# Self-publishing and Legacy Publishing



## Steerpike (May 29, 2012)

An interesting discussion on Joe Konrath's blog:

A Newbie's Guide to Publishing: Guest Post by Barry Eisler


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 29, 2012)

I'm a huge proponent of self publishing (since that's what I'm doing) but I really don't agree with the "don't worry about the future, focus on what you can get out of it now" attitude the guy is taking. If you're self-publishing you really do need to be looking down the road and planning for what happens. And he glosses over the advantages of going traditional.

Self publishing is a blast and the more people do it seriously the better it will get, but too much of the revolutionary rhetoric I hear on my side of things really comes across as a bit hollow, and more like a way to generate publicity. But I'm cynical like that.


----------



## Steerpike (May 31, 2012)

I also think that self-publishing holds a lot of promise. While the barriers to entry for new authors are now virtually eliminated, the greatest challenge will come in making one's work stand out in the sea of self-published material.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (May 31, 2012)

My only wish is that the places selling ebooks would put in something to let me distinguish between the two.  Personally I look at publishing houses as a group I pay to try and filter out the majority of the stuff not worth my time to bother with.  I look at it this way, if someones writing is good enough to be read, then wouldn't it also be good enough that a publisher would buy it?  

I don't want to wade through the sea of rubbish to find something good to read.  I know the prospect of not having to please some publisher to get a story published sounds wonderful, but it is only wonderful to the person writing the story, not the reader who could possibly waste several hours of their time on something they eventually will put down unfinished.  

My dislike of self publishing comes from the viewpoint of a reader, not a writer.  As a writer, I still feel if I can't convince a publisher to invest in my story....why should a reader?


----------



## Ophiucha (May 31, 2012)

My current projects are a novella and a collection of short stories, so I'm basically self-publishing or holding out on the hope that one publisher thinks I'm the greatest thing since J.R.R. Tolkien. 

But I do feel like people, the guy who wrote the article included, are a bit... unrealistic about self-publishing. I'll talk fantasy in particular, since we're here on MS. Just looking at the successes, since the infinite number of failures would be hard to study, it's... more of a long term thing than a short term one. You make more money off of each copy, but unless you make it big, it can take years to sell the same number of copies (hell, even if you make it 'big', you're still not selling as many copies as comparatively 'big' traditionally published authors). It's profitable, but with maybe one exception, it's much more long term and dependent on how _many _books you publish. Most of the fantasy authors I've seen who've sold more than 100,000 copies of their books had at least 7 books, some of them up to 20 books.

Also, if you look at the few breakthrough successes of fantasy self-publishing, they're pretty much _all_ YA supernatural romance novels, plus a couple of medieval fantasy, dragon-fighting epics. Which is fine. I don't have any problem with those subgenres. But it's literally the exact same thing as what traditional publishers are doing. Nothing that makes it big in self-publishing is any different from what makes it big in traditional publishing. Except that the covers are about 60% more likely to use the Papyrus font.

I guess my point is... it's not _exactly _some vast new, untapped market. It's the same market, just with better long term prospects for unknown writers.


----------



## Telcontar (May 31, 2012)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> I look at it this way, if someones writing is good enough to be read, then wouldn't it also be good enough that a publisher would buy it?



As it turns out... no. Large publishers have so much overhead they will only 'take a chance' on something they think they can sell a LOT of. Even on most of those, they're wrong. So they don't take a chance on much. That means if a book is very strong, but only likely to appeal to a small market, they won't pick it up. Similar problem for smaller publishers, though to a lesser extent. 




Lord Darkstorm said:


> I don't want to wade through the sea of rubbish to find something good to read.



In my opinion, this is still the biggest problem facing us (us both as "the reading public" and "self-publishers"). "Filtering Systems" for self-published material still need work. Reviews aren't reliable until there are several hundred of them (by then the spread usually shows the 'truth' of the matter to those willing to read them) and not a lot of books get that many. These systems are improving though. I think reviewing sites and blogs will be gathering a lot of clout in the near future.

Personally, I decided to start self-publishing when I realized that the industry was changing in a big way. I was also reading a lot of horror stories about rights reversion and such, and seeing the numbers on self-publishing vis a vis sales/income. If the work is good and you are patient, I think self-publishing has become the better deal unless you get a great smaller publisher behind you (or a nice fat advance!).

But of course, to each their own. It is a time of change, after all. Nobody has any idea how it'll shape up in the end.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 31, 2012)

I think self-published novels need their own Sundance Film Festival or Humble Indie Bundle. Every other form of media - music, video games, movies - has an incredibly successful and appreciated indie scene. Movies have dozens of respected film festivals, particularly Sundance, and arguably more famous independent filmmakers than ones tied to and funded primarily by Hollywood. Video games are treated by reviewers as basically equal to their Activision and EA counterparts, and with reviewers like TotalBiscuit gaining wide viewership, lots of indie games get seen by more of the gaming community. And with music - well, independent music is constantly on the charts with Nicki Minaj and whatnot. Indie music is more successful than signed bands of any genre other than pop, really.

