Are Self Published Books Inherently Inferior?

[Gamal]

As authors and readers, do you feel that in the current market the quality of a traditionally published books is always superior to the quality of a self published book?

http://bit.ly/Qwi83d

Thanks.
Gamal

[Aaron]

"Inherently" inferior? I would say no. "Often" inferior? Unfortunately, the evidence says yes. I say judge each book on its own merits whether "traditional" or self-published.

Aaron

[Gamal]

I think you are right sir. I was only suggesting that a writer who tries to do everything DIY (editing, proofreading, cover design, etc.) is at a disadvantaged when compared to the writer who has a team of professionals supporting them.

Thanks.
Gamal

[[deleted user]]

Both books I had "properly" published have errors in them inserted in them by the publisher after I approved them plus their Kindle formatting leaves much to be desired

Indie publishing for me until that very large advance appears !!

[Chris]

You can't just have a pair of scissors and a needle and call yourself a surgeon, but it seems its perfectly okay to have a Word document and and an internet connection to call yourself a writer.

[[deleted user]]

A traditionally published author has more available to them without the typical worry of financial constraints. Having professional editors, book cover designers, marketing campaign... it offers a lot of advantages to getting started.

Self published authors have these things available to them-- at a cost, and often a cost far above what a writer is pulling in.

A bad writer is simply that-- a bad writer, whether they are traditionally or indie published. The bonus is, it's far less likely that a bad writer is going to be published through any other venue other than self publishing.

As a book reviewer, editor and writer, I've seen this from all sides. As an author, I'm lucky enough to be married to an editor, have a professional cover artist family members, and I'm not weighed down by a "day job" so I have time for marketing. Would a traditional publisher make it easier for me? Yes, it would. I would probably have a lot more book sales.

But I don't think that my books are inferior to those traditionally published, I just don't have a lot of the same advantages.

[Aaron]

Angela- I don't think mine are inferior, either (and you can see for yourself *hint*). I definitely agree with you about the advantages of self-publishing, but I do sometimes worry that quality writers can become lost in all the inferior product that's out there. It's just a battle we have to be willing to fight.

[Aaron]

Chris - exactly

[[deleted user]]

Aaron wrote: "Angela- I don't think mine are inferior, either (and you can see for yourself *hint*). I definitely agree with you about the advantages of self-publishing, but I do sometimes worry that quality wri..."

Ack it didn't save my impossibly long comment back. But you're right, quality writers do get lost in the sea of unedited self-published books, and that's why it' a tough road, but one I'm happy to walk. That's why I started an indie book review site so I can promote the quality writers who deserve recognition. :) I'll check out your page now!

[Max]

Sometimes, they are inferior as the writer has to wear all of the hats and go over everything with a fine tooth comb compared the traditional route with the team of professionals. However, I've read traditionally published books that were inferior and I've also read very professionally done self published books ;)

[Leonardo]

I'm a self-published author of three works (two novels, one memoir)--conflict of interest disclosed ;-) Unfortunately, the combination of the economic downturn, the changes in the publishing industry brought about by ebooks, and the relative ease of self-publishing anything under the sun have combined into a perfect storm in which it is exceedingly difficult for new authors to become published, regardless of their talents, whilst the market is simultaneously flooded with a vast sea of crap-writing that is difficult for readers to distinguish from legitimate works until after they have already spent their money. I have read several self-published works that were very solid constructs and that I was glad to have purchased; however, the fact of the matter is that there are many more, in my experience, highly disappointing self-published works than there are quality ones and that today's literary market is very much a "buyer beware" situation, especially when shopping online. With that said, the biggest online store, Amazon, will let you sample the first few chapters of books free-of-charge and they have a fairly generous return policy if you are disappointed by your purchase. Hopefully the publishing industry will work itself out in the near future because having a third party critically dissect your work before it is published is both incredibly valuable and exceedingly difficult to obtain as a self-published author. One way for self-published authors to work around this difficulty is to edit their books when sticking points/errors are uncovered by readers (all of my books are on the 3rd edition).

