NPR Looks at Self-Publishing

[cromag]

Interesting report on self-publishing on NPR, with observations by Hugh Howey and others. The transcript covers most of it, but there's a link to their audio player to hear the full report.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/...ntent=20140725


Nothing really startled me, but I found it interesting.

[VydorScope]

With out looking, I'll take some guesses..

Hugh says "Indies are booming! They are taking over the industry!"

Hugh's opponents says "All his data is bogus, his conclusions are wrong! Indies suck, only traditional books make money!"


Did I sum it up well?

[cromag]

Ummm ...

Howey does indeed think that new authors do better by going Indie rather than by signing with the Big Five -- he just put out a report to that effect -- and NPR critiques his observations and conclusions, without endorsing or dismissing them. They also interviewed Michael Bunker, an Amish Sci-Fi author, who is "making a living" (but not getting rich). They also quote an author who isn't making anything.

Nothing earth-shattering, but an interesting five minute listen.



I found the "Amish Sci-Fi author" to be the most interesting facet of the report. With an explanation of how he "powers" his office, how his church elders feel about it, etc.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by cromag

I found the "Amish Sci-Fi author" to be the most interesting facet of the report. With an explanation of how he "powers" his office, how his church elders feel about it, etc.

Michael Bunker? Dude, love that guy. He, like Hugh, is a bit of a character though. His plain life style allows him to write full time and not have to make Hugh Howey kinds of sales. Now, I'll have to check out the report since he is in it.

[VydorScope]

So I just listened to it. Actually its pretty correct from what I understand is the reality of the industry.

Some authors make it huge, some make it medium, most don't make it at all. THat is universally true no matter which route you take. SP gives the author more control, greater potential payout and greater risk. Traditional gives the author less control, less payout, but also less risk. But neither is a golden ticket.

The days when saying one path is smarter than the other are long gone.

[gmw]

The "less risk" with a traditional publisher is only after the point at which you've been accepted. The expectations of new authors going through tradpubs and their agents these days is such that you need to put almost as much work into submissions as you do to actually publish (editing etc.), if you want your "draft" to be taken seriously (about the only thing you can avoid is the cover). And even then it's a roulette wheel as to whether you find someone that will pay attention to your work even to the end of the first page. So the risk is still there, it just happens outside the view of the normal comparison done by proponents of traditional publishing.

The cynical/pessimistic view of the choice between traditional publishing and self-publishing is: do you want to be lost in the slush piles of traditional publishing, or lost in the mire of the self-published deluge?