Forgive me if I sound a little exasperated.
Hugh Howey wrote a thing at Salon and it’s a very interesting article and you should go read it. It is, in my probably-not-that-humble opinion, a fascinating mix of artistic wisdom and business fantasy where anecdotal evidence once more becomes artisanal data and we are told that because you can meet 100 very successful self-published authors that is now officially the way to go and oh, by the way, it’s totally the future of all publishing ever.
I distrust fortune-tellers, to be honest.
Mostly because it’s made-up horseshit.
Further, you can’t just canvass a handful of successful people and immediately declare that their success draws the map to the One Shining Path Up Authornuts Mountain. If I talk to 20 traditionally-published bestselling thriller authors, they’re going to say, “Write a thriller, get published by the Big Five.” If I talk to 100 self-published successes, they’re going to say, “Self-publish everything.” If I talk to 100 self-published failures, they’re going to say, “Fuck that noise, I lost my shirt.” If I talk to 100 dentists, they’re going to say, “You should be a dentist, dumb-ass, NOW LET ME EAT YOUR TEETH,” then he’ll eat my teeth because my dentist is actually some kind of teeth-eating monster, but whatever, that’s a story for another time.
Here’s the thing: Howey’s by all reports a very nice guy. And obviously smart as hell. And more than a little lucky. His article is well-written and buried in there is a strong cry to bolster craft and for you, the writer, to write first and foremost for the love of writing.
To which I say: fuck. yeah.
But, he also says stuff like:
But what is becoming more apparent with every passing day is that you have a better chance of paying a bill or two through self-publishing than you do through any other means of publication.
Italics his, not mine.
I self-publish. I do pretty well at it with a number of books (and for those asking, I will have another writing book out within the next three-four months, alongside a book of recipes and essays and Search Term Bingo called Revelations of the Bacon Angel).
I traditionally-publish. I do pretty well at that, too, I think, and actually over the last two years have well-eclipsed anything I made self-publishing.
Just the same, I don’t think one is better than the other.
So, here’s my response, which you already know because I’ve said it a hundred times before but fuck it, I’m nothing if not a fan of reiterating my own bleating and barfing:
Hey, self-publishing is cool!
Traditional publishing is cool, too!
Both have strengths. And also weaknesses.
Not everybody is fit to be their own publisher.
Not everyone is fit to deal with a traditional publisher.
Something-something Kickstarter! And Amazon! And literary agents! And small presses! And big presses! And this genre and that genre! And Wattpad and Book Country and Goodreads and Bookish and Twitter and iBooks and Smashwords and Simon & Schuster and Barnes & Noble and blargh and flargh and zippity-motherfucking-doo-dah!
The reason we don’t put all our eggs in one basket is because broken goddamn eggs!
No one way exists!
Try lots of shit!
Leverage one thing against another thing!
Don’t join cults!
Self-publishing isn’t The Future, it’s One Possible Future!
Educate and inspire instead of segregating and pointing fingers!
Beware easy answers!
This isn’t a war! Nobody has to win!
Write your ass off!
Art harder!
Exclamation points!
Words!
Nap!
*zzzz*
Dean Jameson (@JustDeanJameson) says:
I want there to be a Hugh Howey/Chuck Wendig throw-down. I will fund their appearance fees through Indiegogo.
April 4, 2013 — 2:57 PM
danielrdavis says:
Be like Celebrity Death Match, but Chuck’s beard will be the deciding factor in the end. It’ll jump off like a rabid Tribble and eat Hugh’s face off, ending the match in a splatter of claymation blood and gore.
April 4, 2013 — 3:17 PM
Dean Jameson (@JustDeanJameson) says:
Someone who does such things needs to make said claymation happen. Needs. To. Happen.
April 4, 2013 — 7:10 PM
crow365 says:
That or, at the very least, someone with some art skillz (the “z” indicates youth and hipness) will have to draw the “Gorging of the Tribble”.
April 4, 2013 — 9:47 PM
Marjorie McAtee says:
I’m on board with the napping. Great post as always.
April 4, 2013 — 2:59 PM
deanfortythree says:
YES. This. I hate that he treats it like it has to be one or the other. Worse, that because it worked for HIM, it’s the only way. He also offers no one advice on HOW to get there beyond just “leave it in a field” like yesterday.
My longer $0.02 on the subject: http://deanfortythree.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/self-publishing-is-not-the-story/
April 4, 2013 — 3:00 PM
Dean Jameson (@JustDeanJameson) says:
I don’t think it’s fair to say that Hugh is claiming that “because it worked for HIM, it’s the only way.” He makes a point of telling the stories of the very average people who are making decent money self-publishing.
April 4, 2013 — 3:11 PM
terribleminds says:
Suggesting it’s the story, it’s the future of publishing, it’s the “better” way, is pretty damn close to One True Wayism, though.
— c.
April 4, 2013 — 3:12 PM
deanfortythree says:
It sure sounds that way when he says what’s up there in block quotes. His eternal lapdogging of Amazon is the same way- he excludes a lot, and only holds up others who have made _money_ at it. As I say, why does he never champion good stories that are yet undiscovered? If he cared so much about writing, why does he use money as his metric? To be sure, it’s A metric, but why does all his advice lead to increasing that slush pile and not the quality of the works being produced? Everything I read from him is very self-serving.
April 4, 2013 — 3:16 PM
Ian Rose says:
I’m not a big fan of this post from him, but I actually think that’s taking it a bit far. He has been very supportive of a lot of other writers, including new and undiscovered ones. He is a bit of an absolutist in this article; don’t answer that by being an absolutist about him.
