Young Writers discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archives
>
Self Publishing--Thoughts?
Mod
*sits down on beanbag next to Holden with cinema-sized bag of Minstrels*
I always love a good Brigid self-publishing rant!As for me...
I've become more and more opposed to it. I don't think it's a bad thing for certain authors. But really. Lots of people just do it because they can't get traditionally published, and that's stupid. Very stupid. If your work isn't good enough to get traditionally published, why in hell do you think it's good enough to be self published?!? If your book sucks, it sucks. There should be no difference in the standard between self- and traditionally-published books. None.
On that note, I've read great self-published books. But please, please, only self-publish if you've written a GOOD book that has been EDITED and EDITED and EDITED. It better be something you'd pick up in a bookstore and be happy with, because that's what people are paying for - the fact that they're paying for it online makes absolutely no difference.
Colby wrote: "I always love a good Brigid self-publishing rant!As for me...
I've become more and more opposed to it. I don't think it's a bad thing for certain authors. But really. Lots of people just do it..."
Yeah, there's a lot of shitty self-published works out there. Every heard of Glora Tesch? Her book is absolutely hysterical. And it's not supposed it be.
On the flip side, my question wasn't so much about the quality of self-publishing. I totally agree that no one should self-publish unless their writing is good enough to be traditionally published. Like you said, if a book sucks, it just sucks. But I'm starting to think that self-publishing can be a better alternative to traditional publishing, if you know what you're doing and have a killer book. Ironically, I intern for a literary agency. :P
With traditional pubbing, publishers take a HUGE percentage of your royalties. Then agents come along and swipe away 15% of what you have left. You lose the rights to your book. You don't have much say in editing. You have pretty much no say in cover design, marketing, ect.
Amazon's KDP package takes only 30% of royalties. You can design your own cover, control your edits and content of your book, and maintain full rights of your book. You control the marketing, and how much effort is put into it.
So, there's a big difference. If you don't know what you're doing, then self-publishing is an absolutely horrid option. But if you know what you're doing, it's great.
My writing group proves my point. One of our members got an agent, then a traditional publishing deal. She ended up with a pretty small press, but she still ended up going the very traditional route. She sells about 5 copies a week of her book. Yeah. FIVE.
Another member, who I mentioned above, self-published through KDP. She's selling 200-250 copies a day. She knows what she's doing, has a beautiful cover, keeps up a blog, knows how to write, and is building a large following.
So, I'm definitely not saying that traditional pubbing is a bad route to go. But it's definitely not always successful, and self-publishing is becoming an increasingly awesome option. IF, and that's a huge if, you know what you're doing and have a quality book.
Holden wrote: "↑Brigid is not a huge fan of selfl-publishing. LOL, I can't wait for this. *grabs popcorn* :-)"Hahaha nor am I.
I've just finished editing a friend's moms' book manuscript :D She'll publish it early next year.I want to try and traditionally publish first, before selfpublishing. I feel self-publishing won't give me any satisfaction, knowing that a threw my book up there on my own terms. I want to know if it is actually good or not - so I'll run it past a few publishers first and then have self-publishing as a last resort. :)
Mod
Okay, firstly I must say that I am not completely opposed to self-publishing. I think, in some rare cases, it works better for some authors. Mostly, it's best for authors who have already been published. As Freefallen said, it makes more sense to self-published after you're already an established author. In fact, in that case, you might make more profit from self-publishing than you would with traditional publishing, since you would be the only one profiting from your sales. But unfortunately, If you're just anyone, you're going to have a lot of trouble convincing people to purchase your self-published book. And honestly, your book probably isn't all that good, which doesn't help.
Here are several reasons why people choose self-publishing over traditional publishing, and why I think ... well, they're not the best reasons.
a) Traditional publishing is too hard.
This is pretty much what Colby said. Many people choose self-publishing because they've given up too early on traditional publishing. And I'm not going to lie ... traditional publishing is a major pain. Sending out dozens of queries and getting shot down by literary agents isn't the best feeling in the world. It gets utterly frustrating.
But as much as you might not want to admit it to yourself, there's probably a good reason why agents are rejecting you. Something needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, many agents send out impersonal rejections which don't tell you why they're rejecting you. But at least a few agents will probably give you a reason or two. And chances are, there will be patterns in those reasons. Maybe your book is too long, or the characters aren't developed enough, or it's too similar to another book. If you know these things, you can keep editing your book until it's actually publish-worthy.
b) Editing will "ruin" your voice.
I've seen a lot of self-publishers express concern that editors, agents, and publishers are evil tyrants who will just take your book and completely rewrite it. And/or they'll keep making you edit your book until it doesn't feel like yours anymore.
Well ... if editing makes you feel that way, you're not editing the right way. The truth is, the power of writing is really in the editing. You have to accept that your first draft is crap. Probably your second and third drafts will be crap, too. If you self-publish, then you'll probably expose your book to the world before it's ready.
