I got a little rant stuck between my teeth. It’s like a caraway seed, or a beefy tendon, or a .22 shell casing (hey, fuck you, a boy’s gotta get his vitamins and minerals somehow).
Self-publishers, I’m talking to you.
And I’m talking to the pundits, too. In fact, I’m talking more to the pundits than to those actually walking the self-publishing path. Not everybody. Just a handful.
If you get a little froth on your screen, here — *hands you a squeegee* — just wipe it away.
Here, then, is the core of my message to you:
It is time to upgrade the discussion.
Let’s talk about what that means.
First, it means: we get it. Self-publishing is the path you’ve chosen and further, is a path you believe is lined with chocolate flowers and hoverboards and bags of money and the mealy bones of traditionally-published authors. Self-publishing is a proven commodity. You can stop selling the world on its power. This isn’t Amway. You don’t get a stipend every time another author decides to self-publish. You’re not squatting atop the pinnacle of a pyramid scheme. (And if you are, you should climb down. One word: hemmorhoids.)
Instead of trying to convince people to self-publish, it may in fact be time to help people self-publish well. While self-publishing may by this point be a proven path it doesn’t remain a guaranteed path. In fact it’s no such thing: I know several self-published authors out in the world with great books, kick-ass covers, and they are certainly not selling to their potential. In fact, if they continue to sell as they appear to sell then I would suggest these books would have done much better had they been published — gasp — traditionally. Succeeding in an increasingly glutted space is no easy trick. Every bubble pops. Every gold rush either reveals a limited supply or instead ends up devaluing the gold one finds there. The reality is that it’s going to become harder — note that I didn’t say impossible — to succeed in that space and so it behooves the Wise Pundits With Their Long Beards to acknowledge the realities and help authors do well.
It may then be a good time to acknowledge some of the challenges of self-publishing rather than ignoring them. Filter, for instance? Dogshit. Total dogshit. Discovering new self-published authors is left almost completely to word of mouth or to the marketing efforts of one author’s voice. The discovery of just browsing a bookstore and finding great new stuff to read is gone. Amazon offers little in recompense: browsing there is like trying to find a diamond in a dump truck full of cubic zirconiums. Marketing as a self-published author is a whole other problem: it’s tricky as hell. Half the self-publishers out there still manage to sound like Snake Oil Salesman — myself included — and so why not try to discuss the best practices? Why not talk about the way forward?
Though, actually, let’s take a step backward. Here’s another problem: maybe we should stop putting the publishing cart before the storytelling horse. In self-publishing, I see so much that focuses on sales numbers and money earned, but I see alarmingly little that devotes itself toward telling good stories. After all, that’s the point, right? Selling is, or should be, secondary. The quality of one’s writing and the power of one’s storytelling is key. It’s primary. It’s why we do this thing that we do. Any time you hear about the major self-publishers, it’s always about the sales, the percentage, the money earned. What’s rare is a comment about how good the books are. When the narrative was all about Amanda Hocking, everybody was buzzing about her numbers, but nobody I know was buzzing about how good those books were. Focus less on the delivery of the stories and more about the quality of what’s being delivered.
It’s worth too to try to foster a revolution not merely in format or distribution but also in what’s being distributed. If DIY publishing is really going to assert itself, it has to stop mimicking other publishing. Exhort authors to take risks in format and in genre. This is the time to do some really new stuff — go big, get nuts, let what’s going on inside the story be as iconoclastic and rebellious as the means by which you produced that story.
Really, though, the biggest thing that needs an upgrade is the attitude.
Traditionally-published authors are not slave labor. They’re not idiots or fools. They’ve not made “the wrong choice.” You went one way. They went another. Sometimes your paths converge; other times, they do not.
Yes, yes, I get it. Big Publishing has, in some instances, abused authors who have come into their stable. This is no secret and it is inexcusable. It’s also not a universal phenomenon. And it’s a phenomenon that a good agent — not a shitty agent, not an agent who is more in love with publishing than with authors — can help to protect against.
You do realize that some trad-pub authors are actually… happy, right? Note I didn’t say “happy in the shackles of corporate slavery,” I mean, they’re actually pleased with the way they’ve been treated. They like their agents, they like their editors, and they’re actually earning out. Hell, it’s why you see some self-published authors take traditional contracts when offered — it’s because the terms were right.
Publishing traditionally remains a choice, but many want to paint a false dichotomy as if any who travel that path are deluded slaves or desperate authors — as if self-publishing is an immediate and guaranteed path to success. It’s not. Neither is traditional publishing. You pick your choice, you take your shot, and that’s that.
Not every author is primed to go all DIY on their own asses. Many paint that self-pub choice as an easy one — the obvious choice, the “duh” choice, like you’re some kind of brain-damaged window-licker if you didn’t make it — but the reality is, publishing your own work is a hard row to hoe. It’s more work than many authors want to accept, and I don’t blame them. Covers and formatting and independent editors and marketing and hey-if-you-don’t-mind-I’m-going-to-just-suck-on-this-shotgun-lollipop-for-a-while-BOOM.
Nobody should be punished for choosing either path as long as they walk the path wisely.
Self-published authors don’t like to be dissed by the traditionally-published and the reverse remains true. Nobody’s got a lock on the truth. Nobody’s got their thumb on the pulse of the future (despite how much they love to trumpet their own oracular insight). Yes, things are changing. But the sky isn’t falling — the ground is merely shifting beneath our feet.
Same way it shifted — and continues to shift — in other creative endeavors.
The rhetoric often assumes that we’re all on our own side of the fence, but here’s a newsflash for you: there’s no goddamn fence. You’re a storyteller. I’m a storyteller. Good books are good books no matter how they got to market. You make your choice, so why not let others do the same? Further: don’t be a sanctimonious dick about it. Upgrade your attitude. Elevate the discussion. You should be proud of your own accomplishments and excited that the path you picked was the right path. Go any further than that and you do little to endear anybody toward your imaginary bullshit either/or dichotomy.
We should all be helping one another tell great stories.
Let’s talk to one another not as publishers, but as writers and storytellers.
All of us, wondrously pantsless. And probably drunk.
Amen.
*drops mic off stage, disappears in a cloud of incredulity and oompah music*
Patrick O'Duffy says:
If this post had boobs I’d marry it.
+1, would +1 again, would retweet, would nominate Chuck as Sex-Emperor.
—
Patrick
October 5, 2011 — 12:40 AM
Lee Harrison says:
Funny, I just read another’s blog just before I read this blog post. Wonder if you read the same one? I won’t name names. It’s not important. The coincidence was cool, though. I do see the big self-pub fever going on, with the emphasis on pubbing– not telling an awesome story. I don’t know if this applies to pro-writers, but amateurs and wanna-bes like me can be easily seduced with the idea of having the opportunity to get our stuff read, whether or not it is readable.
