Five mistakes killing self-published authors...

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Five Mistakes KILLING Self-Published Authors | Kristen Lamb's Blog

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Good article - the first one should be stickied for us all; learn the craft and get good enough!

 

[Brian G Turner]

Most people I would think are self-publishing precisely because they just want to get a book idea they put down out.

Self-publishing is vanity press - always has been. The fact that you can make money from vanity press is no different from the fact that most people are in it simply to put a book out rather than make money.

And here's the real stickler - if people took so much care to make their book so well polished as the article suggests, then shouldn't this make such authors contenders for traditional publishing?

Simply that I detect an argument from some quarters who seem to want to redefine self-publishing "they" do as something different from the self-publishing "everyone else" does.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think referring to modern self-publishing as vanity press is simplistic. Some of it is specialist and very good and some authors eg Amanda Hocking have gone on to be published and well regarded.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I also think that just because you are good you will be traditionally published is also a tad naive.

Over the past year I've spoken to agents, publishers, other authors and I know my current work has to be more than good to succeed it has to be exceptional or lucky. I'm confident I can do good but less sure about exceptional or lucky. I've taken a risk writing a Buffy-like story with a sixty-eight year old male protagonist. It might succeed and become traditionally published but I'm preparing in case it isn't. Already had enough issue with a story that is an epic fantasy but set in contemporary times.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Self-publishing is not vanity press. Vanity press is an otherwise proper publishing company that charges authors to publish their books. Self-publishing is an author forgoing a publisher to do it all themselves. Vanity may be involved in self-publishing, but that doesn't make self-publishing the same thing as vanity press.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Number one and five are absolutely true. I'm sure I pubbe my first book to early, and so last year went back to it, re-edited and recovered it. As for promoting their books to death - I live on a number of fora and can't believe the number of posts by people about their books and promotion. It does amount to spamming, and I'm firmly of the opinion that writers should write.

But having said that I would be absolutely guilty of number two, not knowing the business side of the business. I do sort of, but I just don't care about it. I write books, publish them, put them out at a price, and that's the end of it. There's no free offers, price lowering, mass marketing campaigns, and not much social media exposure either. I don't generally promote (having said that I just took up an offer for a free add for the first time ever!) It's not that I don't know the basics of promotion etc, it's just a game to me and not one I want to play.

As for the argument about whether self pubbing is vanity press or not - who cares? What's in a name? Quite simply self pubbing is a way that writers can get their work out there, and it is as Anya said, naive to think that just because your work is of a standard agents and publishers will pick it up. They won't. They want a lot more of a book, and most of it relates to saleability. Which means if your book does not fit within the current hot topics it's almost guaranteed to never be trade pubbed no matter how good it is.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

As for the argument about whether self pubbing is vanity press or not - who cares? What's in a name?

Well, it's akin to calling a leech a human being if it happens to be attached to one at the time.

A vanity press is an actual company, whether one person or a group, which makes a living publishing authors' work. But rather than marketing the books to the public, they are selling the books to the author. They're different than traditional publishers in that they are paid by the author, rather than paying the author. The vanity press "edits" the book, sometimes creates a cover, etc, all at the author's expense, of course. The vanity press contacts a printer and has books printed, then delivers those to the author. Again, on the author's dime.

A self-publisher is an author who contacts the printer themselves, whatever the format, and pays directly for each service, editing, cover design, printing, etc.

The vanity press is an intermediary between the author and services. It's a parasite attached to what otherwise would be a self-publishing venture.

 

[psychotick]

Hi Fishbowl,

I agree with you. Vanity press were and still are parasites. (There's still plenty around.) But I don't think Brian is specifically wanting to say that self pubbers are those sorts of leaches upon others. I think he's talking about the publishing process not the publisher / author.

And again I say what's in a name? Personally I'm a self publisher, I'd probably be most comfortable simply referring to myself as an author. (Sometimes an Indie). But quite frankly if some people want to refer to me as a vanity press user or a failed trade publisher wannabe I'm happy with that.

In the end I'm an author. I write and publish and sell books. People seem to like them. And I get a bit of money from them. I don't feel that I'm ripping anyone off by doing it. I don't feel my readers are suffering from terrible quality work etc. So they can call me what they want.

If had stayed trying to go the trade publishing route the one thing I can fairly much guarantee would be that I wouldn't be an author.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

There's not much of a link between ability and getting published, alas. It's luck, then some more luck. Also, it helps who you know...

 

[Montero]

I think there are some good points in there and am interested in other experienced peoples' comments on here.

However, when reading the blog just now, I did have a moment of "Jungian archetype, what the heck?"

Then down in the comments, there is a detailed discussion by one TD Whittle, starting at comment 86, saying they disagree with the blogger regarding Jungian archetypes and other comments in mistake 1. The first comment is quoted here. You can find replies by the blogger, followed by TD Whittle's responses are bit further down on the blog. I found this discussion as interesting as the original blog.