Dr. Leonardo Noto (nom de plume)
Physician turned author.

[Dex]

The sheer volume of self published books, and the fact that there isn't a qualifying gatekeeper makes them more likely to be inferior. But that's not to say there aren't diamonds in the coal mine.

The other factors are professional editing, a marketing budget and publisher connections. A renown literary agent will be able to provide all of these -- if they accept a manuscript. And we know that requires a good story, and a lot of luck..

[Chris]

A lot of brilliant writers that would have easily broken through in the 70s or 80s can't get a look in with the trads these days because they're not C-list celebrities or don't write paranormal romance or whatever. There are some brilliant indie writers out there. However, the vast majority are crap. I've lost count of the number of people I've spoken to who, upon hearing I self-publish, say something like, "Oh, sounds easy, I should write a book". If you actually want a career out of it it isn't that simple ... I'm 33 and have been writing for 25 years. I started subbing manuscripts at age 18 and it took me eight years to make a small press sale and 10 to make a pro sale. I have hundreds of rejection letters but through that constant barrage of rejection I built myself up into a decent writer and the number of five star reviews I have (from strangers!) are testament to that. These days people knock up some half-cop rubbish during November, press upload on Dec 1st and sit back expecting to get rich. It's not just ridiculous, its insulting.

[Sumi]

This thread has been silent for quite a while, but I'm hoping to get some responses nonetheless.

I'm a writer who's recently finished and is polishing an MS for submission to 'traditional' publishers and agents (spreadsheet, first and second rounds selected, etc.). Since I try to be realistic, I've done similar research into self-publishing also.

The MS has been through three rounds of betas and two rounds of content- and copy-edits; what I'm doing now is final editing. If I don't get a publisher, I'll be ready to put my name on the book and have confidence that it will read as carefully constructed (and hopefully as skillfully constructed).

The question I have is this: My research into traditional and self-publishing has left me uncertain as to whether or not to pursue traditional publication, at least with this first MS. The rationale for serializing the first half of my novel and then self-publishing is fairly strong. And today I read something about new non-compete clauses here that scared the pants off me.

Are they, indeed, as standard as this writer seems to think? Do publishers really walk if you won't sign a non-compete? I've been to law school (I'm a dual-degree student), and am well aware of how terribly hard contract disputes are to resolve, and how much they cost the smaller party. I've read a lot of scary things about traditional publishing, but nothing till now has made me question whether it's worthwhile--only whether it's achievable with my first few books.

Opinions, please, and experiences from writers who've signed publishing contracts recently? I'd really appreciate any information you can offer. Thank you.

[Hayley]

Sumi, I think it depends on two things: What type of book you've written? and What's your goal as a writer?

I've heard it said that if you've written 'genre' fiction: mystery, paranormal, romance, anything that can be serialized, then it's probably better to self-publish. The online market for that kind of writing is huge. If, on the other hand, you've written something literary, something that would appeal more to people over thirty than under thirty, you're going to find online marketing a challenge. You're even going to find it hard to find reviewers.

Also, if your goal is respect as an author, if it's more important for you to have a small group of well-respected people laud your work than the masses of people who wouldn't know really good writing as a craft if they saw it, who claim that Stephanie Meyers is better writer than Margaret Atwood (!) then try for traditional publishing.

I'm afraid I can't comment on legal clauses. As a writer, I don't care about that. I don't care if I'm getting screwed by a publisher, as long as my work is gaining respect.

[Sumi]

Hayley wrote: "Sumi, I think it depends on two things: What type of book you've written? and What's your goal as a writer?
I've heard it said that if you've written 'genre' fiction: mystery, paranormal, romanc..."

