Howey: Self- vs. traditional publishing = false equivalence

psychotick said:

instead of thinking your writing sucks you should think - I don't know anything at all about the quality of my writing from this.

Click to expand...

That's why the onus is on the aspiring writer to research and learn about their craft.

There are plenty of ways to get critical feedback on a work - everything from crit groups to editors, as mentioned above. All are readily accessible - even more so now in this internet age.

And agents have written books to try and inform writers about what they want, what they expect, and how the industry works - Carol Blake and Donald Maas come to mind immediately. I'm sure there are others.

If you go to writing conferences, agents will often be available to answer questions.

It's not that the writing industry is more unfair than any other discipline in life - it is simply that the expectations of success are often too high.

It's all too easy to think that stringing words together = storytelling, but that's simply not true. Research will reveal all sorts of useful tools. Crits and editors can help show problems.

Agents may be gatekeepers of a sort, but there's plenty of opportunity to prepare before meeting them.

2c

I'm with springs. I've probably had around 20 rejections now for my paranormal/contemp/I have no idea what genre this is novel. If they were all form rejections, then I'd (probably quite rightly) presume the novel sucked. But because I have had personal feedback, I know it's worth working on - that some of the agents saw enough of something in it to bother writing a little more than copying and pasting a form response.

So, I'm waiting on a final beta from someone, then I'm going to re-work it. I'm also considering turning it into a romance as, one, I've signed two romance novels already, and two, I've had a little more interest for it from romance publishers (but it's never had enough actual romance in it for them to consider it).

For any author who wants to go the traditional route: there's nothing wrong with that. It's a long hard process that [despite what rose colored glasses you might wear] is fraught with uncertainty. But if you have wherewithal to stick with it it can be a rewarding experience[no doubt] otherwise all those well known published authors would all abandon ship and cast out on their own with the self publishing.

The actual picture of how it works is a bit hazy and only becomes more so when you scan the INTERNET for those professionals who want to share the experience they have had. For instance my favorite author has stated the reason he would never go self published is because his writing is crap and he could never afford the time to go back through and make it right.[This flies in the face of what many are trying to argue here because by all rights he should never have been published in the first place with that attitude and aptitude and this person has done everything the same way as any other traditional publisher. ] He is not alone because other favorites of those who are willing to share their story say something similar.

The other end of this mad coin is that no two stories from even those of my favorite authors are exactly the same. This makes sense because we are talking about a business that is operated through the agency of people and people tend to warp the system easily. From the outside looking in todays publishing does not always come out as the well oiled machine some would expect.

One thing I have taken away is that the magic is not that your writing is better than everyone else because what the reader sees is often far from your writing. There is some other scaler factor here that is not being disclosed and it's not one I would expect either the people writing or those reading to know. And if I were to believe the story of every professed agent or editor out there then the story gets even stranger. You can do an exhaustive search on them also.

Someone is leaving out or doesn't know the entire process that is actually being employed. But then would you want to tell a your writers the best way to make his work not require an agent and an editor and maybe even a publisher.

So, if you want to work within that system there is nothing wrong with it and you can hide burn or otherwise destroy the failed manuscripts that you write as you go along with the assumption that it stinks and that's why it isn't going anywhere. But, it might be a mistake to try to spend all your effort with one story and keep refining that to match your exhaustive research into the proper method.

There is a point you should move on and it's not just to get from under the Albatross but its more to continue to show that agent that you have more than a one hit wonder inside you. If your story is so so and it's all you have why should they bother with it. The real key is to keep writing and find a close group of writers to share with in your community where you can sit and discuss writing.

The INTERNET is fun and sometimes helpful but you really don't know that the person who says I'm a writer; or I'm an agent; or I'm an editor; I'm a publisher is any of those things. They might just as well say I'm a Logger.

Out side of your groups and beta readers: If you want another opinion of your writing other than the guess and by golly system; there is now the self-publish route; just remember that it may take time for you to be noticed and for those reviews to trickle in.

springs said:

And surely it's better being improved in private than shoved out half-baked with your name on the cover, all because you'd rather have it out there than make it the best it could be.

Click to expand...

This, all the way.

Teresa Edgerton said:

He should choose a crit group that was representative of the people who might read his book. Not at all hard in this day of online critique groups. Joining a group that critiques all sorts of fiction is where a lot of new writers go wrong. If you are writing SFF then you need to join a group that is made up of SFF writers, because they are also SFF readers.

A critique group doesn't have the cover and doesn't read the description. They read the book that you wrote, not some book that they thought they were going to be reading when they read the description. And better, if they don't like something they can tell you why. With reviewers who are not writers you can get contradictory advice. One will say there is too much of X and another will tell you there is not enough. What to do? Ignore it because you can't please everybody? Figure that you must have got it right because you achieved a mid-point between extremes? Neither if you are wise, because they have both pointed out an area where a problem exists, but they have both misidentified it.

