Young Writers discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archives
>
Self Publishing--Thoughts?
Mod
Also, why the heck do you care what people write fanfiction about? If you don't like it, then don't read it.
Mod
(Am I missing the point of this debate?)"
YES. That was a wonderful self-insertion. I adore those books.
Holden wrote: "Oh oh oh oh Laura Ingalls Wilder! That was successful self-insertion!(Am I missing the point of this debate?)"
Hahaha, yes. Childhood memories. =3
Mod
message 107:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
Yeahhh like Tim O'Brien did it in The Things They Carried and that book is AMAZEBALLS!
Holden wrote: "Oh oh oh oh Laura Ingalls Wilder! That was successful self-insertion!(Am I missing the point of this debate?)"
She wasn't a self-insertion SUE.
Jo wrote: "Holden wrote: "Oh oh oh oh Laura Ingalls Wilder! That was successful self-insertion!(Am I missing the point of this debate?)"
She wasn't a self-insertion SUE."
You should be way more specific, then, instead of making a tonne of generalisations.
Mod
(Am I missing the point of this debate?)"
She wasn't a self-insertion SUE."
You should be w..."
Agreed.
Hey! I'm a cover designer for self publishing authors, especially ebooks! so, come and check out my stuff!http://theyoungcoverdesigner.blogspot...
message 113:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(last edited Feb 26, 2012 01:34PM)
(new)
Mod
Oh, and you should always look up these websites/publishers/etc. on Absolute Write. Here's the thread on KidPub: http://184.168.82.237/forums/showthre... Sounds like most people agree with me.
So, I just posted about this on my blog. See it in its original form here: my blog
All over the place I see articles predicting doom and gloom for the traditional publishing companies.
The publishing revolution will bring about the end of the big seven publishers.
Soon, nobody will be using publishers -they'll just do it themselves.
Indie publishing will take over the publishing market.
True?
I don't think so. Things are changing, of that I am sure but often times changes such as these are good for larger corporations if they're able to roll with the technology.
Think about it. Anyone can publish an ebook. ANYONE. It could be the biggest, most uninteresting, spelling error riddled piece of crap on the planet and they could self-publish.
Is this a bad thing for the big name publishers?
No way!
Why?
Because the market (the reader) will do the vetting for them. This saves the publishing company time and money. If they're smart, they will hire people to scour the internet for candidates. Authors who
1. are selling (pick an arbitrary number)
2. know how to market themselves and
3. have a following.
Yes, I said hire. So how will they make money? Easy, who needs a literary agent when you can work out an agreement with the author directly. Win for the author, win for the publisher, loss for the agent (sorry agents).
If you're an agent and want to stay in business, it is you who should be scouring cyberspace looking for the same three points.
Some authors self publish because they just want their work out there and don't want to go through the rigors of whoring it to an agent. Some authors self publish because they're control freaks and don't want to lose the rights to their works. Some, because they've tried the traditional method and have been unsuccessful. Does this mean their product sucks? Perhaps BUT, the beauty of self publishing is that it doesn't matter!
Why? Because the market will decide it is a piece of crap and not buy it OR they'll love it and buy it and tell their friends to buy it and it will sell!
Self publishing is THE BEST thing to happen to this industry since the printing press. Rather than letting one bitter person whose hold up in a windowless office staring at queries and manuscripts until their eyes cross, now the entire world will decide. Every time you buy their book you're casting a vote in their favor. It's like each citizen of the US casting a vote for the president and it actually counting. Brilliant!
Only 10% of books ever sell over 1000 copies -that means 90% of the books published are flops. So the publishers make poor decisions 90% of the time. Why rely on them to decide what is and isn't published when they're so frequently picking poor material?
So do we even need the big seven publishers?
Absolutely.
Why?
Despite what some may want you to believe, most people are still reading books. You know, those paper things with pages and words inside. Books need to be printed. Before they can be printed, they need to be formatted, they need covers. They need printed -and publishers have access to the best printers (there are plenty of terrible printers out there). They need to be distributed and publishers have access to the distribution chains that get books into the big market stores -B&N, Amazon, and the like. And then there is marketing. Most people who self-publish don't have the money to properly market their book.
