What is a "published author?"

[Steerpike]

I saw a thread on this in another forum and thought the discussion was interesting to see. Particularly the strong feeling among many that to be considered a "published author" meant being published through a traditional submission/acceptance system, where an editor has reviewed and accepted the work (whether paid or not).

My reply in that thread:

I have sold short stories to traditional, paying markets. I suppose that qualifies me to say I'm a 'published author,' although I never use that term.

I have a self-published book I wrote for my daughter and put on Amazon. It has made just over $1000 since I published it. For many, that does not, in and of itself, qualify me to say I'm a published author. I've had a couple of agents interested in the book, and if I were ever to pursue that interest with them, and if the book were to be traditionally published, then suddenly I'm a published author before the traditional publisher sells even one copy. Something doesn't make sense there.

If it comes down to being paid, then for my children's book alone I've been paid more than someone publishing in a prestigious literary journal for contributors copies.

What about self-published authors who are out-selling traditionally-published mid-list authors? Yes, they exist. They're not published authors, but the poorer performing mid-list authors are?

The unifying theme seems to be that it doesn't matter whether you're being paid, it matters who is paying you. It has to be an editor and not just the unwashed masses (never mind the fact that the traditional editor is relying on those same unwashed masses, ultimately, for sales and to send you a royalty check).

I have to concur with the statements above that it is more a sort of elitism than any rational distinction that has to do with whether one is being paid for one's writing. You have to go through the proper ritual of submission, rejection, submission, ultimate acceptance, and so on. Your work is blessed by an appropriate editor somewhere and then you're initiated into the hallowed ranks of published author. The problem is, that distinction no longer makes sense in the current publishing landscape in terms of being a 'published author.' At least, it makes no sense when you're trying to use an economic justification of being paid for one's writing. It only makes sense if you're using more of an elitist, "old boys club" approach to the issue.


What says the forum here?

 

[BWFoster78]

Steerpike,

Interesting topic. For the most part, I agree with what you wrote, but I have some questions.

1. Does the term "published author" mean an author who has a work that has been published through any means or does it specifically refer to an author who is published through a publisher? It seems like most of the argument is due to definition. If we were arguing a term such as "successful author," I don't think the "other side" would have much of a leg to stand on. In this case, I think an argument can be made that the definition of "published author" includes only traditionally published authors.

2. If the term "published author" is to have any meaning whatsoever (and maybe it doesn't anymore or shouldn't), shouldn't there be some standard? In the old days, if someone vanity published a book and sold it to a couple of his friends, I don't think he was, or should have been, considered a published author. Is that different today with a lot of self published authors putting out complete dreck? How are they really any different than someone who vanity published back then? I think some distinction should be made between self published writers who put out a product that finds a market versus those who put out complete dreck.

 

[Chilari]

I think we need to make a distinction between published author and professional author. A published author is anyone who has published, by any official means (traditional, self-published ebook, magazine, etc), any story. I don't know if I'd counting posting a story on your own blog to be publishing. A professional author is one who earns a significant income from published works - at least a few hundred dollars a month. More authors are published than are professional; some writers who are professional authors require additional income from another source to survive, but their income from books sales has to be more than pocket change for me to consider them professional.

Many self-publishers are not professional; most traditional publishers, thanks to earning an advance, are.

 

[deilaitha]

I always assumed published just meant that you have had your work appear in a public. I wouldn't think of your own personal blog constituting being published, but humanties journals and the like do. Some blogs focus on publishing other writer's work, and if you were published there I'd say that it counts as "published." It's a very fluid term.

Self publishing, in the sense that you print your own books either at kinkos or office depot or your own printer, is kind of along the same nebulous lines as a personal blog. However, other self-publishing services (such as createspace), I think would count. I'm not really sure why I make that distinction, but it's more intuitive than anything else.

 

[Svrtnsse]

The unifying theme seems to be that it doesn't matter whether you're being paid, it matters who is paying you. It has to be an editor and not just the unwashed masses (never mind the fact that the traditional editor is relying on those same unwashed masses, ultimately, for sales and to send you a royalty check).

I have to concur with the statements above that it is more a sort of elitism than any rational distinction that has to do with whether one is being paid for one's writing. [/FONT]

I think this is central.
It's not so much about the form of publishing, but more about how someone else has gone over your work and decided that it's good enough for them to invest their own time and money into it. Acceptance, if you like.

 

[Steerpike]

A professional author is one who earns a significant income from published works - at least a few hundred dollars a month.

Interestingly, to be considered a professional writer by the SFWA, you only need three paid sales to pro-rate short story markets, and if that's all you had you would be making considerably less than a few hundred dollars a month.

 

[CupofJoe]

I have a rough line about being a "published author"... someone else publishes your work... they thought it was good enough to add to their reputation.
When I get a short story chosen for an anthology by an editor I respect would be when I call myself a "published author".

 

[Steerpike]

I have a rough line about being a "published author"... someone else publishes your work... they thought it was good enough to add to their reputation.
When I get a short story chosen for an anthology by an editor I respect would be when I call myself a "published author".

So it is sort of a validation, or 'club' sort of thing.

It raises an interesting question: if you sell one story to an editor you respect for an anthology, you get to use the term 'published author,' but if a self-published author on Amazon is making 50K a year and fully supporting herself from her writing, she doesn't? I understand the distinction you're making but it can lead to some weird results.

