Big House vs Small House Publishing

[chrischance]

My take on this is to get published wherever you can.
I was about to e-book my latest work 'Assassins Code 1' when out of the blue a publisher queried me!
My book is now available for pre-order on amazon and will be published on 10th June. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Assassins-Co...7093430&sr=1-5

[David Gaughran]

One thing you should keep in mind is that some of the smaller presses have embraced the digital revolution are very well placed not just to survive but to thrive in this brave new world.

I can't say the same about the Big 6. Personally, my hunch is that half of them will not be around in 5 years. Just don't ask me which half!

[Steven Lake]

David: I fully agree.

mcrow24: I've been thinking about what I said a couple days ago about not letting anyone tell me how to change my manuscript. The way I said it sounded a bit like I didn't want any input. That's not correct. I love input and I love people helping me make my writing better. However, I refuse to surrender creative control of my works to anyone. I'm always glad to get feedback, but I will not let someone else dictate what my story will be.

[shibamistress]

I'm a poet, primarily, so I didn't really have a choice between big and small publishers, as the biggies aren't publishing poetry for the most part.

One of my books is with a small press, and one is with a university press. I had good experiences both times, though of course the University press was able to do a bit more promotion than the smaller press was. I also had less control: I didn't get to choose my cover, and they asked for a title change, though in the end, we went with my original title. Both asked for edits, as they should. In both cases I made almost no money, but hey, I'm a poet, so I don't really expect it. Both books looked great, and overall it was a good experience with both publishers.

I often suggest university presses to poets or to writers of literary fiction/nonfiction, because I think you can get great books from them, and since you pretty much have to have an agent to go with the big presses, going through a university press, where you can submit the book yourself, saves prose writers a step. Because yes, as was mentioned, finding an agent isn't easy either!

As for not going with a publisher if they suggest changes, well, I guess I'd say if you don't want to change anything, then self-publish. Otherwise, most publishers are going to ask for changes. Most writers I work with, though, are quite used to getting feedback and making changes, even difficult ones, and that's a skill I think all writers need to develop. All of us have room for improvement, and for a more experienced eye. And most people I know, like me, would be delighted to have a big publisher even if it meant making changes.

And finally, I was also delighted with "pique" spelled correctly! I also try not to be snobby about it when I see it spelled incorrectly, but it does annoy me!

[Freeshadow]

As much as I understood it, Steven 'd have no problem with changes in general as such.
Suggesting reasonable changes is an editors task too.

It's rather the "Have you considered twerking a youth apprentice into your story? Being a member of some point toothed alien race?" what he seeks to avoid.

Every improvement is a change; not every change is an improvement.

I remember having heard, that music companies nowdays run new artists demos trough software comparing audio patterns on some kind of mathematically cOmpareable levels. "that sells - do it alike" at its best:
(I wouldn't really wonder were this true to a very high level. For me a great deal of the chart-listed stuff sounds awfully similar and equally boring.)

[Steven Lake]

shibamistress, Freeshadow: I'm not saying I wouldn't take their changes. I love feedback and I'm happy to change something if it's wrong. What I'm against is a full on changing of the story. Case in point. The guy who wrote "Escape from Dachau" created a fiction story based around the true life experiences of his great grandpa. In the book (just as in real life), his Grandpa was one of the few people to ever escape from Dachau, and the only one to ever successfully avoid recapture. He eventually made it across Germany and reached allied lines where he was captured by the allies and treated as a German spy for three years.

His original publisher wanted him to take the core of the story and scrap it, and then rewrite it as a love triangle that developed inside the camp which went seriously wrong shortly after they escaped. They then wanted him to kill off the hero (his grandpa) at the hands of one of the women who in turn dies at the hand of the second woman who then manages to escape to freedom behind allied lines. In other words, they wanted to completely butcher his story. *THAT* is the type of editing I *DO NOT* want.

Now if you're taking about normal editing work, things like fixing grammar, spelling, plot holes, story flow, etc, that's fine. I'm all for that in spades. In fact, I enjoy critical feedback like that. However, I *DO NOT* want someone going in and butchering my story by forcing me to rewrite it into their image of perfection. Take my Earthfleet saga for example. If a big house got a hold of it, they'd likely have turned the Gayik'Von into cliche enemies of Earth rather than allies, and the Varok from fish guys into brain sucking zombie robots or something. Get the picture? I don't mind editors fixing problems. It's when they step in and start doing hack, slash and burn wholesale rewrites that I have issues.

If the story can't stand on its own the way it is (minus minor editing to fix problems), then it doesn't need to be published. It's why I went with my present publisher. They suggested minor fixes and otherwise left the story untouched. As a result I've already won at least one literary award, and have another possible 3 more coming down the pipe. I don't think I would have gotten that if it had gone through the puppy mill meat grinder editing that happens at the big houses. Trust me when I say that the big houses don't want original novels. They want rubber stamped, puppy milled, formulaic books that are about as original as a lead brick. And if you don't fit that model, then they force you to rewrite your book so that you do.

[Steven Lake]

http://kriswrites.com/2011/04/20/the...ements-update/

I stumbled onto this post recently, which I think is further ammunition for why I dislike the big houses and refuse to publish (currently) with the big houses. It's bad enough that they hack up your books, but now they're screwing with royalties, and apparently have for quite some time.