April 4, 2013 — 3:32 PM
Dean Jameson (@JustDeanJameson) says:
This was basically the point I was trying to make. I don’t think traditional publishing is dead. Quite frankly, I don’t think Hugh Howey thinks that, or he wouldn’t have made the recent deal he did with a traditional publisher.
April 4, 2013 — 7:12 PM
Travis Weston (@TWestonWriter) says:
I don’t see him as saying it’s one or the other, more that he feels its smarter to start writing self-publishing, while honing your craft, retaining all your rights, and just writing more and more, until you gain the attention of traditional publishers. As a business model, this might not be a bad idea. Say I see a new author out and decide to check his book out. It’s traditionally published. I like it, I want more, so I Google him and find that he has 20 other books I’d never seen on Amazon. So I buy one. This happens to be a self published book. Now that author has made two sales, a small possible royalty from the traditional sale, and the larger royalty from the self-pub sale.
At the end of the day, it’s up to the writer to decide which path to go, or to take both, but in this article I feel he’s saying use self-pub as a springboard, because the potential sales will always be there down the road.
April 5, 2013 — 10:24 AM
Mr Urban Spaceman says:
Well said. I think you got a little barf on my shoes, but that’s okay because when you win that Campbell Award and become super famous, I’m going to sell the shoes on ebay, barf and all, and make a lot of money. I’ll cut you in for 15% if you’ll autograph them for me, pre-sale.
In the twisted and depraved corners of my mind, I enjoy likening the road to publishing as the journey to Mount Doom. Sure, you can go over the mountain, but you’ll get avalanched on, and shown up by the nancy elf. Or you could go under the mountain, but you’ll probably have to battle orcs, and somebody might die when you have to fight against an ancient evil. Then you can either go stay with the elves for a while or skip that part entirely. You can go on your lonesome, you can take your BFF with you (along with the creepy little hanger-on who won’t go away because he wants your precioussss) or you can head out in a group of like-minded companions (just beware the human man who tries to fondle you in your sleep under the guise of wanting aforementioned preciousss).
But you gotta decide the road, and the companions, for yourself, because to do otherwise might be living the dream, but it’ll be somebody else’s dream. And you’ll probably get shivved for your trouble.
April 4, 2013 — 3:07 PM
S.M. Carrière says:
I think I’ve fallen in love with you, sir. This gets my vote for comment of the day!
April 4, 2013 — 4:11 PM
Mr Urban Spaceman says:
The twisted and depraved corners of my mind thank you, sir/madam/neutral-gendered entity. We would also like to request you don’t fondle us in our sleep – we sleep with a knife under our pillow specifically to guard against that potential occurrence, and you have been duly warned!
Cheers.
April 4, 2013 — 4:18 PM
Imelda Evans says:
I’m a girl and I liked it too. Can I fondle you in your sleep? (Bearing in mind that’s not an offer, necessarily. Think of it as scientific curiosity.)
April 4, 2013 — 5:55 PM
Mr Urban Spaceman says:
No, but you could accompany me to the fires of Mount Doom if you like. It will be especially useful if you’re handy with a bow, can walk on snow and talk to trees!
April 5, 2013 — 2:18 AM
Molly Dugger Brennan says:
Look when you’re standing outside the castle, the more gates you can find to enter, the better. You can choose which gate is right. You can play one gatekeeper off the other. All require work. All require diligence. Not a single gate has a fairy godmother to make it all easier. Take the best gate for you, no matter what it looks like. Oh and that bacon angel thingie, I am so down with that.
April 4, 2013 — 3:08 PM
Ian Rose says:
I love Hugh and his books. I met him briefly at a reading and can confirm that he is as nice as everyone says he is. But absolutes have a great tendency to be wrong, and this is no different. The future of publishing is about options, and self publishing deserves a huge amount of credit for helping to create those options, even within traditional pub. Choices good. Restrictions bad.
April 4, 2013 — 3:08 PM
terribleminds says:
That’s it exactly. Self-publishers should be wary of the traditional system falling down as is often desired — because then the eggs are all in the baskets of big distributors only and should Amazon, say, decide to mess with the numbers and rates, self-publishing will suddenly look a whole lot different when no publishers are there to balance it out.
More options, good. Self-publishing balances out trad-pub. And the reverse can be true, too.
April 4, 2013 — 3:15 PM
Axl T says:
Yeah, you need the Combined Arms approach
April 4, 2013 — 8:24 PM
crow365 says:
Da: always have back-up plans in case shit gets hairy.
Because shit, inevitably, gets hairy.
April 4, 2013 — 9:50 PM
mightymur says:
Gin.
April 4, 2013 — 3:09 PM
deanfortythree says:
Save some for me. Onions, not olives.
April 4, 2013 — 3:12 PM
Susan Spann says:
All that, and no interrobangs?!? Chuck, you’re losing your touch….
Unless the interrobang was stolen by punctuation ninjas. (They’re fond of interrobangs, you know – the mystic shurikens of the punctu-ninja world.)
OK, now you see why I don’t comment here every time I read. All the snarks get loose and run amok. Now I’ll spend the rest of the day rounding them up again.
Seriously, though – props to you. I totally agree with this. Diversification. Improvement of craft. NO ONE WAY INTO MORDOR! Yes, yes, yes.
(P.S. Sent you an email. Hope it didn’t go to spam.)
April 4, 2013 — 3:10 PM
terribleminds says:
Can you do an interrobang on a keyboard? IS THERE MAGIC I HAVE BEEN MISSING?
I do not see an email. When did you send it?
*runs to search spam*
— c.
April 4, 2013 — 3:13 PM
mightymur says:
Also, thank you for a poop noise post. I feel vindicated.