Hayley, thanks for taking the time to give such a thoughtful answer. My goal is...both. I intend to have a writing *career*; and I think that either self-publication or traditional publication will eventually earn one a reputation as a good writer, and respect, if one is conscientious about one's craft.

The main reason I'm considering self-publication is market. I wrote the book I wanted to read, and it's cross-genre in a way for which there's very little existing market. But even with my chances thus lessened, the lure of the immediate approval and endorsement of traditional publishing is still very strong. (And, for a few harrowing seconds, your assertion regarding the masses' opinion of Meyer and Atwood made me want to poke myself in the eye. Ye gods.)

I'm an MD-JD student, and so constitutionally incapable of ignoring legal clauses; the one which scared me in the article I referenced requires that the author, because of having sold one work to the publisher, obtain the publisher's permission to publish *anything* else. The language is explicit, enforceable, and untenable for anyone who actually wants a career as a writer, rather than to sell a book.

[[deleted user]]

Sumi wrote: "Hayley wrote: "Sumi, I think it depends on two things: What type of book you've written? and What's your goal as a writer?
I've heard it said that if you've written 'genre' fiction: mystery, para..."

I had to comment on this, because I understand the frustrations and hesitations you have over a traditional publisher. I wrote a book that toes the line between popular fiction and something unique into itself. If I had waited long enough and kept at it, I likely could have found myself a traditional publisher- but that also presents the issues regarding legal rights that has you hesitant.

You have some restrictions in the self-publishing market, especially if you go through amazon or B&N but not nearly as much, and after 90 days you are free to do with the book what you will.

Even though I'm not studied in the legal field, I try to be as hyper aware of contracts and my rights over my own work as I possibly can be.

Truthfully, if you wait long enough, you will probably find a traditional publisher with a contract more to your liking, but it's all a matter of waiting and filtering through them.

And in truth, what I've found more recently, is that traditional publishers' real advantage now isn't so much marketing is making your book available in bookstores-- which you can do on your own with self-publishing, it just takes a little more effort. But a lot of the publishing houses aren't offering much in the way of marketing anymore since the internet has become so wide-spread.

I personally love the pricing, advertising, and marketing control I have over my books with self-publishing, but again, it's all a matter of preference and what works best for you. It sounds like you're very driven and willing to make it work, so going self-published might not be a bad idea.

:)

[[deleted user]]

Oh and the masses opinion of Meyer-- I had the same reaction. "Ye gods".

[Bridget]

Sumi, what Kris Rusch wrote about non-compete clauses is only part of the problem with pursuing a career as a traditionally-published author. True, it's one of the scarier problems, but there are many others. If you intend to keep writing books (and going about it carefully and intelligently, as you clearly are), I'm inclined to think self-publishing gives you a better chance of success than waiting on a trad deal. If a writer gets one (and they're getting rarer and less financially rewarding every year), it's often true that her problems are just beginning.

Kris has been there and done that. Take some time and read lots of her articles (perhaps starting at http://kriswrites.com/2012/12/12/the-... and following links to other pieces), and subsribing to her Thursday blog, http://kriswrites.com/business-rusch-.... In the 27 years I've known her, she's gone from a newly-trad-published author, to a veteran author of dozens of trad-published books, to a writer who won't be signing any more trad contracts. And she'll be happy to tell you exactly why.

In the end, you decide. But some information along the way can be golden. All success with what I'm guessing will be a successful writing career.

[Sumi]

Angella wrote: "I had to comment on this, because I understand the frustrations and hesitations you have over a traditional publisher. I wrote a book that toes the line between popular fiction and something unique into itself."

Angella, thanks so much for giving me your opinion on this. Traditional publishing has physical distribution and critical respect behind it; self-publishing has legal, financial, and creative control behind it. Weighting the respect of the publishing world, and those who take the craft of writing seriously enough to work in it, against the ability to have complete control over my own work, is a tough call. If publishers still offered marketing to authors, it would be a no-brainer. As it is, the current stance of 'you have to create demand for your work; we just print and ship the books' really tilts the equation in the other direction.