 

[GeekDavid]

So it is sort of a validation, or 'club' sort of thing.

It raises an interesting question: if you sell one story to an editor you respect for an anthology, you get to use the term 'published author,' but if a self-published author on Amazon is making 50K a year and fully supporting herself from her writing, she doesn't? I understand the distinction you're making but it can lead to some weird results.

The term "chef" is applied to anyone that earns their living by cooking, whether it's for themselves (caterer or their own restaurant) or for someone else (private chef or chef in someone else's restaurant).

If chefs don't discriminate because of who is paying them, why should authors?

 

[Svrtnsse]

So it is sort of a validation, or 'club' sort of thing.

It raises an interesting question: if you sell one story to an editor you respect for an anthology, you get to use the term 'published author,' but if a self-published author on Amazon is making 50K a year and fully supporting herself from her writing, she doesn't? I understand the distinction you're making but it can lead to some weird results.

I think this is one of those cases where old habit and common opinion do not go hand in hand with logic and reason. The term has been dragged along with the times and while it's still referring to the same thing it always has, the words that make it up means something else these days.

 

[GeekDavid]

I think this is one of those cases where old habit and common opinion do not go hand in hand with logic and reason. The term has been dragged along with the times and while it's still referring to the same thing it always has, the words that make it up means something else these days.

I, personally, think it's a case of those that made money under the old pre-ebook system closing ranks to shut the newcomers out. The old clique thing all over again.

 

[Steerpike]

I, personally, think it's a case of those that made money under the old pre-ebook system closing ranks to shut the newcomers out. The old clique thing all over again.

Yeah. Except you see a lot of new and/or unpublished writers in writing forums who make the same distinction.

 

[GeekDavid]

Yeah. Except you see a lot of new and/or unpublished writers in writing forums who make the same distinction.

There are always those that want to be part of the Old Boys' Club and who attempt to join by imitating the existing members.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

The problem is, with the changing landscape in literature, "published" just doesn't mean anything anymore.

We all know what it used to mean. That's the elitist bit you've referred to, the one groups like SFWA cling to with a white-knuckled grasp. Problem is, many of their members fall short of the image "published" is meant to convey, while self-published authors, making a living as a professional writers come far closer. So, I agree with Chilari, it's "professional" that now carries meaning.

Considering the new trend, where traditional houses recruit from the ranks of self-pubbers and not rely solely on discovery, I find the elitist mentality is losing its grip. Personally, I could care less about inclusion in groups like SFWA. What good does membership do, for anything other than a false bragging point, if the group cannot change with the times?

A failure to adapt will mean only that their meaning, as an organization, will diminish. Traditional houses are being forced to alter their business models, after all. How can these elitist groups, whose very criteria for inclusion comes from those publishing houses, not change as well? Certainly, they aren't required to, but a refusal to adapt diminishes the legitimacy of their requirements.

 

[GeekDavid]

The problem is, with the changing landscape in literature, "published" just doesn't mean anything anymore.

We all know what it used to mean. That's the elitist bit you've referred to, the one groups like SFWA cling to with a white-knuckled grasp. Problem is, many of there members fall short of the image "published" is meant to convey, while self-published authors, making a living as a professional writers come far closer. So, I agree with Chilari, it's "professional" that now carries meaning.

Considering the new trend, where traditional houses recruit from the ranks of self-pubbers and not rely solely on discovery, I find the elitist mentality is losing its grip. Personally, I could care less about inclusion in groups like SFWA. What good does membership do, for anything other than a false bragging point, if the group cannot change with the times?

A failure to adapt will mean only that their meaning, as an organization, will diminish. Traditional houses are being forced to alter their business models, after all. How can these elitist groups, whose very criteria for inclusion comes from those publishing houses, not change as well? Certainly, they aren't required to, but a refusal to adapt diminishes the legitimacy of their requirements.

I've toyed with the idea of starting an SFWA-type organization specifically for self-published authors of science fiction and fantasy. I'm just not sure if there's enough of the big names willing to join it.

 

[Steerpike]

I've toyed with the idea of starting an SFWA-type organization specifically for self-published authors of science fiction and fantasy. I'm just not sure if there's enough of the big names willing to join it.

Question would be what value can be offered to members.

 

[GeekDavid]

Question would be what value can be offered to members.

One could also ask that of SFWA.

 

[Steerpike]

One could also ask that of SFWA.

They provide a number of things, actually, including access to marketing, help with contracts and/or disputes, and even an emergency medical fund (apparently).

 

[GeekDavid]

They provide a number of things, actually, including access to marketing, help with contracts and/or disputes, and even an emergency medical fund (apparently).

Well, if we get a sufficient number of lawyer members (ahem), we could offer similar assistance. Same goes for marketing and so on.

Also, a sense of inclusion to offset not being able to join SFWA because of their rules.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

They have programs dedicated to assist with marketing.

They offer assistance in resolving contract disputes.

They offer emergency medical fund programs.

Private forums for "professionals only". A group of peers.

Bah! Ninja'd!

On a related note, their list of esteemed members is four people deep.... That tells me writers who are concerned with their writing careers see little value in their community.