I get it. We all want to be read. We all want to make money. But the cart-before-the-horse analogy is perfect. You can’t make money until you have something to sell. You can’t get read until you have something worth reading. I think a lot of beginning self-pubbers are maybe going crazy like a kid running naked through the neighborhood, drunk with freedom and the wind between their budding pubes. Feels good, but maybe pointless if they’re not doing it for a damn good reason.
This post was awesome. I wonder, if publishing was hypothetically outlawed (no publishing, self or otherwise) would we still be writing? The writers would be. The businessmen would move on. Businessmen are in the business of making money. Writers are in the business of telling stories. The point to writing is to say something, dammit!
Note to self: bookmark this post.
October 5, 2011 — 1:02 AM
Simon Haynes says:
Self-pub is most emphatically not for everyone. If you feel your latest novel is good enough to justify setting up a whole publishing company with a side-order of marketing department then go for it – just make sure you understand the huge amount of effort involved.
On the other hand, if it’s good enough to be successful as a self-pubbed title, it’s probably good enough to land a contract with a trade publisher. In that case the author faces a choice, and it really depends what kind of a market there is for this particular title.
In my case I discovered I’d written for yet another niche market, and I decided not to spend three or four years in a fruitless hunt for a publisher. I had the funds, the skills, the time and the contacts to self-publish, and I couldn’t be happier with the finished product.
Sales don’t worry me a bit, because this is only book one in a middle-grade series which will run to five titles. That’s another reason why I self-pubbed … I’ve already had one lot of books go through the ‘open-ended series death spiral’, killed off by chainstore purchasing algorithms.
October 5, 2011 — 1:38 AM
Karen Davies says:
“Nobody should be punished for choosing either path as long as they walk the path wisely.”
Indeed.
October 5, 2011 — 6:33 AM
Lesli Muir says:
I just opened my Romance Writers magazine and the big article this month is an interview with a bunch of big agents, all who are now helping their clients self-pub. If it’s no longer an action that makes a writer inelligible for traditional pubbing, if the stigma is fading fast, there’s going to be a footrace.
I’m the first to admit I’ve been a snob about it, just because I wasn’t willing to take myself off the trad table. I thought self-pubbers were selling out the Great American Dream. But now the dream is shifting. I’m going back to sleep and making some adjustments.
October 5, 2011 — 6:45 AM
terribleminds says:
That’s exactly it, @Lesli — nobody should be a snob on either side of this debate. Great writers self-publish. Great writers go “traditional.” Some writers — like myself — do both at the same time.
@Simon — I don’t know that it’s necessarily true that “good enough” for self-pub means good enough for trad-pub. I think in many cases traditional pub (particularly the bigger publishers) are afraid to take risks and so they stay in certain comfort zones. So, where self-publishing comes in is it allows writers to tell stories outside that commercial comfort zone, both in format and in content.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 6:54 AM
Josh says:
Yeesh, talk about timely. I just posted about trying to wrangle an anthology together and, surprise surprise, I’m looking to self-pub it. I was wondering what the brain-spiders were doing in my head last night.
October 5, 2011 — 7:03 AM
Guy LeCharles Gonzalez says:
Boom. Also, Amen!
Side note: There’s a growing list of self-published authors I might have been interested in checking out but their self-righteous attitudes have been a complete turnoff. Aggressive marketing is a double-edged sword.
October 5, 2011 — 7:15 AM
terribleminds says:
Side note: There’s a growing list of self-published authors I might have been interested in checking out but their self-righteous attitudes have been a complete turnoff. Aggressive marketing is a double-edged sword.
You’re not wrong about that.
Self-righteousness and sanctimony are not attractive qualities.
That’s true from traditionally-published authors, too, though.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 7:28 AM
Josin says:
Most of the new self-publishing crop (not, all) seem to suffer from the same itchy trigger finger as those who query too early when seeking out an agent, and it’s the same issues that turn an agent off that make readers pass by a story. IT’S NOT READY TO BE OUT THERE.
That’s why there’s more emphasis on the business aspect than the craft. 1 – when the economy takes a downturn, you’d be surprised how many people turn to writing as a get rich quick scheme. (With layoffs comes free time, which can be filled by writing.) 2 – So many of the self-published novels have glaring (and easily edited) errors that talking about their quality would only highlight the problems.
I’ve said this before, but right now, self-e-publishing is a lot like the atmosphere on a fanfiction site. It’s mostly garbage, and everyone reading it knows that. Among that garbage, there are pockets of gold and diamonds that, if found, will draw readers. (I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some of the more popular fanfic authors make a serious go of self-e-publishing. They’ve got a built in audience that can be tens of thousands strong in the larger fandoms.) The trick is, someone has to find those pockets of precious material and pass the information along. It doesn’t always happen.
If you’re going to self-e-publish, then TAKE YOUR TIME. If it takes you weeks, months, or even a year to write your book, then why would you undermine all of that time and effort by rushing through the final steps of the process? If you’re going self-publish, then don’t handicap your novel by not making it the best you possibly can.
I can only imagine the nightmarish rush that will occur the first week in December where those 150,000-200,000 NaNoWriMo writers are “finished” with their books. While many wouldn’t think of letting something so raw out into the world, there are more than enough who think “end of draft” = “ready to go”. Rather than sending those out to agents, I’d wager that more of them end up on Kindle before Christmas.
(FWIW, I did a blog post about helping out with decent self-published cover composition on my blog. Covers are important; don’t blow your shot at a good first impression.)
October 5, 2011 — 7:39 AM
Simon Haynes says:
@Terribleminds:
So, where self-publishing comes in is it allows writers to tell stories outside that commercial comfort zone, both in format and in content.
That’s why I added the “it really depends what kind of a market there is for this particular title” and my comment about having written a book for yet another niche audience. I know I can put together a publishable novel, but my genre isn’t attractive to trad publishers. (I write science fiction humour, and now have an adult AND a middle-grade series on the go).
About eight years ago an editor took me aside at a con and suggested I write a fantasy trilogy if I wanted to get published. I’d sooner eat my PC, keyboard and all.
I mean, everyone was writing fantasy trilogies back then, and there are even more of them now. Why would I want to add to that impressive and competitive body of work when there’s hardly anyone writing in MY genre?
October 5, 2011 — 7:47 AM
terribleminds says:
@Simon:
I mean, everyone was writing fantasy trilogies back then, and there are even more of them now. Why would I want to add to that impressive and competitive body of work when there’s hardly anyone writing in MY genre?