So the cream will rise among the self-publishers simply based on sales, the publishing companies (if they're smart) will skim the top and give it the boost it needs to become a national bestseller with their big wallet marketing campaigns. Or the smart agent will be on the lookout for these authors and scoop them up before the publisher can get their claws into him. OR the industry savvy author will tell both of them to pound sand and reap the rewards of his own work without having to give up 80%.
The power has shifted.
Successful self-published authors are like gifted high school football players. The publishers and agents are the scouts. The power is in the hands of the player -the author.
To those who say self publishing is a terrible thing (most times the argument is simply that anyone can publish regardless of quality) I wholeheartedly disagree. It is a great thing for the same reason. Nobody will buy a bad product. The market will decide, as it should.
So, we are in mid-shift. Everyone is confused -nobody clear how it will all pan out in the end. If I'm an entrepreneur, I would create my own publishing company. I wouldn't accept any submissions whatsoever. I would find my clients from the ever growing pool of self published authors based upon certain criteria. The market does the vetting and I get the spoils. hmm anyone have some VC money they want to throw together and start a company?
This is the future. Jump on!
message 116:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
message 117:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
Mmhmm, I see what you mean. There's no guarantee you'll get picked up by a major publisher, if you decide to go the commercial publishing route. In some cases, you might have a better chance with self-pubbing. But I think people should at least try commercial publishing first. You get a lot of straightforward feedback from agents and learn a lot about the business and about writing in general.
I just feel like self-publishing has much fewer success stories than it does failures. Less people are willing to read self-published than traditional books, including myself. So I don't think I would do it. Then, my opinion on this has changed a lot over time...Also, I know we're way past the whole self insertion thing, but have any of you read
? I spent the entire book trying to figure out why he named that character after himself and I. Don't. Know.
message 119:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
I probably already talked about this ... I can't remember. But anyway, I haven't read Everything is Illuminated. Although I've read other books that involved self-insertion such as Slaughterhouse-Five and The Things They Carried. I don't think it's necessarily because of "self-centered" writers as John said; at least in the books I've read, the "author" was a minor character who didn't show up all that often. I'm not sure about the other books, but I know in The Things They Carried, the author was making a point about fiction versus non-fiction, and where the line between the two gets blurred. So, he was showing that he was sort of writing about himself but he was still making a lot of stuff up––or at least, it was up to the reader how much of it was true and how much of it wasn't.
message 120:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
I've read a lot of self-published books recently. Its easy to root out the good ones--check the reviews. If it's a new author and there aren..."
Hmm, I will have to look for those. I've read very few self-published books. Although the last book I read (Angelfall) was self-published and very good. I wouldn't have had such high expectations for it, besides that a lot of my reviewer friends loved it so much. And when I started it, I was like, "Yeah yeah, this is pretty cool ..." But then I got into the second half of it and I just could not stop reading. It was really intense. Haha.
message 121:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
It doesn't surprise me, really. I have a lot of online friends who are self-published who've been having some success. Yes, that does take a lot of skill...
Mod
I totally disagree. There are SO many worse self published books than pro publishing. Which makes sense, anything can be published and it doesn't matter if it's edited or anything. I've only come across a couple self published books that are worth reading.
I would argue that the majority of traditionally published books are somewhat decent. You have to have a certain level of talent and at least a kind of good plot to be picked up by a publisher.
message 123:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
Well yeah, I see you've already discovered there's a print version. But for future reference––yes, you can read ebooks on your computer. There's a free Kindle app you can use on your computer to read Kindle editions. I also recommend downloading Adobe Digital Editions because it's another useful ereader for your computer.
message 124:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
I think you're kind of putting words in Annie's mouth. She didn't say "all self-published books suck," just that she hadn't come across very many that she liked. I would argue the same thing. Although to be honest, I don't tend to go looking for self-published books to read. I'll read one if it looks particularly intriguing and has good reviews (that aren't just from the author's friends). I see a lot of self-published books on Goodreads, Amazon, etc. and even so I'm pretty sure I've read less than ten self-published books. It's just that most of them don't look very professional, and that tends to turn me off.