I've done due diligence on agents and publishing houses, spreadsheet and all, and probably *will* do the traditional three-round submission. But I've been through three rounds of beta, copy- and content-edits, and the work I send in will be, in my judgment, the very best that I can produce. All of which means that if the three-round submission doesn't work (as I'm expecting it not to, because of the problems with existing market for this particular hybrid), I'll go ahead and self-publish, because the work will be ready for the public eye.

And either way, I'm certain to have more questions. Thanks again for offering your perspective on these issues, Angella; your personal choices and experiences help give me a sense of the range of approaches possible.

[Sumi]

Bridget wrote: "Sumi, what Kris Rusch wrote about non-compete clauses is only part of the problem with pursuing a career as a traditionally-published author. True, it's one of the scarier problems, but there are m..."

Thank you for giving me your thoughts on this, Bridget--and for your encouragement. I truly appreciate you being willing to share your many years of experience.

I think a writer's problems begin when she decides to publish, myself; each route seems to be fraught with its own perils. My research into SP is actually one of the reasons for pursuing traditional publishing, in my mind; it seems as though most of the people who actually manage to make a living as SPAs published traditionally first, and thus managed to establish a wider market for their work. I'm not sure how that would work in today's traditional-publishing climate, however. What's your take on this?

I certainly do intend to work my way through Ms. Rusch's blog, though from the few articles I've read there her stance on traditional publishing is already very clear. For me, traditional publishing seems like a very savvy first step, if one can manage it; but again, it may not be an option for me until I can actually create a market for my hybrid.

My thanks for taking the time to answer my question, Bridget. I certainly hope you're right--finding people willing to contribute their knowledge, ideas and experiences is certainly a huge first step toward success.

[Bridget]

Hugh Howey (science fiction) Colleen Hoover (Romance / YA), and Amanda Hocking (Fantasy) are three self-published authors who landed really big trad pub deals. They're the tip of the iceberg, really. Self-published books have become a prominent sort of slush pile for agents and trad publishers, so it's increasingly not an either-or decision for writers pursuing trad pub.

In addition, there are dozens of other, similarly mind-boggling deals, and hundreds of still very sweet self-to-trad stories, including author-publishers who landed contracts with Amazon's publishing arm without ever having gotten close to a trad pub deal.

Kris earned her negative feelings about trad pub by being published at some time or other by virtually all the big publishers, by studying the industry, and by losing a lot of money and sales and figuring out how she might do it better. She had a lot of readers and fans to bring over from her print books, but Hugh Howey, et al, didn't have a single one.

It's not impossible to break in with trad pub, even today, but their purchases are more heavily weighted than ever toward guaranteed best-selling authors. Their advances and back-end royalties, which were ridiculous even back when I was cashing their checks, have been slashed again and again over the past few years. Their contracts are increasingly unfriendly (dangerous might be a better word) to authors, and all but a very few agents are tying authors down with contracts that are likewise career-killers.

Every writer, and every writer's dreams, are unique. But to writers whose dream is to get a killer deal with a big publisher I feel the need to say "Not only is traditional publishing not what you may think it is in relation to your dreams, but it wasn't that twenty-three years ago when I signed my first contract. The difference is, then it was the only game in town, we believed publishers valued us individually, and we honestly thought agents were negotiating on our side of the table. It was never true, and it's even less true today."

So getting the deal of your dreams can be done, but it's difficult to turn that deal into a career, or even to keep it from harming any career you might make for yourself. Sorry for the horribly long post, but having seen this from both sides, I have strong opinions. :)

[Sumi]

Bridget wrote: "Hugh Howey (science fiction) Colleen Hoover (Romance / YA), and Amanda Hocking (Fantasy) are three self-published authors who landed really big trad pub deals. They're the tip of the iceberg, reall..."