A great attitude to have when going into any kind of DIY publishing endeavor.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 9:13 AM
Ashley Lorelle says:
I completely agree with you on this. Storytelling is supposed to be our mission. Writers feed culture their need for knowledge and experience. Everyone thirsts for a good story. If anything, self publishing should be all about telling a good story, simply because it gives writers the freedom to tell the story they always wanted to tell. Self published writers don’t have to be concerned with pleasing a publisher, they only need to be concerned with pleasing the reader and pleasing themselves as a storyteller. Grammar, clarity and structure are all important elements of this. But like you said in “Revenge,” there is a difference between storytellers and writers. Self-publishers should be concerned with becoming both of these things.
October 5, 2011 — 8:51 AM
margaret y. says:
I’m always veeeeery careful when I talk about my publishing path. Although I’m traditionally published in short stories, my first novel is self-pubbed. I always, always add the disclaimer that it’s not for everyone. Self pub is working great for me but if it’s not for you, that’s cool too.
I admit to reading the screechy blogs of self-publishers with an axe to grind. I can’t help it. Those screeds are just so darned compelling. It’s sort of like watching reality TV. It’s so over-the-top that it’s completely riveting.
October 5, 2011 — 8:53 AM
Christopher Gronlund says:
I started writing independent comic books in the early 90s. At the time, even the smallest publishers with some cruddy books were moving thousands of the things because a lot of people jumped on the black and white indie comics wave.
The same kinds of attitudes popped up: “Why go to an evil, horrible company [that will eat your children and pour salt on your lands] when you can do it yourself? [Even though it’s black and white and often crappy, your children will all be geniuses and your land will yield crops like they never have before!]”
There were the people who swore on their great grandmother’s bones resting on the family bible that they would NEVER sell out and work for one of the big companies if their self published books sold well. (And many promptly went to a big company when their book sold well enough to get attention.)
It was easier than ever to get into comics, but after awhile, it became harder than ever to sell comics. The kinds of books that might sell 1,000 – 2,000 issues in the early 90s when starting out were selling a few hundred; and those numbers were “good.” A book I self published with my wife typically sold around 500 copies with each release and other self publishers told us they would have loved those kinds of numbers. (Granted, there were still those selling thousands of copies from the start.)
As more people rushed in to self publish, more books flooded in and sales were watered down. And that’s fine — everybody has a right to do their thing. But even though the market was flooded with black and white books, there were still the successes claiming that everybody could repeat what they did and that we all must self publish or die! (“Never sell out!!!”)
That whole kind of thing seems to be happening with ebooks; there are those who have the attitude you mention that if you even THINK about going the traditional route, you’re somehow selling out and deserve heartache.
I’ve released some ebooks, and they’re out there and do all right in the same way the comics I self published did all right (i.e., I don’t sell a whole helluva lot, but it’s enough to remind me every couple days that people find my stuff). With my current novel, though, I’m shooting for the traditional route, and a self-publishing friend thinks it’s the most ridiculous thing, ranking right up there with turning your first born over to circus clowns.
So I’m glad you write this. What works for some may not work for others. To shout that one thing is better than another is like shouting about the merits of chocolate and peanut butter. They’re both good and work well together.
October 5, 2011 — 8:54 AM
Barry says:
(in Mortal Kombat voice) Flawless Victory.
Great post. I for one, am still waiting on this self publishing thing to take off for me (it’s been about 9 months and I have made enough earnings to keep myself with a stocked pantry of generic band Ramen).
The overly enthusiastic folks are the reason I stayed away from DIY for so long. Can’t we do something to silence this crowd? I have a novel being released in the next few days by a traditional small press publisher. A month or so later, I plan on releasing a self pubbed title. Seems to me the smartest way to go is to play both side of the field.
October 5, 2011 — 9:12 AM
Bob Mayer says:
I was talking with Mike Shatzkin on the phone the other day about a Q&A I’ll be doing at Storyworld on 2 November ref self-publishing. He said I was the first indie author he talked to that wasn’t burning my bridges, that wasn’t on one side of the fence or the other, and was open to all options.
I’ve been traditionally published, now I self-publish. Let’s face facts: I’m self-publishing mostly because I HAVE to. I wasn’t a BRAND author at a Big 6. I was a midlist author and the midlist has been murdered. Making a living like I used to: writing under four pen names, for three different publishing houses, is almost extinct.
Would I take a traditional contract? My agent started laughing when I talked to her about marketing The Jefferson Allegiance. Her point: I would make more self-publishing it, unless I got a six figure deal from a trad publisher. and the odds of the current publishing environment are slim.
I also think a lot of us indies are deluding ourselves that was can keep it up. I’ve published 20 years of backlist in a year. Of course, I’m making tons of money. But what about three years from now with no more backlist? Yes, I’m writing ahead and will have frontlist. But these backlist books won’t stay on these bestseller lists forever. I’ll be doing a blog post later this week about the future of indie authors, because I think there are some real long term issues that haven’t been discussed yet, other than to assume the slice of the pie will grow exponentially. I don’t think so. Not without some changes on the part of the indie author.
Bottom line: it’s as hard, if not harder, for a new author to succeed as an indie as it is in traditional publishing.
October 5, 2011 — 9:13 AM
terribleminds says:
@Bob: Man, I’m eager to see that post coming up. I too see future problems for the DIY crowd and I’m curious to get your take on it. I like your moderate take on things and the fact you’re not burning bridges is a good thing.
@Todd: It calls to mind a question of whether or not there should be a Writer’s Association around self-publishing. A group that has the best practices of the task at heart.
@Barry/Christopher: Right, I mean, here’s the thing. If the average advance is — and this is low — five grand on a novel, and you choose instead to self-publish that novel, I don’t know how likely you are to make that five grand. I really don’t. The way some pundits talk it’s easy-breezy-boop-and-squeezy, but I see great novels out there with killer covers and a supportive audience not earning out. That’s not to say I’m suggesting one should choose the trad-pub path, only that the idea that there’s this magical chest of money out there and you’d be a fool not to grab it — well, c’mon, that’s just not the case. Now, for those authors who have the right work, the right vibe, the best practices at heart, yeah, sure, they may very well make cash hand-over-fist. The point is merely that these are considerations, nuances, a big wide GRAY AREA that too few pundits and zealots are willing to point out.
Then again, maybe that attitude just isn’t salacious enough. It’s much sexier if self-publishing is some kind of prole-writer revolution.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 9:20 AM
Todd says:
My old roommate used to say, “Why can’t everyone just be cool?” I agree with you 100% there are A-holes on both sides of this issue. They may be well meaning but they are not making nice, and driving wedges is not the way forward.
Jami Gold ( http://jamigold.com/ ) posted somthing along these lines yesterday, people are starting to speak out. I know I could have self-pubbed my WIP months ago, but I’m working hard to get it as good as I possibly can. Whether it ends up convincing an agent or editor still remains to be seen, but I am not convinced we are anywhere near the endgame for all of the changes in publishing. I think ultimately the traditional publishers will move their percentages toward the self-pub for their ebook lines, not anywhere near 70%, but certainly above their current 25% figure.