Of course, there are many crappy traditionally published books as well, but as you were saying ... they at least have to go through agents and editors first, who will hopefully catch all the glaring mistakes. Whereas, a self-published author might not even edit before sending his/her book out into the world.
I have no doubt there are good self-published books out there. But yes, it's hard to sift through all the crap to find the gems. Part of that has to do with how difficult it is to market. One self-pubbed author with a really terrible book might be better at marketing than another self-pubbed author with a much better book, in which case the latter might lose a lot of recognition.
Mod
No, I haven't read many self-published books. But, I have seen quite a few, mostly on this site over the years. I find that I read a excerpt and it's riddled with typos, or I see a cover and it's just so bad that I can't help but not want to read the book.
But, I never go looking for self-published books. It's simply too hard to find decent ones. I would much rather go to a library or bookstore and have a much higher chance of picking something good out.
I don't have a problem really with people who self-publish and I'm sure there's good ones out there. But, for me, personally, it's just easier and less risky to pick out a commercially-published book.
Mod
message 127:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
I wasn't putting words into Annie's mouth, though. I was stating it in general, as I said here:
"Now ..."
Ah, okay. Guess I missed that part. Sorry.
Colby wrote: "I just feel like self-publishing has much fewer success stories than it does failures. Less people are willing to read self-published than traditional books, including myself. So I don't think I wo..."Sorry I know it's a late response. Maybe the author was super lazy and couldn't think of a good name. I think about naming a character "Audrey" sometimes.
And about self-publishing: I think that it would be okay to self publish as long as you have thorough edited your book, gotten someone's UNBIASED opinion, and have gone through several drafts. Not just typed, typed, typed, and never gone back to look through. I feel like that's what some self-publishing writers do.
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here...big publishers aren't really interested in publishing good books. They're interested in selling books, that's how they became big publishers.Every book needs editing, it's a law of nature and I concede that very few self-published authors take the time to seek out quality professional help. But I'm a big fan of defying convention and the publishing industry has been standardized for a long time.Too long, in my opinion.
There seems to be a misconception that getting picked up by one of the "Big Five" (Random House, Simon and Schuster, et cetera) will rocket you to fame. Quite the opposite. Publishing houses are interested in finding their next celebrity authors, not looking out for you.
Just because you have a great book is no guarantee of success, either. Just like in any other artistic profession, it mostly involves getting the word out there.
Sure there are lots of self-published books that are crap...and more than enough traditionally published ones that are, too. My point is that we shouldn't lump everybody into the same stew. Just like about people, we should keep an open mind about publishing.
Annie (Juliet) wrote: ""The point is, self-publishing is no more full of crap than professional publishing."I totally disagree. There are SO many worse self published books than pro publishing. Which makes sense, anyth..."
I have to argue. Talent has very little, if anything, to do with getting picked up by a publisher. Publishers are not looking for talented writers, they are looking for books that will sell. J.K. Rowling was turned down with her Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone for this reason. But I agree that not enough self-published writers take the time to edit their books with the help of quality professionals. If they did, then I don't think there would be a great difference (if any at all) in the quality we can expect when we pick up a self-published book. However, we should be open to new things and that means self-published books, too. :)
Sorry, I have very rebellious views. Part of being a teenager, I guess.
message 132:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
And no, getting picked up by a big publisher doesn't guarantee more success. However, you do have to go through a lot of editing stages before you reach publication. Whereas, many self-published books get printed with grammatical and spelling errors, which can be hard to see past. I'm not saying that all self-published books are riddled with simple errors, just that it's more of a possibility than with traditionally published books. Also, traditionally published books are more likely to be distributed to bookstores/libraries, while self-published books tend to only be available online. (Although considering how ebooks have become so popular, maybe that doesn't matter as much.) But nonetheless, I think most people are more likely to give a book a chance if it has a publisher's name on it. I'm not saying it's right to be prejudiced against self-published books, but many people are.
Brigid *Flying Kick-a-pow!* wrote: "You have some good points, Elisabeth. Publishers do look out for things that are marketable, not merely things that are good. Although it's important to point out, a lot of books are marketable bec..."Oh, yes. I was prejudiced for a long time and in spite of my pro-self-publishing stance, I still am normally hesitant about SP titles myself. Regrettably, it is true that they tend to be more riddled with typos. :)
Mod
I like this.