April 4, 2013 — 3:10 PM
terribleminds says:
I did it for you. FOR YOU.
April 4, 2013 — 3:11 PM
jim heskett says:
self-publishing very well might be “the future”, but not as it is now. Too hard to get noticed with all the muck. Just ask any app developer how to get traction in the app store. Self publishing needs to change to better allow the best stuff to rise to the top, and then it can replace traditional publishing.
April 4, 2013 — 3:14 PM
Melinda says:
Hi Chuck,
Love it as always! Your no bullshit style is a breath of fresh air!
April 4, 2013 — 3:20 PM
Clarence Young says:
One Shining Path Up Authornuts Mountain. I have found religion. Will become the hobo with a word processor on the way to that glorious destination. Thank you, sir.
April 4, 2013 — 3:21 PM
Ruth Dupre says:
The more ways you can pull it off, the better. Why not? Diversify, diversify… I’m getting published in a foreign country in a language I don’t know. No one mentions that option but it’s working for me. (It’s scary, too. My mind is Idiom Central.)
More poop noises, please.
April 4, 2013 — 3:22 PM
mznetta says:
In the very beginning of my freelance writing career I realized immediately you do not put all your eggs in the same basket. Because then one would break, leaking all kinds of gross shit on the other eggs, or if you only had one egg in the basket and it broke, all you had was a disgusting yolked basket and you’d starve to death.
The only one true answer is…BACON. Or something like that. Perhaps common sense?
I read Hugh’s article and smiled, nodded my head and said YOU AIN’T THE BOSS OF ME.
I write. I edit. I speak. I do what I want. And I love every minute of it.
BACON.
April 4, 2013 — 3:27 PM
Tribi (@tribid) says:
Nice. Well said.
April 4, 2013 — 3:30 PM
francespauli says:
The good news is we have lots of choices. The bad news is we have lots of choices.
Words. comment. cheering.
kudos to Bacon.
April 4, 2013 — 3:39 PM
Aaron Dembski-Bowden says:
Why are all of the loudest self-publishing advocates so fiercely strident that self-publishing is the only way, and so reluctant to offer any actual evidence of sales and figures to back any of it up?
If they want to make their point, they need to start fucking proving it. End this stupid parade of yelling into the storm and smugly weeping that the gout-sickened aristowriters in their ivory towers don’t believe them.
Make people believe. That’s what *proof* is for. It shouldn’t be a dirty word in something like this..
April 4, 2013 — 3:45 PM
danielrdavis says:
Exactly. If you want me to believe your words, tell me how you did it. Tell me how you succeeded and earned so much and I’ll try it and see if I can do it too. Don’t try to sell me a book that maybe is how you did it or maybe the last ten years of your grocery lists coupled with, “Plus, I’m a self-publish success and you can DO IT TOO!”
April 4, 2013 — 4:06 PM
M.A. says:
I too wish there was more data on both sides of the issue, but there just doesn’t seem to be much. It’s just everybody’s personal experiences. I saw something the other day where a pro writer claimed there were only about half a dozen self-publishing success stories, and somebody linked to this in response: http://selfpublishingsuccessstories.blogspot.com/
I don’t think many of them are saying self-publishing is the only way (Howey himself has a contract with one of the big publishers.) They are arguing that their own personal logic makes it appear the most favorable route, but without data on either side that is kind of all your left with – your own or somebody else’s judgment and evaluation of the logic.
Getting a book contract with a reputable publisher is not that easy of a deal, even if you have good book (Stephen King’s Carrie got rejected 33 times or so, and Harry Potter got rejected 12 times and received about a $3,000 advance when accepted), so I do see the logic of pursuing all avenues. How many potential Stephen Kings out there just gave up? There is just not enough data available on either side of the issue.
April 4, 2013 — 4:56 PM
TheGuyWhoStrums says:
The terrible thing is, you can find that proof of SP income all over the internetz. Complete with sales, figures and even cut-and-paste Amazon statements. If you don’t believe they’re making anything, prepare to be blown away.
Now we just need trade publishers to publicly release all of THEIR sales and figures, including what they’re actually paying their authors.
Just to be fair and all. Yanno. (*insert rolling-eyes smilie*)
But all that flashy income still doesn’t mean self-publishing is the only way. It isn’t.
April 4, 2013 — 7:30 PM
Aaron Dembski-Bowden says:
On the contrary. I know several self-publishing folks who are making money. I also know many more who aren’t. My objection is purely to the obfuscation going on by the people that cry the loudest about how self-publishing is the Greater Good, and traditional publishing is for suckers. And that’s a battlecry sung long and loud in this stupid little war. Chuck’s dealt with it (and fought about it) himself a bunch of times, when the war came to his doorstep.
The onus of proof isn’t on trade publishers. It’s on the people claiming they’re making all the gold coins in their defiant war against The System. If they want to be taken more seriously by those folks in the ivory tower, they need to make a better case.
I see a lot of those claims saying what they want is more successful authors following their route.
Okay, fine. A totally viable tactic, and something a lot of traditionally published authors are already interested in learning more about. So try to convince those authors (and future authors) with arguments that matter to someone working a craft, rather than with heavy-handed and proofless claims that there’s gold at the end of the rainbow.
April 5, 2013 — 12:26 PM
Andrew Ashling says:
@Aaron Dembski-Bowden
I know several self-publishing folks who are making money. I also know many more who aren’t.
I know the vast majority of those who try the trade-route never get published at all and lose money with every submission they make.
A lot of the arguments in both the original post and the reactions boil down to this: Hugh Howey is an exceptional exception but trade will make everyone into Stephen King or at least Stepheny Meyer.