A good critique group will not only help you find a problem area, they will be able to help you identify it.

.

Click to expand...

And this, also, all the way.

The other thing with all this "self-pub or be damned" business (and I am both a self-pubber and a trad-subber) is that it is reducing the process to write & publish, with nothing inbetween. Crit groups, editors, betas, agents, editors, designers, actually meeting people and talking to them - where the hell is that in Hugh Howey's wonderful paradigm? It's writing on the cheap - "I can design this myself, publish it myself, so I don't need any of these other people, I don't need to go out & meet people, I can just shout at them from my corner of the internet, and do it now because I don't want anybody to tell me that the book could be better."

It's an appalling reduction & splintering of what ought to be an excellent community.

There's room for everyone, but for hell's sake, don't try to do it all yourself just because it's cheaper and more immediate. Howey has the sound of a revolutionary, but those are designer fatigues he's wearing, and you think he does all this himself?

Well, I was fairly open (as much as I feel able to be which is more than most posts I read) in this thread:

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/548505-the-process-to-date.html


If I take the novel I'm agented for (which I won't name cos the thread will come up in a google search otherwise). The bottom line is it is not the same novel I presented to the agent who signed me. Then, it was good enough (thanks to Boneman's editing and my fab betas, Alc, Abernovo and Crystal Haven) to get attention from about four agents, but had problems with the demograph. Since my agent worked on it, the novel has improved immeasurably. Should I be lucky enough to gain a publisher, it'll be worked on again.

With Abendau - which is the trilogy signed by Gary at Tickety-boo - Teresa will be reviewing it and putting me through my editing paces.

My bottom line is this: both novels are good enough to be published now and stand well in the ranks of the self-published. I would be very proud of them. But they can be better. And they will be better. Because each step of this painful process - from realising they weren't good enough to be picked up, to revising, to revising as per spec, to honing - has made them better. And I'm sure I would not have taken it so far on my own, because I am only one pair of eyes and one that's too close.

I hope the thread answers some of your questions about the hidden process, Tinker - I put it up cos I'd have loved to have known early on what happened when.

Incidently, I write pretty naff first and second drafts, just like the famous writer. I need serious kicks and prods to turn that to gold. I'm glad I have someone who believes in me to get me to do that.

There's no secret to making your work as good as it can be - work, work, work. Review, review, review, by those who you trust. Rewrite, edit, rewrite. Review again. Until someone can't put it down. I'm not there yet; I'll work until I am.

Which is the way it should be:

springs said:

There's no secret to making your work as good as it can be - work, work, work. Review, review, review, by those who you trust. Rewrite, edit, rewrite. Review again. Until someone can't put it down. I'm not there yet; I'll work until I am.

Click to expand...

But often here we speak as though this process is unknown and unattainable to the self published. And every time we do we include all self published. But I don't think their process is that different. In fact; we don't know that they haven't been using the exact process you have used up to a point and have finally decided to self publish.

Personally I do a minimum of 10 edit and rewrites on the full manuscript after I have the first copy that can go to beta readers. Each time I not only address issues raise by the readers but I read the entire text and make adjustments as I go. Somewhere along the line I decide that enough is enough. This would normally be where you might finally get an agent. I just haven't gotten the agent and have to act as my own which is almost as insane as doing my own editing; but I have some backup notions taken from beta reader input.

After that point there are a minimum of two professional edits before it goes to interior format. Each phase of that I reread the entire text and the final usually allows me a hard copy that I read thoroughly before I decide to go with what we have.

There are still errors that have crept into the process at this point but I don't feel I'm shirking any responsibilities and trying to pass bad writing to the readers.

I would guess that there are many self published authors who are just as[if not more] diligent.

I have read enough self published works to suggest that my guess is accurate.

I'm not saying self publishers aren't diligent. I have so much respect for those I know well.

But! I read My second book until I was blue in the face. My betas read it. It wasn't until it was in the hands of a professional who does not get paid anything until I earn something from it that it got transformed. Not tightened, or tidied, or made better, but from the bottom up reviewed to make it sell (not necessarily make it better - although it did that, too.)

I had Abendau to the point I was ready to self-publish. I now see from my other book that my vision is not enough, and it's that high-level review that I believe an agent or editor brings to the process. I salute those who can do it without that input: I can't. Like your pro writer, I know that now. I don't have any shame admitting that and being very, very glad I persevered instead of self-pubbing when I meant to, and pushed for an agent.

Not everyone else will feel this way, and that's fine. But, for me, I'd always know what I put out without that high level feedback (be it a really good editor, a publisher, or an agent) would not be as good as it could be. So I'd never trust myself to put it out. But .i'm fine with that; others may not be.