I'm going to be derogatory for my first comment. I think Brigid's reasons for self-publishing suck. If traditional methods are too hard, then your book isn't ready. If you're afraid that your voice will be ruined, then you either think you'll have a crappy editor or your voice really needs changing.
...And I can't see the rest of her points, so I'll just launch into my own.
I'm not a fan of self-publishing. I think it should be banned by the federal government. Well, not really, but I wish it never existed. However, since it is here, I might as well address situations and reasons in which I find it appropriate.
1. Need for local publishing. There are books out there that I classify as "small-town literature." This is just my silly name for novels that are very setting-focused literary or romantic fiction, and would be most appreciated and understood by residents of that setting. These are usually written by people living in the setting of the novel, hence the need for local publishing, rather than national or international publishing groups. A great example of this is Mormon fiction. A common set up for Mormon fiction is a guy and a girl at BYU, a local university. Someone in Philadelphia will not have a familiarity of the setting, nor will a publisher in New York. So, with the need to distribute the book locally, self-publishing is a great way to accomplish this.
2. You want to control more of the marketing/distribution. I know an extremely successful self-published author. (To protect his identity, and keep you from wasting your time by reading his horrible book, I'll keep him nameless.) He chose the self-publishing route for a variety of reasons (including those that Brigid described), and one of these was so he could have all of the say in how the book was marketed. He did all the formatting, paid an artist to do the cover and internal artwork, and had a set plan for how he would get his name out there. He, luckily, was very successful in this part of his career, and could take most of the credit for the 20,000+ copies he sold, despite the low quality of the book. This also is a part of point three.
3. You want all the money that comes from the sales. A self-published author gets all the money, however much that may be. You pay for the printing and advertising of the book, and you get 100% of the revenue. No publishers taking their money to pay for advertising and profit, and no 15% cut from an agent. This is an extremely attractive facet to self-publishing results, and can often be a good thing if your book is successful.
There are other reasons I support, to be sure. But I don't really entertain the idea of self-publishing often, though I may turn to it someday.
...And I can't see the rest of her points, so I'll just launch into my own.
I'm not a fan of self-publishing. I think it should be banned by the federal government. Well, not really, but I wish it never existed. However, since it is here, I might as well address situations and reasons in which I find it appropriate.
1. Need for local publishing. There are books out there that I classify as "small-town literature." This is just my silly name for novels that are very setting-focused literary or romantic fiction, and would be most appreciated and understood by residents of that setting. These are usually written by people living in the setting of the novel, hence the need for local publishing, rather than national or international publishing groups. A great example of this is Mormon fiction. A common set up for Mormon fiction is a guy and a girl at BYU, a local university. Someone in Philadelphia will not have a familiarity of the setting, nor will a publisher in New York. So, with the need to distribute the book locally, self-publishing is a great way to accomplish this.
2. You want to control more of the marketing/distribution. I know an extremely successful self-published author. (To protect his identity, and keep you from wasting your time by reading his horrible book, I'll keep him nameless.) He chose the self-publishing route for a variety of reasons (including those that Brigid described), and one of these was so he could have all of the say in how the book was marketed. He did all the formatting, paid an artist to do the cover and internal artwork, and had a set plan for how he would get his name out there. He, luckily, was very successful in this part of his career, and could take most of the credit for the 20,000+ copies he sold, despite the low quality of the book. This also is a part of point three.
3. You want all the money that comes from the sales. A self-published author gets all the money, however much that may be. You pay for the printing and advertising of the book, and you get 100% of the revenue. No publishers taking their money to pay for advertising and profit, and no 15% cut from an agent. This is an extremely attractive facet to self-publishing results, and can often be a good thing if your book is successful.
There are other reasons I support, to be sure. But I don't really entertain the idea of self-publishing often, though I may turn to it someday.
message 136:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
That was kind of the point.
Whaaaat? So, you used some twisted form of reverse psychology on me?
Explain yourself. I am totally confused. O_o
Explain yourself. I am totally confused. O_o
message 138:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
"Here are several reasons why people choose self-publishing over traditional publishing, and why I think ... well, they're not the best reasons."