April 5, 2013 — 2:07 PM
rebeccadouglass says:
It took me an awful long way through the article to get past the part where I was yelling “The plural of ‘anecdote’ is NOT ‘data’!”. I think Chuck summed it up nicely. The worst thing about the whole Indie move: the reader has to sort through the slush pile. No one does it for us.
April 4, 2013 — 3:46 PM
Noel says:
“The plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data'” is my new favorite phrase.
April 4, 2013 — 6:55 PM
centrepaul says:
“The plural of ‘anecdote’ is NOT ‘data’!”
Want on a t-shirt!
April 8, 2013 — 1:59 PM
Cat York says:
I saw the wisdom tooth conversation earlier and I really had to wonder what the frig dentists want with those things.
“Don’t join a cult” is always solid advice.
April 4, 2013 — 3:58 PM
Wulfie says:
Yeah. blargh! Also, I want the Art Harder t-shirt.
April 4, 2013 — 3:58 PM
MichelleB says:
You forgot one…
and chocolate!
🙂
April 4, 2013 — 4:08 PM
Hugh Howey says:
I found myself nodding and agreeing with your entire rebuttal. To be honest, I didn’t come up with the title of the piece. Salon did. I called it “The Story of Self-Publishing.” It was crafted in response to several Salon pieces that went up recently denigrating self-publishing. I felt the other side of the debate deserved to be aired, and the editors at Salon agreed with me.
The point of the story isn’t that everyone should self-publish. The point is that for all the coverage the outliers get, it’s the midlist authors who are really the story of self-publishing. It’s the people who would never get published otherwise and are now making hundreds or thousands of dollars a month.
I tried to remove myself from the story, both explicitly (the opening statement) and implicitly (I don’t concentrate on my own success). What I would love to see is more coverage of the people doing well with publishing their own works. My contention is that it’s easier to make a career through self-publishing than traditional publishing. I think time will bear this out. But I support writing for all reasons and publishing by any means. I publish with Random House, Simon & Schuster, 25 foreign publishers, anthologies, and established SF magazines. But if I’m giving someone advice on how to begin their career, it’s self-publishing all the way. Yes, my bias informs that opinion. But it was also my opinion before I enjoyed any success.
April 4, 2013 — 4:11 PM
terribleminds says:
@Hugh —
Thanks for swinging by to comment!
I definitely agree that self-published authors of some success deserve some press and attention — and we further need to stop acting like there’s still a stink clinging to the entire discipline of self-publishing.
I don’t know that it’s easier to make a career through self-publishing, though — seems to be both paths are hard in their own ways and for some, self-publishing is going to be the answer. And there’s also a lot of authors who will really never be the types to want to handle the duties that come part and parcel with being a publisher in addition to being a writer. To me, an author beginning their career are going to have different experiences depending on how they write, what their time is like, what kind of genre they prefer — y’know, really, a whole host of questions that maybe move them toward one path or another.
So, I think that’s where my concern comes in — a One Size Fits All designation is dangerous. We have a lot of options available to us, in part thanks to self-publishing, and it seems a folly not to explore all of them, even at the beginning of an author’s career.
To echo again: thanks for popping by to say some words.
— c.
April 4, 2013 — 4:17 PM
Hugh Howey says:
I read that as “pooping by.” Must’ve been the headline up there. 🙂
April 4, 2013 — 4:23 PM
terribleminds says:
Believe me, I would not be thanking you if you were pooping around here. I think that’s my job? I’m not sure, I’ll have to check my job description. 🙂
April 4, 2013 — 4:29 PM
danielrdavis says:
Again, as in another post here recently, I will reiterate, a lot of authors nowadays that I talk to are mentioning taking multiple paths. I know mid-listers that are self-pubbing things that will garner more interest in their traditional pubbed works, which can work equally well the other way. Once upon a time, in a publishing contract far, far away, there was an unwritten rule where nom de plume and the real name never the twain shall meet, but that’s relaxing a bit, based on more modern sales practices. Die hards follow their favorite author across genres, so I see no reason, other than those holdouts to the old ways, why you can’t pub in multiple methods and mention, “by the way, if you like my works, and you like awesome, action-packed sci-fi romance, maybe you can give D.J. Davis a try.” In the end, it’s all about putting yourself out there coupled with strategic advertising.
April 4, 2013 — 6:53 PM
christophergronlund says:
What I’ve liked when seeing Hugh talk about self publishing is it’s more mainstream coverage that’s not like, “This person thumbed their nose at the system and made a million dollars!!!” It’s more, “Hey, this worked for me in a big way, but a lot of others are making decent supplemental income from self publishing.” I also like that he found an agent who tried something different and a mainstream publisher that agreed to it.
Right now, the “Self publish or die!/Traditional or die!” thing reminds me of comics in the early and mid 90s when there was a self publishing boom. A lot of people found some level of success and lines were drawn. In the end, it seemed those who did their own thing that meant a lot to them, but still worked with others and larger companies, had the right attitude. It’s cool that publishing e-books at least seems to be going that way, with people just wanting to get good stuff out there no matter who publishes it.
April 4, 2013 — 4:17 PM
Morgen Rich says:
First, let me say that I agree with the philosophy that publishing options RULE. I also agree that Mr. Howey does employ a dualistic comparison (trad vs self-publishing initially) that is not particularly helpful to a discussion that is mere speculation about the direction publishing is heading. He admits he’s speculating, but he also gives some examples, describes what HE sees in his inbox, and acknowledges that those most likely to send him email ARE self-published authors (so there’s already a bias, and he admits as much). Despite these limitations and Mr. Howey’s own bias (we are ALL biased, and I believe Mr. Howey is an advocate of “the more the merrier”), he does bring up a very important observation about the delayed rewards of self-publishing (readers discover a digital book years later, and it provides an unexpected, unsplit, financial reward for the author).