My experience with self-pubbing, bar those recommended to me, is not in line with yours, sadly.

Mouse said:

I'm with springs. I've probably had around 20 rejections now for my paranormal/contemp/I have no idea what genre this is novel. If they were all form rejections, then I'd (probably quite rightly) presume the novel sucked. But because I have had personal feedback, I know it's worth working on - that some of the agents saw enough of something in it to bother writing a little more than copying and pasting a form response.

So, I'm waiting on a final beta from someone, then I'm going to re-work it. I'm also considering turning it into a romance as, one, I've signed two romance novels already, and two, I've had a little more interest for it from romance publishers (but it's never had enough actual romance in it for them to consider it).

Click to expand...

Or, if you are subbing to US agents, that your query letter sucked.
That is another variable in the mix which no-one seems to have noticed.
Writing a query letter for a US agent, that does your novel justice is a dark art that needs much practice. If you are using the same letter as you've used for UK agents it will most likely not get you a partial request.

Although, increasingly, UK agents are looking for the same thing - I used the US query format for all my submissions but got an agent based in the UK (although the agency is based in NY.)

But it's a good point - query letter hell on Absolute Write is the best query critting resource I know of. I still have the bruises.

Here is an interesting addition to the discussion of agents publishing and doing things yourself.
Piers Anthony
http://piersanthonyblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/piers-anthony-blogs-if-formal-training.html

Mind you this was back in 2011
heres a different point of view
Jeffrey Carver
http://www.starrigger.net/published.htm

For balance
Tara K. Harper
http://tarakharper.com/faq_pub.htm

Just so we know that not all experiences are the same.

Hi,

Wow - shows how far things have come in the last decade. The TKH blog was 2004 and doesn't even mention indie publishing. Piers Anthony 2011, and he's promoting it. This is an industry in major transition.

Cheers, Greg.

Fishbowl Helmet said:

As a former acquisitions editor, I can tell you that is exactly how it happened on our end. I can only imagine it's exactly the same for agents. Every single work I ever rejected failed in a myriad of spectacular and disappointing ways. Some suitable to print here, most not so much. Basics of grammar, spelling, punctuation, dialogue formatting, dullness, ineptitude for telling a story, plagiarism, and violating the basic laws of nature. To say nothing of idiotic cover letters. So why pound your head into the wall as an agent or acquisitions editor or slush reader? For that faint hope of reading something good.

The slush pile is a never-ending festering heap of crappy writing. We would easily receive over 40 mss. a day and would never get through even a fraction of that if we were stupid enough to read them all the way through. But, lucky break for us, you don't have to read the entire ms. to know if it sucks. Usually the first page is more than enough, most often the first paragraph.

So in the time it took you to read the paragraphs above, the slush reader has already more information about the work than they actually need to make an informed decision to read on or reject a submission. It's a rarity that a submission will get more than that, and rightfully so.

Click to expand...

I've also been reliably told that sometimes they don't even read the first para. If it's Friday and the boss has just told them they can't go home until all "the work" is done how many times do you think the entire pile goes directly into the shredder? After all, if Hemingway was in there, well, he'll submit something else eventually, and it's Happy Hour.

I can't see the fuss. Submit to agents AND self-pub. AFAIK Self pubbing costs you nothing and might make you money, just like submitting to agents, why does everyone act like it's either-or?

JoanDrake said:

I've also been reliably told that sometimes they don't even read the first para. If it's Friday and the boss has just told them they can't go home until all "the work" is done how many times do you think the entire pile goes directly into the shredder? After all, if Hemingway was in there, well, he'll submit something else eventually, and it's Happy Hour.

I can't see the fuss. Submit to agents AND self-pub. AFAIK Self pubbing costs you nothing and might make you money, just like submitting to agents, why does everyone act like it's either-or?

Click to expand...

And be the person who passed on the next Harry Potter? No thanks. Far easier to actually read the first paragraph or so and separate the mss. into 'reject' and 'read later' piles. More often than not you're taking mss. home to read over the weekend anyway, so a few more won't matter. At least that's my experience.

In a lot of ways it is an either-or proposition, but that's changing. Most agents and houses I've seen the guidelines for specifically request no simultaneous submissions and some also request no reprints (thought that's far more common in magazines). To an agent or acquisitions editor self-publishing a work then submitting it would be considered a reprint. So it's not costing you 'anything' to self-publish, it just removes your ability to send out that piece to a chunk of agents and houses. Then they'll ask you tough questions like how well is it selling, if you've already self-publishing why you want to traditionally publish now, and if you're selling well enough for it to be profitable for them to publish why are you so keen on giving up all that money? Basically, if you're making enough from self-publishing for your book to be profitable to traditionally publish, they're probably already aware of you and likely contacting you.