I disagree with many points you make in “Mistake #1.” Firstly, a writer does not need to understand about Jungian archetypes to write a novel. I say this as a retired psychotherapist: you just do not need that information. Jung did not invent archetypal figures as they appear in the history of human storytelling. He merely named and discussed them in ways that fit with his views of human psychology, which also spill over into the borders of the spiritually mystical, as he believed in something he called the Collective Unconscious, which is a theoretical construct with no basis in physical reality. Personally, I love his work, but I would not ever say that a writer must understand about his archetypes in order to write a book, because that is a very deep and rich part of his theory that I dare say most people claiming to understand, understand only very superficially or not at all.
Secondly, whenever someone makes a statement beginning, “there is a lot of evidence in neuroscience that …”, I want to see their sources, which I tried to do. Your link goes to another blog site, from what I can tell, that is not a neuroscience site. Also, the article is no longer there. I would like to see the “lot of evidence”.
Thirdly, none of what you say about “three-act structure” is relevant to Modernist or Post-Modernist literature, which is much of what’s being read these days outside of genre fiction. Additionally, some of the best genre fiction I’ve read lately leaps right out of a traditional narrative structure, which keeps it lively, challenging, and interesting. You seem to think that readers cannot cope with anything but what they expect to see happen, structurally speaking. I would say many readers would (and do) find that a crashing bore.
I still read traditional narrative, but not solely. None of my reading friends read only traditional narrative, either. Also, there are many ways we have diverged from Aristotle’s “Poetics” since he wrote them, and ever since they became available (giving birth to literary criticism as a form), critics have diverged on their opinions of his ideas. Generations should be free to invent their own forms and to experiment. What you seem to suggest is that everyone should write in a prescribed fashion, which is just death to literature (and the arts generally, too, in my opinion).
I do not read a lot of “expert” internet writers on writing, because of these types of comments you have made, which I think are misleading. I read this article only because a friend sent it to me. I think many of your points (other than the first) are valid and useful, when it comes to marketing information. But perhaps being a great marketer is different from being a great novelist. Many literary-award winning novelists would not fit within your constraints.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

There's not much of a link between ability and getting published, alas. It's luck, then some more luck. Also, it helps who you know...

Sorry, I don't agree. Luck plays a part, but for most published authors I know they worked their socks off to get an agent, and then some more to get published. Ability definitely plays its part. (What's horrid is when fantastic ability doesn't get spotted, though.)

 

[Nerds_feather]

Sorry, I don't agree. Luck plays a part, but for most published authors I know they worked their socks off to get an agent, and then some more to get published. Ability definitely plays its part. (What's horrid is when fantastic ability doesn't get spotted, though.)

"Luck" may be the wrong word--fortune is a better one. But the point stands that it isn't just about merit. Agents and publishers are very busy and have a LOT of manuscripts to go through. Having done this kind of screening work another (non-literary) capacity, I can tell you from experience that no gatekeeper treats all incoming content equally and does not give all the "proper attention."

Getting noticed enough to be read properly is certainly one part merit (the better your manuscript, the more likely you will find success) and two parts work (same for cover letter, presentation, etc., as well as perseverance--the more you sub, the more likely you will be to find the "right" reader). But it's also one part networking (either you or your agent) and another part luck. All of these are elements of fortune, in my opinion, and not all are in your hands.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I have been a slush pile reader and acquisitions editor. Luck is far more important than many writers want to admit. It's not one easily-spotted shiny, well-written ms. in a pile of muck. It's a dozen well-written mss. in a giant pile of mediocre and terrible mss.

Separating the well-written from the mediocre isn't easy, because the full ms. isn't read till it passes most of the hurdles first. Those hurdles are myriad. SASE and or email. Well-written cover letter (free of spelling mistakes and actually interesting). Not likening your unagented ms. to the next Harry Potter phenom. Not comparing your ms. to half a dozen bestsellers. Knowing the genre and target audience of the work. Sending the right genre ms. to the right publisher (you'd be amazed). Not having your ms. sent through a known scam agent or agency. Those are just a few. Any one of these will get your ms. tossed.

Then there's the actual ms. itself. Does it conform to ms. standards? Font. Size. Paragraphs. Word count, not too long, not too short. Genre. Avoids cliches. Opens with a hook. Spelling and grammar. Interesting story. Characters. etc. Is it close enough to a well selling novel already in print, but not too close. Is it completely original without being unreadable.