Right after I read Howey’s article and your blog post, I looked at my Twitter feed to see that fantasy author Brian Rathbone had tweeted “Fantasy Author @BrianRathbone My boys @ChrisSnelgrove and @CollinEarl are tearing up the Amazon charts with HARMONICS #27! http://amzn.to/VofhFc #SciFi”
Harmonics was published in 2010 by its two authors (Chris Snelgrove and Collin Earl) under their own imprint name of SilverStone Books. My point is that two and a half years later, their book IS at #27 in the Free Kindle list. I don’t know what place it held prior to becoming free and can’t predict with any degree of certainty what place it will hold in the future if the price went up. However, unless they’ve cut a deal with someone that I am not aware of, the authors will make 100% of whatever royalties are due them if even a single book sells for a single cent from this point forward, and I believe THAT is the skeleton of what Howey says in the Salon article. His arguments in favor of keeping digital rights and self-publishing digitally before giving prints rights to a traditional publisher are just flesh and fur that cover the skeleton. Howey’s persistence with the Wool novellas when he wasn’t a “known quantity” are evidence that he’s in this “business” for the long haul, and the skeleton of his argument reflects that.
Harmonics is also a good example of changes in the industry and an acknowledgment that self-publishing ain’t for the faint of heart. Snelgrove and Earl now have joined with a third author (Nicholas Taylor) to form DarkFire Productions, a company whose services I’d classify as production and marketing via technology. Given that Snelgrove and Earl (I’m too lazy at the moment to look up info on Taylor) started out as self-publishers, the direction they’ve headed may speak volumes about self-publishing. You do some self-publishing, and you acknowledge that it’s not for everyone. I do the same, and I agree with you. Charles Stross heartily says that self-publishing would cut too deeply into his core skill, which is writing. Snelgrove and Earl have built a business on the belief that there’s a market of authors who feel the same way. The difference is that Stross has chosen traditional publishers to do what DarkFire wants to do for authors who choose self-publishing but want to or must farm out some aspects of the process. They’re not publishers. They offer production and marketing services. DarkFire flat out states that they created the company because they realized self-publishing IS a tough row to hoe, one that is filled with a lot of opportunities to learn from one’s mistakes. It’s also a row that a lot of us hoers (sorry, could NOT resist that pun) might not want to or are not equipped to take. AND HERE I WILL INSERT A DISCLAIMER: I know nothing about DarkFire, its pricing, its owners, or its ethics. I AM NOT ADVOCATING ANYONE USE THEIR SERVICES.
Personally, I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion as it unfolds and am excited to be watching this piece of history unfold, as it’s filled with so many variations on a theme (not all of which are particularly appealing and may be detrimental, but that’s another discussion).
Keep up the chatter, Chuck! *hands you a hankie for the spittle*
April 4, 2013 — 4:39 PM
meg cox says:
So brilliant, funny, and correct. As someone who used to cover publishing for the Wall Street Journal and who has had multiple books published by major publishers, and self-published one so far, I believe this man speaks truth.
April 4, 2013 — 4:41 PM
JR Tomlin says:
It would have been a better response if you had replied to what Hugh actually said instead of what you decided he was saying. Where did Hugh ever say never to “put all your eggs in one basket”? For someone who has his print rights with a very major publisher as Hugh does, that would be a rather odd thing to say you know.
I absolutely agree with him that it is easier for an author to start making a living at writing through self publishing, since every single author I personally know who managed that feat did so through self-publishing. (So did I so I have an obvious bias) Your argument that there are all these horrid tasks a SP author must do that a trad author doesn’t baffles me. What exactly are they since most of us contract out covers, editing and can easily contract out formatting if we want to. Marketing? Well, we’re expected to do that either way.
Of course, it is your right not to believe us but remember we experienced coming up through the “indie experience” although Hugh is more successful than I am by about a power of 100. But for a writer, I do pretty damn good financially in an industry where trad authors who make a living at it are huge rarities.
I’m not saying everyone should self-publish. For someone who is determined that only being published by S&S will make them happy, that is absolutely how they should go although I know a lot of indie authors who end up with publishing houses, the redoubtable Mr. Howey being one of them.
It is something to think about and research, not make a knee jerk decision. And the big point, don’t believe what is a lot of tripe you read from a lot of anti-indie articles.
April 4, 2013 — 5:01 PM
terribleminds says:
JR:
I personally started in freelancing.
That worked really well for me.
It also clearly works really well for lots of folks I know.
Which means that’s the smart way to begin and is how I’d advocate entering publishing, right?
Well, no. Because every author is different. Every way forward is going to be different. Every author brings different strengths to the table and is willing and interested in doing XYZ as opposed to ABC.
Be advised: I didn’t say anything negative about self-publishing. I like self-publishing. Relax a little.
— c.
April 4, 2013 — 5:36 PM
Dean Jameson (@JustDeanJameson) says:
I think where some are getting a bit defensive is that your post came off (at least somewhat) as attacking Hugh for the article. I personally think the article was great, and that it had more nuance than you credit to it.
April 4, 2013 — 7:22 PM
terribleminds says:
I felt I was complimentary to him. I even said I liked some parts of the article. If you think it was great — more power to you. I pulled that quote and you can see his comments here and I was responding to those things. Not asking you agree, but I wasn’t attacking.
I think the defensiveness on demonstration is a little knee-jerk, honestly.