Of course I've heard of Hugh Howey--who hasn't? And the SPA success stories--both spectacular and more modest--are truly encouraging. I don't, however, class myself with them.

Because of my relentless realism and innate caution, I tend not to assume success at any venture I undertake. More to the point, though, although I've been through many rounds of editing in an effort to produce the tightest, most polished work I'm capable of creating at this point, I don't assume there's a big audience for it, or that I'm as skilled (yet) as the authors who've landed huge contracts.

The work I've produced is unique and something of which I'm proud, but it isn't for everyone. I rather think I'll have to build an audience a person at a time. More exposure, whether in print or electronically, would be...well, more chance to hook those few readers. Though maybe I *am* being a little bit arrogant in thinking I could just hire an attorney and sign a publisher's contract without letting myself be screwed over completely.

Now that I think about it, though, the best way to retain rights to digital work *is* to have the first-publication license off the table in the first place. Hmmm.

I've never thought any business was innately trustworthy (we may have some shared goals, but why should I trust my well-being to an entity whose first and last responsibility is the bottom line?), but I was unaware that agents were no longer trustworthy. That's sad news indeed. And it makes me appreciate your warnings all the more.

And there's no need to apologize for writing at length, Bridget--especially when you've such an important warning to convey. Thanks again for being willing to share your experience.

PS: May I message you privately with a few genre questions?

[Bridget]

I'm sure there are agents who are as trustworthy as they know how to be. I had two, and I think both are honest and honorable, but an agent is in business, and his business is far more tied to the publisher than to any individual author. Long, long ago, I wrote a blog about it (http://www.bridgetmckenna.com/1/post/...). It says more than I could fit in here.

I will say this: Imagine yourself successful, and let "realism" be hanged. You need to point your feet at what you want in order to get there.

Feel free to email me at [firstandlastname]at gmail.

[Thomas]

I would say not necessarily, but the potential is there. Much of it depends on the writer, and whether he or she chooses to cut corners. Editing, proofreading, and Beta reader teams are all available online, but many indies choose to "go it alone", thereby saving a lot of money - and subsequently offering a product that looks exactly like what it is - home made.
I might also say that this category makes it tough for good indie authors to overcome the stigma that's come from readers struggling through the piles of poorly written and edited work that jams the shelves of Amazon, and any other book portal you care to mention.

[Michael]

I am "blogging my book". Is it wise to blog everything? Are there people out there stealing work?

I'm not so worried about it, but just curious.

[Willett]

I think publishing as an indie author is much like selling your house yourself. You can do it successfully, but you still need to do the work involved, crossing the t's and dotting the i's. Also, of course, what you net ultimately depends on your product as Thomas noted in his comment.

[Thomas]

Michael wrote: "I am "blogging my book". Is it wise to blog everything? Are there people out there stealing work?

I'm not so worried about it, but just curious."

Michael, what do you mean by "blogging your book"? If you mean putting it all out there to be read, I'd stop. If you want to entice people, select a couple good parts and put them out there as "teasers". If folks like them, they might be curious enough to get it.

[Chris]

Self-publishing is akin to going to medical school (or law school or whatever). Many writers do their full course of study before starting to self-publish, while many were forced to do it before self-publishing came along. However, many decide to just drop out after a year or two years or three years and have a crack at doing it anyway. Still others believe that as long as you wear a nice coat (editing, proofreading, formatting, cover) its okay to drop out after a year, or two years, because you look like a doctor, right?

The path each self-publishing author takes is entirely their own choice, but if they don't do their full course of study (say five years of practice) they'll likely suffer in the long run. I've read self-published books that looked nice and had no errors, but they lacked that spark that would make me a repeat customer. The writing was flat or formulaic, the plots were boring or cliched, and usually the endings just fizzled out. They weren't bad books, they just weren't good enough to reread or recommend. Self-publishing is like building a house - but how well you build that house before you start trying to sell it is entirely up to the writer.