Part of it could be the name. "Indie rock" sounds better than self-published rock. "Indie fantasy" sounds better than self-published fantasy. Part of it could be a lack of collaboration. Self-published anthologies, with a short story from ten to twenty authors, would help a lot if we had someone to organize it. Broadly recognized indie book reviewers. Or a self-published equivalent of the Locus Awards (hell, a "Self-Published" category in Locus/Nebula/Hugo would be great).


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 31, 2012)

I tend to agree with Darkstorm. It is difficult to get picked up by even a small publisher. We all know this. If its not though, as a reader, I'm not likely to ever take a chance on it.

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


----------



## Steerpike (May 31, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


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



I don't think that's the case. As noted above, it is a business decision. You may have something very well written, but if it doesn't meet with what a publisher is looking for, or they don't think they can position themselves to sell a lot of it, then they'll pass.

The best evidence against this idea is the fact that so many well-received works are rejected so many times. A well-written novel that ends up doing well may be rejected 20 times before it lands somewhere. Suppose after the 19th rejection the author decided to self-publish that same work instead of sending it out a 20th time. There's really no good way to ascertain what will be good and what will not be without reading it, and that's the big problem facing self-published authors. There is just way too much material out there. But there are any number of reasons a book will be rejected by a publisher even if it is very well written.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 31, 2012)

Steerpike said:
			
		

> I don't think that's the case. As noted above, it is a business decision. You may have something very well written, but if it doesn't meet with what a publisher is looking for, or they don't think they can position themselves to sell a lot of it, then they'll pass.
> 
> The best evidence against this idea is the fact that so many well-received works are rejected so many times. A well-written novel that ends up doing well may be rejected 20 times before it lands somewhere. Suppose after the 19th rejection the author decided to self-publish that same work instead of sending it out a 20th time. There's really no good way to ascertain what will be good and what will not be without reading it, and that's the big problem facing self-published authors. There is just way too much material out there. But there are any number of reasons a book will be rejected by a publisher even if it is very well written.



Okay. You're still talking about a book that gets published after its 20th submission.

Self publishing has a lot of potential but as a reader it's very difficult to find any hidden gems among the crap.

Are there cases where some good works will get rejected for reasons other than the writing or story? Of course... I'll agree with you there. Business decisions, market trends, & things of this ilk can all stall a good writer from getting a break. 

There are even some instances where a self pubbed book or series is eventually picked up by a publishing house after it does well. 

These cases are the exception in my opinion. I understand & respect your view. However, I still believe that in the vast majority of cases it's just not good enough of a book.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (May 31, 2012)

> don't think that's the case. As noted above, it is a business decision. You may have something very well written, but if it doesn't meet with what a publisher is looking for, or they don't think they can position themselves to sell a lot of it, then they'll pass.



And they you submit it to another publisher, and another.  There is a nifty book called 'the first five pages', which describes the lengths a publisher goes through to find a reason to reject your story.  Honestly, I think 90% or more of what people submit isn't worth my time.  It isn't cost, it isn't the amount someone is making, but me, the reader is going to give you how many hours of my life for your story?  This is the thing many people self publishing don't think about or care about.  If we aren't writing for an audience, why bother publishing it at all?  My day job is a consultant, and I'm pretty good at that.  The only reason I am is because I understand one thing about what I do...It isn't for me.  I don't use any of the code I end up writing, and the designs I put together are created for one purpose, the person who will be using it.  While writing software and writing fiction are not the same thing, the end result is similar, both are done for someone else.  

Are publishers perfect? No, I think they do miss things, but I'd rather miss out on one good book, than have to read several chapters of a couple dozen bad books.  It's a tradeoff, someone else does the job I don't want to do, and I'm not going to go searching the net for some blog that does the same job as a publisher...but for free?  I understand a publisher, they are doing it for a living, the blog...well, I've seen lots of crappy blogs, reposting of blogs, and outright bad ones.  So, the suggestion is that the new era of finding books will be to spend days searching blogs and reviews to try and find good books...when I could go to tor or ace or one of the dozen other respectable publishing houses and see what they have spent many thankless hours sifting through pure crud to find something I might actually enjoy.

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.  New people to try and take the place of real editors by having a blog where they can bemoan the hours of slashing through the self published slush pile to find the gems.... 

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...


----------



## Steerpike (May 31, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


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



Oh, I think we agree on that. I'm just pointing out that there are good authors writing good stories that are choosing to go the self-published route (if you can make it work, financially it is advantageous). I think we'll see more and more of that in the coming years. But the real problem is, as you say, most of the self-published work simply isn't that good, and it is hard for readers to wade through it all so they use traditional publishers as gatekeepers.

Personally, I think there would be value to forming a sort of self-publishing imprint that acts as a gatekeeper.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 31, 2012)

Honestly, if you don't think a book that isn't published by a publisher is worth taking the risk, then by all that is holy just don't buy self-published stuff.

Right now there is an audience for self-published work, and those of us who are serious about growing it will either succeed or fail, but it doesn't require everyone to buy in. I think you guys are missing out, but obviously y'all don't. So... that's the way it is, we all move on, and EVERYBODY LIVES.