— c.
April 4, 2013 — 7:27 PM
Dean Jameson (@JustDeanJameson) says:
It probably IS a little “knee-jerk.” People tend to defend authors they love, and to find insult where none was intended. I was just trying to shine a little light on why some might have felt defensive on behalf of Hugh after an initial reading of your post.
April 5, 2013 — 12:52 PM
Michael J. Sullivan says:
“I absolutely agree with him that it is easier for an author to start making a living at writing through self publishing, since every single author I personally know who managed that feat did so through self-publishing. ”
I know exactly what you mean as I’ve also seen this, and know way too many traditionally published authors who make next to nothing. As Hugh mentioned in his article the “story” isn’t him and Hocking and Locke because they are all outliers. It is the you and me, and those hundreds of names that most people don’t know.
What I want, more than anything else, is for authors to educate yourself on BOTH options and weigh the pros and cons. If I had signed the contract that was initially provided to me, it could have been a career killer. I wouldn’t sign it, and thanks to self-publishing, I didn’t have to. The objectionable clauses were de-fanged…I signed…and I’m happy with both routes. But there are j people who are making a “bad choice” by going traditional just like there are people who make a bad choice by going self-publishing. Learn BOTH the decide what is best for YOU…and remember that times may change and what was good for you a year ago, may not be the right path today or tomorrow.
May 5, 2013 — 11:07 AM
Mathew Reuther (@Mathew_Reuther) says:
The Salon article by Howie is a direct response to the half dozen Salon articles that decry self-pub as worthless. Apparently missing the point is easy to do, since so many of you managed it.
Hugh has a tradpub deal, in case you forgot. It GOES WITHOUT SAYING that there’s room to tradpub still.
But as KKR said TODAY: taking less than 6 figures is probably not smart.
How many of you here have taken less than that and still feel awesome about yourselves?
How many will in twenty years when you still don’t have your rights back?
*shrug*
All this blog post illustrates is that Chuck is fully capable of ranting. We all knew that already. Hugh doesn’t think tradpub is a bad idea. He just thinks that selfpub is the best default.
But if you’d prefer to go query and submit for the next few years and pray that your novel gets picked up, do it. In the meantime, others will have already made money . . . and maybe even made waves big enough to get a deal without submitting a single letter . . .
April 4, 2013 — 5:02 PM
terribleminds says:
I’ve taken six figures. And less than six figures. And I’m very happy. Which is the point. Writers can be happy doing all kinds of things and consider success in myriad ways via myriad directions.
Or, to use your language, I do in fact feel pretty awesome about myself, thanks.
— c.
April 4, 2013 — 5:38 PM
Mathew Reuther (@Mathew_Reuther) says:
That’s OK, Chuck, I figured you did. 😉
The point I’m trying to make is that what happened here in many ways is that people looked at it as Hugh endorsing selfpub as the one true path . . . yourself included. (Lo, and there stood bullshit mountain . . .) When what he actually did was try to give a counterpoint to the plethora of articles Salon in specific has run decrying selfpub as a bad idea.
Yes, tradpub is still viable. Again, considering the source of the article it goes without saying. But seeing numbers from real selfpub stories (and he noted that there were a huge number of other respondents…this is hardly the grand total of people he found making headway) provides counterbalance to the “I lost my shirt” stuff that Salon is fond of posting.
Of course, for some people who need validation more than money, tradpub is probably better. In that case selfpubbing and getting money for a shink to deal with the self esteem issues is my suggestion . . . but whatever. 😉
April 4, 2013 — 5:50 PM
Peter Winkler says:
Most professionally published writers will never be lucky enough to be offered $100,000 by anyone. I’d like to know how many such offers Ms. Rusch has received in the last five years. None, I suspect.
April 4, 2013 — 6:03 PM
Mathew Reuther (@Mathew_Reuther) says:
You’re welcome to go read the post she made which contains the reasoning behind the figure. Considering advances are designed to never be earned out, every deal one takes should account for what kind of lifetime (since in any typical deal rights never revert, not even to your estate after you die), short term, and intangible benefits you’re getting/giving up.
Outside of that “professionally published” is not a synonym for “traditionally published” . . .
April 4, 2013 — 6:11 PM
Morgen Rich says:
Damn you, Hugh Howey, for dropping in while I was writing that lengthy post! I do not poop publicly, and that is Chuck’s job anyway, but I do curse like a Romany. So, curse thee to three generations that the Howey clan should misread “popping” as “pooping!” *hisses and spits on the ground* 😀
April 4, 2013 — 5:09 PM
Sandra Lindsey says:
I don’t put all my eggs in one basket because the basket only holds a dozen eggs. I can fit another two dozen on the egg-skelter, and each of my pasta bowls* will hold about 15 – 20. But that’s still not enough when my chickens are laying 3 dozen eggs a week and I don’t even really like eggs except in cakes and egg-fried rice (not together. That would be euw).
So there you have it: basket, skelter, bowls and boxes-to-sell-to-colleagues. Neatly demonstrating the necessity of diversification. Or something.
*style of bowl, not bowl made from pasta
April 4, 2013 — 5:24 PM
disastrouscreations says:
Wait a damn second! How can you say, “no one way exists” and “try lots of shit” only to follow it with “don’t join cults!” Have you tried cult publishing? Is it fair to judge if you haven’t? Cults might possibly be the gateway to literary success. Crap, just thought of a story…I’m out.
April 4, 2013 — 5:43 PM
Martyn V. Halm says:
I actually read into the Salon article all that Hugh came to rectify in his comment here, but Chuck makes a solid point for putting your eggs in several PeliCases with styrofoam.
