Publish and be damned

[Kraken]

Anyone interested in self-publishing might want to take a look at this.
Publish and be damned
It seems to be a much better deal than most vanity publishing, and it gives the author a great deal more control over their book.

I'd like to know what others think about this.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

They seem to offer you more control, like the ISBN in your own name, which makes you the official publisher, but I don't see how this is ultimately different from any other online vanity press.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I honestly believe that people who self-publish are slashing their own creativity.

If something's worth doing then grin and bear the hard work of aiming for the traditional print markets. Otherwise you essentially consign your creative work to the recycle bin of history.

2c.

 

[Mark Robson]

I honestly believe that people who self-publish are slashing their own creativity.

If something's worth doing then grin and bear the hard work of aiming for the traditional print markets. Otherwise you essentially consign your creative work to the recycle bin of history.

2c.

OUCH! I don't think I slashed my creativity by self-publishing. If anything I had to become a lot more creative... just not always with only the writing.

I have no experience of using such companies as that quoted above, as I organised my own self published books directly with printers, binders, graphic designers, artists, copy editors and proof readers. The thing to keep in mind with self publishing is that in order to make it viable, the less people in the loop taking a slice of the profit margin, the better. Any company that purposes to help writers self publish is not doing this out of sympathy with the lot of the poor writer who is unable to break into the market - they are out to make money. However, these guys take money from only one person - you, the writer! The fact that there are so many of these companies out there tells me that there must be a lot of writers frustrated enough to be taken in by talk of profits and distribution deals that a lot of the time just do not exist.

In some ways I agree with you Brian, the ideal solution is to get picked up by a major publisher, but self publishing can be profitable. My profits this month alone total over £2000 and we're only half way through the month. However, I should instantly qualify that by pointing out that: a/ This is not a typical month and b/ This is more than I made in my first year!

Many writers who deserve to be published never will be, and there are certainly those who are published who should never have been allowed near a keyboard, yet will continue to fill the shelves with their drivel! I have learned by hard won experience that self publishing can be viable, but BEWARE any COMPANY that wish to help. They are after only one thing... and it's not your success!

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

I'd suggest that Mark's experience is fairly unique, and also that self-publishing the whole way, rather than through the various onlijne or offline intermediaries available is a bit of a different matter.


One point I'd like to address, at least from the viewpoint of discussing: we've mentioned that being signed by a major publisher is the ideal. Is it? There is a reasonable samll-press scene that offers an equivalent level of professionalism in terms of judging the worth of a book, and also eventual production standards, and maybe a better entry for a writer who knows he is likely to appeal to a more niche market. Some of the fantasy successes of recent times were intially released by small presses before being picked up by the majors - Jeff VanderMeer's Veniss Underground and KJ Bishop's The Etched City spring to mind. This is in a way analogous to Mark's experience, and it's worth looking at this route in more detail. To relate it to the world of music, if Geffen doesn't snag you right at the beginning, a deal with a local label can help get you the steet buzz required for the big boys to take interest.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Indeed, Mark - thanks for replying - I knew you would contend.

But the difference is that you didn't simply self-publish, fin. That's what so many other people appear to do.

You effectively started your own publishing and distribution company, and put the work in to ensure that some commercial success came of it. That's not vanity publishing in the traditional sense (if those words are allowed together!).

 

[Mark Robson]

That's not vanity publishing in the traditional sense (if those words are allowed together!).

You see, this is where the 'self publishing' companies have muscled in and been very clever. They are in fact, as you say, vanity publishing companies under a different name. True self publishing to me means exactly that - doing it yourself! Those few people that do make a success of it rarely use such organisations.

I would not say that all of the scripts turned out by such organisations are bad, because there are some great writers out there who are simply frustrated enough to pay the extortionate rates they charge to get into print. However, the vanity publishing business has always been there to pander to the egos of the writers. From what I've seen of them, they rarely offer the sort of support truly needed to get a book selling well. The sad thing is that they have now switched their labelling to 'self publishing', thus giving the real entrepeneurs amongst us a bad name.

As for 'slashing my creativity...' !!!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Well, if you weren't vanity publishing then you weren't slashing your creativty.

As you have well proven - by the fact that after years of hard work, you finally got yourself into a publishing position.

There's no vanity in hard work.

 

[Mark Robson]

Well, if you weren't vanity publishing then you weren't slashing your creativty.