Then there's the reader you're stuck with. Are they having a bad day? Tired of being a slush reader? Haven't had their coffee yet? Reading a pile of 100 mss. over the weekend for no pay? Yes, that really does happen. A lot. Does it happen to be a bank holiday? Are they tired of the genre in general? Have they read basically the same cliched opening a dozen times in the crap mss. just before your well-written star? Do you open the ms. in a way that single, solitary reader doesn't like? Yes, it often does come right down to impressing that one reader with that first page enough to get them to pay attention on the train home after a long, grueling day at work. Then you have to keep them interested for page two. Then three. While fighting off the kids and demanding spouse. Or parent. Making dinner. Watching tele. Reading something they want to instead of that pile of crap mss. on the nightstand. You've got to overcome all that with a page or two at most.

That's not just luck, that's the stars aligning perfectly to get the right ms. in front of the right slush reader, on the right day, with no more distractions than your ms. can handle. It's so much more than luck.

Most of it comes down to making it easy for the slush reader / acquisitions editor to turn you down. You flub something minor so they can tick off the box and reject you. It saves them time. Welcome to the world. You have to do all this stuff just right, then your ms. gets read, but only the first page or two. If those are amazing, then you get a third page out of the reader. They've got 100 mss. to get through on their weekend. Anything to quicken the pace and get back to the kids.

Some of it's avoidable, some of it's pure, unadulterated chance.

MORAL: You only have control over your story. Just do the best you possibly can with that. Make it impossible for your reader to put down. Make them care. The rest is basically out of your hands.

 

[psychotick]

Hi Fishbowl,

I think you sid one really important thing there: "Luck is far more important than many writers want to admit."

I suspect that's central to the views of some writers about other indie writers. People want to live in a "just world" (it's actually a psych term - the just world hypothesis). A world where they get rewarded for doing things right and not rewarded for doing things wrong. A world that makes sense to them. And the last thing many people want to accept is that the writing world doesn't necessarily work that way. That they can do everything right and still never get picked up by an agent or a publisher. The world is unfair, but many people cannot hear that. If they haven't got an agent and a contract it must be because their writing is not good enough. It can't be that it was all a lottery.

Blast I should have read this before writing my post in my other thread!

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Gary Compton]

If you are determined enough then non of the words banded about matter - vanity - self publishers - traditional route, in it for the money - the fame etc.

Be driven in your goals!

You also have to recognise that the day you think you are ready - you are not. Take it up several notches with professional editing then beta reading and more editing.

Then copy-editing - then a focus group. You can never get too much input.

Unless you are a one off there will be dozens of layers to your manuscript.

Even when you publish you will wish you'd changed something!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It can't be that it was all a lottery.

It is a lottery, but (as I've said before) you don't even get a ticket in that lottery without a lot of hard work.

If they haven't got an agent and a contract it must be because their writing is not good enough.

The flip side of that is the zillions of writers who won't even admit the idea that their work might not be good enough, and attribute their lack of success wholly to the corrupt nature of the entire publishing industry. But no matter how good any of us are -- or think we are, which is more often the case -- there is always room for improvement.

We can rail all we want against the big, bad traditional publishers, but what is the use in that? We have no control over what agents and editors do -- or marketing departments or sales reps -- but we do have control over the quality of our own writing.

And all this is true if you self-publish*, because that's a lottery, too. Except that the amount of work you are going to have to do to increase your chances is so much more, because it doesn't end when you finish writing the book.


______

*But for "the big, bad traditional publishers" substitute "prejudice against self-published books."

 

[psychotick]

Hi Teresa,

Yeah I agree, self pubbed writers suffer from the same issue. Many are unable to accept that they're in a lottery as well. And so you get endless threads by indies in various fora wondering why their book isn't selling, convinced that there is something they can do to make it sell when the truth often is that there isn't. Threads that reek of desperation.

And then you get the threads where they rip shreds off one another, and sometimes start giving each other bad reviews, unable to accept that another author's work sells better than theirs. Actually there's another thread on another board right now (I won't mention names) where participants have been arguing that every time they post numbers of sales for a survey, they get inevitable bad reviews popping up on their books. I've had a couple of drive bys myself from other authors. Thus far I've resisted the temptation to respond in kind.

The whole industry is a type of rat race where a lot of authors are competing for a very few prizes, and it breeds desperation and discontent. If someone else gets ahead, it must be because they cheated somehow. (Dare I suggest that that's the heart of the dispute between trades vs indies.) If books fail to sell it has to be because they aren't good enough so you have to work harder. If someone posts for help saying they aren't selling they often get dumped on because few of those reading want to admit just how much luck is involved in their success or lack of it. And the most popular books / threads of all seem to be "How to sell more books".

At the end of the day all you can do is write / publish the best books you can, put them out there, and move on.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Okay... for "luck" read "fortune."

I'm quite happy to admit I've been fortunate.

 

[Tirellan]

I agree that fortune plays a role; having what the market wants is something that you simply can't predict. Likewise having your novel circulating at a time when editors are growing their lists. You can't control such factors. What you can control is having there best possible story and that is what you should concentrate on.