I actually asked the VP of SFWA if they were reconsidering selfpublished authors for membership and I think I touched a chord, as she ignored the question altogether and she is normally very open about other subjects. Maybe she missed the question, I like her as an author and a teacher of writing, so I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But it still shows there is a certain prejudice out there.
I know of a few recent self-published books that were nearly flawless in execution and were entertaining and well written. They could have likely been sold to tradtional publishers, but for whatever reason weren’t. Timing is a big factor here I bet.
I know if I sell a story to an agent they are expecting more of the same from me in a reasonable amount of time, maybe a year at most. I’m not sure I can do that and keep my day job, and that is one factor that self-pub can accomodate very easily.
Great stuff as always, thanks for being there for us!
October 5, 2011 — 9:13 AM
Abby says:
I just finished reading a self-pub book written by a friend of mine. I know it was self-published for one reason, and this isn’t an issue with all self-published books, but it’s a glaring problem within the realm. His book was LOADED with errors. I don’t know who his editor was, or *if* he had one. But the job was poorly done.
What’s sad about this is that I thought he told a really gripping story. But as a sensitive reader, I couldn’t really take him seriously, because he would use the wrong word for something, or he would use, like, extra, commas, in, all, his, sentences.
I felt like he used self-publishing as a short-cut, and one that he shouldn’t have taken.
Are there businesses (besides printers) whose sole purpose it is to help self-publishers, by providing advice, editors, writing groups? We’ve got “Help-U-Sell” for people who want to sell their own homes, we should have something like that for self-publishing, so that people don’t screw themselves.
I don’t know whether I’ll try the traditional route or self-publish when my time comes, but I know that I fully intend to tell a good story first either way.
October 5, 2011 — 9:39 AM
Will Entrekin says:
Well said.
I’ve long maintained there’s a big phrase often neglected in discussions, and for my money, it’s “in some cases.”
As you mentioned in the interview you were kind enough to run supporting The Prodigal Hour, I (somehow) ended up with my foot forward in this independent thing. I never meant to. I certainly never, ever, in a million years, would have predicted when I packed my crummy car to drive 3,000 miles to USC and better writing I’d end up with some people thinking I was some sort of advocate for anything besides great fucking writing. That’s all I’ve ever cared about.
I spent five years ensuring I had my horse way out in front of my cart, but I get the sense that few others do. I’ve gotten this feeling that so much is about “building platform” and “how to market” (as usually propagated by, I’ve noticed, people with backgrounds only vaguely related to marketing). I think that’s why I don’t post as much writing on my site as others, though I know I probably should, because that seems to be what writers do nowadays; there’s just a glut of information, and so much of it is mis-information at that, that the idea of contributing anything besides good stories is somewhat dizzying.
I’ve seen people mention the “debate,” and I don’t get that any more than I really get “self-publishing.” In the interview we did, you asked if I’d consider that route, and I hope it was clear that my answer was, ultimately, “in some cases.” My God, I know The Prodigal Hour would have benefited from deeper marketing pockets, but time travel is a tough market in the first place, nevermind when you’re a debut writer nobody’s ever heard of with an epic thriller on your hands.
Truly, I think the equalization will occur as a hybridization, like yourself, Chuck. Like John Locke and his distribution deal (I think I’m a big fan of that idea, though I’d want to know the contractual terms before I committed to really discussing it. Hocking . . . I mention the quality of her writing, but then again, Twilight is absolutely demonstrative that the target market of those novels isn’t actually interested in quality writing. Same with John Locke, for that matter. I read part of one of his books, and it was a fun diversion like James Patterson if little more, but that’s okay. Huge market.
One other thing is that, just as no “self-publishing” is created equal, neither is corporate publishing. You mention terms and contracts, and I think that’s a great consideration; there’s no way either method could be absolutely bad in all cases, because it’s too broad a swath. There are too many people on either side who have diverse backgrounds.
Anyway, good post. Oh, and, in between corresponding our interview and your posting it, I encountered an indie novel I’ve been mentioning often ever since, and would feel remiss if I didn’t do so now. It’s called Inside the Outside, and it’s a novel about hippie religious cannibal communes and lesbians, written by a guy named Martin Lastrapes, and it’s one of the finest novels I’ve read. Well told and well structured (in addition to being well put together/presented, which I honestly think needs to become a given, doesn’t it?), and a perfect read of literary terror right around late October. If anyone who reads this checks it out, you won’t be disappointed, and it’s only a buck on Amazon.
October 5, 2011 — 9:42 AM
Maria Lima says:
+18 Wisdom there, Chuck! I do love how you cut through the bullshit.
October 5, 2011 — 9:48 AM
Keith says:
What I see is self-publishing turning back into traditional publishing. Those divisions of labor evolved that way for a reason, and once the Wild West period is over, the same tasks will need to be accomplished.
I think in a few years, we’ll have moved the middlemen around, and there may be some shifting in business practices to accommodate authors holding more rights than previously. That’s about it–I don’t see much more change than that in the average author’s life.
October 5, 2011 — 9:54 AM
Ann MG says:
Is this related to storytelling? –> Nobody, trad or self, talks about editing. You gotta write the book, and then get a good cover! Marketing and covers, marketing and covers! The trad guys light a candle to Maxwell Perkins and then cut the editorial staff; the self guys all talk about e-formats and covers. (Ahem, not that I harbor any resentment to graphic designers–long may they work.) At a minimum, please at least have a second set of eyes proofread the thing.
October 5, 2011 — 9:56 AM
Ron Earl Phillips says:
[redacted]
Continue the discussion, Chuck. Do with the pundits aren’t, elevate it.
October 5, 2011 — 10:48 AM
terribleminds says:
@Ron Earl —
[Redacted?] Oh, man, what fun is that?
I do try to continue it here, definitely — but I’m just one blog. Not so small anymore, but still small in comparison to some others. Be nice to the idea of an elevated rhetoric and discussion elsewhere.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 10:53 AM
Brooklyn Ann says:
Awesome post! Really, I don’t see why it’s not a viable option to do both, especially in genre fiction.
October 5, 2011 — 11:25 AM
Dennis M Lane says:
Great post!
I self-published my first collection of poetry and it is ticking along… I have to admit though, that I have not really done a major amount of publicity. The poems were written for me and not with publication in mind. The experience has sharpened my skills though, led to me setting up a domain and a website etc.