As you have well proven - by the fact that after years of hard work, you finally got yourself into a publishing position.

There's no vanity in hard work.

All right - you win. I've run out of arguments! You did it so nicely as well. Wish I could win arguments like that.

 

[Kraken]

This turned into a more interesting debate than I expected!

I don't want to shoot my mouth off about issues I have no personal experience of, but there have been a couple of points raised that I'm confused about. Let me get this straight...

I think there are two separate issues here that have got tangled together.
The first is money. The second is creative ability/recognition of literary merit (a prestige issue? Not all 'traditional' published work is good, as Mark points out;

Originally Posted by Mark Urpen

Many writers who deserve to be published never will be, and there are certainly those who are published who should never have been allowed near a keyboard, yet will continue to fill the shelves with their drivel!

and not all vanity published work can be bad).

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I honestly believe that people who self-publish are slashing their own creativity.

If something's worth doing then grin and bear the hard work of aiming for the traditional print markets. Otherwise you essentially consign your creative work to the recycle bin of history.

So your criterion for success would seem to be creating a body of work that endures over time, Brian? Traditional publishing can't guarantee you that, even if it increases the odds of it happening!

Originally Posted by I, Brian

There's no vanity in hard work.

True. But is there value in struggling unnecessarily?
I think it all depends on what you expect to get out of being published.
1) Anyone who goes into writing expecting to make significant amounts of money is, realistically, going to get a nasty surprise - no matter which method of publishing they choose.
2) The creativity going into any given novel is going to be the same whether the author sends the finished manuscript to a vanity publisher or to a traditional publisher.

Back to money.

Originally posted by Mark Urpen

Any company that purposes to help writers self publish is not doing this out of sympathy with the lot of the poor writer who is unable to break into the market - they are out to make money. However, these guys take money from only one person - you, the writer!

Simply put, the difference between vanity and traditional publishing lies in who they attempt to make their money from - vanity publishers charge the author, traditional publishers charge the book-buying public.
The difference between pabd and most vanity publishers is that the author is not buying an entire print run and then handed full responsibilty for selling the books themselves. Pabd require you to buy a limited number of copies, and if you wish to buy more to sell yourself, you can buy them at a discount to do so, but pabd also sell the book directly to the public, taking their money, not the author's.
Did that make any sense?

So what are you looking for - literary success or commercial success? Or can you have both?

"Literary success of any enduring kind is made by refusing to do what publishers want, by refusing to write what the public want, by refusing to accept any popular standards, by refusing to write anything to order."
-- LAFCADIO HEARN

 

[Mark Robson]

Kraken, some simple maths. Let's assume you wrote a modest novel of 250 pages. At Pabd prices, even at the lowest price per book (taking over 500 copies to sell) this would cost you £4.85 per book. By Pabd's own admission, bookshops will take at least 40% of the cover price. This means that for you to break even on that sale, the cover price would have to be £8.08/copy. If you take into account the cost of getting those books to the bookshop - if you're lucky they will take about 6 copies. You then post them at the cheapest rate in the UK it will cost you another £4.45 (weight up to 1.5Kg parcel post). This means that your cover price now has to be £8.82 to break even. The less books you post, the more expensive/book, so I'm being generous. I would suggest that you would probably want to make at least a few pence a book, so let's say you set the price at £8.99. How many 250 page paperback books do you see for this price? Would you buy one? I probably wouldn't.

I should further point out that whilst independant bookshops may be satisfied with 40%, the major chains are not. Even dealing with Waterstones and WH Smith on a 'local author' basis I was having to give up to 48% discount and now that I'm dealing on a larger scale, it's 55%. This kind of blows those figures out of the water.

Don't get me wrong - Pabd offer a great service for someone who wants a couple of dozen books printed to give to friends and family as Christmas presents, but don't even think about it if you want to make any money. This is VANITY publishing whichever way you look at it. I doubt that Pabd would bother to print any copies to sell on their own unless they thought it worth their while and from what I can see, the author would gain nothing from those sales anyway. Once again the author loses.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Certainly I quite agree that it depends entirely upon the author's objectives as to which publishing route they take. I know of people who self-published simply because they wanted to share their story in an acceptable format with family and friends. Kudos to them - they achieved their goal.