----------



## The Dark One (Jun 1, 2012)

Tried to post this before, but it disappeared. If it turns up twice I apologise...

Must say I agree with Darkstorm, with the proviso that there ARE good self-published books out there as well as BAD books put out by commercial publishers. Lots of them in fact.

What I will say, having trawled through these forums for a while now, is that I think many unpublished writers are a bit self-conscious and it really shows. There are quite a lot of regular posters who seem very articulate and knowledgeable when talking about writing in general and I think: that person can write. Then, when the same person puts up some of their own work, I am shocked at how stilted and uncertain it is. I can't believe it's the same writer!

Relax! Find your natural voice and write your stories with the same confidence you have when expressing your opinions.


----------



## Telcontar (Jun 1, 2012)

There really is very little need to ever 'take a chance' on a book, self-published or no. Amazon let's you read 10% of all books before you buy. Most other purchasing sites let you read samples of varying sizes as well. 

Even when I still bought physical books (which, since getting a nook, I haven't in quite a while) I almost never bought a book based entirely off the cover and back cover copy. I would read a few pages. The couple of times I decided to 'just buy' I ended up regretting it half the time. 

I can understand what Lord Darkstorm said about not wanting to wade through the drek, but there aren't actually that many people who do that. Sales of self-published books are driven primarily by the same thing sales of traditionally-published books are - word of mouth.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Jun 1, 2012)

My business model is to publish serially on the web first. Having it freely accessible lowers the risk to a certain extent because there's no financial risk, only a risk of time and sanity, and hey, it's the Internet--sanity is iffy to start with.

So!

The theory being, a core audience is built on my site and spreads out from there.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 1, 2012)

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?


----------



## Christopher Wright (Jun 1, 2012)

Well webcomics have been giving their work away for free for as long as I've been doing it (16 years) and nobody complains about the quality of those. Well, I mean, people DO complain, but it doesn't wreck the business model.

And webfiction has been on the web for longer than that--heck, that goes back to the old days when you'd dial in to a BBS and could only view text, period.

There will be people who think that because it's available for free, it's not worth anything. They aren't going to be your target market. And building an audience is a slow process--it's a long-term game, and it'll take years. This is true for almost everything these days.

But there are advantages--some of the people who read my serial stuff very cheerfully help edit what I post. Crowd-sourced editing for the win! So when I finally put it in ebook form it will be a lot cleaner than it would have been otherwise.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Jun 1, 2012)

I think free online is going to be the same as self publishing, or getting a publisher to buy it, and that is the shear volume of free content on the web.  It isn't easy to convince people to take the time and read what you put out, since even for free, the reader pays in time.  Which is why having a professional who's livelihood depends on the decisions they make is a more appealing choice for many of us in where to spend out time.  I doubt I am the only person who feels their time is far more valuable than the purchase price of a book.  How many stories are put here for someone to give crits to that don't have many people read it? And this is a site where many people come to help out other writers.

Everyone who dreams of being famous can very cheaply publish anything to the web, and even if you pay google to put you at the top of the search list, it won't guaranty people will like what you put up there.  Which puts it all back into the big huge swamp of words floating around hoping for someone to pay attention to them.

In the past few years the best books I've read were all recommended by friends, and I'm positive if one publisher hadn't picked it up, another would have.  Good stories will find their way up, I agree with that, but for it to get there, someone has to actually read it before they will recommend it.  Most of the people I know view self publishing with the same dislike I have for it.  If we want amateur writing there are thousands of place on the net to get it for free, but I've yet to get a recommendation from a friend for some incredible story on the web that I should take the time to read.  Maybe I don't have friends scouring the web for good fiction, and their friends don't either...or maybe they are like me and are willing to pay someone else to do that work for us.  ???

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.

So anyone looking for readers is really competing for the readers time, more so than their money.  Unless you can make them feel your story justifies their time, you won't likely get their money.


----------



## Ankari (Jun 1, 2012)

I have never made a decision to buy or not buy a book based on the publisher.  My steps for deciding if a story is worth my time is to look at the production quality of the cover, then read the back cover blurb, then read the first 10 pages.  If it seems like the kind of story I want to read, I buy it.

That being said, I think the problem is that all self publishers are limited to e-books.  The demand, at least for me, is generated at the bookstore than bought in e-book.  So the problem isn't that a book is self published or not, its the demand, and by extension, marketing of the book that falters for self-publishing authors.  

If you are going to do everything yourself you need to do _everything_ yourself.  You need to generate hype.  You need to get your name out there.  You need to consider making physical books and selling them at whatever venue you can find.  You need to do a lot of leg work.  

Once you get the name out, it would be easier to sell your following books without so much sweat.  People will know who you are, they will do the selling for you.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Jun 1, 2012)

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


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 1, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:
			
		

> 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 (Jun 1, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> 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 (Jun 1, 2012)

> 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 (Jun 2, 2012)

Christopher Wright said:
			
		

> Post #4:
> 
> Post #8:
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 2, 2012)

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 (Jun 2, 2012)

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 (Jun 2, 2012)

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.


----------