My novel (which I am polishing at the moment) is going out to traditional publishers at first. While I am waiting for responses I will be narrating it (I do narrations on the side for Librivox and StarShipSofa) while working on my next book. So, if I have no luck the traditional route, I will already have a series of audio files ready to go onto Podiobooks. The plan is then to post weekly with links to the e-book and hard-copy, so that if people like it and and just can’t wait the 10-12 weeks it will take for every chapter to be posted, they can buy it.
This is obviously not an option for everyone, narration is not easy if you want to make a professional quality sound file, but it suits me.
Basically, what I’m saying is that self-publishing is not one thing; what works for me may not work for somebody else. However, there are more opportunities/routes now and so writers can at least make a go of it, if traditional publishers are being too cautious…
The main thing (in my mind) is to get out there, become part of a community, learn from everything AND don’t promote yourself as the next big thing until you actually ARE a big thing 🙂
October 5, 2011 — 11:40 AM
Nicola Morgan says:
For some time now, I’ve been trying to think of how to say all this, but you have just done it for me and better than I could have done. This is indeed the type of conversation we should be having. Thank you. *bows in gratitude*
October 5, 2011 — 11:49 AM
Allison Brennan says:
I’ve talked about this, but not half as well as you’ve stated here. Excellent post.
October 5, 2011 — 12:07 PM
Steph says:
The oompah music was a nice touch.
October 5, 2011 — 12:24 PM
Lindsay says:
I agree that the rah-rah-self-publishing-is-the-only-way-to-go posts get tiring, but there are a gazillion blogs out there for writers that talk about everything from storytelling to character-creation to grammar. It’s up to the author to spend the time to master his or her craft before self-publishing (or querying agents). There are certainly plenty of free resources online to help with that.
October 5, 2011 — 12:30 PM
Darlene Underdahl says:
I’ve got maybe thirty years of writing in me, and the publishers/agents want young-uns they can groom and milk for sixty or seventy years. Nothing wrong with that… it’s just business… I understand.
And perhaps I wasn’t ready for prime time in their eyes, but I got another good review on Amazon (yippee).
http://www.amazon.com/Threadbare-ebook/product-reviews/B004UJDXVA/ref=sr_1_4_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
I’m working and learning every day (bows in gratitude toward Chuck).
October 5, 2011 — 12:37 PM
terribleminds says:
@Darlene:
Congrats on the good review.
Confused on one of your points, though — why would you say that publishers and agents want a writer they can have for 60-70 years? That can’t possibly be true. I sincerely doubt most writers end up with 60-year-long writing careers. I don’t think that’s a business model that can sustain itself. 🙂
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 1:30 PM
Leah Petersen says:
SUCH a great post. I especially like the point about how there’s not two sides of the fence. I do a lot to help fellow authors promote their books, most often the self-published ones. Yet you couldn’t pay me enough to self-publish. Not because I think one way or the other is “right” simply because it gives me a stress headache and palpitations just contemplating all that would be involved. I know my strengths and they aren’t even in spitting distance of graphic design and formatting and blah, blah, blah. I’m embarrassingly grateful for the team of people who handle the parts of publishing a book that don’t involve writing it. (And I know, I know, the bulk of marketing it.)
I know my book’s not out yet, but I’ve been thrilled with my experience so far. It’s been BETTER than I expected, not worse. There’s more than one way to skin a cat. It’s not like trad-pub authors are trying to put out 45’s in the age of mp3’s. There are benefits on both sides, and it’s ludicrous to think either way is right or wrong.
October 5, 2011 — 12:43 PM
R.S. Hunter says:
Thank you for this. I was getting really discouraged the other day when I kept seeing blog post after blog post by self-pubbed authors claiming how “Print is dead!” and “Self publishing is the only way to go! It’s the way of the *future*!” I like how you remind everyone that it’s not always one way or the other. Authors can do both routes and some projects are better suited for DIY and others would work better at more traditional publishing houses.
Plus nobody likes when their Twitter stream gets full of authors posting link after link saying “Buy my book.”
October 5, 2011 — 12:56 PM
Ali says:
CHUCK. Yes, damn it. This is smart and wise.
In May, I decided to self-pub a collection of poetry. It was one of the hardest thing I’ve ever done. It was a definite learning experience, and I went into it with a fraction of the knowledge I have now. For one thing, I knew that it was a hard market (poetry). It wasn’t something that was going to sell a million copies and buy me a house in Fiji. And I was okay with that.
For me, personally, the challenge was/is marketing. It’s difficult to reach people, as one person tweeting into the void. Especially if one doesn’t already have an audience-base. I’ve observed (and maybe this is wrong) that the majority of people who have the most success self-publishing are those who already have some sort of audience.
There’s no clear-cut right way. There is whatever works. And we’re all here to tell stories, as you said. I don’t care where it came from, if it’s a good story. Or a poem. Or a play. I’ve seen so many authors INSIST that their way to publishing is the right way. There comes a point where I feel like I’m watching a bad Sunday morning preacher on the local tv station. There’s often a condescension in the conversation, which makes it less of a conversation and more of a persuasion. (If that makes sense.) So, I wholeheartedly love this post.
Anyway, I’m rambling. Great post. Seriously. Thank you.
October 5, 2011 — 12:56 PM
Gareth says:
If I might Devil’s Avocado for a moment (a necessary ingredient in Devil’s Guacamole):
1) The reason you still see indie publishing folks still trying to convince is because there is still a concerted effort to dissuade, coming from the establishment. We’ve got agents like Janet Reid giving talks (and turning them into articles) about “Not Drinking The Kool-Aid” and “Wait and See”, we’ve got the Big 6 talking about self publishing being “a race to the bottom”, etc.
Given the fact that there is a continued effort by the traditional structure (not the authors so much, but the rest of it) to sell their continued relevance — and, more importantly, an effort to try to get authors to ignore *very real data* — it seems somewhat odd to be tut-tutting the folks who are countering that message.
Yes, I understand (and agree) that stridence and zealotry can be annoying. But it reminds me a bit too much of people dismissing and insulting the Occupy Wall Street folk (yes, we get it: you think they’re hippies with entitlement issues — that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a really good point.).
2) It seems to me that the reason that indie supporters aren’t talking about writing, rather than publishing is really fucking simple: They’re talking about publishing. The same way that when I do consultation for games publishers — I don’t spend a ton of time talking about game design, or layout, or art. I talk to them about publishing — production, marketing, etc. At some point, you have to tailor your message to the folks who are ready for it. The fact that people who *aren’t* ready for it also listen in isn’t the fault of the speaker.
But as somebody else pointed out above, there are TONS of sources of writing advice. So criticizing the sources of publishing advice for not also talking about writing advice as well is, again, a bit odd.