[Ronald]

Not always. Hugh Howey with his work, "Wool," is a prime example of a great self published work.

[Michael]

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13...

She takes the tack that you should blog most of the book to demonstrate a following and then save the ending for publishing.

[Patrick]

No, self published book are not inferior. It depends on the author, the story being told, circumstances... I wrote my book originally as a self published, sent it to publishers and got it picked up, re edited and published. www.medicstory.com is my website.

[Bridget]

Chris wrote: "You can't just have a pair of scissors and a needle and call yourself a surgeon, but it seems its perfectly okay to have a Word document and and an internet connection to call yourself a writer."

I'm with Hugh Howey on this one: anyone should write and publish who wants to write and publish. It's a good thing.

Furthermore, books written by people you don't consider writers aren't your competition. People who want to read your books will never see them or need to consider whether to buy them or your books, or even know they exist. They won't appear on the same virtual shelves that you do, or be fed to your potential readers as suggestions. You need only compete with yourself to get more and better books in front of readers.

[Chris]

Bridget wrote: "Chris wrote: "You can't just have a pair of scissors and a needle and call yourself a surgeon, but it seems its perfectly okay to have a Word document and and an internet connection to call yoursel..."

I never said they shouldn't publish. I just said that it's any individual's choice and that publishing poor writing could prove detrimental to a long term career. If you look at Hugh Howey's website he talks about writing during his teens, plus Wool wasn't his first novel. He didn't start writing just because it became easy to self-publish. He was already writing and had likely honed his skills to a pretty high level before he did it, whether intentionally or not. There's a be difference between advising caution (like I'm doing) and telling people not to self-publish (which I'm not).

[Bridget]

Chris wrote: "Bridget wrote: "Chris wrote: "You can't just have a pair of scissors and a needle and call yourself a surgeon, but it seems its perfectly okay to have a Word document and and an internet connection..."

Thanks for the clarification, Chris. As far as careers go, I agree that you can't just publish anything that rolls off your fingers if you want to have a good one.

[Chris]

Exactly. Even after fifteen years or more I only consider half of what I write any good. The rest of is just practice. Even last year I wrote a bunch of stories and stuff that I probably won't ever publish (unless I can hide them at the bottom of an anthology somewhere ...!). Every self-published writer is in control of their own quality, and they have to decided what they consider good enough to publish based on their expectations and what they want to achieve.

[[deleted user]]

There are obvious marketing advantages with a publication house, but they can also ruin your book (cover, text, you name it) which is something I experienced and to such a point where I no longer wanted the thing to sell because it was an embarrassment. In contrast, self-publication requires the author's satisfaction in all things.

[Thomas]

There is one major pitfall in indie publishing that does not exist in the traditional publishing world - the capability of putting your book out without another set of eyes judging it.
Any indie writer can self-edit, proofread, and cover their book, and throw it up for sale, while traditional publishing requires carefully, often multi-step editing, Beta reads, and a cover that is well-designed. (Toni, I'm sorry to hear of your experience. You got in with a bad publisher. There are many others who are great.)
Now, having said that, I'll note that I know a slew of indies that have their work carefully (and many times, professionally) edited and proofread, and pay very good money for a splendid cover.
But - and it's a big but - many don't go through all that. They let a few friends look it over, design a cover with photoshop or pay $25 for it, and there you go.
The latter group gives the indie writer a bad name, deservedly or not.

[[deleted user]]

Thomas, I would gently add that I think the subject is far more complex than your description which is obviously weighted to the traditional publishing world. I don't think I got in with a bad publisher. I'd say it was more like an average publisher. Yes, I agree there's a lot of terrible work being published today, but I'd say it's coming from both the traditional publishing world and the self-publishing world with no easy conclusions that can be drawn about either. Because I happen to be a professional editor, proofreader and graphic designer, I had no need to hire someone else to perform these tasks, but I'm also confident I did a much better job because I know the work far better than someone who is just seeing it for the first time and may not feel any connection to it. A lot of so-called 'professionals' are on automatic in the services they provide and I think writers need to exercise more control over their work, not less.