But if someone wishes to vanity publish as a viable alteranative to traditional print, I personally believe that the person is selling themselves short. Just because a struggle is hard doesn't mean to say it is necessary - but, indeed, there is a survival of the fittest and I'm sure a lot of great stories never see light of day because the writers were not able to push their stories into the wider world.

Can vanity publishing offer literary success? Well, looking around, I don't see the vast over-whelming majority of self-published authors having any kind of literary recognition in the slightest.

In fact, from the reviews I have read of self-published works, one of the overwhelming criticisms is the lack of editorial input - silly errors, flaws in contruction, bad technical writing. These are issues that a signed author can expect to have polished up in their dealings with a publishing house, so as to create a more professional work.

The quote by Hearn - well, he was writing in the 19th century, and I've noticed that vanity publishing often quotes from 19th century writers - without pointing out that self-publishing was a standard of publishing in the 19th century - but it most certainly is not the standard in the 21st century.

I very much agree with the criticisms of commercial success - I do not at all believe that anyone can expect to become rich simply from being published.There are far far far easier ways to make money.

But, ultimately, most decent writers are trying to share an idea, an outlook, a particular way of looking at things, all told through the medium of story-telling. It's an addiction, means of expression that demands to be freed. But is vanity publishing really going to free it properly? Again, I guess it all depends upon a writer's original intentions in the first place.

2c.

 

[Kraken]

Thanks to both of you - I appreciate the discussion
You both made some good points - just one thought left:

Originally posted by I, Brian
but, indeed, there is a survival of the fittest and I'm sure a lot of great stories never see light of day because the writers were not able to push their stories into the wider world

Survival of the fittest? Hmm. Two words as a counter argument:

David. Eddings.

Survival of the easiest to read, possibly...

Apologies to any Eddings fans - I have read most of his books (admits <deeply embarrassed> I even used to owe a few), but honestly - his popularity says dire things about the fantasy market.

 

[Mark Robson]

I will admit to having been an Eddings fan for a long time and that he was a major influence in my own writing style. However, I would qualify that by saying that although I enjoyed his first two series, I have been less than impressed by the stuff he has written since, to the point where I have stopped buying his work.

I don't have a problem with easy reading fantasy - in fact I very much enjoy it. My own stories are deliberately written to be easy to read. To each his own, I suppose. I enjoy reading works by the monsters/masters of complex fantasy like Hobb, Jordan et al, but often when I want to relax and not think too hard about what I'm reading, then I return to the easier reads.

Something to keep in mind as well, is that whilst some writers produce work very much for niche markets, there are those (myself included) who want to write work that will appeal to the widest possible audience. I write stories that are fun. They are not written to make a moral point. They are not written in an attempt to demonstrate any theoretical sociological possibilities, or indeed to satisfy those who like to have worlds created in vast, intricate and often pointless detail. The stories I write are about characters who have interesting adventures. Sometimes these stories include magical elements and sometimes they don't. However, one thing I have constantly striven for is to deliver enough pace to keep a reluctant reader interested, whilst having enough depth and complexity to satisfy those readers who 'like their fantasy'. This is not an easy balance. I thought the early books by Eddings did a pretty good job, as did McCaffrey in her earlier works.

The age range of the readers often gives a good indication of the readability of a book - I have had wonderful letters and feedback from children as young as seven, and adults as old as ninety one! That a story can bring pleasure to such a wide audience tells me that it was worth telling. I suspect that Eddings commands similar statistics.

Eddings may have lost his way, but he had the right idea at the beginning. I feel he still very much deserves to have a place in the fantasy hall of fame.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Readers all have different needs - are served by different markets. What we read and enjoy as 16 year olds is probably very different than as 32 year olds. It's different literary markets.

But if Eddings had vanity published, would anyone have ever heard of him? Would you have been able to enjoy his stories when you were younger?

The survival of the fittest is something of a conceit on my part - it is simply the observation that it seems to be those most driven who get through - and that's for a range of industries. But vanity publishing offers a quick and easy way of achieving at least part of that goal - but without necessarily allowing for the continuing hard work to get the writing out to a wider audience.

Just my personal 2c, though.

 

[Mark Robson]

Did anyone hear the old boy on Radio 2 last night - on the drive time show? I think his name was Ian Rankin, but not THE Ian Rankin. This guy has written a book called something like Doomsday around the Corner based on a theory about the earth toppling on its axis. A couple of points:

1. The publisher was quoted as being The Book Guild - which I understand is something of a half way house between being a conventional publisher and a vanity publisher. I know of another author who has had work published by them.