October 5, 2011 — 2:00 PM
terribleminds says:
@Gareth —
1) Ehhh. It always befuddles me that people talk about “the establishment” in terms of publishing. I understand that it’s awfully romantic — Us Versus Them, The Rebellion Versus The Empire! — but, c’mon. Anybody who’s had even a few toes waggling in those waters sees it’s not some monolithic entity. Like I said, some individual publishers have performed some reprehensible tasks in terms of contracts and schedules and pay-outs and percentages. I’ve heard some horror stories, and honestly, I think more authors should *share* those horror stories. But publishers are not universally on the same page, and I do not see some concerted propaganda effort to poo-poo self-publishing.
Further, not *every* publisher is a Big Six publisher. Between the Big Six and self-publishing you will see a rather wide gamut of publishing possibilities beyond the “I Do Everything Myself” approach. Shit, my experiences with Angry Robot have been great. They’re forward-thinking and I’m pleased as punch at everything that’s gone on so far. Problem is, when you approach publishing as Publishing, as a Giant Beast, you lose the sense of nuance. Or, put differently, you lose reality to easy rhetoric.
A sidenote, too: The Kool-Aid comment seems to have gotten a lot of folks incensed, and understandably. At the same time, I don’t think it’s entirely awful advice. As noted: I know authors who self-published according to all the right parameters and if they had perhaps published traditionally, they might’ve gotten better deals. On the other hand, the reverse is true: some traditionally-published books might’ve earned a lot more bank as self-published releases. The point is, one shouldn’t go blindly into either choice: both are valid, but both have advantages and disadvantages.
Further, if one doesn’t like the Kool-Aid comparison, it behooves the zealots not to act like cult leaders. I get tired of the same trotted out self-pub mottos and cliches and blah blah blah. It’s really quite tiring.
(Another sidenote: poor, poor Kool-Aid. Such a bad rap. It was Flavor-Aid at Jonestown, not Kool-Aid.)
The real problem though isn’t that self-publishing pundits are against the establishment — y’know, that’s fine. I think it’s a little naive and one-sided, but hey, whatever works. The truly tiring line is the one that lumps traditionally-published authors in with that mix, as if anybody who signs a traditional contract is somehow supping from the venomous mind-control teats of the Big Six Publishing Pig. We’re not slaves, we’re not idiots, we’re not deluded, we’re not “leaving money on the table.”
2) The point isn’t that writing and storytelling advice don’t exist elsewhere. The point is that so much of the most vocal portions of the self-publishing community *never* seem interested in that. It’s always about the money, always about the numbers, always about the marketing. Further, it doesn’t seem to draw the connection that traditional authors and self-published authors alike are — outside the choice of distribution — the same. Writers and storytellers all.
Plus, it’s feels a bit short-sighted not to tie the power of story into the power of self-publishing: if we are to assume that Big Six takes few risks and publishes the same stuff, then the strength of self-publishing is in taking risks, in telling new stories in new ways, in playing with form and format, in telling pre-defined genres and story templates to lay down and go fuck themselves. But I don’t see much of that talk. I mostly see the same tired Rah-Rah-Rah crap trotted out again and again. At the best, it’s tiring. At the worst, misleading.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 2:25 PM
terribleminds says:
I should also add, too — the continued fight against “the establishment” is really pretty silly. Here’s why.
First, it’s done. The war is over. Self-publishers? Exist! And they’re doing fine. We’ve seen enough success that we don’t need the propaganda. Like I said, transition from “You Should Self-Publish” to “Here’s How To Self-Publish Well And Tackle Future Challenges.”
Second, self-publishing successfully all-but-requires an establishment *far bigger* than the Big Six publishers — Amazon. Maybe B&N, but really, Amazon. Amazon gives a better deal and is more author-friendly, no doubt — but one shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that they’re not still placing the destiny of their works in the hands of another, *different* 800-lb gorilla.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 2:30 PM
Gareth says:
Just to be clear — I was using lower-case-e ‘establishment’ in its actual sense, not in the capital-E “Establishment”-as-synonymous with “The Man” sense. I used it because you seem to bristle at the use of “traditional.” Although, on re-reading, maybe that’s not the case and I was just being over-careful. (and, as a result, picked a word which muddied my intent)
…and actually, that re-read, coupled with your comments, makes me wonder if you’re not attributing an entire movement of zealots out of the singular example of Konrath. Which is, I think, a mistake. He’s the loudest, yes — and if you read the comments on his posts he certainly has a flood of people “yes, this”-ing him.
But… ah… (looks at comments above). Jus’ sayin’.
October 5, 2011 — 3:07 PM
terribleminds says:
@Gareth:
I do not bristle at the use of the word “traditional.” It’s not the perfect word, but few words are.
This post is not squarely aimed at Konrath. I can think of a handful of other self-pub pundits who fall into this trap, and a lot of smaller blogger- or forum-types, too.
And I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say, re: the comments here. I’m not concerned about the comments on the posts of the types I’m talking about. I’m talking about the content of the posts.
Do you care to clarify that point? Are you suggesting the commenters here are cultists and that I am their cult leader? Say so, if that’s what you think — be forthright and confident in your language, and don’t hide behind it.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 3:21 PM
terribleminds says:
Since we’re talking, I should point out some folks I generally do enjoy reading — David Gaughran, Bob Mayer — for advice that is both philosophical and practical in terms of self-publishing.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 3:28 PM
Gareth says:
I’m actually suggesting the opposite — that vocal support in comments to an outspoken blogger with a very particular posting style isn’t a cult at all, and it would be a mistake to take it as such.
Some people look at Konrath and his commentators as evidence of zealotry — I see it as pretty much what I see here: an engaging blogger with a clear point of view, who draws comments that agree with and appreciate that point of view.
That’s all.
October 5, 2011 — 3:31 PM
Gareth says:
I’ve not read Gaughran or Mayer — have links?
October 5, 2011 — 3:32 PM
terribleminds says:
Gaughran: http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/
Mayer: http://writeitforward.wordpress.com/
Re: Konrath —
I used to be something of a fan of his. I still respect what he’s accomplished but the tone of his blog has since lost me. And I say that as a self-published author — it’s not that he doesn’t have good information there, but the way it’s presented and the language in which it’s couched turns me off. Horses for courses, of course, but that’s in part what this post is about: in my perfect world, the tone will shift, as will some of the information presented.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 3:39 PM
Andi Marquette says:
Thanks, Chuck. REALLY appreciate this post.
October 5, 2011 — 3:34 PM
Ron Earl Phillips says:
I went on a rant about who pundits really serve. I figured people really didn’t need that thrown into the conversation.
October 5, 2011 — 5:04 PM
terribleminds says:
For some reason, JA Konrath responded, but over at a different post:
http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2011/09/29/in-which-i-am-interviewed-by-sfx-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-68261
I’ll offer a very brief response to Joe here —
The problem is that you see your choice as “the smarter choice,” rather than “a different choice with its own pluses and minuses.” That black-and-white-no-shades-of-gray sentiment is where I get lost, and frankly, I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that self-publishing is universally the smarter choice, just as I don’t buy that traditional publishing is universally the smarter choice. I personally don’t think that missing a big chunk of the story and the nuance within is a help to authors. Obviously, your mileage varies there.