[Thomas]

Hah..."gently add" - I like that :)
True, I am trad published, but I now know enough to apply the same care my work, should I ever venture out into the indie world.
And yes, you're absolutely right, it is more complex than my remark. I was just trying to point out that more control over quality exists by default in the trad world - it still has to be a good story, in order to be successful.
And I completely get that the self-publishing author - if careful - can do a stellar job with publishng their own work, because who knows it better? And yes, there are publishing houses out there who rush and cut corners in order to get books out there.
As you say, there's not a simple answer - just a myriad of possibilities...

[[deleted user]]

Tom, I really meant it when I said gently because I want you to know I'm not speaking with hostility, but I don't agree with this assumption: "more control over quality exists by default in the traditional world".

For the last 30+ years, the publishing industry has been completely consolidated under corporate ownership. They may still bear the imprints of an earlier era, but they bear no relationship to that era. Today's publishing world is about profit; first, last and always and that doesn't always involve quality. For example, in today news, a 17 year old girl got a million dollar contract for a romance novel. Do you think there's anyone in the publishing world who thinks that has anything to do with the quality of her prose? Because I don't.

William Faulkner's first five or six novels lost money for his publisher, but his publisher never thought of dropping him. Faulkner really was quality, a great literary artist, and more commercial work subsidized his development. Today it's all reversed. The only thing that matters to the publishing world is mass market fiction. Any author who see words as an art form must be independent.

[Gamal]

Toni, I don't know if the situation for authors is that cut and dry. An actor can look for independent films to enhance his craft and still appear in blockbusters to pay the bills (Gordon Hewitt). A musician can release a top 40 album and still work on her own experimental music. An author has the same option; traditional publishing to appease the masses and independent publishing to satisfy the craft. My original post wasn't rejecting one or the other. I am only suggesting that independent publishers use a team to publish their work instead of trying to write, edit, format, cover design and market everything themselves.

[[deleted user]]

Writing is peculiar to my husband and I in that writing is the one profession where practitioners are urged to turn over their work to someone else for finishing. Film makers use editors, but in that case, it's different technology.

I agree that there's a lot of sloppy writing out there, but I would urge writers to work harder at what they're doing and not be in such a hurry to get finished, you turn your work over to someone else.

I've known a number of people who weren't happy with what an editor did, not to mention the cost, but felt they were supposed to defer to the editor's expertise which I think is ridiculous. It's the writer who had the vision to write something in the first place and, if you are writing something, you should know or learn enough about what you're doing, to be able to view it critically and finish it.

BTW, whenever Faulkner got edited, he just restored his work back where it belonged because he knew what he was doing.

[Chris]

Self-publishing allows many niche market writers to find a career that they wouldn't have been able to find through traditional publishing. For example, if I made $10,000 - $20,000 a year that would make a massive difference to my life, but for a big publisher it would be hardly worth the initial investment.

Horror is apparently dead, yet in the last six weeks I've sold 80 copies of a horror short story collection. A major publisher wouldn't even waste time laughing at that, but from five short stories I wrote ten years ago I'm making money every day. Not much, but money's money. I get twenty collections doing the same thing and I'm no longer working a day job, yet trad publishers would still be turning me away. Small gains for a trad are big gains for an indie.

[Thomas]

Toni, I get what you're saying about it now being a much more profit-based process - and I agree, by and large. But, I think it's much more prevelant in large publishing houses. Small presses have to be much more discerning, because every single author, every single book counts.
And what I meant by "quality control" is that in trad publishing, the publisher has to recognize it as at least a workable manuscript, the editor (most times a pro) can work with the author to craft it into something better, and a cover artist can fashion a cover that captures the spirit of the work.
And yes, you do give over control - but - it can be a tradeoff. I, as it happens, am reading a novel by an indie friend of mine, and he has no idea how to write in past tense. So whole paragraphs are incorrect. It's a great story, but it has so much detracted because of the grammar errors - errors that wouldn't have happened in a trad publication.