Furthermore, it's not enough to edit your book by yourself. And sure, feedback from friends, family, and beta readers can help, but it's not enough. You need to get professional opinions as well. And no, agents/editors/publishers aren't going to just take your book and rewrite it under your name. In fact, that would make the whole process a lot easier. Instead, they're just there to critique the crap out of your book, and expect you to make all the changes yourself until it works. Yes, it's a brutal process, but it has a much better pay-off in the long run, since you end up with a much more satisfactory product.
c) There are self-publishers who have had major success and sold millions of copies of their books by themselves.
When I ask self-publishers to give me an example of a self-publisher who has actually had major success, usually only a handful of names comes up. Typically it's either Christopher Paolini and/or Amanda Hocking––neither of which, in my opinion, have much talent. And I only know of their work in the first place because they were both picked up by major publishers.
Yes, there are cases when self-publishers gain major success, but they are extremely, extremely rare. There are thousands of self-published authors out there, and I can only name two famous ones. Of those two, I think only Christopher Paolini is the really well-known one. And in my humble opinion, I think both authors' success is based more heavily on luck than on talent. Luckily, Christopher Paolini was home-schooled and his parents knew a lot about the publishing industry and helped him to publicize his book. Luckily, Amanda Hocking had the time to publicize her own books like crazy, and by chance a ton of people decided to buy them.
Now, it may be a matter of taste, but I personally don't think either of them produces particularly quality work to begin with. I read Eragon back when it first came out and wasn't a fan. I honestly haven't read the entirety of one of Amanda Hocking's books. But I've read the first few pages of some of her self-published works––and they had a lot of typos, info dumps, etc. which an editor would have dealt with.
The point being, even if your self-published books are popular––which is extremely rare to begin with––that doesn't mean they're actually good. I'd personally rather have a better book, and not make as much money. (Although through traditional publishing, you're more likely to make more money, anyway.)
I guess that's the end of my rant for now. In conclusion ... basically, I don't recommend self-publishing unless you're already an established and well-known author. And even if you are, you probably can't produce your best book all by yourself.
Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "I didn't realize so many people were waiting for my rant. Ha. Sorry for the wait.Okay, firstly I must say that I am not completely opposed to self-publishing. I think, in some rare cases, it work..."
Brigid, you summed up all of my feelings of self-publishing very nicely :)
Holden wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "*sits down on beanbag next to Holden with cinema-sized bag of Minstrels*"...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thing, with a sort of thin chocolate shell on the outside and then more milk chocolate on the inside. Like Smarties or M&Ms but about the size of a twenty-pence coin, and with chocolate instead of...whatever chemicals they use to make the food colouring.
You can get enormous packets of them at the cinema.
[image error]
Mod
...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thing, with a sort of thin chocolate she..."
Hmm I've never seen those before, but they sound delicious. I guess they don't sell them in the US. Also I have no idea how big a twenty-pence coin is. XD
Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "Holden wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "*sits down on beanbag next to Holden with cinema-sized bag of Minstrels*"...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thing, with a sort of thi..."
So you don't xD. Sorry. I'm so stupid sometimes.
BEHOLD, 20p, ALSO APPROXIMATELY THE SIZE OF A MINSTREL-
Mod
Self publishing has its pros and cons.Yes, the traditional publishers do take all your money. BUT!
If your book sucks, you won't earn any money self publishing.
Mod
...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thing, with a sort of thin chocolate she..."
I waaaant. Holy crumb.
Mod
...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thing, with a sort of thin chocolate she..."
I waaaant. Holy crumb.
Mod
Mod
So, the thing is, everyone can't be an author. Like, everyone can't be a lion. If everyone was a lion then everyone would be dead.
Self-publishing makes people think that they can be authors. But it's really... not true. Traditional publishing helps weed out the bad books and helps make it so there aren't a ton of books.
I almost feel like self-publishing makes books less significant.
Yeah... I'm bad at forming coherent thoughts.
Mod
Mod
XDD
Mod
Mod
Mod
Someone did that in my library's book club group. I was just like... really? We have 5 active members. That's going to get you far.
Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Uh, that link does not work for some reason. :("*fixes*
It was showing for me. Does it work now?
T e s n i wrote: "Holden wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "*sits down on beanbag next to Holden with cinema-sized bag of Minstrels*"...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thing, with a sort of thin chocolate she..."
Eh. They're not that good...I prefer M&Ms, personally.
♫Huneeya♥ wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "Holden wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "*sits down on beanbag next to Holden with cinema-sized bag of Minstrels*"...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thing, with a sort of thi..."
O:
I practically lived off them during NaNoWriMo. (However, I am totally indifferent towards M&Ms, so.)
Mod
*fixes*
It was showing for me. Does it work now?"
Oh yeah, now it works. ^_^ Cooool.
Mod
XDD"
Oh man. That's the other thing. You have to advertise your own book like crazy, because otherwise no one would ever know about it. So self-published authors often come off as rather desperate and annoying. I mean, I do know a lot of lovely people who are self-publishers, but a majority of the ones I've encountered have just been spam-machines.