2. For a publisher of this type to manage to get a crusty old chap onto the most popular radio station in the UK gives some credence to the support offered by some of these sorts of companies - I hesitantly retract some of my earlier comments in this thread!

3. Perhaps the most amazing thing though is that I read a book based on this theory about 20 years ago, which I think was called something like The Reversing Earth Theory. I can't remember who wrote it, but it was tucked away in the science reference section of my local library and all the things that this guy was purporting to have discovered by research, I distinctly remember reading about in this book! Hmm, I wonder if the author of this other book is around to listen to the old boy's postulations!!

 

[aurelio]

Okay, I've been resisting, but now I guess I'll dive in and speak to the topic of self-publishing (or vanity publishing) from a different perspective. This may be read by some as a bit defensive because I just self-published my first novel, but I had my reasons for specifically choosing to go down this path rather than slogging copies of my manuscript from publisher to publisher, or agent to agent, forever.

I spent over 20 years in the movie business, which is tied to and similar to the publishing business (nearly every entertainment company owns a publishing arm these days) so I know how the game works and I really didn't want to play it anymore. It is an insider's game, so in order to get your manuscript read by a publisher you need an agent. Otherwise your manuscript is tossed in the trash or sent back unopened.

In order to get an agent, you have to know someone, otherwise your manuscript gets tossed in the trash or sent back unopened.

I know friends who have been sending manuscripts out literally for years with, at best, requests for changes from agents with a "maybe" representation deal, etc. It is really no fun, and the part of the entertainment industry (of which books are now a part) that really has nothing whatsoever to do with talent or quality or even the product itself, but only to do with connections and influence peddling.

My particular novel, "EVE," straddles several genres - humor, scifi, romance, and social satire, so I knew going into it that securing an agent or publishng deal was a long shot because those people are looking for an easy sale, a "no brainer," or a project that is connected to celebrity status in some way as to make it O.K. to fail without losing face. I wanted to focus on writing the novel without aiming it or tailoring it to "sell" these people on it so they will sell it for me. It's a layer I wanted to remove.

So, I went with AuthorHouse, a print-on-demand publisher who distributes through Amazon and BN online. My costs were minimal because it's simply set up costs and no inventory. I set up my own marketing campaign (all internet related, because that is where the book is available) and have gone from there. So far, so good.

I take issue with Brian's assumption that self-published books are a lazy man's way out; that somehow we are not willing to put the effort into trying to get into traditional print. I suggest that an alternative explanation is that we may not want to deal with the social grease and would rather put more work into the writing. This is my goal. Why spend all my energy on trying to get people who don't really care about my goals to approve of them before anything can happen for my novel? Now, my novel is available and selling, without all the hassles, and I am already writing again. If the book sells poorly, then I'm not out very much money and a lot less time, and if it does sell, then I make some money, get to write more, and will eventually be acknowledged and approached by main stream publishers who will smell money. (As with Mark Urpen)

Is it a perfect solution? No. It would be great to have one of the big publishers love my work and want to publish it, but when you count up all the money spent on manuscript copies, postage, letter writing and hours spent trying to get their attention, I figure now that my novel is out in print, I've probably spent less money and have more of a chance for them to find me.

And, it's truthfully been fun to design my own book cover, marketing strategy, publicity, etc., without arguing with a cadre of people holding the purse strings.

That's my alternate take on self-publishing. I want to add that it may not appeal to everyone or fit everyone's goals, but should not simply be dismissed or belittled. It may be the new "in door" to main sream publishing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

No, it's a fair point made, Aurelio. And thanks for the comments, too.

My chief concern is whether someone is making an informed decision according to their goals. From certain other forums, I'm left with the feeling that aspirants too often look at the issue of self-publishing as an easy way out because traditional print is too hard.

That sort of attitude - based without any research or knowledge of the industry - strikes as a very ill-informed way to make such important decisions.

I've tried to point out that there are clear justifications for going self-published - and Mark Urpen and yourself have helped widen the scope of the argument of aims. My underlying objection is that too often people take the self-publishing road without any clear idea of what they are doing.

Worst still, there is the issue of editing. I've read some appalling writing online. Some of it was even my own.