[Thomas]

And Toni, I knew you were trying to avoid being overbearing - I just thought you put it in a cute way :)

[Gamal]

I don't think that any writer should skimp on their craft or relinquish control of the final product to an editor or anyone else. On the contrary, I propose that writers take control of the entire publishing process, from first idea to ongoing marketing.

But taking control doesn't have to mean doing everything yourself. I would rather mold the expertise of an editor, publicist, and designer to my vision. If I can harness their skills the right way, it leaves me more time to write.

Does that make sense?

[[deleted user]]

I totally agree with Chris about economies of scale with publishing. Self-publishing sales can be very meaningful for the author while they aren't worth considering to a publisher which is why the comparisons to vanity publishing of years ago are completely inaccurate. Today's self-published author enjoys many advantages that are attractive to serious writers and I believe, will ultimately, eliminate any remaining stigma that might still be attached to self-publishing.

Tom, I get what you're saying about traditional publishing, but I also believe if an author has to work with an editor to craft a story, that writer isn't ready for prime time. A writer should be in control of all tenses which in English is a weighty task because we have more tenses and more irregular verbs than most other languages. Still, a writer should know how to use every one of them. I guess I make an exception for Thomas Wolfe because the outcome of his collaboration??? with his editor, Maxwell Perkins, produced such a good outcome. But, in that case, is Wolfe still the sole author??? I don't know. BTW, thanks for liking my use of adjectives.

Gamal, I totally understand what you're saying. My husband can't use graphic designer software and he has no desire or time to learn it, but he's got a very good visual sense and we worked together on a cover for his novel, Ceremony of Innocence. However, I found that sort of close collaboration is not available in traditional publishing because the 'professionals' know so much more. As a result, I had a publisher throw out a dramatic name and cover I designed in favor of a totally cookie cutter cover and generic title and when I said that, basically agreed with me, but still thought something more predictable would also generate more sales, I guess, from readers who are already brain dead.

[Bridget]

I've known a number of people who weren't happy with what an editor did, not to mention the cost, but felt they were supposed to defer to the editor's expertise which I think is ridiculous. It's the writer who had the vision to write something in the first place and, if you are writing something, you should know or learn enough about what you're doing, to be able to view it critically and finish it.

Let me respond to that as an editor: I don't believe the skills it takes to write a book and the skills for seeing that book from the outside in a larger context always come in the same package. If they did, publishers would never have made traditional the practice of using editors. Speaking for myself and the writers I know, the knack of viewing one's own work critically is seldom as honed as we think. I believe that writers who are more than ready for prime time can still use editorial input, and I wrote a book on self-editing. I hired an editor for it.

When I work with clients they know up front that the work is theirs and my suggestions are my opinions about what will improve some aspect of the story or the manuscript. In the self-publishing world, the author decides which suggestions to take.

Now all that said, the beauty of the way we do things now is that everyone gets to decide what kind of outside input, if any, they want for their work. But I'd ask you not to throw editors out with the trad-pub bathwater. A good one who's a good fit for a writer's work can still be a worthwhile investment in the development of a book.

[Thomas]

Bridget wrote: "I've known a number of people who weren't happy with what an editor did, not to mention the cost, but felt they were supposed to defer to the editor's expertise which I think is ridiculous. It's th..."
Well said, Bridget. As Toni mentioned above, the spirit of the author's writing can be smudged with too much interference by editors. However, a melding of talents can serve to enhance the story. And I also agree that writing and editing are two different worlds. Often, they are one in the same in indie publishing, but I think that is detrimental to the finished product.