I started the group Teen Readers Book Club, and one of my, like, 3 'oh-so-complex' rules, one of them is that you have to be active in the group before you promote your book.Guess how many self published authors abide by that rule? Like 2. I've gotten on one or two author's cases...IS IT SO FREAKING HARD TO READ THE RULES BEFORE POSTING?!?!
Mod
I delete duplicate posts. That annoys me. This one guy got on this other person's topic promoting their book and he posted the same post as he just had in his own topic. I messaged him and got onto him :)
Mod
...Minstrels?"
They are the most delicious thi..."
When we meet, you're going to give me some, okay? xD *greedy Lav is greedy*
Mod
Someone did that in my library's book club group. ..."
I'm pretty sure...
I deleted it. Or I imagined it and imagined that I deleted it.
Mod
..."
And nobody likes a spam machine.
Mod
You're one to talk. xD
Mod
Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "Guh, I know right? It annoys me when people join groups just to promote their books. I'm in this other group where, I swear, this one guy posted the same exact topic about his book like three separ..."*headdesk*
Holden wrote: "Lav [sing it for the ones that'll hate your guts] wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "♫Huneeya♥ wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "Holden wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "*sits down on beanbag next to Holden with cinema-..."Lav [sing it for the ones that'll hate your guts] wrote: "Hehe, yes. You'll be famous but we'll make YOU give US chocolate. Because we were your friends before all the popularity. :D"
WE NEED TO TOTALLY DO THIS. *fistpump*
I shall come and visit you in Kansas and bring you chocolate, whether or not I have a novel (or a novella) with me.
(But also, if you are my fans, then should you not shower me with chocolates?)
Also, possibly a stupid question, is People the sort of magazine that a writer would want to be featured on and/or an article of the mass media? Methinks I would rather spend my days doing something of a Greta Garbo and wanting to be left alone. I'll probably just end up buying a garret in Vienna or somewhere.
Mod
Eep, hooray!
(Pssh. That's not how it works these days. The fans receive the gifts. It's only fair. xD)
I have never seen a writer on the cover of People... I always thought it was a trashy celeb magazine...?
Lav [sing it for the ones that'll hate your guts] wrote: "WE DO. Eep, hooray!
(Pssh. That's not how it works these days. The fans receive the gifts. It's only fair. xD)
I have never seen a writer on the cover of People... I always thought it was a tras..."
8D
(Oh. Alas. I would shower you with Minstrels anyway. Also Maltesers. Do you have Maltesers?)
That's what I suspected, so. Doesn't sound like a magazine I would want to be in, kthanx. Actually as a general rule the idea of being on the front of a magazine intimidates me. Unless it would be, like, the cover of the Review section of the saturday Telegraph or something.
Mod
xD I wouldn't either. I do want my picture to be on the back inside cover of a book though. That's my dream.
(Deprived country! D8 I shall have to bring Maltesers too, then.) That would indeed be nice. Except knowing me I'd probably be terribly awkward when the photograph was taken. My front teeth look quite awful and smiling with my mouth closed or open is like a choice between two evils.
Mod
Mod
Lav [sing it for the ones that'll hate your guts] wrote: "Pssh, you'll look gorgeous when the picture is taken. :D I am positive of it."*awkwardly stares at feet*
Speaking of which, I am getting braces put on my bottom row of teeth this week, which means yay. Only 19 months to go before I can be rid of them altogether. Woooo.
Mod
I've never read it, only seen it in the grocery store. But that's cool!
Mod
Speaking of which, I am getting braces put on my bottom row of teeth this week, which means yay. Only 19 months to go before I can be rid of them altogether. Woooo."
Yaay! Good luck. I hope they don't hurt too badly.
Lav [sing it for the ones that'll hate your guts] wrote: "T e s n i wrote: "*awkwardly stares at feet*Speaking of which, I am getting braces put on my bottom row of teeth this week, which means yay. Only 19 months to go before I can be rid of them altog..."
Thanks. :-) We'll see. As long as I'm okay during, you know, the actual process of having them put on, which I hate, I imagine it will be fine.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Young Writers
Books mentioned in this topic
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (other topics)Angelfall (other topics)
Everything is Illuminated (other topics)
The Things They Carried (other topics)
So I'm just wondering what your general opinion on self-publishing is. I'm currently helping to edit a friend's book, which she'll be self publishing. It's her sequel; her first book (I'm awesomely proud to say I also helped edit this one a touch) was a number one Fantasy amazon bestseller and a top 150 Amazon book. She currently is approaching 100 Amazon reviews, and has about 150 Goodreads reviews.
Anyway, point is, I think self-pubbing CAN work. Wonderfully. It just takes marketing skills, a bit of luck, and MOST importantly, a good book. I personally think writers should only go with it if they have a good reason for not trying to get traditionally published. (There's actually lots of good reasons. Their genre is a niche genre, they already have a good online following, ect...) But still, it's a viable option.
What's your thoughts on self-pubbing? Is it just one of those things no author should do, whatever the circumstances? Or do you think it's a good option for some writers?