Re: Double Dead. Double Dead was work-for-hire from Abaddon. I got paid a freelance rate, not an advance, to write it. (And while I won’t discuss my rate, I’m happy that the book more than earned out for me.) I’ve had no interaction with S&S, who handles sales for Abaddon who is in turn owned by, I believe, Rebellion. My experiences with Abaddon and Angry Robot have been top notch.
As for being a sanctimonious dick, I’ll cop to that. But I don’t recall calling you one.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 7:45 PM
J.A. Konrath says:
The problem is that you see your choice as “the smarter choice,” rather than “a different choice with its own pluses and minuses.”
I’ve been showing in great detail, for the past 29 months, why self-pubbing is a smarter choice. The only possible plus to legacy publishing is if you get “change your life money” and take it never expecting another dime.
Prior to that, I have four years of posts detailing my experiences with legacy publishing.
It’s no contest. Self-pubbing is the clear victor.
That black-and-white-no-shades-of-gray sentiment is where I get lost, and frankly, I don’t buy it.
You don’t buy it, because you haven’t experienced it yet for yourself. If you worked with a legacy publisher for a few books, you’d probably be singing a different tune.
Every writer has different goals, but other than that six figure lottery win I can’t think of a single advantage to landing a legacy deal, or worse, having your agent try for a legacy deal. I often tease Blake Crouch about his novel RUN. He let his agent try to sell it for six months before finally self-publishing. Since self-pubbing, he’s sold over 60,000 copies. Had he published it sooner, that number would no doubt be much higher.
As for work for hire–I’ve done it, but I’d never do it again. Owning the IP is what makes money in the long run. I was just interviewed by some newspaper reporter, and she couldn’t figure out the appeal of self-pubbing. I explained that she was getting a flat rate for her story, and once that check was cashed she would never see anymore money from that work. In the same amount of time it took her to write her article, she could have written a short story that would earn money for the rest of her life. Work for hire doesn’t make much sense these days.
You make your choice, so why not let others do the same? Further: don’t be a sanctimonious dick about it. Upgrade your attitude.
I resemble that remark, so I assumed you were talking about me.
But attitude shouldn’t mean much if the message is clear and correct. Mine is.
Are there choices? Sure. Always. Life is filled with choices. But having a choice doesn’t mean the choices are equal. Some decisions are better than others. You can drink a beer, or hit yourself in the face with a bat.
You just blogged that some people are happy hitting themselves in the face, and criticizing those who say that hitting yourself in the face is a dumb idea.
Unfair comparison?
Land a few Big 6 contracts and deal with those morons for ten years. It’s a lot less painful to hit yourself in the face.
October 5, 2011 — 8:16 PM
terribleminds says:
@Joe:
I don’t have anything to add because — well, there’s really no wiggle room here.
For the record, I love work-for-hire. I’m happy to do it, and it feeds my family.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 9:30 PM
tambo says:
Chuck, I sold three fantasy novels to a major publisher a few years back. One earned out and won an award, another was nominated for a different award, and although the sales for two are rather ‘meh’, I’ve CONSISTENTLY been pleased with my editor, publisher, and agent. Was my experience perfect? No, but that’s more my fault than theirs – long story, very boring – and as I move from fantasy into mainstream thrillers, I intend to remain a traditionally published novelist.
That said, I am finding my current novel an incredibly tough sell. My agent loves it, and every single editor so far has gushed about me, my writing, and the book itself. They’d pounce on it but for this one teensy problem (of course, no two editors agree on what that problem is). One – my original publisher – admitted that the *real* problem is the print marketplace. It’s contracting. Publishers are hesitant, even more so than before. They don’t know what’s going to happen, or how to make this all work, any more than we writers do.
That’s life, that’s the biz. And my kick-ass novel will find its perfect home. My agent believes in it, I believe in it, and it’ll happen.
We all have to make our own choices for our own projects, and you’re right. There’s no reason to be a douche about it.
October 5, 2011 — 9:02 PM
Christopher Gronlund says:
This is just awesome, Chuck:
The problem is that you see your choice as “the smarter choice,” rather than “a different choice with its own pluses and minuses.” That black-and-white-no-shades-of-gray sentiment is where I get lost, and frankly, I don’t buy it.
I don’t care if the discussion is about self publishing vs. different publishing, Ford or Chevy, or PC vs. Apple, I think the smarter choice is what matters. I self published my first novel as an ebook after–years ago–shopping it around traditionally. My second novel sits on my hard drive, and it makes the most sense to go the ebook route if I want to release it. But my most recent book is a commercial, kind of upmarket thing. It’s not genre fiction, which, when looking at successful self published ebooks, are the books that do best. I hear people talk about Konrath, Amanda Hocking, John Locke, Barry Eisler, Lee Goldberg and so many other writers deserving of a wider read and I’m beyond happy that they have an audience — just like how it was cool to see Terry Moore and so many other self published comic book artists make it back in the 90s to steer it back to the point I made earlier in the day.
But show me the sort of mainstream/upmarket/literary huge success that runs along the same lines as Amanda Hocking’s success.
For certain kinds of books, it still makes sense to go the traditional route. My mom reads ebooks, but she doesn’t scour the Web like a genre fan for new stuff…she buys mainstream books by people she knows, and if she goes with something new, it’s a discovery at a bookstore–not online by hearing about a new ebook self pubber trying to break out.
I know the answer for many is, “Then BE that break out upmarket writer!” I won’t say it can’t be done, but there’s still more opportunity going the traditional route for some; as you mentioned, the smarter choice.
Konrath is a cool guy from what I’ve seen. He has every right to boast; he’s done some cool things and he’s inspired people like Dave Sim and other comic creators who were just as known — maybe even more known for their zeal for self published comics as they were doing their books. He has an edge; you have an edge. I have never seen you as a sanctimonious dick, and I haven’t read enough of Konrath’s blog to see where he’s a dick, either. You’re both passionate, and whether it’s saying, “Hey, tradition publishing is the way to go!” or “Self publish or die!” the industry is a better place with people willing to fight for what they love.
I hope you and Konrath still have a rabid following in the decades to come, no matter what new turns publishing takes along the way…
October 5, 2011 — 9:09 PM
Warren Bull says:
Why do there have be sides? I don’t even see the fence. I’ve done both. I expect to continue to do both. Traditional publishing has lead to e-books and now a self-published e-book of mine has attracted a traditional publisher. So you don’t have to choose either. You can chose both and I believe that’s becoming more common.