The one big thing these writings lacked was strong editorial input. But what these writings also had behind them were prideful writers who insisted that telling a story is all that matters. And that the technical matters of making a story flow better and more presentable to a reader were seen as "selling out" - or else an acknowledgement that the writer really was not as good a writer as they thought (and was ultimately true).

At the end of the day, though, my own bias is obviously firmly rooted in the fact that I intend to be traditionally print published one day - it's like a destiny I have to fulfill. So I will aim only for the highest goals.

It doesn't mean to say that it's the best route for everybody. But so long as it's approached in the right manner, I honestly - perhaps naively - believe that those who really make the effort not simply to write, but to bear in mind the industry, will get there...eventually.

Is self-publishing a way of achieving print publishing? The trouble with that, is that all the hard work and effort goes on around the story - promoting the story - rather than putting more work into the story - line editing, for example.

Some people are good enough technical writers to write quality and promote it. I just wonder on why not simply put that effort into promoting to agents, rather than potential consumers directly.

 

[aurelio]

I agree with you on the editing issues, Brian. Copyediting is an art. I went through my "finished" manuscript dozens of times and each time found more errata. I had two very good friends (both excellent writers) who did edits for me as well. Even still, there are probably some errata we all missed, but frankly, one of the "professional" press books I bought recently had more than one typo in it that I noticed. I'm not saying that as an excuse, more to point out that this part of the process is difficult work. I found it terribly tedious, but terribly necessary.

I do suggest that those of us who self-publish find themselves a good editor and make every effort to polish their work to a professional level. There is nothing enjoyable about reading something that is badly written or misspelled, and it only makes one look stupid and lazy.

And that is simply the copyediting. There are also the issue of structure, language, and clarity. If a writer is lucky, a publisher will team you up with someone great, someone who understands your work and how to improve it, but I don't think there are guarantees of this. I heard that when Harper Lee first wrote "To Kill a Mockingbird" the manuscript was a jumble, and she got teamed up with an excellent editor who helped her fine tune it into the masterpiece that it became.

However, there is also no reason why one cannot do this on one's own and self-publish. That is what I've attempted to do with my novel. I was fortunate to have professional writers as friends, so for me this was possible, but it is also possible to find and hire an editor on one's own too.

I understand your idealism, Brian, and hope that it all happens for you exactly as you desire. I admit to being jaded toward the "professionals" due to my past experiences with them. Professionalism is a dying art, at least it seems to be in large institutions, so I don't immediately trust that simply because a large publisher presents a book that it is good, or that because someone self-published a book it is bad.

I definitely feel the process of sending out manuscripts is completely screwed up, and that it has become absolutely necessary to have a connection or advocate to even get read. I tried, even with my loose connections, to get my book read, and I did get a copy in to HarperCollins. This was through a direct recommendation to a top editor from a published writer with a personal relationship with that editor. After several months I received a one sentence rejection letter. No comments. No suggestions. Nothing to even indicate specific response to what I had written, so it was easy to imagine she never even really read it. It was a useless waste of time and energy.

The game is that the agents take these people to lunches and dinners, and feed them manuscripts between courses, and plow them with gifts, so the editors are then more obligated to read what they are fed. Otherwise, they don't read them. To be successful in that arena you must find someone who will aggressively advocate your work. Short of that, the chance of being published are about as likely as winning a lottery.

 

[Brian G Turner]

However, there is also no reason why one cannot do this on one's own and self-publish. That is what I've attempted to do with my novel. I was fortunate to have professional writers as friends, so for me this was possible, but it is also possible to find and hire an editor on one's own too.

I think this is part of the issue I'm trying to highlight, and that's of "professionalism". By that I mean the ability firstly to write in grammatically correct English, with a technical understanding of how to write for a genre market (POV use, use of tense, etc) - as well as the general ability to tell a story.

Self-publishing with wider marketing goals is something that can be done professionally - or it can be done very badly. My general impression is that too many people jump into self-publishing without any regard for professionalism - and end up trying to tell a story without consideration of technical writing and language issues.

Rather than taking the time to go through the rigours - and labours - of honing their writing to a professional standard, I fear that sometimes self-publishing is seen as an easy way to avoid all that necessary hardship.

Of course, published material isn't necessarily going to be of the best standard - but with the gauntlet of agents, editors, and publishers - the argument is that at least the general standard should be better.