I don’t get what eggs (fragile and quick to expire) have to do with ebooks (virtually unbreakable and everlasting), except that both are hard to catch when thrown over a long distance.
I have two books out and at selling one per day, I’m hardly raking in the cash, but that doesn’t stop me from writing book number three. And, to be fair, I only started publishing in September. I’m following Chuck’s advice though, and sell my books through every available retailer who will carry them. Amazon, Kobo, iTunes, B&N (through Draft2Digital, because neither Barnes nor Noble wants to do anything with foreign authors, despite me calling one of my characters Nookie), and a host of vague German and Spanish retailers through XinXii.
But, as I said, despite having 4-star and 5-star reviews, my monthly income won’t even pay for two days of groceries. Still, having (ninety or so) people waiting with bated breath on the third book in the Amsterdam Assassin Series is still better than sending out query letters that get thrown out because I don’t live in the United States, or waiting eight months for a publisher to make up their mind and reject my manuscript.
Would I like a traditional publishing deal? Maybe. Maybe not. I’m writing, like Hugh says, for the love of writing. I’ve been writing for twenty years, I won’t stop just because I barely register between the 350,000 books published annually. As it is, despite my inefficient promotional efforts, people are discovering my book, writing reviews and sending me feedback. Which is better than writing in a vacuum, like I’ve been doing before September 2012.
April 4, 2013 — 6:20 PM
Dina Keratsis says:
“This isn’t a war!” That sums it all up. Room for plenty and no one way to get wherever you want to go. Great post, as usual.
April 4, 2013 — 6:41 PM
TheGuyWhoStrums says:
This is my question. Why do we need to know how much money indie publishers are making?
I’m not sure who benefits from knowing this. Can anyone answer me that?
Anyone who is interested in publishing a book knows about self-publishing online. People who want to be trade published want to be trade published – whether for the ‘prestige’ or other benefits. And readers don’t care how much indies are making.
Yes, indie writers like to hear stories of others making cash, but that’s about the only benefit.
Disclosure: I am an indie author. (Yes, I’m taking medication for that…)
I like the guy (Hugh Howey) – he seems well-intended. I’m just having difficulty finding the value in promoting the amount of money indies are making. What and who is this promotion for, exactly? And – it’s true that MOST indies are barely making anything at all from their efforts.
Knowing full well that some indie writers have written a slew of books and have stuck at it (it takes time to write a slew of books!) have not found readership or income from their writing. Which makes it difficult to hear this from Hugh Howey: “Those who take their writing seriously, who publish more than one title a year and do this year after year, are finding real success with their art. They are earning hundreds or thousands of dollars a month.”
The other thing is – if you’re spreading the word like this, then you’re most probably going to attract lots of people interested purely for the lure of making some passive income. But as I said, most will struggle to make a buck – AND none of us know where the eBook industry is headed. It’s not like trade publishing, where they pretty much knew how many books they were going to put out each year. We’re now swamped with books. Drowning in books. We may get to the point where it’s practically impossible to get your book seen, let alone read.
For those, at the top now, this doesn’t matter – the success they’re finding now will feed on itself. For those at the bottom, struggling to be seen, the mountains of books piling in every day make things so much harder.
It seems to me that a far better promotion would be of the QUALITY being produced in indie books. Lots of indie books rival or outshine trade published books. Wouldn’t that be worth knowing? Wouldn’t that raise the status of indie books in the eyes of the most important people of all – readers?!
And wouldn’t that help indies sell more?
Ok, so some of you just spat your juice all over the computer screen at the thought of indies producing quality books. But suck it up. It’s the awful truth.
Hey and most indie musicians make nothin’ at all. Just like indie writers….
April 4, 2013 — 7:13 PM
terribleminds says:
The money is a useful thing to know if that’s why you’re getting into it. Though the article conflates two things maybe a but overmuch — the love of writing and the money earned from writing. But, then again, writing in general conflates art and business, love and capitalism, so — probably fair for Howey to do so.
The quality of indie books needs to be front and center, I agree. Though, it isn’t always. The slush pile on display means that the quality levels of indie publishing tend to be a bit all over the map.
— c.
April 4, 2013 — 7:30 PM
Gareth Skarka says:
The focus on what independent authors are making is a direct response to decades of “self-publishing is for losers who can’t get published” stories, describing in loving detail the folly of aspirational authors with pallets of unsold books in their garages.
It’s pretty much inevitable that the early counter-argument, once it became a truly viable option, was to say “hey, look — I’m making pretty good money doing this”, since, for better or worse, most people view money as validation.
Even back in 2007, before electronic publishing was getting much traction, the AP did a story on it featuring me — and made sure to ask about the money, and put it into the story: http://www.pressherald.com/archive/gamers-help-e-books-gain-ground_2007-12-04.html
April 4, 2013 — 7:37 PM
Michael J. Sullivan says:
“Why do we need to know how much money indie publishers are making?”
I’ll go further…I want to know how much money both sides are making…as it helps me make decisions. I find that the self-published authors have been pretty good with sharing their income. There are a few (very few) traditionally published authors who have done likewise. The survey that Tobias Buckell did for speculative fiction was very eye-opening (advances in the $5,000 – $10,000 range).
But even within that you have to look at the range. Finding out that Patterson made 94 million isn’t helpful as mos authors will never earn at that level. What we need to know is;
* How much does a debut author make with 1 book out?
* How much does a midlist author make with 3 books out?
* How much does an author with a 10 year punishing history make?
And we need to know these numbers for all three categories: Self, traditional, and hybrid. My guess…it’s the hybrids that are going to be pulling the highest incomes.