I agree the self-publishers should talk up the writing side more.
October 5, 2011 — 9:32 PM
J.A. Konrath says:
well, there’s really no wiggle room here.
It’s not about wiggle-room. It’s about using logic and facts to refute my argument.
I just got my latest royalty statement from my legacy books, and banked about $22k.
If I owned those books, priced them as I saw fit, and was making 70% instead of 17.5%, I’d have made over $150k.
Want a reason why I rant? There’s one right there. Missing out on $128K can make one a bit bitchy.
For the record, I love work-for-hire. I’m happy to do it, and it feeds my family.
Ack.
Chuck, I like your blog. And I like your writing. And I don’t say either of those things to too many people.
We stand where we sit, and a lot of what we do (me included) is defend our actions. My blog is all about defending what I’ve done, and showing writers what is possible.
But here’s the thing: I’ve done it all. I’ve walked all the walks. I’ve got the battle scars. I preach things based on not only my experience, but what I’ve observed knowing hundreds of writers, dozens of bestselling authors, countless booksellers and fans.
I admit when I’m wrong. I change my mind. I remain open to opposing arguments.
Work for hire is indeed a safe way to feed your family. So is working a 9-to-5 job. Nothing shameful about that. Good on you for getting work, and you got paid for the work you did. I’m sure the book rocks socks. No BS.
But work for hire is a one-time payment. Work for yourself is money forever. You surely see the difference. We have an unprecedented opportunity available to us, as writers, with self-pubbing. The talented ones, like you, have a HUGE advantage. You can play it safe, defend the fragile status-quo, be grateful for the crumbs the legacy publishers offer. Or you can succeed on your own terms.
Think about how long it took to write Double Dead. Think about how much you got paid. Then reread what I said about about Blake Crouch and Run. He’s made over $100k in half a year on ONE BOOK. And he’ll continue earning on that book, AS LONG AS HE LIVES.
I’ve also got two particular titles that have earned more than Run, called Trapped and Endurance. They were originally written for a Big 6 publisher. They rejected Trapped (even though I rewrote the whole thing based on editorial suggestions) and demanded changes to Endurance. I refused, and self-pubbed both books.
These were part of a deal I had for Afraid, the novel they released. With the combined hardcover, trade paper, mass market paper, and ebook sales, in USA, UK, and Oz, Afrais has made me $50k in two years.
Those two books they rejected have made me $250k in a year.
And you really want to keep signing deals with legacy publishers? You really want ot give them equal time, and steer people their way? You really think I’m a dick for repeating this point over and over to newbies?
YOU, Chuck, are a newbie, and you should be listening.
You don’t want to? Cool. You want to criticize me, who busted his ass trying to make legacy work for him? (500 rejections, signing at 1200 bookstores in 42 states) That’s cool. And you want to start a debate and bow out? That’s cool, too.
Regrets, however, aren’t cool. Even if they are part of a learning curve.
Bob Mayer thought I was an idiot. Then he gave it a go. Now he’s making more than I am, and he was man enough to admit he was wrong.
We’ll see if you’re man enough when the time comes.
October 5, 2011 — 10:14 PM
terribleminds says:
Joe:
Listen to yourself, and ask: why would I want to interact with you anymore?
Well done on all your success. Seriously. I don’t think you’re an idiot.
But really, I’m done. There’s nothing more to be said here, as you’ve got it all figured out.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 10:39 PM
J.A. Konrath says:
For the record, I’ve had over 600 blog entries on A Newbie’s Guide To Publishing. Again, that’s “Publishing” not “Writing Craft.”
And yet, over 60 of my posts are dedicated to craft. About 10%. The storytelling horse still gets a carrot now and then, even though that isn’t the focus of my blog.
October 5, 2011 — 10:22 PM
Paige Snyder says:
“And you really want to keep signing deals with legacy publishers? You really want ot give them equal time, and steer people their way? You really think I’m a dick for repeating this point over and over to newbies?”
I did not once see Chuck say that you personally should keep signing deals with legacy publishers. From what I’ve gathered, traditional pub can give you something aside from just money. You network, you discover people, you have a team working with you to get the best work out there. Perhaps such is not always the case, there is surely more red tape involved than self-publishing and some bad people looking to take advantage.
Sure you can be angry about the money-loss you took on a business endeavor, but please stop hitting the kids because you’re mad about work (metaphorically, of course). Maybe a healthier course would be a redirection. You shouldn’t have to defend the choices you’ve made in life; you should celebrate the accomplishments of the past and present and look towards self-improvement on the future. And remember, what works for you might not work so well for someone else; or perhaps they want the challenge of taking on a more difficult route.
October 5, 2011 — 10:36 PM
Paige Snyder says:
*edit:
Upon re-re-re-reading the quoted words above, I realize you didn’t say “you really want *me* to….” but the rest of my statement still stands
October 5, 2011 — 10:40 PM
Alan Baxter says:
@ J A Konrath – A fundamental point missing from your argument is this: You only have had the success you’ve had with self-publishing BECAUSE of the rep and following you developed through legacy publishing. If you’d started cold, as previously unpublished self-pubbers do, your story would be a lot different.
October 5, 2011 — 10:41 PM
Sparky says:
@J.A. Konrath
Sir, Allow me first to admit I am, in every way possible, a complete neophyte to the ideas of self publishing and traditional routes. I claim to know nothing of the matter. That being said: while I find Wendig to be clever and helpful on a number of topics you strike as rather trollish. Now I’m sure that isn’t intentional, and you are right to say you need not impress anyone, but the hard line against any ideal other than your own disturbs me greatly. You also come across as a bit greedy really, holding some thought of riches above all else. I ask you to consider perhaps a different tack, other benefits of self publishing beyond a payout.
Again I am sure that most if not all of this is just the troubles of communicating tone in the comments of a blog, but as it is I am not more leery of your texts in particular and much of self publishing overall. I get enough trolls on the rest of the web, I would hate to endure more of them writing my books.
October 5, 2011 — 10:42 PM
terribleminds says:
To finish up before I go to bed, this is pretty emblematic of what my post was speaking to in the first place: the tone and attitude one takes in this discussion is meaningful, and here it comes across as nothing less than smug. I take no issue with self-publishing and, clearly, do it myself. I take issue with the attitude.
And this has that in spades.
— c.
October 5, 2011 — 10:59 PM
Pete W. says:
When I teach my students about publishing, this is lesson #1:
Be Polite.
That’s all. They usually wait for some kind of clarification, but I just shrug. If you don’t get what that entails, I don’t know what else to say. I’m not adding this as some sort of passive-aggressive snarky comment, either. It’s not aimed at anyone. It’s just what occurred to me as I read this post and subsequent conversation.
October 5, 2011 — 11:12 PM