Self-publishing and Legacy Publishing

[Christopher Wright]

Once again, no one here is forcing you to read self-pubbed books.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Once again, no one here is forcing you to read self-pubbed books.

It seems like you're very defensive when people express an opinion that goes against self-publishing.

This is supposed to be a discussion on people's opinions concerning publishing avenues. Perhaps readers of these threads will find the differing viewpoints relevant in deciding how they want to approach publishing their works.

No one is camping on you because you self-publish or saying things like "No one is forcing you towards traditional publishing."

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Christopher:

I've thought about a similar approach as well. The only thing that has stopped me so far is that I'm not convinced that signaling potential readers that your work isn't worth paying for is the best strategy in the long run. What are your thoughts on that?

I don't think it's "signaling." As Christopher pointed out, webcomics (even the good ones) all pretty much give away their primary content for free, and always have. Just because something's given away for free doesn't mean that it's lousy; it just means that it's almost certainly lousy.

But everyone knows that some gems exist amidst the dross, and so people are willing to give free things a try. And if your work is good, then it WILL get recognized, and fans will promote it on their own, thus raising it above the dross.

 

[Christopher Wright]

No one is camping on you because you self-publish or saying things like "No one is forcing you towards traditional publishing."

Post #4:

"As a writer, I still feel if I can't convince a publisher to invest in my story....why should a reader?"

Post #8:

"I do still think that if it isn't selected for publication then the story or writing probably just isn't good enough."

Post #10:

"However, I still believe that in the vast majority of cases it's just not good enough of a book."

Post #11:

"I'm not seeing the new 'era' as an improvement, only a way for more people to skip the important part of learning to write well and go straight for conning someone out of their time and money."

"I'm quite pleased there are still thousands of books that are already published that I haven't yet read that might still be worth reading and just wait for the new 'era' to crumble under it's own weight of slush... "

#19:

"Web comics are different, and I know because I read a few of them. I spend 10 to 15 minutes in the morning reading the comics that interest me. So even not so good web comics are only taking a minute or two of my day at most. A short story can take considerable more time to read, which requires a much higher investment of my time."

Please clarify your definition of camping.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Post #4:

Post #8:

Post #10:

Post #11:

#19:

Please clarify your definition of camping.

Sure.... Everything you quoted above says what an individual thinks or believes on the subject. Their (and my) opinions aren't an attack on your beliefs by any means.

However, your posts read to me like you have taken offense at someone expressing an opinion against self-publishing.

Perhaps I misinterpreted them. That happens in forums sometimes but that's how they came off to me.

 

[Christopher Wright]

This is what it looked like from my perspective:

The pro self publishing perspective has focused primarily on self publishing. No discussion or slagging of traditional publishing, but discussion of how it (self publishing) isn't quite there yet, speculation on what still needs to be done, and then branching into potential ways to build an audience. On the anti-self pub side? A recurring theme of "if you were good enough you would have been published traditionally." The only variation of theme was IN ESCALATION (I can't wait for self publishing to collapse under its own weight).

One of these conversations is an actual conversation. Another of these conversations is a repeated attempt to END the conversation, since the only way it can go is to devolve into a series of "nuh-UH" "uh-HUH" comments.

Seriously, the first set of posts very clearly made your specific complaints against self publishing known. Attempts to follow up on that line of thought by discussing the specific challenges of getting published were quickly rebuffed and then your original statement was re-affirmed. After that I find it hard to take any interpretation other than a desire to shut down all conversation in the thread altogether, and you're right - that made me cranky. Guilty as charged.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Okay. I can understand that viewpoint.

I can only really speak for myself here & say that the way you perceived my comments were not how I intended them.

My only intent was to provide a strong opinion that was counter to others like yours solely for the benefit of someone who might not be sure which way they wanted to try to go.

If you were offended by those comments I am sorry for that. I believe the others from the same side of the argument did not intend to get your dander up either.

For the record, I think that self-publishing can be both a good thing for authors & a bad thing. It all depends on how it is used. If it is used to avoid the work & time needed to learn craft well enough to get published by a company then it is misused. It can be good for authors for several reasons. Many of which you stated above.

 

[Christopher Wright]

It's pretty easy for misunderstandings to spawn overreactions online. And some nights I'm more prone to peevishness than others--last night was one of those nights. In my own defense, I was trying very hard not to let it get the best of me.

For my own part, I really do understand why people are leery of the quality of self-published work... and choosing not to partake, I get that completely.