“And readers don’t care how much indies are making….I’m just having difficulty finding the value in promoting the amount of money indies are making. What and who is this promotion for, exactly?”
The “message” isn’t for readers it’s for writers to help them determine what path is right for them.
May 5, 2013 — 11:20 AM
TheGuyWhoStrums says:
If the money is why you’re getting into writing books, primarily, then you’re doomed for failure, yeah?
Try whipping up some paintings or music for the money and see how well you do.
And why the stuff do indie writers need validation through others knowing how much money they make? Does it help them make more money? Will they feel like they can now legitimately don a tweed jacket and a pork pie hat (*reference to the Salon article on self-publishing by Jon Winters*).
The quality of indie books is mostly in the poop pile. But amongst indie books are tons of books as good or better than trade published. That’s the message we need put out there.
April 4, 2013 — 7:53 PM
mznetta says:
THIS. ^^
April 4, 2013 — 9:38 PM
Michael J. Sullivan says:
I would presume that most authors (regardless of the publication path they take) aren’t in it “for the money.” There are many easier ways to make money…but money = time. When you are able to support yourself and your family you don’t have to try and squeeze in your writing by trying to type a few pages after coming home exhausted from the “day job.”
When an indie author shares their income numbers, I don’t look at it as a need for validation, I see it as “Wow, I had no idea this was possible…this is something that you may wish to know about when considering your own decisions.” There is so much press about how self-publishing authors make “nothing” that they are trying to counteract that impression.
I agree with you that quality is where all success stems from. And yes there is plenty of quality coming from both routes.
May 5, 2013 — 11:28 AM
Henry says:
You guys sure like to tell people what to do with eggs and baskets. You guys are the boss now? That’s a lot of made-up horse shit.
April 4, 2013 — 11:28 PM
Mr Urban Spaceman says:
I think the whole ‘eggs in a basket’ analogy is basic common sense. It can also be tailored to the individual; You’re a champion horse breeder? Don’t stable all your horses in one barn; Concerned about financial crises? Don’t put all your money in one bank; You use your PC to write all your stuff? Don’t keep all your work on one hard drive.
Wow, this is actually fun.
April 5, 2013 — 3:52 AM
Alex Beecroft says:
In terms of money – which I can’t afford to artistically dismiss as unimportant, because currently my writing is the only thing bringing any money into my household at all – my experience is that I’m doing better with my small press published books than I am with my indie published books. However, the advance I got for my big press published book blew all other options out of the water. If I could do that four times a year I would have a living wage now, as opposed to having to work up to it over five or ten years of penury.
I still like having the option of indie publishing, and I’m still learning what works in that world and what doesn’t. I don’t think it’s the same thing as would work in the traditional publishing world. I’m all for a world in which there are many ways of succeeding, rather than just the one that there used to be.
April 5, 2013 — 4:28 AM
fabhcun says:
Ah yeah. Good work.
April 5, 2013 — 4:51 AM
scott says:
Hey I’m fairly certain Hugh’s article is a reply to another Salon article about an author complaining about not getting rich from self publishing and then going further and stating that every writer must be poor.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/im_a_self_publishing_failure/
April 5, 2013 — 9:26 AM
Christopher Robin Negelein says:
Diversification is always good business. And unless you’re a sponsored artist (via universities and grants today, or nobles in ye olde past), you have to know the business.
Raise your hand if you’re incorporated!
April 5, 2013 — 11:03 AM
maxsalnikov says:
NO FATE
April 5, 2013 — 11:26 AM
ccdenham says:
Hey Chuck – How do suggest dealing with the “same shit different day” boredom that comes from following these blogs and writerly advice/news sources for over a year? What I mean is, I know I can’t possibly already know everything, but I’m not gleaning anything new or helpful anymore. This whole Hugh Howey self-pub preachery is a prime example. Further, I feel like I have nothing to say on my own blog anymore, because it’s all SSDD crap. I guess I could just go into my cave and ignore the world and spend that time writing, but it seems likes in this digital age, it’s imperative to participate in social media. Thoughts?
April 5, 2013 — 1:20 PM
Michael J. Sullivan says:
In publishing, I see just the opposite of SSDD. Every few months things completely change. Some examples:
* Borders going out of business
* Big-six anti-trust legislation
* Amazon buying goodreads
* Penguin buying Author Solutions
* S&S starting a self-publishing arm
* The big six becoming the big five
* The collapse of Europe and the decreasing ability to sell foreign translations
* S&S doing a print-only deal with Hugh
The environment is changing quickly and all these things change the landscape and a savvy writer needs to be aware of what is going on so they can be agile about their own careers.
May 5, 2013 — 11:34 AM
Tipster says:
“Further, you can’t just canvass a handful of successful people and immediately declare that their success draws the map to the One Shining Path Up Authornuts Mountain.
Horse shit. Howey didn’t say that. But what he did say sure seems to have given you a wedgie.
April 5, 2013 — 1:55 PM
Susan Spann says:
It included a widget for that ARC of a certain ninja novel we discussed. Sent a couple of weeks ago. Let me know if you don’t find it and I’ll be glad to re-send. Glad I checked!
April 5, 2013 — 4:51 PM
Amanda June Hagarty says:
Everyone is so hot to turn this into a controversy. Everyone is so quick to read things, that aren’t there, into the statements of others. And these days it seems the best strategy to get people engaged on a blog is to fling poop from it.
But it is all just a great big distraction from what it is we should all really be doing right now. If you are a writer you know damn well what that is!
Instead of getting caught up in hysteria, hype, and horsemanure all y’all writers need to get back to work!
April 5, 2013 — 5:34 PM