self in each section and they didn't throw the porn, romance and public domain books in with the SF&F. I find Amazon farming out the maintenance of their book database to anyone who claims to be a publisher to be very frustrating. One can find a lot of pointers on the internet telling would be authors/publishers how to game the system.

Some people really like using social media and sites such as goodreads. It's not really my cup of tea. One sees similar issues on some of the threads here. Someone ask for a specific recommendation and mentions some of the books they like. Then people recommend their favorite books, regardless of if there is a match or not. I appreciate that people want to be helpful, but it doesn't get me any closer to books that match my taste.

Perhaps some day, as book search engines improve and people figure out how to monetize things like the old SF newsletters, it will be as easy to find good new authors regardless of how they are published, but IMPO, we aren't there yet.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No one has actually said they don't provide value. Stop hurling yourself at it like someone did. The question at hand is if the value they provide is still worth the price they ask (for the length of time they require).

...

Of course they did.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

...
The keywords there are "Jim Baen used to". Lots of old-timey editors (who basically held the reins of the publishing world at the time) "used to" do that. But that kind of "mentoring/molding editor/publisher" has been basically extinct for quite awhile now. Where ya been?

Where have I been? Buying books.
Baen Publishing still pairs up authors like that, so it's not exactly extinct.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

On the other position that you take, that it's as easy to find good indie books as good traditionally published book. I have to disagree. Not terribly surprising since I've put of more than a few rants on how hard it is to find good books. First, I'm going to talk about fiction only, since non-fiction is a very different kettle of fish.

This is where the publisher as the gate keeper comes into play. For years and years, I found that I liked the majority of the books that Baen publishing put out. That made it easy for me to find new authors. Since Jim Baen died, I find that my tastes don't match the new management quite as much. I do check out their monthly publishing schedule, but the days of buying all the monthly bundles are long gone. It's not as much a matter of quality as taste and quality. I found a number of new authors through Baen. Before Baen, I think Del Ray was the imprint of choice. Perhaps you never found an imprint that matched your taste as well as Baen matched mine.

The second publishers as the gate keepers thing is if a publisher put major marketing muscle into a new author, then the odds were pretty high that they thought the author was a winner. That's how I found Robert Jordon. The first Wheel of Time book came out as a trade paperback in a time when most new books went directly to paperback, so it caught my eye (that's and the cover).

A third point is what I call the Amazon issue. My preferred method of looking for books is to see what has come out since the last time I looked. Most bookstores that I use to frequent had a new books self in each section and they didn't throw the porn, romance and public domain books in with the SF&F. I find Amazon farming out the maintenance of their book database to anyone who claims to be a publisher to be very frustrating. One can find a lot of pointers on the internet telling would be authors/publishers how to game the system.

Some people really like using social media and sites such as goodreads. It's not really my cup of tea. One sees similar issues on some of the threads here. Someone ask for a specific recommendation and mentions some of the books they like. Then people recommend their favorite books, regardless of if there is a match or not. I appreciate that people want to be helpful, but it doesn't get me any closer to books that match my taste.

Perhaps some day, as book search engines improve and people figure out how to monetize things like the old SF newsletters, it will be as easy to find good new authors regardless of how they are published, but IMPO, we aren't there yet.

Since I am in a nice mood, here are some SF&F books for you.
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-K...re_2_154606011

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course they did.

Where--exactly--did someone in this thread say traditional publishers provide no value whatsoever?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Where--exactly--did someone in this thread say traditional publishers provide no value whatsoever?

Let's see now =

"...
Mythical because tradpub doesn't do proactive marketting worth beans. What they are is good reactive promoters of books and authors that succeed in striking a chord with buyers. Once the book succeeds on its own, they flog the heck out of it and put money into it. Otherwise it is sink or swim.
...
"

"
You forgot conspire, reduce author royalties/payouts/rights....increase contract length, territories...add additional author costs for marketing etc. require authors to do their own marketing and travel and promotion....
"

What exactly do you think the posters were saying? Or are you going to play the "They didn't use these exact words" card?