Hi,

Fishbowl you're right. It is becomming less an either / or business. And a number of indie authors are being approached by trade publishers because their work is selling. However a lot of indies are also rejecting trade deals because the terms offered simply don't match up.

In any case this trend simply pushes the barrow of the indie author, because it argues that if you can write a good, saleable book then you have a good chance, perhaps a better chance of being picked up by an agent etc if you self publish than if you submit cold to an agent as an unknown.

Cheers, Greg.

Just to add my two pence worth. I was emailed out of the blue by an audio-book publisher for my (then) self-published book, so approaches do happen. Interestingly, they don't seem to take submissions full-stop, so it seems they shop for books purely from sales ratings and have some fairly significant names in their stable (Peter F Hamilton, Alastair Reynolds and a fair few other genre names).

The movie rights are still up for sale if anyone is interested though...

It would not track logically that a piece would be excluded out of hand because it is self published or has been on the web. I could see that if the numbers were very high like hundreds of thousands of people have already read this so why should we publish it. For one with little to any reads it couldn't hurt because there are too many factors as to the why that you couldn't make the judgement that because only two people read this it must be crap. That might at best say that the author is poor at self advertising at the worst. Now if publishers are looking for the self advertisers then it would make sense to overlook the ones with small numbers who are not doing well with self advertising.

Still if publishers take an interest in only those things that can be profitable to them then looking at something with good numbers and grabbing it up to take a chance on it seems to make sense if they can grab it before it reaches several hundred thousand and yet even so it might make sense if they know the audience could be larger for them to take the chance even on something that has gotten good distribution. It might make sense to sew up a good author with potential for future books. [I could cite a book here.]

It still seems more likely that it would most often happen if they feel they have come up dry in their present circumstance. And considering the amount they have to chose from it seems that's not all that likely to happen; though statistically its on par with the possibility of a new author getting an agent or publisher interested in them.

It seems that some of the same people who say that it is not luck that gets an agent, but how well you write; are the same who think that self publishing ruins your chances, which makes no sense because we just said that they are looking for people who write well. If they see that you write well it shouldn't matter where they happen to read your work. If that does matter then there is more than just writing well and maybe part of that will include luck or maybe part of it includes doing as I say if you want to be published, which sounds arbitrary at the best and do you want to work for those kind of people. It become a matter of scare tactics or maybe just fear tactics from someone who needs to make excuses as to why they haven't yet published anything. [I don't want to hurt my chances and I must not be writing well enough if they don't want my work. Rolled over to oh don't do that or you'll hurt your chances for a traditional contract.]

I don't have a problem with how everyone else tries to handle their justifications for not going to print. What I do have issues with is trying to convince the readers that if it hasn't gone through the proper system they shouldn't read it because it has to be substandard.

I would have to agree that it could work both ways and does not need an either-or decision. And through my examples above there is at least one traditionally published author who seems to agree.

As far as double submissions; it is probably a tactical error, but not critical since many cases; even if the publisher/agent has a min time guideline for their response, many seem to miss or fail to even respond and if you did double up and were found out I suspect that would indicate that there are probably two agents or publishers that you do not want to deal with anyway for their own lack of confidentiality.

You can keep telling yourself you don't write well enough. You can tell yourself you don't want to ruin your chances. You can continue to shred, burn or bury old manuscripts. You can remain safe by taking no chances. Or you can do things differently and find out you were right all along about some of it. But I think it's a bit overstepping to paint such a wicked face on publishers and publishing industry to claim they would so capriciously deny themselves a chance to publish something that their readers will buy.

But hey you might be right.

One more log for the fire of opinion.

http://www.sfwa.org/why-a-writer-needs-an-agent/

Tinker, I read some of these self-published works. Most of the time, it needs to go back to the editing floor. That's why I think many see themselves shooting their career by self-publishing. There's a lot of filtering, on the part of the readers, that has to take place before a gem is discovered. Sometimes, it's easier to look at the cut and uncut gemstones in the traditional route.

I have read many too in fact probably over two hundred in the last few years and some of those are diamonds in the rough. But sometimes an uncut gem shows great potential where the polished stone will lose its value over the years.

Hi,

I've read quite a few myself, and the thing that always surprises me is the diversity. Yes a lot are poorly edited and / or derivative, but not all, and often you find the most original stuff as well among the indies. New plots, amazing world builds, incredible characterisation. Things that would often have been overlooked for one reason or another by going the agent route. And these days a large percentage of indies are going straight to self publishing without even bothering with agents. It often seems to me that trade publishing has been becoming more and more derivative in terms of what it produces as it seems to be desperate to find the next hit.

Honestly, if you go to kindle and do some browsing using the look inside feature you will be surprised. I have been many times caught off guard by the sheer creativity / unique visions of my fellow authors. That seldom seems to happen when I go to a bookstore these days.

Cheers, Greg.