I was criticizing some of the reasons self-publishers use to justify their decision.
And even so, it's not really cool to say someone's opinion "sucks." Even though I think we mostly agree on the issue ... just sayin'.
Aaah...now it makes sense.
And, yes, it was not a cool move for me to say your opinion sucks...my apologies.
And, yes, it was not a cool move for me to say your opinion sucks...my apologies.
message 140:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
There are also small-press nonfiction books; self publishing for nf makes a good bit of sense. I think I've already talked about how my dad's cousin writes local histories. Obviously, getting a big publisher to publish a book about a small town in Montana would be a little ridiculous. I disagree about your book not being ready if you can't get published, though. Because the publishing industry is really subjective; insert story of JK Rowling here. I mean, I still can't believe 50 SoG was published. There are a lot of horrible books in print, and there are a lot of good ones that nobody has heard of or that are sitting on harddrives because it's not popular or they don't think it'll sell. So yeah.
I never said anything about the book being good or bad. I just pointed out that it is not ready. Harry Potter was amazing...but I wonder if it would have been successful if it had been published right out the gate. 50 SoG...haven't read it and don't plan to. But it was obviously successful, even if it sucked. It was ready for the present (and, may I add, sex-driven) market, and people liked it whether it was a quality read or not.
That's why I consider self-publishing on occasion. I watch the market closely and see certain trends that favor my writing style. Though I don't think my writing ability is anywhere near professional, I think some of my pieces could be ready to see the public. Does that make sense?
That's why I consider self-publishing on occasion. I watch the market closely and see certain trends that favor my writing style. Though I don't think my writing ability is anywhere near professional, I think some of my pieces could be ready to see the public. Does that make sense?
Mod
Okay...I can agree with that. Except that I am too cocky to take it upon myself. XD
Erm...no. *feels uncomfortable* Just Taylor.
I get it now. Sorry...sexual slang bothers me...especially late at night. But that doesn't mean I'd appreciate being called Prince Preppy Penis.... It's all the same to me.
Speaking of "late at night," I'm tired. G'night!
Speaking of "late at night," I'm tired. G'night!
message 147:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
Well, 50 Shades of Grey was published by a pretty small publishing house, I'd like to point out. The only reason it got so popular was by word of mouth, so that was a pretty rare case. If it had been published by a bigger publishing house I would be a little more shocked ...
message 148:
by
Brigid ✩, No tears in the writer, no tears in the reader.
(new)
Mod
I agree to a certain extent. I don't think anyone can judge by himself/herself if his/her book is any good. You always need outside opinions, because there are going to be mistakes/plot holes you're not going to notice in your own work. And if you can get this feedback from someone professional, like an agent or an editor, that's ideal and probably the best advice you're going to get.
On the other hand, many traditionally published books are still abysmal, so I guess it doesn't always matter. Also, self-publishers who know what they're doing often get a ton of beta-readers to help them out before they go ahead and publish. So, it's not as if all self-publishers are just people typing stuff up and immediately putting it up on Amazon––some of them do maybe, but I think for the most part they're getting feedback from other writers. But, as I said, it's probably a better idea to get feedback from someone like an agent or editor.
As I've read through this thread I've found a lot of negative comments toward self-publishing. Some seem to think that traditional publishing is what leads to a good book and self-publishing doesnt.I disagree.
What makes a good book is good writing, it's time and editing and effort. You can't have a good book without putting the work in - no matter how you choose to publish it.
I think self-publishing gets a bad rep because, yes, it is easy and people can put crap out there. But, that doesn't mean all self-published books are crap.
Personally when I'm choosing a book to read I don't even look at who the publisher is. I just look at the book. I look at reviews and download a sample chapter. (I read most everything on my kindle) And because of this I've read a number of self-published books that are wonderful reads. I've also read a number of traditionally published books that I wish I hadn't spent my money on.
My point is we should judge each book for it's content, not how it's published.
Lauryn wrote: "As I've read through this thread I've found a lot of negative comments toward self-publishing. Some seem to think that traditional publishing is what leads to a good book and self-publishing doesnt..."I agree with that. :)
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)
Wrong. Tom Sawyer is a composite of three different people.